Perhaps nothing captures the spirit of our age as well as what happened this week in the US Senate. Tennessee senator Marsha Blackburn, who sits on the judiciary committee, was questioning Ketanji Brown Jackson, the nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat of retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. At one point Senator Blackburn asked, “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Judge Jackson, a nominee to the highest court in our land, answered, “I can’t.” “You can’t?” the senator replied. “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” responded Judge Brown. When you see absurdity like that unfolding on a national stage, Romans 1:22-24 should come to your mind. Paul writes about pagans who have rejected the true God in favor of idols: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.” Paul repeats in that chapter several times the pattern that man rejects God and chases after false gods, and the result is that God hands him over to his own folly, which results in sexual confusion and perversion. And while claiming to be wise, the people of such a society are exposed by God as utter fools who deny the reality of nature itself.
The cultural leaders of Western society believe themselves to be wise. They use phrases like, “Believe in science,” and they mock those who don’t buy into the approved narratives as science deniers. And yet basic meanings of terms such as “man” and “woman” are no longer capable of a clear definition, contrary to the received wisdom of humanity since the beginning of time. And so they tell us to stand and cheer when a man claims to be a women and shatters the competition in women’s swimming events. The irony here is so thick that you can’t help but see how God has exposed the folly of man.
We see the same pattern in the latter half of the book of 1 Samuel, beginning with these two chapters. Here God exposes the folly of human wisdom that seeks to operate apart from his Word, and here he shows that the best humanity has to offer is nothing before him. The story of King Saul begins before Saul ever makes an appearance, back in 1 Samuel 8, when the elders of Israel ask the prophet Samuel to appoint a king for them so that they may have a strong man to go out and fight their battles like the other nations have. They don’t want to depend on the Lord. They prefer to put their trust in a man they can see. And Saul fits the bill perfectly. He is described as a tall man, head-and-shoulders above the rest. Outwardly, he is impressive in appearance. But his reign is ultimately going to end in disaster, and the story of chapters 15-16 marks a turning point after which it’s all downhill for Saul.
Saul’s decline through the last half of 1 Samuel is matched by David’s rise to power. And yet David is outwardly nowhere near as impressive as Saul was. And thus we have in the story of Saul’s rejection and David’s anointing a picture of the truth that the ways of God often subvert the world’s expectations, humbling man and exalting God. By rejecting the best Israel had to offer and raising up a king for them that they never expected, God shows that his wisdom is far above ours. He shows that his kingdom will be established by his grace alone, not by our efforts. He removes all basis by which we could boast in ourselves and causes us to stand in awe of his grace. And he points us to the gospel, the message that is foolishness to this world but is the true revelation of God’s wisdom. May this story reorient us again to the hope that is ours in Christ alone, not in man, and certainly not in ourselves, and may it move us to gratitude and worship.
I want to walk through these two chapters today one at a time, beginning with
In the story of chapter 13, Saul didn’t wait for Samuel’s arrival so that he could hear from God before going into battle against the Philistines. When that happened, God pronounced judgment against Saul, declaring that he would never have any descendants who would reign over Israel. So Saul’s hope of having a dynasty is already gone. What happens in this chapter, then, is in addition to that: now Saul is personally rejected by God, which is demonstrated by two events. One is that Samuel departs from Saul and never meets with him again, showing that Saul will no longer hear the prophetic Word of God. The other is that the Spirit of the Lord, who came upon Saul in chapter 10 to equip him to reign over Israel, departs from Saul in chapter 16. Both events communicate that God has now rejected Saul personally, not just his dynasty.
Saul is given a task in 15:1-3, and that task is to be a serpent crusher. There are no literal serpents involved here, but the Amalekites are the offspring of the serpent who are enemies of the people of God. In Exodus 17, they were the first enemies to meet Israel in the desert when the Israel came out of Egypt. God delivered his people through the prayers of Moses, and then he declared that he would blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. In Numbers 24:20, the prophet Balaam had foretold of Amalek’s utter destruction. And in Deuteronomy 25:17-19, God had commanded Israel through Moses that when the day came that they had rest from their enemies in the main part of the promised land of Canaan, they were then to destroy everything that breathed among the Amalekites, who were a desert-dwelling people on the southern edge of the land. God had marked them out for destruction as enemies of his people and as threats to his holy land. Saul, as king and defender of the people, therefore had a command from the Lord: guard the holy people, and protect the holy place by crushing the head of the serpent Amalek.
Saul’s response to this command from God is recorded in 15:4-9. Initially, everything went well: he took his army down south, hid them in a dried up river bank, communicated with the Kenites (allies of Israel who dwelled among the Amalekites), warning them to depart, and then led his army into battle. Saul had an overwhelming force, and he won. The text tells us he pursued the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur, putting to death all Amalekites he encountered except one: the king. Did he want to parade King Agag around as a trophy of his victory? Or did he think the king of the Amalekites deserved special treatment because of his position? The text doesn’t tell us, so we can only speculate about his motive. Nor did he put to death all the livestock. He let the people destroy the blemished animals, the ones nobody wanted, while keeping alive the best. On that point, we know exactly what his motive was. Look at verse 15, where Saul says, “the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the LORD your God.” He says the same in verse 21: “But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.” And then he becomes completely honest by verse 24: “Saul said to Samuel, ‘I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.” It looks like the push to keep the best of the livestock for a sacrifice at Gilgal was coming from the people, and Saul, rather than obeying the Lord, allowed the fear of man to drive his actions. Not wanting to upset or disappoint the people at the prospect of feasting on all this sacrificial meat, he let them have their way, in spite of what God had commanded him to do. Saul won a victory in battle, but he did not obey the Lord, who had commanded total annihilation on the battlefield of all that breathed.
God’s response to Saul’s action is striking. In 15:11 he says to Samuel, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” The end of verse 35 repeats the same idea: “And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.” It is puzzling to hear the Bible say that God regretted something, because regret is an experience that happens to us when we learn new information. I might regret an earlier decision once I see how it turned out, learning new information that causes me to look back on the past in a different way. For example, “I regret buying a car that turned out to require monthly payments that are too much for my budget.” But the Bible is clear that God never learns anything new. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. He does not change, grow, or learn. He is always complete, never changing in any way. In fact, verse 29 even tells us in between these two verses about God regretting that God is not a man that he should have regret! What are we to make of two statements that God regretted making Saul king with a statement in between stating that God doesn’t have regret? I think we should fit these seemingly contradictory statements together by saying there is a sense in which God regrets and a sense in which he does not. God’s regret is not like man’s regret. God’s regret is not based on learning new information. It is not based on a change within him. It is an expression that refers to his intense hatred of Saul’s disobedience, and a corresponding change in the way God will deal with Saul from here on. But God remains unchanging in himself.
God’s hatred for Saul’s sin is expressed in verses 22-23. After Saul has pleaded his innocence by saying that he intends to offer these animals as sacrifices to the Lord, Samuel asks in verse 22, “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.” Sacrifices are not for God’s benefit. They are for our benefit. They atone for our sins and thus enable us to live in relationship with God. It is the height of folly to assume that any sacrifice offered in disobedience would be acceptable to God. Religious observance without a heart that bows in submission to the Word of God is something that God despises. There may be any number of churches out there that offer a beautiful liturgy and meet in beautiful buildings, with attractive religious rituals, but if the Word of God is not being proclaimed in them, they are not churches of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Samuel goes on in verse 23: “For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king.” This is an ironic statement. “Divination” refers to the practice of seeking to contact spiritual beings, such as the dead. It is a pagan practice akin to witchcraft. The phrase “iniquity and idolatry” seems to refer to the same kind of pagan practices. The reason this statement is ironic is because at the end of 1 Samuel, we will learn that King Saul had forbidden the practice of divination in Israel. That’s one of the good things Saul accomplished, ridding Israel of paganism. But now Samuel lets him in on the news that refusing to listen to what God tells you to do, and making it up on your own, is just as bad as paganism. The Lord hates Saul’s disobedience, and he hates the fear of man that led Saul to it.
In their back-and-forth conversation, Saul initially justifies himself, but finally acknowledges his sin in verses 24-25. Do we see there evidence of a changed heart? Sadly, no. Notice Saul’s plea in verse 25: “Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may bow before the LORD.” That sounds pious, but what is really going on? Saul wants Samuel to appear publicly with him at worship in order to validate Saul as a leader before the people. That motive becomes crystal clear in verse 30: “Then he said, ‘I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the LORD your God.’” In 2 Corinthians 7:10, Paul contrasts godly sorrow that leads to repentance with worldly sorrow that leads to death. The difference between the two is that godly sorrow is sorrow over how our sin has offended God. Worldly sorrow is sorrow over how our sin has caused trouble for us. By asking Samuel to help him save face in front of the elders and the people, Saul is showing that he has nothing but worldly sorrow over his sin. He is not repentant, but continues to walk in the fear of man, not of God.
Samuel’s response to Saul’s plea is that he “turned back after Saul” in verse 31. The phrasing there may be significant. Saul had asked him to “return with me” in verse 30, but verse 31 uses the word “after” instead of “with,” which may indicate that Samuel followed Saul at a distance and did not grant him what he asked. But Samuel did proceed to the place where King Agag was being held captive, and he finished the job that Saul had failed to complete by hacking Agag to pieces. This is the only violent action ever recorded of the prophet Samuel, and it is one of rebuke to the king who was supposed to be a serpent crusher but failed because he did not fear God. From this moment on, Samuel, as God’s prophet, will not speak to Saul again. Saul refused to listen to the Word of God, so God will now stop speaking to him.
I have referred to Saul here as “the people’s king,” not because he was chosen by the people (he wasn’t), but because his elevation to the throne came at the initiative of the people. Israel wanted a strong man to offer them security; they were not willing to trust God to do it. So when they took the initiative to ask, God gave them a king. And outwardly, he was impressive. On paper, it seemed everything should have worked. But the heart of Saul proved ultimately to be hardened toward the Lord, and so the Lord regretted making him king and has now rejected him.
Because we are, in Adam, guilty sinners before God, God’s “Yes” to us can only come after he has first said, “No.” No to our selfish desires. No to our self-dependent wisdom. No to our plans, our purposes, our ways. No to everything that does not bow in reverent submission to his Word. The pathway to eternal life is through death and then resurrection. When Jesus said to Pontius Pilate in John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world,” he did not mean that his kingdom does not affect this world. He meant that his kingdom does not arise from this world or operate according to the principles of this world. His kingdom is from above. It cannot come arise from human ability or effort. God’s rejection of the people’s king is an object lesson in that truth, a lesson that humbles man and exalts God.
But in the next chapter we read about
In the midst of Samuel’s grief over Saul (which echoes God’s regret), the Lord sends Samuel to Bethlehem to anoint a new king from the sons of Jesse. At first Samuel hesitates, knowing that King Saul would consider the act of anointing a new king an act of sedition. There are times when we must act against an earthly authority because that authority, who is supposed to represent God, actually opposes God. There are numerous examples in Scripture of principled disobedience to an earthly authority for the sake of obedience to God: the Hebrew midwives in Egypt, the high priest Jehoiada during the reign of Queen Athaliah, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego with King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel with King Darius, the apostles with the Sanhedrin, just to name a few. God tells Samuel to use a little misdirection in his stated purpose for going to Bethlehem in order to keep Saul in the dark so that he can anoint the king God has chosen.
Bethlehem was not a prominent city. It was a rather small town, which probably explains why the elders were trembling when they came out to meet Samuel: they wondered why in the world the Lord’s prophet would have any reason to visit their little town, assuming it must be for some serious disciplinary matter. But Samuel assured them he came in peace, and he invited Jesse and his sons to come to a sacrifice. Verses 6-7 tell us, “When they came, he looked on Eliab and thought, ‘Surely the LORD’s anointed is before him.’ But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” Eliab is presented here as Saul, part 2. He is tall and impressive, but he is not the Lord’s anointed, because God sees what matters most: the condition of the heart. Eliab is not chosen king, nor are Abinadab or Shammah, who pass by next. Nor are four other sons who remain unnamed, until all seven sons have been ruled out. So Samuel, who knows he heard from the Lord that a son of Jesse would be anointed king, asked, “Do you have any other sons?” Jesse replies, “Well, yes, there is the youngest. But he is out with the sheep. It would have been too inconvenient to take the time and effort to track him down and bring him here. I just assumed he didn’t need to come.” And to that Samuel replied, “Yes, he needs to come. It doesn’t matter that it’s inconvenient. Go and get him, because we will not sit down to eat until he gets here.” I’m sure there was a collective groan at that moment, but Jesse obeyed Samuel’s command and sent for his youngest son to be fetched from the pastures.
And when he arrived, God revealed to Samuel that the next king had arrived. Verse 13 reads, “Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah.” The king God has chosen is a shepherd boy, the youngest of eight, whose father assumed he didn’t even need to be considered, and yet he was chosen above all his older brothers. God’s ways subvert human expectations. From this day forward, the Spirit of the Lord would rest upon David, equipping him for the task of ruling over Israel.
The latter part of chapter 16 is thick with irony that highlights God’s providential control of events. It begins with a new problem for Saul. Now that God has rejected him, the Spirit of the Lord who came upon him in chapter 10 now departs from him, showing that God has withdrawn his presence and equipping of Saul. Instead, as a dark parody of that, a harmful spirit from God torments him. It seems this is demonic oppression, but in what sense can a demon be “from the LORD” (v. 14)? In the same sense that Satan was able to torment Job: Satan and his demons can only act insofar as God permits them to act. In his sovereignty, God permits this torment of Saul, and so in that sense this experience is from the Lord as judgment on Saul for his sin. Once Saul’s inner circle of advisors see what is going on with him, they get an idea, and they urge Saul to ask his wider group of servants if they can find a man for him to serve in his court and play beautiful music on the lyre for him whenever this tormenting spirit comes upon him. Saul agrees, and he asks. One of the servants just happens to know somebody. Look at verse 18: “One of the young men answered, ‘Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech [in other words, he won’t reveal Saul’s troubles publicly], and a man of good presence, and the LORD is with him.” David is known to be capable and trustworthy, and God’s blessing is upon him. He’s the perfect candidate.
The irony of what has just happened is more plain in the Hebrew, but I’ll point you to it in the English text. In verse 1, God said to Samuel, “for I have provided for myself a king among his sons.” Then in verse 17, Saul said, “Provide for me a man who can play well and bring him to me.” And then in verse 18 the servant said, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite.” Although they are different in English, all three of those words are the same in Hebrew, a word that normally means “see.” In essence, God said to Samuel, “I have seen to it,” and then Saul said to his servants, “See to it,” and then the servant responded, “I have seen.” The irony is that Saul is unknowingly bringing to fulfillment God’s plan to replace him.
When Saul sends word to Jesse to send his son David, Jesse doesn’t want him to go empty handed. So he loads up a donkey with bread and also throws in a skin of wine and a young goat as tributes to the king. At this point the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Back in 10:3, when Samuel first revealed to Saul that he would be king, he sent him on his way with this prediction: “Then you shall go on from there farther and come to the oak of Tabor. Three men going up to God will meet you there, one carrying three young goats, another carrying three loaves of bread, and another carrying a skin of wine.” These were the items that came before Saul when he had been anointed king and just before he had received the Spirit of the Lord. Now they are presented to him when the Spirit has left him and he has been rejected as king.
So David enters Saul’s service, and when the spirit torments him, David plays skillfully on the harp, and the therapeutic effects of peaceful music seem to work magically upon Saul, calming his nerves and causing the harmful spirit to depart from him. David’s first official act after his anointing as king is to drive out a demon. He’s already showing promise as a serpent crusher. Saul loves him and elevates him to armor bearer and then requests that David be able to remain in his court permanently.
The irony of this story is that David is chosen by God to replace Saul, and then subsequently chosen by Saul. As one commentator put it, “So the Lord confounds human plans, and Saul unwittingly introduces his successor into his court.”1 God in his wisdom exposes the folly of Saul, a king who will not listen to the Word of God, by perfectly orchestrating events that will bring to the throne in time David, a king who will listen to the Word of God.
The contrasts between Saul and David are evident. Saul is from the tribe of Benjamin; David is from the tribe of Judah. Saul is tall and outwardly impressive, a man who stands out among others; David is the youngest son of eight, a shepherd boy who wasn’t even initially invited to Samuel’s sacrifice. Saul is chosen at the initiative of the people in asking for a king; David is chosen entirely by God’s initiative. Saul is chosen when the people want a strong man in whom they can trust so they don’t have to depend on the Lord; David is chosen to be the king who leads them to depend on the Lord. Saul represents the best humanity has to offer; David represents the gift of God’s grace to Israel.
The Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David when Samuel anointed him. The next time we will see the Spirit coming upon a king to anoint him to rule will be when Jesus is baptized in the Jordan, when the Spirit descends on him like a dove, showing that the true and better David has arrived. While David is anointed king of Israel, he cannot usher in the kingdom of God. David will crush his share of serpent offspring, but he is not the serpent crusher promised in Genesis 3:15. He is a type, a foreshadowing, of a greater King to come who will rule over a greater kingdom.
May the story of David’s anointing and Saul’s rejection draw us to renounce the wisdom of this world and renew our faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. If David was unimpressive compared to Saul, consider what the prophet Isaiah said about our Lord in Isaiah 53:2-3: “He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” Our King came to us, not with the stature of Saul, but in the shame of the cross. And in the foolish message of the cross, God rejects human wisdom and builds his kingdom in a way that humbles us and exalts his grace. Thanks be to God. Amen.