1 Samuel 15:1–35

Original Meaning

Saul’s Victory over the Amalekites (15:1–9)

THE AMALEKITES WERE a seminomadic tribal group from the south and southwest.1 They were the first people to oppose the Israelites after the Exodus (Ex. 17:8–16) and are portrayed as terrorists who preyed on weaker opponents, showing no regard for God (Deut. 25:17–18). Because of their cowardly tactics on an unsuspecting nation, Yahweh promised to extract vengeance against them in some future day when Israel was established in the Promised Land: “I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven” (Ex. 17:14; cf. Deut. 25:19). Because of their opposition to God and his people early in biblical history, the Amalekites are consistently portrayed in the Old Testament as vigorous enemies of Israel and of Yahweh. They apparently came to represent any group or nation who defied Yahweh and his purposes.2

Samuel returns in this chapter (after a brief absence in ch. 14) to announce that now is the time to accomplish Yahweh’s vengeance against Amalek (15:2–3), and Saul is the king to do this. The ambiguity of the text toward Saul is still apparent. He has lost all hope for an enduring dynasty—but he is still God’s anointed one. Yahweh still has an important mission for him, and even now his destiny is uncertain. Who knows, good conduct might yield a divine change of mind.

Samuel’s instructions for warfare are clear (15:3). The description given is familiar to us as what has become known as “holy war,” though this terminology is not used in the Old Testament itself. In such wars, Yahweh himself initiates the conflict and ensures its success.3 He is a “warrior” who graces the battlefield and Israel’s war camp with his presence. Such wars become an act of worship, surrounded with appropriate sacrifices and cultic rituals, including at times spiritual preparation such as circumcision and Passover celebration. Sometimes the ark of the covenant is used to underscore the fact that Yahweh is present.4 Typically when engaged in holy war, Israel is supposed to disregard the number of troops amassed in the enemy’s ranks. Since Yahweh will fight the battles, the number of troops is not significant, whereas Israel’s character and state of mind are central (Deut. 20:2–9).

Samuel’s words in 15:3 are an important part of this “holy war” tradition: “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them.” The term “totally destroy” (Hiphil of ḥrm or the noun ḥerem) occurs eight times in this chapter and is an important concept in understanding why Saul is rejected. The word denotes a special act of consecration to God; when related to warfare it designates the consecration of a city or its population to destruction.5 The entire city of Jericho was devoted for destruction (Josh. 6:17). But when Achan disobeyed the ban, Israel lost a battle to the people of Ai, thus illustrating the importance of rigid obedience to Yahweh in time of holy war.

This paragraph ends on a note that Saul and his army are selectively obedient to Yahweh’s instructions. They destroy completely only the weak and unwanted spoils but spare the best of the sheep and cattle, fat calves and lambs, in addition to Agag, the king of the Amalekites (15:9). Saul’s motivation for sparing Agag has been much disputed, but it is apparently a vain attempt to display a royal slave—a common practice in the ancient Near East. The victory “monument in his own honor” (15:12) may support the idea that Saul saved Agag as a trophy of his triumph.6

Samuel Confronts and Condemns Saul (15:10–31)

Bridging Contexts

THIS TEXT ON the rejection of Saul plays an important role in the biblical story line. It is strategically placed as a transition from Saul to David. Saul continues as king until his death (ch. 31), but his fate is sealed by his own sin. He is king in name only because his reign is illegitimate. In this chapter, the historian is less concerned to relate Saul’s wars with the Amalekites than to explain his rejection. This is its central purpose. Along the way, we encounter two other important topics that bridge the contexts from ancient Israel’s culture to our own: the prophetic perspective on sacrifice (15:22) and the nature of confession and repentance.

Saul’s rejection. Saul’s failure to execute the ban of holy war against the Amalekites is similar in many respects to his failure to wait for Samuel to make the sacrifice. Both are acts of disobedience of Yahweh’s specific word given through the prophet. In both, we see the king’s deep-seated rejection of Yahweh’s structure of authority for human kingship in Israel. In chapter 15 especially, the narrative goes to great lengths in the dialogue between Samuel and Saul to generalize the king’s crimes and expose their full nature and significance. On a general level, Saul’s failure constitutes a disregard of the word of Yahweh, and ultimately of the theocratic authority structure necessary for legitimate kingship in Israel.12 He simply cannot continue as the anointed king of Israel because he has consistently repudiated the very structure that made his kingship possible.13 His sin has knocked over the pillar that has supported his own rule.

This raises a question that continues to surface in Christian theology in our modern context: Was Saul fated from the start? Was he doomed to failure, or did he have choices before him that could have prevented this outcome? As we have seen, some contemporary interpreters have described Saul as an innocent victim who had no possibility of success.14 He became king because of the nation’s impertinence, while David his successor was God’s own choice.15 In these modern literary approaches, such scholars assume either the text of the Bible is biased against Saul, or else God’s own character should be called into question. God made Saul king even though he never actually approved him as king, or else the text is simply pro-David and therefore takes great pains to explain why Saul had to be cast aside.

But for readers who take seriously the message of the text itself (esp. in its canonical shape), these are hardly options, since certain early passages are clear that Yahweh was behind Saul’s leadership (review 9:15–17; 10:9–10, 24). In the two chapters especially devoted to explaining Saul’s rejection, the blame is clearly placed on Saul himself (review 13:13 and 15:23, 26). God rejected Saul because Saul had rejected God.

But this emphasis of the text only pushes the question further back along the theological cause-and-effect continuum. Did God determine that Saul would be king and at the same time also determine that Saul would ultimately fail in his responsibilities as king? Or was Saul free to choose his own actions, so that he simply chose to reject Yahweh’s word because of inner motives and states common to all of us in our human experiences? Or was he somehow both determined and free? Is it possible that Saul was free and responsible for his actions even though they were causally determined in a way that we do not fully understand?16

Christians of different theological and denominational traditions respond to these questions in varying ways. But we should all take seriously the Bible’s emphasis on Saul’s free moral responsibility. Samuel is clear that if Saul had kept God’s command, God would have established his kingdom over Israel for all time (13:13). The wordplay on the verb “rejected” in 15:23 emphasizes the direction of the cause-and-effect relationship: “Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”

Prophetic view of sacrifice. Besides clarifying the nature of Saul’s sin, this text also brings into focus the prophetic view of sacrifice, which becomes an important theme elsewhere in the Bible.17 “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (15:22). Samuel is not repudiating Saul’s (and Israel’s) use of animal sacrifices in general. Such could never be the case in light of the extensive commands and regulations for just such sacrifices in the Torah (especially Leviticus). Rather, this is a typical prophetic call to go beyond the physical act of sacrifice to consider matters of the heart. What are the motives for sacrifices?

Sacrifice is an external and physical phenomenon that reflects a spiritual reality between God and human. But if one’s motives are impure or ungodly, then the sacrifice itself is meaningless. Worse, it becomes nauseating to God (Isa. 1:13). Religious ritual always becomes a burden unless it is accompanied by appropriate heartfelt repentance, love, and adoration for God.

Saul’s response to prophetic correction. As I suggested in the introduction, Saul’s loquacious answers to Samuel in this text must be read together with Israel’s example in 7:6 and especially with David’s brief and fitting response to Nathan when that prophet confronted David with his sins: “I have sinned against the LORD” (2 Sam. 12:13).18 With David there was no evasion or argumentation. He did not attempt to defend himself or to offer a contrived confession that would in some way explain his virtual innocence. He was a broken man (2 Sam. 12:16–18; cf. also the traditional association of Ps. 51 to this event).

This is the appropriate answer for a king confronted by a prophet who exposes his sins rather than the avoidance tactics of Saul’s self-defense. Taken together, these texts present negative and positive examples of confession, forgiveness, and restoration. The Bible has many other passages that supplement David’s confession and explain why his repentance was effective and why he became Israel’s greatest king. But this passage on Saul is a rare picture of how not to confess! By way of contrast, Saul reveals the nature of “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17) and gives us a glimpse into the kind of king Yahweh desires in the long survey of Israel’s kings (anticipating 1-2 Kings).

Contemporary Significance

THE NATURE OF TRUE CONFESSION. The various themes discussed in our Bridging Contexts section are related to each other. The fundamental lesson here is what happens when we disregard God’s Word and reject his authority structures that make our very lives possible. Part of God’s universal structure provides for forgiveness when we sin. But if we focus on externals and fail to grasp the internal realities of worship and confession, we forfeit the structures for forgiveness as well as his structures for authority. In other words, the nature of confession is related to the ritual-versus-reality contrast.

The life Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden of Eden before their fall was completely dependent on God’s arrangement. The numerous trees produced plenty of food, and because Adam and Eve had free access to the tree of life, they never had to worry (Gen. 2:9). God’s gracious structure for their world made their lives possible. But when they rebelled by disobeying his only command, they forfeited their access to the tree of life. In a similar way, Saul has rejected the very authority structure that made his kingdom possible. By rejecting it, he lost the possibility of continuing as king. Sin is always a rejection of that which makes life possible. It is self-destructive behavior.

This text illustrates how we only make our situation worse by failing to learn the true nature of worship and confession. Church attendance and tithing are worthless unless they come from the heart, just as the Old Testament sacrifices made Yahweh nauseous unless they were genuine. In our various denominations, we have many different types of rituals in our services. For some, worship involves high liturgy with robed pastors and choirs singing Bach and Beethoven, while for others it is praise bands leading Bible choruses in jeans and T-shirts. Regardless of whether we are comfortable with high and formal services or informal, contemporary praise, ritual remains an integral part of any worship service. And in either case, it is possible simply to “go through the motions” while neglecting the internal realities of our tortured souls. Samuel reminds us with his word to Saul that obedience is better than sacrifice. If we miss the reality of internal worship and confession, no amount of attention to externals, such as church attendance or involvement in Christian causes, will atone for disobeying God’s Word.

This brings us again to the central theme of this chapter. Saul stands as a warning about the dangers of disregarding God’s Word and thereby rejecting the structures he has provided to make our lives or our ministries possible. Samuel’s opening salvo is a powerful wake-up call for all who have failed to obey God: “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears?”19 The old prophet of God vigorously stands before all who sin and raises the question that defies circumvention. The sheep are there, and anyone can hear them. The question itself presents the undeniable realities of sin. What remains is only our reaction: Will we react as Saul or as David?

The most dominant news item in the closing years of the twentieth century centered sadly around a United States president caught in immoral conduct. The press and his political enemies confronted the president with undeniable facts about his illicit relationship with a young intern. The ensuing drama that caught the nation’s attention had all the ingredients of Saul’s conversation with Samuel. The president or his surrogates attempted various forms of evasion, blaming everyone from the opposing political party, which they said was behind the charges, to the young intern herself, who was accused of being flirtatious and obsessed with the president.

There was also an attempt at argumentation or denial. In a now-famous speech on January 26, 1998, the President declared while pounding the podium, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski.” Then in August of that year, when it became politically necessary, the president admitted to an “inappropriate” relationship with the intern, details of which soon became available to the public via the Internet, and shortly afterward in book form. The president’s many words of explanation reminds us of Saul’s compulsory and obligatory confession. Here is another example of our ability as human beings to attempt to appease our accusers by acknowledging wrongdoing without actually taking responsibility for our actions. Such grudging and contrived remorse is expedient for a president, just as Saul’s “confession” was in 1 Samuel 15.

I do not wish to reopen the debate over who was ultimately to blame, congressional accusers or presidential defenders. The tragic episode merely serves to illustrate the way all of us behave when confronted by the prophetic “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears?” Unfortunately, we can all identify with King Saul and President Clinton, for we have all heard the undeniable accusation that we are guilty. The choice remains for us, however—as individuals and as a corporate body of Christ—to respond, either as Saul or as David.

Original Meaning

Samuel Confronts and Condemns Saul (15:10–31)

PARTIAL OBEDIENCE IS really only disobedience made to look acceptable. Saul obeys God’s word to a degree in that he does in fact attack the Amalekites and win a great victory against them. But he convinces himself that he has satisfied the divine injunctions. Samuel is then sent to expose Saul’s actions as unacceptable. The text then narrates an extended dialogue between the prophet and the king, in which Saul’s sin gradually becomes insurmountable. The reader is forced to conclude that Saul must go! He can no longer serve as king of Israel.

Yahweh informs Samuel that he regrets making Saul king: “I am grieved that I have made Saul king” (15:11). This precipitates an encounter between Samuel and Saul, in which Saul first tries to deflect the blame, then tries to justify it, and finally tries to minimize its seriousness. All in all, we would say Saul fails to take responsibility for his actions.

When they first meet, Saul greets Samuel with the cheery “The LORD bless you! I have carried out the LORD’s instructions” (15:13). Apparently he is oblivious to the extent of his crimes. He has replaced Samuel as his spiritual adviser (ch. 14), and now he has failed to fulfill the mission as defined by Yahweh. Samuel’s blunt questions shatter the delusional world in which Saul is living: “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?” (15:14). Saul has rationalized his sparing of Agag and the best of the cattle as a delay, a temporary suspension of God’s instructions for holy war. This will give his soldiers time to offer the animals up as sacrifices to God and give Saul time to enjoy parading a captured royal prisoner! In Saul’s mind, this is only a temporary postponement in fulfilling Yahweh’s command. But Samuel’s booming “What then is this bleating of sheep?” breaks into Saul’s world and reveals his deception for what it truly is—a selfish rejection of God’s message.

There was no denying it; there was a sound of livestock in the camp. Anyone could hear it. The very presence of live sheep and cattle (and king Agag) condemns Saul. Samuel has arrived on the scene merely to point out the obvious. The series of statements made by the king in his defense before Samuel in this passage reveals a pitiable soul who is sorry only that he has been caught. His instincts are to defend himself against his prophet accuser.

First, Saul tries deflection, hoping to divert the blame onto the soldiers (15:15, where the Hebrew has simply “the people,” which at times means “army”). It is, after all, really the troops who have spared the best of the cattle, not strictly speaking Saul himself. Such recrimination is as old as the Garden of Eden, where the strategy of deflecting guilt onto someone else (anyone else!) was first tried (Gen. 3:12–13). But Saul is no more successful at averting guilt than Adam and Eve. Samuel reminds the king that it is Yahweh’s command that made him king and that it is also Yahweh’s command that he has now rejected (15:17–19).

Once deflection of blame fails, Saul’s second strategy is argumentation (“But I did obey the LORD,” 15:20–21). In his defense, Saul continues to insist it is really the soldiers who are to blame, since he himself went on the mission and accomplished the task. But the central issue in his argumentation is a redefinition of Yahweh’s command. In one breath, Saul argues that he did in fact execute the terms of holy war (i.e., complete annihilation of the enemy) and brought back Agag the king! But this is a self-condemning contradiction. They cannot both stand as a fulfillment of Yahweh’s command. His argument is flawed by a lame attempt to impose an alien definition on the otherwise clear command of God. This too is a common strategy for escaping condemnation. In the face of exposed disobedience, many have attempted to redefine what it actually means to obey.

Samuel’s response is unequivocal (15:22–23). Yahweh desires obedience over everything else. Even sacrifice is unacceptable if it becomes only a ruse for real submission to God’s will. Samuel announces the judgment of Yahweh, which is strictly commensurate with the nature of Saul’s sin as illustrated in the play on the verb “rejected” (mʾs): “Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king” (15:23).7 Now Saul has lost not only his dynasty (as in ch. 13) but his right to serve as king.

After hearing the irrefutable statement of rejection, Saul changes his strategy again and for the first time we hear something like a confession. This strategy might be called self-serving confession (15:24–25). Technically, he uses the right words: “I have sinned.” But this is followed by many more words revealing the compulsory and obligatory nature of that confession. He intends to appease Samuel by mentioning yet again “the people” (or “army”) and his fear of them. He further pleads with Samuel to appear with him before the people in order to save face. Even his confession, if it can honestly be called that, is contrived and motivated by self-interest. It is disingenuous, and Samuel responds by reaffirming Yahweh’s rejection of Saul as king (15:26–29).

The unit concludes with a climactic “I have sinned,” in which Saul acknowledges his guilt a second time (15:30). But again he follows this with more words calling into question the sincerity of his confession. His concern is again saving face before the people rather than finding forgiveness before God. The repetition of Saul’s confession (15:24–25, 30) has led some modern interpreters to assume we have two narrative accounts combined into one, so that verses 24–29 are secondary. But recent literary studies have shown that repetition is common in Old Testament narrative as a technique for emphasis.8 The differences in the second occurrence often reveal the main theme of the narrative.

In this text, the second confession serves a climactic role near the end of a unit and reveals the spirit of Saul’s ploy. He has replaced “forgive my sin” with “honor me before the elders” (cf. vv. 25 and 30). Saul seems more concerned with his people than with Samuel’s God.9 Notice the pronouns in 15:30: “Honor me before the elders of my people … come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD your God.” Saul’s “confession” is really nothing more than an acknowledgment of wrongdoing. He displays no contrition and gives no indication that he will act differently in the future.

Samuel and Saul Part Company (15:32–35)