And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou didst not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines were assembled at Michmash,
Saul was to wait seven days at Gilgal until Samuel came, but the army drained away and he offered the burnt offering himself. Samuel arrives with one question, and Saul's answer — reasons instead of confession — shows why he lost the kingdom.
Saul had already shown what he could do. One thing in him had never faced a test.
Saul's gift had indeed been vindicated. But Saul himself had not yet been proved. An occasion had tested the gift, but the commandment had not yet tested the heart of the king.
The prophet's delay had a purpose.
Then, Samuel had not come during the appointed days. This was simply to test the genuineness of his faith.
Samuel does not argue. He asks one short question, and it has a history in Scripture.
"What have you done?" Samuel demands of the impatient, unbelieving, disobedient king. That is the startling, conscience-searching question. The Lord God asked it of the woman, fallen, in the Garden: "What is this that you have done?" He asked it of her son Cain, the murderer of his brother: "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground." It would have been well if they had answered, "I have played the fool. I have broken the commandment. I have sinned before heaven and in your sight, O God of righteousness, holiness and truth." This indeed should be the answer of everyone, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Saul names three pressures. Notice who is missing from his list.
In his reply to Samuel (1 Sam. 13:11-12) God never enters his thoughts. His concern was how to keep the people together and drive back the enemy — the eye of the flesh on the things that are seen. He wants the people to trust in him, not in God. So he does not offer a sin offering. That would have meant taking the place of humiliation and weakness — the place that suited him. He offers a burnt offering instead, claiming acceptance and blessing — the place of honour and power. It was all done for the sake of appearance, busy about himself, his people, Samuel, the enemy, anything but God.
Saul's reasons are not irrational. They are the kind of reasons that make disobedience feel responsible.
As always, the flesh has excellent reasons for acting, and so for disobeying: "Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines were assembled at Michmash" (v. 11). The flesh has an excuse, even a pious excuse, for its disobedience.
One line of Saul's defence was simply untrue, and one word in it gives him away.
Saul offers the empty excuse that man has always offered: "The people were scattering from me," he says. Then he wickedly tries to load the blame for his sin onto Samuel: "You did not come within the days appointed." This was false, and all the worse for being spoken under the appearance of truth. Samuel did appear before the seventh day had closed… Under this show of piety he says, "I forced myself." But faith never has to force itself; it can always trust God's word, depend on His promise, and wait patiently for its sure fulfilment.
Saul's pressures were real. A king under God was not asked to weigh them.
It was a plain breach of a direct command. Saul can point, and does point, to the people scattering, to Samuel's failure to come (which he assumed too quickly), and to the gathered Philistines. With all this he had nothing at all to do. The king of Israel was only the representative of the heavenly King. Israel was really God's people, and His will alone was absolute in every situation that might arise. How good, in fact, to have it so! A king who governed like that could be completely at rest!… He had nothing whatever to do with consequences.
The prophet's reply steps straight past every reason Saul has given.
Samuel's reply is startlingly frank. Saul has done foolishly. He does not try to take up his reasons one by one. The people may have been scattered. He does not refer to it. The enemy may be threatening. He does not even explain his own delay, though its purpose was plain. He has one thing to say to the king: "You have not kept the command of the Lord your God." How all his paltry excuses are scattered to the winds by that solemn charge! What excuse can there be for disobedience? If he had stood this test, his kingdom would have been established, for it would have shown him to be a man of genuine faith. One thing he lacked, and that one thing was absolutely needed. It was really everything. It was faith in God.
reason: hard sentences; last bullet claimed what no quote said
I said, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication to Jehovah; and I forced myself, and offered up the burnt-offering.
Saul explains himself to Samuel: the enemy was coming, he had not yet sought the Lord, so he acted. Why did this religious-sounding speech fail to convince the prophet, and what does "I forced myself" admit about the man who said it?
His excuse is a list of things he saw with his own eyes.
First, "I saw that the people were scattered from me." He dreaded being left alone... Second, Saul said, "I saw... that the Philistines had gathered at Michmash." His eye was on the strength of the enemy. Third, "I saw... that you did not come within the days appointed." He had confidence in Samuel, but that human support was not there. But GOD was there. The poor king saw the people deserting him, the power of the enemy, and the absence of the man he leaned on. But he did not see God.
Saul mentions the Lord last, after the Philistines. Yet he was no unbeliever.
Saul is not an unbeliever and does not openly despise Israel's God; he knows that a sacrifice is necessary in order to approach Him. But being a man according to the flesh, he was completely unable to act other than he did. Even so, he is extremely responsible. "What have you done?" Samuel asks him — the same question God had addressed to Cain! As always, the flesh has excellent reasons for acting, and so for disobeying... The flesh has an excuse, even a pious excuse, for its disobedience: "Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the LORD."
Saul's excuse was not even true, and one writer calls it "all the worse for being dressed up as truth" (C Knapp).
Saul makes the phrase sound reluctant, as if he acted against his own wishes. It convicts him instead.
His words are a confession that he knew he had disobeyed God in offering the sacrifices. He would have Samuel believe that it went against his own wishes, and that he had to do it despite his convictions. That showed the unbelief all the more clearly — the unbelief that will not cling to God, at all costs, in obedience. How much is excused in the same way! People excuse their own schemes, encourage the activity of the flesh, and allow fellowship with the world, all on the plea that it was practical. A reluctant conscience has to be forced, because it knows these things are against God. But it will force itself, unless it is subject to God in living faith.
Faith is the opposite: it "never has to 'force' itself; it can always trust God's word, rest on His promise, and wait patiently for Him to keep it" (C Knapp).
Saul had not yet sought the Lord's favour, so he sought it by breaking the Lord's word.
He realised that if the Philistines attacked he would need the help of God. But instead of asking God's direction about the matter, he says, "So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering." He ignored any thought of HEART DEPENDENCE on God. He forced himself into the outward form of worshipping God, as though that would work like magic. That is man in the flesh. He sees nothing but outward form in the worship of God, and thinks he honours God while disobeying His plain word.
Every reason Saul gives is a circumstance.
It was a plain breach of positive command. Saul might urge, and does urge, the scattering of the people, the failure of Samuel (too quickly assumed), the gathered Philistines. With all this he had nothing at all to do. The king of Israel was only the representative of the heavenly King. Israel was really God's people, and His will alone was absolute in every circumstance that might arise. How good, in fact, to have it so!... With consequences he had nothing whatever to do.
The command came through Samuel, but it came from God. Saul "treated the Word of God, through Samuel, as only Samuel's opinion" (F. B. Hole).
Saul's cover story worked on Saul. It did not work on Samuel.
He thought, no doubt, to cover his wilfulness by a show of piety, but it was a bandage for his own eyes only. Samuel's question, "What have you done?" showed that he was not blinded by it. Mere religiousness may make a man satisfied with himself, as Adam was with his apron of fig leaves. But sooner or later the question must come: "What have you done?" Then everything is upset.
- Sight — Saul saw the scattering people, the massed Philistines, and the missing prophet. He did not see God.
- Excuse — The flesh always finds a reason to disobey, and the reason can be a pious one. Saul had not yet sought the Lord, so he broke the command in order to do it.
- Force — "I forced myself" is a confession, not a defence. A conscience you have to override already knows the act is wrong.
- Form — Worship used as a lucky charm takes the place of heart dependence. A man can think he honours God while disobeying His plain word.
- Outcome — The circumstances were never Saul's to weigh. Obedience would have left the consequences with God. The show of piety collapsed when Samuel asked, "What have you done?"