And Samuel said to Saul, Jehovah sent *me* to anoint thee king over his people, over Israel now therefore hearken to the voice of the words of Jehovah.
Samuel comes to Saul as the man who once anointed him king. He points back to who gave Saul the throne, and then asks for one thing: a hearing for God's words.
Samuel does not begin with the mission. He begins with the credentials of the one giving it, and with his own place as the messenger who put the oil on Saul's head.
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.
The throne was never Saul's own property. One writer notes that the same voice which set him up is now speaking again, and it is speaking about a debt older than the monarchy.
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.
Saul had already failed before this chapter. Instead of dropping him, God gives him another task.
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's path ran the opposite way round from David's. He received the position first and had to show afterwards that he was fit for it.
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.
A king in Israel ruled on behalf of a greater King. That made the test simple. It also made it light: the man on the throne carried no burden about how things turned out.
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?
The command that follows is not bare. God gives His reason, so Saul can share His mind instead of just taking orders.
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.
Nothing new was decided in this chapter. The verdict on Amalek had stood since the wilderness; only the timing was outstanding.
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.
Samuel's message adds a detail the account in Exodus leaves out. One writer builds on an older translation of verse 2, which says Amalek "laid wait" for Israel — that is, he attacked from ambush.
One writer takes Amalek as a picture of the flesh, and ends with what a Christian is to do about it day by day.
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.
- Sent. Samuel traces Saul's crown back to God's commission. The one who gave the throne keeps the right to give orders.
- Listen. Saul represented a heavenly King, so obedience was his whole job. It also left him free of every worry about consequences.
- Remembered. God had not forgotten an ambush from generations back. Delay in judgment leaves room for mercy; it is not forgetfulness.
- Explained. God gave His reason for the command, so Saul could act in fellowship with Him, not in blind compliance.
- Unsparing. Amalek pictures the flesh. God makes no terms with it, and neither should we — day by day.
Thus saith Jehovah of hosts I have considered what Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
God's order to Saul begins with memory, not strategy. He reaches back to a crime committed when Israel first came up out of Egypt, and settles the account now. Two questions follow. Why did God wait so long? And why did He count the crime so grave?
This verse does not announce a new decision. It sets the moment for a verdict passed in the days of Moses.
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.
Older translations read "opposing them on the way" as "he laid wait for him." Exodus 17 never tells us that. Amalek planned the attack, and it fell on those least able to defend themselves.
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.
Amalek picked his moment while God's care for Israel was on open display.
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 does not just issue an order. He gives His reason, and the long delay behind it was never forgetfulness.
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.
The command sounds harsh to modern ears. Yet the same God gives His people today the opposite orders.
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).
The order did more than settle an old score. It tested the king sent to carry it out.
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.
- Remembered. God had noted Amalek's crime long before; this verse names the hour of a verdict already passed, not a new one.
- Recorded. The crime was an ambush on the faint and lagging, made in sight of God's glory. God made His people's cause His own, so the insult reached His throne.
- Reprieved. The long delay was mercy, not forgetfulness. Unrepented debt only gathered interest.
- Reversed. The same Lawgiver once armed Israel with the sword. Now He sends His redeemed as ministers of mercy, told to love their enemies.
- Revealed. The errand tested Saul's heart, and he had too much in common with Amalek to finish it.
Now go and smite Amalek, and destroy utterly all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
God's order to Saul is one of the hardest in the Old Testament. A whole people is marked for destruction, down to the infants and the livestock. Two questions press on the reader. What could justify such an order? And why did Israel's first king lose his throne for softening it?
The command was not a sudden impulse. What Samuel brought was the timing.
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 verse before names Amalek's crime.
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.
Readers stumble at "Do not spare them." Commentators meet that objection head-on.
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?
One writer answers the hardest part of the order — the children:
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.
God does not only give the order. He explains it.
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.
Everything about Saul's last test was easy except the one thing that mattered.
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.
His ruin came from the same place: "Saul lost his kingdom and the LORD rejected him. It was not because sparing Agag and the best of the spoil was a mistaken policy, but because he disobeyed an express command" (The Bible Treasury).
Some read this verse as a licence for violence. The same God now speaks to His people in another way.
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.
Writers also read Amalek as a picture of the sinful nature in a believer.
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.
- Remembered. God had not forgotten Amalek's attack on the weak and weary. The sentence stood from Exodus and waited only for the right moment.
- Righteous. God is light as well as love. One writer compares the destruction to a surgeon cutting out a cancer; another calls the children's death kinder than a life grown up hating God.
- Explained. God explained His reason so Saul could share His mind, not just follow orders.
- Tested. Nothing stood in the way of obedience. The resources were ample and the victory easy. The temptation came from inside Saul's own heart.
- Spared. What Saul spared cost him the kingdom. The lesson carried forward is not war on people but unsparing hostility to the flesh. God now tells us to love our enemies.
And Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
At Telaim, Saul gathers his army to carry out God's order to destroy Amalek. The force is huge. That raises the question the rest of the chapter answers: if Saul had all he needed to obey, why did he spare what God told him to destroy?
Telaim is the place of the muster, and a dictionary entry gives all that is known of it:
Place where Saul numbered his army. 1 Sam. 15:4. Not identified.
Saul did not call this muster on his own. The word came through Samuel, and one writer draws a rule from the size of the response:
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.
The order Saul was carrying out reached back to Israel's journey out of Egypt. Older translations say Amalek "laid wait" for Israel — that is, he lay in ambush — and one writer builds on that word:
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."
Readers have long objected to the severity of such a command. One writer meets the objection head-on with an image from the operating table:
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?
One writer applies Amalek to the Christian, and to daily life:
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.
The office Saul held carries its own demand. One writer measures a king's place against the One it pictures:
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.
The count at Telaim rules out any plea that Saul was outmatched. Note also which tribes supplied the men:
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.
So the failure that followed was not forced on him:
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.
This campaign was a fresh chance for a king already under sentence:
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.
- Command — The muster at Telaim answers a word sent through Samuel. It settles an old account: Amalek ambushed Israel's weakest and did not fear God.
- Supply — Two hundred and ten thousand men show that when God commands, He opens the way to obey.
- Sentence — God is light as well as love; the evil was a moral ulcer, and a surgeon's knife spares no part of a cancer.
- Symbol — Amalek pictures the flesh. God makes no terms with it, so be unsparing with all its workings, day by day.
- Sparing — The power was ample and the victory complete. So what Saul kept back was deliberate desire, not weakness. However often God tries the flesh, it fails.
And Saul came to the city of the Amalekites, and set an ambush in the valley.
Through Samuel, God has just ordered Saul to strike Amalek and destroy everything they own. Verse 5 opens the campaign, and it raises the question the rest of the chapter answers: will a king who starts so well finish the work God gave him?
Saul had already failed once, and a sentence hung over him. This campaign was a fresh opening.
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's tactic in the valley repeats something Amalek once did to Israel.
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.
The same judgment carried a mercy. One writer sees God's memory running both ways.
If God would utterly destroy those who lay in wait, surely He would remember the Kenites who showed them kindness.
Saul reached the city with no shortage of men, and that was no accident.
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.
Note that older translations read "a city of Amalek" where the ESV has "the city of Amalek."
Many readers stall at the harshness of the command Saul is carrying out here.
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?
Commentators read Amalek as a picture of something every believer still carries.
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).
The ambush works, and Saul sweeps nearly all of Amalek's land. That settles what kind of failure follows.
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.
The deeper problem was not tactical.
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.
- Command. Amalek ambushed Israel on the road from Egypt; Saul now lies in wait in the valley, and God repays Amalek in kind.
- Capacity. The army and the open road were God's provision — when He gives a command, He opens the way to obey it.
- Cause. The severity is not cruelty: God is light as well as love, and a surgeon's knife spares nothing of the cancer.
- Correspondence. Amalek pictures the flesh, and with the flesh God makes no terms — only unsparing judgment, day by day.
- Collapse. Saul had full power and a complete victory. Sparing Agag was a choice, not a necessity: the man sent against Amalek was an Amalekite at heart.
And Saul said to the Kenites, Go, depart, and go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them; for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt. And the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
Saul's first act in the campaign against Amalek is not a blow but a warning. Before the sword falls, Saul tells a whole people living inside the doomed territory to move. The reason reaches back generations, to a kindness shown when Israel came out of Egypt.
The Kenites were not Israelites. Their tie to Israel ran through Moses' own family. One account traces them from Moses' father-in-law down to the warning in this verse:
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).
The same memory that condemns Amalek saves the Kenites. Both turn on how each people treated Israel on the road out of Egypt. One writer sets Saul's warning beside Abraham's plea for Sodom:
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?"
God still remembered that old kindness generations later. One writer applies the same principle to the smallest service, long forgotten by the one who did it:
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).
Being friends of Israel did not make the Kenites safe where they were. Their position, not their past, was the problem:
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.
The Kenites had to get clear because nothing of Amalek could remain. The reason reaches past one nation's history to the sinful nature in every person, and to what God has already done about it:
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).
This verse shows Saul at his best — careful, obedient, even merciful. One writer weighs what that beginning was worth without a finish:
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.
- Kindness banked. God remembered the Kenites' help to Israel generations later. He is not unjust so as to overlook work done in love.
- Mercy inside judgment. One memory dooms Amalek and spares the Kenites. The Judge of all the earth does not treat the righteous as the wicked.
- Position matters. Friendship with God's people did not protect the Kenites while they lived among Amalek. Those tied to the condemned share the judgment.
- A warning before the sword. Saul waits and gives them the chance to get clear — judgment announced in advance is itself mercy.
- No terms with Amalek. Amalek pictures the flesh, so nothing could stand. Saul spared what God condemned, and a fine start ended in failure.
And Saul smote Amalek from Havilah as thou comest to Shur, which is opposite to Egypt.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And he took Agag the king of Amalek alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
Saul wins the battle and destroys the Amalekite army. But one man walks out alive: the enemy king. The rest of the chapter turns on that one exception.
Saul's campaign was successful by any military measure. Commentators are careful about where the fault actually lies:
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.
Nothing suggests Saul ran out of strength or met stiff resistance.
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 wanted Agag alive is not stated. One suggestion is that Saul meant to display him:
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 everything in Amalek, Agag was the last thing to keep. His name carries its own meaning:
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.
"Agag" was probably a title as well as a personal name. One reference work notes that it "was the common title of the kings of the Amalekites, as Pharaoh was that of the Egyptians" (Morrish Bible Dictionary).
Commentators read Amalek as a picture of the sinful nature in us:
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.
Saul kept what looked good and destroyed what looked worthless. That instinct is easy to copy:
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.
Another writer points to who should have drawn that line:
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.
The man Saul left alive did not stay alive long — but the sparing outlived Saul.
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.
Generations later the same line appears again. In Persia, the man who tried to wipe out the Jews was Haman the Agagite, whom King Ahasuerus promoted above all the princes (Leslie M. Grant).
- Sentence — Amalek attacked Israel when they were faint and weary. God's judgment on that nation was righteous, and Israel was appointed to carry it out.
- Spared — Saul destroyed the people but kept the king alive. He had the power to finish and chose not to.
- Root — Agag's name means "I will overtop." Cut the details and leave the root, and the evil stands unjudged.
- Best — Saul kept what looked good to him. He drew the line by his own judgement, not God's.
- Cost — Samuel finished what Saul left, Saul fell at an Amalekite's hand, and Agag's line rose again in Haman.
And Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and oxen, and beasts of the second bearing, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not devote them to destruction; but everything that was mean and weak, that they destroyed utterly.
God commanded Saul to destroy Amalek completely. Verse 9 records what Saul did instead. He wiped out the worthless and kept the valuable. So the real question is not whether Saul won the battle. It is who decided where the line between "destroy" and "spare" should fall.
Saul had every advantage. He gathered the army, and God handed Amalek over. Then the verse turns.
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."
Nothing in the story suggests Saul ran out of strength. Sheep and oxen do not fight back.
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.
Saul kept the command where he agreed with it. He moved the boundary himself.
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.
Agag was not an incidental survivor. He was the head of the thing God had condemned.
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.
Saul's pattern is easy to repeat. People condemn the coarse forms of evil and keep the presentable ones — even offering them to God.
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.
The verse names Saul first. When Samuel confronted him, Saul named only the people.
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.
Commentators are careful about the reason Saul lost the throne.
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.
- Command. God said destroy all; Saul destroyed only what he did not want. The "but" of verse 9 is the whole story.
- Choice. No enemy resisted him. Sparing Agag and the flocks was a deliberate purpose, not a failed effort.
- Line. Saul kept the command where he agreed with it. He drew the line between "good" and "worthless" by his own judgement, not God's.
- Root. Agag's name means "I will overtop." He was the head of the evil. Judging details while sparing the root is not judging the evil at all.
- Cost. Saul lost the throne for disobedience to a plain command, not for bad policy. Then he blamed the people he had led.