Samuel vs. Saul

During the conflict with the Philistines (ch. 13), Samuel criticized Saul for disobeying him. Saul didn’t wait for Samuel, and instead offered a sacrifice by himself. The second quarrel between Samuel and Saul followed Saul’s failure to carry out a total ban against Amalek. Saul spared King Agag and the best of the livestock. Was Saul at fault? Saul did wait for seven days for Samuel, and the sacrifice he offered was essentially permissible for him. He did not destroy the Amalekites and their beasts because he wanted to give more honor to God and show Agag as an example of what God does to his enemies. Through sharing with the people the spoils of war, Saul wanted to compensate his people for their services and to ensure their loyalty. This act was permissible according to the Book of Numbers (31:27). In contrast to a similar situation, David is praised for setting a statue that divides the spoils of war (1Sam. 30:24). So why is Saul described in an unflattering way? Was Samuel only delivering God’s judgment on Saul, or was there perhaps a personal agenda behind his condemnation? We will demonstrate that the clashes between Samuel and Saul were the first between a prophet and a king. This started the feuds between the old guard and the new order. The emergence of human kingship precipitated a decline in priestly influence. It was a direct threat to Samuel’s authority and status since Samuel tried to establish his own dynasty.