56 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 <strong>Samuel</strong> 2007 EditionAmalekites plus their animals completely (v. 3; cf. Deut. 7:2-6; 12:2-3; 20:16-18). Godhad commanded Joshua to do the same to Jericho; every breathing thing was to die (Josh.6:17-21; cf. Deut. 20:16-18). Saul was now to put the Amalekites under the ban (Heb.herem). 163 God had plainly commanded this destruction <strong>of</strong> the Amalekites through Moses(Exod. 17:16; Deut. 25:17-19; cf. Num. 24:20; Gen. 12:3). Thus there was no questionwhat the will <strong>of</strong> God involved. The phrase "utterly destroy" (Heb. heherim) occurs seventimes in this account (vv. 3, 8, 9 [twice], 15, 18, 20) showing that God's will was clearand that Saul's disobedience was not an oversight."The agent <strong>of</strong> divine judgment can be impersonal (e.g., the Flood or thedestruction <strong>of</strong> Sodom and Gomorrah) or personal (as here), and in hissovereign purpose God <strong>of</strong>ten permits entire families or nations to bedestroyed if their corporate representatives are willfully and incorrigiblywicked (cf. Josh 7:1, 10-13, 24-26)." 164The Amalekites (v. 6) were descendants <strong>of</strong> Esau (Gen. 36:12) whereas the Kenites tracedtheir ancestry from Midian, one <strong>of</strong> Abraham's sons by Keturah (Gen. 25:2). The Keniteshad been friendly to Israel (Exod. 18:9, 10, 19; Num. 10:29-32) whereas the Amalekiteshad not. There may have been a treaty between the Israelites and the Kenites. 165Saul's criterion for what he put to death was not part <strong>of</strong> God's command but his ownjudgment (v. 9). Again, Saul's defective view <strong>of</strong> his role under Yahweh's sovereign rule isobvious. God had earlier revealed through Balaam that Israel's king "shall be higher thanAgag" (Num. 24:7). As Achan had done, Saul misused some <strong>of</strong> what God had devoted toanother purpose. Clearly Saul set his will against the orders <strong>of</strong> his Commander; he was"not willing" to destroy everything that breathed (v. 9). His obedience was selective andpartial.The phrase "the word <strong>of</strong> the Lord came to" occurs only three times in 1 and 2 <strong>Samuel</strong> (v.10; cf. 2 Sam. 7:4; 24:11). In all cases it refers to an important message <strong>of</strong> judgment thatGod sent Israel's king through a prophet. God regretted that He had made Saul king (v.11) because <strong>of</strong> Saul's actions, not because God felt He had made a mistake in callingSaul. Saul's failure to follow God faithfully also broke <strong>Samuel</strong>'s heart. The disobedience<strong>of</strong> leaders always grieves the hearts <strong>of</strong> God's faithful servants. <strong>Samuel</strong> foresaw theconsequences <strong>of</strong> Saul's actions. The village <strong>of</strong> Carmel (lit. vineyard) stood about 8 milessouth and a little east <strong>of</strong> Hebron. The monument Saul set up honored himself, not Godwho gave him the victory. When Moses defeated the Amalekites, he built an altar (Exod.17:15-16); but when Saul defeated them, he erected a stele (cf. 2 Sam. 18:18).163 This practice was not unique to Israel; the Moabites and presumably other ancient Near Eastern nationsalso put cities and groups <strong>of</strong> people under the ban. See Gordon, pp. 143, 147-48.164 Youngblood, p. 673. On the problem <strong>of</strong> God's goodness and His severe treatment <strong>of</strong> sinners, and eventheir animals, in the Old Testament, see Peter C. Craigie, The Problem <strong>of</strong> War in the Old Testament; andJohn W. Wenham, The Enigma <strong>of</strong> Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness <strong>of</strong> God?165 F. Charles Fensham, "Did a Treaty Between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?" Bulletin <strong>of</strong> theAmerican Schools <strong>of</strong> Oriental Research 175 (October 1964):51-54.
2007 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 <strong>Samuel</strong> 57Consistent with his view <strong>of</strong> his own behavior, Saul claimed to have obeyed God (v. 13).Nevertheless he had only been partially obedient. God regards incomplete obedience asdisobedience (v. 19). Rather than confessing his sin, Saul sought to justify hisdisobedience (v. 15; cf. Gen. 3:12; Exod. 32:22-23). He believed it was for a worthypurpose, and he failed to take responsibility for his actions but blamed the people instead(v. 15)."<strong>Samuel</strong> now realized that Saul was not a leader, but the tool and slave <strong>of</strong>the people." 166<strong>Samuel</strong> had earlier delivered a message <strong>of</strong> doom to Eli in the morning (3:15-18). Now hedelivered one to Saul on another morning (v. 16)."There is in all <strong>of</strong> us an inclination to resent being told what to do; butthose in positions <strong>of</strong> authority and power are all the more reluctant toacknowledge anyone else's superior authority." 167Since Saul returned to Gilgal to <strong>of</strong>fer sacrifices, it is possible that this was the site <strong>of</strong> thetabernacle (vv. 12, 15; cf. 10:8; 13:8-10). If this was the Gilgal in the Jordan Valley, itwas where the Israelites had pitched the tabernacle first in Canaan after they crossed theJordan River in Joshua's day (Josh. 4:19). On the other hand, the Israelites <strong>of</strong>feredsacrifices at places other than the tabernacle after they entered the Promised Land. Wecannot say for sure that Saul went to Gilgal because the tabernacle was there.Saul had formerly been genuinely humble. He had realistically evaluated himself beforehis anointing (v. 17; cf. 9:21). Yet when he became king he viewed himself as theultimate authority in Israel, a view common among ancient Near Eastern monarchs. Thisattitude led him to disobey the Law <strong>of</strong> God. God had sent Saul on a mission (v. 18; cf.Matt. 28:19-20), which involved the total extermination <strong>of</strong> the Amalekites. The Hebrewword translated "sinners" means habitually wicked people (cf. Ps. 1:1, 5), like theCanaanites."That Haman the 'Agagite' (Esth 3:1, 10; 8:3, 5; 9:24) was an Amalekite istaken for granted by Josephus, who states that Haman's determination todestroy all the Jews in Persia was in retaliation for Israel's previousdestruction <strong>of</strong> all his ancestors (Antiq. XI, 211 [vi.5])." 168If Josephus was correct, Saul's total obedience to God would have precluded Haman'sattempt to annihilate the Jews in Esther's day.Saul persisted in calling partial obedience total obedience (v. 20). He again placedresponsibility for sparing some <strong>of</strong> the spoils taken in the battle on the people (v. 21), but166 Young, p. 285.167 David Payne, pp. 77-78.168 Youngblood, p. 674. However there is good reason to believe that Agag was the name <strong>of</strong> an area inMedia that had become part <strong>of</strong> the Persian Empire. See Archer, p. 421.