I reread my comment from years past 2010. The "not a man" could be better said "not of mankind" or perhaps "not of Adam." In a literary fashion we might say, he is not a man that he would not lie, but as Master Yujin points out, Jesus was a man, but his is a unique kind of man, a new kind of man. One not of Adam, a first kind of man, but a new first kind of man, a sinless one.

Glory!

"I regret [lit. "repent"] that I have made Saul king...And the LORD regretted [lit. "repented"] that he had made Saul king over Israel" (1 Samuel 15:11,35).

Does God then repent, that is, change His mind, as men do? No. Within this very chapter we read also:

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind" (1 Samuel 15:29).

What then does it mean that God "repented" of making Saul king? Does it not simply mean that God was grieved over Saul in spite of His choice of Him and in spite of knowing Saul's future disobedience? The word sometimes translated "repent" can also be understood as simply "grieved." It is as if Samuel deliberately gives us verse 29 above so that there would be no confusion between God "repenting" with man's "repenting". God does not change His mind. Removal of the kingdom from Saul was part of His plan all along. Yet, He can still express grief over it when it happens. Was not God grieved over His Son's crucifixion though He knew it would take place from the foundation of the world? In the same way, He can grieve over making Saul king though He knew from the beginning what Saul would do. 

John Piper gives a good explanation of this in his article entitled "God Does Not Repent Like a Man" (link to the article):

After Saul disobeys Samuel, God says, "I regret [= repent] that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands" (1 Samuel 15:11). Some have argued that since God "repents" of things he has done, therefore he could not have foreseen what was coming. Else why would he repent or regret, if he knew in advance the consequence of his decision?

However, this is not a compelling argument against God's foreknowledge. First of all, the argument assumes that God could not, or would not, lament over a state of affairs he himself chose to bring about. That's not true to human experience; and more importantly, God's heart is capable of complex combinations of emotions infinitely more remarkable that ours. He may well be capable of lamenting over something he chose to bring about.

Not only that, God may also be capable of looking back on the very act of bringing something about and lamenting that act in one regard, while affirming it as best in another regard. For example, if I spank my son for blatant disobedience and he runs away from home because I spanked him, I may feel some remorse over the spanking - not in the sense that I disapprove of what I did, but in the sense that I feel some sorrow that spanking was a necessary part of a wise way of dealing with this situation, and that it led to his running away. If I had it to do over again, I would still spank him. It was the right thing to do. Even knowing that one consequence would be alienation for a season, I approve the spanking, and at the same time regret the spanking. If such a combination of emotions can accompany my own decisions, it is not hard to imagine that God's infinite mind may be capable of something similar.

Now the question is: Does the Bible teach that God laments some of his decisions in the sense that I have described above (which does not imply that He is ignorant of their future consequences), or does the Bible teach that God laments some of his decisions because he did not see what was coming?

The answer is given later in 1 Samuel 15. After God says in verse 11, "I repent that I have made Saul king," Samuel says in verse 29, as if to clarify, "The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent" (KJV). The point of this verse seems to be that, even though there is a sense in which God does repent (verse 11), there is another sense in which he does not repent (verse 29). The difference would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge. God's way of "repenting" is unique to God: "God is not a man that he should repent" (the way a man repents in his ignorance of the future).

For God to say, "I feel sorrow that I made Saul king," is not the same as saying, "I would not make him king if I had it to do over." God is able to feel sorrow for an act in view of foreknown evil and pain, and yet go ahead and will to do it for wise reasons. And so later, when he looks back on the act, he can feel the sorrow for the act that was leading to the sad conditions, such as Saul's disobedience.

Hence we have our precious fighter verse in Numbers 23:19 - "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" I say it is precious, because here God's commitment to his promises hangs on his not repenting like a man. In other words, God's promises are not in jeopardy, because God can foresee all circumstances, he knows that nothing will occur that will cause him to take them back.

Then Saul said to Samuel, “I did obey the voice of the Lord, and went on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and have brought back Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took some of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the choicest of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God at Gilgal” (1 Samuel 15:20-21).

Saul tried to defend his disobedience by appealing to his partial obedience and the people's good intentions. Even though he did not kill the Amalekite king, he did completely destroy all the other people. Even though the people took the choicest spoils from the battle, they planned to sacrifice some of these to the LORD. 

Samuel said "Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of divination,
And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He has also rejected you from being king" (1 Samuel 15:22-23).

Samuel makes clear that partial obedience is disobedience and that good intentions cannot mask the sin of disobedience. God had commanded complete destruction, even specifying the extent:

I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

Every man, woman, child, infant, ox, sheep, camel and donkey were to be killed. None were to be spared, and certainly not the king, who was guiltiest of all in the assult on Israel during his exodus from Egypt. 

In the New Testament, the religious leaders established an extensive set of traditions to accompany the Law of Moses in order to, presumably, help the people obey the Law. In doing so, they not only gave themselves unauthorized authority to make such laws, they also caused the people to ignore the true Law of God in preference for the traditions established by men. Observing this, Jesus declared,

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions...You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down (Mark 7:8, 13).

Friends, we have this going on today in our churches. Leaders push believers to "tithe" and "give sacrificially" to increase the affluence of their local churches, even when these believers are indebted to others or have families in need. And what is the reason for giving to the church? These leaders say that this money is being given for "God's work" and so God will multiply His blessings back to them. Now, listen to how closely this kind of manipulation parallels the very tradition Jesus rebuked:

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that” (Mark 7:9-13).

Friends, aside from the fact the there is no command for post-cross believers to tithe, there is certainly no place for elevating the tithe over the command to honor one's parents or to clear up one's debts.

Consider also some of the atrocious handling of Scripture by those associated with IHOP and the Kansas City Prophets. They try to justify their failures in prophecy and their extra-biblical practices by reading the Scriptures allegorically and symbolically or "reading between the lines". Thus, they give credance to the misguided but often-made dictum, "The Bible is subject to every man's interpretation". They ignore the fundamental rule to properly understanding the Bible, namely, that while there can be many applications of any given truth of Scripture, there is only one right interpretation. Rather than seeing the Bible as the Word of God, expressing the will of God, they treat it like modern art, where every person, and particularly the self-proclaimed "prophet", can decide what it means to them.

Friends, even if there are good intentions, these good intentions cannot mask the sin of disobedience. Even if the disortion of biblical truth is combined with adherance to some orthodox Christian teaching, this does not, thereby, justify these distortions. Every cult  mixes in truth with falsehood. Let us all be wise and discerning, holding fast to the inerrant and infallible Word of God over against the traditions and extrabiblical practices of men.

I am sure that I have read the account of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 over a dozen times, but it never fails to stir within me a deeper faith, a greater courage, and a readiness to do battle in the Name of the LORD. I love it! 

But I thought I'd share about something else today. On the flip side of David's faith we see Saul's lack of faith. While his actions and excuses are enough to demonstrate his unfaith, I also noticed this in how he addressed the LORD to Samuel:

Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; but the rest we have utterly destroyed" (1 Samuel 15:15).

But the people tooksome of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the choicest of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God at Gilgal" (1 Samuel 15:21).

Then he said, “I have sinned; but please honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and go back with me, that I may worship the Lord your God" (1 Samuel 15:30).

Contrast this with the manner in which David frequently addressed the LORD in the Psalms. Here are just a few examples:

Arise, Lord! Deliver me, my God! (Psalm 3:7).

Answer me when I call to you, my righteous God (Psalm 4:1).

Hear my cry for help, my King and my God, for to you I pray (Psalm 5:2).

Lord my God, I take refuge in you (Psalm 7:1).

The very pronouns used by Saul ("your God") and David ("my God") may suggest the nature of their relationship to the LORD. Saul consistently refered to the LORD as Samuel's God. It is possible that, apart from some ritual obligation, Saul really had no faith-based relationship with God. This surely explains the three times Samuel declared Saul had rejected the word of the LORD (cf. 1 Samuel 15:22,23,26). In contrast, David, recognized as a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22), did have a faith-based relationship with God.

As a further example of this, notice how Saul confessed his sin when confronted versus how David confessed his sin. 

Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and listened to their voice. Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me, that I may worship the Lord... Then he said, “I have sinned; but please honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and go back with me, that I may worship the Lord your God" (1 Samuel 15:24-25,30).

Saul asked Samuel to pardon his sin, as if the sin was against Samuel. He was more concerned with receiving Samuel's approval than he was with receiving the LORD's approval. Contrast this with how David responded when the prophet Nathan confronted him about his sin:

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord" (2 Samuel 12:13).

The accounts of King Saul and David in these chapters provide a study in contrast. Saul gave the appearance of devotion to the LORD but David was truly devoted to the LORD.

While Saul attacked the Amalekites and destroyed them, he kept the king alive and saved the best of the animals. What is more, he made a monument to himself in Carmel. Yet, when confronted by Samuel, he declared that he had obeyed God. He excused himself with respect to the enemy king, saying, he had at least killed all the others. He excused himself with respect to the best of the animals, saying that he planned to sacrifice some of them to the LORD. When push came to shove, Saul finally admitted his sin, which was motivated by his fear of the people (1 Samuel 15:24). But even in his confession, it becomes clear that he was again more concerned with his honor than the LORD's:

Then Saul pleaded again, “I know I have sinned. But please, at least honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel by coming back with me so that I may worship the Lord your God" (1 Samuel 15:30).

Contrast all this with the account of David. When Samuel goes to the house of Jesse to anoint one of his sons as the next king, he thinks that Eliab, the oldest would be the one. He was not the one, nor was any of the next six of Jesse's sons. Instead, Jesse's youngest son, David, who was not even invited to the selection, was the one. God said to Samuel:

Don’t judge by his appearance or height, for I have rejected him. The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). 

Eliab looked worthy in appearance, even as Saul looked worthy on the outside, but God was more interested in the heart. As Samuel had earlier said to Saul, "the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him ruler of his people, because you have not kept the LORD’s command" (1 Samuel 13:14). David would be devoted to the LORD from the heart.

Again, when we later find David faithfully doing errands for his family, and he happened upon the battle lines, where the Philistine giant, Goliath, was taunting Israel. David, so moved by this insult to God, volunteered to fight against the giant. His response to Goliath, before he killed him, has for centuries become the battle cry of countless underdogs throughout history:

David replied to the Philistine, “You come to me with sword, spear, and javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies—the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. Today the Lord will conquer you, and I will kill you and cut off your head. And then I will give the dead bodies of your men to the birds and wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel!  And everyone assembled here will know that the Lord rescues his people, but not with sword and spear. This is the Lord’s battle, and he will give you to us!” (1 Samuel 17:45-47).

But the important aspect of this bold declaration by David is how the focus was not on his ability but rather on God's power. David confronted Goliath in God's Name. Goliath was not fighting against David but God, and it would be God who would conquer Goliath and the Philistine armies. And it was God who would use David to rescue the people of Israel. David honored the LORD.

Friends, are we devoted to the LORD from the heart? Or do we serve Him only when it is expedient? Are we truly interested in honoring God or are we more interested in our own acclaim? Do we sometimes disobey God because we are afraid of what other people might think or say? Do we fear people more than God? Do we remember to acknowledge the LORD in every battle and in every victory, or are we building monuments to ourselves in our minds and the for the pages of history?

soli deo gloria! To God alone be all the glory!

In verse 15:25 Saul pleads with Samuel to "forgive my sin".  Samuel doesn't reply to this plea.  Was it customary back then for prophets to forgive sin (in the name of the Lord)?  Sounds sort of like the Catholic church where priests act as mediaries.  Or was this just another example of Saul's lack of understanding of God's Word?

Yujin responds... You are right that Saul did not understand God's Word. It was not Samuel that needed to forgive Saul but rather the LORD. He was appealing to the wrong source for forgiveness. And it appears that he was not forgiven. Now, contrast this with David in the instance with his sin against Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite:

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die (2 Samuel 12:13).

David recognized that his sin was ultimately against God. He said it even more plainly in the psalm associated with this incident:

Against you, you only, have I sinned
    and done what is evil in your sight (Psalm 51:4).

God forgave David's sin.

Caught some things I have not before: Samuel tells saul that the kingdom has been given to one who is not human, who doesn't lie and doesn't change his mind. Second, david is recognized as a good musician AND a great warrior! He was known already to be a fighter.

Yujin comments...Everything sounds good here except the part about being "not human." Both David, who is the immediate recipient of the kingdom, and Christ, who is the ultimate recipient of the kingdom, are human. Now, Jesus is more than human. He is the God-man, but this does not take away from him being completely human as well.