The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Saul’s Confession
1 Samuel 15:24–35 — Saul’s Confession. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
24Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned; I have transgressed the LORD’s commandment and your instructions, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
šā·’ūl way·yō·mer ’el- šə·mū·’êl ḥā·ṭā·ṯî kî- ‘ā·ḇar·tî ’eṯ- Yah·weh wə·’eṯ- pî- də·ḇā·re·ḵā kî yā·rê·ṯî ’eṯ- hā·‘ām wā·’eš·ma‘ bə·qō·w·lām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-said Saul unto-Samuel: “I-have-sinned, for I-crossed-over the-mouth of-YHWH and-thy-words; because I-feared the-people and-I-hearkened to-their-voice.”
Where the English smooths the original
He, with stammering lips, while deprecating the Divine sentence, still seeks to justify himself; but all that he could allege in excuse only more plainly marked out his unfitness for his high post.
It does by no means appear that Saul acts the hypocrite herein, in assigning a false cause of his disobedience. Rather, he nakedly declares the thing as it was.Benson stands nearly alone here. Poole, Gill, JFB, Cambridge, Pulpit and K&D all read the confession as self-serving; Benson takes Saul at his word and reads the excuse as candour rather than hypocrisy. We record the minority reading because the Hebrew alone does not settle it.
But how little he feared the people, may be seen by 1 Samuel 11:7 14:24 . But this was a false cause; nor doth he acknowledge the true cause, which was his covetousness, and because he did not fear God.
25Now therefore, please forgive my sin and return with me so I can worship the LORD.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·‘at·tāh nā ’eṯ- śā ḥaṭ·ṭā·ṯî wə·šūḇ ‘im·mî wə·’eš·ta·ḥă·weh Yah·weh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-now lift, I-pray, my-sin, and-return with-me, and-I-will-bow-myself-down to-YHWH.”
Where the English smooths the original
It was not true and serious repentance, or the result of genuine sorrow of heart because he had offended God, but was merely repentance of the lips arising from fear of losing the kingdom, and of incurring public disgraceK&D is quoting the Jesuit commentator Cornelius a Lapide, and says so; the judgment is a seventeenth-century one carried into a nineteenth-century commentary.
It can hardly be thought that Saul was so ignorant as to imagine that Samuel could pardon his sin, as committed against God, which none but God can do, but that he would forgive it, so far as he had offended him;
This was not true repentance, but deceit out of fear for the loss of his kingdom.
26“I will not return with you,” Samuel replied. “For you have rejected the word of the LORD, and He has rejected you as king over Israel.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō ’ā·šūḇ ‘im·māḵ šə·mū·’êl way·yō·mer ’el- šā·’ūl kî mā·’as·tāh ’eṯ- də·ḇar Yah·weh Yah·weh way·yim·’ā·sə·ḵā mih·yō·wṯ me·leḵ ‘al- yiś·rā·’êl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-said Samuel unto-Saul: “I-will-not return with-thee; for thou-hast-rejected the-word of-YHWH, and-YHWH-hath-rejected-thee from-being king over-Israel.”
Where the English smooths the original
This was no lie, though he afterward returned, because he spoke what he meant; his words and his intentions agreed together, though afterward he saw reason to change his intentions.
which is repeated from 1 Samuel 15:23 for the confirmation of it, and to let Saul know that his pretended confession and repentance had made no alteration in the decree and sentence of God respecting the kingdom.
Samuel too clearly sees what are the true springs of Saul’s repentance, and refuses at first.
27As Samuel turned to go, Saul grabbed the hem of his robe, and it tore.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
šə·mū·’êl way·yis·sōḇ lā·le·ḵeṯ way·ya·ḥă·zêq biḵ·nap̄- mə·‘î·lōw way·yiq·qā·ra‘
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-turned-about Samuel to-go, and-he-seized on-the-wing of-his-robe, and-it-was-torn.
Where the English smooths the original
What Saul took hold of was the hem , the outer border of the garment, probably at Samuel's neck or shoulder, as he turned to go away. He seized him, as we should say, by the collar, and endeavoured by main force to retain him, and in the struggle the hem rent.
The accident served Samuel as an emblem of the complete severance of the sovereignty from Saul.
some say it was Samuel that rent the skirt of Saul, and by this signified to him, that he that cut off the skirt of his garment should reign in his stead; whereby Saul knew that David would be king when he cut off the skirt of his robe, 1 Samuel 24:4 ,Gill is reporting a rabbinic reading (Midrash Schemuel, via Jarchi, Kimchi and Abarbinel), not endorsing it; he goes on to say “the plain sense is, that Saul rent the skirt of Samuel's mantle.”
28So Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to your neighbor who is better than you.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
šə·mū·’êl way·yō·mer ’ê·lāw Yah·weh ’eṯ- qā·ra‘ mam·lə·ḵūṯ yiś·rā·’êl mê·‘ā·le·ḵā hay·yō·wm ū·nə·ṯā·nāh lə·rê·‘ă·ḵā haṭ·ṭō·wḇ mim·me·kā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-said unto-him Samuel: “Hath-torn YHWH the-kingship of-Israel from-upon-thee this-day, and-hath-given-it to-thy-neighbour who-is-better than-thou.”
Where the English smooths the original
A neighbour of thine; either another man, or another Israelite; for the word neighbour is used both ways; or rather, one of the neighbouring tribe, even Judah
and by a like sign was signified the rending of the ten tribes from the kingdom of Solomon in his son Rehoboam, 1 Kings 11:30 ,
It had not yet been revealed to the seer who was to replace the rebellious king, so he simply refers to the future anointed one quite indefinitely
29Moreover, the Glory of Israel does not lie or change His mind, for He is not a man, that He should change His mind.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ḡam nê·ṣaḥ yiś·rā·’êl lō yə·šaq·qêr yin·nā·ḥêm kî lō hū wə·lō ’ā·ḏām lə·hin·nā·ḥêm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-also the-Enduring-One of-Israel doth-not-deal-falsely and-doth-not-relent; for not a-man is-He, that-He-should-relent.
Where the English smooths the original
It is precisely because God is unchangeable, that in His dealing with men He must seem to change His action as they change their conduct.
signifies constancy, endurance, then confidence, trust, because a man can trust in what is constant.
A phrase which occurs only here. The word means, perpetuity, truth, glory, victory, and trust, or confidence.Barnes declines to choose among the senses. We keep him in because his refusal is the most accurate report of the lexical evidence, and it checks the confidence of the other voices.
a further rebuke of his pride in rearing the Carmel trophy, and an intimation that no loss would be sustained in Israel by his rejection.
30“I have sinned,” Saul replied. “Please honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel. Come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD your God.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ḥā·ṭā·ṯî way·yō·mer nā kab·bə·ḏê·nî ‘at·tāh ne·ḡeḏ ziq·nê- ‘am·mî wə·ne·ḡeḏ yiś·rā·’êl wə·šūḇ ‘im·mî wə·hiš·ta·ḥă·wê·ṯî Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-he-said: “I-have-sinned. Now honour-me, I-pray, before the-elders-of my-people and-before Israel; and-return with-me, and-I-will-bow-myself-down to-YHWH thy-God.”
Where the English smooths the original
If Saul had been really penitent, he would pray to have been humble rather than to be honouredEllicott is quoting St. Gregory at second hand, through Wordsworth; the sentence is patristic, not Victorian.
John 5:44 ; John 12:43 point to the radical defect in Saul’s character.
Here he plainly discovers his hypocrisy, and the true motive of this and his former confession; he was not solicitous for the favour of God, but for his honour and power with Israel.
31So Samuel went back with Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
šə·mū·’êl way·yā·šāḇ ’a·ḥă·rê šā·’ūl šā·’ūl way·yiš·ta·ḥū Yah·weh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-turned-back Samuel after Saul; and-Saul bowed-himself-down to-YHWH.
Where the English smooths the original
That the people might not, upon pretence of this sentence of rejection, withdraw their obedience from their sovereign; whereby they would both have sinned against God, and have been as sheep without a shepherd.
and remained whilst Saul worshipped, not merely "for the purpose of preserving the outward order until a new king should take his place" (O. v. Gerlach), but also to carry out the ban upon Agag, whom Saul had spared.
The pertinacity with which Saul clings to Samuel for support is a striking testimony to Samuel's integrity.
32Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.” Agag came to him cheerfully, for he thought, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
šə·mū·’êl way·yō·mer hag·gî·šū ’ê·lay ’eṯ- ’ă·ḡaḡ me·leḵ ‘ă·mā·lêq ’ă·ḡaḡ way·yê·leḵ ’ê·lāw ma·‘ă·ḏan·nōṯ ’ă·ḡāḡ way·yō·mer ’ā·ḵên mar- ham·mā·weṯ sār
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-said Samuel: “Bring-near unto-me Agag king-of Amalek.” And-came unto-him Agag maʻădannōṯ; and-said Agag: “Surely hath-turned-aside the-bitterness of-death.”
Where the English smooths the original
The very word, however, occurs in Job 38:31 , where the A.V. renders it bands , and this seems the right sense
not from any special pleasure at the thought of death, or from a heroic contempt of death, but because he thought that his life was to be granted him
Many think the bitterness of death is past when it is not gone by; they put that evil day far from them, which is very near.
33But Samuel declared: “As your sword has made women childless, so your mother will be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
šə·mū·’êl way·yō·mer ka·’ă·šer ḥar·be·ḵā nā·šîm šik·kə·lāh kên- ’im·me·ḵā tiš·kal min·nā·šîm šə·mū·’êl ’eṯ- ’ă·ḡāḡ way·šas·sêp̄ lip̄·nê Yah·weh bag·gil·gāl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-said Samuel: “As hath-bereaved-of-children women thy-sword, so shall-be-bereaved-of-children among-women thy-mother.” And-hewed-in-pieces Samuel Agag before YHWH in-Gilgal.
Where the English smooths the original
From these words of Samuel, it is very evident that Agag had carried on his wars with great cruelty, and had therefore forfeited his life according to the lex talionis.
which Saul had violated, and so both saved the nation from the guilt of a broken oath, and gave a final example to Saul, but apparently in vain, of uncompromising obedience to the commandments of God. There is something awful in the majesty of the prophet rising above and eclipsing that of the king
But these are no precedents for private persons to take the sword of justice into their hands; for we must live by thee laws of God, and not by extraordinary examples.Poole defends the act as done by express divine command and in the same breath forbids its imitation. We keep both halves together, because quoting either alone misrepresents him.
34Then Samuel went to Ramah, but Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
šə·mū·’êl way·yê·leḵ hā·rā·mā·ṯāh wə·šā·’ūl ‘ā·lāh ’el- bê·ṯōw giḇ·‘aṯ šā·’ūl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-went Samuel to-Ramah; and-Saul went-up unto-his-house, to-Gibeah-of-Saul.
Where the English smooths the original
which was also his birth place, and where was his father's house, and where he had his palace, and kept his court
he returned to his own home at Ramah; and Saul went to his house at Gibeah. From that time forward Samuel broke off all intercourse with the king whom Jehovah had rejected.
Saul seems unconcerned at the token of God's displeasure which he lay under, yet Samuel mourns day and night for him.
35And to the day of his death, Samuel never again visited Saul. Samuel mourned for Saul, and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
‘aḏ- yō·wm mō·w·ṯōw kî- šə·mū·’êl wə·lō- yā·sap̄ lir·’ō·wṯ ’eṯ- šā·’ūl šə·mū·’êl hiṯ·’ab·bêl ’el- šā·’ūl Yah·weh ni·ḥām kî- šā·’ūl him·lîḵ ’eṯ- ‘al- yiś·rā·’êl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-not did-add Samuel to-see Saul until the-day-of his-death; for Samuel mourned over Saul, and-YHWH had-relented that He-had-made-Saul-king over Israel.
Where the English smooths the original
This first great king only lacked one thing: true faith in that God who loved Israel with a peculiar love.
Saul was no longer the representative of Jehovah, and consequently Samuel no more came to him, bearing messages and commands, and giving him counsel and guidance from God.
because of his sin, his impenitence, and hypocrisy; and because of the loss of the kingdom to him, and to his posterity
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
Saul's words are formally perfect: חָטָאתִי (ḥāṭā’ṯî) — “I have missed.” What follows them is the problem. He names his trespass as a crossing-over (‘āḇartî) of פִּי־יְהוָה, the mouth of YHWH, and then immediately supplies a cause: “because I feared the people and hearkened to their voice.” Ellicott hears the self-defence inside the confession — “all that he could allege in excuse only more plainly marked out his unfitness for his high post.” Poole disbelieves the excuse outright and sends the reader to 1 Samuel 11:7 and 14:24, where this same king cowed the nation at will; the true cause, Poole says, “was his covetousness, and because he did not fear God.” K&D judges it “rather the effect of alarm at the rejection which had been announced to him, than the fruit of any genuine consciousness of sin,” and reinforces the point with Cornelius a Lapide's phrase, “repentance of the lips.” Against this near-consensus stands Benson, who will not have it: “It does by no means appear that Saul acts the hypocrite herein… Rather, he nakedly declares the thing as it was.” ⚙ The Hebrew does not decide between them. What the Hebrew does show is a grammatical displacement: yārê’ṯî ’eṯ-hā‘ām puts the people in the object slot of the verb of the fear of God, and wā’ešma‘ bəqōlām gives to their voice the obedience the chapter demanded for YHWH's. Barnes frames the theological question that the unit never closes: why was this confession unavailing when David's was not? His answer — “Saul only shrank from the punishment of his sin. David shrank in abhorrence from the sin itself” — is a judgment about interiors, offered honestly as such.
The most important word in this unit is a verb stem. In v. 27 the robe is torn in the Nifal: וַיִּקָּרַע, “and it was torn.” K&D defends that passive against the Septuagint's active reading and against Thenius's proposed emendation, and everything hangs on it — “the tearing of the mantle, which took place accidentally, and evidently without any such intention on the part of Saul, was to serve as a sign of the rending away of the sovereignty from him.” In v. 28 Samuel takes the identical root qâraʻ and puts it in the Qal perfect with YHWH as its subject and in the emphatic first position: qāra‘ YHWH. The accident is declared to have been the announcement. Pulpit, reading the garment closely, insists it was the meil and not a prophet's addereth, and that because the meil fitted close to the body, the tearing “implies a considerable amount of violence on Saul's part”; Ellicott follows Payne Smith on the same point. Cambridge supplies the canonical parallel — “Compare Ahijah's symbolical action ( 1 Kings 11:30-31 )” — and Gill the same, noting that “by a like sign was signified the rending of the ten tribes from the kingdom of Solomon.” The recipient is left deliberately blank: לְרֵעֲךָ, “to thy associate.” K&D: “Samuel did not yet know to whom Jehovah would give it.” Geneva's marginal gloss supplies the name — “That is, to David” — but supplies it, as a gloss, from later knowledge.
Here the text sets a trap for any reader who wants a tidy doctrine cheaply. Verse 11 said YHWH nâchamed that He had made Saul king; verse 35 will say it again; verse 29 says He does not and cannot nâcham, because He is not אָדָם. The title carrying that claim, נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל, occurs nowhere else in Scripture, and the commentators cannot agree on it. K&D argues from the root's sense of constancy for “the unchangeable One, in whom Israel can trust,” and rejects the sense gloria as Aramaising and “altogether unsuitable here.” Ellicott would render “the Changeless One of Israel.” JFB and Pulpit take it as Israel's Victory or Triumph, and JFB reads it as “a further rebuke of his pride in rearing the Carmel trophy.” Gill lists strength, victory and eternity together. Barnes gives the most disciplined answer of all: the phrase “occurs only here,” and the word “means, perpetuity, truth, glory, victory, and trust, or confidence.” On the contradiction itself, the traditional solution — v. 11 spoken ἀνθρωποπαθῶς, v. 29 θεοπρεπῶς — is stated by K&D and by Cambridge; but Cambridge refuses to let it settle the matter: “This is only a partial solution. It is precisely because God is unchangeable, that in His dealing with men He must seem to change His action as they change their conduct… Scripture is content to state both sides of the question, and leave conscience rather than reason to reconcile them.” ⚙ We take Cambridge's restraint as the model. The second verb in the line is the harder guarantee: יְשַׁקֵּר (shâqar) is a rare covenant word, and its most striking other use is God's oath about the house of David — “nor will I deal falsely in my faithfulness” (Psalm 89:33). The sentence that removes one king rests on the character that will secure another.
Saul confesses a second time, now without the excuse — Gill notices this exactly — and then asks for the one thing that exposes him: כַּבְּדֵנִי, “make me weighty,” before the elders and before Israel. Ellicott, quoting Gregory through Wordsworth, puts it in a line: “If Saul had been really penitent, he would pray to have been humble rather than to be honoured.” Cambridge points to John 5:44 and 12:43 as naming “the radical defect in Saul's character”; Poole says the request “plainly discovers his hypocrisy.” And Samuel goes. The commentators are unanimous about why, and none of them says fellowship: Benson and Poole give two reasons, that the people might not withdraw obedience from their king and “have been as sheep without a shepherd,” and that Samuel might “rectify Saul's error, and execute God's judgment upon Agag”; JFB and Cambridge agree; K&D adds O. v. Gerlach's phrase about “preserving the outward order until a new king should take his place,” and then the same second reason, the ban. ⚙ The Hebrew reinforces the coldness: Samuel turned back ’aḥărê Saul, behind him, and the prostration in the next clause has one subject only.
Agag comes מַעֲדַנֹּת (ma‘ăḏannōṯ) — a word that occurs in only one other verse in the canon, Job 38:31, where it means the bands of the Pleiades. The versions split irreconcilably. Pulpit argues from Job for “in fetters,” and says the cheerful reading “is contradicted by the next clause.” Cambridge reports the evidence without deciding: “The Sept. has ‘trembling;’ the Vulg. a curious double rendering, ‘sleek and trembling.’” Barnes calls the phrase “very obscure.” K&D, Benson, Poole, Gill and JFB take it as cheerfulness, K&D adding that it was “not from any special pleasure at the thought of death, or from a heroic contempt of death, but because he thought that his life was to be granted him.” ⚙ We do not resolve it, and the reader should know the English rendering is a choice. What is not obscure is the sentence: ka’ăšer šikkəlāh nāšîm ḥarbeḵā — “as thy sword has bereaved women.” K&D: “it is very evident that Agag had carried on his wars with great cruelty, and had therefore forfeited his life according to the lex talionis.” Then the prophet does what the king would not. Barnes measures it exactly: Samuel “executed the חרם chērem… which Saul had violated, and so both saved the nation from the guilt of a broken oath… There is something awful in the majesty of the prophet rising above and eclipsing that of the king.” Poole, who defends the act as done by express command, immediately fences it: “these are no precedents for private persons to take the sword of justice into their hands.”
The narrative separates them geographically before it separates them theologically: Samuel to Ramah, Saul up to his house at Gibeah of Saul — a town, as Gill notes, that carried the king's own name. Then v. 35 closes three things at once. Samuel “added not again to see Saul unto the day of his death”; Poole and Benson both insist the idiom means visiting, counselling, seeking God for him, since they did meet once more at 1 Samuel 19:24, and, as Benson notes, that meeting was Saul's doing, not Samuel's. Pulpit reads the deeper sense: “Saul was no longer the representative of Jehovah, and consequently Samuel no more came to him, bearing messages and commands, and giving him counsel and guidance from God.” Samuel הִתְאַבֵּל — the Hitpael of ʼâbal, mourning as for the dead, performed upon himself. Ellicott's account of that grief is the most humane thing in the whole apparatus: Samuel “had known Saul from the days of his splendid youthful promise… This first great king only lacked one thing: true faith in that God who loved Israel with a peculiar love.” And the last clause returns the verb of v. 29 — wa-YHWH niḥām. Verse 29 denied it; verse 35 asserts it; the book lets both stand on the same page.
⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested against the text. The unit is organised around three things that are torn, and the order matters. First a robe tears in a Nifal — no one tore it; it was torn. Then a kingdom is declared torn in a Qal perfect, with YHWH as subject, and the thing that happened by accident in a man's fist is revealed to have already been decided. Third, and unnamed, a friendship tears: Samuel goes home to Ramah and mourns a living man as though burying him. Underneath all three lies the chapter's real subject, which is not disobedience but weight. Saul feared the people because their opinion was heavy to him and God's mouth was light; and the last thing he asks for, after everything is lost, is kabbədênî — make me heavy, in front of the elders, in front of Israel. He wants the glory (kâbôd) he spent the kingdom to keep. ⚙ Here is what I think verse 29 is doing in the middle of this, and I hold it loosely, because Cambridge is right that Scripture states both sides and leaves conscience to reconcile them. Verse 29 is not a philosophical aside about divine immutability dropped into a narrative. It is an answer to a specific question Saul has just asked. Saul has asked Samuel to get the sentence lifted. Samuel answers that the One who gave it is nêṣaḥ yiśrā’êl, and that He does not shâqar — the rare covenant verb of breaking faith with someone you swore to. That is to say: the reason the sentence cannot be negotiated is the same reason any promise of God can be trusted at all. The unchangeableness that is Saul's doom is Israel's only security, and, when the throne passes to the unnamed neighbour, David's. Verse 11 and verse 35 say God sighed over Saul. Verse 29 says God is not the kind of being whose purposes sigh. ⚙ I do not think the writer was embarrassed by putting those two on one page; I think he knew that a God who could not grieve would not be worth obeying, and a God who could be talked out of a verdict would not be worth trusting.
⚙ Not a verse — a fallible editorial line: the same unchangeableness that made Saul's sentence irreversible is the only reason any promise of God is worth anything.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The adverb describing how Agag came, מַעֲדַנֹּת (ma‘ăḏannōṯ, H4575), stands in only two verses in the whole Hebrew Bible. The other is Job 38:31, where God asks whether Job can loose the bands of Orion or bind the chains of the Pleiades. Pulpit takes that as decisive — “The very word, however, occurs in Job 38:31 , where the A.V. renders it bands , and this seems the right sense: ‘Agag came unto him in fetters.’” Ellicott allows the derivation but prefers “cheerfully”; Cambridge reports the Septuagint's “trembling” and the Vulgate's doubled “sleek and trembling” and declines to choose; Barnes calls it “very obscure.” ⚙ The Verifier confirms the lexeme is shared and rare; what it cannot do is tell us which sense the writer intended. Every English Bible here is making a decision the Hebrew does not force.
Job 38:31
basis: Verifier: shared rare Hebrew lexeme H4575 maʻădannâh (in 2 vv) — this unit and Job 38:31 are the only two occurrences in the canon; a genuine verbal link, though no quotation in either direction is claimed
The verb Samuel uses for what God does not do, יְשַׁקֵּר (shâqar, H8266), is rare: six verses. Its company is instructive. Abimelech makes Abraham swear not to shâqar with him (Genesis 21:23); Israel is forbidden it in the holiness code (Leviticus 19:11); the psalmist protests that the nation has not shâqared in God's covenant though crushed (Psalm 44:17); Isaiah recalls God saying of His people “they will not deal falsely” (Isaiah 63:8); and in Psalm 89:33, in the middle of the oracle about David's throne, God swears that He will not shâqar in His faithfulness. ⚙ That last is the one to sit with. The same rare verb whose denial seals Saul's rejection is the verb whose denial secures the dynasty of the neighbour “better than thou.” One king loses a throne on God's unbreakable word; another receives one on the same word.
Psalm 89:33 · Isaiah 63:8 · Genesis 21:23 · Leviticus 19:11 · Psalm 44:17
basis: Verifier: shared rare Hebrew lexeme H8266 shâqar (in 6 vv) across all five listed verses — verbal link on a rare covenant verb; no quotation is claimed in either direction
What Saul seizes is the כְּנַף (kânâph, H3671) of Samuel's מְעִיל (mᵉʻîyl, H4598), and it tears. Nine chapters later, in a cave at En-gedi, David cuts the kânâph of Saul's mᵉʻîyl and his heart smites him for it (1 Samuel 24:4–5). Cambridge notes the parallel at this verse (“Cp. 1 Samuel 24:4”), and Gill reports a rabbinic tradition that read the sign in exactly that direction — “he that cut off the skirt of his garment should reign in his stead” — while himself holding to the plain sense that Saul tore Samuel's. ⚙ The narrative symmetry is hard to miss: the king who tore a prophet's hem to keep a kingdom loses it; the man who cut a king's hem and repented of it receives one. But the tiering must stay honest — both nouns are moderately common, and no quotation is involved.
1 Samuel 24:4
basis: Verifier (pair check, 1 Samuel 15:27 ↔ 1 Samuel 24:4): shared Hebrew lexemes H4598 mᵉʻîyl (in 27 vv) and H3671 kânâph (in 85 vv) — a real verbal contact inside a shared narrative motif, but neither lexeme is rare enough to carry a verbal-quotation claim; Cambridge and Gill both record the cross-reference
Both Gill and Cambridge send the reader from Samuel's torn hem to Ahijah the Shilonite, who tore his new garment into twelve pieces and gave ten to Jeroboam with the words “I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon.” Gill: “by a like sign was signified the rending of the ten tribes from the kingdom of Solomon in his son Rehoboam, 1 Kings 11:30 .” ⚙ The two scenes are not related by shared vocabulary in the Verifier's candidate list; they are related as a genre — the prophetic sign-act, in which a garment is destroyed so that a dynasty's fate can be seen rather than merely heard. The difference is worth holding: Ahijah tore deliberately, Samuel's robe tore by accident in another man's hand.
1 Kings 11:30-31
basis: Shared prophetic sign-act pattern (a garment rent to signify a kingdom rent), recorded by Gill and Cambridge as a cross-reference at this verse; the Verifier's candidate list for this unit did not surface a shared-lexeme basis, so the basis here is the pattern plus the commentators' citation, not a computed verbal link
Cambridge notes that the words of v. 29 “closely resemble Numbers 23:19,” and K&D cites the same verse. The resemblance is real: Balaam declares that God is not ’îš that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should repent. ⚙ One honest qualification belongs on this link. The verb for “repent” is the same in both places — nâcham — but the verb for “lie” is not: Numbers 23:19 uses kâzab, while our verse uses the rarer shâqar. So the resemblance is a shared formula about the difference between God and man, not a quotation.
Numbers 23:19
basis: Verifier (pair check, 1 Samuel 15:29 ↔ Numbers 23:19): shared lexemes H5162 nâcham (in 100 vv), H120 ʼâdâm (in 526 vv), H1931 hûwʼ, H3808 lôʼ — a genuine shared formula, but nâcham at 100 verses is not rare enough for a verbal-quotation tier and the two verses use different verbs for 'lie' (kâzab vs H8266 shâqar); Cambridge and K&D both cite the parallel
The Nifal יִנָּחֵם that Samuel denies of God in v. 29 reappears, in the same stem and the same negated form, in Psalm 110:4: “YHWH has sworn and will not relent — you are a priest for ever.” ⚙ The theological shape is identical and the direction is opposite. In 1 Samuel 15 the unrelenting word takes a crown away; in Psalm 110 it establishes an unending priesthood by oath. Hebrews later builds its argument for the permanence of Christ's priesthood on precisely that oath and its irrevocability — though that is a New Testament reading of the psalm, not of this chapter.
Psalm 110:4
basis: Verifier (pair check, 1 Samuel 15:29 ↔ Psalm 110:4): shared lexemes H5162 nâcham (in 100 vv) and H3808 lôʼ — the same verb in the same negated Nifal, but at 100 verses the lexeme is not rare, so the link is tiered structural rather than verbal
Barnes puts the question the unit raises but does not answer: why were Saul's repeated confessions unavailing when David's was not? His answer is that “Saul only shrank from the punishment of his sin. David shrank in abhorrence from the sin itself.” ⚙ Paul draws the same distinction in 2 Corinthians 7:10 between the grief that works repentance and the grief of the world that works death, and Hebrews 12:17 describes Esau seeking the blessing with tears and finding no place for a change of mind. Both are offered here as a frame for reading Saul, not as claims that either passage has 1 Samuel 15 in view.
2 Corinthians 7:10 · Hebrews 12:17
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek ↔ Hebrew): no shared Strong's lexeme is possible between these texts, so no verbal tier can be claimed. The basis is a shared motif — remorse over consequence distinguished from repentance over sin — explicitly drawn at this verse by Barnes (citing David, Psalm 51:4) and by Cambridge (2 Samuel 12:13; Psalm 51:4). Neither commentator cites 2 Corinthians 7:10 or Hebrews 12:17; both New Testament references are ⚙ our own, offered as a frame for reading Saul and not as a claim that either passage has this chapter in view
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The oracle leaves the successor deliberately blank: לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ, “to thy associate, the good one, more than thou.” K&D is careful that “Samuel did not yet know to whom Jehovah would give it,” and Gill agrees, noting that the summons to Jesse's house comes only afterward. Geneva's margin names David; Poole reasons to the tribe of Judah from geography. ⚙ And the line does not stop at David. Pulpit draws it out explicitly: Saul “laid the foundation for the throne of David, who in so many points was the ideal of the theocratic king; and Israel in like manner prepared the way for the coming of the true Messianic King.” The kingdom taken from the man who feared the people is given to a man after God's own heart, and through him by covenant oath to the Son of David — an oath guaranteed, as Psalm 89:33 says using this chapter's own rare verb, by the God who does not deal falsely. This reading of the Davidic promise as reaching to Christ is the ancient and near-universal one, held in this apparatus by Pulpit and implied by Gill and Geneva.
1 Samuel 16:1 · Psalm 89:33 · Matthew 1:1 · Luke 1:32-33
Barnes sees the point of the Agag scene most clearly: Samuel “executed the חרם chērem 1 Samuel 15:3 which Saul had violated, and so both saved the nation from the guilt of a broken oath, and gave a final example to Saul… of uncompromising obedience to the commandments of God. There is something awful in the majesty of the prophet rising above and eclipsing that of the king.” ⚙ The structure is the one the whole Old Testament keeps repeating: the anointed king fails to do the whole will of God, and someone else must complete it or the nation stands under a broken oath. Henry's closing question at these verses is the same one from the other side — “Do we desire to do the whole will of God?” The office that finally unites the failed king and the obedient prophet in one person, and so leaves nothing for another to complete, is the reason the New Testament speaks of one who came saying “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” ⚙ We mark this as our own synthesis: the typological joining of Samuel's completed ban to Christ's completed obedience is a reading, not a citation, and no voice in this apparatus makes it in these terms.
Hebrews 10:7 · John 4:34 · Philippians 2:8
Samuel הִתְאַבֵּל over Saul — the Hitpael of ʼâbal, the verb of mourning for the dead, performed over a man still reigning. Henry sets it beside the Gospels without elaboration and the sentence lands: “Saul seems unconcerned at the token of God's displeasure which he lay under, yet Samuel mourns day and night for him. Jerusalem was carnally secure while Christ wept over it.” Ellicott fills in the human cost — Samuel had known Saul “from the days of his splendid youthful promise,” had loved him, “regarded him as his own adopted child,” and had built on him “all his hopes for the future of the Israel he loved so well.” ⚙ The pattern Henry names — a prophet weeping over the secure and unconcerned — is the same one that reaches its end on the descent of Olivet. This comparison is Henry's own, recorded verbatim in the apparatus, and belongs to the long tradition of reading Israel's mourning prophets as foreshadowing the weeping of Christ.
Luke 19:41-42 · Matthew 23:37
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
⚙ Honesty notes for this unit. Text. The Hebrew is stable here, with one significant exception: at v. 27 the Septuagint reads an active verb (“Saul tore off the lappet”) where the Masoretic Text has the Nifal וַיִּקָּרַע, “and it was torn.” Thenius proposed emending to match the LXX; K&D defends the Masoretic passive, and since the sign in v. 28 depends on the tearing being unintended, we follow K&D — but the reader should know an ancient version disagrees.
The word at v. 32. מַעֲדַנֹּת is genuinely undecided. The Septuagint read “trembling,” the Vulgate gives a double rendering (“sleek and trembling”), the Syriac omits it, and the only other canonical occurrence (Job 38:31) means “bands.” Pulpit and Barnes lean to fetters or obscurity; Benson, Poole, Gill, JFB and K&D to cheerfulness; Cambridge and Ellicott report both. BSB's “cheerfully” is a choice among these, not a translation of a clear word. Our literal leaves the Hebrew untranslated at that point on purpose.
The contradiction at vv. 11, 29 and 35. We have not resolved it and do not think this unit resolves it. The traditional distinction (anthropopathic language in vv. 11 and 35; theoprepic in v. 29) is reported here from K&D and Cambridge, and Cambridge's own verdict that it is “only a partial solution” is reported with it.
Parse anomaly. At v. 26 the pronominal suffix on עִמָּךְ is parsed second person feminine singular in a speech addressed to Saul. We have flagged this rather than silently normalised it; no voice in this apparatus comments on it.
Interlinear order. The word indices in this unit follow the Berean interlinear's display sequence, which is aligned to English word order, not to the Hebrew clause order. Our literal renderings are rebuilt from the Hebrew sequence, so the order of words in the literal does not always match the order of the note indices.
Voices. All commentary is verbatim public-domain material, quoted as contiguous spans and named. Benson's dissent at v. 24 is a genuine minority position and is marked as such. K&D at v. 25 is quoting Cornelius a Lapide, a Roman Catholic commentator, and Ellicott at v. 30 is quoting Gregory at second hand through Wordsworth; both are flagged in their editorial notes. Gill at v. 27 reports rabbinic opinions he does not himself hold.
Thread bases. Three links here (1 Samuel 24:4, Numbers 23:19, Psalm 110:4) were checked by running the Verifier on the pair directly; their computed bases are quoted in full in the badges. The Ahijah link (1 Kings 11:30-31) has no computed lexeme basis and rests on the sign-act pattern plus Gill's and Cambridge's citations — it is tiered structural accordingly. The cross-Testament link to 2 Corinthians 7:10 and Hebrews 12:17 cannot be verbal by definition and is not claimed as such.
Ethics of v. 33. This unit contains a prophet executing a captive king. Ellicott attempts a theodicy of the ban; Poole and Benson both immediately fence the passage against imitation — “these are no precedents for private persons to take the sword of justice into their hands.” ⚙ We record both the defence and the fence, and claim neither as settled.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)