1 Samuel 15:1–33

Samuel reminds Saul that it was the Lord who had sent him to anoint Saul as king over Israel, and calls for his attention to the authoritative words of God.

Samuel came to the king, and reminded him that it was a divine commission that had put him on the throne. Now he has another message direct from the Lord Himself. God remembered how the Amalekites had laid wait for the children of Israel on their way from Egypt. Now this guilty nation had to be punished.

He would have a fresh trial. There was a new opportunity. If perhaps he might remove the stain and the sentence, the Lord would give him another trial.

Saul must now show that he is fit for the place he was called to. With him the office came first and the gift came after, not the other way round. David was the reverse: he proved his fitness in secret conflicts, long before anyone set the thought of ruling in front of him.

The king of Israel was only the representative of the heavenly King. Israel was really His people, and His will alone was absolute in every situation that might arise. How good, in fact, to have it so! How completely at rest a king could be who governed that way!... He had nothing at all to do with the consequences. Were any king's shoulders ever so free of strain as those of the obedient king of such a kingdom?

So Samuel is sent to Saul with the command to destroy Amalek. The reason for the command is given as well, so that he can enter into fellowship with God about it with understanding... The debt was taken on long ago. It had never been repented of, and forgiveness had never been sought for it. The Amalek of that day was still the same enemy of God and His people, so the debt had only gathered interest over the years... This is always the reason for God's delay in judgment: there is still opportunity for mercy.

God's sentence against this long-standing enemy of His people had gone out ages before. At Rephidim, the LORD said that He would have "war with Amalek from generation to generation." Moses, in his parting charge to Israel, said, "You shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget." Only one thing was missing: a word from the LORD about the exact moment to carry out this terrible sentence. That word came to Saul through Samuel.

Amalek is a type of the flesh, and with flesh God can make no terms. No good thing lives in it. God condemned the sin that belongs to it in the sacrifice of Christ. Christians are seen as having "crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" for themselves. That means they have accepted God's sentence against the evil thing. Nothing remains but to be unsparing with all its workings day by day.

The sentence of God had long gone forth against this determined enemy of His people. At Rephidim, the Lord said that He would have "war with Amalek from generation to generation" (Ex. 17:16); and Moses, in his parting charge to Israel, said, "you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget" (Deut. 25:19). Only one thing was lacking. They needed a word from the Lord about the exact moment to carry out the terrible sentence. That word came to Saul through Samuel.

We are told here of Amalek's unprovoked attack on Israel, just as they had escaped from the power of Pharaoh. Through Samuel we learn what Moses did not tell us in Exodus 17, that "he laid wait for him," like a serpent lurking in the road… Joshua's beating did not subdue him or discourage him. Amalek made his guilt worse by attacking Israel's rear. He cut off those who lagged behind, all who were feeble, when they were faint and weary. And he did not fear God.

Never were they nearer to Him. The pillar of cloud and of fire, the manna from heaven, and the water from the rock were visible proofs of it; yet it was at that time that the Amalekites sought their harm, and this out of real hatred to them as the people of the Lord, for they could gain little from the attack. It was made in the presence of "the glory," a wicked insult to God, a lifting up of their hand against His throne… So the Lord made His people's cause His own. To touch them was to touch the apple of His eye.

God gives the reason for the command too, so that Saul may intelligently enter into fellowship with Him about it. The words "the Lord of hosts" remind Saul who speaks — the King of the higher kingdom. The debt was contracted long ago. Amalek had never repented of it, and had never sought forgiveness for it. The Amalek of that day remained the same adversary of God and of His people. So the debt had only gathered interest as time passed. Indeed, they had appeared again and again as enemies in the land since then. This is always the reason God delays judgment. There is still opportunity for mercy, and "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." Now the Lord would collect the debt.

Scripture reveals no truth more plainly than this: the Lord put the sword of judgment into Israel's hands. In certain cases He commanded them to use it with unrelenting severity (Deut. 20:10-18). It was an honour given to them to carry out the judgment written… How different now! God makes those who have been led to find in Jesus a Saviour His ministers of love, of mercy, and of grace to a rebellious world. The same divine Lawgiver said to Saul, "Utterly destroy, and spare them not." Now, in the day of salvation, He says to His redeemed, "Love your enemies… and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5).

1 Samuel 15 presents the final testing and setting aside of man's king. "Go, smite Amalek." This is the test that really showed the moral condition of Saul's heart. Had he been right before God, he would have carried out God's judgment on Amalek. But the outcome proved that Saul had too much in common with Amalek to carry out the divine will in destroying him… Amalek stands before the spiritual mind as the first great obstacle to the progress of the redeemed from Egypt to Canaan. And we know what fills a similar place for those who now set out to follow the Lord Jesus.

The sentence of God had long gone out against this determined enemy of His people. At Rephidim, the LORD said that He would have "war with Amalek from generation to generation" (Ex. 17:16); and Moses, in his parting charge to Israel, said, "you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget" (Deut. 25:19). Only one thing was still needed: a word from the LORD about the exact moment to carry out the terrible sentence. That word came to Saul through Samuel.

The LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt with signs and wonders and had brought them to Himself. Never were they nearer to Him. Yet it was at that time that the Amalekites sought to harm them. They did it out of real hatred to them as the LORD's people, for they could gain little advantage from their attack... It was both cowardly and cruel, for they fell on all who were feeble and at the rear, when they were faint and weary.

If God is love, why should He tell His people to act this way? The answer is very simple: "God is light," as well as love. The nations in and around Canaan were so soaked in terrible evils that they were a moral ulcer in the middle of the earth. God endured them with much patience. To destroy them completely was mercy to others, as well as righteousness in God. How much of a cancer does a skilled surgeon's knife spare?

It may seem dreadful to kill little children. But at least they would go to heaven. It would be a different matter if they grew up in bitter hostility against God and the truth of His Word.

Samuel is therefore sent to Saul with the command to destroy Amalek. The reason for the command is given too, so that he may intelligently share God's mind about it... The debt was contracted long ago. Amalek had never repented of it or asked forgiveness for it. The Amalek of that day remained the same adversary of God and His people, so the debt had only gathered interest over time... They are sentenced, as God alone has the right to sentence, to complete destruction, with all that they have, even to the cattle. The world at large needed such object-lessons of God's anger against sin, and so did Israel.

In this final test of Saul there were no difficulties in the path of obedience. His resources were plentiful and the victory was easy. The temptation to disobey came entirely from within. The commandment tested his heart, and it is the heart that the word of God lays bare.

The same divine Lawgiver said to Saul, in perfect harmony with the law of that time, "Devote them to destruction, and do not spare them." Now, in the day of salvation, He says to His redeemed, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5)... The path of obedience, in every age, is not only the safe path. It is the path of present blessing and future glory.

The flesh and its lusts were never to be seen as anything but enemies. Between the people of God and the lusts of the flesh there is to be, not necessarily constant conflict, but absolute hostility... One who stands in the place of king — a type in that way of Christ — must be a relentless enemy of Amalek. We cannot imagine our blessed Lord sparing the flesh in its fairest form.

Place where Saul numbered his army. 1 Sam. 15:4. Not identified.

Saul is able to amass a great army of 200,000, plus 10,000 men of Judah. When God gives commands, He opens the way for our carrying these out.

We are told here of Amalek's unprovoked attack on Israel, just as they had escaped from the power of Pharaoh. Through Samuel here we learn what Moses did not tell us in Exodus 17, that "he laid wait for him," like a lurking serpent in the way. For this cowardly attempt at His people's destruction, the Lord swore that He would have war with Amalek "from generation to generation." And, not subdued nor discouraged from his malicious designs on Israel by the beating received at the hands of Joshua, Amalek made his guilt worse by basely attacking Israel's rear, and striking "the hindmost," "even all that were feeble," when they were "faint and weary; and he feared not God."

Opponents of the Bible have sometimes protested that the Lord's instructions to Israel about their enemies were too severe. If God is love, why should He tell His people to act in such a manner? The answer is very simple: "God is light," as well as love. The nations in and around Canaan were soaked in such terrible evils that they were a moral ulcer in the middle of the earth. God put up with them with much patience first. To destroy them completely was mercy to others, as well as righteousness in God. How much of a cancer does the knife of a skilful surgeon spare?

Amalek is a type of the flesh, and with flesh God can make no terms. In it dwells no good thing (Romans 7:18). God condemned the sin that belongs to it in the sacrifice of Christ (Romans 8:3). And Christians are viewed as having "crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" for themselves (Galatians 5:24). That means they have accepted God's sentence against the evil thing. Nothing remains but to be unsparing with all its workings day by day.

One, therefore, who is in the place of king — a type in that way of Christ — must be a relentless enemy of Amalek. We cannot imagine our blessed Lord sparing the flesh in its fairest form.

An enormous army of Israelites is gathered. Notably, most of them belonged to the ten tribes, and there were only ten thousand men of Judah.

It was therefore not because of any lack of power on his part, nor any sudden strength of the enemy. Agag, the king of Amalek, was taken captive. The sheep and oxen certainly offered no resistance to Israel's victorious sword. So sparing the best of the cattle and bringing Agag back alive did not suggest a partial victory. It suggested a deliberate purpose, driven by a special desire.

He would have a fresh trial. There was a new opportunity. If perhaps he might remove the stain and the sentence, the Lord would give him another trial... The flesh profits nothing. However tried by God, it fails. God's word was plain, His will decided; but the king and the people were alike disobedient.

He would have a fresh trial. There was a new opportunity. If perhaps he might remove the stain and the sentence, the Lord would give him another trial.

Through Samuel we learn what Moses did not tell us in Exodus 17: that Amalek lay in wait for Israel, like a snake hiding in the road. ... Saul seems ready enough to obey the command, and he was a fit and willing man for this work. He gathers his forces and lies in wait in the valley. So God does to Amalek what Amalek had done to Israel.

If God would utterly destroy those who lay in wait, surely He would remember the Kenites who showed them kindness.

Saul is able to gather a great army of 200,000, plus 10,000 men of Judah. When God gives commands, He opens the way for us to carry them out. Saul begins with a city of Amalek. But he waits, to give the Kenites a chance to separate themselves from Amalek. The Kenites were not the same people, and if they stayed with them they would face the same judgment.

If God is love, why should He tell His people to act this way? The answer is very simple: God is light, as well as love. The nations in and around Canaan were so soaked in terrible evils that they were a moral ulcer in the middle of the earth. God had borne with them for a long time. To destroy them completely was mercy to others, as well as righteousness in God. How much of a cancer does a skilled surgeon's knife spare?

Amalek is a type of the flesh, and with flesh God can make no terms. In it dwells no good thing (Romans 7:18). God condemned the sin that belongs to it in the sacrifice of Christ (Romans 8:3). And Christians are seen as having, for themselves, "crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Galatians 5:24). That means they have accepted God's sentence against the evil thing. Nothing remains but to be unsparing with all its workings day by day (Colossians 3:5-9).

Then Saul seems to sweep over most of the territory Amalek occupied, from Havilah as far as Shur, near Egypt. So it was not from any lack of power on his part, nor any sudden strength in the enemy. Israel took Agag, the king of Amalek, captive, and the sheep and oxen certainly offered no resistance to their victorious sword. So sparing the best cattle and bringing Agag back alive did not point to a partial victory. It pointed to a deliberate purpose, born of special desire. There is often a failure of faith to count on God for complete victory over the desires of the flesh. That is very wrong, but it is a very different thing from deliberately choosing those desires as something to spare.

King Saul, sadly, was himself an Amalekite in spirit. That is, he represented the best of what is natural. It is the one lesson of his life that stands out above all others.

Jethro, or Raguel, was Moses' father-in-law. He is called a Kenite (Judges 1:16), and he is also called a Midianite (Numbers 10:29). The Midianites came from Midian, the son of Abraham and Keturah (Genesis 25:2), so these Kenites were probably a branch of the Midianites… Others remained in the far south. So when Saul was going to strike the Amalekites, he warned the Kenites to leave them, for their own safety. They had befriended Israel when they came from Egypt (1 Samuel 15:6).

At the start of Saul's commission to strike Amalek and utterly destroy all they had, he promised well. He receives a thought from the heart of God, who remembers mercy in judgment, even though God would completely consume the Amalekites. The Lord of hosts said He remembered what Amalek did to Israel, lying in wait for him on the way when he came up from Egypt… If God would utterly destroy those who lay in wait, He would surely remember the Kenites who showed them kindness. Long ago, God was about to consume Sodom with fire and sulphur. Abraham pleaded with God on the very ground Saul was now acting on: "Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be it from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?"

Then that cup of cold water given in His name, long since forgotten by us, will receive its reward. Then we will find that God "is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for His name in serving the saints, as you still do" (Hebrews 6:10).

Saul begins with a city of Amalek. But he waits, to give the Kenites the chance to separate themselves from Amalek. The Kenites were not the same people, and if they stayed linked with them they would face the same judgment. The Kenites were of Midianite background (Judges 1:16; Exodus 2:15-21) and friendly to Israel. They were evidently people who could get along well with anyone, and so they were in danger of wrong friendships.

Amalek is a type of the flesh, and with flesh God can make no terms. Nothing good dwells in it (Romans 7:18). In the sacrifice of Christ, God condemned the sin that is inherent in it (Romans 8:3). And Christians are viewed as having, for themselves, "crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Galatians 5:24). That means they have accepted God's sentence against the evil thing. Nothing remains but to be unsparing with all its workings day by day (Colossians 3:5-9).

At God's command Saul rises up and places himself at the head of the people. He separates the Kenites, who had shown themselves friends of God's people (Judges 4:11). Then he strikes Amalek and all his people. Only he does not thoroughly carry out God's command. This the flesh will never do… To fail to carry out His commandment thoroughly for the Lord is to fail to carry it out at all.

Saul lost his kingdom, and the Lord rejected him. It was not because of a mistaken policy in sparing Agag and the best of the spoil from destruction, but for disobedience to an express command.

So it was not for any lack of power on his part, nor any sudden strength in the enemy. Agag, the king of Amalek, was taken captive, and the sheep and oxen clearly put up no resistance to Israel's victorious sword. So sparing the best of the cattle and bringing Agag back alive did not suggest a partial victory. It showed a deliberate purpose, driven by special desire.

Why he spared Agag is not clear. He may have intended to bring him in chains in the triumphal procession he appears to have made through the land on his return from the expedition, to display his prowess and success in the undertaking.

Of course Agag the king was the worst of all Amalek, the figurehead of all its opposition to God. His name means, "I will overtop." It stands for the pride of being who I am. That pride is at the base of all the evil of the lusts of the flesh. If this root is not judged, but merely some of the details of lustful things, then the evil is not rightly judged at all.

Amalek is a type of the flesh, and with flesh God can make no terms. In it dwells no good thing (Rom. 7:18). God condemned the sin that is part of it in the sacrifice of Christ (Rom. 8:3). And Christians are viewed as having, for themselves, "crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal. 5:24). That means they have accepted the sentence of God against the evil thing.

He thought there was a best side and a worst side to weigh, just as you do. He would not defend the worst, but he pleaded for the best and spared it. Do you think Satan has a best side in the eyes of God? The flesh came from Satan, not from God.

He was ready to carry out the will of God about all that was "vile and refuse." But he thought he might make some exceptions. He acted as if he should draw the line between "refuse" and "good" by his own judgement, and not leave it to the unerring judgement of Him who saw what Amalek truly was.

Samuel was a very different man from Saul. When they brought Agag the king of Amalek before him, he cut him to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. Agag might come "cheerfully," but Samuel saw his true character: an enemy of God's people, under God's judgment. It is a solemn thought. When God carried out His judgment on Saul, the king who had spared Agag died at the hand of an Amalekite.

Amalek is the great foe of God's people and pictures the flesh and its lusts. Israel was to fight Amalek from generation to generation and to blot out every memory of Amalek. In the same way the flesh is always the enemy of the children of God. "For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh." It is enmity against God. This was the enemy Saul was to fight and destroy completely. But Saul at heart was nothing but an Amalekite... Then comes the significant "but."

Israel took Agag, the king of Amalek, captive, and the sheep and oxen put up no resistance to Israel's victorious sword. So sparing the best of the cattle and bringing Agag back alive did not point to a partial victory. It pointed to a deliberate purpose driven by a special desire. This is worth noticing. Faith often fails to count on God for complete victory over the lusts of the flesh. That deserves strong blame. But deliberately choosing to spare those lusts is a very different thing.

God had told Saul to destroy Amalek, but his heart wanted to spare something that seemed good and desirable to him, at least. He was ready to carry out the will of God about everything that was "despised and worthless." But he thought he could make some exceptions. He acted as if his own judgement should draw the line between what was "worthless" and what was "good" — not the unerring judgement of Him who looked at Amalek from a true point of view. God saw in Agag a man who, for all his refinement, would resist Israel as strongly as ever. That was His ground of controversy with Amalek, and Saul could not understand or value it.

Of course Agag the king was the worst of all Amalek, the figurehead of all its opposition to God. His name means "I will overtop." That is the pride of being who I am. This pride lies at the base of all the evil of the lusts of the flesh. If we leave this root unjudged and deal only with some of the details of lustful things, we have not judged the evil rightly at all. The best of the animals speaks of the more refined lusts. They are not obviously bad. They can put on a nice appearance that deceives people into thinking they are not so bad.

How often people denounce and reject the grosser forms of fleshly evil without mercy, while they still keep up a fair show in the flesh! But how can what is unclean be dedicated to Him? There is only one dedication of evil to God, and that is dedication to the sword of judgment. So the sin of Saul and the people was a plain refusal to obey the command of the Lord. Saul seems to have been both their agent and their partner in the act. He had put his own interpretation on that command, and that interpretation suited his own desires and the people's.

Samuel asked him what the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen meant. He replied that the people had spared the best of them to sacrifice to the Lord. In 1 Samuel 15:9 the writer of the book says "Saul and the people spared," and so on. Like Adam in Eden, rather than confess his own sin, he put the blame somewhere else.

Saul lost his kingdom, and the Lord rejected him. This was not because sparing Agag and the best of the spoil from destruction was a mistaken policy. It was for disobedience to an express command.

He does not fully carry out God's command. The flesh will never do that... To fail to carry out His commandment fully, for the Lord, is to fail to carry it out at all.

How could he lead the people? He was rebellious at every fresh trial. He had compromised Israel's victory, when another had not failed to win it. How could such a man be a shepherd of God's people?

God speaks as man so that we may understand Him. He would rather have His wisdom called in question than His holiness. His repentance is one of act, founded on His rejection of sin.

Samuel said that the Strength of Israel will not lie or change His mind, for He is not a man, that He should change His mind. The divine rejection of Saul was therefore as unchangeable as the blessing of the nation. Once God has pledged His word, He never goes back on it. This blessed fact is the true resting place of faith in every age.

"Make us a king," they said to Samuel. Where was the LORD? For Israel, nowhere... Through the circumstances He arranged, God brings to the prophet the man He had chosen to satisfy the fleshly wishes of the people. In all this He judges the people and their king. ("He gave them a king in His anger, and took him away in His wrath.") But He remembers His people. He does not forsake them.

It affects Samuel to the depths of his soul, and all night he cries to God in prayer... When a leader fails, there is a strong tendency to accuse him. On the other hand, those who are friendlier with him are likely to excuse him. Neither attitude is right. How much better to be like Samuel and pray for those leaders who lead the people of God the wrong way. That is better than defending them or becoming angry with them.

Though he knew this man was rejected, he interceded for him all night. He mourns, he prays, but he obeys; this is the mark of faith — the absolute opposite of Saul's behaviour.

When the word of the LORD comes to him saying that He regrets setting up Saul as king, he cries to the LORD all night. No doubt he was interceding that Saul might even then find a place for repentance. Had Saul taken his right place in confession, pardon would surely have been his. Instead he meets Samuel with a deliberate lie — "I have performed."

God speaks as man so that we may understand Him. He would rather have His wisdom called in question than His holiness. His repentance is a matter of action, grounded in His rejection of sin.

The last phrase, "the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel," does not imply that God had made a mistake in doing so. He regretted it because Saul proved himself unfit for this position. A similar expression is in Genesis 6:6: "the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth." Certainly there was nothing morally wrong with what God had done. His regret was that He felt deeply the sorrow of the consequences in both cases. Thank God that He has the wisdom, power and grace to bring in afterwards what far surpasses the tragic failure of man.

How could he lead the people? How could a man who was rebellious at every fresh trial — a man who had compromised the victory of Israel when another had not failed to win it — how could such a man be a shepherd of God's people? "And it grieved Samuel; and he cried to the Lord all night" — a beautiful feature in the prophet. He felt it all, knew it all, but still it grieved his heart.

Balaam said, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind" (Numbers 23:19). The blessing of Israel was therefore assured. It stood whatever the enemy might do or say, and whatever unfaithfulness might show itself in the people. Samuel said, "the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret" (1 Samuel 15:29). God's rejection of Saul was therefore as final as the blessing of the nation. Once God has pledged His word, He never goes back on it.

When the word of the Lord comes to him saying, "I regret that I have made Saul king," he cries to the Lord all night. He is no doubt interceding, that Saul might even then find a place for repentance. Had Saul taken his right place in confession, pardon would surely have been his. But instead he meets Samuel with a deliberate lie — "I have performed."

What deep sorrow for Samuel! Though he knew this man was rejected, he intercedes for him all night long. He mourns, he prays, but he obeys; this belongs to faith — the absolute opposite of Saul's behaviour.

On the one hand, when a leader fails, there is a great tendency to accuse him. On the other hand, those who are more friendly with him are likely to excuse him. Neither of these attitudes is right. How much better to be like Samuel and to pray for those leaders who wrongly influence the people of God. That is better than defending them or becoming angry with them.

What deep sorrow for Samuel! Though he knew this man was rejected, he prays for him all night long. Samuel, as we have often noticed, is always praying and interceding — for the disobedient, for the wicked, and for everyone. He mourns, he prays, but he obeys. This is what marks faith — the sharpest possible contrast with Saul's behaviour. It says Samuel "cried to the LORD all night. And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning." Meanwhile Saul had set up a monument, crediting the victory to himself. For the flesh, even when it is engaged in God's work, cannot do that work for Him.

Saul's spirit advertises itself plainly enough. He sweeps in a circuit through the land from Carmel to Gilgal, setting up along the way a monument — literally a "hand" — pointing to his own achievements. It is at Gilgal that Samuel meets him. Gilgal is the place of national circumcision, of "putting away the body of the flesh."

Samuel was grieving over him. He spent the whole night crying to the Lord because of his sin. All that time Saul was setting up "a place" — some memorial of his victory. But like Absalom's pillar, it was a monument to himself (15:12; 2 Samuel 18:18).

He knew it was right to return to Gilgal after a victory. Gilgal speaks of the self-judgment of our own flesh. We must not let the flesh exalt itself because of a victory. But Saul exalted himself BEFORE going to Gilgal. His setting up "a place" shows he wanted some public recognition — perhaps a monument saying that he had won this victory. He wanted that first, before he would take the low place of taking no credit himself! So coming to Gilgal after setting up a place was really hypocrisy. Let us take this seriously to heart. We too may easily become hypocrites: we claim to judge the flesh, while we want the recognition of men.

So everything is ruin under the hand of the people's king. In this scene the craving of his heart works with fearful power. He tries at once to turn this conquest of Amalek to his own profit and glory. He cared nothing for the word and glory of the Lord. He first pounces on the spoil. Then he sets himself up a place (1 Samuel 15:12) — that is, he erects some monument to his own name. In this way he seeks to make this victory serve both his pride and his greed.

This seems to confirm what we have said. In his self-centred pride, Saul probably made a triumphal march around the country to glorify himself as a warrior. In this the people really did have "a king like the nations" around them. Those nations gloried in their victories like this and made them an occasion for their own self-exaltation.

A fallen nature, because it is what it is, always uses the mercies of God for self-exaltation, and so against the Giver. These are some of the lessons in the history of Saul, once God had invested him with kingly power and seated him on the throne of Israel. While he was "little in his own eyes," every duty that came up around him mattered more to him than he did himself.

He rushes to speak. He should have waited humbly before the man of God to hear what he might say. He hurries to defend himself. Without waiting to be asked, he says, "I have performed the commandment of the LORD." His eagerness to announce his obedience sounds suspicious. It betrays the uneasy conscience of this unhappy man... What empty talk! How hateful his hypocrisy! How hardened in sin he has become! He comes to God's holy prophet with a blessing in his mouth and a lie on his lips.

And notice the ignorance and self-satisfaction of this unhappy man. "And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, 'Blessed be you to the LORD. I have performed the commandment of the LORD.'" Performed the commandment of the LORD, while Agag, king of the Amalekites, was still alive! Oh, to what lengths of empty delusion a person will go when not walking uprightly before God!

Samuel finally found him in Gilgal, the place of circumcision (Joshua 5). If only Saul had known the lesson of Gilgal — judging himself. How different his history would have been! He met the prophet with a flood of pious words: "Blessed be you to the LORD. I have performed the commandment of the LORD." This was a lie, and Saul knew it well.

Saul was not the only one to be "partially obedient," though really there is no such thing. To be partially obedient is to be disobedient. How often we think we are obeying the Word of God when we have carried out only part of His clear commandment.

How gladly we would call an obedience limited by our own wills by some lighter name than rebellion! What Saul left undone was a mere trifle compared to what he did. And the sheep and oxen had been spared to sacrifice to the Lord. What better excuse do people offer today for disobedience — evil done with a believable good intention? And how hard it is to grasp this. We may obey in much that costs us little. The real test of obedience comes where we are called to give up our own will and our own wisdom.

He goes out with the bold claim, "I have performed the commandment of the LORD." ... He asks about the spared flocks and herds. They expose the king's claim to have obeyed the commandment of the LORD as a lie. How often those spared things of the flesh and its desires contradict our bold claim to have put to death everything earthly in us!

Saul was an outwardly moral and religious man, but he was also self-righteous. So we get sayings like these: "I have performed the commandment of the LORD" — "Yes, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD." How could this man value grace? Impossible. A heart that is not broken and a conscience that is not convinced can never understand what grace means.

He is quick to speak. He should have waited humbly before the man of God to hear what he might say. Without waiting to be asked, he hurries to defend himself: "I have performed the commandment of the Lord." His very eagerness to proclaim his obedience sounds suspicious. It betrays the uneasy conscience of this unhappy man. But Samuel soon tells him that he is not so easily deceived. The very bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the cattle were so many voices proving his boast untrue.

But God cannot be bought off with words. Samuel asks, "What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?" (v. 14). Saul had just said, "I have performed the commandment of the Lord." Now he clears himself of the fault and shifts it onto the people, although he and the people (v. 9) had acted together. "They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God, and the rest we have devoted to destruction" (v. 15).

Solemn, heart-searching question! It is useless to fall back on the plausible matter of "sacrifice to the Lord." A miserable resource for disobedient hearts! As if the Lord would accept a sacrifice from one walking in open rebellion against His commandment. How many since Saul's day have tried to cover a disobedient spirit with the plausible cloak of "sacrifice to the Lord"!… The Lord does not seek offerings, but obedience. A submissive heart and a yielded spirit will glorify Him more than the cattle on a thousand hills.

Even the plea of sacrificing them to God is worthless; for what was already devoted could not be offered.

Amalek is a type of the flesh, and with flesh God can make no terms. No good thing lives in it (Romans 7:18). God condemned the sin that belongs to it in the sacrifice of Christ (Romans 8:3). And Christians are seen as having, for themselves, "crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Galatians 5:24). That means they have accepted God's sentence against the evil thing. Nothing remains but to be unsparing with all its workings day by day (Colossians 3:5-9).

They spared the best of what the Amalekites owned. They utterly rejected everything that was vile. How often people fiercely denounce and reject the coarser forms of evil in the flesh, while they still keep up a fine show in the flesh!… But how can what is unclean be dedicated to Him? There is only one dedication of evil to God, and that is the dedication to the sword of judgment.… He had put his own interpretation on that command, an interpretation that fitted his own and the people's desires.

In a few telling words Samuel reminded Saul how the LORD had dealt with him in the past, and how openly he had disobeyed His word. It was no mere expression of his own opinion: "I will tell you what the LORD said to me this night."

He is quick to speak. He should have waited humbly before the man of God, as was fitting, to hear what he might have to say, or to learn what he wanted. He hurries to defend himself. Without waiting to be asked he says, "I have performed the commandment of the LORD." His eagerness to announce his obedience sounds suspicious. It gives away the uneasy conscience of this unhappy man.

What deep sorrow for Samuel! He knew God had rejected this man, yet he intercedes for him all night long. As we have often noticed, Samuel is always praying and interceding — for the disobedient, for the wicked, and for everyone. He mourns, he prays, but he obeys; this is what marks faith — the most complete contrast with Saul's behaviour.

God cannot let this pass. He tells Samuel that He is sorry He made Saul king, because Saul has turned back from following the Lord and has deliberately ignored His clear commands... On the one hand, when a leader fails, there is a strong tendency to accuse him. On the other hand, those who are more friendly with him are likely to excuse him. Neither of these attitudes is right. How much better to be like Samuel and to pray for leaders who wrongly influence the people of God! That is better than defending them or getting angry with them.

Saul's conscience was utterly dead. This is one among many proofs that he was never truly converted to God. He never received the implanted word with meekness. To the end he rejected it, turning at last to witchcraft and calling up the dead. Samuel was grieving over him and spending the whole night crying to the Lord because of his sin. Saul, meanwhile, was setting up "a place" — some memorial of his victory. Like Absalom's pillar, it was a monument to himself.

Samuel brushed the excuses aside. He said sternly, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams." Here we have a principle of vital importance to the people of God in every age. There is no substitute for obedience... No claim of usefulness in service can be accepted as an excuse for what we know to be contrary to God and His word.

There was a time when he was little in his own sight. He shrank with the greatest reluctance from any move into a place of prominence. He protested this way to Samuel at his anointing. Later, when they declared him the people's choice, he hid himself. A change has come over him. He is flushed with victory. The mass of the people have recognised him. In his own eyes he has reached an importance far different from the low thoughts he once had. Samuel recalls this past to him, and places it side by side with his present lofty disregard of the will of God.

Being "little in your own eyes" goes together with ready obedience to another's will, and with a self-denying, devoted heart. The occasion may be small or great — the missing donkeys of Kish, or Agag the king of the Amalekites.

Saul rightly protests that he is only a Benjamite, from the smallest tribe in Israel... Once Saul held the prominence and authority of king, it was not long before he forgot his own littleness. He thought himself great enough to ignore God's express commands, and of course he suffered the consequences. Faith, on the other hand, always keeps a humble place, however high the honour a person receives.

A fallen nature, being what it is, always uses God's mercies for self-exaltation. So it uses them against the giver. These are some of the lessons in Saul's history, after God gave him royal power and set him on Israel's throne. While he was "little in his own eyes," every duty that came up around him mattered more to him than he did to himself.

And now he had become great in his own sight and little in the sight of the Lord.

All Saul's excuses were empty, or worse. As Adam did with Eve, the king pushed the people forward to shelter himself. What was he raised up for, if not to lead the people? Was it not the king's job to hold back lawlessness, rather than theirs to entangle him in disobedience? By his own account, what was he there for if not to command them in the name of the LORD? Had it come to this, that the people commanded him? Such a confession could have only one result. His kingship was gone. The truth, though, was this: like people, like king.

With Paul it was the opposite. As the years passed, he felt his own insignificance and unworthiness more deeply. "I am the very least of all the saints," he told the Ephesians (Eph. 3:8); "the foremost" of sinners, he told his son Timothy (1 Tim. 1:15). At a certain point in his history he dropped the name Saul, preferring from then on to be known as Paul, which means "little."

The Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt with signs and wonders, and had brought them to Himself. They were never nearer to Him. The pillar of cloud and fire, the manna from heaven, and the water from the rock were visible proofs of it. Yet it was at that very time that the Amalekites tried to harm them. They did it out of real hatred for them as the Lord's people, since they could gain very little from the attack. They made the attack in the presence of "the glory" — a wicked insult to God, a lifting up of their hand against His throne. It was both cowardly and cruel, for they fell on all who were feeble and at the back, when they were faint and weary. The Lord sentenced them at once, and He appointed the very people they had wronged to carry out the judgment. In this way He made His people's cause His own. To touch them was to touch the apple of His eye.

Amalek had contracted this debt long ago. They had never repented of it, and they had never sought forgiveness for it. The Amalek of that day remained the same adversary of God and of His people, so the debt had only gathered interest as time passed. Indeed, they had appeared as enemies in the land again and again since then. God always has the same reason for delaying judgment: there is still opportunity for mercy, and "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." Now He would collect the debt. God alone has the right to pass such a sentence, and He sentenced Amalek to complete destruction, with everything they had, down to their cattle. The world at large needed such object lessons of God's wrath against sin, and so did Israel.

Saul lost his kingdom and the Lord rejected him, not because of a mistaken policy in sparing Agag and the best of the spoil, but for disobedience to an express command.

In this final test of Saul it is important to notice that there were no difficulties in the path of obedience. The resources at his command were plentiful, and the victory was an easy one. The temptation to disobey came entirely from within. The commandment tested his heart, and it is the heart that the word of God lays bare.

Amalek is the great enemy of God's people and pictures the flesh and its lusts. Israel was to fight Amalek from generation to generation. The memory of Amalek was to be blotted out completely. In the same way the flesh is always the enemy of the children of God. "For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh." It is enmity against God.

Everything that was worthless was utterly rejected. How often people denounce the coarser forms of evil in the flesh and throw them out without mercy, while they still make a fine show in the flesh! No one thinks of making room in doctrine for drunkenness and the lower vices. Yet people plead hard for other things to be spared and dedicated to the Lord's service: whatever appeals to good taste in ritual, or legal formalism, or an unequal partnership with unbelievers in God's work. But how can what is unclean be dedicated to Him? There is only one way to dedicate evil to God, and that is to dedicate it to the sword of judgment.

Saul was in a place of honour when he was called to his service. Our Lord was in the place of deepest humiliation when He began His earthly work. Saul had a great army to carry out God's command. Our Lord was completely alone, abandoned even by His own disciples. But how perfectly He embodied God's hatred of evil, and in His work on the cross "utterly destroyed" Amalek! The sentence of death He bore, the judgment of God He endured, was the complete condemnation of the flesh.

In this final test of Saul it is important to observe that there were no difficulties in the path of obedience. The resources at his command were abundant, and the victory was an easy one. The temptation to disobey came wholly from within. The commandment tested his heart, and it is the heart that the word of God lays bare.

Samuel tells him plainly he did not obey the Word of God, but dared to "pounce on the spoil." God had no trouble seeing that the motive was not a real desire to sacrifice to Him. It was greed. Israel knew that if they offered peace offerings to God, the offerer would get a good share for himself.

Disobedience that comes from carelessness or indifference is bad. Disobedience that is sheer willfulness is worse. Worst of all is willful disobedience that dresses itself in a cloak of pretended devotion and zeal for the Lord's interests. This is what Saul was now guilty of, and so God met it in the strong, drastic way we hear from Samuel's lips.

Even after being exposed, Saul insists that he did obey the Lord. He took Agag the Amalekite king captive, and he utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But why had he spared Agag? Was that obedience to God's word? Partial obedience is not obedience at all. Then a second time he tries to excuse the sparing of the sheep and oxen. He blames the people, while insisting that they did it to sacrifice these to the Lord. But God had given the orders to him. So he was responsible to give the same orders to the people, and to see that they obeyed. God is right to hold him responsible for the whole matter.

God thought otherwise. A principle was at stake. How could Saul rule a kingdom if he did not obey God? How could he expect others to obey him if he did not obey? If his subjects could improve on Saul's decrees, where would his authority be? Saul's action in thinking he could improve on God's decree was inexcusable. In one blow he destroyed his kingdom.

Amalek is spared, because the flesh is spared. The confused and disturbing clash of voices in the camp comes from the thing that was spared, the thing that should have been judged… He thought there was a best side and a worst side to weigh, just as you do. He would not defend the worst, but he pleaded for the best and spared it… Something "good" from this flesh of mine for God! Something I can excuse. A corner in my heart on which I write, "This is reserved from judgment."

As Samuel comes to meet him, Saul says: "Blessed are you of the LORD; I have performed the commandment of the LORD." How prompt he is to boast about himself! In verse 20 we will see him excusing himself, and in verse 24, accusing himself with the same quickness. This quickness is stamped on everything.

Saul seems (though it may be hypocrisy) delighted to meet Samuel, and apparently is unaware of having disobeyed God. He goes out with the bold profession, "I have performed the commandment of the LORD." The prophet might weep in secret over the rejection of the proud king. Even so, he deals with him faithfully. He asks about the spared flocks and herds, and they give the lie to the king's claim that he had obeyed the commandment of the LORD. How often do the spared things of the flesh and its desires contradict our bold claim to have put to death everything in us that belongs to the earth!

He softens his sin by saying it was to sacrifice that they spared the animals. By giving the act a religious motive he thought to escape the guilt of his conduct and its penalty. He says to Samuel, "the LORD your God." But the man of God will have none of it. Again Saul tries to shift the responsibility for his act onto the shoulders of the people: "The people took of the spoil," he says.

No doubt they were quite willing to spare them, but that did not relieve Saul from his responsibility as king. What king yields to his people, or obeys them? It is always the reverse. Samuel, however, does not dispute this, or speak of it to Saul. There is another King who had given His command. It was to Him that Saul must give an account.

Disobedience that comes from carelessness or indifference is bad. Disobedience that is pure wilfulness is worse. Worst of all is the kind that comes from wilfulness and then dresses itself up. It wears a cloak of pretended piety and zeal for the Lord's interests. That is what Saul was guilty of here. It explains the strong, drastic way God met it through the lips of Samuel.

How could anything be good which was bound up with Amalek? And yet, apply this principle to the flesh and the world. Saul failed to carry it out according to God's mind about Agag and the land of the Amalekites. How common Saul's sin looks today!

Saul was the outwardly moral and religious man, but also a self-righteous man. So we get expressions like these: "I have performed the commandment of the LORD" — "I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me." How could this man value grace? Impossible. A heart unbroken, a conscience unconvinced, can never enter into the meaning of the word grace.

All of Saul's excuses were empty, or worse. As Adam did with Eve, the king put the people forward to shelter himself. What was he raised up for, if not to lead the people? Was it not for the king to hold back lawlessness, rather than for them to entangle him in disobedience? Had it come to this, that the people commanded him? Such a confession could have only one result. His kingship was gone.

The Spirit of God says "Saul and the people"; Saul says "the people," and that it was for God that they spared. But our excuses, even when true, only condemn us. Saul, having no faith and not looking to God, feared the people more than God. What a slave the unbeliever is! If he is not the slave of the enemy, he is the slave of the people he seems to govern.

Twice he speaks to Samuel of "the LORD your God" (vv. 21, 30). All sense of relationship to God, and of having to do with Him for himself, seems to have left him. Unhappy man!

It is useless to fall back on the plausible plea of "sacrifice to the Lord." What a miserable refuge for disobedient hearts! As if the Lord would accept a sacrifice from someone walking in open rebellion against His commandment. How many since Saul's day have tried to cover a disobedient spirit with the plausible cloak of "sacrifice to the Lord."

It was the best of the Amalekites' possessions that were spared. They rejected everything worthless. How often people denounce the coarser sins of human nature and reject them without mercy, while still keeping up a respectable outward show! No one thinks of making room in doctrine for drunkenness and the lower vices. Yet people plead hard that we should spare other things and dedicate them to the Lord's service: whatever appeals to refined taste in ritual service, or legal formalism, or an unequal partnership with the unconverted in the work of God. But how can anyone dedicate something unclean to Him? There is only one way to dedicate evil to God, and that is to hand it over to the sword of judgment.

"In Gilgal," notice! Of all places, that was where he proposed to offer the fruit of self-will to God. It was Israel's first camping ground, the place where Israel used the sharp knives of circumcision. That is a lasting lesson: self-judgment is vital for everyone who would have dealings with God. Later the people understood the place no better than their first king had. They made Gilgal one of the chief centres of their sin against God.

Samuel does not dispute this or discuss it with Saul. There is another King who had given His command. It was to Him that Saul must give an account. Did He delight in sacrifices as much as in obedience, even if they devoted all the cattle to Him? Then comes that famous, searching word: "to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams." It tests many a plausible claim to devotedness or service. How often people plead that we should spare something of our sinful nature and devote it to the Lord!

"What means then this bleating of the sheep in my ears?" A searching question! It is useless to fall back on the plausible matter of "sacrifice to the Lord." A miserable resource for disobedient hearts! As if the Lord would accept a sacrifice from someone walking in open rebellion against His commandment. How many since Saul's day have tried to cover a disobedient spirit with the plausible cloak of "sacrifice to the Lord." … The Lord does not seek offerings, but obedience: the submissive heart and the yielding spirit will glorify Him more than the cattle on a thousand hills. … God does not look at the amount of the sacrifice, but at the spirit from which it springs.

Disobedience that springs from carelessness or indifference is bad. Disobedience that is sheer wilfulness is worse. Worst of all is disobedience that springs from wilfulness and then dresses itself in a cloak of pretended piety and zeal for the Lord's interests. That is what Saul was now guilty of, and this is why God met it through Samuel's lips in such strong and drastic terms.

Sacrifice without obedience — a solemn truth — is no better than idol worship. The first mark of faith is obedience. Paul had received his apostleship "to bring about the obedience of faith … among all the nations" (Rom. 1:5). And there are many things God prefers to sacrifice. "I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice," He says, "the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6). "Go and learn," the Lord said to the Pharisees, "what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice'" (Matt. 9:13).

God thought otherwise. A principle was at stake. How could Saul rule a kingdom if he did not obey God? How could he expect to be obeyed if he himself did not obey? If his subjects could improve on Saul's decrees, where would his authority be? Saul's idea that he could improve on God's decree was unpardonable. In one blow he destroyed his kingdom.

Samuel's solemn words to Saul could stand as the heading over this whole account: "Rebellion is as the sin of divination." Saul had spared the spoil of Amalek against the Lord's commandment. The two parts, so far apart in time and in outward character, are really one. On the day he failed to wipe out Amalek, Saul never imagined where it would lead. The cattle he spared "to sacrifice to the LORD" — in disobedience to His word — would develop into the incantations of a woman with a familiar spirit. We do not realise the unity that underlies all evil. When one link of obedience to God is cut, the soul puts itself into Satan's hands. So it was with our first parents. To disobey God is to listen to Satan.

God took no pleasure in those sacrifices. In contrast, Jesus Christ presented Himself to God to do His will. That will required a sacrifice that could take away sin. It is beautiful to see Jesus, on coming into the world, presenting Himself to obey, and saying to His Father, "Behold, I have come to do your will, O God."

It is the character of the believer's sanctification — sanctified to obedience and to the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.

The word kashaph means "to use magical formulas or incantations," "to practise sorcery." A witch was not allowed to live. In 1 Samuel 15:23 the word is qesem, divination.

Samuel stripped the disobedience bare and revealed its true character as God saw it. "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness (that is, self-will) is as iniquity and idolatry." In his better days Saul recognised the evil of witchcraft and tried to suppress it (1 Samuel 28:3-9). No one seems to have set up a carved image during his reign. But now he is told that his self-will was the equivalent of both witchcraft and idolatry. Why? Because it displaced God for something else. A creature was challenging the supremacy of God.

For Saul, sacrifice is better than obedience. But, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams." Sacrifice without obedience — a solemn truth — is no better than idol worship. The first mark of faith is obedience.

Disobedience that springs from carelessness or indifference is bad. Disobedience that is sheer wilfulness is worse. Worst of all is disobedience that springs from wilfulness but then dresses itself up. It wears a cloak of pretended piety and zeal for the Lord's interests. That was what Saul was now guilty of, and that is why God met it so strongly and drastically through the lips of Samuel.

It is far better to have the will in subjection to God than to load His altar with the costliest sacrifices. When the will is in subjection, everything else falls into its right place. But for someone whose will is in rebellion against God to talk of sacrificing to Him is nothing but deadly delusion. God does not look at the size of the sacrifice, but at the spirit it springs from. What is more, everyone who talks about sacrificing to the Lord in Saul's spirit has an Agag of some sort hidden away, under some selfish aim. It may be the best of the sheep, or something else attractive to the flesh, which has more hold on them than the service or worship of God.

There is nothing vague now, no mixing him up with the people. The guilty king is convicted and singled out for the fresh sentence from the Lord: "Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king."

In earlier days at Gilgal the LORD had said to Saul through Samuel, "Your kingdom shall not continue." Now the final blow has been struck: "God has rejected you."

Amalek pictures "the lusts of the flesh" which war against our souls. God will not allow such things to be spared. It is important that we take sides with God against these desires. They dishonour God and harm our own souls. Saul won the victory over Amalek, but he spared their king, Agag, and the best of the livestock. If we spare our own sinful desires, we are in no condition to lead others.

No temptation is more subtle than this. Circumstances seem to call for action, but God has given no word, no sign of His will. Yet if we act without knowing God's will, we are certainly doing our own. And this is the essence of sin. Nothing in man is right except obedience.

Such a confession is good for nothing. "I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD." And who says it? A man who had just been boasting that he had done some great thing, and that the animals were kept to sacrifice to the LORD! Clearly there was no good conscience there. "I have sinned," he said when he was convicted, and not before.

The Spirit of God says "Saul and the people"; Saul says "the people" — and claims they spared the animals for God. But our excuses, even when true, only condemn us. Saul, having no faith and not looking to God, fears the people more than God. What a slave the unbeliever is! If he is not the slave of the enemy, he is the slave of the people he appears to govern.

No doubt it was true that the people wanted to take some of the spoil, and were able to influence Saul. But Saul had clearly heard the word of God. Perhaps the people had not heard this directly. But Saul was responsible to tell them plainly that God required the complete destruction of the animals as well as of the people.

The soul that is strong in rebellion against God may be pitifully weak toward man, and this is what Saul now shows. The fear of God destroys every other fear, and sets us free from the most degrading bondage. Saul admits — while trying to excuse himself in part by it — that he has put man in the place of God.

A king must rule, or step down. He must teach the people what is right, and also get the right thing done. Chasing votes will not do for God. "I feared the people," says Saul, "and obeyed their voice." The chief priests and elders feared the people in our Lord's day. All such persons, by their own admission, are completely unfit for the seat of power... "The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe."

When Jonathan ate the honey, we see the people standing up to the king and insisting on what was fitting and right. Now Saul complains to Samuel that they forced him to do what was disobedient and wrong. How deeply humiliating for an anointed king!

Many people in Scripture take the place of saying, "I have sinned." It is very striking that not all of them obtain cleansing. Look at David, Nehemiah, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Micah, the prodigal son, and the thief on the cross. These all took the place of sinners and all received cleansing or blessing. But look at Pharaoh, Balaam, Achan, Saul, Shimei, and Judas. These all confess they have sinned, yet they perish... There was no hatred of the sin. There was no desire to turn from it and give it up. There was no true repentance.

He thought to do the whole, if one may say so, on the first day. He sought to unload all the burden of his failure by the quickest possible confession. But no: such a confession is good for nothing... "I have sinned," he said when he was convicted, and not before. "For I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and your words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice." What a king! "Because I feared the people." He did not fear the Lord. Without this there is nothing right.

nasa, 'to lift up,' forgive.

He asks Samuel to pardon his sin, and turn again with him, so that he might worship the Lord. If there was repentance in this at all, it was very shallow. True repentance is willing to bear the just results of one's sins. The thief crucified with the Lord showed this: "we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds" (Luke 23:41). It seems Saul thought that simply admitting his sin would settle everything. Then he could go on worshipping the Lord as though nothing had happened.

Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned." But his confession is not made in the presence of God and His holiness. Neither is the working of his conscience and heart under sin. On the contrary, he gives himself away. His great desire is to stand well in the eyes of the people, and he would even make Samuel serve that end. He had already used the place and position God gave him as king for the same purpose.

We must not confuse Christian worship today with the worship of God in the past. Nor with the worship that will be on earth again in the future. The hour "is now here" when the true worshippers worship the Father, and those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and truth. (John 4) Only those who worship in this way can worship now. For that there must be divine life in the soul. This was not needed in the past... Saul worshipped the Lord. (1 Sam. 15:25, 31.)

Saul begs that Samuel will return with him, still to honour the Lord in sacrifice; but the prophet cannot compromise. The declaration of judgment had been final, and could not be taken back. Saul was a rejected man, and there must be no uncertainty about this. So the prophet turns away from the begging king, whatever his own feelings may have been. Saul takes hold of his garment to hold him back, and it tears. That pictures God tearing the kingdom of Israel from him to give it to another.

He confesses his sin, but he is not humbled and shows no sorrow. He still hopes to escape the consequences... There is always some excuse. Yet he is astonishingly quick to confess the evil he denied a few moments earlier. In all this there is no exercise of conscience. Saul would rather plead his cowardice before the people as an excuse than take full responsibility for the sin. What a contrast to the cry, "I have sinned against the Lord," out of David's mouth after his fall!

He confesses his sin, but without being humbled, without real sorrow, still hoping to avoid the consequences… Always some excuse, but an astonishing quickness to confess the evil he had denied a few moments earlier. In all this there is no exercise of conscience. Saul prefers to plead his cowardice before the people as something that lessens his guilt rather than take full responsibility for the sin. What a contrast to David's cry after his own fall: "I have sinned against the LORD"! Saul hopes in this way to obtain pardon and be restored. It is too late; the sentence is final, for God is God.

He sought to unload the whole burden of his failure by the quickest possible confession. But no: such a confession is good for nothing. "I have sinned; for I have transgressed the commandment of Jehovah." What, a man who had just been boasting about doing some great thing? And the animals were kept to sacrifice to Jehovah? Clearly there was no good conscience there. "I have sinned," he said when he was convicted, and not before… "Because I feared the people." He did not fear Jehovah. Without this there is nothing right.

He began by rejecting the word of the Lord, and the Lord rejected him. (1 Samuel 15:26.) What an unspeakably solemn lesson for every parent. The Word of the Lord claims authority over us, and we cannot reject it without consequences.

He as they rejected the Lord in rejecting the word, and therefore was himself rejected.

Here are the results that Saul's disobedience brought upon him: "Because you have rejected the word of Jehovah, He has also rejected you from being king" (v. 23). In times past at Gilgal, the Lord had said to him through Samuel: "Your kingdom shall not continue" (1 Sam. 13:14). Now the final blow has been struck: "God has rejected you."

Saul begs Samuel to return with him, still to honour the Lord in sacrifice. But the prophet cannot compromise. The declaration of judgment had been final, and could not be taken back. Saul was a rejected man, and there must be no uncertainty about this. So the prophet turns away from the begging king, whatever his own feelings may have been. Saul grabs his garment to hold him back, and it tears — serving only as a picture that God has torn the kingdom of Israel from him, and will give it to another, a man who answers to the thought of God.

He returns to his home. He never stops mourning for the man he loved, but out of faithfulness he never enters his presence again. What a sad and solemn parting! The man who stands for the word of God must part company from one who had proved himself completely unworthy of the trust placed in him.

It was then that God "gave them a king in His anger"; and we know what happened to the king of their choice. The judgment is pronounced… Israel has failed under king, prophet, and priest. They are ruined under the king whom they had chosen.

So Samuel told him, "I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel." That sentence would not change. Saul had to bow to it. As Samuel turned to leave, however, Saul took hold of the skirt of Samuel's robe, tearing it. Clearly Saul was afraid that Samuel's disapproval would discredit him in the eyes of the people.

Even now he pleads with Samuel to turn back with him, so that he may worship Jehovah. The fear of the people is still upon him. Samuel refuses, and repeats the judgment he has just pronounced. Saul lays hold of the skirt of his robe, and the garment tears. Samuel uses this to show and confirm that Jehovah has torn the kingdom from him in the same way, to give it into the hand of one better than himself.

The declaration of judgment had been final, and nothing could take it back. Saul was a rejected man, and there must be no uncertainty about this. The prophet turns away from the pleading king, whatever his own feelings may have been… God does not speak lightly here. At the very start of Israel's history as a kingdom He had to stamp His judgment on that principle of confidence in the excellence of human nature, and it stands as a lesson for all time.

He cares little what Samuel, or even God, may think of him. He only wants to be honoured before the elders and the people, and so to keep some appearance of authority and approval from the prophet, their former judge and leader — the man he seems to have feared more than God Himself. Before the crowd he would still count as a religious man, one of the worshippers of Jehovah.

He confesses his sin, but without humbling himself, without contrition. He is still hoping to avoid the consequences… Always some excuse, but an astonishing quickness to confess the evil he had denied a few moments earlier. In all this there is no exercise of conscience. Saul pleads his cowardice before the people to soften the case, instead of taking full responsibility for the sin.

Saul's sorrow was no more godly than Esau's. Both felt for themselves, as both afterwards hated the man of God's choice. What could the persistence of either bring out but the sentence of their loss?

He insisted that the Hope of Israel, the eternal God, would not lie, nor change His mind about passing this solemn sentence. He was not like a mere man, ready to change His mind. Samuel would allow Saul no false impression about this.

He had already heard this twice from Samuel's mouth (1 Sam. 13:14; 1 Sam. 15:28), but David's name had not yet been mentioned. Now he learns from the mouth of God what his hatred had long suspected. His "neighbour" was this despised, hated, rejected David, the man he had hunted himself.

There was much that was affecting — deeply affecting to the heart — in the sad fall of this unhappy man. He had once drawn from Israel the shout of "God save the king"… and now all this was gone; Saul was rejected, and Samuel felt compelled to take a position of complete separation from him as one whom God had set aside.

Saul begs that Samuel will return with him, still to honour the Lord in sacrifice; but the prophet cannot compromise. The declaration of judgment had been final, and could not be retracted. Saul was a rejected man, and there must be no uncertainty about this. So the prophet, whatever his personal feelings may have been, turns away from the pleading king. Saul takes hold of his garment to hold him back, and it tears. That tear is only an illustration: God has torn the kingdom of Israel from him, and will give it to another — a man who will answer to the thought of God.

A test came in the matter of the Amalekites. God's command was their complete destruction, but Saul thought otherwise. Would he allow God's will to displace his own will? He would not. Though to obey is better than sacrifice, he committed himself to disobedience. As a result God rejected him as king, in favour of David.

Samuel, however, uses this occasion to press on Saul the truth he had already told him. The Lord had torn the kingdom of Israel from him and had given it to one better than he. He insisted that the Hope of Israel, the eternal God, would not lie, nor go back on this solemn sentence. He was not, like a mere man, inclined to change His mind.

David is twice referred to in Samuel's addresses to Saul when declaring to him his sin and his resulting rejection by the Lord. He says to him, on the first occasion, "Your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought out a man after his own heart, and the LORD has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you" (1 Sam. 13:14). That description of David was God's own verdict on him, and He gives it twice in Scripture (see Acts 13:22). In the mention of him the second time by Samuel he is described as in contrast with Saul.

But yet another decision is announced to Saul, and this for the third time: "The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David" (1 Sam. 28:17). He had already heard this twice from Samuel's mouth (1 Sam. 13:14; 1 Sam. 15:28), but David's name had not yet been mentioned. Today he learns from the mouth of God what his hatred had long suspected. His "neighbour" was this despised, hated, rejected David — the man he himself had pursued.

The close of this chapter shows all too clearly which way Saul's thoughts and desires were flowing. He had just heard the solemn appeal of Samuel, and God's sentence against him, ending with these solemn words… These stunning words had just fallen on his ear. But he was so full of self that he could say, "Yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel."

It is right that Israel should have a king. But only one King has any title to this place. He came once and was rejected. He will come again in power and glory and claim His right to the throne. Saul provides a dark background against which the glory of the true King shines all the more brightly by contrast. Saul is an example of mere man in the flesh. He wanted and clung to a place of authority and rule he could not fill, and he had to be put out of it.

Saul hopes in this way to be pardoned and restored. It is too late; the sentence is conclusive, for God is God, and "the Hope of Israel will not lie nor repent."

He insisted that the Hope of Israel, the eternal God, would not lie. He would not change His mind about passing this solemn sentence. He was not like a mere man, inclined to change His mind. Samuel would allow Saul no false impression about this matter.

Nor will the One in whom Israel trusts change His mind: for He is not like the one whom Saul has preferred before Him.

It does not mean a change of mind on God's part, but a change of action caused by a change of mind on man's part. God sends warnings to man, so that man may change his mind and repent. Then God may change His action from judgment to mercy. God has not changed His mind. God's mind has always been toward mercy… But man's sin must bring down the righteous judgment of God, though He is slow to anger.

It is deeply solemn to notice that Samuel uses language about the rejection of Saul like the language Balaam used about the blessing of Israel. Balaam said, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind" (Numbers 23:19). The blessing of Israel was therefore assured, whatever the enemy might do or say, or whatever unfaithfulness might show itself in the people themselves… So God's rejection of Saul was as irreversible as the blessing of the nation. Once God has pledged His word, He never goes back on it. This blessed fact is the true resting place of faith in all ages.

But the unconditional promises of God, as made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are not subject to repentance. "The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). "Has he said, and will he not do it?" (Numbers 23:19)… And this must hold good for every purpose of His will.

It is a very easy thing to say, "We have sinned." Saul said it in his day; but he said it without heart, without any genuine sense of what he was saying. The worth of the words "I have sinned" is easy to weigh. Saul said next, "Honour me now, before the elders of my people." What a strange contradiction! "I have sinned," yet "Honour me." If he had really felt his sin, how different his language would have been!

The truly contrite heart is willing to take the lowest possible place before God. Honour from other people cannot even enter the mind of someone who truly feels his sin. No one could think worse of him at such a time than he thinks of himself. David in Psalm 51, after another prophet rebuked him, stands in a great and instructive contrast to Saul here.

Everything was at stake with him for time and eternity. His only hope was to take his true place as guilty, self-ruined and helpless, and to seek mercy from the Lord. Instead, he thought only of his position in the world. Oh, this fatal craving for the praise of men! It has ruined many souls for eternity! (John 5:44.)

Saul repeats his confession, "I have sinned." He sees that he will lose his kingdom to another in time. Yet for the present he urges Samuel, "honour me NOW before the elders of my people, and turn again with me that I may worship the Lord." Many since Saul have taken little to heart what God's word says about the future, because they are more concerned for present honour! Saul would hold on to his public position just as long as the Lord would allow him to. This of course is not true repentance in the eyes of God. Honest repentance would have made him willing to step down at once. Had he done so, he might have saved himself the pain of a sad public history.

He cares little what Samuel, or even God, may think of him. He only wants the elders and the people to honour him. Then he can carry on with a show of authority and approval from their former judge and leader, the prophet — a man he seems to have feared more than God Himself. He still wanted the crowd to count him as a religious man, and to number him among the worshippers of the Lord.

Only picture a man full of himself, using a form of words without one atom of real heart feeling; and then, to get honour for himself, going through the empty formality of worshipping God. How offensive that is to Him, who desires truth in the inward parts, and who looks for worshippers who worship Him in spirit and in truth!

It is worth noticing that twice he speaks to Samuel of "the LORD your God" (vv. 21, 30). All sense of relationship to God, and of having to do with Him for himself, seems to have left him. Unhappy man!

To the end he has himself and his own reputation in view. Samuel does in fact honour him, but then leaves him. As long as God has not carried out His sentence on the powers He Himself established, we are to acknowledge them.

This touches him in a tender spot — the loss of his kingdom, and again he tries the subterfuge of a heartless confession: "I have sinned!"... He cares little for what Samuel, or even God, may think of him, so long as the elders and the people honour him. That way he keeps some appearance of authority and approval from their former judge and leader, the prophet — a man he seems to have feared more than God Himself. The crowd would still count him as a religious man, and number him among the worshippers of the LORD.

Many since Saul have taken little to heart what God says about the future because they are more concerned about present honour! Saul would hold on to his public position as long as the Lord would allow him to. This of course is not true repentance in the eyes of God. Honest repentance would have made him willing to step down at once. Had he done so, he might have spared himself the pain of a sad public history.

The truth is that Samuel had stepped in and created an uncomfortable position, and Saul wanted to end it fast... It is worth noticing that twice he speaks to Samuel of "the LORD your God" (vv. 21, 30). All sense of relationship to God, and of having to do with Him for himself, seems to have left him. Unhappy man!

Samuel agrees to this, since God had His own ways of working out His purposes. There was no need to strip Saul of his office at once. His own conduct will show that he is unfit for his position. So it could be no compromise for Samuel to return and worship with the king. It is, however, the last time he has any dealings with Saul. He returns to his home, always mourning for the man he loved. Yet in faithfulness he never enters his presence again.

God passed the sentence of death on Adam, yet let him live on for years. In the same way, Saul forfeited his right to reign, but God did not carry out the sentence until later.

God has rejected him from his office, yet he clings to the thought of human honour. It seems that as long as he could keep his place in his people's opinion, he cared very little what God thought of him. But God rejected him, and the kingdom was torn from him. It did not help him much that Samuel turned back and stood by, while Saul went through the form of worshipping the Lord to keep his place and influence among his people.

As God's earthly people they were to acknowledge Him, and when they did, God at times held back His hand of discipline... People worshipped God as the Creator and as the LORD before the cross, and they will worship Him that way again. So in the past, unconverted people could worship Him. Saul worshipped the LORD (1 Sam. 15:31).

Agag was the title of the kings of Amalek, probably a general title, as was the title of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. … Amalek descended from Esau, through Eliphaz.

Let none doubt that this was right. It is God's great governing principle that "whatever one sows, that will he also reap," and Agag's cruel sword had filled many a mother's heart with grief. His own turn had now come in the justice of God. He felt his position so lightly, and was so completely unrepentant of his awful crimes, that he came to Samuel in a cheerful mood. "Gaily" is the word used by Darby, "cheerfully" by the Revised Version in its margin.

He came delicately — "in a grand manner, to show that he was a king who should be treated with respect, or in a soft manner, like a man never used to hardship … to move compassion," says Matthew Henry. Or, as the Greek version reads, "he came trembling." He had good reason to tremble before such a champion for carrying out God's word.

So the ungodly sometimes cling to their supposed rank, even to the end. They fool themselves right up to the hour when they walk into the presence of Him who "shows no partiality." "Surely the bitterness of death is past," he says. Does he still hope for mercy from the meek and gentle Samuel? Vain hope! The one who can turn in grace to poor Saul can also strike in judgment the enemy of God and Israel.

He thought he might make some exceptions. It was as if the line between what was "refuse" and what was "good" were his to draw, and not God's. But God's judgement never errs. He looked at Amalek from a true point of view, and He saw in Agag a man who, for all his delicacy, would resist Israel as strongly as ever.

Agag's delicacy could not deceive a man taught by God. How remarkable to find him cutting Agag in pieces at Gilgal! Gilgal was the place where God rolled away the reproach of Egypt from Israel. As we trace their history, we find Gilgal linked with much power over evil.

It was according to His law not to spare the deadly enemies of Israel. Had He not sworn to war with Amalek from generation to generation? Samuel had not forgotten this, even if Saul had.

Where is the unsparing hand that, like Samuel, cuts Agag in pieces, however delicately he comes? Where is the hand that takes God's side in judging sin in the flesh, and accepts the sentence of death in ourselves, so that we trust not in ourselves but in God who raises the dead?

The execution of the Amalekite king closes this solemn chapter. Let no one doubt that this was right. It is God's great governmental principle that "whatever one sows, that will he also reap" (Gal. 6:7), and Agag's cruel sword had filled many a mother's heart with grief. His own turn had now come in the justice of God. He felt his position so lightly, and was so completely unrepentant of his crimes, that he came up to Samuel in high spirits. But "Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the LORD in Gilgal," for God is light as well as love. Another pagan king admitted that what happened to him was fair. His captors cut off his thumbs and big toes, and he had done the same to as many as seventy kings (Judges 1:6-7).

Samuel the prophet does what Saul the king had failed to do. To unbelief, and to minds not subject to the Word of God, Saul's leniency with Agag looks like a credit to him rather than a fault. To such people, Samuel's action seems harsh and unfeeling. But faith does not judge that way. The believer does not question the justice or the fitness of executing this man. He murdered others, and he represented the race against which the LORD had sworn He would have war forever.

Agag's refinement could not deceive a man taught by God. How striking to find him hewing Agag in pieces at Gilgal! Gilgal was the place where the reproach of Egypt was rolled away from Israel. As we trace Israel's history, we find Gilgal linked with much power over evil. It was here, then, that this Amalekite met his end at the hand of righteous Samuel.

When the soul knows its full deliverance from Egypt, through the power of death and resurrection, it is in the best position to win victory over evil. Had Saul known anything of the spirit and principle of Gilgal, he would not have spared Agag. He was ready enough to go there to "renew the kingdom," but by no means ready to crush and set aside everything that had the character of the flesh.

Of course Agag the king was the worst of all Amalek, the figurehead of all its opposition to God. His name means "I will overtop." This stands for the pride of being who I am, which lies at the base of all the evil of the lusts of the flesh. If this root is not judged, and only some of the details of lustful things are dealt with, then the evil is not rightly judged at all.

With us, too, there must be the unsparing judgment of what God has condemned. Faith must firmly use "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." It must cut down the finest and most royal forms of the flesh. They are so often spared for that very reason. The Sauls of every generation fail here. The powers that be may to some degree destroy what is vile and worthless. But they do not judge as God judges. Only the prophet's hand can wield the sword upon Agag.

Samuel was a very different person from Saul. When Agag the king of Amalek was brought before him, he cut him "to pieces before the LORD in Gilgal" (verses 32, 33). Here is a solemn thought. God carried out His judgment on Saul, and the king who had spared Agag the king of Amalek died at the hand of an Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:7-10).