1 samuel 15 commentary

1 SAMUEL 15 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Lord Rejects Saul as King
1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent
to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen
now to the message from the Lord.
CLARKE, "The Lord sent me to anoint thee - This gave him a right to say what
immediately follows.
GILL, "Samuel also said unto Saul,.... When and where he said to him what
follows, it is not easy to determine, perhaps at Gilgal, where they after met again:
the Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel; that is,
he gave him orders to anoint him king of Israel, otherwise Saul was in providence sent to
Samuel to be anointed, and not Samuel to Saul:
now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord; for so
great a favour, and such high honour he had conferred on him, laid him under great
obligation to obey the commands of the Lord; and whereas he had been deficient in one
instance before, for which he had been reproved, he suggests, that now he should take
care to observe and do, particularly and punctually, what should be enjoined him.
HENRY, "1-3, "Here, I. Samuel, in God's name, solemnly requires Saul to be
obedient to the command of God, and plainly intimates that he was now about to put
him upon a trial, in one particular instance, whether he would be obedient or no, 1Sa_
15:1. And the making of this so expressly the trial of his obedience did very much
aggravate his disobedience. 1. He reminds him of what God had done for him: “The Lord
sent me to anoint thee to be a king. God gave thee thy power, and therefore he expects
thou shouldst use thy power for him. He put honour upon thee, and now thou must
study how to do him honour. He made thee king over Israel, and now thou must plead
Israel's cause and avenge their quarrels. Thou art advanced to command Israel, but
know that thou art a subject to the God of Israel and must be commanded by him.”
Men's preferment, instead of releasing them from their obedience to God, obliges them
so much the more to it. Samuel had himself been employed to anoint Saul, and therefore
was the fitter to be send with these orders to him. 2. He tells him, in general, that, in
1

consideration of this, whatever God commanded him to do he was bound to do it: Now
therefore hearken to the voice of the Lord. Note, God's favours to us lay strong
obligations upon us to be obedient to him. This we must render, Psa_116:12.
II. He appoints him a particular piece of service, in which he must now show his
obedience to God more than in any thing he had done yet. Samuel premises God's
authority to the command: Thus says the Lord of hosts, the Lord of all hosts, of Israel's
hosts. He also gives him a reason for the command, that the severity he must use might
not seem hard: I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, 1Sa_15:2. God had an
ancient quarrel with the Amalekites, for the injuries they did to his people Israel when he
brought them out of Egypt. We have the story, Exo_17:8, etc., and the crime is
aggravated, Deu_25:18. He basely smote the hindmost of them, and feared not God. God
then swore that he would have war with Amalek from generation to generation, and
that in process of time he would utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek; this is the
work that Saul is now appointed to do (1Sa_15:3): “Go and smite Amalek. Israel is now
strong, and the measure of the iniquity of Amalek is now full; now go and make a full
riddance of that devoted nation.” He is expressly commanded to kill and slay all before
him, man and woman, infant and suckling, and not spare them out of pity; also ox and
sheep, camel and ass, and not spare them out of covetousness. Note, 1. Injuries done to
God's Israel will certainly be reckoned for sooner or later, especially the opposition given
them when they are coming out of Egypt. 2. God often bears long with those that are
marked for ruin. The sentence passed is not executed speedily. 3. Though he bear long,
he will not bear always. The year of recompence for the controversy of Israel will come at
last. Though divine justice strikes slowly it strikes surely. 4. The longer judgment is
delayed many times the more severe it is when it comes. 5. God chooses out instruments
to do his work that are fittest for it. This was bloody work, and therefore Saul who was a
rough and severe man must do it.
JAMISON, "1Sa_15:1-6. Saul sent to destroy Amalek.
Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee ...: now
therefore hearken thou unto ... the Lord — Several years had been passed in
successful military operations against troublesome neighbors. During these Saul had
been left to act in a great measure at his own discretion as an independent prince. Now a
second test is proposed of his possessing the character of a theocratic monarch in Israel;
and in announcing the duty required of him, Samuel brought before him his official
station as the Lord’s vicegerent, and the peculiar obligation under which he was laid to
act in that capacity. He had formerly done wrong, for which a severe rebuke and
threatening were administered to him (1Sa_13:13, 1Sa_13:14). Now an opportunity was
afforded him of retrieving that error by an exact obedience to the divine command.
BENSON, "Verse 1-2
1 Samuel 15:1-2. Hearken thou unto the voice of the Lord — Thou hast erred
already; now regain God’s favour by thy exact obedience to what he commands.
Thus saith the Lord, I remember, &c. — Now I will avenge those old injuries of the
Amalekites on their children, who continue in their parents’ practices. God here
refers to that most notorious instance of cruelty, inhumanity, and impiety, their
invading and destroying, as far as in them lay, by treachery and surprise, and that
uninjured and unprovoked, the people of Israel, when they were coming out of
Egypt, and were manifestly under the immediate and miraculous protection of
2

Almighty God. “This was a sin,” says Dr. Delaney, “at once so inhuman and so
atheistical, as perhaps cannot be paralleled in any one instance from the foundation
of the world, and therefore it is no wonder if this flagrant act of villany and impiety
produced that dreadful decree against them, recorded Exodus 17:14, I will utterly
put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven: and again, 1 Samuel 15:16,
The Lord hath sworn that he will have war with Amalek, from generation to
generation. To reconcile this severe decree with the principles of justice, and God’s
own declaration, (Ezekiel 18.,) of his limiting the vengeance of guilt to the person of
the offender, we need only to reflect upon one plain observation, with which every
day’s experience sufficiently furnishes us, that nothing is more common than for
children to be unrepentant, and, it may be, improved and inveterate in the sins of
their ancestors: and that nothing is more easy to the divine prescience than to
foresee this, and to pronounce upon it. And that this was the case of the Amalekites,
sufficiently appears from their history. For, as their fathers attempted upon the
Israelites, when under the manifest protection of God, their sons continued to do the
same upon every occasion, though the same protection became every day more and
more conspicuous by many and repeated instances.” When he came out of Egypt —
When he was newly come out of cruel and long bondage, and was now weak, and
weary, and faint, and hungry, Deuteronomy 25:18; and therefore it was barbarous,
instead of that pity which even nature prompted them to afford, to add affliction to
the afflicted; it was also horrid impiety to fight against God himself, and to lift up
their hand in a manner, against the Lord’s throne, while they struck at that people
which God had brought forth in so stupendous a way.
COFFMAN, "Verse 1
SAUL FAILS HIS FINAL TEST
This episode is not a variable account of Saul's rejection in 13:8ff. Yes, it is true that
God warned Saul at that time of the loss of his dynasty; but the Bible abundantly
bears out the opinion of R. P. Smith that, "God never finally rejects a man until,
after repeated opportunities for repentance, he finally proves himself obdurate."[1]
The passage which proves that God thus deals with men is Jeremiah 18:7-10. In this
light, therefore, we reject as totally inaccurate the notion that, "This chapter
contains a second version of the reason for Saul's rejection as king."[2] All of the
talk of critical commentators about `different sources' and `contradictory accounts'
are of no value except in their indication of such writers' ignorance of the Word of
God.
Willis' remarkably discerning understanding of this chapter is evident in his
statement that, "Both of the accounts in 1 Samuel 15:13 and here record two
different historical events."[3] Furthermore, as also noted by Willis, "God did not
reject Saul for a single isolated act of disobedience, but because Saul repeatedly
disobeyed him and took matters into his own hands."[4]
The fact is that all three chapters (1 Samuel 13; 1 Samuel 14; and 1 Samuel 15)
3

record successive instances of Saul's taking matters into his own hands and
rejecting any restraint whatever upon his actions by what was obviously the will of
God. Again, referring to Jeremiah 18:7-10, no believer will find any fault whatever
with what is written in these chapters.
GOD COMMANDS SAUL TO DESTROY THE AMALEKITES
"And Samuel said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people
Israel; now therefore hearken unto the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of
hosts, `I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when
they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox
and sheep, camel and ass.'"
"Therefore hearken to the words of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts ..." (1
Samuel 15:1-2). In this passage, Samuel took every precaution to make it certain
that Saul understood that his instructions were not those of the prophet, but were
the commandments of God; and there was no reason whatever, why Saul should
have failed to believe what Samuel said. The things which Samuel had previously
said to Saul had all come true; and any person in his right mind would have had no
reason to doubt that what Samuel identified to Saul as God's commandments, were
indeed just that.
"Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy ..." (1 Samuel 15:3). The Amalekites
were the first pagan nation to attack the Jews following their deliverance from
Egypt; "And God at that time threatened them with extermination as a consequence
(Exodus 17:8-16)."[5] Centuries had elapsed since then. "God often bears long with
those who are marked for ruin, but he will not bear always."[6] So it proved to be in
the case of the Amalekites. "God had sworn that in the process of time, he would
utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek. This was bloody work; and Saul was
chosen to do it."[7] As we shall see, Saul did not do as he was commanded.
Some writers try to defend Saul's disobedience, and even commend what they call
his humanitarian considerations in sparing Agag, and perhaps a great many others.
However, the ban, the [~cherem], the total destruction of a city, or a people, was
widely practiced in those times. Besides, it was God's command here.
"An example of this is recorded on the Moabite Stone (lines 14ff), dating from the
9th century B.C.: "And Chemosh said to me, `Go take Nebo from Israel'! So I went
by night and fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, taking it and
slaying all, seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servants, for I had
devoted them to destruction for (the god) Ashtar-Chemosh".[8]
Anything "devoted" was to be destroyed utterly and could not be used personally
by the victors. This custom, practiced by all nations was well known to Saul.
Furthermore, his savage murder of the entire priesthood at Nob indicates that there
was not a single humanitarian thread in Saul's character.
4

HAWKER, "Verse 1
CONTENTS
The sacred historian is prosecuting the account of Saul's reign, in this chapter.
Every part of his government seems to be with a view to aggrandize himself, and to
show his disregard to the Lord. We have here, the relation of a commission the Lord
sent him upon, to destroy the Amalekites: his partial obedience to that commission:
the Lord's displeasure upon the occasion, and his rejection of Saul from being king,
communicated to him by Samuel. The zealous prophet, in his warmth for God's
glory, doth that which Saul had neglected, and heweth Agag, the king of the
Amalekites, in pieces before the Lord, in Gilgal. The chapter closeth with an account
of Samuel's final departure from Saul, and visiting him no more until his death.
1 Samuel 15:1
(1) ¶ Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over
his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of
the LORD.
In the opening of this message, we should remark, how Samuel prefaceth it. I do not
command thee, saith the prophet, but the Lord, who sent me to anoint thee king.
Receiving, therefore, thy commission from him, see thou obey this precept faithfully.
Reader! it doth not behove creatures, and sinful ignorant creatures too, such as we
are, to reason about the fitness of such things as God commands. When we have to
do with men, it may be proper to pause, and to reason on right and wrong: but
when we have to do with God, it doth not become us to argue on his appointments.
This doctrine is very sweet and precious, if considered as it refers to our faith in
Jesus. Salvation in him, and through him, is the Lord's appointed way. As such, let
you and I heartily, and cordially accept it, without presuming to be wiser than God:
and this will be our wisdom. So Moses told Israel: Deuteronomy 4:6.
CONSTABLE, "Yahweh's final rejection of Saul ch. 15
"In the short pericope 1 Samuel 13:7-15 a obedience was the stone on which Saul
stumbled; here it is the rock that crushes him." [Note: Ibid., p. 142.]
Chapter 15 records one of the battles Saul fought with the Amalekites, Israel's
enemy to the south (cf. 1 Samuel 14:48). The Amalekites were descendants of Esau
(Genesis 36:12; 1 Chronicles 1:36) and, therefore, linked with the Edomites. They
were nomads who lived principally in southern Canaan and the Sinai Peninsula.
This battle evidently happened about 25 years after Saul began reigning, which was
23 years after God rejected Saul's dynasty following Saul's disobedience at Gilgal (1
Samuel 13:1-15). [Note: Wood, Israel's United . . ., p. 138.] Thus Saul apparently
served as king about 23 years between God's rejection of his dynasty (ch. 13) and
God's rejection of him personally (ch. 15).
5

Most scholars are sure Saul attacked the Amalekites who lived in the southern
Judah Negev, though some feel he attacked an enclave of them in western Samaria.
[Note: E.g., Diane Edelmann, "Saul's Battle Against Amaleq (1 Samuel 15),"
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):74-81.] Saul did not
destroy all the Amalekites at this time (1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 30:1; 2 Samuel
8:12). King Hezekiah completely annihilated them years later (1 Chronicles 4:43).
God directed Saul through Samuel (1 Samuel 14:1-3). Consequently for Saul to
disobey what Samuel said was tantamount to disobeying God. Samuel reminded
Saul that Yahweh was the Lord of hosts (1 Samuel 14:2), his commander-in-chief.
Saul's mission was to annihilate the Amalekites plus their animals completely (1
Samuel 14:3; cf. Deuteronomy 7:2-6; Deuteronomy 12:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:16-18).
God had commanded Joshua to do the same to Jericho; every breathing thing was
to die (Joshua 6:17-21; cf. Deuteronomy 20:16-18). Saul was now to put the
Amalekites under the ban (Heb. herem). This practice was not unique to Israel; the
Moabites and presumably other ancient Near Eastern nations also put cities and
groups of people under the ban. [Note: See Gordon, pp. 143, 147-48.] God had
plainly commanded this destruction of the Amalekites through Moses (Exodus
17:16; Deuteronomy 25:17-19; cf. Numbers 24:20; Genesis 12:3). Thus there was no
question what the will of God involved. The phrase "utterly destroy" (Heb.
heherim) occurs seven times in this account (1 Samuel 14:3; 1 Samuel 14:8-9 [twice],
15, 18, 20), showing that God's will was clear and that Saul's disobedience was not
an oversight.
"The agent of divine judgment can be impersonal (e.g., the Flood or the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah) or personal (as here), and in his sovereign purpose God
often permits entire families or nations to be destroyed if their corporate
representatives are willfully and incorrigibly wicked (cf. Joshua 7:1; Joshua
7:10-13; Joshua 7:24-26)." [Note: Youngblood, p. 673. On the problem of God's
goodness and His severe treatment of sinners, and even their animals, in the Old
Testament, see Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament; and
John W. Wenham, The Enigma of Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness of God?]
The Amalekites (1 Samuel 14:6) were descendants of Esau (Genesis 36:12), whereas
the Kenites traced their ancestry from Midian, one of Abraham's sons by Keturah
(Genesis 25:2). The Kenites had been friendly to Israel (Exodus 18:9-10; Exodus
18:19; Numbers 10:29-32), whereas the Amalekites had not. There may have been a
treaty between the Israelites and the Kenites. [Note: See F. Charles Fensham, "Did a
Treaty Between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?" Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 175 (October 1964):51-54.]
Saul's criterion for what he put to death was not part of God's command but his
own judgment (1 Samuel 14:9). Again, Saul's defective view of his role under
Yahweh's sovereign rule is obvious. God had earlier revealed through Balaam that
Israel's king "shall be higher than Agag" (Numbers 24:7). As Achan had done, Saul
misused some of what God had devoted to another purpose. Clearly Saul set his will
against the orders of his Commander; he was "not willing" to destroy everything
6

that breathed (1 Samuel 14:9). His obedience was selective and partial.
The phrase "the word of the Lord came to" occurs only three times in 1 and 2
Samuel (1 Samuel 14:10; cf. 2 Samuel 7:4; 2 Samuel 24:11). In all cases it refers to
an important message of judgment that God sent Israel's king through a prophet.
God regretted that He had made Saul king (1 Samuel 14:11) because of Saul's
actions, not because God felt He had made a mistake in calling Saul. Saul's failure to
follow God faithfully also broke Samuel's heart. The disobedience of leaders always
grieves the hearts of God's faithful servants. Samuel foresaw the consequences of
Saul's actions. The village of Carmel (lit. vineyard) stood about 8 miles south and a
little east of Hebron. The monument Saul set up honored himself, not God who gave
him the victory. When Moses defeated the Amalekites, he built an altar (Exodus
17:15-16); but when Saul defeated them, he erected a stele, a monument
commemorating a victory (cf. 2 Samuel 18:18).
Consistent with his view of his own behavior, Saul claimed to have obeyed God (1
Samuel 14:13). Nevertheless he had only been partially obedient. God regards
incomplete obedience as disobedience (1 Samuel 14:19). Rather than confessing his
sin, Saul sought to justify his disobedience (1 Samuel 14:15; cf. Genesis 3:12; Exodus
32:22-23). He believed it was for a worthy purpose, and he failed to take
responsibility for his actions and blamed the people instead (1 Samuel 14:15).
"Samuel now realized that Saul was not a leader, but the tool and slave of the
people." [Note: Young, p. 285.]
Samuel had earlier delivered a message of doom to Eli in the morning (1 Samuel
3:15-18). Now he delivered one to Saul on another morning (1 Samuel 14:16).
"There is in all of us an inclination to resent being told what to do; but those in
positions of authority and power are all the more reluctant to acknowledge anyone
else's superior authority." [Note: David Payne, pp. 77-78.]
Since Saul returned to Gilgal to offer sacrifices, it is possible that this was the site of
the tabernacle (1 Samuel 14:12; 1 Samuel 14:15; cf. 1 Samuel 10:8; 1 Samuel
13:8-10). If this was the Gilgal in the Jordan Valley, it was where the Israelites had
pitched the tabernacle first in Canaan after they crossed the Jordan River in
Joshua's day (Joshua 4:19). On the other hand, the Israelites offered sacrifices at
places other than the tabernacle after they entered the Promised Land. We cannot
say for sure that Saul went to Gilgal because the tabernacle was there.
Saul had formerly been genuinely humble. He had realistically evaluated himself
before his anointing (1 Samuel 14:17; cf. 1 Samuel 9:21). Yet when he became king
he viewed himself as the ultimate authority in Israel, a view common among ancient
Near Eastern monarchs. This attitude led him to disobey the Law of God. God had
sent Saul on a mission (1 Samuel 14:18; cf. Matthew 28:19-20), which involved the
total extermination of the Amalekites. The Hebrew word translated "sinners"
means habitually wicked people (cf. Psalms 1:1; Psalms 1:5), like the Canaanites.
7

"That Haman the 'Agagite' (Esther 3:1; Esther 3:10; Esther 8:3; Esther 8:5; Esther
9:24) was an Amalekite is taken for granted by Josephus, who states that Haman's
determination to destroy all the Jews in Persia was in retaliation for Israel's
previous destruction of all his ancestors (Antiq. XI, 211 [vi.5])." [Note: Youngblood,
p. 674.]
However, there is good reason to believe that Agag was the name of an area in
Media that had become part of the Persian Empire. [Note: See Archer, p. 421.] If
Josephus was correct, Saul's total obedience to God would have precluded Haman's
attempt to annihilate the Jews in Esther's day.
Saul persisted in calling partial obedience total obedience (1 Samuel 14:20). He
again placed responsibility for sparing some of the spoils taken in the battle on the
people (1 Samuel 14:21), but as king he was responsible for the people's actions.
Saul sometimes took too much responsibility on himself and at other times too little.
He tried to justify his actions by claiming that he did what he had done to honor
God. He betrayed his lack of allegiance by referring to Yahweh as "your" God, not
"our" God or "my" God, twice (cf. 1 Samuel 14:30).
Samuel spoke what the writer recorded in 1 Samuel 14:22-23 in poetic form,
indicating to all that God had inspired what he was saying. God frequently
communicated oracles through the prophets in such exalted speech (cf. Genesis 49;
Deuteronomy 33; et al.). These classic verses prioritize total obedience and worship
ritual for all time. God desires reality above ritual. Sacrificing things to God is good,
but obedience is "better" because it involves sacrificing ourselves to Him. The
spared animals Saul offered to God were voluntary sacrifices.
"The issue here is not a question of either/or but of both/and. Practically speaking,
this means that sacrifice must be offered to the Lord on his terms, not ours." [Note:
Youngblood, p. 677.]
What is the difference between obedience and sacrifice? Sacrifice is one aspect of
obedience, but obedience involves more than just sacrifice. We should never think
that we can compensate for our lack of obedience to some of God's commands by
making other sacrifices for Him.
Suppose one Saturday morning a father asks his teenage son to mow the lawn for
him since he has to work that Saturday and cannot do it himself. Company is
coming and he wants it to look good. The son decides that his dad's car needs
washing more than the grass needs cutting. Besides, the boy plans to use the car on a
date that night. When the father comes home, he finds that his son has not cut the
grass. "I decided to wash your car instead," the boy explains. "Aren't you pleased
with me?" His father replies, "I appreciate your washing the car, but that's not
what I asked you to do. I would have preferred that you mow the lawn, as I told
you."
The failure of Israel's king to follow his Commander-in-Chief's orders was much
more serious than the son's disobedience in the illustration above. Departure from
8

God's will (rebellion) presumes to control the future course of events, as divination
does (1 Samuel 14:23). Failure to carry out God's will (insubordination) is wicked
(iniquity) and puts the insubordinate person in God's place. This is a form of
idolatry. God would now begin to terminate Saul's rule as Israel's king (1 Samuel
14:23; cf. Exodus 34:7). Previously God had told him that his kingdom (dynasty)
would not endure (1 Samuel 13:14).
"Saul's loss of kingship and kingdom are irrevocable; the rest of 1 Samuel details
how in fact he does lose it all." [Note: Peter D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary
Reading, p. 98.]
Saul's confession was superficial. The Hebrew word translated "transgressed"
(abarti) means "overlooked." Saul only admitted that he had overlooked some small
and relatively unimportant part of what God had commanded (1 Samuel 14:24).
What God called rebellion Saul called an oversight. Saul's greater sin was putting
himself in God's place. He was guilty of a kind of treason, namely, trying to usurp
the ultimate authority in Israel. Samuel refused to accompany Saul because Saul
had refused to accompany God (1 Samuel 14:26).
"Most of us like to think that however serious our disobedience, once we repent of
that sin, we are forgiven and experience no real loss. The Scripture teaches that
genuine repentance always meets forgiveness, but it does not teach that there are no
losses. Actually, every reflective Christian knows of permanent losses that are the
result of our failure to live up to God's ideals for our lives." [Note: Chafin, p. 130.]
When Saul seized Samuel's robe, he was making an earnest appeal. The phrase "to
grasp the hem" was a common idiomatic expression in Semitic languages that
pictured a gesture of supplication. [Note: See Edward L. Greenstein, "'To Grasp the
Hem' in Ugaritic Literature," Vetus Testamentum 32:2 (April 1982):217, and
Ronald A. Brauner, "'To Grasp the Hem' and 1 Samuel 15:27," Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 6 (1974):135-38.] Later, David would cut off the hem of Saul's robe
in a cave while the king slept (1 Samuel 24:4). Since the hem of a garment identified
the social status of the person who wore it, [Note: See Jacob Milgrom, "Of Hems
and Tassels," Biblical Archaeology Review 9:3 (May-June 1983):61-65.] David was
symbolically picturing the transfer of royal authority from Saul to himself when he
did this. When Saul tore Samuel's hem, he symbolically, though perhaps
unintentionally, seized the prophet's authority inappropriately. Samuel interpreted
his action as symbolizing the wrenching of the kingdom from Saul (cf. 1 Kings
11:29-33).
ELLICOTT, "(1 Samuel 15:1-35) The War with Amalek.—Saul’s Disobedience to
the Will of God in the matter of Sparing the King and the Choicest of the
Plunder.—The Last Meeting in Life of Saul and Samuel.—The Prophet reproaches
the King.—Death of Agag at the hands of Samuel.
EXCURSUS G: ON THE CONDUCT OF AGAG, KING OF AMALEK, WHEN
SAMUEL SLEW HIM BEFORE THE LORD (1 Samuel 15).
9

Although, on the whole, we prefer the usual interpretation of this scene, which the
English Version clearly suggests—viz., that Agag, finding that the warrior-king had
spared him, ceased to have any apprehensions any longer for his life, and that when
summoned into the presence of the old prophet, came in a comparatively happy and
joyous state of mind, imagining that he was only to be presented in a formal manner
to the chief religious official in Israel—still, there is another and most interesting
interpretation of this singular scene, which has the support of the distinguished
scholar and expositor, Ewald. This interpretation of the original understands that
the conquered Amalekite monarch was fully aware that the summons into the
presence of the dread seer meant a summons to death, and that, conscious of his
impending doom, he braced himself up as a warrior-king to meet his end heroically
with a smile. Agag then met his fate “with delight” (this is the word rendered in
English delicately), and cries out, moved by a lofty, fearless impulse, “Surely the
bitterness of death is past.” This willingness to die on the part of the royal captive
was regarded by the people as a happy omen; and possbfy, if we adopt this
interpretation of the episode, this was one of the reasons which had preserved the
circumstances of the incident with such exact detail, for there was a deeply rooted
persuasion among the ancients that if the victims resisted when led to the altar, the
incident was one of evil omen.
Compare the words which Æschylus, in the Agamemnon, puts into Cassandra’s
mouth before her death. If we understand the words of Agag in the sense suggested
in this Excursus, the captive Trojan princess met her death in a similar spirit.
Cassandra. I will dare to die . . . I pray that I may receive a mortal blow—and
without a struggle . . . that I close my eyes.
Chorus. . . . If thou really art acquainted with thy doom, how comes it that, like a
divinely-guided heifer, thou advancest so courageously to the altar?—Agamemnon,
1261-1269
Verses 1-3
(1 Samuel 15:1-3) Samuel also said unto Saul . . .—The compiler of the history,
selecting, no doubt, from ancient state records, chose to illustrate the story of the
reign and rejection of Saul by certain memorable incidents as good examples of the
king’s general life and conduct. The incidents were also selected to show the rapid
development of the power and resources of Israel at this period.
The sacred war with Amalek is thus introduced without any “note of time.”
The Lord sent me to anoint thee.—The account of the Amalekite war is prefaced by
the solemn words used by the seer when he came to announce the Eternal’s will to
Saul. They are quoted to show that the war was enjoined upon Israel in a general
official way by the accredited prophet-messenger of the Most High.
LANGE, "The rejection of Saul for his disobedience in the Amalekite war
10

1 Samuel 15:1-35
1Samuel also [And Samuel] said unto Saul, The Lord [Jehovah] sent me to anoint
thee to be [om. to be] king over his people,[FN1] over Israel; now therefore [and 2
now] hearken thou unto the voice of the words[FN2] of the Lord [Jehovah]. Thus
saith the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts, I remember [have considered[FN3]] that which
[what] Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for [withstood[FN4]] him in the way,
when Hebrews 3came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly
destroy[FN5] all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman,
infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4And Saul gathered [summoned] the people together [om. together], and numbered
them in Telaim,[FN6] two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of 5
Judah.[FN7] And Saul came to a [the][FN8] city of Amalek, and laid wait[FN9] in
the valley.[FN10] 6And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from
among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them; for ye showed kindness to all
the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So [And] the Kenites[FN11]
departed from 7 among the Amalekites. And Saul smote the Amalekites from
Havilah until [as][FN12] 8thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. And he
took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people [all
the people he utterly 9 destroyed] with the edge of the sword. But [And] Saul and
the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings
[secondrate],[FN13] and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly
destroy them; but
LANGE, "1 Samuel 15:1-3. The divine commission to Saul to execute judgment on
Amalek. 1 Samuel 15:1 is not to be connected chronologically with 1 Samuel12.
(Then.), but continues the narrative of chs 13. and14. The solemn reminder of Saul’s
royal anointing and of Samuel’s divine mission to that end refers not to 1 Samuel
11:15, but to 1 Samuel 9:15 to 1 Samuel 10:1. It points to the fact that the following
commission is a divine command, communicated by the appointed organ, the
prophet of God, and that the bearer of the royal office has here to perform a
theocratic mission with unconditional obedience. The “me” stands first [such is the
order in the Heb.—Tr.] in order to give prominence to the official authority, as
bearer of which Samuel must needs have felt himself obliged by Saul’s past conduct
to assert himself over against him.
NISBET, "A SHIPWRECKED LIFE
‘King over His people Israel.’
1 Samuel 15:1
The story of Saul is among the saddest which Scripture anywhere contains.
I. Notice first the singular elements of nobleness which are to be traced in his
natural character, so that his moral stature did not altogether belie the stateliness of
his outward frame. There is nothing which so often oversets the whole balance of a
11

mind, which brings out faults unsuspected before, as a sudden and abrupt elevation
from a very low to a very high position. But Saul gives no token that the change has
wrought this mischief in him. The Lord’s anointed, Israel’s king, he bides his time,
returns with a true simplicity to humblest offices in his father’s house. He would
gladly, and that out of a genuine modesty, hide and withdraw himself from the
people’s choice. Slights and offences done to himself he magnanimously overlooks.
He ventures his life far for the people whom he rules, as one who has rightly
understood that foremost in place and honour means also foremost in peril and toil.
Saul is clear from every charge of that sin which left the darkest blot upon David’s
life; seems very sparingly to have allowed himself that licence which almost all
Oriental monarchs have so largely claimed. There was in him also a true capacity
for loving. Of David we are told he ‘loved him greatly.’ Even at his worst, what
glimpses of a better mind from time to time appear! The deep discords of his spirit
are not incapable of being subdued into harmonies, as sweet bells jangled or out of
tune which for an instant, though, alas! but for an instant, recover their sweetness.
And, most noticeable of all, the love which he could feel he could also inspire. If then
there was a shipwreck here, they were not paltry wares, but treasures of great price,
which went down into the deep.
II. The history of Saul brings home to us these facts: (1) That the life we now live is
a life of probation; that God takes men and puts them in certain conditions to try
them. We are each put upon our trial as certainly as Saul was upon his. (2) All the
finer qualities of Saul display themselves at the outset of his career. They gradually
fade and fail from him, pride, meanwhile, and caprice, and jealousy, and envy, and
an open contempt and defiance of God coming in their room, until at last of all the
high qualities which he once owned, only the courage, last gift to forsake a man,
often abiding when every other has departed—until this only remains. (3) We learn
from Saul not to build on any good thing which we have in ourselves. Let us bring
that good thing to God and receive it back from God with that higher consecration
which He alone can give.
—Archbishop Trench.
PETT, "Introduction
SECTION 2. The Rise and Fall of Saul. Saul Having Been Anointed As King, The
Reasons For His Downfall Are Now Described, Along With His First Major Defeat
Of The Philistines And His Defeat Of The Amalekites. This Is Accompanied By A
Brief Reference To His Wider Successes (13:1-15:35).
This section opens and close with examples of how as Saul becomes established he
becomes lax in respect of his obedience towards YHWH, resulting first in the loss of
his dynasty (1 Samuel 13:1-18), and then in the loss of his kingship (1 Samuel
15:1-35). In between these two incidents are a record of his victories (1 Samuel 13:19
to 1 Samuel 14:23 a; 14:47-52) and indications of Saul’s increasing spiritual failure.
We can analyse this section as follows:
12

a Saul disobeys YHWH and does not wait for His advice through Samuel. His
dynasty are rejected from the kingship (1 Samuel 13:1-18).
b Jonathan and YHWH deliver Israel (1 Samuel 13:19 to 1 Samuel 14:23 a).
c Saul makes a rash oath and Jonathan unknowingly breaks it and becomes
liable to sentence (1 Samuel 14:23-31 a).
d As a result of Saul’s rash oath his men eat animals with their blood resulting
in Saul building his ‘first altar’ (1 Samuel 14:31-35).
c Saul consult the oracle over his rash oath and Jonathan is sentenced to death,
but the people will not allow it (1 Samuel 14:36-46).
b Saul and Abner deliver Israel (1 Samuel 14:47-52).
a Saul disobeys YHWH and preserves for himself and the people what is
‘devoted’ to YHWH. He is rejected from the kingship (1 Samuel 15:1-35).
Chapter 15.
Saul’s Victory Over The Amalekites And His Subsequent Tragic Failure To Honour
YHWH’s Commands (1 Samuel 15:1-35).
In this chapter Saul reveals that he has become so filled with a sense of his own
importance that he now feels that he can ignore God’s clear commandment simply
for his own benefit, however heinous his actions might be. He considers that he has
a right to put YHWH right. The result is that God rejects him from being king over
Israel, and Samuel leaves him never to return. The further effects of this rejection
on Saul will be that he will go into clinical depression, and become schizophrenic,
thus being ‘two men’ at the same time and being plagued with paranoia and
delusion. Had he been obedient to YHWH this illness may never have happened.
There is no indication as to when this incident in 1 Samuel 15 occurred but it has
been suggested that it may well have been some years after the incidents described
in 1 Samuel 13-14 in order for Saul’s arrogance and disobedience to have grown
sufficiently to account for his behaviour here. On the other hand we might consider
that his behaviour in the previous chapter has already demonstrated that he was
quite capable of exactly this at any time. The stress in this passage is on obedience,
and the whole is designed so as to bring out Saul’s total disobedience, in accordance
with the tendency that we have observed previously (1 Samuel 13:13). It is
describing the final stage in his downfall. To us his crime might appear small, and
even reasonable. But it would not have been seen like that in his day. It would have
been looked on with horror by the independent observer. For to take for oneself
what had been ‘devoted to YHWH’ was sacrilege of the most heinous kind (compare
Joshua 7).
It is, however, interesting that Samuel is again involved with Saul here. It
demonstrates that, while their relationship was no longer as close, Saul was still
being given an opportunity to at least partially redeem himself. He was still seen as
being ‘YHWH’s anointed.’
Analysis.
13

a And Samuel said to Saul, “YHWH sent me to anoint you to be king over his
people, over Israel, now therefore listen you to the voice of the words of YHWH” (1
Samuel 15:1).
b “Thus says YHWH of hosts, I have marked what Amalek did to Israel, how
he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. Now go and
smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay
both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” And Saul
summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred units of
footmen, and ten units of men of Judah. And Saul came to the city of Amalek, and
laid wait in the valley. And Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart, get you down from
among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them, for you showed kindness to all
the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed
from among the Amalekites. And Saul smote the Amalekites, from Havilah as you
go to Shur, which is before Egypt (1 Samuel 15:2-7).
c And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all
the people with the edge of the sword, but Saul and the people spared Agag, and the
best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the second oxen, and the lambs, and all
that was good, and would not utterly destroy them, but everything that was vile and
refuse, that they destroyed utterly (1 Samuel 15:8-9).
d Then came the word of YHWH to Samuel, saying, “It repents me that I have
set up Saul to be king, for he is turned back from following me, and has not
performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry, and he cried to YHWH all
night (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
e And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning; and it was told Samuel,
saying, “Saul came to Carmel, and, behold, he set him up a monument, and turned,
and passed on, and went down to Gilgal. And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said
unto him, “Blessed are you of YHWH. I have performed the commandment of
YHWH” (1 Samuel 15:12-13).
f And Samuel said, “What means then this bleating of the sheep in my ears,
and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” And Saul said, “They have brought them
from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to
sacrifice to YHWH your God, and the remainder we have utterly destroyed” (1
Samuel 15:14-15).
g Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stay, and I will tell you what YHWH has said to
me this night.” And he said to him, “Say on”. And Samuel said, Although you were
little in your own sight, were you not made the head of the tribes of Israel? And
YHWH anointed you king over Israel, and YHWH sent you on a journey, and said,
“Go, and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until
they are consumed. For what reason then did you not obey the voice of YHWH, but
did fly upon the spoil, and did what was evil in the sight of YHWH?” (1 Samuel
15:16-19).
h And Saul said to Samuel, “Yes, I have obeyed the voice of YHWH, and have
gone the way in which YHWH sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek,
and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep
and oxen, the prime choice of the devoted things, to sacrifice to YHWH your God in
14

Gilgal” (1 Samuel 15:20-21).
i And Samuel said, “Has YHWH as great delight in burnt-offerings and
sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of YHWH? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and
stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because you have rejected the word of
YHWH, he has also rejected you from being king (1 Samuel 15:22-23).
h And Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the
commandment of YHWH, and your words, because I feared the people, and obeyed
their voice. Now therefore, I pray you, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that
I may worship YHWH” (1 Samuel 15:24-25).
g And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you, for you have rejected
the word of YHWH, and YHWH has rejected you from being king over Israel.”
And as Samuel turned about to go away, Saul laid hold on the skirt of his robe, and
it tore (1 Samuel 15:26-27).
f And Samuel said to him, “YHWH has torn the kingship of Israel from you
this day, and has given it to a neighbour of yours who is better than you. And also
the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for he is not a man, that he should
repent” (1 Samuel 15:28-29).
e Then he said, “I have sinned. Yet honour me now, I pray you, before the
elders of my people, and before Israel, and turn again with me, that I may worship
YHWH your God” (1 Samuel 15:30).
d So Samuel turned again after Saul, and Saul worshipped YHWH (1 Samuel
15:31).
c Then said Samuel, “Bring you here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.”
And Agag came to him apprehensively. And Agag said, “Is the bitterness of death
surely past?” (1 Samuel 15:32).
b And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your
mother be childless among women.” And Samuel executed Agag before YHWH in
Gilgal (1 Samuel 15:33).
a Then Samuel went to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house to Gibeah of
Saul. And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death; for Samuel
mourned for Saul, and YHWH repented that he had made Saul king over Israel (1
Samuel 15:34-35).
Note that in ‘a’ Saul treats Saul as the anointed of YHWH, ready to do His bidding,
and in the parallel Saul is no longer seen by Samuel as the anointed of YHWH. In
‘b’ Saul is to slaughter the Amalekites (including Agag the king) and devote them to
YHWH and in the parallel Samuel ensures the final completion of that task. In ‘c’
Saul spares Agag and in the parallel Agag is brought before Samuel for sentence. In
‘d’ Saul is declared to have ‘turned back’ from following YHWH, and Samuel cries
to YHWH concerning it all night, and in the parallel Samuel ‘turns again’ to Saul,
and Saul worships YHWH. In ‘e’ Saul builds a monument in honour of his victory
and claims to have obeyed YHWH, and in the parallel he admits that he has not
obeyed YHWH and asks that Samuel will still honour him before the elders and the
people. In ‘f’ Samuel draws attention to Saul’s disobedience and Saul tries to excuse
it, and in the parallel Samuel tells him that as a result of his disobedience YHWH
has torn his kingship from him and will not change His mind. In ‘g’ Samuel asks
15

Saul why he has not obeyed the voice of YHWH, and in the parallel declares that he
has thus rejected the word of YHWH and done evil in His sight with the result that
YHWH has rejected him from being king over Israel. In ‘h’ the people took of the
prime items from among the devoted things to sacrifice to YHWH (something
specifically forbidden), and in the parallel Saul admits that he has sinned by
listening to the people. Centrally in ‘h’ Samuel indicates that obedience is better
than sacrifice, and listening to and doing what YHWH requires is better than the fat
of rams.
Verses 1-3
YHWH Commands His Anointed To Slay The Amalekites As A Divine Judgment
On Them (1 Samuel 15:1-3).
It is important to recognise in this passage that Saul is specifically instructed as ‘the
anointed of YHWH’ and is called on to act as His instrument of justice on the
Amalekites. He is to ‘devote’ the Amalekites and all their possessions to YHWH.
This involved total annihilation and destruction of something which all recognised
that YHWH had specifically made His own. It was all thus sacred to Him and non-
negotiable. No exception was allowed. We can compare the story of Achan who also
sought to keep for himself what had been devoted to YHWH and was visited with
swift judgment (Joshua 7).
1 Samuel 15:1
‘And Samuel said to Saul, “YHWH sent me to anoint you to be king over his people,
over Israel, now therefore listen to the voice of the words of YHWH,” ’
Samuel now comes to Saul emphasising that he is the anointed of YHWH. That
means that he is dedicated to doing YHWH’s will. In view of that he is now to listen
to the words of YHWH which will instruct him in what YHWH requires of him.
PULPIT, "1Sa_15:1
Samuel also said. Better literally, "And Samuel said." There is no note of time, but
probably a considerable interval elapsed before this second trial of Saul was made. God
does not finally reject a man until, after repeated opportunities for repentance, he finally
proves obdurate. David committed worse crimes than Saul, but he had a tender
conscience, and each fall was followed by deep and earnest sorrow. Saul sinned and
repented not. Just, then, as Eli had a first warning, which, though apparently
unconditional in its terms (1Sa_2:27-36), was really a call to repentance, and was only
made irrevocable by his persistence for many years in the same sins (1Sa_3:11-14), so
was it with Saul. The prophet’s words in 1Sa_13:13, 1Sa_13:14 were a stern warning, and
had Saul taken them to heart, God would have forgiven him his sin. He repented not, but
repeated the offence, and so the sentence was confirmed. When, then, critics say that we
have two accounts of Saul’s rejection, and that he is represented as having been set aside
first for one reason and then for another, their objection arises entirely from a false view
of God’s dealings with mankind. Alike promises and threatenings, blessings and
punishments are conditional; for there is no heathen fatalism in Holy Scripture, but
16

mercy waiting to triumph over justice. God, then, was not willing lightly to cast away so
noble an instrument as Saul. His first sin too had been committed when he was new in
the kingdom, and in a position of danger and difficulty. He waits, therefore, till Saul has
had some years of success and power, and his character has developed itself, and is
taking its permanent form; and then again gives him a trial in order to test his fitness to
be a theocratic king. The interest, then, of this chapter lies in the unfolding of Saul’s
character, and so it follows immediately upon 1Sa_14:1-52; which was occupied with the
same subject, without any note of chronology, because the historical narrative is
subservient to the personal. Hence, too, Samuel’s solemn address, reminding Saul that
he was Jehovah’s anointed one, and therefore had special duties towards him; that he
had also been anointed by Samuel’s instrumentality, and after earnest instruction as to
his duties; and, finally, that Israel was Jehovah’s people, and their king, therefore, bound
to obey Jehovah’s commands.
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will
punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel
when they waylaid them as they came up from
Egypt.
BARNES, "Compare the marginal references. It appears 1Sa_14:48 that this
expedition against Amalek was not made without fresh provocation. Probably some
incursion similar to that described in 1 Sam. 30 was made by them upon the south
country at a time when they thought the Israelites were weakened by their contests with
the Philistines.
CLARKE, "I remember that which Amalek did - The Amalekites were a people
of Arabia Petraea, who had occupied a tract of country on the frontiers of Egypt and
Palestine. They had acted with great cruelty towards the Israelites on their coming out of
Egypt. (See Exo_17:8 (note), and the notes there). They came upon them when they
were faint and weary, and smote the hindermost of the people - those who were too weak
to keep up with the rest. (See Deu_25:18). And God then purposed that Amalek, as a
nation, should be blotted out from under heaven; which purpose was now fulfilled by
Saul upwards of four hundred years afterwards!
17

GILL, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts,.... Of the celestial host of angels, and of the
army of Israel, yea, of all the armies of the earth: this is premised to engage the attention
of Saul:
I remember that which Amalek did to Israel; four hundred years ago:
how he laid wait for him in the way when he came up from Egypt; in the valley
of Rephidim, just before they came to Mount Sinai, and fell upon the rear of them, and
smote the feeble, and faint, and weary, see Exo_17:8
JAMISON, "1Sa_15:1-6. Saul sent to destroy Amalek.
Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee ...: now
therefore hearken thou unto ... the Lord — Several years had been passed in
successful military operations against troublesome neighbors. During these Saul had
been left to act in a great measure at his own discretion as an independent prince. Now a
second test is proposed of his possessing the character of a theocratic monarch in Israel;
and in announcing the duty required of him, Samuel brought before him his official
station as the Lord’s vicegerent, and the peculiar obligation under which he was laid to
act in that capacity. He had formerly done wrong, for which a severe rebuke and
threatening were administered to him (1Sa_13:13, 1Sa_13:14). Now an opportunity was
afforded him of retrieving that error by an exact obedience to the divine command.
K&D, "The account of the war against the Amalekites is a very condensed one, and is
restricted to a description of the conduct of Saul on that occasion. Without mentioning
either the time or the immediate occasion of the war, the narrative commences with the
command of God which Samuel solemnly communicated to Saul, to go and exterminate
that people. Samuel commenced with the words, “Jehovah sent me to anoint thee to be
king over His people, over Israel,” in order to show to Saul the obligation which rested
upon him to receive his commission as coming from God, and to proceed at once to fulfil
it. The allusion to the anointing points back not to 1Sa_11:15, but to 1Sa_10:1.
SBC, "The story of Saul is among the saddest which Scripture anywhere contains.
I. Notice first the singular elements of nobleness which are to be traced in his natural
character, so that his moral stature did not altogether belie the stateliness of his outward
frame. There is nothing which so often oversets the whole balance of a mind, which
brings out faults unsuspected before, as a sudden and abrupt elevation from a very low
to a very high position. But Saul gives no token that the change has wrought this
mischief in him. The Lord’s anointed, Israel’s king, he bides his time, returns with a true
simplicity to humblest offices in his father’s house. He would gladly, and that out of a
genuine modesty, hide and withdraw himself from the people’s choice. Slights and
offences done to himself he magnanimously overlooks. He ventures his life far for the
people whom he rules, as one who has rightly understood that foremost in place and
honour means also foremost in peril and toil. Saul is clear from every charge of that sin
which left the darkest blot upon David’s life; seems very sparingly to have allowed
himself that licence which almost all Oriental monarchs have so largely claimed. There
was in him also a true capacity for loving. Of David we are told he "loved him greatly."
Even at his worst, what glimpses of a better mind from time to time appear! The deep
18

discords of his spirit are not incapable of being subdued into harmonies, as sweet bells
jangled or out of tune which for an instant, though, alas! but for an instant, recover their
sweetness. And, most noticeable of all, the love which he could feel he could also inspire.
If then there was a shipwreck here, they were not paltry wares, but treasures of great
price, which went down into the deep.
II. The history of Saul brings home to us these facts: (1) That the life we now live is a life
of probation; that God takes men and puts them in certain conditions to try them. We
are each upon our trial as certainly as Saul was upon his. (2) All the finer qualities of
Saul display themselves at the outset of his career; they gradually fade and fail from him,
pride meanwhile, and defiance of God coming in their room, until at last of and caprice,
and jealousy, and envy, and an open contempt all the high qualities which he once
owned, only the courage, last gift to forsake a man, often abiding when every other has
departed—until this only remains. (3) We learn from Saul not to build on any good thing
which we have in ourselves. Let us bring that good thing to God and receive it back from
God, with that higher consecration which He alone can give.
R. C. Trench, Shipwrecks of Faith, p. 31.
HAWKER, "Verse 2-3
(2) Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how
he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. (3) Now go and smite
Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both
man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
The observation made on the preceding verse meets us with full force in these.
When the Lord commands any service, the justice and propriety of the measure, is
not to be arraigned at the bar of man's tribunal. The Lord had sworn to have war
with Amalek, from generation to generation. See Exodus 17:8-16. And now the year
of the Lord's vengeance was come, and the iniquity of Amalek is full. Reader! if you
are a child of God, do not overlook in this scripture, what is read to you in it:
namely, the Lord will subdue all your foes before your face. He hath engaged in
covenant promises to do this. And, Reader, do not envy therefore the short-lived
triumphs of the ungodly, the Lord hath seen that his day is coming. Every injury
done to one of God's afflicted ones, must sooner or later be accounted for. Psalms
37:13.
ELLICOTT, "(2) That which Amalek did to Israel.—The Amalekites were a fierce,
untameable race of wanderers, who roamed at large through those deserts which lie
between Southern Judea and the Egyptian frontier. They were descended from
Esau’s grandson, Amalek. Not long after the exodus from Egypt, they attacked and
cruelly harassed the almost defenceless rear-guard of Israel in the desert of
Rephidim. They were then, at the prayer of Moses, defeated by Joshua; but, for this
cowardly unprovoked attack, solemnly doomed to destruction. In the prophecy of
Balaam they are alluded to as the first of the nations who opposed the Lord’s
people. During the stormy ages that followed, the hand of Amalek seems to have
been constantly lifted against Israel, and we read of them perpetually as allied to
19

their relentless foes.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 15:2. The Amalekites were a wild, warlike desert-people,
dwelling south and south-west of Judea in Arabia Petræa, descended from the same
ancestor as the Edomites, and took their name from Esau’s grandson Amalek
( Genesis 36:12; Genesis 36:16; 1 Chronicles 1:36). Comp. Joseph, Antiq. II:1, 2,
where this people is described as an Edomitic tribe, and their territory said to be
part of Idumea. The mention of the “country of the Amalekites” in Genesis 14:7 is
not in conflict with their derivation from Esau’s grandson, for this (Hengst, Pent.
II:303 sq.) is merely a proleptical statement (comp. Winer, W. B. I:51, Anm.
1).[FN28] In the prophecy of Balaam ( Numbers 24:20) it is expressly mentioned as
the first of the heathen nations that opposed Israel as the Lord’s people, and whose
destruction by Israel (comp. 1 Samuel 15:8) is foretold. The first hostile movement
of this people is narrated in Exodus 17:8 sq. Soon after Israel’s exodus from Egypt
the Amalekites fell on their wearied rearguard in the desert of Rephidim, but were
defeated by Joshua through Moses’ prayer, and were doomed to extermination by
the divine command ( 1 Samuel 15:14; 1 Samuel 15:16). God’s command to Saul
goes back to these first hostilities of the Amalekites (which were often afterwards
repeated in their alliances with the Canaanites ( Numbers 14:40 sq.), with the
Moabites ( Judges 3:13), and with the Midianites ( Judges 7:12)), the Amalekites
(according to 1 Samuel 15:33) having newly made an inroad, with robbery and
murder, on the Israelitish territory.—I have noted what Amalek did to Israel, that
Isaiah, the whole series of Amalekite hostilities, the beginning of which is expressed
in the following words: “how he withstood him” (to Heb. ‫ם‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ supply ‫ֶה‬‫נ‬ֲ‫ח‬ ַ‫[מ‬FN29] as
in 1 Kings 20:12), because in Exodus 17:14; Exodus 17:16, Amalek is declared the
doomed hereditary and deadly enemy of Israel. Comp. Deuteronomy 25:17-19.
PETT, "1 Samuel 15:2-3
“Thus says YHWH of hosts, I have marked what Amalek did to Israel, how he set
himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite
Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them, but slay both
man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
What in fact YHWH requires of him is that he ‘devote’ Amalek to YHWH. That will
involve destroying the Amalekites and all connected with them. The idea of
‘devoting’ a people in this way was that they were consecrated to God in judgment
and must be offered to Him in their totality. Those who performed this work were
seen to be acting as God’s instruments of justice. For that reason they must take no
benefit of it for themselves, for everything involved was ‘devoted’ to and belonged to
YHWH. We can compare how Jericho was also previously devoted to YHWH and
how Achan was executed because he kept for himself certain ‘devoted things’
(Joshua 6-7). Thus what Saul was being called on to do was a most sacred task, and
as he knew perfectly well, not to carry it out to the letter would be sacrilege. This
was not unique to Israel. Similar ideas were also found among surrounding
countries such as Moab (it is referred to on the Moabite Stone), while evidence of it
is also found at Mari.
20

The basis of it in this case was stated to be because the Amalekites were the first to
attack the people of Israel as they came out of Egypt, when they were especially
vulnerable in the wilderness (Exodus 17). The Amalekites had mercilessly swooped
down on them, decimating their lines in order to obtain booty, and probably having
also the aim of preventing them from passing through what they saw as Amalekite
territory. These Amalekites were wandering tribespeople like the Bedouin today,
and in those days they obtained much of their wealth by preying on others. They
were a part of the alliance of tribes that caused such misery to the new nation of
Israel in Judges 3:13; Judges 6:3-6, and they would think nothing of wiping out any
whom they saw as intruding on their wide-ranging territory. They made an
exception of small tribes like the Kenites whom they saw as also being genuine
desert-dwellers. Some may well eventually have settled down to semi-nomadic
living. But like the Canaanites/Amorites earlier, YHWH now saw them as having
filled up their sins to the full (compare Genesis 15:16).
We should note that 1 Samuel 14:48 suggests that they had recently been despoiling
the Israelites so that this was not just something out of the blue concerning things
long past, but was a means of preventing further injury to the people of Israel. Total
destruction was necessary because if such a people were not totally destroyed they
would re-gather, associate with other tribespeople and subsequently take their
revenge. The security of the people of Israel security thus demanded their
annihilation. Nevertheless it was also to be seen as fulfilling God’s curse on Amalek
because of what they had previously done (Exodus 17:16; Numbers 24:20;
Deuteronomy 25:17-19).
(We should note how long the Amalekites had had to repent of and change their
ways. YHWH had not brought His curse into effect immediately. It was rather
exacted as a result of further infringements.
The slaughter of all their cattle was seen as similar to offering up sacrifices to
YHWH with the difference that it was done at once, without an altar and without
any participation in the meat. All had been devoted to Him and was now being
offered to Him. They would be slaughtered and then burned to ashes.
We should recognise that the whole point of The Ban (the devoting of people and
things to YHWH) was that none would benefit from the slaughter. It was intended
to be solemnly treated as an act of YHWH’s judgment. We who live in less violent
days, who do not sit in our houses and work in our fields wondering when the
Amalekites will next sweep down on us and murder us all, cringe at the thought of
this total destruction of a people, but we should remember that for people in those
days there would have been no better news for them than that of their final
deliverance from the threat of the depredations of the murderous Amalekites. To
them it would have been like us locking up all the criminals at once.
21

PULPIT, "1Sa_15:2
Amalek. The Amalekites were a fierce race of nomads who inhabited the desert to the
south of Judaea towards Egypt. They were, and still continue to be in their descendants,
the Bedouins, an untamable race of savages, whose delight is in robbery and plunder.
Between them and Israel there was bitter hostility occasioned by their having attacked
the people immediately after the Exodus (Exo_17:8-16), and the command there given to
exterminate them is repeated now, probably in consequence of their raids having
become more numerous and sanguinary under their present king, as we gather from
1Sa_15:33. The reference to a war with the Amalektes in 1Sa_14:48 no doubt refers to
this expedition, as we have there a mere summary of Saul’s military enterprises. I
remember. Literally, "I have visited;" but the sense of remembering seems confirmed
by such passages as Gen_21:1; Gen_1:24; Isa_23:17; Isa_26:16. The Septuagint,
however, and Aquila, give a very good sense: "I have considered, "thought over." How
he laid wait for him in the way. There is no idea in the Hebrew of ambuscade or
treachery. It is simply, "How he set himself in the way against him," i.e. opposed,
withstood him, tried to bar his progress.
BI 2-3, "Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel.
National sins and national punishments
We turn from Saul to the case of those against whom he was sent. “Thus saith the Lord
of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the
way, when he came up from Egypt.” Then God does remember sin. He not only notices
it, but remembers it. A lengthened period had transpired since the Amalekites had thus
manifested their sympathy with the enemies of Israel, by throwing hindrances in the way
of God’s chosen people as they came out of Egypt to Canaan. And, to all appearance,
their sin might have been regarded as consigned to oblivion. But God had declared that
it should not be forgotten. (Exo_17:14, Deu_25:17-19.) Upon the oblivion of four
centuries there broke the awful tones of Almighty Justice: “I remember that, which
Amalek did” From that Infinite Mind there had been no obliteration of the crime; clear
as the day on which it had been committed, that sin stood out to view. “I remember.”
Divine forbearance with generation after generation had been long, but upon them that
forbearance had been lost, and it is evident they had not profited by it. They still
remained the foes of Israel; their conduct as a nation was marked by excessive cruelty;
and it was a horrible notoriety which their king had obtained for the multitudes of
mothers whom, in his bloodthirstiness, his sword had rendered childless. In the
determination on the part of God now to punish, the utterance of which was prefaced by
those emphatic words, “I remember,” we are distinctly taught the lesson that the
conduct of nations is a point to which the eye of God is directed, and that it is the matter
for which His just penalty will be reserved. Whole nations come within the reach of His
rod. By the individuals composing a community, and whose personal welfare or woe is
necessarily identified with the condition of the community, there is a great danger that
national sin should be regarded rather as an abstraction than as a reality, rather as an
ideal than a substantial criminality. But it is not thus that God, in the incident before us,
deals with it. He affixes it, as a substantive charge, upon the community. We have a rule
here to which we find no exception. But nowhere does this rule meet with so fearful an
exemplification as in the case of that very people whose guardian God showed Himself to
22

be in this act of visiting Amalek’s transgression—that very Israel on whose behalf He was
now standing up to repel insult and to avenge injury. “I remember”—read it in those
seventy years’ exile from the land which had been given for an inheritance—that long
and dreary period, during which Zion’s history was thus announced in plaintive tones by
the prophet, “How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people! how is she become as
a widow!” etc. “I remember”—read it in its reiterated and double-telling tones in that
second destruction which succeeded a second opportunity given to the Hebrew people of
a sound national repentance and reformation—that second opportunity which was lost
when formalism was substituted for spiritual religion. Hark to the words of mingled
compassion and judgment which fall from His lips as He stands over against the city and
wasps, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets,” etc. If national sin
brings with it national calamity, then the lengthening out Of our prosperity must depend
on the caution which is exercised, lest any sin should be permitted and indulged, until it
shall become distinctive of our national character. Is there nothing among ourselves over
which there floats, audible to the men who seek the best welfare of their country and
deprecate its woe, the sound of that sentence, “I remember?” Are not its murmurs to be
heard at this moment, amid political excitements and difficulties of administration? “I
remember” the Sabbaths which are systematically broken by those who take their
pleasure on my holy day. “I remember” the intemperance of those who “rise up early in
the morning that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine
inflame them.” “I remember” the want of truthfulness in the manner of conducting
business, the unjust advantages taken of the buyer, the false representations made by the
seller, although my word has declared that “a false balance is abomination to the Lord,
but a just weight is His delight.” “I remember” the concealed iniquity of men who, with a
fancied impunity, perpetrated the foulest crimes, reckless of every consideration but that
of inconvenient exposure. Our patriotism, to be effective, must be of the right stamp;
and to prove itself of this stamp it must itself consent to learn its lessons from that chief
source of all instruction, the Scriptures—confirmed, as the sacred teachings are, by the
dispensations of Divine Providence There may be a diversity in the manner in which
individuals may have been guilty, in reference to the sum total of the public guilt. Some
may have been the direct actors, and others may have been partakers in their sins. From
all which has been stated it will follow—
1. That it is a duty constantly incumbent upon us, as members of the community, to
inquire into our personal relation to that public criminality of which God says, “I
remember it,” and to make it the matter of our individual repentance and
humiliation. If personally, and through God’s grace, these things cannot be described
as committed by me, yet do I give any sanction to them in others? Do I protest
against them? Do I exert my influence to lessen their amount?
2. The sins of nations, which call down wrath, being thus the accumulation of the
sins of individuals, those will do most to prevent public calamity, to ensure national
prosperity, and thus will do most for their country, who make a stand for God
against that which would displease Him; who, in their own immediate spheres, seek,
in dependence upon His grace, to yield to His authority, and to illustrate His
religion; and who “let their light so shine before men that they may see their good
works, and glorify their Father which is in heaven.” Personal religion is the best
patriotism. The fear of God pervading men’s hearts is the surest provision against
national calamity, because it is the opposite of national sin. Go, then, and exercise
your civil privileges, your social rights, in the fear of the God of nations. Set Him at
your right hand. (J. A. Miller.)
23

The commission of judgment
The Amalekites are supposed by some to have descended from Amalek grandson of Esau
(Gen_36:12) But against this view it may he forcibly objected:
1. That a nation so powerful and so widely diffused, could scarcely have sprung up in
so short a period;
2. That the seat of Esau and his posterity was much more easterly than the realm of
the Amalekites; and
3. That it is not easy to suppose such near relatives of Israel exposed to such a doom,
while Edom and Moab were so scrupulously spared on account of their relationship.
But it is not improbable that a brave and warlike chief like Esau might, through his
family, wield a powerful influence among the desert tribes, and even supply them
with a name. The matter, however, is not of importance, compared with the
consideration of their crime and its punishment. The assault of the Amalekites was
an offence of high aggravation. It was made when Israel had newly entered on their
wanderings (Exo_17:8-16); and as the first onset of enemies it was marked by
singular audacity, and attended with peculiar danger to Israel. They were ringleaders
They broke the peace, and inaugurated a hostile dealing with the people. Moreover,
their attack was entirely unprovoked. Besides the manner of attack was treacherous
and cruel (Deu_25:17-19), “he smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble
behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary.” Hence, in Deu_25:18, the real point
of the charge against Amalek is this: “he feared not God.”
There was something peculiarly daring and insolent in his conduct. He seems to have
deliberately chosen the earliest period of assaulting them, undismayed by the terrible
doings of the past, and undeterred by the pledged protection and guidance of the future.
It was an eager and determined defiance of the God of Israel. Such an attitude and
bearing must be providentially taken notice of. The sovereign Lord will set Himself right
at once with the nations. “His counsel shall stand.” The daring sinners have despised His
covenant with Israel; He will meet this by another covenant regarding them. Their
destruction is decided by oath. Such is the whole case against Amalek. It might seem as
if the bare statement of it were enough to vindicate the Divine dealing with them. But
inasmuch as ungodly men have inveighed against this dealing, and have drawn from it
dark colours wherewith to sketch a gloomy caricature of the Most High; and,
particularly, inasmuch as natural feeling even in the good is ever liable to a relapse into
disloyal sympathy with offending fellows, a few further remarks on the subject may do
some useful service.
1. Whatever objection may be raised against the dealings of God in the case of
Amalek applies equally to innumerable similar cases. Take, for example, the
destruction of Lisbon by an earthquake in 1755. Here we find actually occurring
substantially the same woe that was denounced against Amalek. There is the same
sudden, violent, widespread, indiscriminate ruin. The only differences are these: The
destruction affected only a portion of the people; and the instrument employed was a
blind material force, instead of an army of rational and moral beings. But these affect
not the real identity of the two cases. On the question of justice, or of mercy, they fall
into the same category. He who impeaches the justice of Amalek’s overthrow must be
24

prepared in consistency to carry his condemnation over the whole breadth of God’s
providential government. To slay a great criminal, fierce, malignant, and strong, was
in one view an act of self-defence, in another, an act of retribution; and to do it at the
command of a holy God was a teat and a training of the highest spiritual affections of
a creature.
2. No individual Amalekite suffered more than he deserved. To this it will be
immediately answered: This is impossible, for children were involved in the doom of
adult sinners. We own the fact, and the difficulty growing out of it. We are
persuaded, moreover, that no reasoning of man shall ever fully dissipate the
mysterious darkness that hangs about the death of infants. But the mystery and
gloom refer mainly to the fact, not to the matter of its occurrence. It is indeed a sad
and awful thing to see young buds torn violently from the stem of life by the rude
hand of war. But, alas! the hand of other spoilers has made larger havoc. Disease has
filled, by millions, more infant graves than war. Will they who cavil at the
commanded slaughter of the sword explain and vindicate the larger mortality of
disease? They call the ills of infancy natural. It is a gross mistake. They are unnatural,
abnormal, manifestly punitive. And when we say punitive, we approach nearer a
solution of the great problem—instead of, as some affirm, adding to its gloom. For
whether does it present, most difficulty, to view this wide-wasting death of yet
irresponsible beings as the infliction of pure sovereignty, or as the result of violated
law! Is it not clear that when we interpose the idea of a federal relationship, a
principle of representation, by which sin transmits its doom, as by natural descent it
transmits its virus, to each rising generation, we have advanced a step outwards from
the dark nucleus of the difficulty.
3. The visitation of vengeance was a valuable means of moral influence. To Israel’s
heart it was fitted to carry impressive conviction of God’s immovable determination
to carry out, His purposes of love, to be their bulwark against surrounding
heathenism, and to preserve them for the glories and the happiness of the future. To
Israel’s conscience it was fraught with most powerful stimulus—awfully reminding
them of the lofty supremacy, unswerving veracity, and unsparing righteousness of
their God. And so this dreadful sentence of extermination is most useful. The Lord
has need of it. It is one of a series of judgments that lift their terrible tops in sight of
hostile heathenism, and stand as sentinels of God around the sacred people. Human
life is a sacred thing. But He surely knows this full well who has so carefully hedged it
about, who marks even a sparrow’s fall, and who has in gratuitous tenderness left yet
to this abode of rebels its music and its flowers. And the honour of that mighty Lord,
the safety of His people, the accomplishment of His grand remedial designs, are
immeasurably more sacred. (P. Richardson, B. A.)
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally
destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare
them; put to death men and women, children and
25

infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
BARNES, "Utterly destroy - Rather, “devote to destruction” (Lev_27:28 note).
When a city or people were thus made cherem, everything living was to be destroyed,
and no part of the spoil fall to the conquerors (compare 1Sa_15:21). The valuables were
put into the sacred treasury.
CLARKE, "Slay both man and woman - Nothing could justify such an
exterminating decree but the absolute authority of God. This was given: all the reasons
of it we do not know; but this we know well, The Judge of all the earth doth right. This
war was not for plunder, for God commanded that all the property as well as all the
people should be destroyed.
GILL, "Now go and smite Amalek,.... This was one of the three things the Israelites
were obliged to do when they came into the land of Canaan, as Kimchi observes; one
was, to appoint a king over them, another, to build the house of the sanctuary, and the
third, to blot out the name and memory of Amalek, see Deu_25:19 and this work was
reserved for Saul, their first king:
and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; all were to be
devoted to destruction, and nothing remain to be made use of in any way, to any profit
and advantage; living creatures were to be put to death, and everything else burnt and
destroyed:
but slay both men and women, infant and suckling; neither sex nor age were to
be regarded, no mercy and pity shown to any; they had shown none to Israel when weak
and feeble, and by the law of retaliation none was to be exercised on them:
ox and sheep, camel and ass; though useful creatures, yet not to be spared; as not
men, women, and children, through commiseration, so neither these through
covetousness, and neither of them on any pretence whatsoever. Children suffered for
their parents, and cattle because of their owners, and both were a punishment to their
proprietors; an ox, or any other creature, might not be spared, lest it should be said, as
Kimchi observes, this was the spoil of Amalek, and so the name and memory of Amalek
would not be blotted out.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 15:3. Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
have, &c. — This heavy sentence was pronounced against them long before,
(Exodus 17:14,) and renewed at the Israelites’ entrance into Canaan, with a charge
not to forget it, (Deuteronomy 25:19,) and now ordered to be put in execution. Slay
both man and woman, infant and suckling — We are to consider these orders of
God, given in Scripture, for the slaying the innocent with the guilty, even children
26

and sucklings, who could have done no harm, in the same light as we do a plague or
earthquake, or any other of God’s judgments in the earth, whereby the guiltless are
cut off with the guilty; the reason of which, perhaps, may be, that the guilty, in such
calamities, are more grievously afflicted and punished, by the cutting off their
harmless children, than they would be by any thing that could befall themselves.
And God can, and certainly does, crown elsewhere the innocent with happiness,
great enough to reward them amply for the evils that fall upon them here. And,
without doubt, every infant, however much its death may be lamented by its
parents, receives a great favour and blessing from God by having death bestowed
upon it in its infancy; as it is taken away from all the miseries of this life, in order to
be made perfectly and eternally happy.
The reason, perhaps, of God’s ordering the beasts to be all killed, upon this and
some other occasions of this sort, was, that the neighbouring nations might know
that these terrible executions of the Israelites upon some particular nations, did not
proceed from any views of profit or interest to themselves, but were done in
obedience to the commands of the Lord of all, to punish those whose iniquity was
full. For, had the Israelites been allowed to spare the cattle (which were then the
chief riches of the nations) on these occasions, they would have appeared rather as
the murderers of these people, for the sake of their riches, than the ministers of
God’s wrath, to punish nations whose abominations made them ripe for destruction.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Smite Amalek, and utterly destroy . . .—For “utterly destroy” the
Hebrew has the far stronger expression, “put under the ban” (cherem). Whatever
was “put under the ban” in Israel was devoted to God, and whatever was so devoted
could not be redeemed, but must be slain. Amalek was to be looked upon as
accursed; human beings and cattle must be killed; whatever was capable of being
destroyed by fire must be burnt. The cup of iniquity in this people was filled up. Its
national existence, if prolonged, would simply have worked mischief to the
commonwealth of nations. Israel here was simply the instrument of destruction used
by the Almighty. It is vain to attempt in this and similar transactions to find
materials for the blame or the praise of Israel. We must never forget that Israel
stood in a peculiar relation to the unseen King, and that this nation was not
unfrequently used as the visible scourge by which the All-Wise punished hopelessly
hardened sinners, and deprived them of the power of working mischief. We might
as well find fault with pestilence and famine, or the sword—those awful instruments
of Divine justice and—though we often fail to see it now—of Divine mercy.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 15:3. The complete extermination of the Amalekites, persons
and property, as a righteous judgment of the holy God (as is intimated in the
“noted” (considered) of 1 Samuel 15:2) is enjoined on Saul. The phrase “put
everything under the ban” [this is the exact meaning of the Heb.; Eng. A. V.:
“utterly destroy,”—Tr.] is explained by the following parallel phrases to mean
“slaying,” the “inferior being put last in each member” (Then.), and the “both …
and” expressing complete destruction without exception. [The Ban. The ban, of
which we have here a notable instance, was an old custom, existing probably before
27

Moses, but formulated, regulated and extended by him. In its simplest form it was
the devotion to God of any object, living or dead. (The object thus devoted was
called ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ר‬ֵ‫,ח‬ Cherem, from ‫,חרם‬ “to separate,” “set apart from common use,” and
from the noun comes, according to Ewald, the Heb. Hiph. “to make a thing
cherem,” “put under the ban.”) When an Israelite or the whole congregation wished
to devote to God anything, Prayer of Manasseh, beast or field, whether for the
honor of God, or to get rid of an injurious or accursed thing, it was brought and
offered to the priest, and could not then be redeemed ( Leviticus 27:28)—if living, it
must be put to death. A deep consciousness of man’s sin and God’s holiness
underlay this law. The wicked thing, contrary to the spiritual theocratic life of
God’s people, must be removed, must be committed to him who was the ruler and
judge of the people. And so the custom had a breadth of use as well as of meaning in
Israel which it never had in other ancient nations (Ew.). A city might be devoted
( Deuteronomy 13:12-17), or a whole nation by vow of the people ( Numbers 21:2),
or by command of God ( Exodus 17:14). In such case all human beings and cattle
were to be slain, all the spoil (houses, furniture, etc.) to be burned, the land was to
lie for some time fallow, and other things to be given to the sanctuary. From this
strict rule there were occasional deviations ( Numbers 31; Joshua 9:3-15), but on
special grounds. To spare the devoted thing was a grave offence, calling down the
vengeance of God. In later times the ban was, doubtless under prophetic direction,
softened, and in the New Testament times the infliction of death had quite ceased.—
On this whole subject see Ew, Alterth. I:101 sq. (1866), Herzog R. E, s. v. Bann,
Comm. of Kalisch and Bib. Comm. on Leviticus 27.—Tr.]
PULPIT, "1Sa_15:3
Utterly destroy. Hebrew, "put under the ban." The word herem, ban, properly
signifies a thing set apart, especially one devoted to God; and whatever was so devoted
could not be redeemed, but must be slain. When a country was put under the ban, all
living things, men and cattle, were to be killed; no spoil might be taken, but it was to be
burnt, and things indestructible by fire, as silver and gold, were to be brought into the
treasury. Everything, in short, belonging to such a nation was looked upon as accursed
(see Num_21:2, Num_21:3).
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them
at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers
and ten thousand from Judah.
28

BARNES, "Telaim - Probably the same as “Telem” Jos_15:24, one of the uttermost
cities of Judah, toward the coast of Edom. The name means “lambs,” and was probably
so called from the numerous flocks.
Two hundred thousand ... - A wonderful contrast with the six hundred men who
composed his whole army before 1Sa_13:15, and a proof how completely for a time the
Philistines had been driven back. The separate mention of the men of Judah shows how
little union there was between Juduh and Ephraim even at this time; a circumstance
which throws light upon the whole after history.
CLARKE, "Two hundred thousand - and ten thousand - The Septuagint, in
the London Polyglot, have Four Hundred thousand companies of Israel, and Thirty
thousand companies of Judah. The Codex Alexandrinus has Ten thousand of each. The
Complutensian Polyglot has Two Hundred thousand companies of Israel, and Ten
thousand of Judah. And Josephus has Four Hundred thousand of Israel, and Thirty
thousand of Judah. All the other versions are the same with the Hebrew text; and there
is no difference in the MSS.
GILL, "And Saul gathered the people together,.... Or "made them to hear" (r), by
the sound of a trumpet; or by sending heralds into all parts of the land to proclaim the
above order of the Lord, and summon them to come to him, perhaps at Gilgal; so the
Septuagint version, and Josephus (s):
and numbered them in Telaim; thought to be the same with Telem, a place in the
tribe of Judah, Jos_15:24, the word signifies "lambs"; hence the Vulgate Latin version
is,"he numbered them as lambs;''and the Jews (t) say, because it was forbid to number
the children of Israel, which was the sin of David; therefore every man had a lamb given
him, and so the lambs were numbered, by which it was known what was the number of
the people; and the Targum says, this was done with the passover lambs, it being now
the time of the passover; but the numbering here made was not of the people of the land
in general, and so there was no occasion of such a precaution, only a numbering and
mustering of the army when got together and rendezvoused in one place: the sum of
which is here given:
two hundred thousand footmen and ten thousand men of Judah; which last
were reckoned separately, as distinct from the other tribes of Israel, to show their
obedience to Saul, who was of another tribe, though the kingdom was promised to
theirs; but R. Isaiah observes, that the reason why so few of the men of Judah came, in
comparison of the other tribes, was, because they envied the government being in one of
the tribe of Benjamin, when they thought it should have been in one of theirs; the
number is greatly increased in the Septuagint version, which makes the whole to be
29

400,000, and 30,000 men of Judah; and so Josephus (u).
HENRY4-5, "III. Saul hereupon musters his forces, and makes a descent upon the
country of Amalek. It was an immense army that he brought into the field (1Sa_15:4):
200,000 footmen. When he came to engage the Philistines, and the success was
hazardous, he had but 600 attending him, 1Sa_13:15. But now that he was to attack the
Amalekites by express order from heaven, in which he was sure of victory, he had
thousands at his call. But, whatever it was at other times, it was not now for the honour
of Judah that their forces were numbered by themselves, for their quota was
scandalously short (whatever was the reason), but a twentieth part of the whole, for they
were by 10,000, when the other ten tribes (for I except Levi) brought into the field
200,000. The day of Judah's honour drew near, but had not yet come. Saul numbered
them in Telaim, which signifies lambs. He numbered then like lambs (so the vulgar
Latin), numbered them by the paschal lambs (so the Chaldee), allowing ten to a lamb, a
way of numbering used by the Jews in the later times of their nation. Saul drew all his
forces to the city of Amalek, that city that was their metropolis (1Sa_15:5), that he might
provoke them to give him battle.
JAMISON, "Saul gathered the people together — The alacrity with which he
entered on the necessary preparations for the expedition gave a fair, but delusive
promise of faithfulness in its execution.
Telaim — or Telem, among the uttermost cities of the tribe of Judah towards the
coast of Edom (Jos_15:21, Jos_15:24).
COFFMAN, "SAUL PARTIALLY EXECUTES GOD'S ORDER
"So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them, two hundred thousand men
on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah at Telaim. And Saul came to the city of
Amalek, and lay in wait in the valley. And Saul said to the Kenites, "Go, depart, go
down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them; for you showed
kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites
departed from among the Amalekites. And Saul defeated the Amalekites, from
Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. And he took Agag the king of the
Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and
of the fatlings, and of the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly
destroy them; all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed."
"Saul numbered the people ... at Telaim" (1 Samuel 15:4). This appears to be the
same place as Telem (Joshua 15:24) in the land of Judah in southern Israel. That
part of Israel was closest to the territory of the Amalekites.
"And Saul said to the Kenites ... `Go down from among the Amalekites'" (1 Samuel
15:6). "The Kenites were of the family and kindred of Jethro, Moses' father-in-law,
a people that dwelt in tents, which made it easy for them to remove to other
30

lands."[9] Also, a more recent consideration for Israel was in the action of Jael the
wife of Heber in her destruction of Sisera. "Famous among the Kenites was Jael,
whose husband Heber had migrated to north Palestine (Judges 4:11; 5:24)."[10]
"And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive" (1 Samuel 15:8). Young noted
that, "The name Agag is found elsewhere only in Numbers 24:7; and it may possibly
have been an hereditary title like Pharaoh)."[11] We must reject this opinion
regarding an `hereditary ritle'; because, when Haman plotted to kill all the Jews on
earth, he was identified as "an Agagite," indicating that he was a descendant of the
king mentioned here (Esther 3:1). This also shows that Saul did not destroy "all the
people" as he said he did. Many no doubt escaped, for the Bible reveals that a
remnant of them was still able to wage war in the times of Hezekiah (1 Chronicles
4:43).
"And he (Saul) took Agag alive ... and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge
of the sword" (1 Samuel 15:8). "All the people" in this passage is hyperbole, as
when someone says, "We gave a party and everyone came."
We cannot leave this without stressing the fact that God knew what He was doing
when He ordered the destruction of the Amalekites. It was one of them, Haman, a
descendant of King Agag, who in the times of Esther plotted the destruction of all
the Jews on earth, a plot which required the intervention of God Himself to
frustrate it.
HAWKER, "Verses 4-6
(4) And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two
hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah. (5) And Saul came to a
city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley. (6) And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go,
depart, get you 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. So
the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
It is profitable to mark, and admire distinguishing mercies of any kind. The
salvation of the Kenites, was certainly a marked blessing. And is it not yet more
sweet and refreshing, to contemplate the distinguishing blessings of grace. When the
Lord was about to bring a flood upon the world, for the destruction of the ungodly,
Noah had an ark provided for his safety. Dearest Jesus! how precious art thou in
this point of view, to thy people!
ELLICOTT, "(4) In Telaim.—Identical with Telem (Joshua 15:24), a place on the
south border of Judah, near the region where the Amalekites chiefly dwelt.—
Kimchi Telaim, however, signifies “lambs;” probably “Beth,” house of, is to be
understood. Thus it was no town, but the “place or house of lambs”—some open
spot, where, at the proper season, the lambs were collected from the pastures in the
wilderness.—Dean Payne Smith.
31

Ten thousand men of Judah.—Again the numbers of this great tribe are out of
proportion to the numbers furnished by the rest of the tribes. (See Note on 1 Samuel
11:8.)
LANGE, "1 Samuel 15:4. Saul summons the people (Heb. “make them hear,” the Pi.
only elsewhere in 1 Samuel 23:8). The whole of the population fit for war (see the
numbers in 1 Samuel 15:4) appears again in arms, because the powerful Amalekites
could be overthrown and destroyed only by the full force of Israel.—Telaim is the
same with Telem, a southern city of Judah ( Joshua 15:24), lying, therefore, near the
Amalekite territory, which agrees with Saul’s choice of the place for his mustering
of the army. The reading of the Sept.: “in Gilgal,” is an unfortunate gloss, suggested
by chs 11,12. [On the numbers see “Text. and Gram.” The separate mention of
Judah points possibly to a post-Solomonic date for the chapter. See Erdmann’s
Introduction, p40.—Tr.][FN30] 1 Samuel 15:5. The name of the “city” of the
Amalekites, against which Saul advanced, is not known.[FN31] Saul lay in ambush
in the valley. To this Thenius objects that nothing more is said of an ambush, and
that Saul went openly to work; but the first remark is of no importance, since it is
not intended to give a full account of the battle; and as to the second, Saul was able
to treat with the Kenites in the manner described the better because he had
concealed his army in a gorge. According to the reading conjectured by Thenius:
“and he set the battle in array” (‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ָ‫ח‬ְ‫ל‬ ִ‫מ‬ ֹ‫ֲר‬‫ע‬ַ‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬, after the Arabic [and Targ.—Tr.]: “he
set the people in array there”), Saul, “already prepared for battle,” must have
addressed himself openly to the Kenites. But neither this declaration to the Kenites,
who were living in the midst of the Amalekites, nor the withdrawal of the former
from their midst could have occurred as related, if the Israelitish army had stood
over against the Amalekites ready for battle. The latter would certainly not have
looked quietly on while Saul withdrew the Kenites from them to himself.—The
Kenites, a small tribe of the northwestern Arabian nomadic peoples (in Canaan as
early as Genesis 15:19), had shown friendship and kindness to the Israelites after
their departure from Egypt ( Numbers 10:29). Moses’ brother-in-law, Hobab
( Judges 1:16), belonged to them, and under his guidance it was that this kindness
was shown. According to Judges 1:16 these friendly Kenites dwelt south of the city
Arad in the wilderness of Judah, that Isaiah, near the Amalekites, and near their
original seat. Thence they had descended up to Saul’s time farther into the
Amalekite territory. Some of them settled in the north, as Heber, husband of Jael
( Judges 4:11; Judges 4:17). Another branch of the Kenites, hostile to the Israelites
and in alliance with the Edomites, who dwelt in the caves of Arabia Petræa, and are
without ground regarded by Hengstenberg (Bileam, p190 sq.) as a totally distinct
people, are set forth in Numbers 24:21 as the object of God’s inevitable judgment.
The Kenites here mentioned (they appear also in the history of David as friends of
Israel, 1 Samuel 27:10; 1 Samuel 30:29) are withdrawn from the punishment which
was inflicted on the Amalekites.
PETT, "1 Samuel 15:4
‘And Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred
32

1 samuel 15 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 1 samuel 15 commentary

Similar to 1 samuel 15 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

1 samuel 15 commentary