Then Samuel said to Saul
Samuel, the last judge and a prophet of Israel, plays a crucial role as God's spokesperson. His authority is recognized by Saul, the first king of Israel. This interaction highlights the theocratic nature of Israel's monarchy, where the king is subject to God's commands through His prophets. Samuel's role as a prophet is significant, as he bridges the period between the judges and the monarchy, emphasizing the importance of divine guidance in leadership.

The LORD sent me
This phrase underscores the divine authority behind Samuel's actions. It is not by his own will but by God's command that Samuel approaches Saul. This reflects the biblical theme of divine commissioning, where God appoints individuals for specific tasks, as seen with Moses (Exodus 3:10) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5). The sending of Samuel by the LORD also reinforces the idea that true leadership in Israel is established by God, not by human ambition.

to anoint you king over His people Israel
The act of anointing signifies consecration and divine selection. Saul's anointing as king marks a pivotal moment in Israel's history, transitioning from a loose confederation of tribes to a centralized monarchy. Anointing with oil symbolizes the Holy Spirit's empowerment, a practice seen in the anointing of priests and kings (Exodus 30:30, 1 Kings 19:16). This foreshadows the anointing of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, whose title means "Anointed One" (Luke 4:18).

Now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD
Samuel's command to Saul to listen emphasizes obedience to God's word as paramount for Israel's king. This reflects the covenantal relationship between God and Israel, where blessings are contingent upon obedience (Deuteronomy 28:1-2). Saul's failure to heed God's commands ultimately leads to his rejection as king (1 Samuel 15:26). This call to listen is echoed in the New Testament, where Jesus emphasizes hearing and obeying God's word (Matthew 7:24-27).

This is what the LORD of Hosts says:
This phrase introduces a divine pronouncement, emphasizing the authority and sovereignty of God. The title "LORD of Hosts" underscores God's command over the heavenly armies, indicating His supreme power and ability to execute His will. This title is often used in contexts where God's might and authority are being asserted, particularly in matters of judgment or deliverance.

I witnessed what the Amalekites did to the Israelites:
God's statement of having "witnessed" implies His omniscience and His active involvement in the affairs of His people. The Amalekites were a nomadic tribe that first attacked the Israelites shortly after their exodus from Egypt (Exodus 17:8-16). This attack was unprovoked and targeted the vulnerable, including the weak and weary at the rear of the Israelite camp (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). The Amalekites' actions were seen as a direct affront to God’s covenant people, and thus to God Himself.

when they opposed them on their way up from Egypt:
This refers to the historical event recorded in Exodus 17, where the Amalekites attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. This opposition was not just a military confrontation but a spiritual one, as it was an attempt to thwart God's plan for His people. The Amalekites' hostility is emblematic of the broader spiritual warfare against God's purposes. This event led to God declaring a perpetual enmity with Amalek, promising to "blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven" (Exodus 17:14). This sets the stage for the command given to Saul in 1 Samuel 15 to utterly destroy the Amalekites, fulfilling God's earlier pronouncement.

Now go and attack the Amalekites
The Amalekites were a nomadic tribe descended from Esau's grandson Amalek. They were long-standing enemies of Israel, first attacking them at Rephidim shortly after the Exodus (Exodus 17:8-16). This command to attack is a continuation of God's judgment against them for their opposition to Israel. The Amalekites symbolize persistent sin and opposition to God's people, representing spiritual battles believers face.

and devote to destruction all that belongs to them.
The term "devote to destruction" (Hebrew: herem) indicates a complete consecration to God, often through destruction. This was a common practice in ancient warfare, signifying that the spoils of war were not for personal gain but were to be wholly given over to God. This command underscores the seriousness of sin and the need for total separation from anything that leads to idolatry or rebellion against God.

Do not spare them,
This phrase emphasizes the totality of the judgment. Sparing any part of what God has devoted to destruction would be an act of disobedience. It highlights the importance of complete obedience to God's commands, reflecting the seriousness of sin and the need for purity among God's people.

but put to death men and women, children and infants,
This difficult command reflects the severity of God's judgment against sin and the totality of the Amalekites' corruption. It serves as a sobering reminder of the consequences of sin and rebellion against God. The inclusion of all ages and genders indicates the complete eradication of the Amalekite culture, which was deeply opposed to God.

oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.
The destruction of livestock further emphasizes the totality of the judgment. In ancient cultures, livestock represented wealth and sustenance. By destroying these, God was ensuring that nothing of the Amalekite culture or economy would remain. This act also prevented Israel from profiting from the spoils, reinforcing the idea that the victory was God's alone and not for personal gain.

So Saul summoned the troops
Saul, as the first king of Israel, had the authority to call upon the tribes for military service. This act of summoning troops reflects his role as a leader and commander. The context here is God's command to Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites, a task given to him through the prophet Samuel. This summoning indicates Saul's initial obedience to God's directive. The concept of a king summoning troops is seen throughout the Old Testament, such as in the accounts of David and Solomon.

and numbered them at Telaim
Telaim is believed to be a location in the southern part of Judah, though its exact location is uncertain. The act of numbering the troops suggests organization and preparation for battle. This practice of numbering or taking a census of troops is seen in other parts of the Bible, such as in the book of Numbers, where God commands Moses to take a census of the Israelites. It reflects the importance of knowing the strength and readiness of the army.

200,000 foot soldiers
The large number of foot soldiers indicates the significant military force that Saul was able to muster. This reflects the unity and cooperation among the tribes of Israel under Saul's leadership. The foot soldiers, or infantry, were the backbone of ancient armies, and their large number suggests the seriousness of the campaign against the Amalekites. This also highlights the resources and manpower available to Israel at the time.

and 10,000 men of Judah
The specific mention of the men of Judah may indicate the prominence or special role of the tribe of Judah within the nation of Israel. Judah was one of the largest and most influential tribes, and its warriors were often noted for their valor. This distinction could also foreshadow the future prominence of Judah, from which the line of David and ultimately Jesus Christ would come. The separation of Judah's numbers from the rest of the troops might suggest a developing identity within the tribe, which becomes more pronounced in later biblical history.

Saul came to the city of Amalek
This phrase marks the beginning of Saul's military campaign against the Amalekites, a nomadic tribe that had been a longstanding enemy of Israel. The Amalekites first attacked the Israelites during their exodus from Egypt (Exodus 17:8-16), and God commanded their destruction as a consequence. The city of Amalek likely refers to a central location or stronghold of the Amalekite people, though its exact location is not known today. This campaign was a direct command from God through the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 15:1-3), emphasizing the importance of obedience to divine instructions.

and lay in wait in the valley.
The strategy of laying in wait suggests a tactical approach to warfare, possibly to surprise the Amalekites or to prepare for a strategic advantage. Valleys in ancient warfare often served as places for ambushes or as staging grounds for battle. This tactic reflects the military practices of the time, where terrain played a crucial role in the success of military operations. The valley could symbolize a place of decision and judgment, aligning with the biblical theme of God’s judgment against the Amalekites for their past transgressions against Israel. Saul's actions here set the stage for the subsequent events where his failure to fully obey God's command leads to his rejection as king (1 Samuel 15:10-23).

And he warned the Kenites
Saul, the first king of Israel, is the one issuing the warning. The Kenites were a nomadic tribe with historical ties to the Israelites. Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, was a Kenite, which established a friendly relationship between the two groups. This warning reflects the importance of honoring alliances and past kindnesses, a principle seen throughout the Old Testament.

“Since you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt
The Kenites' kindness refers to their support and guidance during Israel's exodus from Egypt. This act of kindness is recorded in Exodus 18, where Jethro advises Moses on leadership. The Kenites' positive relationship with Israel is a testament to the enduring impact of hospitality and support, which is a recurring theme in biblical narratives.

go on and get away from the Amalekites
The Amalekites were long-standing enemies of Israel, first attacking them in Exodus 17. God commanded Saul to destroy the Amalekites as a form of divine judgment for their opposition to Israel. The Kenites are advised to separate themselves to avoid sharing in the Amalekites' fate, illustrating the biblical principle of separating from those under God's judgment.

Otherwise I will sweep you away with them
This phrase underscores the seriousness of God's command to Saul and the impending judgment on the Amalekites. It highlights the concept of collective judgment, where proximity to sin or sinners can lead to shared consequences, a theme also seen in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites
The Kenites' obedience to Saul's warning demonstrates wisdom and discernment. Their action reflects the biblical principle of heeding divine warnings and separating from evil influences. This decision preserved their lives and maintained their favorable relationship with Israel, aligning with the broader biblical narrative of God's protection over those who align with His people.

Then Saul struck down the Amalekites
This phrase marks the beginning of Saul's military campaign against the Amalekites, a nomadic tribe that had long been enemies of Israel. The Amalekites first attacked the Israelites during their exodus from Egypt (Exodus 17:8-16), and God commanded their destruction as a consequence. Saul's mission was a direct command from God through the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 15:1-3). This act of striking down the Amalekites was meant to fulfill God's judgment against them, highlighting the theme of divine justice and obedience to God's commands.

all the way from Havilah to Shur
Havilah and Shur are geographical markers that define the extent of Saul's campaign. Havilah is often associated with a region rich in resources, mentioned in Genesis 2:11 as part of the land surrounding the Garden of Eden. Shur is a desert region east of Egypt, frequently mentioned in the context of the Israelites' wanderings (Genesis 16:7, Exodus 15:22). The mention of these locations indicates the comprehensive nature of Saul's campaign, covering a vast area and emphasizing the thoroughness expected in carrying out God's command.

which is east of Egypt
This phrase situates the campaign geographically, providing a clear boundary for the area of conflict. The reference to Egypt is significant, as it recalls Israel's history of bondage and deliverance. The Amalekites' location east of Egypt also underscores their role as perennial adversaries of Israel, often attacking from the desert regions. This geographical detail serves to remind readers of the broader narrative of Israel's journey from slavery to nationhood, with the Amalekites as a recurring obstacle.

He captured Agag king of Amalek alive
In this passage, Saul captures Agag, the king of the Amalekites, alive. The Amalekites were a nomadic tribe and long-standing enemies of Israel, first attacking them during the Exodus (Exodus 17:8-16). God's command to Saul was to completely destroy the Amalekites as a form of divine judgment for their past sins against Israel (1 Samuel 15:3). Capturing Agag alive indicates Saul's partial obedience to God's command, which ultimately leads to his rejection as king. The sparing of Agag can be seen as a failure to fully execute divine justice, reflecting Saul's tendency to prioritize his own judgment over God's instructions.

but devoted all the others to destruction with the sword
The phrase "devoted to destruction" refers to the Hebrew concept of "herem," which means to completely destroy or consecrate something to God, often through destruction. This was a common practice in ancient warfare, especially in the context of holy wars, where the spoils of war were not to be taken for personal gain but were to be destroyed as an offering to God. Saul's actions here show a partial fulfillment of God's command, as he destroys the rest of the Amalekites. However, his failure to fully obey by sparing Agag and taking spoils (as seen later in the chapter) highlights a significant theme in 1 Samuel: the importance of complete obedience to God. This act of incomplete obedience is contrasted with the future king, David, who is described as a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). Saul's disobedience foreshadows the eventual rise of David, who will fulfill God's commands more faithfully.

Saul and his troops spared Agag
In this passage, Saul disobeys God's command to completely destroy the Amalekites, including their king, Agag. This act of sparing Agag is significant because it demonstrates Saul's failure to fully execute God's judgment. Historically, the Amalekites were long-standing enemies of Israel, and God's command was a form of divine justice for their past transgressions against His people (Exodus 17:8-16). The sparing of Agag symbolizes incomplete obedience, which is a recurring theme in Saul's reign.

along with the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs, and the best of everything else.
Saul and his troops' decision to keep the best livestock and goods reflects a common ancient Near Eastern practice of taking spoils of war. However, this was in direct violation of God's command to destroy everything (1 Samuel 15:3). The choice to keep the best items suggests a prioritization of material wealth and personal gain over obedience to God. This act contrasts with the later example of Jesus Christ, who prioritized spiritual obedience over earthly gain (Matthew 4:8-10).

They were unwilling to devote them to destruction,
The unwillingness to destroy the valuable items indicates a heart issue, where Saul and his men valued material possessions over God's explicit instructions. This reflects a broader biblical theme of the struggle between human desires and divine commands. The Hebrew term "herem," often translated as "devote to destruction," implies a complete consecration to God, leaving no room for personal benefit. This failure foreshadows Saul's eventual rejection as king (1 Samuel 15:23).

but they devoted to destruction all that was despised and worthless.
By destroying only what was considered despised and worthless, Saul and his troops demonstrated selective obedience. This act highlights a superficial compliance with God's command, focusing on outward actions rather than the heart's intent. The destruction of the worthless items serves as a metaphor for the futility of half-hearted obedience. This selective destruction contrasts with the total sacrifice and obedience exemplified by Christ, who gave His life wholly for humanity (Philippians 2:8).

Then the word of the LORD
This phrase indicates divine communication, a common occurrence in the Old Testament where God speaks directly to His prophets. The "word of the LORD" signifies a message from God, often carrying authority and requiring obedience. In the context of 1 Samuel, God frequently communicates with Samuel, who serves as a prophet, judge, and leader of Israel. This divine communication underscores the importance of Samuel's role as God's mouthpiece to the people and their king.

came to Samuel
Samuel is a central figure in the books of 1 and 2 Samuel. He is the last of the judges and the first of the prophets after Moses, playing a crucial role in the transition from the period of the judges to the establishment of the monarchy in Israel. Samuel's life is marked by his dedication to God from a young age, as seen in his service at the tabernacle under Eli. His role as a prophet is significant, as he anoints both Saul and David as kings. The phrase indicates that Samuel is the recipient of God's message, highlighting his position as a mediator between God and the people.

saying,
This introduces the content of God's message, which in the broader context of 1 Samuel 15, is a message of judgment against King Saul. The use of "saying" prepares the reader for the direct words of God that follow, emphasizing the seriousness and authority of the divine communication. In the biblical narrative, such messages often include instructions, warnings, or revelations of God's will, and they demand a response from the recipient. In this case, it sets the stage for the announcement of Saul's rejection as king due to his disobedience, illustrating the theme of divine justice and the consequences of failing to adhere to God's commands.

I regret that I have made Saul king
The concept of God expressing regret is complex. In this context, it reflects God's sorrow over Saul's failure to fulfill his divine purpose. This does not imply a change in God's nature or plan, but rather a human way to express divine disappointment. Saul was chosen as king to lead Israel according to God's will, but his disobedience led to this divine lament. This echoes Genesis 6:6, where God regretted making humanity due to their wickedness, highlighting the seriousness of sin.

for he has turned away from following Me
Saul's turning away signifies a deliberate choice to reject God's commands. This phrase indicates a breach in the covenant relationship between God and Saul. Saul's disobedience in sparing King Agag and the best of the Amalekite livestock (1 Samuel 15:9) exemplifies his failure to follow God's explicit instructions. This turning away is a recurring theme in Israel's history, where leaders and people often strayed from God's path, leading to consequences.

and has not carried out My instructions
God's instructions to Saul were clear: to completely destroy the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3). Saul's partial obedience is seen as complete disobedience in God's eyes. This highlights the importance of full compliance with divine commands. The Amalekites were long-standing enemies of Israel, and their destruction was a divine judgment. Saul's failure to execute this judgment reflects a lack of reverence for God's authority.

And Samuel was distressed
Samuel's distress reveals his deep concern for Israel and its leadership. As a prophet, Samuel had anointed Saul and invested in his success. His distress also reflects the weight of his prophetic responsibility and the sorrow over Saul's failure. This emotional response underscores the gravity of Saul's disobedience and its impact on Israel's future.

and cried out to the LORD all that night
Samuel's response in prayer demonstrates his reliance on God in times of crisis. His all-night intercession indicates the seriousness of the situation and his desire for divine guidance. This act of crying out is a model of fervent prayer, showing a deep commitment to seeking God's will. It parallels other biblical figures who interceded for God's people, such as Moses (Exodus 32:11-14) and Jesus (Luke 22:44), highlighting the role of intercession in God's redemptive plan.

Early in the morning Samuel got up to confront Saul
Samuel, the last judge and a prophet of Israel, rises early, indicating the urgency and seriousness of his mission. This reflects his dedication to God's commands and his role as a spiritual leader. The early morning timing may symbolize a new beginning or a fresh revelation from God. Samuel's confrontation with Saul is significant as it follows Saul's disobedience in not fully destroying the Amalekites, as commanded by God. This act of disobedience marks a turning point in Saul's reign and foreshadows his eventual rejection as king.

but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel
Carmel here refers to a town in the territory of Judah, not the more famous Mount Carmel. This location is significant as it was a place where Saul had previously built a victory monument, indicating his pride and self-glorification. Saul's journey to Carmel suggests a desire to celebrate his victory over the Amalekites, despite his incomplete obedience to God's command. This act of self-promotion contrasts with the humility expected of a king under God's authority.

and behold, he has set up a monument for himself
Saul's erection of a monument for himself highlights his pride and self-centeredness. In the ancient Near Eastern context, kings often built monuments to commemorate victories and assert their power. However, for the king of Israel, such actions were inappropriate, as glory was to be given to God alone. This act of self-aggrandizement is a direct violation of the humility and obedience required by God, further illustrating Saul's spiritual decline.

and has turned and gone down to Gilgal.”
Gilgal holds historical and spiritual significance as the first campsite of the Israelites after crossing the Jordan River into the Promised Land. It was a place of covenant renewal and worship. Saul's return to Gilgal may indicate a desire to perform religious rituals to justify his actions or seek divine favor. However, his disobedience overshadows any religious observance, as true worship requires obedience to God's commands. This setting underscores the contrast between Saul's outward religious actions and his inward disobedience, highlighting the theme of obedience over sacrifice found throughout Scripture.

When Samuel reached him
Samuel, the last judge and a prophet of Israel, was sent by God to confront Saul. This meeting occurs after Saul's disobedience in the battle against the Amalekites. Samuel's role as a prophet is crucial, as he serves as God's mouthpiece, delivering divine messages and judgments. The journey to meet Saul signifies a divine appointment, emphasizing the seriousness of Saul's actions.

Saul said to him
Saul, the first king of Israel, addresses Samuel with a greeting. This interaction highlights Saul's attempt to maintain a facade of obedience and righteousness. Saul's kingship was established by God through Samuel, but his actions often reveal a lack of true submission to God's will.

May the LORD bless you
Saul's greeting is a customary blessing, invoking God's favor upon Samuel. This phrase can be seen as an attempt to appear pious and respectful. However, it contrasts with Saul's disobedience, as genuine blessings from God are contingent upon obedience and faithfulness.

I have carried out the LORD’s instructions
Saul claims to have fulfilled God's command, which was to completely destroy the Amalekites and all they possessed. This statement is misleading, as Saul spared King Agag and the best of the livestock. Saul's partial obedience is a significant theme, illustrating the importance of complete adherence to God's commands. This moment foreshadows the eventual rejection of Saul as king, as God desires obedience over sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22). Saul's failure to fully execute God's instructions serves as a warning against self-deception and the consequences of disobedience.

But Samuel replied
Samuel, the last judge and a prophet of Israel, plays a crucial role in guiding the nation during the transition from the period of judges to the monarchy. His reply indicates a confrontation with King Saul, highlighting his role as God's spokesperson. Samuel's authority is rooted in his divine calling, as seen in 1 Samuel 3:19-21, where God establishes him as a prophet.

Then what is this bleating of sheep and lowing of cattle that I hear?
This phrase reveals Saul's disobedience to God's command to completely destroy the Amalekites and all their possessions (1 Samuel 15:3). The presence of livestock indicates Saul's failure to carry out God's instructions fully. The bleating and lowing serve as evidence of Saul's incomplete obedience, which is a recurring theme in Israel's history, as seen in the Israelites' repeated lapses into idolatry and disobedience. This moment foreshadows Saul's eventual rejection as king, as God desires obedience over sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22-23). The imagery of sheep and cattle also connects to sacrificial practices, emphasizing the importance of internal obedience over external rituals.

Saul answered
This phrase introduces King Saul's response to the prophet Samuel. Saul, the first king of Israel, was appointed by God through Samuel. His response here is significant as it reflects his attempt to justify his actions. Saul's leadership is often marked by his struggle to fully obey God's commands, which ultimately leads to his downfall.

The troops brought them from the Amalekites
The Amalekites were a nomadic tribe and long-standing enemies of Israel. God commanded Saul to completely destroy them as a form of divine judgment for their past actions against Israel (Exodus 17:8-16). Saul's mention of the troops suggests a deflection of responsibility, indicating a failure in leadership and obedience.

They spared the best sheep and cattle
This phrase highlights Saul's disobedience to God's command to destroy everything. The sparing of the best livestock suggests a prioritization of material wealth and human reasoning over divine instruction. This act of disobedience is reminiscent of the Israelites' frequent struggles with idolatry and materialism.

To sacrifice to the LORD your God
Saul attempts to justify his disobedience by claiming religious motives. This reflects a misunderstanding of true worship, which requires obedience rather than mere ritual (1 Samuel 15:22). The phrase "your God" may indicate a distancing of Saul's personal relationship with God, contrasting with Samuel's faithful devotion.

But the rest we devoted to destruction
This partial obedience is a recurring theme in Israel's history, where incomplete adherence to God's commands leads to negative consequences. The term "devoted to destruction" refers to the Hebrew concept of "herem," meaning something set apart for God, often through complete destruction. Saul's failure to fully execute this command foreshadows his rejection as king and the eventual rise of David, a man after God's own heart.

"Stop!" exclaimed Samuel.
Samuel, the last judge and a prophet of Israel, is addressing King Saul. This command to "Stop!" signifies a moment of divine intervention and authority. Samuel, as God's spokesperson, is about to deliver a message of great importance. The urgency in his voice reflects the seriousness of Saul's disobedience. This moment is pivotal, as it marks a turning point in Saul's reign. The use of "Stop!" indicates a halt to Saul's actions and a call to listen to God's word, reminiscent of other biblical moments where God intervenes directly, such as when God speaks to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3).

"Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night."
Samuel is about to convey a direct revelation from God, emphasizing the prophetic role he plays. The phrase "last night" suggests that God communicated with Samuel in a vision or dream, a common method of divine communication in the Old Testament (Numbers 12:6). This highlights the immediacy and relevance of the message. The context here is Saul's failure to completely destroy the Amalekites as God commanded, which is a test of Saul's obedience. The LORD's message is a response to Saul's incomplete obedience, which is seen as rebellion against God's command.

"Tell me," Saul replied.
Saul's response, "Tell me," indicates a willingness to hear Samuel's message, though it may also reflect a lack of awareness of the gravity of his disobedience. Saul's openness to hear the message contrasts with his previous actions, where he rationalized his disobedience by sparing King Agag and the best of the livestock (1 Samuel 15:9). This moment foreshadows the impending judgment and rejection of Saul as king. Saul's reply can be seen as a moment of tension, as he is about to receive a message that will have significant consequences for his kingship and Israel's future.

And Samuel said
This phrase introduces the prophet Samuel, a significant figure in Israel's history. Samuel was a judge, prophet, and leader who anointed the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David. His role as a prophet is crucial, as he serves as God's mouthpiece, delivering divine messages to the people and their leaders.

Although you were once small in your own eyes
This refers to Saul's humble beginnings and initial humility. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, the smallest of the tribes of Israel (1 Samuel 9:21). His modesty is highlighted in his reluctance to assume leadership, as seen when he hid among the baggage during his anointing (1 Samuel 10:22). This humility contrasts with his later disobedience and pride.

have you not become the head of the tribes of Israel?
Saul's rise to leadership is emphasized here. Despite his initial humility, God elevated him to be the king over all the tribes of Israel. This position of authority was significant, as it united the tribes under a single monarchy, transitioning from the period of the judges to a centralized kingdom.

The LORD anointed you king over Israel
The anointing of Saul as king was a divine appointment, signifying God's choice and empowerment for leadership. Anointing with oil was a symbolic act representing the Holy Spirit's presence and blessing. This act set Saul apart for his role, similar to the anointing of priests and later kings, including David. The concept of anointing also foreshadows the Messiah (meaning "Anointed One"), pointing to Jesus Christ, who fulfills the ultimate kingship over God's people.

and sent you on a mission
This phrase refers to God's direct command to King Saul through the prophet Samuel. In the biblical context, a mission from God is a divine mandate that carries significant weight and responsibility. The concept of being sent on a mission by God is seen throughout Scripture, such as in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) where Jesus sends His disciples to spread the Gospel. This mission for Saul was a test of obedience and faithfulness to God's commands.

saying, ‘Go and devote to destruction
The term "devote to destruction" is translated from the Hebrew word "herem," which means to completely destroy or consecrate something to God by destroying it. This was a common practice in ancient warfare, especially in the context of holy wars, where the spoils of war were not to be taken for personal gain but were to be destroyed as an offering to God. This command highlights the seriousness of God's judgment against sin and the need for complete obedience.

the sinful Amalekites.
The Amalekites were a nomadic tribe that were long-standing enemies of Israel. Their sinfulness is noted in their unprovoked attack on the Israelites as they came out of Egypt (Exodus 17:8-16). God declared perpetual war against them, and their destruction was a fulfillment of that divine judgment. The Amalekites symbolize persistent sin and opposition to God's people, and their destruction serves as a warning against allowing sin to persist.

Fight against them until you have wiped them out.
This command for total annihilation underscores the completeness of God's judgment. It reflects the idea that partial obedience is disobedience. Saul's failure to fully carry out this command led to his rejection as king (1 Samuel 15:23). This phrase also foreshadows the ultimate victory over sin and evil through Jesus Christ, who will one day completely eradicate sin and establish His eternal kingdom (Revelation 21:4).

So why did you not obey the LORD?
This question is posed by the prophet Samuel to King Saul, highlighting Saul's disobedience to God's command. The context is God's directive to utterly destroy the Amalekites, including all their possessions (1 Samuel 15:3). Saul's failure to fully comply with this command reflects a broader theme of partial obedience equating to disobedience. This moment underscores the importance of complete adherence to God's instructions, a principle echoed in Deuteronomy 28:1-2, where blessings are promised for full obedience. Saul's disobedience is a pivotal moment that leads to his rejection as king, illustrating the serious consequences of not following God's will.

Why did you rush upon the plunder
Saul's decision to keep the best of the Amalekite livestock and goods, rather than destroying them as commanded, reveals a temptation towards material gain and self-interest. This act of seizing the plunder is a direct violation of God's command and reflects a failure to prioritize divine instructions over personal desires. The cultural context of the time often saw victors taking spoils of war, but God's command was clear in this instance, setting apart His people from common practices. This mirrors the temptation of Achan in Joshua 7, where disobedience regarding plunder led to Israel's defeat at Ai.

and do evil in the sight of the LORD?
The phrase "in the sight of the LORD" emphasizes that God's perspective is the ultimate measure of right and wrong. Saul's actions are not just a breach of command but are considered evil by God, highlighting the moral and spiritual dimensions of disobedience. This concept is consistent throughout Scripture, where actions are evaluated based on God's standards, as seen in Genesis 6:5, where humanity's wickedness is described from God's viewpoint. The narrative foreshadows the need for a king who would fully obey God, pointing to the future Messiah, Jesus Christ, who perfectly fulfills God's will (John 6:38).

But I did obey the LORD,
Saul's claim of obedience is a central issue in this passage. The biblical context reveals that God had given Saul a clear command through the prophet Samuel to completely destroy the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3). Saul's assertion of obedience is contradicted by his actions, highlighting a common theme in Scripture where outward compliance is mistaken for true obedience (1 Samuel 15:22). This phrase also reflects the human tendency to justify partial obedience as full compliance, a theme seen throughout the Bible.

Saul replied.
Saul's response to Samuel is defensive, indicating his awareness of having not fully complied with God's command. This interaction between Saul and Samuel is significant as it marks a turning point in Saul's reign. The historical context shows that Saul's kingship was initially marked by divine favor, but his repeated disobedience led to his rejection by God (1 Samuel 15:26).

I went on the mission that the LORD gave me.
Saul acknowledges that the mission was divinely appointed, which underscores the gravity of his partial obedience. The mission against the Amalekites was not merely a military campaign but a divine judgment against a people who had long opposed Israel (Exodus 17:8-16). This mission was a continuation of God's promise to blot out the memory of Amalek, showing the fulfillment of divine prophecy.

I brought back Agag king of Amalek
Saul's decision to spare Agag is a direct violation of God's command. In the cultural and historical context, sparing a king could be seen as a political move to gain favor or as a trophy of war. However, in the biblical narrative, it represents Saul's failure to fully execute God's judgment. This act of disobedience foreshadows the eventual downfall of Saul's kingship and contrasts with the complete obedience expected of a king in Israel.

and devoted the Amalekites to destruction.
The term "devoted to destruction" refers to the Hebrew concept of "herem," which means to completely destroy as an offering to God. This was a common practice in ancient Israel when dealing with certain enemies, signifying total consecration to God. Saul's incomplete obedience in this regard is significant because it demonstrates a failure to honor God's holiness and justice. This concept is echoed in other biblical narratives where incomplete obedience leads to negative consequences (Joshua 7:1-26).

The troops took sheep and cattle from the plunder
This phrase highlights the actions of Saul's soldiers after the battle against the Amalekites. In the context of ancient warfare, it was common for victors to take spoils from the defeated, including livestock. However, God had commanded through Samuel that everything should be destroyed (1 Samuel 15:3). This disobedience reflects a failure to fully adhere to God's instructions, emphasizing the importance of complete obedience to divine commands. The taking of plunder contrasts with the concept of herem, or things devoted to destruction, which were to be completely annihilated as an offering to God.

the best of the things devoted to destruction
The phrase "devoted to destruction" refers to items that were to be completely destroyed as an act of devotion to God, signifying the total eradication of sin and evil. The choice to keep "the best" indicates a selective obedience, where Saul and his troops prioritized their judgment over God's command. This mirrors the temptation to compromise on God's standards for personal gain or reasoning. The act of keeping the best for themselves shows a misunderstanding of what true sacrifice and devotion to God entail.

in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God
This justification for keeping the plunder reveals a misguided attempt to rationalize disobedience. The intention to sacrifice suggests a desire to worship, but it is marred by the initial act of disobedience. This reflects a broader biblical theme that God desires obedience over sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22). The phrase "your God" may indicate a distancing in Saul's relationship with God, as if acknowledging Samuel's God rather than his own, highlighting Saul's spiritual decline.

at Gilgal
Gilgal holds significant historical and religious importance in Israel's history. It was the first campsite of the Israelites after crossing the Jordan River into the Promised Land (Joshua 4:19-20). It became a place of renewal and covenant, where Saul was confirmed as king (1 Samuel 11:14-15). The mention of Gilgal here underscores the irony of Saul's disobedience in a place associated with commitment to God. It serves as a reminder of the need for faithfulness to God's commands, especially in places of spiritual significance.

But Samuel declared:
Samuel, the last judge and a prophet of Israel, speaks with authority as God's representative. His role is crucial in guiding Israel during a time of transition from judges to monarchy. Samuel's declarations often carry divine weight, as seen in his anointing of kings and his role as a mediator between God and the people.

Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obedience to His voice?
This rhetorical question challenges the Israelites' understanding of worship. In the ancient Near East, sacrifices were a common religious practice, but God emphasizes that ritual without obedience is meaningless. This theme is echoed in other scriptures, such as Hosea 6:6 and Micah 6:6-8, where God prioritizes mercy and justice over ritualistic offerings.

Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice,
Obedience to God's commands is paramount, surpassing the value of ritual sacrifices. This principle is foundational in the covenant relationship between God and Israel, where adherence to God's law is a sign of faithfulness. Jesus Christ exemplifies perfect obedience, fulfilling the law and the prophets, as seen in Matthew 5:17.

and attentiveness is better than the fat of rams.
Attentiveness, or heeding God's word, is more valuable than the choicest parts of sacrificial animals. The "fat of rams" symbolizes the best offerings one could give, yet God desires a heart that listens and responds to His will. This concept is reinforced in Psalm 51:16-17, where a contrite heart is preferred over burnt offerings.

For rebellion is like the sin of divination
Rebellion against God is equated with divination, a practice strictly forbidden in the Law (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Divination involves seeking knowledge or guidance from sources other than God, often through occult means. This comparison highlights the severity of rebellion, as both acts demonstrate a rejection of God's authority and a desire to control one's own destiny. In the context of 1 Samuel 15, Saul's disobedience in not fully carrying out God's command against the Amalekites is seen as a form of rebellion, akin to seeking guidance from false sources.

and arrogance is like the wickedness of idolatry
Arrogance, or presumption, is likened to idolatry, which is the worship of false gods. Idolatry was a pervasive issue in ancient Israel, often leading the people away from the worship of Yahweh. Arrogance places one's own judgment above God's, effectively making oneself an idol. Saul's decision to spare King Agag and the best of the livestock reflects this arrogance, as he prioritized his own understanding over God's explicit command. This mirrors the broader biblical theme that pride leads to downfall (Proverbs 16:18).

Because you have rejected the word of the LORD
Rejecting God's word is a serious offense, as it signifies a deliberate choice to ignore divine instruction. In the historical context, Saul was given a clear command through the prophet Samuel, representing God's direct communication. By not fully obeying, Saul rejected not just the message but the authority of God Himself. This act of disobedience is a recurring theme in the Old Testament, where the Israelites often faced consequences for turning away from God's commands (Jeremiah 6:19).

He has rejected you as king.
The rejection of Saul as king marks a pivotal moment in Israel's history. Saul's kingship was conditional upon his obedience to God, and his failure to comply led to his rejection. This decision by God sets the stage for the rise of David, a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). Theologically, this reflects the principle that leadership in God's kingdom is contingent upon faithfulness and obedience. Saul's rejection also foreshadows the ultimate kingship of Jesus Christ, who perfectly fulfills God's will and reigns eternally (Luke 1:32-33).

Then Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned;"
Saul's admission of sin is significant as it reflects a moment of self-awareness and acknowledgment of wrongdoing. In the biblical context, confessing sin is a crucial step toward repentance and restoration with God. This phrase echoes the confessions of other biblical figures, such as David in Psalm 51, who also recognized their sins before God. Saul's confession, however, lacks the depth of genuine repentance seen in David's life.

I have transgressed the LORD’s commandment and your instructions,
Saul's transgression refers to his failure to completely destroy the Amalekites and their possessions as commanded by God through Samuel (1 Samuel 15:3). This disobedience highlights the importance of following divine instructions precisely, as partial obedience is considered disobedience in the biblical narrative. The reference to both the LORD's commandment and Samuel's instructions underscores the role of prophets as God's mouthpieces, whose words carry divine authority.

because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.
Saul's fear of the people reveals a critical flaw in his leadership: prioritizing human approval over divine command. This fear contrasts with the biblical ideal of fearing God above all else, as seen in Proverbs 29:25, which warns against the snare of fearing man. Saul's decision to obey the people's voice rather than God's commandment demonstrates a failure to lead with integrity and faithfulness, a theme that recurs throughout his reign. This moment foreshadows the eventual loss of his kingdom, as God seeks leaders who prioritize His will above all.

Now therefore, please forgive my sin
This phrase is part of King Saul's plea to the prophet Samuel after disobeying God's command to completely destroy the Amalekites and their possessions. Saul's request for forgiveness highlights the biblical theme of repentance, though his sincerity is questionable given his previous actions. In the cultural context of ancient Israel, seeking forgiveness from a prophet was significant, as prophets were seen as God's representatives. This moment reflects the broader biblical narrative of sin, repentance, and the need for divine forgiveness, as seen in passages like Psalm 51, where David seeks God's mercy.

and return with me
Saul's request for Samuel to return with him indicates his desire for public validation and restoration of his status as king. In the historical context, a prophet's presence would signify divine approval, which Saul desperately seeks. This reflects the importance of public perception and authority in ancient Near Eastern cultures. Saul's focus on appearances rather than genuine repentance contrasts with the biblical ideal of a contrite heart, as emphasized in Isaiah 66:2.

so I can worship the LORD.
Worship in ancient Israel involved sacrifices and rituals performed at designated places, often under the guidance of a prophet or priest. Saul's desire to worship the LORD may be seen as an attempt to restore his relationship with God, though it also suggests a superficial understanding of true worship, which requires obedience and a sincere heart. This connects to the broader biblical theme that God desires obedience over sacrifice, as stated in 1 Samuel 15:22. Saul's failure to grasp this principle foreshadows the eventual rise of David, a man after God's own heart, who embodies the true spirit of worship and obedience.

“I will not return with you,” Samuel replied.
Samuel's refusal to return with Saul signifies a clear break in their relationship and highlights the seriousness of Saul's disobedience. In the ancient Near Eastern context, a prophet's presence with a king symbolized divine approval and guidance. Samuel's decision not to accompany Saul underscores the withdrawal of God's favor. This moment marks a pivotal point in Israel's history, as the prophet's actions demonstrate the consequences of rejecting God's commands.

“For you have rejected the word of the LORD,”
Saul's rejection of God's word refers to his failure to completely destroy the Amalekites and their possessions as commanded in 1 Samuel 15:3. This disobedience is not merely a personal failure but a direct violation of a divine command. In biblical terms, rejecting God's word is equated with rejecting God Himself. This theme is echoed throughout Scripture, where obedience to God's word is paramount (Deuteronomy 28:1-2, John 14:15).

“and He has rejected you as king over Israel.”
The rejection of Saul as king is a divine judgment that reflects the covenantal relationship between God and Israel. Saul's kingship was conditional upon his obedience to God (1 Samuel 12:14-15). His failure to adhere to God's command results in the loss of his divine mandate to rule. This rejection foreshadows the rise of David, a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14), and serves as a typology of Christ, the ultimate King who perfectly fulfills God's will. Saul's rejection also highlights the biblical principle that leadership is a stewardship from God, contingent upon faithfulness to His word.

As Samuel turned to go
This moment occurs after Samuel has delivered God's message of rejection to Saul for his disobedience in not fully destroying the Amalekites. Samuel, a prophet and judge, represents God's authority and presence. His turning to leave signifies the withdrawal of divine favor and guidance from Saul. This act of turning away can be seen as a symbolic gesture of God's judgment and the end of Saul's divine appointment as king. The turning away of a prophet often indicates a significant shift in God's dealings with His people, as seen in other instances where prophets depart after delivering God's word (e.g., Elijah in 1 Kings 19:3).

Saul grabbed the hem of his robe
The act of grabbing the hem of Samuel's robe is significant in ancient Near Eastern culture, where the hem or fringe of a garment often symbolized authority and identity. Saul's desperate action reflects his recognition of the loss of his kingdom and his attempt to hold onto the authority that is slipping away. In biblical times, touching the hem of a garment could also be seen as an appeal for mercy or favor, as seen in the New Testament when the woman with the issue of blood touches the hem of Jesus' garment (Matthew 9:20-22). Saul's action is both a literal and symbolic grasp at retaining power and favor.

and it tore
The tearing of the robe is a prophetic act symbolizing the tearing away of the kingdom from Saul. In the biblical narrative, physical actions often accompany prophetic declarations to illustrate a spiritual truth. The tearing of the robe here is directly linked to Samuel's subsequent pronouncement that the Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from Saul and given it to a neighbor who is better than him (1 Samuel 15:28). This act of tearing is reminiscent of other biblical instances where garments are torn as a sign of mourning, distress, or judgment (e.g., Joshua 7:6, 2 Samuel 1:11). The tearing signifies the irrevocable nature of God's decision and foreshadows the rise of David, who is described as a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14).

So Samuel said to him
This phrase introduces the prophet Samuel, who serves as God's spokesperson. Samuel's role as a prophet is crucial in the narrative of Israel's transition from a theocracy to a monarchy. His authority is derived from God, and his words carry divine weight. Samuel's relationship with Saul is complex, as he anointed Saul as king but now must deliver God's judgment against him.

“The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today
The imagery of tearing signifies a violent and irreversible action. This reflects the seriousness of Saul's disobedience to God's command regarding the Amalekites. The kingdom being torn away is a direct consequence of Saul's failure to fully obey God's instructions. This act of tearing is symbolic of God's judgment and mirrors the tearing of the robe in 1 Samuel 15:27, which Samuel uses as a prophetic sign.

and has given it to your neighbor
The term "neighbor" is significant as it implies someone close or familiar, yet distinct from Saul. This foreshadows the rise of David, who is from the tribe of Judah, unlike Saul from the tribe of Benjamin. The use of "neighbor" emphasizes the personal nature of Saul's loss and the intimate connection between the two figures.

who is better than you
This phrase highlights the moral and spiritual qualities that God values in a leader. It contrasts Saul's disobedience with the heart of David, who is described as a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). The idea of being "better" is not about human achievement but about alignment with God's will and purposes. This sets the stage for David's future kingship and his role as a type of Christ, who is the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise of a righteous king.

Moreover, the Glory of Israel
This phrase refers to God Himself, emphasizing His majesty and honor. The term "Glory of Israel" highlights God's unique relationship with Israel as their divine protector and leader. In the Old Testament, God's glory is often associated with His presence and power, as seen in the tabernacle and the temple (Exodus 40:34-35, 1 Kings 8:10-11). This title underscores God's sovereignty and His role as the ultimate authority over Israel.

does not lie
God's nature is fundamentally truthful and reliable. Unlike humans, who are prone to deceit, God embodies truth (Numbers 23:19). This assurance of God's truthfulness is a recurring theme in Scripture, providing a foundation for trust in His promises and commands. The Bible consistently portrays God as faithful and unchanging in His word (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18).

or change His mind
This phrase emphasizes God's immutability, meaning He does not change His nature or decisions capriciously. While there are instances in Scripture where God appears to "relent" (such as in Jonah 3:10), these are understood as part of His sovereign plan and consistent with His character. God's purposes are eternal and unalterable (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17).

for He is not a man
This highlights the distinction between God and humanity. Humans are finite, fallible, and subject to change, whereas God is infinite, perfect, and constant. This distinction is crucial in understanding the nature of God as transcendent and wholly other, yet also immanent and involved in His creation (Isaiah 55:8-9).

that He should change His mind.
Reiterating the previous point, this phrase underscores God's steadfastness. In the context of 1 Samuel 15, it contrasts with Saul's disobedience and the resulting divine judgment. God's decisions are based on His perfect wisdom and justice, and He remains consistent in His dealings with humanity. This assurance of God's unchanging nature is a source of comfort and confidence for believers, as seen in the fulfillment of His promises through Jesus Christ (Hebrews 13:8).

“I have sinned,” Saul replied.
Saul's admission of sin comes after his disobedience to God's command to completely destroy the Amalekites and their possessions. This acknowledgment is significant as it reflects a moment of self-awareness, yet it lacks genuine repentance. Saul's confession is more about the consequences of his actions rather than a heartfelt turning back to God. This contrasts with David's later genuine repentance in Psalm 51. Saul's admission is similar to Pharaoh's in Exodus 9:27, where the acknowledgment of sin is more about alleviating immediate consequences than true repentance.

“Please honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel.”
Saul's request for honor reveals his concern with public perception and status. In ancient Israelite culture, honor and shame were pivotal social values. Saul's focus on maintaining his honor before the elders and the people indicates a prioritization of human approval over divine approval. This reflects a broader biblical theme where leaders are often tempted to seek the favor of men rather than God, as seen in John 12:43, where the Pharisees loved human praise more than praise from God.

“Come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD your God.”
Saul's invitation to Samuel to return with him is an attempt to restore his standing and legitimacy as king. The phrase "the LORD your God" suggests a distancing from a personal relationship with God, contrasting with David's intimate relationship with God, as seen in the Psalms. Saul's focus on external worship rather than internal transformation highlights a recurring biblical theme where God desires obedience and a contrite heart over ritualistic worship, as emphasized in 1 Samuel 15:22. Saul's request for Samuel's presence underscores the prophet's role as a mediator between God and the king, a role that foreshadows Christ as the ultimate mediator between God and humanity.

So Samuel went back with Saul
Samuel, the prophet and last judge of Israel, had initially refused to accompany Saul after the king's disobedience in sparing King Agag and the best of the Amalekite livestock. This phrase indicates a moment of concession, where Samuel agrees to return with Saul. This act can be seen as a demonstration of Samuel's continued commitment to his prophetic role and his desire to maintain unity among the people of Israel. It also highlights the tension between divine command and human leadership, as Samuel had just delivered God's message of rejection to Saul. The relationship between Samuel and Saul is complex, marked by Saul's anointing as king and subsequent failures. This moment reflects the ongoing struggle between obedience to God and the political realities of leadership.

and Saul worshiped the LORD
Despite Saul's disobedience, this phrase shows his attempt to maintain a semblance of religious devotion. Worship in ancient Israel involved sacrifices, offerings, and public acts of reverence, often conducted at altars or high places. Saul's worship here may be seen as an effort to regain favor with God or to publicly demonstrate his piety to the people. This act of worship, however, is overshadowed by the earlier pronouncement of God's rejection of Saul as king. It serves as a reminder of the importance of obedience over ritual, echoing the prophetic message found in 1 Samuel 15:22, where Samuel declares that obedience is better than sacrifice. Saul's worship, while outwardly correct, lacks the inward submission and repentance that God desires. This moment foreshadows the eventual rise of David, a man after God's own heart, who would embody true worship and obedience.

Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.”
Samuel, the last judge and a prophet of Israel, is acting under divine instruction. The Amalekites were long-standing enemies of Israel, first attacking them in Exodus 17. God's command to Saul was to completely destroy the Amalekites as a form of divine judgment (1 Samuel 15:3). Agag, as their king, represents the culmination of Amalekite opposition to God's people. The request to bring Agag highlights Samuel's role as God's instrument of justice, contrasting Saul's disobedience in sparing Agag and the best of the Amalekite spoils.

Agag came to him cheerfully,
Agag's demeanor suggests a misunderstanding of his situation. The Hebrew word translated as "cheerfully" can imply a sense of relief or misplaced confidence. Agag might have believed that his capture meant he would be spared, reflecting a common practice in ancient Near Eastern warfare where captured kings were sometimes ransomed or used for political leverage. This moment underscores the tension between human expectations and divine justice.

for he thought, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”
Agag's assumption that the threat of death had passed reveals his ignorance of God's command and the seriousness of his offenses. The "bitterness of death" may refer to the fear and suffering associated with execution. Agag's presumption contrasts with the reality of God's judgment, which is imminent and unavoidable. This phrase also serves as a reminder of the consequences of sin and disobedience, echoing the broader biblical theme of divine retribution. The narrative foreshadows the ultimate fulfillment of justice through Christ, who conquers sin and death, offering redemption rather than destruction.

But Samuel declared:
Samuel, the last judge and a prophet of Israel, speaks with authority as God's representative. His declaration is a pronouncement of divine judgment, reflecting his role as a mediator between God and the people. This moment underscores the seriousness of disobedience to God's commands, as seen earlier in the chapter when Saul failed to fully carry out God's instructions regarding the Amalekites.

“As your sword has made women childless,
This phrase highlights the violence and destruction caused by Agag, the king of the Amalekites. Historically, the Amalekites were known for their brutal attacks on Israel, including their ambush on the Israelites during the Exodus (Exodus 17:8-16). The reference to making women childless indicates the loss and suffering inflicted by Agag's actions, which were contrary to God's covenant with Israel.

so your mother will be childless among women.”
Samuel's pronouncement is a form of poetic justice, where Agag's own actions are turned back upon him. The cultural context of the time placed great importance on lineage and descendants, making this a severe judgment. The loss of a child was a profound tragedy, and this statement emphasizes the completeness of Agag's downfall.

And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces
This act of execution by Samuel is a fulfillment of God's command to utterly destroy the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3). It demonstrates the seriousness of God's judgment and the necessity of obedience. The act also serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of sin and disobedience, reinforcing the theme of divine justice.

before the LORD at Gilgal.
Gilgal holds significant historical and spiritual importance as the first campsite of the Israelites after crossing the Jordan River (Joshua 4:19-20). It was a place of covenant renewal and commitment to God. Performing this act "before the LORD" signifies that it was done in accordance with divine will and under God's authority, emphasizing the sacredness and gravity of the moment.

Then Samuel went to Ramah
Ramah was Samuel's hometown and a significant location in his life and ministry. It was situated in the hill country of Ephraim, approximately five miles north of Jerusalem. Ramah served as a center for Samuel's prophetic activities and was where he built an altar to the Lord (1 Samuel 7:17). This return to Ramah signifies Samuel's withdrawal from Saul, marking a turning point in Israel's leadership. Samuel's departure underscores the severance of his relationship with Saul after Saul's disobedience to God's command regarding the Amalekites. This act of returning to Ramah can be seen as a retreat to a place of spiritual significance and reflection.

but Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul
Gibeah, known as "Gibeah of Saul," was Saul's hometown and the location of his royal residence. It was located in the territory of Benjamin, about three miles north of Jerusalem. This phrase highlights the physical and symbolic separation between Samuel and Saul. Saul's return to Gibeah signifies his continued reign as king, despite God's rejection of him. Gibeah had historical significance as a place of previous moral failure in Israel (Judges 19-21), which foreshadows Saul's own failures as king. The mention of "Gibeah of Saul" emphasizes Saul's personal association with the city, marking it as a center of his kingship and a reminder of his initial anointing by Samuel. This separation between Samuel and Saul also prefigures the eventual rise of David, who would be anointed by Samuel as the new king of Israel.

And to the day of his death, Samuel never again visited Saul.
This phrase highlights the finality of the broken relationship between Samuel and Saul. Samuel, the last judge and a prophet, had anointed Saul as king under God's direction. However, Saul's disobedience led to God's rejection of him as king. The separation signifies a divine judgment and a shift in leadership, as God prepares to anoint David. This also underscores the seriousness of Saul's disobedience and the resulting consequences. The phrase reflects the gravity of divine rejection and the end of a prophetic relationship.

Samuel mourned for Saul,
Samuel's mourning indicates his deep sorrow over Saul's failure and the resulting consequences for Israel. Despite Saul's disobedience, Samuel's grief shows his compassion and concern for the nation and its leadership. This mourning can be compared to the grief of God over human sinfulness, reflecting a heart aligned with God's purposes. Samuel's lamentation is reminiscent of other biblical figures who mourned over the spiritual state of God's people, such as Jeremiah and Jesus.

and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.
The term "regretted" here is anthropopathic, attributing human emotions to God to convey His displeasure with Saul's actions. This does not imply a change in God's nature or plan but highlights the seriousness of Saul's failure to fulfill his role as king. The regret is a reflection of God's holiness and justice, as well as His desire for obedience from His chosen leaders. This phrase connects to other instances where God expresses regret or sorrow over human sin, such as in Genesis 6:6 before the flood. It also foreshadows the coming of a king after God's own heart, ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who perfectly obeys the Father.