When worship becomes a problem (1 Sam 15:17-23)

As Samuel spells out the Lord’s verdict on Saul, we may once again puzzle over the nature of his sin. The prophet recounts the command that was given to the king and focuses on the animals being spared (1 Sam 15:18-19). But isn’t this a purely technical issue? After all, the sheep and oxen set aside will be offered up to God in sacrifice and, it could be argued, that the ceremony will remind Israel of the importance of giving the Lord our best. As in Saul’s earlier disobedience of not waiting for Samuel, the king seems to be condemned on a mere technicality (see my post on this here). But is he?

Saul’s insistence that he was obedient seems more the bluster of a guilty man than the genuine innocence of one who simply misunderstood what was required of him. First, he slips in the statement that he brought back Agag, the king of the Amalekites, into the camp (1 Sam 15:20). How can he claim obedience when, by his own admission, he spared the very figure-head responsible for any attacks on Israel? In fact, it is hard to understand what he hoped to achieve through such action. Much later, Ahab, king of Israel, will defeat an enemy with the Lord’s help and then promptly make a covenant with its king (1 Kgs 20:26-43), so perhaps Saul was hoping to negotiate with Agag. Secondly, with regards to the animals, he shifts the blame to the people and attributes to them a noble intention, though later he will admit that he acted out of fear (1 Sam 15:21, 24).

What difference does it make though if the animals are sacrificed rather than destroyed? The basic premise of sacrifice is that it is a gift given to God, which means offering something unblemished (e.g. Mal 1:8; Lev 1:3; 3:1; etc.). Moreover, it needs to be owned by the giver. It will not do to sacrifice something stolen (Mal 1:13; Isa 61:8; Amos 2:8) or an item that cost one nothing even if the original owner gave it willingly (2 Sam 24:21-24).[1] Further, the Hebrew word for sacrifice (zevaḥ) in 1 Samuel 15 also implies that the type of offering in question is a peace or fellowship offering (votive offerings also came under this rubric), the only kind where the worshippers received a portion of the meat (Lev 7:15-16).[2]

The problem then is two-fold: Israel was ‘giving’ to God what was not theirs and therefore their act was no better than theft under the guise of worship. Their sin was like Achan’s at Jericho who stole items from under the ban (Josh 7:20-21), but worse, because it was covered over with pious talk.[3] Moreover, Saul and Israel expected to profit from it through having a great feast at God’s expense! No wonder, Samuel was outraged. Today when worship (understood narrowly as the singing of worship songs) has become so central in many churches, we need to give God the glory rather than let such occasions become self-indulgent sessions of an emotional fix to feel good about ourselves. Worship whose centre becomes the worshipper rather than God steals honour from Him.

More broadly, replacing obedience to God’s will with our own brand of pious acts will not do. The Lord may convict us of certain behaviours like our lack of reading the Bible or prayer, our attitude of gossip or constant complaining. If we resist God and try to compensate with praiseworthy activity (giving more time in the service of the church, making donations or the like), we are no better than Saul. The point is that worship without an obedient life is not only useless but expresses the self-centred attitude at the heart of idolatry and rebellion against God (1 Sam 15:22-23). The apostle Paul makes a very similar point when he urges the Roman Christians to give themselves to God as their act of worship and to seek to understand His will (Rom 12:1-2).

---

[1] Jonathan Klawans argues that the prophets’ condemnation of sacrifice is not a wholesale disapproval of such practices as ‘mere ritual’, but a critique of offering to God stolen, extorted goods that cost the worshipper nothing. Purity, Sacrifice and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 84-89.

[2] David G. Firth makes this connection between peace offering and what the Israelites were giving here. 1&2 Samuel, AOTC 8 (Nottingham: Apollos; Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 175.

[3] It is interesting that the association of Achan with Saul repeatedly surfaces in his story. Jonathan’s speech earlier that Saul ‘troubled’ the land recalls Achan who ‘troubled’ Israel (1 Sam 14:29; Josh 7:15) and the casting of lots to find out whose sin led to God’s silence in 1 Sam 14:40-42 is again reminiscent of how Achan was uncovered (Josh 7:14, 16-18), although in Saul’s story it was Jonathan who was taken in the end.

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