King Saul and the Challenge of Contrition

My subject for today—the encounter of Saul with the prophet Samuel in 1 Sam 15—is not a stand-alone presentation. It is intended to set up a comparison with David’s encounter with the prophet Nathan in 2 Sam 12, to which I will turn in the next essay. My claim is that we will understand both of these stories far better if we have their counterpart in view.

My essay will break into four parts. Each section will begin with a block quote from chapter 15 followed by a detailed exposition. However, before diving into the first section, we must address a challenge found in the opening verses.

And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”

These verses have caused considerable consternation for nearly all readers. Samuel announces that the Lord is going to “utterly destroy”[1] the Amalekites, a command that entails slaying everyone in their camp, “man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” While I cannot address the broader problem of “holy war “in the Old Testament at length here, a few points are necessary. The command to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites is largely concentrated in the books of Joshua and Judges; it is essentially a one-time affair rather than a permanent definition of how Israel is to fight her enemies.

The Amalekites, however, represent a unique exception due to their deep, irrational, and persistent animosity toward the people of Israel. This hostility began the moment after they departed from slavery in Egypt.

Then came Amalek and fought with Israel at Rephidim. 9 And Moses said to Joshua, “Choose for us men, and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.” 10 So Joshua did as Moses told him, and fought with Amalek; and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. 11 Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed. 12 But Moses’ hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat upon it, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. 13 And Joshua mowed down Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. 14 And the LORD said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Exodus 17:8-14).

And this irrational hatred continues until the end of the Biblical period. In the Book of Esther, we encounter Haman’s attempt to liquidate the Jews living in Persia.

After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the Agagite, the son of Hammedatha, and advanced him and set his seat above all the princes who were with him. 2 And all the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and did obeisance to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance. 3 Then the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate said to Mordecai, “Why do you transgress the king’s command?” 4 And when they spoke to him day after day and he would not listen to them, they told Haman, in order to see whether Mordecai’s words would avail; for he had told them that he was a Jew. 5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance to him, Haman was filled with fury. 6 . . . Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus (Esther 3:1-6).

Crucially, Esther 2:5 had identified Mordecai as a “son of Kish, a Benjaminite.” This framing reveals a second confrontation between an Agagite (Haman, a descendant of the king Saul spared) and a Benjaminite (Mordecai, of Saul’s own lineage). The author of Esther presumes that had Saul fulfilled his duty back in the days of Samuel, this threat of genocide would never have materialized.

Consequently, the animosity of the Amalekites was no ordinary national rivalry. We can understand why Jewish interpreters would come to identify the Amalekites with Evil itself. Perhaps the best way to approach this chapter is to follow the lead of the Church Father Origen and look beyond the literal sense to the spiritual. In this view, the command to “blot out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven,” is a demand for the total eradication of evil, root and branch. To use a modern analogy, we might imagine the Amalekites as being less like an ordinary neighboring nation and more like Sauron’s kingdom of Mordor in the Lord of the Rings—a force of pure, corrosive opposition to the good.

I. Saul Receives and Disobeys a Command

Let us now return to the matter at hand. What is important to see in the opening section of 1 Samuel 15 is the clear command that Saul receives,

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass (v. 3)

and his failure to comply with it:

[Saul] took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed (vv. 8-9).

To understand the weight of this failure, we must bear in mind the nature of ancient warfare. Soldiers did not receive a steady salary; compensation typically consisted of booty taken in battle. Captives were sold into slavery, and livestock was added to one’s own herds. What made the command to “utterly destroy” the enemy “sacrificial” was the fact that the soldiers could not profit from their martial efforts. In essence, they were being asked to risk their lives for free.

Naturally, there would be great resistance to destroying valuable loot. We can see this tension expressed at the end of v. 9: “they spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen . . . and all that was good,” but “all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed.” Notably, these decisions were made collectively. The grammatical subject of v. 9—“Saul and the people”—indicates a shared culpability.

II. God and Samuel Confer

At this point, God reveals his displeasure to Samuel.

The word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was [upset][2]; and he cried to the Lord all night. 12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning; and it was told Samuel, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself and turned, and passed on, and went down to Gilgal” (15:10-12).

It is crucial to realize that God’s juridical decisions often follow a period of consultation with a prophet. A classic example of this can be found in the story of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:1-14). Just after Israel has received the Ten Commandments, she violates their letter and spirit by fashioning and worshipping a molten image. God, in his anger, threatens to destroy the entire nation.

I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; but of you I will make a great nation (vv. 9-10).

Thankfully, Moses steps into the breach and goes “toe to toe” with God.

O Lord, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people, whom thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? . . . Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and didst say to them, “I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever” (vv. 11-13).

Moses succeeds in overturning this decree: “The Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people” (v. 14). Later, in the book of Jeremiah, when God’s patience has finally reached its limit, he informs the prophet that “even if Moses and Samuel were standing before me, my heart would not turn toward this people” (15:1). While God does not relent in that instance, his statement confirms the rule: under normal circumstances, the prayers of Moses and Samuel would have been effective.

Returning to our text, I contend that God’s decision to consult with Samuel presumes Samuel’s power as an intercessor. God has announced his initial verdict, but Samuel, visibly upset, steps forward to contest it (“he cried to the Lord all night”). Yet no final decision is immediately recorded. There is a conspicuous silence between vv. 11 and 12 (“He cried to the Lord all night.12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning”). The matter is not yet closed; should Saul demonstrate genuine contrition, the penalty may be softened or voided.[3] This is the tension that hovers in the background as the story moves forward.

III. Saul is Tested and Found Wanting

The episode that follows is the most important part of our chapter.

And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” 14 And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” 15 Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.”

16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stop! I will tell you what the Lord said to me this night.” And he said to him, “Say on.” 17 And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop on the spoil, and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?”

20 And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.”

22 And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.” (1 Sam 15:12-23)

When Samuel reaches Saul, the king’s opening words are a patent untruth: “Blessed be you to the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord” (v. 13). Samuel, rather than arguing, adopts a calculated naiveté. He asks, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” (v. 14). The purpose of this naiveté is strategic. He is providing a space for Saul’s confession. (Recall the “gap” between vv. 11 and 12.) Samuel clearly hopes that a display of repentance might yet overturn God’s threatened verdict.

But Saul remains unbowed. Instead of confessing, he deflects the blame onto his troops. When addressing the failure of the mission, Saul uses the third person: “They have brought them from the Amalekites . . . ” Yet when speaking of the successful destruction of the worthless items, he pivots to the first person: “. . . the rest we have utterly destroyed” (v. 15). The choice of pronouns says it all: the people violated the command, but the king claims credit for what was done correctly.

At this point, Samuel’s patience grows thin. He reveals that God has already informed him of the events (v. 16), and issues a pointed accusation: “Why did you swoop on the spoil?” (v. 19). Notice that there is no division of agency in Samuel’s words (“Why did you swoop on the spoil,” in comparison to Saul’s claim, “They have brought them . . .”). It was Saul who received the command from God and it was his responsibility to make sure his soldiers carried it out.

Shockingly, however, Saul continues to protest his innocence, doubling down on his claim of obedience while scapegoating the people (“I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal”). With this display of persistent denial, the period of adjudication ends. Samuel has offered Saul every opportunity for contrition, but Saul’s stubbornness has solidified the verdict. Samuel’s famous reply—that obedience is better than sacrifice—strips away the king’s various excuses, leading to the final sentence: “Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king” (23b).

IV. Saul’s Forced Confession

Only after this stern rejection, does Saul finally relent and confess his sin.

And Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned; for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, I pray, pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord.”

26 And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.”

27 As Samuel turned to go away, Saul laid hold upon the skirt of his robe, and it tore. 28 And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (vv. 24-29).

But even now, Saul’s confession is incomplete. By explaining that he “feared the people” (v. 24), he hopes to mitigate his guilt in hopes of recovering his office as Israel’s one and only king.

But Samuel’s refusal is absolute: “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel” (v. 26). At this point, Saul loses his composure and begins to act in a desperate fashion. Rather than accepting his just deserts, he clutches the edge of Samuel’s elegant robe in order to hold him in place. In so doing, a portion of the garment is accidentally torn off—a physical manifestation of the spiritual reality that Samuel immediately names: the kingdom has been “torn” away from him.

Samuel, obviously in shock over this display of weakness, restates the terms of the verdict: “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (vv. 28-29). Commentators often struggle with the apparent contradiction between the claim that God “cannot repent” of a decree in v. 29 with God’s earlier repentance over his choice of Saul as king in v. 11. But here it is worth recalling what we said earlier about prophetic intercession. In v. 11 this statement by God is addressed to a prophet who can step forward to contest it (much like Moses after the Golden Calf). But in vv. 28-29 the window for intercession and mitigation of the divine decree has closed. The verdict is no longer a proposal; it is a final judgment.

It is time to bring this discussion to a preliminary conclusion. As I said at the very beginning of this essay, the true significance of the interaction between Samuel and Saul will only become clear when we compare it to that of Nathan and David. What we should emphasize before closing, however, is the fact that Saul received a clear command from God (v. 3), which he failed to keep (v. 9). This prompted God to threaten the removal of Saul from his role as king (vv. 10-11). Samuel did his best to stay God’s hand, and for a moment, no final verdict was rendered. The dialogue between prophet and king was intended to be the occasion for a repentance that might rescind that judgment. Because Saul proved unable to display such contrition, the initial verdict was not only reiterated but declared irrevocable (v. 29). Saul’s reign as Israel’s sole king is over; in the very next chapter David will be anointed to take his place.

EDITORIAL NOTE: This essay is adapted from the second installment of the McGrath Institute’s six-part Lenten Illuminating Scripture series, which you can watch in its entirety below.

Church Life Journal | Articles

Tags: Challenge Contrition King Saul