1 Samuel 15:21

Things which should have been utterly destroyed. This whole clause is from the one Hebrew word cherem, “the devoted things,” “the dedicated things,” “the accursed things,” or “things devoted to destruction” (RSV). Cherem is from the verb charam, “to prohibit to common use,” “to consecrate to God,” “to extirpate.” Achan appropriated to his personal use “the accursed thing [cherem]” (Joshua 7:1, 11, 13, 15; cf. ch. 6:17, 18), which included silver and gold (Joshua 7:21) reserved for the sanctuary service (Joshua 6:19). The fact that a person or thing was “accursed,” or “devoted,” did not necessarily mean that it was to be destroyed; but only that it was to be disposed of precisely as God should direct. In contrast with the silver and gold, all else in the city was to be utterly destroyed (Joshua 6:21) — yet they too had been “accursed,” or reserved, “to the Lord” (Joshua 6:17). The same Hebrew word, cherem, is also used of offerings “devoted” to sacred use (see Lev. 27:21, 28, 29; Num. 18:14; etc.).

Saul’s statement concerning “the things which should have been utterly destroyed,” or literally, “the devoted things,” takes on new meaning in the light of Bible usage of the Hebrew word thus translated. Samuel had instructed Saul to “utterly destroy [charam]” the Amalekites and all their possessions by slaying them. They were not simply “dedicated”; they were “dedicated to destruction.” Saul apparently reasoned that it was his privilege to decide how the divine command was to be carried out.

Saul no doubt told the truth when he said that “the people” wanted to save the best of the flocks and herds. They were not permitted to take the Amalekite flocks and herds for themselves. But they could enrich themselves by substituting Amalekite animals for those of their own that would otherwise have been required for sacrificial use (PP 629). Saul simply approved of the suggestion as it came to him, and thus assumed the right of interpreting the command of God as he saw fit. For his part, Saul was not interested in the cattle; of these he no doubt had enough and to spare. But if he should return with a conquered king — in keeping with the custom of the day — he would be able to present before all Israel tangible evidence of his military prowess, and would greatly enhance his prestige. Saul no doubt planned on the public execution of Agag after presenting him as an exhibit of his own skill as a warrior. But, instructed of God, Samuel deprived Saul of the planned exhibition by performing the execution himself.

Saul probably reasoned that he would be obeying the command of God with respect to both the cattle and the king, and at the same time adding to the wealth of his subjects and to his own renown. He would accomplish the will of God in a way of his own choosing. Ultimately, both king and animals would be slain; but in the meantime he and his people would profit from them. Herein lay Saul’s weakness of character — while pretending to serve God, he really served his own interests first and those of God last. It was no doubt for this very reason that in sending Saul against the Amalekites with the command to “devote” them and all their possessions, God specified the means whereby they were to be “devoted” — death.

Saul failed in this great final test of character. Even Samuel, who had spent the night in prayer to God on Saul’s behalf, that the sentence of rejection might be reversed (PP 630), was filled with indignation when he saw the evidence of Saul’s rebellion (PP 631). Because Saul had forsaken the Lord, Heaven abandoned him to the course of his own choosing; and Samuel, for his part, “came no more to see Saul until the day of his death” (v. 35). Saul had completely disqualified himself as king by submitting to the desires of the people, by laying upon them the blame for his own wrong decision, and by seeking to assume to himself honor that in fact belonged to God.

In Gilgal. Though not the residence of Saul, Gilgal seems to have been in some respects the functional capital of the Hebrew monarchy. It marked the site of Israel’s first encampment after the crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 4:19) and the military headquarters for the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 10:15; etc.). It was here that the actual division of the land was carried out (Joshua 14:6 to 17:18). When the original conquest of the land was completed, about six or seven years after the crossing of the Jordan, the ark was moved from Gilgal to Shiloh (Joshua 18:1). At that time Joshua resided at “Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim” (Joshua 19:49, 50).

The sanctuary service at Shiloh was discontinued when the ark was taken by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:11; Ps. 78:60; PP 609) and the city of Shiloh itself destroyed (see Jer. 26:6, 9). The ark was later returned, first to Beth-shemesh (1 Sam. 6:7-15) and then to Kirjath-jearim (ch. 7:1), where it remained until David moved it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:2-12; cf. Joshua 15:9, 60). The worship of God was thus in a sense decentralized, though Samuel offered sacrifices in various places (PP 609), probably including Gilgal (1 Sam. 7:16). It was at Gilgal that Samuel assembled Israel to confirm Saul as king after his victory at Jabeshgilead (1 Sam. 11:14, 15). Here also forces were mustered for the attack on the Philistine garrison at Michmash (1 Sam. 13:4). It may also have been the base for the campaign against the Amalekites, as seems to be implied in Saul’s proposal to return there to offer sacrifices to God.