1 Samuel 15
Leaders Prep Section
Watch this video, read these notes, and send the pre-written email (below) to your group 2-3 days before you meet.
Notes
Saul has fought hard, acted bravely, and sacrificed much for God and Israel; but it was not enough. Saul executed leadership better than any of us – better than anyone who ever wrote a book or gave an interview on leadership, and he’s still being kicked out. Now we’re going to ask, why.
Group Guide Starts Here
Context of scripture
Saul is fighting for his nation and, more personally, his men even after God said Saul would be replaced. As a man and a leader, Saul is better than the bold warrior pop-icons we celebrate today. He is at an age and stage where, if he were alive now, he could write books and talk on podcasts. Instead, he won’t leave the fight.
There is something very admirable about Saul who will not leave his post as king. After all, he could just cash in his position, and retire.
Read 1 Samuel 15: 1-9
The Amalekites are Israel’s oldest and most intense enemy. This goes beyond what Americans relate to because there is no equivalent. The US moves from enemy to ally where possible and profitable as they did with Brittan, Germany, and Japan. But the Amalekites are the sworn enemies of Israel for life. The reasons are pure hate. Amalek is the grandson of Esau, son of Isaac. Isaac had two sons – Esau the older, Jacob the younger. Esau was entitled to receive the inheritance, but Jacob betrayed Esau and stole his birthright. As a result, Israel was ultimately formed under Jacob’s line. In fact, God renamed Jacob to Israel; before Israel was a nation, it was a man. Now Amalek, Esau’s grandson and sworn enemy of Jacob is opposed to Israel, their God…everything. There are numerous Biblical stories of Amalek’s war with Israel over time. Even now, the concept of Amalek has almost mythical status in Israel as the very concept of evil, kind of like the way we might call someone who is being evil, “Hitler.”
According to the Midrash – a biblical interpretation method used by ancient Jews – the Amalekites were sorcerers who could transform themselves into animals to avoid capture. This is why the Israelis were commanded to kill all of the animals.1
The “Star of David” Holocaust memorial at The Hague has a plaque that says: “Remember what Amalek has done to you…do not forget.”2
Its important to note that Saul and every other man in Israel would have been acutely aware of the historic war with the Amalekites and felt much, much more intense hatred than any of us would have felt after Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
Saul is leading a force of raw masculine aggression. Today, leaders lead through marketing, speeches, and strategic story lines. Back then, leaders led by picking up a sword and saying, “let’s kill the bastards.”
What did the more aggressive leaders in history have that today’s society could benefit from? Would you want some of that old style of leadership to return?
Read 1 Samuel 15: 10-23
Saul disobeyed a precise instruction about waiting for Samuel to do the sacrificing, but he intended to offer them as sacrifices. He also followed a principle valued by many men…when in doubt – especially when danger is lurking – it’s the leader’s job to act. However, according to Samuel, Saul should have submitted to obedience, no matter the dire situation at hand.
Samuel was late, and Saul couldn’t know when he would show up. Also, Israel’s enemy was right there. Should Saul be held responsible for disobedience? Or should he be credited for taking charge?
Let’s turn this around for a moment. Imagine if a contemporary masculine icon preached the concept of “obedience first.” In other words, imagine he simultaneously said, “be strong and act like and man…but first…you need to obey.
How do you think today’s society would respond to this definition of masculine leadership? Would other men understand this or or tear this idea to pieces?
Who are the male leadership icons you respect and where do you think the land on the idea of obedience?
Read 1 Samuel 15: 24-34
It can be hard to combine the idea of obedience and masculine aggression. If you were influencing a younger man and wanted him to embrace this idea of “obedience first,” how would you combine the idea of being a man with being obedient?