1 Samuele 15:22 Commento

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.

And Samuel said,.... In reply to Saul: hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? no, certainly, the one being merely ceremonial, the other moral; the one supposes sin committed, for which sacrifice is offered; the other moral, and is a compliance with the will of God, and is neither sinful, nor supposes anything sinful, and therefore must be the more acceptable: behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams; which always was claimed by the Lord as his right and due; or the fattest rams or best sacrifices, of whatever sort, whether burnt offerings, or sin offerings, or peace offerings; for had man obeyed the will of God, and not sinned, there would have been no need of sacrifice; and that was only acceptable to God when offered with a heart truly sensible of sin, and penitent for it, and in the faith of the great sacrifice of Christ, of which all sacrifices under the law were typical, and led unto.

Moreover, the prophets indicate in the fullest manner that God did not stand in need of their slavish obedience but that it was on their own account that he enjoined certain observances in the law. And again, that God did not need their oblation but [merely demanded it], on account of the one who offers it, the Lord taught distinctly, as I have pointed out. For when he perceived that they were neglecting righteousness, and abstaining from the love of God, and imagining that God was to be propitiated by sacrifices and the other typical observances, Samuel spoke thus to them: “God does not desire whole burnt offerings and sacrifices, but that his voice is obeyed. Behold, a ready obedience is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.”

Therefore, when different prophets or different apostles should give to those who sin the counsel by which they can correct or amend the sin, they rightly will seem to have sold rams to them for sacrifice. But how much do they charge the buyers? It is, I think, the cost of reading zealously, of hearing with vigilance the word of God, and above all, I think, the most diligent obedience, about which the Lord says, “I prefer obedience to sacrifice; and hearing what I say rather than whole burnt offerings.”

Samuel, that great man, no less clearly reproved Saul, saying, “Is not the word better than a gift?” For hereby one fulfills the law and pleases God, as he says, “The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me.” Let one “learn what this means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,” and I will not condemn the adversaries.

22. For what are the good works of the elect but sacrifices and burnt offerings? Since therefore the Lord had commanded burnt offerings and sacrifices to be offered through the law, what does it mean that the Lord is said not to want burnt offerings and sacrifices, yet promises that He wants to be obeyed, unless that those things which are done apart from obedience are not burnt offerings and sacrifices? As if to say: Good works are then good when they do not disagree with the judgment of those set over them. But if this is said in order to commend the virtue of obedience, it is clear how sublime a good it is, which surpasses sacrifices and offerings. What then does it mean that He wills obedience to the voice of the Lord, unless that all good works must be set below those goods which are commanded? For when superiors rightly command, the goods which subjects choose of their own judgment are set below the commands of their superiors. Those very works set below them are called burnt offerings and sacrifices, so that not only may the small works of inferiors be perceived as not to be compared with the commands of superiors, but the greatest burnt offerings indeed belong to those who wish to withdraw themselves entirely from public work, so as to offer themselves wholly consumed by love to God in the secret of contemplation. Sacrifices belong to those who by no means separate themselves from the common public life, but act with singular virtue, so as to surpass the virtues of others by living more strictly. These things indeed, and things of this kind, when they are done with the permission of good rulers, are sacrifices and burnt offerings which God approves; but when they are done in such a way that through them the commands of superiors are neglected, let those who offer hear what the prophet sent by the Lord says to the disobedient king: Does God desire burnt offerings and sacrifices, and not rather that the voice of the Lord be obeyed? As if to terrify those who despise the commands of their fathers as lesser things, and present their own as greater, saying: Because you think you do something great, you despise what is small and lowly; but if you see clearly, through this you do not please the Lord. And rightly, while the work of the proud is examined, the prophet keenly inquires, saying: Does God desire burnt offerings and sacrifices, and not rather that the voice of the Lord be obeyed? He inquires indeed so that the swelling of pride may be struck by pastoral authority. He says: Does God desire burnt offerings and sacrifices? Because those who choose to follow their own will think they please God; but God by no means approves their works, even when they are great and mighty. But now he added with what praises obedience ought to be proclaimed, and said: (Verse 22.) For obedience is better than sacrifices, and to hearken is more than to offer the fat of rams. 23. For since he said above: "Does God desire holocausts and victims?" does he not subject both to the praises of obedience, so that when he set forth victims and the fat of rams, he understood the holocaust in the fat? Whatever is better is certainly better than something good. But those holocausts and victims which God does not want are by no means good. What, then, does it mean when it is said in praise of obedience, "Obedience is better than victims, and to hearken than to offer the fat of rams," unless that obedience is then better when the holocaust and victim is not evil? As if, therefore, he brings back the proud and disobedient to the consideration of so great a good, saying: Even if nothing were done by you through presumption, the virtue of obedience would be better than the works you choose. It is clear, therefore, on what summit it is placed, which the prophet saw as higher than divine oblations. But if, as above, we follow the spiritual sense, victims are to be referred to the austerity of a great way of life, and holocausts to the compunction of a more secluded life. For obedience is better than victims, and to hearken is more than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is of far higher merit always to subject one's own will to another's will than to wear down the body with great fasts, or to slay oneself through compunction in a more secret sacrifice. For what is the fat of rams but the rich and interior devotion of the elect? He therefore offers the fat of rams who, in the pursuit of a secret way of life, possesses the affection of devout prayer. Nevertheless, obedience is better than victims, and than to offer the fat of rams. Because he who has perfectly learned to fulfill the will of his superior excels in the heavenly kingdom both those who abstain and those who weep. Certainly, because he says this against one who is proud and openly contemning the Lord's commandments, he does not compare the good that he did with the good that he despised; but he destroys the pretense of good by showing the truth of a better good. As if he were saying: Even if you were seeking an excellent good for the more excellent glory of virtues, you ought rather to have chosen the good of obedience, which excels even excellent things. Speaking thus, he indeed destroys the pretense of good by argumentation; but by adding what follows, he openly confounds the parent evil of disobedience, saying: (Verse 23.) "For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as the wickedness of idolatry."

And Samuel said: "Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices?" etc. These words indeed specifically pertain to the Jews, who, neglecting justice, mercy, and faith, and similar things, thought they could please the Lord through sacrifices and burnt offerings. But even now in the Church there are not a few burdened equally by wealth and crimes, who, while not ceasing to cling to their sins, trust that they can wash away their sins with daily alms. There are others who believe they cleanse themselves from the filth of vices, from which they do not care to abstain, by fasting, prayers, and frequent singing of psalms, while the Lord commands such offerings only from those who abstain from sin. Finally, the Psalmist does not say, "Do good among evil works"; but, he says, "Turn away from evil, and do good" (Psalm 36). And the leper or the unclean person in the law was not commanded to offer sacrifices to God while in their impurity, but wherever they were seen to be cleansed from it. However, it should be noted that he does not call sacrifices bad, but says obedience is better, to show that those too are good in their own time. He does not criticize the law, but prefers the Gospel. He says the people of the law are worthy of praise because they offered holocausts from their flocks to their Creator with pious devotion of heart; but he designates as much more praiseworthy the one who, according to the counsel of the Gospel, offers their body as a living sacrifice, holy, and pleasing to God.

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.

Hath the Lord as great delight, etc. - This was a very proper answer to, and refutation of Saul's excuse. Is not obedience to the will of God the end of all religion, of its rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices?

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.

Without entering, therefore, into any discussion of the meaning of the ban, as Saul only wanted to cover over his own wrong-doings by giving this turn to the affair, Samuel put a stop to any further excuses, by saying, "Hath Jehovah delight in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings as in hearkening to the voice of Jehovah? (i.e., in obedience to His word.) Behold, hearing (obeying) is better than slain-offerings, attending better than fat of rams." By saying this, Samuel did not reject sacrifices as worthless; he did not say that God took no pleasure in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings, but simply compared sacrifice with obedience to the command of God, and pronounced the latter of greater worth than the former. "It was as much as to say that the sum and substance of divine worship consisted in obedience, with which it should always begin, and that sacrifices were, so to speak, simple appendices, the force and worth of which were not so great as of obedience to the precepts of God" (Calvin). But it necessarily follows that sacrifices without obedience to the commandments of God are utterly worthless; in fact, are displeasing to God, as Psa 50:8., Isa 1:11., Isa 66:3, Jer 6:20, and all the prophets, distinctly affirm. There was no necessity, however, to carry out this truth any further. To tear off the cloak of hypocrisy, with which Saul hoped to cover his disobedience, it was quite enough to affirm that God's first demand was obedience, and that observing His word was better than sacrifice; because, as the Berleb. Bible puts it, "in sacrifices a man offers only the strange flesh of irrational animals, whereas in obedience he offers his own will, which is rational or spiritual worship" (Rom 12:8). This spiritual worship was shadowed forth in the sacrificial worship of the Old Testament. In the sacrificial animal the Israelite was to give up and sanctify his own person and life to the Lord. (For an examination of the meaning of the different sacrifices, see Pent. pp. 505ff., and Keil's Bibl Archol. 41ff.) But if this were the design of the sacrifices, it was clear enough that God did not desire the animal sacrifice in itself, but first and chiefly obedience to His own word. In Sa1 15:22, טּוב is not to be connected as an adjective with זבח, "more than good sacrifice," as the Sept. and Thenius render it; it is rather to be taken as a predicate, "better than slain-offerings," and מזּבח is placed first simply for the sake of emphasis. Any contrast between good and bad sacrifices, such as the former construction would introduce into the words, is not only foreign to the context, but also opposed to the parallelism. For אילים חלב does not mean fat rams, but the fat of rams; the fat portions taken from the ram, which were placed upon the altar in the case of the slain-offerings, and for which חלב is the technical expression (compare Lev 3:9, Lev 3:16, with Lev 3:4, Lev 3:11, etc.). "For," continued Samuel (Sa1 15:23), "rebellion is the sin of soothsaying, and opposition is heathenism and idolatry." מרי and הפצר are the subjects, and synonymous in their meaning. קסם חטּאת, the sin of soothsaying, i.e., of divination in connection with the worship of idolatrous and demoniacal powers. In the second clause idols are mentioned instead of idolatry, and compared to resistance, but without any particle of comparison. Opposition is keeping idols and teraphim, i.e., it is like worshipping idols and teraphim. און, nothingness, then an idol or image (vid., Isa 66:3; Hos 4:15; Hos 10:5, Hos 10:8). On the teraphim as domestic and oracular deities, see at Gen 31:19. Opposition to God is compared by Samuel to soothsaying and oracles, because idolatry was manifested in both of them. All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a god. So that all manifest opposition to the word and commandment of God is, like idolatry, a rejection of the true God. "Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, He hath rejected thee, that thou mayst be no longer king." ממּלך = מלך מהיוה (Sa1 15:26), away from being king.