1 Samuel 15:20, commentary and pictures

Saul declares that he has fully obeyed the Lord and gone the way he was sent, even while admitting that he brought Agag the king alive, when in fact he had only partly obeyed by destroying the Amalekites in general but sparing Agag and the best livestock. This claim belongs to the campaign against Amalek, which carried out a judgment delayed for four hundred years because Amalek had attacked Israel, defied God, and persisted in idolatry, and because Amalek endangered God's people and their worship. He tried to shift responsibility for keeping the spoil onto the people though they had acted on his directions, and he excused keeping the best animals by saying they were for sacrifice, but a religious purpose did not excuse disobedience to the explicit command to destroy them. The verse illustrates presenting partial obedience as full obedience and defending a course contrary to God's word while insisting on having obeyed, showing a pattern of denying wrongdoing until the facts are undeniable and then making no confession but boldly insisting on having kept all God's commands while remaining stubborn and unrepentant. Such stubborn self-justification came from pride and excessive self-love, and persisting in known disobedience while justifying oneself separated him from God, in contrast to true repentance which requires acknowledging guilt without trying to excuse or lessen sin.

Saul's Claim and Context

The claim belongs to the campaign against Amalek, which carried out a sentence delayed for four hundred years because the Amalekites had attacked Israel, defied God, and persisted in idolatry, and because they endangered God's people and their worship.

In the verse Saul insists he fully obeyed the Lord and went the way he was sent, even while admitting in the same breath that he brought Agag the king of Amalek back alive. He had gone on the commanded campaign and destroyed the Amalekites in general, yet he had disobeyed by sparing Agag and the best of the spoil and livestock. His profession that he kept the command was therefore false, a presentation of partial obedience as full obedience.

To shield himself from responsibility he blamed the people for keeping the animals, though they had acted on his directions. He excused keeping the best animals by saying they were kept for sacrifice, but preserving them for a religious purpose did not excuse disobedience to the explicit command to destroy them.

His claim of obedience was contradicted by the evidence of the spared sheep and oxen and by his own actions and admissions. His way of speaking of God as Samuel's God rather than his own showed his distance from God. His failure to execute the required judgment on Amalek was not excused by his claim of obedience, and that failure kindled God's wrath against him.

Self-Justification Versus Repentance

Saul's words present partial obedience as full obedience, for he claimed to have carried out God's command while he had in fact brought Agag back alive and had not fully executed what was ordered. His claim was self-justification contradicted by the evidence, by the bleating sheep and oxen that exposed its falseness, and by his own admission that spoil had been kept. To insist on obedience while defending a course contrary to God's word, and to declare loyalty to God even as actions reveal disobedience, stands as a warning against following the same course.

The same claim shows the pattern of denying wrongdoing until the facts become undeniable, then making no confession and regarding oneself as mistreated, as seen also in a self-deceived young man who excuses himself rather than acknowledge sin. It is boldly insisting on having kept all the Lord's commands while conduct remains disobedient, stubborn and unrepentant before God. Such stubborn self-justification comes from pride and excessive self-love, preferring one's own will to God's favor and a clear conscience.

Persisting in known disobedience while justifying oneself separated Saul from God. When reproved by Samuel he defended himself and insisted that he had obeyed the Lord, illustrating how people resist correction and justify themselves by their own reasoning instead of hearing and receiving the Lord's rebuke. Excusing one's course in this way stands in contrast to acknowledging guilt without trying to excuse or lessen sin, as David did, for true repentance requires acknowledging disobedience rather than excusing it.