1 Samuel 15

1 Samuel 15:1

Bede: Samuel said to Saul: The Lord sent me to anoint you as king, etc. The prophetic word daily says to the rulers of the Church that they have not been chosen by their own industrious liberty, but by the ministry of the Lord to govern His people; and therefore they should always hear attentively the voice of His command. And it says to all the children of the Church to obey the commands of the Lord; for certainly every pure-hearted person, who expectantly looks forward to the vision of God, is anointed as king over His people Israel; over that gathering of good thoughts and deeds, by the merits of which he hopes to reach His vision. For Israel means “man seeing God.” And blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matthew 5). — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: We said above that Amalek designates the vice of lust, which as it were licks, since it suggests pleasure by flattering. Progress in the way of life is therefore shown, in that above he is declared to have been struck by Saul, and now he is not simply commanded to be struck, but all his possessions to be destroyed. First indeed the teacher strikes him, when through his word it is brought about that chastity is maintained in the hearts and bodies of the converted. For lust is as it were struck when the flesh has been in some manner subdued by the weapons of chastity, yet has not been perfectly subdued. For he who already abandons the defilements of lust, but still feels shameful impulses rising from himself against himself, no longer practices the wicked deed, yet nevertheless cannot drive it from his thought. Often unwillingly and unguardedly he is dragged to impure thoughts, and those things which he carelessly thinks within stir the flesh outwardly, so that it rises to the shameful impulses of pleasure. What then does it mean that Amalek, already struck, is commanded to be struck again and destroyed, except that the preacher must advance those whom he instructs for a chaste life toward the perfection of virtue? Amalek is therefore commanded to be struck again, because not yet well slain he still lives. Amalek is struck again when by the words of the teacher even those impulses that assail the flesh are crushed, when the teacher instructs his subjects to be crowned for this purpose: that they should so tame the body that it in no way rises to enticing impulses. But because the flesh is never restrained in this way if the mind slips into impure thinking, after the striking, Amalek is commanded to be demolished. He is therefore struck in the body and demolished in the heart, while the flesh is worthily worn down through abstinence and the mind is restrained from all impure thoughts. In this passage the preceding words must also be considered, which Samuel speaks in the person of the Lord, saying: “I have reviewed all that Amalek did to Israel, how he opposed him on the way when he was going up from Egypt.” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 1

1 Samuel 15:2

Bede: These things saith the Lord of hosts: I have reckoned, etc. An appropriate preface urging spiritual warfare, so that He who would command to engage in this should be known as the Lord of hosts; that is, of the angelic armies, by whose help we must be protected while fighting against the powers of the air. Egypt, which signifies darkness, represents past sins which followed us up to the sea of baptism but were drowned in it. But Amalek, who resisted Israel after crossing the Red Sea on the way through the desert, and whose name translates to “brutish people,” signifies those sins which, after the waves of baptism, daily assail us with their weapons, striving to prevent us from reaching the promised kingdom of the heavenly homeland; so that we do not preserve the fruit of our hearts in sanctification, attempting to rip it away with deadly temptation. All these we are ordered to utterly destroy and show no mercy to; that is, put away everything for which the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language from your mouth, and such like. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: What is meant by the deeds of the Amalekites being recounted, except that the defilements of lust are greatly hateful to God? Whence the blessed apostle Paul says: ‘Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body’ (1 Cor. 6:18). Likewise he says: ‘Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge’ (Heb. 13:4). Hence also, rebuking more sharply and separating them from the kingdom of God, he says: ‘Neither shall the unclean possess the kingdom of God’ (Eph. 5:5). Why is lust recounted, except because the sinner is cast out by the justice of God, when he bends himself to perpetrate its defilements? He who is recounted, therefore, so as to fall, is sometimes recounted so as to perish, and sometimes recounted so as to rise again. And because the deeds of Amalek are recalled after such great spans of time, it is in some way suggested to us that such people sometimes come to their senses after long periods. Moreover, his deeds are described when it is said: ‘How he withstood him on the way when he was going up out of Egypt.’ Israel means “seeing God.” Because he is said to go up out of Egypt, this signifies the newly converted, who abandon the darkness and depths of sins, draw near to the light of truth, and ascend the mountain of good works.

But Amalek opposed Israel on the way, because lust hurls the weapons of pleasure against those striving toward the summit of perfection, and strikes with the sword of impure suggestion whatever hearts it can. And because the battle of fornication is exceedingly strong and violent, Amalek is said not merely to have confronted Israel in some ordinary way, but to have resisted him. To resist indeed is to press upon someone with a fierce assault. That Israelite who was ascending surely saw these resisting Amalekites when he said: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind” (Rom. 7:23). Whence also, looking to his helper, he says: “Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 7:24). Amalek is therefore said to resist because, as long as we are in the flesh, we endure the fierce wars of lust. But why is he said to resist those ascending from Egypt? Behold, he who had been caught up to the secrets of the third heaven still had the resisting motions of the flesh. Rightly therefore Israel ascending from Egypt represents not only novices but also those endowed with great virtue. By the name of Egypt, the darkness of this world is signified. And Israel ascends from Egypt because all the elect, as they advance by living holy lives, strive to reach the heavenly homeland. And because as long as they are in the flesh, they have the law of the flesh contrary to the law of the mind, they see Amalek resisting them through powerful impulses. For the violence of this passion is shown when the very wars of Amalek that are recounted are described. For while Israel fought, when Moses raised his hands, Amalek was overcome; and Amalek prevailed when Moses lowered his hands (Exod. 17). But what does it mean that against others Moses fought with arms alone, yet against Amalek not with arms alone but also with the power of prayer? And what power and urgency of supplication was then necessary, where if he lowered his hands, he would give the honor of victory to Amalek? But truly the great struggle against fornication is shown, which is overcome with such great effort and such great difficulty. Therefore the most intense prayer of the army is a necessary weapon. Arms indeed are necessary, because those who wish to fight against fornication cannot conquer unless they are fortified with the other virtues. The army, as we showed above, represents the examples of the Fathers and the precepts of the Scriptures, which indeed everyone ought also to consider, and so occupy the mind with them that one does not gaze upon the defilements of wantonness. But though instructed by examples and teachings, one can by no means trust in oneself. Let him therefore lift up his hands, let him lift up his mind, so that he may shine with good work and devotion, who attempts to cut off perfectly from himself the war of lust.

What furthermore does it mean that when the hands are lowered he is conquered, except that often through the boldness of wicked work, even the very beauty of chastity is taken away? Often it is not taken away entirely, but it is weakened along with weakening works. Indeed, amid spiritual works and labors, we are strong against the goads of the flesh; but if, as though weary, we grow sluggish or soft from the rigor of our accustomed way of life, while we gradually grow negligent, the stings of the flesh rise up, which, as though Moses’ hands were lowered, conquer Israel (Exod. XVII). Therefore, lest the hands grow weary, let Aaron and Hur place a stone beneath them, and by no means allow Moses’ heavy hands to be lowered. Aaron indeed is called “mountain of strength,” and Hur is called “fire.” For when we grow weary, we are strengthened by contemplating heavenly things. What then is the mountain of strength, if not the height of heavenly contemplation? Which indeed, because it does not exist in a chosen heart without great charity, the mountain of strength is rightly said to stand beside Moses. They indeed place a stone beneath and support his hands, because he who ardently looks upon the highest rewards of heaven takes up great strength, and does not cease both to work well and to beseech the Creator. Because therefore the wars of the flesh are strong and altogether violent, Amalek is fittingly said to have resisted Israel as it ascended. Therefore the Prophet commands the king, saying: Hear the voice of the Lord. I have reviewed all that Amalek did to Israel. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 1

1 Samuel 15:3

Bede: Do not spare them, but kill, etc. From man to woman, from the perfected work of sin to carnal thought, namely the filthy mother and nurse of wicked offspring. The infant and the suckling, the very beginnings and purpose of nefarious action, which a recent evil thought desires to nourish even worse; understand, the ox, the sheep, the camel, and the donkey, symbolize dullness of folly, laziness of sloth, the baseness of pride, and the wantonness of luxury. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: What does it mean when he says: “Hear the voice of the Lord,” unless that those who wish to live chastely must keep subtle watch against the deceits of the spirit of fornication? As if to say: Do not cease to consider with how many snares he prepares to subject the elect to himself. And therefore he did not say: “I have recounted how he resisted Israel,” but: “Hear the voice of the Lord. I have recounted how he resisted Israel.” As if to say: If you recognize the manner of his snares, you will more easily be able to overcome the enemy. Rightly therefore he added, saying: “Now therefore go, and strike Amalek, and demolish all that is his.” As if to say: Because you know how you ought to go: Go, and demolish all that is his, and so destroy him that nothing of him may live any longer. But who could so subject the flesh to himself, who could ever so restrain his own mind, who could so remain in the flesh as to endure no shameful movements from the flesh? Who could so curb thought that no darkness of impurities would reach it through thinking? But if the shameful stirring of motion is not removed from the flesh, nevertheless the strength of that shamefulness is weakened, when there is indeed a simple movement in the flesh, but in that movement there is no itch of lust. This movement is not Amalekite, because it does not entice the mind that it cannot delight. It cannot be removed from the mind that it should in no way see unclean things, but it is led to a wonderful exercise of purity, so that seeing unclean things, it is stained by no taint of pleasure. Whoever therefore so governs the flesh, whoever so rules the mind, governs for this reason, rules for this reason: because he was able to demolish all of Amalek with strength. But now he explains in what follows what all his possessions are, saying: (Verse 3.) “Do not spare him, and do not covet anything of his; but slay from man to woman, both child and nursing infant, and ox and donkey, and sheep and camel.”

Who is this one who spares Amalek, if not he who retains something of wantonness either in thought, or in speech, or in the flesh? For many do not practice works of shameful conduct, yet do not restrain their tongue from shameful speech. Many avoid luxury through their actions, but do not avoid it through their thoughts. Some do nothing shameful, yet what they flee from in deed they desire in their heart. He therefore spares Amalek who holds onto the enticements of wantonness, either in speech, or through intention, or through thought. And so He says: “Do not spare him,” because from so wicked a vice nothing ought to be kindled in the mind, nothing permitted to burn in deed. Let Him therefore say: “Do not spare him,” so that all lustful impulses, all obscene utterances may be utterly destroyed in the body. He therefore says: “You shall not covet anything of his,” so that it may be thoroughly uprooted from thought. For what is lust, if not fire? And what are the virtues arising from the flesh and mind, if not flowers? What likewise are shameful thoughts, if not straw? Who does not know that if fire is carelessly extinguished among straw, from the small spark that remains, all the straw is set ablaze? He therefore who does not wish to burn up the flowers of virtues in his mind must so extinguish the fire of lust that it can never blaze up again through even a faint spark. Let him also remove the stubble of carnal thoughts, lest while the natural heat, which cannot be extinguished, is kindled, the green growth of virtues, which cannot catch fire by itself, is burned up as if through straw mixed in with it.

What then is the meaning of: “Do not spare him, and do not covet anything of his,” unless that all luxury in the flesh must be perfectly subdued, and torn out from the mind by the roots? It can also be understood: “Do not spare him, and do not covet anything from him,” because men and women, children and nursing infants are commanded to be killed. For women could be coveted, and children and nursing infants could provoke pity. Who then are the men to be killed, who are the women, who the children, who the oxen, who the sheep, who the camels, who the donkeys — this must be carefully considered. For who are the Amalekite men, if not the persuading impulses of shameful conduct? They are indeed men, because they suggest violently and pour seeds of depravity into corrupted minds. The women are the desires of the mind, which submit themselves to the aforesaid impulses for impious offspring. But who are the children and nursing infants, if not those who are generated from the mingling of Amalekite men and women? For if the impulse of evil suggestion is received in the mind like an adulterer, desire is impregnated like a harlot. Therefore, if that desire is allowed to pour forth its wicked offspring, the impulses of lust are then generated not only in the mind but also in the flesh. When these are born, they are children, because they do not yet inflict violence upon the flesh by their stirring. They are nursing infants when they are nourished by slight and negligent thought. For he who now refreshes shameful impulses in the flesh by free thought no longer gives milk to little ones but food to adults. Therefore the milk of the little Amalekites is the slight thought of impurity, because if the shameful impulse is not fed through thought, the little ones are killed as if denied their milk. This milk the harlot mother offers, because while the heat of desire seizes the mind, it is stirred as if from the worst abundance of the heart, so that the worse offspring of impulses may be nourished in the flesh. What is understood by the ox, if not deceitful counsel, which by the example of the ancients suggests the pleasure of the flesh — those who pleased almighty God amid the works of the flesh? For it seems to split the earth with the plowshare of discernment, as it were; but if it is taken up through deliberation, it ensnares the neck of the wretched mind under the yoke of shameful conduct, which it bears through pretense.

By the name of sheep, the life of the innocent is signified. Whence all the elect are called sheep by the voice of our Redeemer, when He says: ‘My sheep hear My voice’ (John 10:27). What then is the sheep of Amalek, if not the pretense of innocence? For some, when they consider both the very form of the human body and the properties of each sex, when they consider the desire implanted in their members, think they can freely use this as though it were a natural good. It is therefore like a sheep of the Amalekite, when something is suggested to the continent as though it were good, which is clearly proven not to be truly good. What also is signified by the camel? But the camel chews the cud and does not divide the hoof at all. What then is signified by the camel, if not a certain thought of lust, which seems to begin from reason but is not completed through discernment? For while one thinks, the camel as it were ruminates within, but while what one thinks is not ordered by truth, its hoof does not appear to be divided. For some indeed, having professed continence, when they are overcome by the desire of the flesh, trust that they can be saved in married life. And some, when they hear the Apostle’s permission: ‘Let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband’ (1 Cor. 7:2), declare that all without distinction of persons are included in this precept, and that men of sacred orders can make use of conjugal union. For a sentiment of this kind is an Amalekite camel, because it seems to begin from reason but drags one to an irrational life. What then is the donkey understood to be, if not the open wickedness of fornication? For the devil drives some into the open abyss of fornication, and deceives others through fraud. The donkey is also accustomed to carry the burdens of others. But the Teacher of the Gentiles, when he taught that the husband does not have power over his own body, but the wife does, and likewise: ‘Nor does the wife have power over her own body, but the husband’ (ibid., 4), what else did he command them than to carry one another’s burdens? Therefore by the name of the donkey the strength of conjugal union is designated, because chosen spouses bravely bear one another’s burdens, lest through the weakness of the flesh they fall more loosely into the pit of fornication. Therefore the donkey must be killed, but the Amalekite one, because conjugal union must be strengthened in the honor of the marriage bed, but must be destroyed in its baseness. Indeed spouses ought to render to each other their due, but they ought not to come together in a shameful manner. Therefore the donkey of Amalek is killed when in good spouses the love of honorable union is maintained, but all obscenity is avoided in shameful conjunction. Therefore all things of Amalek are commanded to be destroyed, because those who purpose to live chastely ought not to retain in themselves anything of the enticement of the flesh. They must indeed be in the flesh, so that they may do good things through the flesh, but they ought so to depart from the pleasure of the flesh through the loftiness of the mind that they do not tolerate insults from the flesh. Indeed the Apostle wished those to whom he was speaking to be such, saying: ‘But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit’ (Rom. 8:9). But let us consider with what helpers he who is commanded to destroy Amalek may suffice for these things. For it follows: (Verse 4.) ‘Saul commanded the people, and numbered them as lambs.’ — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 1

Richard Challoner: Child: The great Master of life and death (who cuts off one half of all mankind whilst they are children) has been pleased sometimes to ordain that children should be put to the sword, in detestation of the crimes of their parents, and that they might not live to follow the same wicked ways. But without such ordinance of God it is not allowable, in any wars, how just soever, to kill children.

1 Samuel 15:4

Bede: Saul therefore commanded the people and counted them, etc. And we, in order to be able to conquer the battles of vices, must gather gentle and innocent thoughts in our heart; namely, imitators of that spotless Lamb, who deigned to redeem us with his blood from the Egypt of this world. These thoughts obeying the command of a modest spirit, because then they truly prevail against the enemy, when fortified with a twin love, that is, of God and neighbor, they walk the path of truth; when they scorn all the delights and miseries of earthly habitation with the sole hope of the heavenly denarius, rightly the foot soldiers mentioned are comprised by the number two hundred and ten: for it is no doubt that the thousandth number signifies the perfection of the thing or person being discussed. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: By the name of lambs, men of great prudence are usually designated. Hence through John it is said: “I saw upon Mount Sion a Lamb standing, and with him a hundred forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads” (Rev. 14:1). For those who had taken up the name of the Lamb were called lambs. Explaining who they are, he also says: “These are they who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins.” What then does it mean that when Amalek is commanded to be destroyed, the soldiers of the king are counted as it were lambs, unless that when we wish to destroy the spirit of fornication by preaching, we ought to bring forth the examples of the perfect? For however many men distinguished by the glory of chastity we present to the worldly who are to be converted, we bring as it were so many soldiers, like lambs mustered, to the wars against Amalek. Moreover, by the name of those mustered, the ministers of divine preaching themselves can be understood. They are therefore as it were lambs, because through the glory of perfect chastity they are now made like those virgins rejoicing with Christ in the kingdom. By these words it is surely shown that those who undertake the ministry of preaching must first be adorned with the outstanding splendor of chastity, because if they fall away through incontinence, they can in no way make others continent, and those who do not have the rays of that light in the splendor of their own manner of life cannot prevail in calling others to the good of so great a light. Rightly therefore it is said: “He mustered them as lambs,” because those who ought to drive out the spirit of fornication through the power of the office they have received must necessarily be very chaste. Hence the Lord says to them in the Gospel: “Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning in your hands” (Luke 12:35), so that their subjects may hear the word of preaching, but the examples of a most luminous manner of life may draw them to the good of chastity that they hear. Hence they are fittingly designated by a perfect number, when it is added: (Verse 3.) “Two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah.”

By the name of footsoldiers the elect are figured, not when they preach lofty things, but when through good examples they demonstrate to others the straightness of the heavenly journey. Footsoldiers indeed run with their steps to where they wish to bring their arms. But what are examples of chastity, if not the footprints of heavenly soldiers impressed upon the earth? For in order to strike the vices of lust in slippery places, they hasten with the light of good examples toward the darkness of their hearts, and as if arriving by footstep, they slay the enemies—those who, after they are recognized through their works, draw the hearts of sinners to the good of chastity. When therefore through examples of chastity they destroy the darkness of impurities in the hearts of sinners, they are rightly called footsoldiers. And because they are splendid not only with the outward show of bodily purity but also with the light of the heart, they are said to be two hundred thousand. For in the number one hundred and one thousand, the entire sum of the Decalogue is contained. Perfect men therefore are contained in two hundred thousand, because through divine grace they have arrived at the highest citadel of chastity by both continence of body and integrity of mind. For they have perfection of purpose both in body and in mind. Or because they serve God through chastity not loosely or negligently, they have the hundred of work, and because they do not cease to serve Him, they have the thousand of multiplication. But they are strong and constant in continence of body, perfect and persistent in watchfulness of heart through perfection of virtue. Indeed the Apostle, commanding that a widow also be such, says: “That she may be holy in body and in spirit” (1 Cor. 7:34). For she is holy in body and spirit if by the perfection of chastity by which she shines in body, she also shines in mind. But if widows are such, what kind must virgins be commanded to be? For concerning those many, under the description of one it was said: “The queen stood at your right hand in gilded clothing” (Psalms 44:10). In the same psalm (verse 14) the same queen is praised when it is said: “All the glory of the king’s daughter is from within, clothed about with golden fringes in varieties.” For what is the golden garment, if not the beauty and honor of the virginal body? It is called a garment because it shines outwardly in the body, but golden because it excels in dignity. But every kind of metal is inferior to gold. So indeed no other form of chastity can be compared to virginal beauty. What then does it mean when it says, “All the glory of the king’s daughter is from within,” if the glory of the golden garment is proclaimed to be outward? For if there is some great glory of the golden garment outwardly, all glory cannot be seen to be within. What then does it mean that all glory is said to be within, except that even that glory which is outward is recognized to be within along with innumerable others? For virginity is not golden if it exists outwardly but not inwardly. Because therefore it is both within and without, because the same shines in the body and the same gleams in the mind, all the glory of the king’s daughter can fittingly be understood to be within. All glory is within, because it is not outward alone nor inward alone. For because many are the splendors of virtues in the mind of the virgin, virginal radiance is so affirmed that all glory is proclaimed to be within. This indeed is what follows: “Clothed about with golden fringes in varieties.” For the golden fringes are splendors never failing from the mind. Fringes indeed are the final parts of a garment. They are therefore praised in the beauty of Christ’s bride, because there is no glory of virtues if it ceases to shine before the completion of life. The queen therefore is spoken of with love, in the golden garment virginity is proclaimed. But all glory is declared to be within, and in golden fringes, and clothed about with variety, so that integrity joined with innumerable virtues may be understood to endure even to the end. Rightly therefore are two hundred thousand footsoldiers counted against Amalek, because those are fit for conquering unclean spirits through examples of chastity who have learned to maintain it both in the light of works and in the splendor of watchfulness.

Because likewise they are instructed and perfected by the word of God, this is shown by the number of ten thousand men of Judah. For they are men by fortitude, and of Judah by proclamation. For Judah is interpreted as “confessing.” But they are designated by the number ten, because they have attained the perfection of doctrine through the grace of the Holy Spirit. Whence also to Moses the ten precepts of the law are given, which were written by the finger of God (Exod. XXXI). For what is the finger of God, if not the Holy Spirit? Who, when He wrote the law, set it forth precisely in ten precepts, because even if He brought forth something carnal outwardly in it, inwardly He sealed the perfection of spiritual understanding. Therefore ten thousand men of Judah are to be led forth against Amalek, so that the spirit of fornication may be overcome by those fit in strength. For he laps by suggestion, because he counsels light and flattering things, but the things he counsels by lapping he displays through phantasms of thoughts. Therefore, so that the mind may not see the obscene things shown to it by demons, the examples of the elect must be revealed. And so that the unclean spirit cannot soothe it with foul suggestions, the tongue of preachers ought to be touched through the praise of chastity. Let the preacher lap it, so that the malignant spirit can by no means lap it. And let him delight it with words, lest, for one who lacks heavenly things, the devil tear it apart through the delights of suggestions. Therefore against the twofold battle of the heart, because a twofold good of assistance is necessary, rightly both foot soldiers and men of Judah are said to be prepared against Amalek. But if anyone wishes to understand some as the foot soldiers and others as the men of Judah, the meaning of plain truth is evident: that the greatest doctors have those who, though they do not know how to teach by preaching, are nevertheless able to benefit by their works. But now, having been mustered for such great battles, let us hear by what strategy they fight next. There follows: (Verse 5.) And when Saul had come to the city of Amalek, he set an ambush at the torrent. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 1

1 Samuel 15:5

Bede: And when Saul had come to the city of Amalek, etc. The city of Amalek represents the densely packed array of temptations against the faithful, which now rages at us, stirred up either by demons, humans, or by our own desires. Certainly, near this city of tempting vices is a flooding torrent, that is, the turbulent drive of fluctuating thoughts, which, descending from the mountains of demonic pride, crashes against the walls of depravity more severely the more the winter of persecution exacerbates the favorable year of the Lord. Yet in this torrent we lay ambushes against Amalek when we strive to anticipate and overcome the enemy with the hidden virtues of the soul and the acts of devotion known only to the judge of our heart. For we almost meet him in open combat whenever we call upon the help of our Creator against him with alms, prayers, fasting, and other similar types of spiritual armor. But with faith, hope, and love, and similar apostolic arms, known fully only to Him who bestowed them upon us, we strive against humans and the evil spirits who lay in wait for us with care and diligence. When, I say, we are arrayed in these invisible weapons against the spiritual wickedness in high places, or amidst the very storms of temptations, we are almost laying ambushes in the torrent against Amalek; for we strike down the openly raging adversary where he cannot see it. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: What is this torrent, if not that of which it is said through the Psalmist: “He shall drink of the torrent in the way” (Psalms 109:7)? For a torrent designates the course of our mortality. Saul therefore sets an ambush in the torrent, when a preacher of the Church inserts the consideration of our mortality into the eternal rewards. For in order to catch slippery souls as if by guile, he begins by speaking of heavenly things, but suddenly turns to setting forth the bitterness of eternal punishments, so that minds secure in the pleasure of the flesh may be terrified. For he leads them out as if by guile, he strikes them through ambush, since by speaking pleasant things he provokes them to listen, and then inserts the sorrows of death, so that the wayward may hear what will make them tremble. Saul therefore comes to the city of Amalek, when the teacher draws the hearts of sinners, fortified by illicit love, with the sweetness of eternal delight. But he hides an ambush for him in the torrent, because he introduces the consideration of death, so that the sinner may see, as it were, a soldier bursting forth against him from ambush, and while he considers that he will soon die, he may fear to extend the delay of sin any further. There follows: (Verse 6.) “And Saul said to the Kenite: Depart, withdraw from the Amalekites, lest perhaps I destroy you together with him. For you showed mercy to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt.” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 1

1 Samuel 15:6

Bede: And Saul said to the Kenite, “Go, depart, etc.” The holy history reports that the Kenites were the relatives of Moses, saying: “Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the rest of the Kenites, the sons of Hobab the kinsman of Moses; and had pitched his tent as far as the valley which is called Sennim, and he was near Kedesh” (Judges IV). Therefore, Saul commanded the Kenite to withdraw from Amalek. An excellent teacher takes care that if he finds anything among the vices which he reproves, that he may embrace virtues found among them, keeping them unharmed. For you will find many even among pagans who are meek, humble, kind, patient, and serving with almsgiving and prayers in the example of the centurion Cornelius. Surely, these virtues, because they are close to the law of God as if by kinship, emerging from the depths of the worldly darkness, help to reach the promised rest and light, and should not be destroyed among the vices but separated from the catalog of all vices, so that they may benefit their possessor. For a Kenite, which means “possessor,” should be separated from all vices. Thus, at Saul’s command, the Kenite, who is to be saved, departs from the perishing Amalek when the rigorous teacher separates the virtues that help from the vices that weigh down in the examination of those to be instructed; so that the virtues, which are diligently practiced among the reprovable vices, may not be detested because of someone’s bad vices. Nor, on the other hand, should someone’s vices, which, as humans, cannot be free from among the virtues, be judged to be embraced because of their proximity to virtues; but with fair judgment, let the crooked be corrected in all things, which impede the way of salvation, and let the right be preserved, which help. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: Who is the Kenite, who is known to dwell with Amalek, and who is compelled to depart, lest he be equally entangled with him? But perhaps this is the one about whom the Apostle says: “Let the husband render to his wife what is due, and likewise the wife to her husband” (1 Cor. 7:3). The name also fits him, because “Kenite” is said to mean “possessing.” These married persons, because they are bound by marriage, are not compelled to abandon everything. What then does it mean when it is said to the Kenite, “Depart from Amalek,” unless that by these words all the foulness of obscenity among married persons is condemned? Indeed, those who are joined in the manner of harlots are united with Amalek. The teacher commands them to depart from Amalek when he strives to recall them to marital decency. As if to say: If you cannot contain yourselves from one another, let marriage be honorable for you, and the bed undefiled. Therefore, to depart from Amalek is for spouses to use one another not for the foulness of harlot-like obscenity, but for the temperance of decency and for the fruit of offspring. Hence the same excellent teacher says of the widow who cannot remain so according to his counsel: “But if she cannot contain herself, let her marry, only in the Lord” (ibid., 9). Not in Amalek, but in the Lord; so that she who cannot prevail to abstain from marriage may avoid obscene acts within the covenant of marriage. He also threatens, saying: “Lest I entangle you with him.” To be entangled with sinners is to be condemned to eternal punishment. Hence the Lord also says of the wicked servant in the Gospel: “Bind his feet and hands, and cast him into outer darkness” (Matt. 22:13). Now therefore, preachers do not entangle reprobate hearers, because even if they despise the word, they can still return to repentance as long as they live, when they wish. Therefore, marital decency must be urgently commanded to married persons, because with a stern penalty it is said: “Go, depart without harm. Depart from Amalek, lest I entangle you with him.” Without harm indeed one departs now, but not then, because those who are made entirely like the foul will not be free from their harm. He is also said to have shown mercy to the children of Israel when they were ascending from Egypt, because the weak children of holy Church, since they cannot preserve the good of perpetual continence, are received through the compassion of marriage. Indeed they ascend from Egypt, because they abandon the darkness of luxury and fornication. And they receive mercy from the Kenite, because they obtain the indulgence of marriage. Hence the teacher of the nations also says: “I say this by way of indulgence, not by way of command” (1 Cor. 7:6). And because holy Church persuades her chosen subjects of the good things she sets forth by speaking, there follows: (Verse 6.) And the Kenite departed from the midst of Amalek.

The spouse departs from the midst of Amalek, but cannot depart from the part, because even if one avoids the act of shameful conduct, one cannot avoid the inclination toward pleasure. For married couples can temper the fire through honorable conduct. They go out, therefore, from the midst of Amalek, because even if they cannot be entirely free from carnal desires, they nevertheless moderate the very dominion of the flesh under the bond of the precept of honorable conduct. There follows: (Verse 7.) And Saul struck Amalek from Havilah until you come to Shur, which is opposite Egypt. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 1

1 Samuel 15:7

Bede: And Saul struck the Amalekites, etc. Evila, which is said to mean “suffering” or “labor,” signifies the beginning of conversion, which is not initiated without a certain painful and laborious birth of the new man. Sur, which translates to “right,” represents the final perfection of correction. This solitude well described in the region of Egypt implies that one preserves the rectitude received, better if always mindful of the pressure of the darkness from which they have been delivered. In Evila, positioned with the sword of the word, he says: Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out (Acts III). But also the Apostle James says: Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep; let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to sorrow. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He shall lift you up (James IV). By striking the same ones, he comes to Sur, which is opposite, as Scripture elsewhere states, against the face of Egypt; as the Apostle Paul says: For you were once darkness, but now are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (Ephesians IV). And he himself positioned in Sur did not neglect to observe Egypt from which he had exited, saying: Who am not worthy to be called an apostle because I persecuted the Church of God but obtained mercy (I Corinthians XV). He shows himself struck beneficially so that he might live better after the blow, when he says: Nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me (Galatians II). Not only those who are converted but also those who, having received the word of truth, do not care to turn away from depravity, are struck from Evila to Sur: because perpetually allocated to sufferings, they endure the just sentence of divine strictness, which is opposite Egypt; because he will repay them according to the wickedness of their pursuits. And these too, at Samuel’s command, Saul strikes, while the same teacher of the Church, according to the admonitions of holy Scripture, corrects the obedient for life and rightly predicts the damnation of the despisers. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: Havilah is interpreted as “one who gives birth,” Shur as “anguish,” Egypt as “darkness.” But concupiscence gives birth to sin. Rightly, therefore, concupiscence is designated by the name of “one who gives birth.” The Prophet also, fearing to fall into the anguish of an impenitent heart, beseeches, saying: “Let not the deep swallow me up, neither let the pit shut its mouth upon me” (Psalms 68:16). The teacher, therefore, strikes Amalek from Havilah to Shur when he suppresses in the hearts of his hearers the vices of conceived delight and the resolve of deliberate choice. He also strikes Shur when he appears to draw to the love of chastity those minds which had purposed to end their life in the stench of lust. For those who, already captured, are bound by the snare of evil habit are in anguish. And it should be noted that Shur is shown to be opposite Egypt, because he who resolves to end his life in lust is even now enclosed in interior darkness, from which he will be led to exterior darkness. But let this book also be closed, so that we may come through silence to the consideration of what follows. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 1

1 Samuel 15:8

Apostolic Constitutions: But he who does not consider these things, will, contrary to justice, spare him who deserves punishment; as Saul spared Agag, and Eli his sons, “who knew not the Lord.” Such a one profanes his own dignity and that church of God which is in his parish. Such a one is esteemed unjust before God and holy men, as affording occasion of scandal to many of the newly baptized and to the catechumens; as also to the youth of both sexes, to whom a woe belongs, add “a millstone about his neck,” and drowning, on account of his guilt. For, observing what a person their governor is, through his wickedness and neglect of justice they will grow skeptical, and, indulging the same disease, will be compelled to perish with him; as was the case of the people joining with Jeroboam, and those which were in the conspiracy with Korah. — CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES 2.10

Bede: And he took Agag, king of Amalek, alive, etc. Thus far, Saul’s struggle distinguished him as an excellent and discerning ruler, either of himself or of the people subject to him. From this point on, it marks him as indolent and reprobate, who rightly spared the innocent kinsmen of Moses. He rightly destroys all the common people and vile and reprobate things; but he incorrectly spares the flocks of sheep, other animals that are on the earth, garments, and all beautiful things, along with the king himself. The leaders of spiritual warfare must exterminate all those who oppose God’s servants fleeing from intellectual Egypt—that is, the darkness of the world—whether they be men or reprobate actions, with the sword of the word and the rectitude of life; but whatever they find innocent and Mosaic among them, they ought to preserve unharmed. However, those who strive only to eradicate detestable and unspeakable things, such as fornication, idolatry, perjury, the concubinage of men, thefts, false testimonies, and other such crimes, either in their own morals or in those of their subjects, and do not wish to destroy drunkenness and revelries, contentions and jealousies, greed, hatred, and the desire for vain glory or honor, as if these were less harmful or even beneficial, as well as the king of vices himself, that most fattened one, the swelling of pride, indeed incur the guilt of very grievous transgression. Because of this merit of guilt, and exemplifying Saul, the kingdom of God was once taken from the people of the Jews and given to a nation producing its fruits. And many Christians today leave the promised crown of life, which was awarded to them, to be obtained by others. Here too, according to the letter, we are most healthily admonished that the authority of the divine command should always prevail in us over human affection. For man, through foolish pity, spares man, whom God has commanded not to be spared; as if man knew better what should be done with man than He who made man (Eccl. X). Agag not only designates pride by the authority of the kingdom (because the beginning of all sin is pride), but also by his name, which is translated to “roof,” because often contained by the knowledge of neighbors, the arrogance of haughtiness swells in the hearts of the wicked. However, Saul seizes King Agag alive, and the crowd kills him, who eradicates the vices of the flesh, knowing how to distinguish their head, pride, from virtues through disputation, and defining how harmful it is, but does not know how to extinguish it in himself by living humbly. And Saul spares Agag, and the people also spare him, when even the very leader of virtues in his heart softly nods to the pride lying hidden in his innermost parts; and the entire company of spiritual works following him is corrupted by the assent to this nefarious swelling. — Commentary on Samuel

1 Samuel 15:10

Bede: Now the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, etc. The repentance of God is not a disturbance of the mind, which often befalls men as they reconsider the evil they have committed thoughtlessly; rather, it is called a change in passing things, while the immutable divine foresight remains; for just as not repenting signifies unwillingness to change what has been established. The Lord has sworn and will not repent: You are a priest forever (Psalms 109); this means that what He has once established, He has never changed the priesthood of Christ. However, Saul repented of having been made king; because even the treachery of the entire people of Judea and the false faith of Christians deprives him of the promise of the kingdom’s favor. — Commentary on Samuel

1 Samuel 15:11

Augustine of Hippo: Again, there are some things which are praiseworthy in people but cannot be present in God, such as shame, which is a prominent trapping of the state of sin, as is the fear of God. For not only in the Old Testament books is it praised, but the apostle also says, “perfecting holiness in the fear of God,” none of which is to be found in God. Therefore, just as certain praiseworthy human qualities are not rightly predicated of God, so also are certain contemptible human qualities properly said to be in God, not as they are found in people but only in a very different manner and for different reasons. For shortly after the Lord had said to Samuel, “I repent that I have made Saul king,” Samuel himself said of God to Saul: “He is not like a man, that he should repent.” This clearly demonstrates that even though God said “I repent,” it is not to be taken according to the human sense, as we have already argued at length. — ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS TO SIMPLICIAN 2.2.5

Bede: And Samuel was grieved, etc. These are not to be explained allegorically but rather are to be drawn to the imitation of virtue: so that for the errors of brothers, which they themselves cannot yet understand in themselves, we should not only be grieved in spirit but also cry out to the Lord for them with all intention; and furthermore, whenever the place and time allow, we should take care to recall them to the recognition and correction of their faults. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 7. He believed that he did not hear the words of the prophet, but the Lord complains that He has been abandoned, when He shows that His words have not been fulfilled in deed. Now the Lord speaks to the Church, saying: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me” (Luke 10:16). Therefore, those who through disobedience depart from the word of preachers abandon the Lord, because they withdraw from those through whose ministry they are made present to the divine will. They do not then fulfill the words of the Lord in deed, because outwardly men speak, but inwardly God speaks in men. Therefore it is not they who speak, but the Holy Spirit (Matt. 10:20). In preachers, therefore, the outward lowliness of the flesh is not to be despised, whose minds the sublimity of the Godhead so graciously inhabits. What then does it mean that the Lord is said to repent, when He is not believed to be changed by emotions? But because supreme immutability speaks with mutable beings, after the manner of those with whom He speaks, when He is said to repent, it is indicated that the recklessness of the proud displeases Him. For we are accustomed to repent when those to whom we recall having bestowed honors or gifts repay us with evils. Because, therefore, almighty God complains after our manner about the ingratitude of the proud king, He is said to repent of having conferred royal dignity upon him. This is certainly said to the great increase of damnation for the proud: because what they are, they now are not for merit but for punishment, because they are not in the will of God. Therefore, for God to repent is to not have His will in the reprobate, when He remembers the honors He bestowed, but recognizes that those upon whom He conferred good things make evil use of the good things He conferred. Indeed, God intimates this repentance of His to the Jews in other words through the prophet Malachi, saying: “I have no pleasure in you, and I will not accept an offering from your hand” (Mal. 1:10). How greatly, therefore, we see the fault of disobedience must be guarded against, if we attend to how severely it is struck by these words of the Lord.

8. Now, in the war of Amalek we have described the battle against fornication, which is commanded through the sacred Scriptures to be utterly destroyed by us. Rightly, therefore, what the Lord complains of can be understood concerning teachers who have fallen in the war of the flesh, when He says: “It repents me that I have made Saul king, because he has forsaken me and has not fulfilled my words in deed.” For His word is the commandment given to preachers: “Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning in your hands” (Luke 12:35). He, therefore, who has the word in preaching but does not have it in the girding of chastity is seen to be God’s by speaking, but is proved to forsake God by his conduct. Outwardly he carries out divine things, but secretly, while he dissolves in the pleasure of the flesh, he is shown not to fulfill the Lord’s words in deed. For he has forsaken the Lord by setting forth evil things; he does not fulfill His words by presuming to do what is forbidden. Rightly, therefore, it is said: “It repents me that I have made Saul king.” As if He were saying: Him whom I then wished to rule over others, I now do not wish, because him whom I preferred when he was humble, I now see as a proud, haughty transgressor. This, indeed, is not said of any who have fallen whatsoever, but of those whose fall is manifest and whose repentance is in no way foreseen. For concerning the fall of the righteous it is written: “The righteous man falls seven times a day and rises again” (Proverbs 24:16). Their fall is in a certain way their standing, because they are sometimes permitted to fall so that they may always be able to stand more firmly. They are permitted to stumble into evils lest they lose the highest gifts of virtues through pride. These, indeed, even if they sometimes do not fulfill the Lord’s words, do not depart from the Lord, because they are abandoned for a time so that they may be held eternally; and they are foolish in a small matter, but after a little while they come to their senses. When, therefore, Saul is reproved not only for not fulfilling the Lord’s words in deed but for having forsaken the Lord Himself, whom does he signify better than those who have fallen and are impenitent? Of whom, indeed, it is said through the prophet: “They have struck a covenant with death and with hell” (Isaiah 28:15). To strike a covenant with death is to perpetrate evils boldly and to promise to do them always. For they commit evils unceasingly, but by loving what they do, they pledge themselves, as it were, never to withdraw from friendship with death. The more insensible these become in their covenant with death, the more sharply the heart of mother Church is shaken with compassion. Whence it is well added: (Verse 11.) “And Samuel was grieved, and he cried out to the Lord all night long.”

9. Samuel indeed is saddened, because the chief preacher is afflicted over the perdition of his subject. And he cries out to the Lord all night, because he beseeches the divine mercy with devoted prayers for the restoration of the fallen one. For the teacher to cry out is to implore the mercy of almighty God with great longings for the sins of his subjects. He who cries out all night takes upon himself through compassion the entire darkness of that sin, and makes satisfaction to God as a penitent for it, as though for his own crime. Therefore, for the preacher to cry out all night is to take up the entire cause of his subject and to strive to destroy all the darkness of that sin through the affection of devout compunction. But what does it mean that he is said to have cried out and the Lord not to have answered, except that the darkness of an impenitent heart, which I have mentioned, is signified in the fault of Saul, for whom he cries out? The Lord would indeed have answered if He had heard the voice of the one crying out. There follows: (Verse 12.) And when Samuel had risen in the night to go to Saul in the morning, it was reported to Samuel that Saul had come to Carmel and had erected for himself a triumphal arch. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

John Cassian: These texts declare that we should not cling stubbornly to our promises, but that they should be tempered by reason and judgment, that what is better should always be chosen and preferred and that we should pass over without any hesitation to whatever is proven to be more beneficial. This invaluable judgment also teaches us above all that, although each person’s end may be known to God before he was born, he so disposes everything with order and reason and, so to say, human feelings, that he determines all things not by his power or in accordance with his ineffable foreknowledge but, based upon the deeds of human beings at the time, either rejects them or draws them or daily pours out grace upon them or turns them away.The choosing of Saul also demonstrates that this is so. Although, indeed, the foreknowledge of God could not be ignorant of his miserable end, he chose him from among many thousands of Israelites and anointed him king. In doing this he rewarded him for his deserving life at the time and did not take into consideration the sin of his future transgression. And so after he became reprobate, God as it were repented of his choice and complained of him with, so to speak, human words and feelings, saying, “I repent that I set up Saul as king, because he has forsaken me and not carried out my words.” And again: “Samuel grieved over Saul, because the Lord repented that he had set up Saul as king over Israel.” — CONFERENCE 17.25.14-15

Tertullian: Furthermore, with respect to the repentance which occurs in his conduct you interpret it with similar perverseness just as if it were with fickleness and improvidence that he repented, or on the recollection of some wrongdoing; because he actually said, “I repent that I have set up Saul to be king,” very much as if he meant that his repentance savored of an acknowledgment of some evil work or error. Well, this is not always implied. For there occurs even in good works a confession of repentance, as a reproach and condemnation of the man who has proved himself unthankful for a benefit. For instance, in this one case of Saul, the Creator, who had made no mistake in selecting him for the kingdom and endowing him with his Holy Spirit, makes a statement respecting the goodness of his person, how that he had most fitly chosen him as being at that moment the choicest man, so that (as he says) there was not one like him among the children of Israel. Neither was he ignorant how he would afterwards turn out. For no one would bear you out in imputing lack of foresight to that God whom, since you do not deny him to be divine, you allow to be also foreseeing; for this proper attribute of divinity exists in him. However, he did, as I have said, burden the guilt of Saul with the confession of his own repentance; but as there is an absence of all error and wrong in his choice of Saul, it follows that this repentance is to be understood as upbraiding another rather than as self-incriminating. — AGAINST MARCION 2.24

1 Samuel 15:12

Bede: And when Samuel had risen from the night to go to Saul in the morning, etc. Carmel means knowledge of circumcision; Gilgal means revelation. Therefore, many, not yet fully having conquered the struggle of vices, promise themselves with confident assurance of the crown of righteousness as if having completed a perfect purification; this is a sign of raising a triumphal confidence in themselves of a struggle already completed, and this on the highest mountain of virtues, which is called the knowledge of circumcision. And after this, they descend into revelation, when they themselves, after ascending the summit of virtues and tasting the joy of heavenly reward, in true humility glory that they truly see with the revealed face of the heart the secrets, about which the Lord says to the Father: You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to little children (Matthew 11, Luke 10). — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 10. What is the life of a sinner, if not night? And what is the light of the just, other than day? Whence also through Paul it is said to converted sinners: ‘You were once darkness, but now light in the Lord’ (Eph. 5:8). But for the preacher to rise by night is to raise up the affection of the mind from the taking on of another’s fault. For the teacher lies, as it were, in the night when he mourns the darkness of another’s sin, because he is brought down from the lofty security of his own innocence, so that in the depths the darkness of sins in the consideration of another may be destroyed. He therefore rises by night when he raises himself from affliction, and arranges to come to the guilty one in the morning, because he laments secretly through compassion and strikes with open rebuke through zeal. The teacher also mourns by night, but comes in the morning to reprove, because inwardly he loves the sinning subject, but is by no means ashamed to reprove the one erring openly. For it is as though morning dawns when the teacher begins to lay open the crime that lies hidden. What then does it mean that the one to whom he came is said to have come to Carmel and to have erected a triumphal arch for himself, except that the advance of evil is clearly proclaimed? Indeed, after the fault of disobedience, to erect a triumphal arch or structure is to do evil deeds and to take pride in the perpetration of those same evils. For they raise, as it were, triumphal signs when with a certain ostentation they bring forth those things by which they think they excel others. This certainly applies to teachers who are arrogant as well as to those who are dissolute. The former indeed, while they speak great things, raise themselves to the height of esteem, and what they see themselves to be within, they make known outwardly through boasting and ostentation. And when they draw even that which others accomplish on their own to the favor of their own praise, what else do they seem to do but display a lofty sign of victory with a notable inscription? But some both live shamefully and speak most honorably; they consider the dignity of their words, yet do not reckon the baseness of their own life. When therefore they desire to appear not by the substance of works but by the splendor of words, they assuredly construct a triumphal arch in which they exalt themselves as if victors. And because by the word of the shameful, many other shameful ones come to their senses, after Amalek has been conquered, for them to come to Carmel and erect a triumphal arch is to glory vainly before the simple over the lust that has been extinguished in their subjects. Carmel indeed is interpreted as “soft” or “tender.” For who are understood by this name of “tender,” except those who are unformed in holy conduct? And who are called “soft,” except those who have not yet been made firm in their begun goodness through the practice of virtue? Therefore in Carmel they raise a sign of victory, because they display themselves to the unformed and weak, lest they be found out by the experienced and strong for what they truly are.

11. For these men seek the splendor of victory not in words but in works, because they judge trees not by the beauty of their leaves but test them by the flavor of their fruits. Whence the Lord also, teaching, says: ‘By their fruits you shall know them’ (Matt. 7:20). Because, therefore, they desire to be praised in vain, because they flee the judgments of the most proven men, and to the unskilled and weak they falsely represent themselves as being other than what they are, Saul is said to have come to Carmel and to have erected a triumphal arch for himself. But what does it mean that he passes on to Gilgal, except that in the same manner in which he displays himself to the simple and religious, he desires to become known among the religious and learned? For Gilgal, as I have already said many times, means “wheel.” But some within the holy Church are learned in Sacred Scripture yet are not religious, because they do not possess the power of Scripture, namely charity. When these hear eloquent and carnal men speaking, they admire the words they recognize. But they cannot examine their hidden qualities, which they do not know. Rightly therefore Saul is said to pass on to Gilgal, because those who seek favor from eloquent speech find what they desire not among the learned and religious, but among the simple and unskilled, or among the irreligious wise. But great men, when the reprobate teach good things, fear all the more for the elect subject to them—lest those whom they build up by their tongue, they corrupt by their hand, that is, by their conduct. Because, therefore, slippery teachers are not to be left long in the ministry of preaching, it is fittingly added: (Verse 12.) ‘Samuel therefore came to Saul, and Saul was offering a burnt offering to the Lord, the first-fruits of the spoils which he had brought from Amalek.’

12. He came indeed to Saul, to cast down the proud man whom he had raised up as a humble man to the height of the kingdom. He found him as he truly was, not as he had shown himself by the signs of his pride. What then does it mean that he offers the firstfruits of Amalek as a holocaust to the Lord, except that some both live wickedly and think they please God through the advancement of others? And because they believe that what they offer pleases God in no small measure, they are said to offer not a sacrifice or a victim, but a holocaust. They are called the firstfruits of the spoils so that in Samuel the watchful zeal of the highest and chosen priest may be indicated, by whom the beginnings of evils are swiftly suppressed. As if to say: He came in great haste, in whose absence not even the beginning of the holocausts could be freely undertaken. The firstfruits of the spoils can be understood as the choicest things from the plunder. These the slippery offer with open mouth but struck with hidden blindness, when they believe they please God by destroying in their hearers what they allow to live in themselves. As if more openly reproving one who offers indiscriminately, he says: He was offering alive what he would have offered better slain. For if according to the words of the Lord he had destroyed all the spoil in Amalek, he would have offered a wholly acceptable holocaust to almighty God. So indeed the slippery teacher too, if he rejected by willing all the enticements of the flesh that he condemns by speaking, would burn a holocaust that could not be rejected. What then does it mean that it says he was offering the firstfruits of the spoils that he had brought from Amalek, except that the darkness of a blind heart is condemned, because it so esteems what benefits others that it neglects to see what harms itself? As if to say: He rejoiced over that as a victor—a victor in others—which he carried alive and unconquered in himself. And because for the most part they rage so madly that they even attempt to offer a pretext of virtue to the very elect and highest preachers. There follows: (Verse 13.) And when Samuel had come to Saul, Saul said: Blessed are you by the Lord; I have fulfilled the word of the Lord. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:13

Bede: And Saul said to him: Blessed are you to the Lord, etc. Understand the voice of flocks and herds, the uncontrolled movements of the mind, and the tumultuous thoughts of arrogant hearts; for whoever neglects to subdue and repress these within himself, vainly boasts that he has fulfilled the word of the Lord, which commanded the destruction of all vices. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 13. The word of the Lord was that he should have destroyed Amalek. But what does it mean that he says, “I have fulfilled the word of the Lord,” unless that the sin of fornication, the more shameful it is perceived to be, the more carefully it is concealed by the reprobate? Because therefore those who are subject to this same vice of fornication always desire to remain hidden, in their type Saul both disdained to demolish Amalek and said to Samuel: “I have fulfilled the word of the Lord.” As if to say: Both in other matters I have subdued lust, and in myself I have destroyed its enticements. And because he strives to bend the mind of the great man with flattering adulation, he first said: “Blessed are you by the Lord.” As if to say: This indeed I have done, but I was able to do it not by my own strength, but by your merits and intercessions. But perfect men can hear their own praises, yet cannot be bent from the rigor of justice. Wherefore it is also added: (Verse 14.) And Samuel said: “And what is this voice of flocks that resounds in my ears, and of herds, which I hear?” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:14

Gregory the Dialogist: 14. The voice of the flocks and herds of Amalek is the report of shameful deeds. When anyone is defamed for lesser sins of indulgence, the voice of the flocks is said to resound. When likewise one is accused of more criminal and more obscene things, it is the voice of the herds. As if he lays bare what was hidden under the pretense of his false virtue, saying: You justify yourself with your own mouth, but the crowds of your uncleannesses cry out through the mouths of all. But now let us see by what defenses he who has begun to put forward excuses may escape the charge of the infamy brought against him. There follows: (Verse 15.) They brought them from Amalek. The people spared the best sheep and herds, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; the rest we have slain. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:15

Bede: And Saul said: They brought them from Amalek, etc. The prophet, though unwilling, confesses this with a guilty conscience; for not only to God, to whose eyes all things are naked and open, but also to spiritual men, the deceitful hearts of the wicked are evident. For Elisha, though Gehazi was far away, was present in heart. And the Apostle, absent in body, but present in spirit, rebukes the sinner in Corinth. From the examples, he says, they brought back the manifold cries of brutish and lascivious desires. The imprudent mind spared these vices, which seemed less harmful, nor did it care to destroy them; rather, it considered these very things as virtues, and thought they should be gratefully offered to their author. For example, by considering foolishness as simplicity, calling the insolence of anger the zeal of Phinehas and Elijah, considering the sluggishness of sloth as the patience of David, and calling the tightness of parsimony the discretion of moderation; and notably, and equally to be avoided, is the most depraved habit of the wicked, who are accustomed to accumulate their faults by excusing them. For behold, Saul claims that he, along with the people, killed those things which, at the Lord’s command, were to be killed; but he asserts that the people, not he, spared those things which were reserved against His interdiction. And many negligent and lazy people, if they have overcome any vices, or think they have overcome them, do not attribute this to the grace of the author, but to their own effort. But whatever they do not want or cannot extinguish in themselves, they claim that these are due to the flaw of an inherent nature, so that indirectly, and as a cause of human guilt, they may ascribe it back to the Author of nature Himself. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 15. What does it mean that he says: “They brought them from Amalek,” and did not say, “We brought them”? But when the reprobate are accused, they sometimes conceal their faults by denying them, and sometimes transfer them to others. They conceal them by denying, when they can remain hidden; but when they are caught, as it were, in the open, what they cannot deny they ascribe to others. Indeed, Saul, displaying the ways of such people, says: “They brought them from Amalek. The people spared the best of the sheep and the herds.” As if to say: The evil that is heard of should be weighed against the frailty of the people, not against the virtue of the pastor. Indeed, the sins of subjects should be disregarded in comparison with those of prelates. He says therefore: “They brought them from Amalek.” As if to say: What resounds about a shameful life is true, but nevertheless that same shamefulness flourished among the little ones, not among the great. Again, still softening the same fault, he says: “The people spared the best of the sheep and the herds, to sacrifice them to the Lord your God.” As if to say: The people truly sinned, but not unto death; because the sins of their deeds they now strive, at my exhortation, to blot out through the humility of confession. For the flocks and herds of Amalek are sacrificed to the Lord when the wayward and incontinent come to confession and hasten to blot out by repentance what they have wickedly done. He says therefore: “The people spared”; that is, indulged in sin. “But they brought them to be sacrificed”; because in those matters in which the people recall having fallen, they are now pierced with compunction through confessing and doing penance. The better flocks and herds, as above, designate the choicer sins of lust. As if to say: Even if the people sinned gravely, we ought not to be reproached, because in proportion to the magnitude of the crime they have lamentations of compunction. What does it mean that he says: “To sacrifice them to the Lord your God”? But by this the habit of the deceitful is shown, who, when they seek to hide from great men, resort to flattery. For what does it mean that he claims God is singularly his, except that he shows him to be a familiar friend of God? “To the Lord,” he says, “your God.” Not mine, but yours; because I am a sinner, you are singularly holy. But with a marvelous practice of fraud, the deceitful so conceal themselves as to reveal, and so justify as to accuse. They also temper the manner of accusation so that by accusing they appear just, lest by excusing they become known. For when he calls God his, he indeed exalts him and diminishes himself. But when he asserts that what was brought from Amalek is to be sacrificed to the Lord, he tacitly brings forth not that for which he ought to be reproached, but praised. And still adding more, he says: “But the rest we destroyed.” Indeed, sins that are forgiven are slain. Living sins are those that either still reign in the mind through concupiscence, or those that, though despised through conversion, have not yet been blotted out through penance. The former still live for pleasure, the latter live for punishment; because even if we have now ceased to sin, unless we bewail what we have committed, we are held bound by the obligation of what was committed. But he attributes the greater sins to the lesser people, and the lighter sins to the greater. For what does it mean when he says, “The rest we destroyed,” except that there are very small sins among the greater ones, which are washed away by confession alone? These the teachers destroy when, to those who humbly confess, they remit them by apostolic authority. To all these words—because the deceitful strive to conceal themselves, not to expose themselves—there is added the authority of the elect preachers by which they are reproved: (Verse 16.) For Samuel said to Saul: “Allow me, and I will tell you what the Lord has spoken to me this night.” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:16

Bede: But Samuel said to Saul: Leave me, and I will tell you, etc. Above, we read that Saul on the day was anointed king; on the day that he should be anointed, and now at night he is shown to be rejected. This is not by chance and without reason, but because the day sometimes signifies justice, night sin, he was chosen by day, and rejected by night, who due to the modesty of humility deserved to rule, due to the sin of disobedience he deserved to be rejected, not by divine judgment, but by the varying merit of man. But today the Lord saying: For many are called, but few are chosen (Matthew 20); whoever is called, by deeds of darkness is separated from the light of the chosen. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 16. What does it mean when he says: “Let me alone, and I will tell you,” unless that while deceitful men persist in verbosity, they do not grant their examining superiors an opportunity to speak? As if to say: While you do not cease from verbosity, you do not permit me to say the things you ought to hear. By this word the intention of the flatterer can also be mocked; for while he believes he is pleasing through the blandishment of praise, he supposes that those whom he praises are, as it were, held fast by those same praises. It is therefore as if the chosen leader were to mock his praiser with honorable gravity, saying: You who praise me—I cannot speak harsh things to you. Let me alone, therefore, that is, permit me to speak, and understand the things I am about to say. And because, as I said, flatterers believe they are pleasing by praising, they by no means expect to hear harsh things from those whom they praise. Therefore, as if about to hear joyful and favorable things, Saul follows up, saying: “Speak.” But chosen men, when they hear their own praises, do not grow soft from the rigor of justice amid the encouragements of praise. For those who despise the deeds of the reprobate can by no means accept their words. Because, therefore, they cannot be bent by praises, they both examine dishonest flatterers with subtle reasoning and pursue them with stern judgments. Whence it follows: (Verses 17–19.) And Samuel said: “When you were little in your own eyes, were you not made the head among the tribes of Israel? And the Lord anointed you king over Israel; and the Lord sent you on a mission and said: Go, slay the sinners of Amalek, and you shall fight against them until their utter destruction. Why then did you not listen to the voice of the Lord, but turned to the spoil and did evil in the eyes of the Lord?” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:17

Bede: And Samuel said: Were you not small in your own eyes? etc. And this rebuke of blessed Samuel is fitting for any Christian transgressing the faith with which he was imbued; someone saying to him, one of the spiritual teachers, whose likeness Samuel presents: Were you not humbled in your mind for the past life, which was without God, when you came to the Church, having already received the grace of faith and baptism, made a principal in exercising the fruits of the Spirit? Through which you should reach the vision of divine clarity. For Israel means a man seeing God. And the Lord anointed you with the chrism of His Spirit, so that being a ruler and moderator of good deeds you might belong to the dominion of the eternal King. And sending you on the way of a new conversation, having defeated the old man with his deeds, He commanded you to mortify all things which are earthly part by part. Why then, disregarding the evangelical and apostolic voice, did you prefer to establish another rule of living for yourself, and to gather the spoils of vices? in which sometimes even if you seemed to deceive the eyes of mortals, before the judgment of the internal arbiter you did a great evil. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 17. By these words, the disobedience of the proud king is subtly examined: because he first sets before him the gifts that were bestowed, then strikes at the audacity of his transgression through a careful investigation of that same fault. For it is a subtle examination when a crafty sinner is so scrutinized that no excuse for his guilt is left to him, so that God’s sentence holds him bound, as it were, to the death of his crime, since no refuge from sin remains for him. Therefore, so that every way of escape may be blocked for the deceitful and proud, both the loftiness of his dignity and the manner of his ministry are recalled to him, when he says: ‘Were you not, when you were little in your own eyes, made the head among the tribes of Israel? And the Lord said to you: Destroy the sinners of Amalek.’ And so that, now surrounded and besieged by these arguments, he might catch him, he lays upon him the hand of guilt, saying: ‘Why then did you not hear the voice of the Lord, but turned to the spoil and did evil in the sight of the Lord?’ As if to say: Behold what you were, what you were made, what you ought to have done; behold what you have done; behold how far you have departed from what you ought to have carried out. Therefore, when he pressed further, saying: ‘Why did you do evil in the eyes of the Lord?’ he seized the deceitful defendant, as it were, by surrounding him on every side.

18. But in this passage it should be noted that, while the proud king is rebuked, the times of his election are recalled, so that the swelling of his heart may be perceived not to have been present at his choosing, but to have grown from the eminence of his office. He was indeed chosen as a good man by the Lord, but while he grew from his high position, he declined through pride. Therefore He says: ‘When you were little in your own eyes, you were made head among the tribes of Israel’; now, turned to plunder, ‘you have done evil in the eyes of the Lord.’ As if to say: Through the truth of humility you merited the kingdom, but now, humble in pretense yet swollen in truth, you are losing the kingdom. For what are the eyes of the heart, if not the gaze of reason? For he who has unimpaired sight of reason is perfectly illuminated. He is therefore humble in his own eyes who perfectly examines himself and recognizes himself as humble with perfect vision. By these words, then, not only the past humility of the fallen king is commended, but also the keenness of his reason: because he was so great in reason that he knew himself perfectly, and so great in virtue that, examining himself closely, he truly saw himself as humble. Since, therefore, when he is rebuked his past qualities are recalled, what else is described but that he lacks the things he once had? For none can become proud unless they first lose the eyes of the heart. Concerning the lustful, the matter is even more plainly evident: they would never plunge themselves into the abyss of fornication if they had not first grown dim to the light of inward glory. Because they despise the lofty precepts of chastity, they are also convicted of pride. He who had come to depose the king from his office therefore says: ‘When you were little in your own eyes, you were made head among the tribes of Israel; now you have done evil in the eyes of the Lord.’ As if to say: Proud now and blind, you are justly deposed, you who formerly, seeing and humble, deserved to obtain the kingdom. For the proud Pharisees too are called blind by the Truth itself, who says to the disciples: ‘Let them alone; they are blind, and leaders of the blind’ (Matt. 15:14). This blindness is especially ascribed to the lustful, because there are no vices that cast thicker darkness upon the mind than lust. But now you may see many who stood firm as clerics fall once they became priests. To these, certainly, through the command of Samuel it is said: ‘When you were little in your own eyes, you were made head among the tribes of Israel.’ As if to say: When in a lesser rank you kept the precepts of chastity with an illuminated heart; now, having lost your eyes, you have fallen into the abyss of fornication. You have turned to plunder, because you have broken the divine precepts by violent presumption. For since they burst in to violate the sanctuary of chastity while God forbids, and stands armed, as it were, with threats and blocking the way, they lead, as if through the plunder of spoil, Amalek’s chosen things into the Lord’s land. And because the unchaste hide themselves from preachers as much as they can, Saul is rebuked for having done evil in the sight of the Lord. As if a preacher, threatening and terrifying one who has fallen into carnal pleasure, should say: The crime of impurity is indeed hidden from men, but it is not concealed from Him who sees all things. When the impenitent hear these and similar words, they can by no means be terrified. Hence, even though they are already caught by reasoning, like serpents they strive to slip away through their slipperiness from the hands of those who hold them. They put forth the tail and hide the head: because the outward results of their deeds are now visible, but the true quality of those same actions is concealed. Whence it also follows: (Verse 20.) ‘And Saul said to Samuel: On the contrary, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and I have walked in the way by which the Lord sent me, and I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have destroyed Amalek.’ — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

Gregory the Dialogist: Thus Saul, after merit of humility, became swollen with pride, when in the height of power: for his humility he was preferred, for his pride rejected; as the Lord attests, who says, “When you were little in your own sight, did I not make you the head of the tribes of Israel?” He had before seen himself little in his own eyes, but, when propped up by temporal power, he no longer saw himself little. For, preferring himself in comparison with others because he had more power than all, he esteemed himself great above all. Yet in a wonderful way, when he was little with himself, he was great with God; but, when he appeared great with himself, he was little with God. Thus commonly, while the mind is inflated from an affluence of subordinates, it becomes corrupted to a flux of pride, the very summit of power being pander to desire. — The Book of Pastoral Rule, Part 2, Chapter 6

Gregory the Dialogist: Hence against the proud Saul it is said: “When you were little in your own eyes, you were made head among the tribes of Israel.” As if it were openly said: When you saw yourself as little, I made you great above others. But because you now see yourself as great, you are esteemed little by me. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 7

1 Samuel 15:19

Athanasius of Alexandria: 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. — LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT 1.11

John Cassian: 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. — CONFERENCE 2.3.1

1 Samuel 15:20

Bede: And Saul said to Samuel: “Rather, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord,” etc. How much this response of Saul suits the stubbornness of the rebellious proud ones is very easily evident from what was previously explained. For there are those who, convicted either by the reading of the Holy Scripture or by the speech of teachers, and reproved for their committed faults, prefer to seek an increase of their sins by excusing themselves rather than humbly seeking remedy. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 19. For as if concealing his own hidden faults while bringing forth the exposed faults of others, the slippery teacher commends himself on the success of his preaching, saying: I ought not to be rebuked for the fault of my subjects, but rather praised, since I have destroyed it in the offenders by preaching. I struck Amalek: because the spirit of fornication fell by the sword of my tongue in the hearts of my hearers. The king, even if he lives, has been brought captive: because even if the sense of the flesh, as long as we are in the flesh, cannot be entirely destroyed, it has been captured, as it could be captured, because it cannot prevail over reason. Eager to show that his subjects themselves have been corrected and are confessing their sins, he added, saying: (Verse 21.) But the people took from the spoil sheep and oxen, the firstfruits of those things which were slain, to sacrifice to the Lord their God in Gilgal. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:21

Gregory the Dialogist: 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?” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:22

Athanasius of Alexandria: 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. — Letter 19.5

Bede: 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” (Psalms 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. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 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.” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

Irenaeus: 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.” — AGAINST HERESIES 4.17.1

Origen of Alexandria: 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.” — HOMILIES ON Leviticus 4.5.6

1 Samuel 15:23

Bede: Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, etc. Just as the other parts of this reading, so too this rejection of Saul, according to the allegory, can be applied to the synagogue, and according to the tropology of the law to any false Christian, whether teacher or disciple who was initially faithful but subsequently condemnable, fulfilled the prophecy of Balaam that says: “A ruler shall come out of Jacob, and destroy what remains of the city” (Num. XXIV); for because of the hidden and not entirely eradicated pest of pride in the heart, both the former Jewish people and now many Christians are deprived of the seat of the heavenly kingdom. — Commentary on Samuel

Cassiodorus: This is the greatest fault under which humanity labors, that after sinning they take refuge in excuses rather than prostrate themselves with repentant confession. Clearly such wickedness is to be reckoned amongst the worst sins, for its true source also seems to occasion slower progress by the sinner towards repentance. As the first book of Kings [Samuel] has it: “It is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel, and like the crime of idolatry to refuse to obey.” — EXPOSITION OF THE Psalms 140.4

Gregory the Dialogist: 24. What is it that those who resist and refuse to comply are likened by the prophet to diviners and idolaters, except that diviners strove to know divine things and to divine hidden matters, while idolaters subjected themselves to figments by venerating them? But those who resist the commands of their superiors resist precisely because they judge that they know the divine will better. To resist is therefore like the sin of divination: because, as if despising the divine altar, they receive responses at the altars of demons, when they trust in the deceitful and proud inventions of their own heart, and oppose by contrary thinking the salutary counsels of their superiors. To refuse to comply, moreover, is said to be like the crime of idolatry; because surely no one would persist in the obstinacy of his disobedience if he did not carry in his heart the figment of his own purpose as though it were an idol. For when he conceives in his heart what he intends to do, he makes, as it were, an idol, and when he resolves that he will carry out the purpose conceived in his mind, he bows down, as it were, to adore a graven image. To refuse to comply is therefore like the crime of idolatry: because whoever is obstinate in his own resolve is raised up outwardly in contempt of his superiors precisely because inwardly he is bowed down to the graven images of his own purpose which he has established by his own devising. But it must be carefully asked why resisting is compared to the sin of divination, and refusing to comply to the crime of idolatry. For “crime” is used only of a great sin, while “sin” is the term used even for what is slight; but if diviners were so called from “altar,” because they were accustomed to receive responses by consulting, the sin of idolatry was a crime in comparison with it, because it was more insane to worship stones than to receive false responses about how to live well under the guise of divine things. Why then is resisting said by comparison to be a sin, while refusing to comply is called a crime? But to resist is to dissent from the will of one who commands. Many indeed seem to resist for a time, when they do not immediately accept the commands of their superiors, yet after a little while they comply with those same commands. But to refuse to comply—what is it but both to resist an enjoined obedience and to persist in the obstinacy of that very resistance? For those do not comply who are unconquerable in their heart’s resolve and who omit nothing of what they determine to do on account of anyone’s authority. Rightly therefore, in comparison with resisting, refusing to comply is called a crime, because it appears to be a far greater and more horrible sin. Because, then, those who are of this sort are not overcome by reasoning, the prophet added what punishment should restrain them, saying: (Verse 23.) Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord has rejected you from being king.

25. For what does it mean that Saul is cast off, except that he is judged incorrigible? It is as if He were saying: Because you reject all counsels of salvation, for the guilt of obstinacy you ought no longer to be corrected by words, but condemned with the punishment of rejection. How greatly the guilt of disobedience ought to be feared is shown, if one considers attentively that on account of it even kings are deposed. What does it mean when he says: “Because you have cast away the word of the Lord, the Lord has cast you away”? But the word is cast away when it is not reverently preserved in its sublimity; for to cast away is to let something slip from the hand to the ground, whether through negligence or through violent throwing. Now the word of the Lord, because it speaks salutary things, is heavenly or sublime; it is negligently cast to the ground when through sloth it is not fulfilled. But it is cast away through contempt when the proud and disobedient repel it with swelling heart and disdain to observe it with the hand of action. But because he is reproved not for casting away but for rejecting the word, this signifies that while the proud follow their own will, they become far from the Lord. For to reject is to repel something far away. For those who worthily undertake the guidance of others are not only near to God through obedience, but also make those near to Him who through vices and crimes are far from Him. It is therefore as if He were saying: You are expelled far from the order of dignity, because you were unwilling to be present to the merit of that same dignity. For the merit of dignity is the observance of the divine word. When this is rejected, because the merit of dignity is lost, the dignity itself is also removed. It is fitting, then, to observe how much the proud lose through disobedience, and how much the humble gain. The former, while they rejoice in fulfilling the judgment of their own will, offer God great labors of works, yet have no rewards for their labors; the latter, while they abandon themselves, while they follow the judgment of another’s will, earn the glory of eternal sublimity; whence also through the most blessed Mary, Mother of the Lord our Redeemer, it is said: “He has put down the mighty from their seat, and has exalted the humble” (Luke 1:52). Indeed the Lord puts down the mighty from their seat when He casts off the disobedient proud, and He exalts the humble, because He glorifies the obedient with eternal glory. But words do not correct the proud; rather, only while they tremble at losing their honors do they feign the humility they do not possess, lest they lose the summit of glory; whence it is added: (Verse 24.) And Saul said to Samuel: “I have sinned, because I have transgressed the words of the Lord and your words.” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:24

Augustine of Hippo: Saul, too, when he was reproved by Samuel, said, “I have sinned.” Why, then, was he not considered fit to be told, as David was, that the Lord had pardoned his sin? Is there favoritism with God? Far from it. While to the human ear the words were the same, the divine eye saw a difference in the heart. The lesson for us to learn from these things is that the kingdom of heaven is within us and that we must worship God from our inmost feelings, that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth may speak, instead of honoring him with our lips, like the people of old, while our hearts are far from him. We may learn also to judge people, whose hearts we cannot see, only as God judges, who sees what we cannot, and who cannot be biased or misled. — AGAINST FAUSTUS, A MANICHAEAN 22.67

Gregory the Dialogist: 26. What does it mean that Saul is rebuked by the prophet for not having heard the voice of the Lord and for having done evil in His eyes, and yet he does not at all confess that he has sinned; but when he sees himself rejected from the kingdom, he confesses that he has sinned and transgressed the word of the Lord and His commands? It is because the proud are bold in despising the words of the humble, yet they cannot, in the manner of the elect, despise the honors they covet. They are indeed bold enough to scorn the commands of their superiors, but they are not prepared to relinquish high positions. On the contrary, the humble are ready to obey the commands of their superiors and secure in losing high positions. For since they desire not earthly but heavenly things, they despise the heights of earthly exaltation, they strive to labor for heavenly things; they willingly submit, and they shrink from being placed above others. Saul, therefore, refusing to obey God yet fearing to lose the kingdom—what else does he show us but the character of the proud, who, when they prevail, avoid being seen as lowly or as sinners, but when they are compelled, feign the virtue of humility? But when, under compulsion, they confess, they diminish by their words the sin they accuse. For although he declared that he had sinned by transgressing the word of the Lord, he recalled that he had incurred that same transgression by necessity rather than by will, saying: ‘I feared the people and obeyed their voice.’ As if to say: The sin for which I am rebuked ought to be struck with a lighter punishment, inasmuch as it was committed not through malice but through weakness. Now, to sin by deliberate purpose and will is a great transgression; but to sin through weakness is the more tolerable, the more the one who lies subject to the sin is unequal to the forces of that same sin. And because by the same craftiness of their heart they suppose themselves to prevail over the humility of simple teachers, he added, as if already having persuaded: (Verse 25) ‘But now, I pray, bear my sin and return with me, that I may worship the Lord.’ — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:25

Gregory the Dialogist: 27. Correctable sins are indeed borne, because after they depart from the will of the one who committed them, they can be wholesomely purged through satisfaction. But the sins of those in whose minds they have become ingrained through impenitence are not borne. Whence John also says: “There is a sin unto death; I do not say that one should pray for that” (1 John 5:16). A sin unto death is that which is committed by one who can never come to his senses. This sin is assuredly not borne by superiors, because it is not wiped away by the prayers or offerings of priests. But Saul, representing in all things the proud and obstinate, does not cease to swell with pride, and yet begs that his sin be borne; he heaps up an unbearable burden, and asks that it be carried as though it were light. This indeed happens as often in the Church as those who willingly commit great crimes fail to consider their magnitude. They gather up unbearable things, and reckon them to be trivial and of no weight. They hide their sins from their superiors, and so that they can scarcely be discovered and rebuked, they minimize those same sins as much as they can, lest those who preside over them recognize their enormity. They are also strong for sinning, but weak for weeping over their sins; they want to be dissolved in the pleasures of sin, but they refuse to be purged by the bitterness of penance. What then does it mean when he says, “Bear my sin,” except that they receive the sweetness of sins in themselves, but want to burden their prelates with the weight of those same sins? Some even come voluntarily to confess, but they themselves do not mourn for the things of which they accuse themselves; instead they beg others to do penance, they think they are saved by faith alone, and they do not care to return through penance once they have been cast down. Whence Saul also adds, saying: “And return with me, that I may worship the Lord.” For the preacher is, as it were, departing when he rejects the shameless; therefore he says: “Return with me, that I may worship the Lord.” He thinks that he is not divided from the communion of the elect solely because he preserves the common faith; or certainly, to worship the Lord is to submit oneself to the discipline of faith and the keeping of good works. But because Saul represents feigning hypocrites, there follows: (Verse 26.) Samuel said to Saul: “I will not return with you, because you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king.” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:26

Gregory of Nazianzus: Moreover, to distinguish still more clearly between them, we have, against the fear of office, a possible help in the law of obedience, inasmuch as God in his goodness rewards our faith, and makes a perfect ruler of the one who has confidence in him, and places all his hopes in him; but against the danger of disobedience I know of nothing which can help us, and of no ground to encourage our confidence. For we should fear that we will have to hear these words concerning those who have been entrusted to us: “I will require their souls at your hands”; and, “Because you have rejected me, and [have] not been leaders and rulers of my people, I also will reject you, that I should not be king over you”; and, “As you refused to listen to my voice, and turned a stubborn back, and were disobedient, so shall it be when you call upon me, and I will not regard nor hear your prayer.” — IN DEFENSE OF HIS FLIGHT TO PONTUS, ORATION 2.113

Gregory the Dialogist: 28. What then does it mean that the prophet refused to bear the sin of the penitent king, except that he saw him not truly penitent? To whom he first responded with those words of rejection, because he recognized that the king would by no means be changed. By this steadfastness of the prophet, certain overly lenient priests of this present time are reproved, who are weak in their conduct yet bold in their recklessness. They can scarcely sustain themselves, yet dare to take up the burdens of others to be carried; they do not bear their own light burdens, yet subject themselves to unbearable ones. Behold, the mighty prophet fled from taking up the burden of the king’s sin, so that the priest of the Church may fear and dread to undergo the weight of unbearable sins. For the most part, however, let him so take up the sins of others that he nevertheless permits the one by whom they were committed to weep over those sins he undertakes to expiate. Hence Samuel by no means promised to bear the king’s sin, yet he mourned for him whom he had declared rejected. For concerning him it is written shortly after: ‘Samuel mourned for Saul, because the Lord repented that He had made him king over Israel.’ He did not indeed promise to bear the king’s sin, so that the king would strive to weep over it himself. But nevertheless he wept for the one he had declared rejected, so that he might render the Lord favorable toward him. In the literal sense, indeed, when the prophet repeats the sentence, he shows the irrevocable sentence of divine justice by which the sinner is so cast away that he is never permitted to return to the hand of divine mercy. It can also be understood in another way, that he asks the prophet to return with him to worship the Lord. For holy men who do not abandon the Lord by sinning have no need to return to Him through repentance. For to return belongs to one who has departed. This indeed befits sinners who withdraw from the Lord through sin; it does not befit the just who remain steadfast. What then does it mean that the just Samuel is asked to return with Saul the sinner, except that chosen preachers are afflicted like penitents on behalf of their fallen subjects, and come as if returning, when they accompany fallen subjects with fatherly affliction? They therefore return with them, when the sins of their subjects are equally mourned both by the subjects who sinned and by the prelates who stood firm. It is therefore as if he were saying: I have now recognized through the rebuke of preaching that you cling to me with fatherly affection, you whom I did not leave to sin further. Since therefore I have come to my senses through your reproach, I ask you to return with me, because by my own strength I am by no means sufficient to blot out so great a magnitude of wickedness. But such prayers of affection would deserve to be received if they proceeded from truth of heart; fittingly therefore it was answered to the hypocrite: ‘I will not return with you.’ As if to say: I do not know how to sacrifice to God on your behalf, since I do not perceive you to be subject to God in the truth of humility; and repeating the earlier words, he says: ‘Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord has rejected you from being king;’ and because the crafty must be rejected and abandoned, there follows: (v. 27) ‘And Samuel turned to depart.’ In this departure of the elders, indeed, hypocrites fear the loss of temporal honor more than the loss of their eternal inheritance. Hence even when abandoned they cannot be at rest, but what they dare not accomplish by themselves, they strive to obtain through the intervention of others. Fittingly therefore it is added: (v. 27) ‘But he seized the edge of his cloak, and it was torn.’ — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:27

Augustine of Hippo: Again Saul sinned by disobedience, and again Samuel addressed to him the Lord’s word: “Inasmuch, therefore, as you have rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord has also rejected you as king.” And again, because of the same sin, when Saul admitted it and sought pardon, beseeching Samuel to go back with him and appease God, the prophet said, “I will not return with you, because you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel.” And Samuel turned about to go away; but he grabbed hold of the skirt of his mantle, and it tore. And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom from Israel from your hand this day and has given it to your neighbor who is better than you, and Israel shall be divided in two. But the triumpher in Israel will not spare and will not be moved to repentance; for he is not a man that he should repent. He threatens and does not persist.”Actually, the man to whom these words were spoken, “The Lord shall reject you as king over Israel,” and, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day,” ruled over Israel for forty years—for the same duration as David did—and he heard this pronouncement in the early part of his reign. Accordingly, we are to understand it to mean that no one of Saul’s posterity was to rule after him—an admonition to look to David’s stock whence was to stem, according to the flesh, Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and humanity. — City of God 17.7

Augustine of Hippo: In many Latin versions we find one of the above verses in the following form: “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from your hand.” But I have quoted from the Greek text: “The Lord has torn the kingdom from Israel from your hand”—the expression “from Israel” being equivalent to “from your hand.” In this way, Samuel stood figuratively for the people of Israel which was to lose the kingdom when our Lord Jesus Christ would come to reign—spiritually, not carnally—in the New Testament. The reference to him in the words “and he has given it to your neighbor” is an allusion to the racial relationship, for Christ in the flesh derived from Israel just as did Saul. — City of God 17.7

Bede: And Samuel turned to depart, etc. When the grace of prophecy turned away because of sins to depart from the Jews, they did not grasp the full garment of prophetic reading by which they could warm their souls with faith and adorn them with works; but only the extreme fringe, which is in the part of the letter, which they also tear away from the solidity of the spiritual sense, as if from the integrity of the prophetic garment. And therefore because they did not fear to tear the prophets, they deserved that the kingdom of God be torn from them and given to the Gentiles. But also today anyone who with an impious mind despises the sacred words in which he was instructed and imbued to seek the heavenly kingdom; because he stains the sacred garment by consecrating himself in the kingdom, he leaves the taken away kingdom’s happiness to a better neighbor. Nor does it differ from signifying the misery of such people when it is said that Samuel, hearing of Saul’s pride, turned to depart. For many, while they disdain to do the good they know they should do, eventually by the just judgment of God, deserve to be ignorant of what should be done. Hence, the multifaceted luxury of heretics’ weeds pollutes the harvest of the evangelical seed with a wicked seed, while rejected from the action of truth often, knowledge finally turned away and withdrew from the mind. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 29. What are the garments of a teacher, if not to teach the qualities of the subjects adhering to him? Concerning these garments, indeed, a promise is made to the great shepherd through the prophet: ‘As I live, says the Lord, you shall clothe yourself with all these as with a garment’ (Isa. 49:18). And through the Psalmist it is sung: ‘The Lord has reigned, He has put on beauty; the Lord has put on strength’ (Ps. 93:1). For He put on beauty, who joined to Himself the splendid minds of the faithful, as it were garments. Saul therefore seized Samuel’s cloak, when any proud and rejected person seeks the honor of high office to be conferred upon himself by great men through those dear ones and intimates who cling to him; and because no one intercedes on behalf of the reprobate among perfect hearers, he is said to have seized not the cloak, but the edge of the cloak, that is, the extremity; but that edge is torn, because he who suggests useless things is rejected. For when a lesser person making an indiscriminate request is repelled, it is as though the edge of the garment is said to be torn. For it was as though a part of the great prophet’s cloak was torn, when He answered Peter who was making a bad suggestion, saying: ‘Get behind me, Satan, for you do not savor the things that are of God, but the things that are of men’ (Matt. 16:23). Hence He likewise commands, saying: ‘If your hand or your foot scandalizes you, cut it off and cast it from you; likewise, if your eye scandalizes you, pluck it out and cast it from you’ (Matt. 5:30). By these words, assuredly, not only the edge of the cloak but even the middle portion is designated as needing to be cut away: because when they suggest evil things, even perfect hearers must be disregarded. For this is why the sons of Zebedee together with their mother ask that one sit at the right hand and the other at the left of the Redeemer; but as though ignorant of what constitutes a good request, they are repelled (Matt. 20). For it was as though the Lord tore a part of the cloak, when He rebuked and confuted those members who were causing scandal. And it should be noted that the whole cloak is not torn, but a part of the cloak is torn: because when a good person suggests evil things, he ought to be repelled in that which he suggests wrongly, and in that in which he is otherwise good, he ought to be retained out of love.

30. By the garment, the conduct of the ruler is also signified, as the Psalmist attests, who says: “Let your priests be clothed with justice” (Ps. 131:9). The edge of the cloak is therefore seized when the teacher is praised for great holiness, when that which displays outward beauty is spoken in his praise. But because the good qualities of the just that lie hidden are more numerous, only the edge of the cloak can be grasped: because what is seen of the chosen teacher’s justice is little, while much indeed is concealed. But that very little which is known, when it is grasped, is torn: because the just are not held by their own praises. For because they despise them in a moment, they cannot be held, as it were, by the tearing of the cloak. The torn part of the garment is indeed held, but the prophet is not held: because what is said in praise of the just person is true, and yet the just, while they despise what they hear, leave, as it were, the torn piece in the hands of the one holding it. Of the greater ones, therefore, because certain things can be known, a part is, as it were, grasped. But when all that is done is known by the little ones, if it is praised, it must nonetheless be cast aside; because nothing of good works should be held onto through vanity. For hence it is that while John, still a youth, follows the Lord already seized, and is held by his garment, he is described as having fled naked, leaving the garment behind (Mark 14). For the youth is caught by the garment when he is praised for the beginning of his good conduct; but he who despises the praises he hears flees naked, leaving the linen cloth behind. For to flee naked is to have a praiseworthy life, but to despise the praise of a chosen life. For he flees as if naked who ascribes nothing to himself through vainglory from the adornment of virtues. He can also be understood to have fled naked for this reason: because he who is said to have been caught by part of the linen cloth is reported to have left the cloth behind; because it frequently happens in the conscience of the elect that, through the fact that they are praised in part, they suspect that they have lost not a part of their merits, but all the merit of a good life. Samuel’s cloak is therefore torn, because chosen teachers despise their own praises. And because they are not swayed by praises, he repeats the severity of the former sentence, saying: (v. 28) “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from your hand this day.” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

John Damascene: Political prosperity is the business of emperors; the condition of the church is the concern of shepherds and teachers. Any other method is piracy, brothers. Saul tore Samuel’s cloak, and what was the consequence? God tore the kingdom away from him and gave it to David the meek.… We will obey you, O emperor, in those matters which pertain to our daily lives: payments, taxes, tributes; these are your due, and we will give them to you. But as far as the government of the church is concerned, we have our pastors, and they have preached the word to us; we have those who interpret the ordinances of the church. — ON DIVINE IMAGES 2.12

1 Samuel 15:28

Gregory the Dialogist: 31. For perfect men, because they are softened by no praise from the rigor of justice, are the same before as after the testimony of their praise, and they confirm by repeating afterward the same things they had said before. But we must ask what this signifies, that which is said: ‘Today’. For if the life of the reprobate is night, what does it mean that Saul’s kingdom is torn away in the day? But if the life of a reprobate pastor is night, when his kingdom is torn away, it makes day. For day does not come unless night departs. He says, therefore, ‘Today’, because the darkness of the disobedient one is declared to be condemned. Whence also, when Judas went out, the Lord says: ‘Now is the Son of Man glorified’ (John 13:31); because He saw the night of that man’s life depart, and the pure light of justice remain in the other disciples. It is also said ‘Today’, because with the proud one removed, the kingdom was being handed over to the humble king. Whence it is also added: (Verse 28) ‘And He has given it to your neighbor who is better than you.’ When therefore “today” is said, nothing bright is seen in the rejected king, but the glory of his successor is proclaimed, who from the height of the kingdom was to shine with the splendor of great virtue. And asserting the immutability of the divine sentence, he adds, saying: (Verse 29) ‘Moreover, the Triumphant One of Israel will not spare, and will not be moved by repentance.’ — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:29

Bede: Furthermore, the triumpher in Israel will not relent, etc. He who, he says, alone—indeed, all of Israel—by his grace made you triumph while fighting against Amalek, he will not spare you either, who are transgressing his word; for the more you received the power to conquer not by your own strength but from heaven, the less excusable you will be shown in preserving the anathema. Because as Moses says: The war against Amalek is the Lord’s alone (Exod. XVII); and: I shall erase the memory of Amalek from under heaven (Ibid.). This same sentiment is to be understood in spiritual warfare, where we endanger ourselves the more by sparing our enemies, that is, by indulging in vices, owing to the greater grace of our Author which we daily receive for the remission and forgiveness of sins. We should fear that we ourselves, too complacent in our pursuit of heavenly vision, might deserve to hear along with Saul, Because the triumpher in Israel will not relent; that is, the one who has granted the gift of victory in many cases to incite you to thanksgiving and diligence in living, will also condemn you to severe examination by his court’s decree in the end. Some believe that the saying, Furthermore, the triumpher in Israel will not relent, does not refer to the Lord, but to him of whom it was previously said, And he will give it to your neighbor, better than you; which namely means that since David took power of the kingdom, he would not spare either the house of Saul or foreign enemies ordered by the Lord to be slaughtered. This they interpret morally, that our neighbors who are better than us strive to extinguish the vices they notice in us with utmost effort, lest they themselves fall into the same pit of transgression into which they miserably observe others slipping. But what follows, And he will not be swayed by repentance, signifies the eternal and immutable judgment of the Lord that he has threatened. Furthermore, what is added, For he is not a man, that he should repent, clearly indicates that where it is said that God repented, it does not mean a changeable nature in the divine substance, where there is no change or shadow of turning, but a form of speech adapted to humans, tempered by human manner. Therefore, God does not repent of any of his covenants like a man, for his judgment on all things is as fixed as his presence is sure. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 32. For who is to be understood by the name of this triumphant one, except the Creator of the human race? For whoever overcomes hidden adversaries conquers by His power, who bestows upon him the grace of overcoming temptation. What does it mean that the triumphant one is said not to spare, when Samuel is being entreated? Because when preachers grow angry at sinning subjects, when they strike the proud or the dissolute with divine judgment, they do not act by the impulse of their own fury, but carry out the decision of the divine will. As if he were clearly saying: I indeed pronounced not my own sentence, but His, whose decree, once issued, cannot be revoked. Therefore He does not spare, and is not moved by repentance—but toward those who can neither cease from their sins nor repent of the sins they love. And adding the reason, he says: (Verse 29.) “For He is not a man, that He should repent.” As if to say: His very being belongs to Him in whom there is no changeableness. By the name of the triumphant one, the perfection of the substitute king can also be designated, who was destined to have the glory of many triumphs and who would not dare to spare anyone against the will of the Creator. Whence also in this very same book it is written of him: “And David struck the whole land, and left alive neither man nor woman” (1 Kings 27:9). Of him also it is said: “For He is not a man, that He should repent.” For what is designated in this place by “man,” except one subject to carnal passions? As if he were still stinging the proud one, saying: You now repent of your sins when you receive the sentence upon your boldness; but he will not repent who, being a man, is not subject to disobedience and pride. And Saul still confesses with his mouth, saying: (Verse 30.) “I have sinned.” But he reveals the quality of that confession, because he added, saying: (Verse 30.) “But now honor me before the elders of my people, and before Israel.” — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:30

Bede: But he said, I have sinned, etc. Thus is displayed both the obstinate pride of Saul and the ever humble modesty of the blessed Samuel. For what is prouder than for someone, having recognized his crime by which he is shown to be a transgressor before the Lord, indeed even accursed, to still seek to be honored by men and in the presence of men? On the other hand, what is more kind than for someone, recognizing the wickedness of another by which he is shown to be a reprobate before the Lord, to still not refuse to honor him in the presence of men? From this, as even now, those are not lacking who, having been rebuked either by spiritual teachers or by sacred writings for their crimes, often find themselves more burdened by the harmful praise of neighbors than to rejoice in being healed by their own beneficial repentance. We too ought, in the example of the blessed Samuel, to act modestly towards such people and not disgrace those whom we do not doubt are to be condemned by divine judgment as incorrigible, especially if we have recognized them as marked by some church office, which the anointing of the same Saul fittingly expresses. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 33. It is clear what kind of repentance he bears who still desires to be honored. For if he truly repented of his sin, he would have desired to be dishonored rather than honored. It is fitting, therefore, to marvel at the hardness of his cast-off heart. As the man of God, carrying out the command of the Creator, says: “The Lord has cast you off, that you should not be king,” on the contrary, he who receives the sentence of rejection seeks honors through the desire for exaltation. What does it mean, then, that he says: “I have sinned”? Indeed, confession of sin should be followed not by honor or glory, but by profit and self-contempt. For what does it profit to confess sins if the affliction of repentance does not follow the voice of confession? For three things must be considered in everyone who truly repents, namely: conversion of the mind, confession of the mouth, and punishment for sin. For he who is not converted in heart, what does it profit him if he confesses his sins? A sin that is loved is by no means erased by confessing it. Indeed, there are some who reveal their sins by confessing but, by not converting, in no way detest them. These indeed accomplish nothing by confessing, because what they cast out by speaking, they bring back in by loving. Whence Scripture also suggests to those wishing to confess profitably, saying: “With the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10). What is it to believe with the heart unto righteousness, except to direct the will toward faith working through love? Therefore, when someone directs the intention of the heart toward righteousness through love, through the beginning of good will he has the fruit of good conversion. This one certainly now confesses unto salvation, because by speaking he casts out from the wound more than conversion has pierced. The third kind, therefore, that is punishment, is like a necessary medicine, so that the abscess of guilt, which is lanced by conversion, may be purged by confessing and healed by the medicine of affliction. Therefore, he who does not believe in his heart unto righteousness by no means makes confession unto salvation, because he displays, as it were, the leaves of a bad tree whose deep roots he fixes in his heart. The sign of true confession, therefore, is not in the confession of the mouth but in the affliction of repentance. For then we perceive a sinner to be well converted when he strives to blot out with worthy severity of affliction what he confesses by speaking. Whence John the Baptist, rebuking the badly converted Jews flocking to him, says: “O generation of vipers, who has shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:7). Therefore, repentance is to be recognized in fruit, not in leaves or branches. For good will is, as it were, a tree. What then are the words of confession other than leaves? Therefore, leaves are not to be sought by us for their own sake but for the sake of fruit, because every confession of sins is received for this reason: that the fruit of repentance may follow. Whence also the Lord cursed the tree adorned with leaves but barren of fruit (Mark 11), because he does not accept the ornament of confession without the fruit of affliction. Therefore Saul, who confesses and wishes to be honored, not afflicted and humbled—what does he signify except those who have a sterile confession and bear no fruit, who display the beauty of confession with humble words but pursue the greenness of words, not the humility of repentance?

34. But why do we look to the ancients, when now we see such a great multitude of fallen rulers? For now they rush headlong into disgraceful deeds in droves—not only the weak who are subject to authority, but also negligent prelates and priests. Those who by the rank of their ministry have been assigned to heavenly sacraments act with slippery sinfulness. But many of them, when they somehow come to their senses, confess that they have erred. Yet they wish to bring forth their sins against themselves in such a way that they still desire to be honored on account of their sacred office; in secret they declare themselves shameful, but outwardly they blush to appear humble beyond the dignity of their rank. What then are these men but those who see themselves as cast down, and yet dare to wish to be honored? Often, moreover, they do not come of their own accord, but are seized against their will; they receive the commands of their own abjection, and yet they ask to be honored. They wish indeed to do unclean things, yet dare to cling to the sacred altars. Behold how many Sauls we observe, how many fallen rulers we contemplate from the height of Holy Church. To each of them individually it must surely be said: ‘Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord has rejected you from being king’—so that those whom earthly disgraces do not cease to defile may not perform the heavenly ministry. But this indeed we can say, yet we cannot persuade slippery ministers of it. For Saul both heard that he was rejected and continued to reign; because unclean priests recognize that they have been cast down from the priestly summit through the defilements of luxury, and yet they do not cease to handle the sacred mysteries against God’s will. But a king reigning against the Lord’s will was not a king but a tyrant; because an unworthy priest, who is rightly cast out on account of his defilement, when he presumes to minister, ascends to the summit of so great a glory only to be condemned. Hence also that great senator of heaven, wishing to terrify such tyrants, says: ‘Whoever eats the bread and drinks the blood of the Lord unworthily, eats and drinks judgment upon himself’ (1 Cor. 11:27). Often, however, it happens through urgent confession that those who confess are also believed to have undergone a conversion of heart. Sometimes the chosen preachers accept the false humility of the reprobate, so that by their example others may be led to salvation. For they recognize two things in hypocrites: one within, the other without. Within, indeed, pure evil; without, a pretense of good. They detest both, but they often feign approval of the outward show of good in them, so that those who see the good on the outside and do not know the evil within may follow the examples of good that they behold. Rightly therefore it is added: (Verse 31.) ‘So Samuel turned back and followed Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord.’ — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:31

Gregory the Dialogist: 35. For on account of the evil that lay hidden within, he deserved to hear: “The Lord has cast you off from being king.” But so that under the pretext of good he might draw others to the truth of that same good, Samuel wished to follow Saul, and saw him worship the Lord. Sometimes even the evils of kings and the great ones of the earth must be tolerated, lest being provoked they slip into worse things. For the children of Israel often worshiped the gods of the nations. Whence also it was said above concerning those converted by Samuel: “The children of Israel removed from their midst the Baals and the Ashtaroth” (1 Sam. 7:4). And perhaps if the rejected king did not see the prophet returning with him to worship the Lord, he would worship the images of demons. And so he casts him off, yet returns with him; because in the powerful of this age, iniquity must be condemned in such a way that the good they possess is not lost through provocation. For often they are evil in secret, and the good that is seen, others imitate more devoutly. Certainly the evils of the powerful of the age are great evils for them; but the good things they put forth benefit the example of the faithful more than the good deeds of others. Rightly therefore Samuel returns with the rejected king; because the elect preachers both strike the powerful of the age for their iniquity, and permit them to do certain good things for the sake of example. Whence it also follows: (Verse 32.) And Samuel said: “Bring here Agag, king of Amalek.” And Agag was brought to him, very fat and trembling. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:32

Bede: And Samuel said: Bring Agag to me, etc. Agag, as mentioned above, means ‘covered’; Amalek is called a people of locusts or a people who lick. Therefore, prophetic Scripture says and its ministers and dispensers tell their listeners to bring out into the open the long-hidden wound of pride and the badly kept secret in the heart by confessing. This pride, indeed, is the king and head of other crimes, as those that spring from its root; it seeks to deceive the unsuspecting by false flattering, as though licking, and to erode all the shoots of vital grace. This same nefarious king is said to be exceedingly fat, that is, weighed down with the dangerously delightful fatness of excessively growing crimes. About which the Psalmist speaks: Their iniquity comes forth as if from fatness (Psalm LXXII). — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 36. Kings adore the Lord when the proud and scornful humble themselves to carry out the Lord’s commands. The unchaste adore when they are subjected to God through the obedience of chastity. But sometimes they pretend to adore, because some have a pretext of humility or chastity, yet while they are believed to truly possess the good, others through the good they believe them to have lose the practice of good works. Therefore they hand over King Agag to Samuel, because by confessing they bring forth the vigor of their sensuality. For when they confess the sins of lust which they committed through the vigor of the flesh, what else do they do but offer the king of Amalek to the prophets to be slain? But what does it mean that Agag is called very fat, when the vigor of sensuality is fat in some and lean in others? What then does it mean that he is offered fat, except that he was led forth by the subjects of the reprobate king? For subjects are often negligent; but when they behold the examples of their chosen pastor, they groan amid the evils they commit. Through the frailty of the flesh they fall into impurities; but struck by the examples of their superiors, they cannot fully rejoice amid the pleasures of impurity. In whom then is Agag fattest, if not in those of whom it is said: “They rejoice when they have done evil, and exult in the worst things” (Prov. 2:14)? For the subjects of a lustful teacher sin all the more boldly, the fewer examples of their superiors they have placed before them to see. But they cast themselves down far more madly when they do not see in their pastors a good that they might follow, and they do see an evil by whose example they perish. In these indeed Agag grows fat, because joyfully, securely, and freely the vigor of the flesh is stretched out in the pleasure of lust, which, with nothing standing in the way, is not deprived of the practice of allurement. Therefore the fattest is offered to be slain when those are converted who greatly rejoiced in the pleasure of lust; for the king is, as it were, handed over when the carnal sense which ruled the mind is revealed to the priests of Christ through confession. Fat also customarily nourishes fire. Rightly therefore this is ascribed to the Amalekite king, because while the spirit of fornication possesses the mind, the more sweetly and frequently it feeds there through shameful thoughts, the more abundant fuel is supplied to it for increasing the fire of concupiscence. But he is said to be trembling, because the carnal sense, when it is handed over to spiritual men through confession, is weakened. Therefore trembling gives a sign that it does not have the strength of its members. When therefore the vigor of sensuality begins to be weakened, what else trembles but the king of the Amalekites? Or he is said to tremble because many, when they begin to be converted, are terrified by the rigor of penance. And because all carnal people cannot abandon the customary pleasures of the flesh without grief, there follows: (Verse 32) And he said: “Does bitter death thus separate?”

37. For to say this to the carnal sense is to strike the mind with the turning of sorrow over the loss of accustomed pleasure. For because the recently converted suffer great darts of bitterness, the king whom they had served, as it were, complains about death: because in them carnality is by no means slain without great tribulation. Therefore to ask the carnal sense about the separation of death is to strike the still-sorrowful mind of the converted person over the loss of past delight. But also the manner of separation is inquired about, when he says: “Is it so?” For as though, having seen the austerities to which it must be subjected, his sensuality says to the mind: “Do you spurn joyful things for such sorrowful ones?” Samuel certainly hears this voice: because the chosen preacher recognizes the tempted heart of his subject by certain signs. But what does it profit to recognize, if he himself says nothing against that which rages within in the heart of the subject? Therefore there follows: (Verse 33) And Samuel said: As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:33

Bede: And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, etc.” Understand the sword of Agag as the most effective fury of pride; the Hebrew women bereft of children by him, as faithful souls deprived of the fruit of good works by victorious pride. But as you, he said, have turned countless from the path of truth, O proud presumption, so when the appointed time arrives, when He who will justly judge and destroy the entire kingdom of iniquity comes, your mother impiety, captured by innumerable crimes, will be deprived of that most wicked progeny of vices, having no more whom to seduce. — Commentary on Samuel

Bede: And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces, etc. And every spiritual and prophetic teacher hews the king of the licking people in pieces; when, diligently exposing the manifold deceptions of pride, carefully disemboweling the vice, he considers and explains what must be done against each of its wiles for himself and his followers. He clarifies and reveals that within the very fat Agag, that is, the covering of malice, are hidden the blind recesses of decay and corruption; and this, in Gilgal, that is, the revelation of manifest truth and faith, the teacher accomplishes. And in another sense: When, in the revelation of the final judgment, the whole body of sin is to be utterly destroyed, which the reprobate foolishly spare now, he foresees and proclaims it must be broken. — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory the Dialogist: 38. What is the mother of carnal sense, if not original sin? For since before the sin of the first man no lust was present in the members, the Amalekite king did not exist. There was indeed the sense of the flesh, but it was not shameful and lustful; but as soon as he fell into sin, he felt the itching of his members, because he could not have obedient movement of the flesh when he himself was disobedient to God. Original sin, therefore, is rightly understood as the mother of the shameful sense of the flesh, because from it there comes forth by birth that which began to exist from it. Whence also the Apostle, as if abhorring the law of carnal sense as that of a most severe tyrant, showed not only the king himself but the mother, saying: “Therefore it is no longer I who work that, but sin which dwells in me” (Rom. 7:20). For the sin which he declared he did not work, he understood as the movement of the flesh; but the sin dwelling in him, as original sin. Because therefore from original sin comes the sin of the movement of the flesh, when we consider the carnal sense as king, we rightly name his mother as the first sin. Moreover, the children of this mother are all concupiscences, sins, and vices. The mother is surely made without children when every fault from the flesh and every fault from the mind now seems merely to remain. For she is then without children, because even if no shameful thing now comes from the flesh, if no concupiscence now reigns in the mind, nevertheless that sin remaining in us cannot now be destroyed by the power of a teacher. For what does the Apostle mean when he says: “It is no longer I who work that, but sin which dwells in me”? From that sin indeed, which we contract from the corrupt root of our nature, we have the capacity to be corrupted by the passions of vices. The disordered law of the members, therefore, when it moves the members contrary to our will—we do not work this, but sin which dwells in us. The will indeed is then present with us, but we do not yet find the ability; since we would wish that nothing could be moved in us against our will. And these are perhaps the conceptions of the worst mother, by which that sin is impregnated; if they are allowed to pour forth into shameful and obscene acts, they are said to be, as it were, nourished. The children, therefore, are the movements which are not only naturally within, but which are manifested in shameful and obscene works. The mother of Agag is therefore made without children when original sin is so restrained that it is not permitted to produce any acts or movements. Or perhaps she is made without children because she once had children. When, therefore, converted sinners cease to be shameful both in act and in the gestures of luxury, the fault dwelling in them, as a mother, is as it were bereft of children.

39. And it should be noted that the mother is said to be made without children by way of comparison. As he says, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” The virtues of the mind, from which good works proceed, are mothers; but the sword of Agag is called the weapon of lust, which indeed makes women childless, because lust destroys all good works. Or certainly the women are understood as the minds of the faithful, while the children of holy minds are good thoughts, virtues, and good works. But the sword of Agag made mothers childless, because the delight of lust, if it is allowed to be unsheathed like a sword, slays from them indeed all good thoughts, all virtues, and good works. For the sharp pleasure of this pestilence, if it is received into the mind, while it delights one to gaze more intently upon what is impure, can think of nothing clean and holy; and while it ardently drags one toward the fulfillment of wicked deeds, it permits one to do nothing of virtue. And because through its burning all things perish, not only the children of Agag but all the children of the women are slaughtered. Therefore it makes mothers childless, because the delight of lust, like a sword, while it strikes the fruits of minds, by no means allows thoughts of virtue or the good of work to live. Just as therefore it made mothers childless, so also his own mother is made childless, when the sinner is so converted that, apart from the guilt naturally implanted in us, nothing of obscene works or impulses appears to remain in those who are converted. Whence it is also fittingly added: (Verse 33.) And Samuel cut Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.

40. That he is cut into pieces means that, once dead, he is divided into small parts. For Agag is slain when the vigor of the flesh is so crushed by fasting, vigils, and spiritual meditations that nothing wanton, nothing lustful is felt to stir. For to slay him is to render the flesh unable to move shamefully. But the corpse of the slain one remains whole when its movement remains. Lust does not remain when it weighs down the mind by its mere heaviness alone; that is, when a simple and natural motion of the flesh resides in the members, but has nothing of lustful ardor. But because the minds of the elect bear this very thing with difficulty, they carry, as it were, the whole corpse of a dead king. But what does it mean that he is cut into pieces, except that they do not wish to leave even that natural motion its strength? He is therefore cut into pieces, because each time it strikes, it is slain. Therefore, while the alternating movements are not allowed to come together, the corpse of Agag is, as it were, cut into pieces. Or perhaps this Agag is of such a nature that he cannot die unless cut into pieces. For as I said above, lust is kindled after the manner of fire; and if it is extinguished carelessly, the nearby stubble is quickly set ablaze. A great fire, too, can often be better extinguished when dispersed. For when many coals come together into one, they make an enormous mass of embers. Lest therefore the one extinguishing it be burned, the mass of embers is first wisely scattered, so that it may be quickly extinguished through the individual pieces of coals. For what are thoughts of luxury, what are lustful motions of the body, but coals of fire? Which indeed, if they come together in the heart or in the flesh, can quickly burn, but can never easily be extinguished. Let the fire therefore be scattered, let Agag be cut into pieces, and let the mind be guarded so that it disperses unclean thoughts and does not allow one to cling to another. For since one cannot bring it about that one never thinks harmful things, let one do what one can: immediately cast out the thought that carelessly enters the mind. Thus indeed one divides a very great fire quickly into individual coals and swiftly extinguishes it, if one separates all the flames of thoughts in such a way as not to allow them to be joined together in the mind, neither through negligence nor through desire. Thus indeed the vigor of the mind also represses the motions of the body, when it does not allow them to come together with one another. For an enticing motion of the flesh, if it is not at all nourished by thought, does not seem to come together with another. For the glue of enticing motions is unclean thought: because whoever willingly looks upon unclean things immediately moves the flesh violently toward the things loved by lusting after them; the more willingly and lingeringly one thinks, the more, as coals to coals, one binds shameful motions to even more shameful ones. Let him therefore maintain a strong guard over his soul who wishes to powerfully scatter the motions of the flesh. For within, Agag is first divided, so that outwardly he may likewise be divided into pieces; because for one who does not allow evil thoughts to come together, the shameful motions of the flesh are also, as it were, divided into pieces. Thus indeed the very fat Agag is slain, if he is divided into pieces; because we powerfully extinguish the sense of the flesh along with its unclean motions, both in the body and in the soul, if we keep watch against each of its individual snares with singular attention. Hence that Wise Man also carefully admonishes, saying: “With all watchfulness keep your heart, because from it life proceeds, and from one that is neglected, death comes forth” (Proverbs 4:23). For life proceeds when the heart is guarded, because when all uncleanness is repelled, the spirit of the converted is enlivened toward virtues. Therefore Agag is cut into pieces by the prophet when, through the counsel of teachers, individual particles of uncleanness are destroyed both in the body and in the mind of the hearers. Moreover, it is rightly said that he was cut to pieces both before the Lord and in Gilgal; because those who know how to think wisely both about almighty God and about the Holy Scriptures can powerfully divide the minute particles of enticing thoughts and shameful motions. But, as I said, teachers often tolerate the feigned good deeds of the wicked not for their own sake, but for the sake of others; because what they do in pretense benefits not the pretenders, but the onlookers. Indeed, the elect often see the feigned good deeds of the wicked; but because they do not know their hearts, they imitate the good that appears to shine outwardly. Saul asked Samuel to return with him to worship the Lord; but he, having returned, cut Agag into pieces, because elect teachers, through the works that the reprobate perform, turn the elect toward the pursuit of living well. But because they do this very thing by way of dispensation, that is, for the sake of something else, when the necessity of the dispensation passes, they abandon those very reprobate whom they had, as it were, followed toward good works, once they have lapsed into the impenitence of a reprobate heart. And so it is well added: (Verses 34, 35.) And Samuel went away to Ramah, but Saul went up to his house in Gibeah, and Samuel did not see him again until the day of his death. — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:34

Gregory the Dialogist: 41. What is the house of the transgressor, if not the habit of wicked work? For whoever is enclosed in a perverse habit dwells, as it were, in a house. Saul therefore ascended to his house, when any reprobate, after the rebuke of teachers, returns to the practice of evil work. For he descended, as it were, to the plains when he feigned humility in order to learn the commands of his superiors. But what does it mean that Samuel is said to have departed before Saul ascended to his house? Yet, as I said, when there is no need on behalf of others, the chosen preacher cannot remain with the crafty man; and because the pretender advances in the absence of the teacher, Saul did not go away to his house, but ascended. For to ascend, for the reprobate, is to advance from bad to worse. Likewise, when the proud man is said to descend, he is declared to ascend. For to ascend to his house, for the proud man, is to exalt himself through pride up to the measure by which he is to be condemned. For the house of the proud man is the measure of his own wickedness. For when they are permitted, through the prosperities of this world, to exercise tyranny, to disturb the earth, to oppress the good, and to afflict the innocent, what else do the proud appear to do but ascend? But because it is predetermined by God how much they may harm, how much they may rage, how much they may exalt themselves through tyranny, they are permitted to ascend only up to their house. For their house is the measure of wickedness in which they will always remain: because when they have arrived at the fullness of their crimes, they are snatched away by death and punished with eternal torments. For he remains, as it were, in his house, who can never escape from the punishments of his way of life. This can fittingly be understood not only of the proud, but also of the lustful and all the reprobate. For they were still in the ascent and not yet in their house, those of whom it is said: ‘The iniquities of the Amorites are not yet full’ (Gen. 15:16). Hence likewise the blessed apostle Paul says: ‘To fill up their sins’ (1 Thess. 2:16). Therefore they ascend to their house when, by the advancement of evil, they advance to more wicked works, for which they will endure eternal torments.

42. Moreover, Samuel is said to depart to Ramah. For teachers separated from the reprobate do not merely go, but depart. They go when they leave those who are to be corrected, because those whom they dismiss as if in anger, they afterward return to, invited by their good amendment. Therefore, for a teacher to depart is to abandon the impenitent wicked with perpetual condemnation. For they so abandon those who work sins unto death through impenitence that they are not compelled to return to them any further. Well therefore it says: ‘Saul did not see Samuel again until the day of his death.’ And because they perceive that this must be done in the contemplation of the highest truth, he is recorded as departing to Ramah. For a consummated vision is the perfected understanding of innermost truth. Lest therefore the severity of preachers be judged excessive by the carnal-minded when they separate the reprobate from the communion of the Church in perpetuity, let them hear that after Samuel came to Ramah, he saw Saul no more—because the teacher eternally separates the one whom he does not recognize as belonging to the number of the elect. But this is believed with confidence if in the figure of Samuel the affection of charity among the preachers of the holy Church is perceived alongside their severity. For the zeal of severity is shown in that it is recorded he did not see Saul until the day of his death. But concerning the affection of charity, it is added: (Verse 35) ‘Nevertheless, Samuel mourned for Saul, because the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.’

43. For what is it that he mourns for one whom he disdains to look upon, except that even with their zeal for righteousness, the holy teachers possess a disposition of great charity, and the very greatness of that charity is shown by the fact that he is said to weep for the rejected king? With what affection, then, do they weep for the sins of their elect subjects, who have learned to weep so tenderly even for the cast-off reprobate? For the urgency of the mourning is shown by what is added next: — Commentary on 1 Kings, Book 6, Chapter 2

1 Samuel 15:35

Bede: And Samuel did not see Saul anymore, etc. It is better to imitate than to allegorize, that one whom he so detests due to the merit of sin, that he does not deign to see him even once, yet with the same consideration of brotherhood, he expends so much piety that he even testifies to this with mourning and tears. From whence it is not unfitting for such men of spirit, and that of the Psalmist, which he says: “Do I not hate those who hate you, O God? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?” (Psalms 139), and likewise the evangelical blessing which says: “Blessed are those who mourn now, for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5). For if without any doubt he is blessed, who with eyes troubled by the fear of impending wrath, laboring in his groaning, washes his own bed, that is, the works of virtues, with tears each night in which he ought to rest; how much more blessed is he who, already made more secure by God’s favor concerning his own salvation, prays and laments to the Lord for the transgressions of his brothers? — Commentary on Samuel

Gregory of Nyssa: Holy Scripture is often accustomed to attributing expressions to God such that seem quite like our own, for example, “The Lord was angry, and he was grieved because of their sins”; and again, “He repented that he had anointed Saul king” … and besides this, it makes mention of his sitting, and standing, and moving, and the like, which are not as a fact connected with God but are not without their use as an accommodation to those who are under teaching. For in the case of the too unbridled, a show of anger restrains them by fear. And to those who need the medicine of repentance, it says that the Lord repents along with them of the evil, and those who grow insolent through prosperity it warns, by God’s repentance in respect to Saul, that their good fortune is no certain possession, though it seems to come from God. — ANSWER TO EUNOMIUS’S SECOND BOOK

Jerome: I am induced to write to you, a stranger to a stranger, by the entreaties of that holy servant of Christ, Hedibia, and of my daughter in the faith Artemia, once your wife but now no longer your wife but your sister and fellow servant. Not content with assuring her own salvation, she has sought yours also, in former days at home and now in the holy places. She is anxious to emulate the thoughtfulness of the apostles Andrew and Philip, who, after Christ had found them, desired in their turn to find, the one his brother Simon and the other his friend Nathanael. … So of old Lot desired to rescue his wife as well as his two daughters, and refusing to leave blazing Sodom and Gomorrah until he was himself half on fire, tried to lead forth one who was tied and bound by her past sins. But in her despair she lost her composure, and looking back became a monument of an unbelieving soul. Yet, as if to make up for the loss of a single woman, Lot’s glowing faith set free the whole city of Zoar. In fact, when he left the dark valleys in which Sodom lay and came to the mountains the sun rose upon him as he entered Zoar or the little city; so-called because the little faith that Lot possessed, though unable to save greater places, was at least able to preserve smaller ones.… Good people have always sorrowed for the sins of others. Samuel of old lamented for Saul because he neglected to treat the ulcers of pride with the balm of penitence. And Paul wept for the Corinthians who refused to wash out with their tears the stains of fornication. — LETTER 122

Richard Challoner: Saw Saul no more till the day of his death: That is, he went no more to see him: he visited him no more.