|
|
I Samuel
Trivia Question:
Q. Why could Samuel offer sacrifices when his father was an Ephramite?
2
v. 25 “God’s will”
So is it God’s will that people should die? Hardly.
This was not an ordinary situation.
The people of
§
They not only sinned, but led
others into sin…
§
Their sinful fornication was
in the precincts of the tabernacle which was a Canaanite cultic practice.
§
They were priests and their
responsibility was to mediate between God and the people; their sin was between
themselves and God.
§
It only happened when they
refused to listen to the warning. Just
as others it was only after they turned a deaf ear (hardened their hearts…)
§
He is not willing that any
should die, but we also know the wages of sin are death and our sins have
separated us from God.
There are lessons
here for us also. We are a royal
priesthood and our mediator is Christ, our High Priest – He will not suffer us
to ruin His name and testimony – we are here to glorify Him. This is one of those anomalies in the
mysteries where mercy and justice meet… and most supremely seen at the
sacrifice of Christ, the just for the unjust…
3
v. 7 “salvation of
Samuel”
This verse is worthy of note because it specifically mentions that
Samuel did not yet know the Lord. There
is a serious lesson here that while we may be able to serve God in action and
be in the right place and do the right things, this does not save us. Only the revelation of God in our lives will
and nothing else will ever save us. His
spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are children of God, saved,
sealed and secure in knowing it is sure.
v. 20 “Dan to
This
was a phrase referring to the whole of
6
v. 7 “the power of a calf” is a supernatural one!
The
purpose of leaving the calf behind was to arouse the motherly ‘natural’
instinct and inclination of the cow so that if it did indeed depart, it would
be doing so with the power of God rather than for any other reason. This was something in the order of the
practice of divination to see what the gods thought… Men are always looking for a natural
explanation they call chance or fate… Also note that this cow had never been
yoked before either.
12
v. 19 “another link”
When
prophets were placed as leaders over the people, there was a direct
communication with God. However, by
placing a king in power there became another link to God’s communication. Although the prophets still existed, it was
with the added link of a king. Thus,
rather than the people hearing direct from the prophet, instruction was given
to the king from the prophet and it was the king’s prerogative to determine
whether he would follow this instruction.
Therefore another opportunity for sin to exist arose and communication
between God and His people became more difficult as a result. Prophets being the “porte
parole” as they carried the word of God to the people… (prophet = one who
speaks on behalf of another). Note that
14
v. 24 “thought before
action”
While Saul wanted glory from this battle,
he certainly paid the price of it by nearly killing his son and in fact not
completing the rout as he would have wished.
Note the fatigue as a consequence of his rash statement in verses 28 and
31. Note his pride in victory when he
makes this oath ‘before I have
avenged my enemies’. Wasn’t it Jonathan who had started the rout
in the first place? Note their distress
and how our decisions affect others…
Saul also caused the Israelites to
sin by this thoughtless action for whenever the fast was lifted they were so
famished they slaughtered and devoured meat without draining the blood etc.
(32-33 and Leviticus 17:10–14).
15
vs. 20, 21, 24, 30 “motive”
the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked…
We deceive ourselves, but we cannot deceive God who knows our hearts and
their intents…
When
one first reads I Samuel 15 it is sometimes easy to feel sorry for Saul. Here he goes ahead with the attack on
Amalekites but fails to completely destroy them. Samuel judges Saul for this and while Saul
pleads for forgiveness, none is forthcoming.
However, what’s interesting is to
observe the motives behind Saul’s pleading.
Firstly, in verse 20 he claims to have done his part of the deal. It’s a classic ‘It wasn’t me’ stance. Then he blames the soldiers in whom he is in
command none the less in verse 21. Then
Saul really begins to panic in verse 24 and begs forgiveness. What’s his excuse this time? ‘I was afraid of the people’. Finally, the real motive for Saul’s wanting
of forgiveness comes out in verse 30. ‘I
have sinned. But please honor me before
the elders of my people and before Israel.’
And so while Saul apparently is seeking forgiveness for the error of his
ways, in actual fact he seeks forgiveness only for recognition before the
people. This is why Samuel would not
forgive Saul because he knew that there was no real penitence there. True repentance is recognition of sin
as opposed to regret, intellectual admittance or remorse which
are merely emotions. A complete change
of heart and mind is necessary which should be seen in subsequent actions. We often partially obey His will, thus He
seeks those who will be wholehearted in devotion (Acts 13:22). Saul’s only fear was that he would “lose
face”.
From this time Samuel is estranged from Saul, a picture of the
Lord’s estrangement also.
Note that Amalek is a type of the flesh
and it must be destroyed.
17
v. 49 “a matter of physics”
Now
I’m certainly no physicist, but it would seem to me that when an object strikes
another object and the momentum of the first object is greater than that of the
second object, then surely the second object would be forced to move in the
same direction. Obviously this depends
on the size of the object but consider being hit in the face with a stone and
the likelihood is that you would fall backwards with it. The momentum of this particular stone was
great as it mentions the fact that the stone sank into Goliath’s forehead. Therefore, it must be seen as a miracle that
Goliath fell forward and not backward. I
would imagine that this was necessary for David to kill him while he was
defenseless.
20
vs. 1-42 “why the drama?”
This
is something I haven’t been able to work out.
If there had been danger it would be understandable for Jonathan to have
taken such precautions. And indeed there
was danger. But then why did he speak to
Jonathan as soon as he had gone through the formalities of the target practice?
Did he know that he would have chance to do this afterwards? He would obviously need a reason to go to the
fields – upset, take it out on some target practice. They needed a way to meet, the coast is clear
so there is chance for a quick parting.
There are some good messages on arrows – speaking of being for
enjoyment, fun and sport, but to David in hiding they were speaking of
adversity, uprooting and a change of direction…
22
vs. 18-23 “God never
forgets”
If
you have been reading through the book of I Samuel, you may have noticed an odd
verse in chapter 22. It reads, “Now one
of Saul’s servants was there that day, detained before the Lord; he was Doeg
the Edomite, Saul’s head shepherd.” The
purpose of his detainment becomes evident in chapter 22 when Doeg is instructed
to kill the priests. Why on earth would
God detain Doeg so that he could strike down virtually all the priests
there? The answer lies in I Samuel 2:27-36. Deog was detained by God so that the prophecy
could be fulfilled as He had promised.
The consequences of our sins always affect others. The fulfillment of I Samuel 2 was when the
priesthood was taken from Abiathar (a descendant of Ithamar, Aaron’s son, and given to Zadok
(a descendant of Eleazer, Aaron’s son. Cf 1 Kings
2:27 and 35).
It is interesting that he who reported it was he who had to do the
dirty work. Some people think he may
have been a leper and that’s why he was there?
Some say he became Saul’s amour bearer, but we do know he did not tell
the WHOLE truth.
Lesson – we can
misconstrue innocent actions…
28
vs. 9-20 “mediums and
spirits” contact with demonic powers – so God overrules!
There
has been some debate as to whether this was actually Samuel that Saul spoke
to. I’m pretty sure it was based on two
reasons. Firstly, in verse 12 the medium
was frightened by the appearance of a man suggesting that she either recognized
him or was simply shocked to actually see someone appear. Secondly, in verses 16-20 ‘Samuel’ pronounces
judgment on Saul for his actions and gives in explicit detail the exact
happenings of the next day.
While this tactic by Saul may have
brought him in communication with Samuel, this practice is against God’s wishes
(Galatians 5:19-21). We do not know why
God allowed this to happen except to speculate that perhaps it was to punish
Saul for attempting to contact God through Samuel in this manner and to warn us
that this form of practice does not lead to pleasant results.
This was not done by magic, but by a miracle. Take heed, God does give the desires of our
hearts, not always to our good… The
devil imitates and counterfeits but only God can do the real thing. God graciously permits one final encounter…
and God uses Samuel to bring one last message to Saul.
31
vs. 1-13 “who killed Saul?”
We
have two accounts of Saul’s death. There
is this one where Saul kills himself and another account in II Samuel 1 where
an Amalekite claims to have killed him.
The likelihood is that Saul killed himself. Firstly, if you look at II Samuel 1:7 the
Amalekite asks Saul what he could do to help.
This is not in accordance with what we know about the Amalekites who
were a nomadic tribe that took opportunities when they came along. Consider Ziklag (I Samuel 30), for
example.
Secondly, we note that Saul’s amour
bearer killed himself in I Samuel.
However, there is no mention made of him in the account of II Samuel
which would suggest that the Amalekite was lying. The amour bearer was supposed to protect the
king hence his reluctance to kill Saul in the first place. There is no way he would have allowed someone
else to kill Saul while he remained alive.
Let’s not forget that Saul died before the amour bearer.
We do not know for sure – whether there was any life left in Saul
or whether the Amalekite came across him already dead – was he even an
Amalekite or an Israelite just saying that?
What we do know is that
Amalek is a type of the flesh and the interesting
lesson here is that Saul loses his Kingdom for failing to annihilate the Amalekites. He is
now said to be killed by one, who in turn loses his life for claiming to
destroy the life of the King Saul. Some
food for thought.
