1 Samuel 15

Chap. XV. Ver. 1—35. Saul subdues the Amalekites, but spares their king, who is slain by Samuel.—We hear nothing of Samuel in the preceding chapter, but he now comes forward, and by divine authority directs Saul to war with Amalek, and utterly destroy the nation, which had long been threatened. ((Exodus 17:8-14).) Saul accordingly destroyed the people, men, women, and children; while he spared their king, and the best of their cattle; but all that ‘‘was vile and refuse he destroyed.” This part of the Jewish history has been strongly objected to, in two respects: 1. The order of God for their extirpation has been represented as sanguinary and cruel; and, 2. The conduct of Saul has been justified, as proceeding from a principle of humanity.

1. As to the order of God for their extirpation. We have already considered the case of the Canaanites, and the justice of their destruction, in our Introduction to the Book of Deuteronomy; and may remark, with Dr. Leland, that “A great deal of what has been offered with regard to the Canaanites, may be applied to the case of the Amalekites, whom Saul was ordered to destroy; with this difference, that it cannot be pretended in this case, as it was in the former, that the Amalekites had done the Israelites no injury. They attacked them without any provocation, when they were naked and unarmed, just delivered from their cruel oppressors; and that in a treacherous and barbarous manner, cutting off the weak, the weary, and the aged; and what aggravated their crime, they attacked them immediately after God had brought them out of Egypt and the Red sea, by a train of astonishing miracles, which showed a manifest contempt of God, and a defiance of his power and justice.

(Exodus xvii. 8, &c. Deuteronomy xxv. 17, 18, 19.) And it therefore seemed fit to him for this, added to their other crimes, to pronounce a solemn sentence of ‘Tali against them.’’—(Leland’s Defence of Christi- It is added by another learned writer, “The Amalekites took care to deserve excision, by continuing to manifest the most hostile disposition to the Hebrew nation, by attacking them whenever they had an opportunity, and joining their enemies on all occasions, to oppress and enslave them. They joined the Canaanites, and destroyed many of the people upon their first attempt to enter into Canaan. They united with the Moabites, went with them and smote Israel, dispossessed them of the city of palm-trees, and helped to reduce them to an eighteen years’ servitude.

They oppressed them also with the Midianites, and utterly impoverished them by their rapine and plunders; destroying the increase of the earth, leaving no sustenance for Israel, neither for the sheep, the oxen, or asses; and afterwards attacked them in battle, as confederates with the Midianitish army. Under Saul’s reign they continued their ravages, and spoiled the people, and when he had repulsed them, he received this command from God to exterminate them.”—(Dr. Chandler’s Life of 2. The conduct of Saul has been justified, as proceeding from motives of tenderness and humanity; but for this there is no pretence. The man who, but a little before, would have sacrificed his own son for violating a vow of which he had never heard, could have little to plead on that head, nor does he pretend to do so.

His excuse is, that the people took the cattle for sacrifice, which is very likely to be false, either on his part or theirs; but had this been true, Samuel lays down the unquestionable principle, as it respects the Almighty, that “to obey is better than sacrifice;” and therefore “the cattle on a thousand hills” would not atone for one act of wilful disobedience. But what shall we say as to Agag? Saul, it seems, had slain all the innocent, and spared him whom of all was most guilty; whose “sword had made many women childless;” a character, probably, not unlike Adoni-bezek, ((Judges 1:7).) remarkable for cruelty. As to Samuel, it must be remembered, that he acted immediately under the divine command. The hypocrisy of Saul is, however, most evident in his request to Samuel, to “honour him before the people,” whose favour he seems to have regarded more than that of God—“the Strength,”

or “Giver of Victory” to Israel. As the kingdom was to be continued to Saul during his life, Samuel so far complied as to worship with him, though he came no more to see him; and it is added, that the Lord himself repented that he had made Saul king. But how is this reconcilable with a preceding verse, that God cannot repent? The one explains the other. In a strict sense, the Supreme Being can neither change his mind, nor falsify his word; but he can make those changes in the course of his providence, which have that appearance. Saul was deserted both of God and of his prophet, and a successor was appointed; yet his life and his throne were preserved, till such time as providence had prepared his successor for the office.

But though Samuel no more visited Saul, he pitied and “mourned” over his folly and rebellion, and did not refuse to see him, when he came to his residence at Naioth. (See (1 Samuel 19:22-24).)

Notes on the verses

Chap. XV. Ver. 3. Now go and smite Amalek.—{The Amalekites, a people of Arabia Petra, who inhabited a tract of country on the frontiers of Egypt and Canaan, had acted with great cruelty towards the Israelites on their coming out of Egypt, and God then purposed that Amalek, as a nation, should be blotted out from under heaven; but it had been spared till it had filled up the measure of its iniquities, and now this purpose is carried into effect by Saul, upwards of 400 years afterwards! Not 1 could justify such an exterminating decree but the absolute authority of God; and this was given: all the reasons of it we do not know; but this we know well, the Judge of all the earth doeth right.|—Bagster.——Ox and sheep.—The reason of his being ordered to destroy the cattle, &c.

was evidently, that it might not be supposed the object of the attack was plunder. ‘ Ver.5. Saul came unto a city of Amalek.—Rather, “To the city Amalek,” the capital of the kingdom. q Ae 2 Xs Ver. 6. Saul said unto the Kenites.—While he was lying in wait in the valley, he seems to have sent a message to some of the Kenites, who had remained among the Amalekites, to warn them of their danger, and they withdrew immediately. See (Numbers 24:21-22), and notes. Ver. 7. Havilah.—{This Havilah was probably situated in Arabia, and the district of Chawlon may mark the spot. It seems different from that encompassed by the river Pison, one of the rivers of Eden. ]—Bagster. 5 Ver. 12. He set him up a place.—That is, probably, a monument of his victory; the Hebrew says, ‘‘A hand,”

which denotes the form of it. So Absalom’s pillar is called ‘‘the hand of Absalom,” (2 Samuel 18:18). _ [Probably because the trophy or monument of victory was in the shape of a large hand, the emblem of power, erected on a pillar. These memorial pillars were anciently much in use; and the figure of a hand, by its emblematical meaning, was well adapted to preserve the remembrance of a victory. Niebuhr, speaking of the Mesjed Ali, or Mosque of Ali, says, that, ‘‘at the top of the dome, where one generally sees on the Turkish mosques a crescent, or only a pole, there is here a hand stretched out, to [be] that of Ali.” Another writer (Annual Register, 1779,) informs us, that at the Alhamra, or Red palace of the Moorish kings in Grenada, “‘on the key stone of the outward arch (of the present principal entrance) is sculptured the figure of an arm, the symbol of strength and dominion."

}_Bagster: P Ver. 32. Agag came delicately.—Rather, “pleasantly;” but the LXX. render it trembling;” both may be true. He might flatter himself the danger was over, and affect to be pleasant, while he trembled in his heart. Ver. 33. Hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord.—That is, openly, and in the face of day. (See (Genesis 13:13).) [It has been a matter of wonder to many, how Samuel could thus slay a captive prince, even in the presence of Saul, who from motives of clemency had spared him; but it should be remarked, that what Samuel did here, he did in his magisterial capacity; and that Agag had been a cruel tyrant, and therefore was cut off for his merciless cruelties. Farther, it is not likely that he did it by his own sword, but by that of the executioner.

What kings, magistrates, and generals do, in an official way, by their subjects, servants, or soldiers, they are said to do themselves —qui facit per alterum, facit per se.|\—Bagster.