1 Samuel 15:21 Komentář

In this chapter we have the final rejection of Saul from being king, for his disobedience to God's command in not utterly destroying the Amalekites. By his wars and victories he hoped to magnify and perpetuate his own name and honour, but, by his mismanagement of them, he ruined himself, and laid his honour in the dust. Here is, I. The commission God gave him to destroy the Amalekites, with a command to do it utterly (Sa1 15:1-3). II. Saul's preparation for this expedition (Sa1 15:4-6). III. His success, and partial execution of this commission (Sa1 15:7-9). IV. His examination before Samuel, and sentence passed upon him, notwithstanding the many frivolous pleas he made to excuse himself (v. 10-31). V. The slaying of Agag (Sa1 15:32, Sa1 15:33). VI. Samuel's final farewell to Saul (Sa1 15:34, Sa1 15:35).

INTRODUCTION TO FIRST SAMUEL 15 In this chapter are recorded the order Saul had from the Lord to destroy Amalek utterly, Sa1 15:1 the preparation he made to put it in execution, and the success thereof, Sa1 15:4 the offence the Lord took at his not obeying his order thoroughly, with which Samuel was made acquainted, and which grieved him, Sa1 15:10, upon which he went out to meet Saul, and reprove him; and a long discourse upon the subject passed between them, the issue of which was, that by an irrevocable decree he was rejected from being king, Sa1 15:12 and the chapter is concluded with an account of Samuel's hewing in pieces Agag king of Amalek, and of his final departure from Saul, Sa1 15:32.

But the people took the spoil, the sheep and oxen,.... Still he continues to lay the blame on the people, when he, as king, ought to have restrained them: the chief of the things, which should have been utterly destroyed; this betrays him, and is an evidence against him; he could not plead ignorance, he knew and he owns, that according to the command of God they were all devoted to destruction; and therefore he ought not to have suffered the people to have spared any on whatsoever pretence, but to have seen all destroyed; but he was as deeply in it as they, and therefore palliates the thing, and endeavours to excuse them by observing, that their end was good, the service and glory of God, which perhaps were never thought of till now: namely: to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal; as peace offerings, by way of thanksgiving for the victory obtained, Sa1 15:15.

And when Saul was charged with negligence and a breach of the law, he did not benefit his cause by alleging his conduct on other matters. For a defense on one count will not operate to obtain an acquittal on another count. But if all things should be done according to law and justice, one must defend himself in those particulars wherein he is accused and must either disprove the past or else confess it with the promise that he will desist and do so no more. But if he is guilty of the crime and will not confess, but in order to conceal the truth speaks on other points instead of the one in question, he shows plainly that he has acted amiss and is conscious of his delinquency.

Finally, because he never had this eye of discretion, he who by God’s judgment first deserved to rule over the people of Israel was cast out of his kingdom like something dark out of a healthy body. Having been deceived by the darkness and error of this light, he decided that his own sacrifices were more acceptable to God than obedience to Samuel’s command, and in the very act by which he had hoped that he would propitiate the divine majesty he committed sin instead.

20. When something belonging to someone is taken away by the violence of armed men, it is called plunder. But the vices of the flesh and soul, because they are propagated at the devil's suggestion, are as it were his own property. Whoever therefore, recently lax within himself but now violent, destroys vices, takes plunder; because he powerfully seizes what belongs to another. And it should be noted that both slaughter and plunder are mentioned, so that it may be taught that some things are left behind dead while others are carried away alive. Indeed, the pleasures of lust are slain when they are driven from the heart by the power of heavenly intention and cut away from the body by contrition of spirit. But they are brought alive for sacrifice; because even if by the conversion of the sinner the delight of the flesh or mind is abandoned, the punishment of past delight is not entirely destroyed. Let vices therefore be slain, and let the living firstfruits by no means be kept from sacrifice: so that he who powerfully destroys the force of sin in contempt of pleasures may fear that the punishment of delight remains alive for him to sacrifice. What then are the firstfruits of the slain, if not the delights of sins? He is said to offer these who confesses before God to the priests. And the offerings are sacrificed when their punishment is destroyed through repentance. For they are, as it were, offered slain as firstfruits, yet live on through what follows: when someone confesses sins but does not strive to sacrifice them, that is, to slay them before God, through repentance. Therefore, when the firstfruits of the slain are said to be reserved for sacrifice, the error of certain people is confounded—those who abandon sins but do not nevertheless bewail them. Because therefore sins must not only be confessed but also destroyed by the severity of penance, while Saul feigns the figure of a good teacher, he asserts that his subjects brought the firstfruits of the slain to be sacrificed. Because the measure of penance must also be determined by the reasoning of the Scriptures, the firstfruits to be sacrificed are brought to Gilgal. Moreover, not only oxen but also sheep are kept for sacrifice: so that those who are concerned about their salvation may strive to destroy great sins through repentance in such a way that they do not neglect to bewail lesser ones. But concerning the proud it is clear: because, while they always desire to appear great, they are ashamed to be marked as sinners. Even when caught they resist, and they desire to appear just even in those things which they do. What then does it mean that he says: "Indeed, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord"? But Samuel says: "Let me alone, and I will tell you what the Lord spoke to me in the night." And after a little: "Why have you turned to the plunder, and done evil before the eyes of the Lord?" It is clear therefore how wondrously swollen with pride is he who seeks to justify himself at the very time when he recognizes that the Lord is rebuking him for sin. 21. But if he is believed to have responded thus because he thought the words were the prophet's, not the Lord's, but the prophet's, we still see imitators of Saul who, while trusting in their own learning, both despise through pride the commands of their superiors that they hear, and believe they can improve them by changing them. What then does he mean when he says: "Indeed I heard the voice of the Lord, and I brought Agag the king of Amalek"? But it is as if he were saying: Both what was commanded I strove to fulfill, and what was lacking I supplied. It was necessary that Amalek be struck down; but because, with God's help, he is conquered, it was fitting to supplement this by preserving what could be offered in sacrifice to Him. This clearly appears in the proud: because when they cannot conceal open fault, they attempt to alter or diminish it. As if to say: Even if you judge the open faults of the deed, the hidden simplicity of intention ought to be considered. It would indeed be a fault to bring anything from Amalek, unless what was brought ought to be sacrificed to God. This indeed often happens in monasteries, when any overly devout subject presumes to add to the commands of spiritual superiors; when he despises the common regular life and follows the judgment of his own will. For while he strives to improve his life by choosing rather than by obeying, what else is shown but that he colors open disobedience with the appearance of virtue? Indeed, not only subjects but also superiors ought to examine this matter carefully. Subjects ought to note carefully that Saul displeased God because he attempted to sacrifice to God contrary to the prophet's command. Let superiors note carefully that the prophet gave the king the command to destroy Amalek. For thus a teacher ought to praise the common life without despising the particular gifts of individuals. That common life indeed is praised which is joined by charity and is not darkened by intervening vices. The Apostle's judgment is: "Each one has his own gift from God, one indeed in this way, another in that way" (1 Cor. 7:7). Those, therefore, whose food and table are common ought to attend not only to the common good of refreshment but to the particular nature of their struggle: so that they eat together, but do not equally contend to fight against the stings of fornication through abstinence. For his flesh must be subdued more whose thorn of the flesh is more troublesome. Therefore the common life is no longer merely to be stirred up where the community of meals is observed, but each is said to fight individually against his individual battle. Nor does a teacher command well if he does not command that by which Amalek is struck down, but rather that by which he lives. Therefore let the teacher command, but so that the spirit of fornication may be overcome. Let subjects not refuse to obey, but only where the crime of pride is incurred, not where the abyss of death is avoided. But the disobedient, while with swelling heart they fail to carry out the commands of their superiors, when they attempt to improve what is enjoined upon them, while they desire to offer their own works to God, they destroy themselves. For through other virtues we render Him what is ours; through obedience we offer Him ourselves. Therefore Samuel adds, saying: (Verse 22.) "Does God desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord be obeyed?"

Samuel sends Saul to destroy the Amalekites, and all their substance, Sa1 15:1-3. Saul collects an immense army and comes against their city, Sa1 15:4, Sa1 15:5. He desires the Kenites to remove from among the Amalekites, Sa1 15:6. He smites the Amalekites, and takes their king, Agag, prisoner, and saves the best of the spoil, Sa1 15:7-9. The Lord is displeased, and sends Samuel to reprove him, Sa1 15:10, Sa1 15:11. The conversation between Samuel and Saul, in which the latter endeavors to justify his conduct, Sa1 15:12-23. He is convinced that he has done wrong, and asks pardon, Sa1 15:24-31. Samuel causes Agag to be slain; for which he assigns the reasons, Sa1 15:32-35.

To sacrifice unto the Lord - Thus he endeavors to excuse the people. They did not take the spoil in order to enrich themselves by it, but to sacrifice unto the Lord; and did not this motive justify their conduct?

SAUL SENT TO DESTROY AMALEK. (Sa1 15:1-6) 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 (Sa1 13:13-14). Now an opportunity was afforded him of retrieving that error by an exact obedience to the divine command.

War with Amalek. Saul's Disobedience and Rejection - 1 Samuel 15 As Saul had transgressed the commandment of God which was given to him through Samuel, by the sacrifice which he offered at Gilgal in the war with the Philistines at the very commencement of his reign, and had thereby drawn upon himself the threat that his monarchy should not be continued in perpetuity (Sa1 13:13-14); so his disobedience in the war against the Amalekites was followed by his rejection on the part of God. The Amalekites were the first heathen nation to attack the Israelites after their deliverance out of Egypt, which they did in the most treacherous manner on their journey from Egypt to Sinai; and they had been threatened by God with extermination in consequence. This Moses enjoined upon Joshua, and also committed to writing, for the Israelites to observe in all future generations (Exo 17:8-16). As the Amalekites afterwards manifested the same hostility to the people of God which they had displayed in this first attack, on every occasion which appeared favourable to their ravages, the Lord instructed Samuel to issue the command to Saul, to wage war against Amalek, and to smite man and beast with the ban, i.e., to put all to death (Sa1 15:1-3). But when Saul had smitten them, he not only left Agag the king alive, but spared the best of the cattle that he had taken as booty, and merely executed the ban upon such animals as were worthless (Sa1 15:4-9). He was rejected by the Lord for this disobedience, so that he was to be no longer king over Israel. His rejection was announced to him by Samuel (Sa1 15:10-23), and was not retracted in spite of his prayer for the forgiveness of his sin (Sa1 15:24-35). In fact, Saul had no excuse for this breach of the divine command; it was nothing but open rebellion against the sovereignty of God in Israel; and if Jehovah would continue King of Israel, He must punish it by the rejection of the rebel. For Saul no longer desired to be the medium of the sovereignty of Jehovah, or the executor of the commands of the God-king, but simply wanted to reign according to his own arbitrary will. Nevertheless this rejection was not followed by his outward deposition. The Lord merely took away His Spirit, had David anointed king by Samuel, and thenceforward so directed the steps of Saul and David, that as time advanced the hearts of the people were turned away more and more from Saul to David; and on the death of Saul, the attempt of the ambitious Abner to raise his son Ishbosheth to the throne could not possibly have any lasting success.

Even the sparing of the cattle he endeavoured to defend as the fulfilment of a religious duty. The people had taken sheep and oxen from the booty, "as firstlings of the ban," to sacrifice to Jehovah. Sacrificing the best of the booty taken in war as an offering of first-fruits to the Lord, was not indeed prescribed in the law, but was a praiseworthy sign of piety, by which all honour was rendered to the Lord as the giver of the victory (see Num 31:48.). This, Saul meant to say, was what the people had done on the present occasion; only he overlooked the fact, that what was banned to the Lord could not be offered to Him as a burnt-offering, because, being most holy, it belonged to Him already (Lev 27:29), and according to Deu 13:16, was to be put to death, as Samuel had expressly said to Saul (Sa1 15:3).