Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
1 Samuel 15:4-9
Saul's Campaign Against The Amalekites And His Sacrilege With Regard To The Devoted Things (1 Samuel 15:4).
‘ And Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred military units of footmen, and ten military units of men of Judah.'
In obedience to YHWH's command Saul sent out the call to the tribes, and when they were gathered in Telaim assessed their strength. (Telaim was a town in the Negeb. Compare possibly Joshua 15:24). From the central and northern tribes had come two hundred units of infantry. From Judah in the south had come ten military units. We can compare this with 11:8 where there had been three hundred units and thirty units respectively. This decrease may have been because both the central tribes and Judah needed to retain many of their troops to keep back the Philistines who would inevitably take any opportunity to invade an unprotected territory, or alternatively it may simply be that the units were larger. Another possible alternative is that war and disease had reduced their numbers considerably.
‘ And Saul came to the city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.'
The ‘city' of Amalek may have been a large tent encampment (compare Numbers 13:19), or some may have settled down in a small city called Ir-Amalek (city of Amalek). We do not know where it was, but it would either have been in the Negeb or in the wilderness. Whatever it was it was seemingly on a hill, and Saul and his troops settled down in ambush in the valley, partially surrounding the hill.
‘ And Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them, for you showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.'
A group of Kenites were with the Amalekites, or in their own encampment close by. They were seen by the Amalekites as ‘brother nomads'. The Kenites had, however, unlike the fierce Amalekites, assisted Israel in its journey through the wilderness and one of their number had acted as Israel's guide (Numbers 10:29 with Judges 1:16). They had long lived with Israel in friendly fashion. Saul thus sent them a message inviting them to leave the mount for a place of safety so that they would not be destroyed with the Amalekites. He may well also have communicated to them the fact of the Ban (the devotion of the Amalekites to YHWH) which would have indicated the seriousness of the conflict that was approaching. The Kenites, no doubt deciding that discretion was the better part of valour, ‘departed from the Amalekites'. It was not their fight, and they had no animosity towards Israel. Nor did they want to be destroyed.
‘ And Saul smote the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, which is before Egypt.'
Saul and his army then smote the Amalekites, first in their main encampment and then all the Amalekites who were in their territory ‘from Havilah to Shur' (compare Genesis 25:18). Shur was near the border of Egypt. In Genesis 10 two Havilahs are mentioned, one connected with Cush and possibly in Arabia, and one connected with Joktan. It was clearly a popular name. It simply means ‘circle' or ‘district'. The exact area of the Havilah mentioned here is unknown. The description may simply indicate the extent of the territory in which the Amalekites roamed which was emptied of them.
‘ And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.'
Saul's first act of disobedience was to allow Agag to live. If YHWH's instructions had been followed Agag would not have been taken alive. Saul may have spared him out of fellow regard for a fellow-king, or because he wanted to parade him and have him as his servant in order to emphasise his victory or it may have been in the hope of a ransom from the wider Amalekite community. But whichever way it was he had disobeyed God. The fact was that Agag was not his to dispose of. He was ‘devoted' to YHWH. He should therefore have been put to death on the spot. For the name Agag compare Numbers 24:7. Agag was probably an hereditary title like ‘Pharaoh' and ‘Abimelech' (Genesis 20:2; Genesis 26:1; Psalms 34 heading re a Philistine king).
“Utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.” That is, all those whom they caught. Some would have escaped and joined up with other Amalekites to cause problems later (1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 30:1; 2 Samuel 8:12).
‘ But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the second oxen (or ‘fatlings'), and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them, but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.'
Here the people are brought into Saul's sin as well. They also knew that everything should have been devoted to God, and it was theirs as well as Saul's responsibility to ensure that it was. So in sparing these prized animals all are guilty. Their aim may have been to keep some of the cattle and sheep for themselves after making what they saw as ‘appropriate' offerings to YHWH. Alternately the idea might have been that by offering these animals as sacrifices they would be able to feast on them (thus committing the sacrilege of partaking of meat that had been devoted to YHWH) and not be required to offer so many of their own. But what they were in fact doing was stinting God, and forgetting that these animals were YHWH's already. By eating of them they would be eating of ‘holy things', and even worse, of ‘devoted things'.
“Second oxen” (compare Judges 6:25). The Hebrew word means ‘of the second sort, of the second birth, second in order, rank or age' (oxen is inferred). It therefore indicates the second rank of oxen, or even the most prized oxen because of its second birth. Many would, however, add a Hebrew consonant and translate as ‘fatlings' which would parallel the ‘lambs'. This is, in fact, how it is translated in some versions (LXX has ‘of the fruits and of the vineyards'). But the translation ‘second' makes good sense in view of Judges 6:25, and the translator may well have taken the easier option.