1 Samuel 15:1–35

15:2 The messenger formula (2:27), with the divine name “Lord of hosts” (1:3), emphasizes this as an edict of the ruler of the universe. “I have noted” is a form of the versatile verb paqad, which is used for the actions of a superior with respect to an inferior. It might also be rendered here, “I will punish” (NIV). In either case the Lord has decided to enforce the sentence against the Amalekites for their treatment of the Israelites at the time of the exodus (Ex. 17:8–15; Num. 14:41–45; Deut. 25:17–19), and it is Saul who is charged with implementing this decree.

15:3 “Go and strike” mandates Saul to act as the Lord’s executioner. “Devote to destruction” is a plural command addressed to the whole army, not just Saul. It explicitly invokes the practice of the ban (Hb. herem; the root occurs eight times in this chapter, mainly in verbs in vv. 8, 9, 15, 18, 20, 21) by which individuals and their possessions were consigned to the Lord. This involved the slaughter of all human beings (Lev. 27:28–29; Deut. 20:16–18; Josh. 6:21), though not always animals (e.g., Deut. 2:35; 3:7). In this instance Saul is not permitted to “spare” the Amalekites, a term prohibiting feeling compassion toward them or allowing them to survive; the command is specifically extended to their livestock, including the camels they use to raid their neighbors.

15:4 Saul responds positively to his commission. “Summoned” is an unusual expression (also in 23:8) meaning “made them listen” (15:1), showing that he conveys the terms of his mandate when he mobilizes “the people” (the army). He “numbered them” (Hb. paqad, cf. v. 2; here in the sense of “muster”) in Telaim, in the south of Judah, because the Amalekites were a nomadic tribe living in the wilderness of Sinai and the Negeb (cf. comment on 27:10).

While the numbers involved may be reduced by taking “thousand” as a smaller military unit, there is still a considerable increase from the six hundred men of 14:2, probably implying the passage of several years. Also, the ratio of men from Judah has been halved (cf. 11:8). Since Judah was the tribe most exposed to Amalekite raids, perhaps this indicates not reluctance on their part but a special effort from the northern tribes.

15:5 The “city of Amalek” would have consisted of tents in which the nomads and their king camped within a fortified barrier. Nearby, the dried-up course of a seasonal river provides Saul and his men with cover while they wait to attack.

15:6 The Kenites, who live in the same area, are not covered by the ban, and Saul urgently warns them to leave the area. Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, had been a Kenite, and they had collectively shown “kindness” (Hb. hesed, “covenant fidelity”) toward Israel during the wilderness period, accompanying them as far as Jericho (Judg. 1:16). Note the contrasting destinies of Amalek and the Kenites in Numbers 24:20–21.

15:7 The narrator’s focus is on Saul’s rejection, and so he omits details of the fighting in which Saul successfully sweeps through the area south of Judah, from Havilah near the Arabian Desert to Shur on the Mediterranean coast.

15:8 In the campaign the Amalekite king, Agag (probably a proper name favored by the dynasty), is captured but not killed. The population as a whole is slaughtered according to the terms of the ban (v. 3), though some Amalekites do escape (27:8; 30:1; 2 Sam. 8:11–12).

15:9 The extent to which Saul’s action directly contravenes his commission is brought out by the repetition from verse 3 of “spared” (without a negative) and “utterly destroy” (with a “not”; same verb as “devote to destruction” in v. 3). “Spared” (see v. 3) is a singular verb, assigning principal responsibility to Saul. Perhaps he views Agag as a trophy of war and intends to execute him later (cf. Josh. 8:23–29). Similarly, the best of the livestock is exempted from the ban. In “would not utterly destroy them,” “would” represents the verb “to be willing”; the emphasis is on Saul’s flagrant refusal to comply with the Lord’s command. However, livestock that is emaciated or diseased is destroyed. The greed is like that of Achan, who kept for himself items under a ban (Josh. 7:20–21).

15:10 Samuel had not accompanied Saul on his campaign, presumably remaining at home in Ramah. The message reception formula, “The word of the Lord came to,” frequently describes a prophet’s reception of information divinely communicated directly to his heart (e.g., Ezek. 3:16).

15:11 The older translation of “I repent” (also in vv. 29, 35) instead of “I regret” has largely been abandoned, as there is no suggestion that God views his action in appointing Saul as wrong. All along the Lord has known how Saul would turn out, yet God is not impersonal or devoid of feeling. He takes no pleasure in human sin and is grieved by Saul’s conduct, especially for two reasons: (1) Saul has displayed basic covenant disloyalty. “Following me” points to a living relationship with God that shapes an individual’s conduct. Saul has instead “turned back” in rebellion and chosen to do whatever he pleases. (2) Saul has failed to perform God’s “commandments” (lit., “words”; v. 1), neglecting to implement his divine Lord’s specific directions.

“Samuel was angry” (lit., “it became hot to Samuel”; cf. 2 Sam. 6:8) denotes intense emotion, but the focus of his anger is not specified. He is perhaps indignant with Saul for his failure in his covenant duties despite such clear instructions and explicit warnings. Given that “he cried to the Lord all night,” it would seem that Samuel’s concern for the nation and the cause of God has left him perplexed at the removal of the one from whom much had been expected. His turmoil is so intense that he spends the night wrestling with God in prayer for guidance concerning what lies ahead of them. Part of God’s answer is found in verses 16–19.

15:12 Whatever his personal feelings, Samuel sets off early the next day to find Saul, and he is soon informed that Saul had passed through Carmel (“fruitful”), a small town in Judah south of Jerusalem (not the mountain on the seacoast in the north).¹ There Saul has set up not a memorial altar to the Lord (cf. Ex. 17:14–15) but a large pointed stone as a “monument for himself” (cf. 2 Sam. 18:18). Clearly Saul views his recent success as a personal achievement and a means of enhancing his prestige. The same attitude led him to claim the victor’s privilege of disposing of the spoils of war as he saw fit. The narrator includes this incident to provide interpretive insight into Saul’s subsequent protestations of innocence.

After erecting this pillar, Saul had moved on in triumph to Gilgal, just 15 miles (24 km) from Ramah. Knowing this saves Samuel needless travel, but it is ironic that in the very place where Saul had been proclaimed king he will be stripped of the Lord’s favor.

15:13 Later events (v. 30) suggest that Samuel catches up with Saul and his forces as they near Gilgal. Saul, who is very pleased with himself, greets Samuel warmly, claiming, “I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” Saul genuinely thinks he has proved his loyalty to the Lord, whom he names twice, whereas in fact he has filtered the Lord’s word through his perceptions of his own status and competence.

15:14 Samuel has, of course, been divinely informed about the true state of affairs and, in what may be a poetic couplet, asks the sarcastic question, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” In terms of the ban, all of these animals should have been slaughtered.

15:15 Taken aback, Saul quickly seeks to put a spin on the situation and deflect criticism from himself. He offers a vague, impersonal expression, “They have brought them from the Amalekites,” suggesting his troops have acted apart from the direction of their leader (cf. vv. 21, 24). Then, avoiding his own role (cf. v. 9), he speaks of the action of “the people” (the army). He seeks to put a pious construction on their conduct: they have “spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God.” But to “spare” was contrary to his commission (v. 3), and while referring to “the Lord your God” (again in vv. 21, 30) may be an attempt to ingratiate himself with Samuel, it unthinkingly displays the degree of Saul’s disengagement from the Lord. Moreover, the divine stipulations for implementing the ban did not allow for dividing the spoil into two categories. “The rest we have devoted to destruction” is misplaced initiative—only partial compliance with orders.

15:16 Samuel stops Saul from making further excuses and proceeds to set before him the Lord’s assessment of his conduct.

15:17 Samuel begins by reminding Saul of his royal status. “Though you are little in your own eyes” may well concede that on occasions Saul perhaps has a low opinion of himself (possibly a memory of their first meeting; 9:21), but divine intervention has changed his rank. The rhetorical question “Are you not the head of the tribes of Israel?” emphatically reminds him of his status as king over Israel. His conduct should befit his status under God. As king he is in charge and thus is responsible.

15:18 Second, Samuel reminds Saul of his specific “mission” (lit., “way” or “path”) against the Amalekites: to “devote [them] to destruction” (v. 3). In addition to what has been said earlier, Samuel categorizes the Amalekites as “sinners” because their conduct has been contrary to God’s will, however imperfectly the light of nature has made it known to them (cf. Rom. 2:14–16). This especially concerns their hostility to Israel as God’s people. Saul should have continued fighting “against them until they [were] consumed.”

15:19 “Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord?” corresponds to the initial “Now therefore listen to the words of the Lord” (v. 1) and expresses the key deficiency in Saul’s conduct. Even when given the clearest of instructions, he prefers to do what he wants instead. “Pounce” compares Saul’s action to that of a bird of prey, swooping down and consuming its prey (cf. 14:32)—an analogy dismissing any intention to sacrifice. Saul’s appropriation of plunder for himself is “evil in the sight of the Lord.” That which the Lord requires should be the only relevant criterion.

15:20 Saul, however, does not admit to failure on his part. With seeming incredulity at Samuel’s accusations, he adamantly repeats much of what he said in verses 13 and 15, though now with greater prominence given to “I,” that is, to what he has done. He has acted in obedience to the Lord, he claims, and gone on the assignment allotted to him. He argues that the presence of Agag proves he has discharged his duty—although, in fact, by saying this he condemns himself. Moreover, the other Amalekites have been slain. What more could he have done?

15:21 Saul does, however, admit that “the people” (the army) have appropriated some of the plunder, but for a good cause: “to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal” (cf. v. 15). Notice again that telltale your, indicative of Saul’s stance with respect to the Lord.

15:22 Samuel does not permit Saul to use piety in an attempt to cloak his disobedience. Samuel’s words apply directly to Saul’s circumstances while also expressing a fundamental perspective on what constitutes true devotion to God. Their significance is emphasized by their elevated diction in poetic form, a technique employed extensively in OT prophecy.

The first poetic couplet poses a rhetorical question that, by expecting a negative answer, strongly asserts that the Lord finds greater delight in obedience than in the presentation of burnt offerings and sacrifices. In Saul’s conception of true religion, ceremonial observances rank higher than compliance with God’s immediate command. But Samuel declares that ritual displays of piety are meaningless unless they are the fruit of obedient lives—which is what the Lord seeks.

The second couplet reinforces the preceding advice. Observance of God’s directives for living is to have priority over formal performance even of God-approved rites. The “fat of rams” was viewed as the choicest portion of the animal, and as such was reserved for the Lord (Lev. 3:16–17; 7:23–25) by being burned on the altar. Samuel’s statement does not repudiate sacrifice outright but relegates it to second place after an obedient and loyal lifestyle.

15:23 The comparisons in the third couplet are set out starkly. “As” is twice a translator’s supplement; in Hebrew the words are merely juxtaposed. “Divination” is attempting to gain information about the future by either interpreting natural phenomena or performing rites. Although popular in surrounding nations, it was prohibited in Israel (Num. 23:23; Deut. 18:10–12). The comparison is particularly telling in view of 1 Samuel 28:3, which discloses that Saul—probably before this incident—had sought to eradicate such practices from the land. However, Saul’s own rebellion, a conscious and stubborn decision to disregard the commands of a superior, is put on par with the heathen practice he has suppressed.

Moreover, “presumption,” which refers to self-assertive conduct, is as offensive to the Lord as “iniquity” (lit., “deception,” “nothingness,” often used in reference to idol worship) and “idolatry,” which is literally teraphim, or “household gods” (cf. Gen. 31:30), possibly utilized for attempted occult inquiries (Ezek. 21:21; Zech. 10:2). “Iniquity and idolatry” may be taken as a hendiadys for the empty practice of using household gods to foretell the future. Saul recognizes how offensive such behavior is to God but has failed to grasp that his own self-willed, defiant arrogance is equally culpable.

The culminating verdict on Saul is a play on the verb meaning “to reject” (maʼas). By his disobedience Saul has “rejected the word of the Lord,” that is, the divine directions given to him (1 Sam. 15:1), and so the penalty imposed on him is also one of rejection: “He has also rejected you from being king.” Even though Saul will continue to reign, he will do so not as the Lord’s anointed but as a usurper.

15:24 Rejection of the legitimacy of his rule induces Saul to plead with Samuel three times to reverse or alleviate the judgment (vv. 24–25, 27, 30). In “I have sinned” he admits his failure, while “I have transgressed” acknowledges that he has crossed the boundaries imposed by the Lord’s “commandment” (lit., “mouth”) as relayed to him by Samuel. Saul is using the right words and seems to accept responsibility for what has taken place.

The man who would be king cuts a sorry figure as he admits he has “feared the people [= “the army”] and obeyed their voice.” “Fear” of the Lord had been set before the people and Saul as a fundamental principle of the theocracy (12:14), but Saul discloses that he was more concerned about popular endorsement than with God’s assessment of him. So Saul, who would not give first place to “obeying the voice of the Lord” (15:22), instead gave in to perceived pressure from his subordinates. His excuses intensify rather than mitigate his offense.

15:25 Having admitted his fault, Saul pleads for Samuel to pardon him (a plea similar to that of Pharaoh in Ex. 10:16–17), but there is no indication that Saul is conscious of the divine dimension of his offense (contrast Ps. 51:4). Moreover, his confession is qualified, if not undermined, by his continuing focus on his own position. “Return with me” relates to the setting of the conversation, which seems to be in private, unobserved by others. Saul’s request does not express a desire to “bow before the Lord” in humble penitence but is politically motivated to maintain his prestige with the troops and avoid public humiliation. His public image would be tarnished by any hint of a breach with Samuel, who remains a highly respected figure in the community.

15:26 Samuel will not comply with Saul’s request to engage in dissimulation. Repeating the verdict announced in verse 23, Samuel declines to accompany Saul, lest he thereby endorse Saul’s conduct.

15:27 In a desperate attempt to control the situation, Saul seems to fall on his knees before Samuel, and when Samuel turns to leave, Saul (although the Hebrew does not name him, it seems certain it is he) “seized the skirt of his robe, and it tore.” The robe is the inner garment (2:19), and grasping it is a gesture of supplication from Saul that goes too far.

15:28 Samuel turns the torn robe into an object lesson reinforcing Saul’s rejection (cf. 1 Kings 11:30–31). “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day” is a legally binding pronouncement. The “neighbor of yours” (not necessarily one living next door, but a fellow Israelite) to whom the kingdom has been given is as yet unknown to either Samuel or Saul—or even the individual himself. But Samuel does predict that this unnamed successor will be “better” than Saul.

15:29 Samuel next reinforces the finality of what he has announced by reflecting on the character of God. The term rendered “glory” is not the usual term for divine glory, although it is used to describe God in 1 Chronicles 29:11. The term includes associations of radiance and perpetuity that no single English word captures. “The Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret” (cf. Num. 23:19) is in tension with the statements in 1 Samuel 15:11, 35 that the Lord “regretted that he had made Saul king.” There is, however, no inherent contradiction when the statements are viewed in context. The Lord does not share man’s lack of truthfulness (he “will not lie”), nor is he fickle, changing his mind on a whim. Still, God is a personal being, not an impersonal force. He is not immune to sorrow over Saul’s conduct, but his feelings do not sweep him off his feet into reversing his judicial determination of Saul’s sinful failure.

15:30 In a third plea Saul again admits that his conduct has fallen short of God’s standards, and now he offers no excuses nor asks for forgiveness. But he still seeks to manipulate the situation by requesting that Samuel return with him and engage in worship of God with him, keeping the outward form of the ritual. The possessive adjectives remain significant. He still speaks of “the Lord your God” (cf. v. 15), and in “honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel,” “my people” indicates his faulty conception of his relationship with them. Saul has not appreciated the enormity of his action, and his repentance is flawed.

15:31 Despite Samuel’s attitude up to this point, this verse is usually understood as saying that he eventually accedes to Saul’s request.² Although Samuel, it is argued, had been leaving, he changes his mind as “a man” (v. 29) to preserve public order until a new king is appointed. However, Samuel does not “return with” Saul as requested but “turned back after” him, probably indicating his following Saul at a distance; Saul is probably unaccompanied at the public ceremony in which he “bowed before the Lord.” Samuel takes advantage of his own semi-return to enforce the divine ban properly.

15:32 In a public rebuke of Saul’s disobedience, Samuel as God’s representative sets about inflicting the penalty that the Lord decreed on the Amalekite king, demanding that Agag be brought. Agag’s attitude is unclear. “Cheerfully” may come from a root meaning “to be in luxury, have things go well,” implying that Agag thinks that being permitted to survive so long is a good omen for his future. Alternatively, the term has been associated with a root meaning “to cause to shake” and hence rendered “hesitantly,” or from another term meaning “to tie on,” and hence “bound.”

15:33 Samuel pronounces sentence on him in terms of the equity of divine justice. Agag is a murderer whose raids have rendered many women childless, and so his own mother will now become childless because of his death. “Hacked . . . to pieces” occurs only here in the Old Testament, and its precise sense is uncertain. It may mean no more than “executed.” “Before the Lord in Gilgal” probably implies in front of the altar at the shrine there.

15:34 The two men part to their respective homes, Samuel to Ramah (7:17) and Saul to Gibeah (10:26). These locales are just over 2 miles (3.2 km) apart, but the separation is not a matter of physical distance. The prophet no longer bears any word of divine guidance for the king.

15:35 The rift between the two men is final. “Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death,” that is, Samuel’s death. But how does this accord with the incident in 19:18–24? On that occasion it is Saul who goes to seek Samuel (to arrest David), and he is not in possession of all his faculties. What is stated here is that no further business is transacted between the two men, with the phrase deliberately anticipating what will occur after Samuel’s death (28:3–25).

However, Samuel’s attitude toward Saul is not vindictive. “Samuel grieved over Saul” employs a verb meaning “to observe mourning rites.” Saul’s rule as covenant king is over, and the remaining years of his reign will be no better than those of any worldly kingdom.

“The Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel” repeats the verdict of 15:11 and echoes the more positive memory of verse 1, forming an inclusio around the entire episode. Uttering the last word on Saul—as on every individual—is the prerogative of the Lord.