Making God’s assessment our own (1 Sam 15:1-9)

After Communism fell in Hungary, many people including Christians were debating the rights and wrongs of calling those formerly in political office to book. There were appeals made to loving our enemies, the need to forgive and not taking revenge but much less was said about justice or about banning such people from public office in the interest of the country’s long-term future. While in the end the past was largely glossed over, it would not stay buried. When a former member of a Communist paramilitary body was elected prime minister of Hungary, there were voices calling for his resignation because this organisation was instrumental in brutally crushing the 1956 uprising. To the accusation of having been part of such a reprehensible group the prime minister defiantly replied, ‘So what?’ and refused to step down from office.

Without a clear understanding of God’s justice and mercy, our priorities are easily confused so that we end up being lenient when we should be uncompromising and vengeful when we should forgive. Saul’s primary duty as king is to administer justice, so the test of obedience he faces in today’s episode is critical. Despite his earlier failure (1 Sam 13:8-13), he is given a second chance. Samuel stresses that the king’s authority (his anointing) comes from God and therefore Saul must submit to His command (1 Sam 15:1). While the destruction of the Amalekites is troubling for us, this is not a personal vendetta but God’s judgment on an aggressive people (1 Sam 15:2). Nor is the extreme language to be read as the literal extermination of all Amalekites, but a decisive blow (see my post on this here). Ultimately, the focus is not on their fate but on the question whether Saul will align himself with God’s assessment of what is just and obey Him.

The king numbers his troops once again relying on human strength to obey rather than on God (1 Sam 15:4).[1] Still, he warns the Kenites, friendly to Israel, to get out and defeats the Amalekites as he was commanded (1 Sam 15:5-7).[2] However, he spares Agag, the figurehead of Amalekite aggression, while the people are reluctant to destroy any but the worthless animals (1 Sam 15:9). This hardly argues for moral sensitivity or humanitarian concerns. Instead, it shows Saul overriding God’s command by his own assessment. Rabbinic interpretation notes a principle here: ‘Whoever is merciful when he should be ruthless, in the end is ruthless when he should be merciful.’[3] The comment particularly has in mind Saul’s later vengeful slaughter of the priests of Nob after Ahimelech the priest helps David escape from Saul (1 Sam 22:11-19). The king demonstrates that he is not concerned with God’s priorities but is vindictive when he feels personally affronted. His sense of justice and what matters is centred on his own person and agenda.

An even more pertinent parallel can be drawn with Saul’s action to destroy the Gibeonites, a Canaanite group who would have fallen under God’s judgment but who made peace with Israel and came under God’s protection (2 Sam 21:1-2; Josh 9:1-27). Saul overrode the Lord’s instructions in today’s reading but showed zeal against a group who has already been granted mercy. He epitomises once again the confused priorities of an unstable man without an anchor in the Lord’s will. We face some of the same challenges in our contexts about what is right and wrong in God’s eyes as opposed to our estimate or that of society. As in my opening example, we sometimes feel the pressure to ‘forgive’ without dealing with injustices. In the struggle against our own sin, we may be lenient when we should be ruthless. Our estimate of what demands an uncompromising stance can falter because of prevalent cultural norms, whether in sexual ethics, in the way we spend money on material things, what we watch on television or how much we allow social media to consume our time. Whatever our challenges, we need to align ourselves with God’s assessment and seek His strength for doing so.

---

[1] Given that in 1 Sam 13:2, a group of 3,000 men was deemed adequate against the Philistines, the numbers against the Amalekites look much too large. Since the Hebrew eleph (‘thousand’) can also mean a military unit without an exact indication of numbers, this may help explain the unusually high figures.

[2] Moses’ father-in-law was a Kenite (Judg 1:16), who came to acknowledge Israel’s God after the exodus (Exod 18:10-11) and helped guide the people through the wilderness (Num 10:29-32). Confusingly, he is sometimes described as a Midianite and his name is variously given as Jethro or Hobab. Possibly Jethro is a title rather than a proper name. The Kenites had a friendly relationship with Israel and lived among them; the wife of Heber the Kenite, famously killed Sisera the Canaanite army commander with a tent peg (Judg 4:17-22).

[3] Canticles Rabbah, b. Yoma 22b, cited in Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987), 519.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.