“Was Saul’s failure as king planned all along?”
The following are extracts from a conversation I’m having with a new friend (and fellow-undergraduate) on King Saul’s monarchy, God’s (apparent) repentance in selecting him and other themes from 1 Samuel relating to divine foreknowledge. My friend’s central thesis is that God orchestrated Saul’s failed kingship as a specific judgment upon Israel for distrusting Him by asking for a king, an idea also supported by the prophecies about the Messiah coming from the tribe of Judah.
She begins:
In Chapter 8, Israel begs the Lord for a king. The way in which the
Lord responds to their request in vs.7-9 is somewhat telling of His displeasure
with them:
"It is not you [Samuel] they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Samuel then goes on to outline (in vs.14-19) how the king
will surely reign over them, but the people "refused to listen to
Samuel" (v. 19a) and the Lord answered, "Listen to them and give them
a king."
Notice here the manner in which the Lord is TURNING THE
ISRAELITES OVER to their sin of disobedience.
This is strikingly parallel to Romans 1 where God is turning the world
over to its sins. Here we can see one key point: The Lord knew how the
future king would rule over Israel--He even warns them about it--but He gives
the Israelites exactly what they ask for in Saul.
Although we certainly share the same initial premise that God was displeased
and hurt by the people's request for a king, I have a different view of what
follows from this (and, of course, the implications of this on God's
'foreknowledge' of Saul's failure).
1Sam 8:11-18 is, in my reading, not so much a warning about Saul as king but
about the effects on the people of Israel of monarchy in general. Note
the new
socio-economic structures and culture being glimpsed, all as a result of a
monarch leading the nation (as opposed to a theocracy and general governance by
prophets). The creation of a monarchy implies the RUNNING of one and this
is what Samuel is warning them of.
Israel's sons will (vs.11-12) be expected to join the army and be
segregated according to rank-and-file.
Large-scale farming/agriculture and, of course, arms manufacturing will
be required to sustain a military kingdom. The women will gradually be
drawn into the cosmetics and the food industry (vs.13). There will also
be income and property tax (vs.14-17).
In short, a whole new culture will develop, bringing along with it new
problems. It's a forewarning of what happens when new government cum
militaristic institutions and structures set in (none of which are restricted
to merely the reign of Saul).
Therefore, I cannot agree that this supports the contention that God knew for
sure that Saul would fail as king. He knew for sure that a monarchy will
bring changes in society and possibly more oppression/trouble - a human king
means a human king-DOM and all the administration and governance which that
requires - but I cannot see anything specifically related to Saul himself. Even less can I see God's warnings as a
BASIS for the allusion to Rom 1 and thereby as pointing to Saul's appointment
as an act of judgment.
Furthermore, the following texts - displaying the vast
amount of contingency and 'it-depends' in the way God dealt with the people and
Saul – suggests that your thesis is unlikely to be correct:
·
1Sam 12:14, "...IF both you and the kings who
reigns over you follow the Lord your God - good! But if you do not obey
the Lord, and if you rebel against his commands, his hand will be against you,
as it was against your fathers."
·
1Sam 13:13, "You have not kept the command the
Lord your God gave you; IF you had, he WOULD HAVE established your kingdom
over Israel for all time. But NOW your kingdom will not endure; the
Lord has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his
people, BECAUSE you have not kept the Lord's command."
·
1Sam 15:23, "BECAUSE you have rejected the word
of the Lord, he has rejected you as king."
Based on the above texts, I would prefer to conclude that
even though God was upset with Israel, He nevertheless worked with the best
options at hand. His selection of Saul was a sad response to Israel
containing, for sure, overtones of judgment and warning but nevertheless one He
hoped would work out. 1Sam 12:20-25, among others, would seem
disingenuous of God if it was already pre-known (let alone pre-DECIDED!) that
Saul would mess up big time.
Also, the numerous references to God's ANOINTING Saul and the Spirit coming
over him (chapt 9-10) would put even more proof-burdens on the idea that God
MEANT to have Saul fail. (I surely need to read up more about 'anointing'
but all examples of this I know of are those in which God at least intends
success from the beginning - God doesn't 'officially' start a business with an
opening ceremony knowing, much less intending, that it make a loss).
As I see it therefore, 1Sam 8:7-9 seems to only confirm God's displeasure with
Israel, NOT His specific judgment through the appointment of Saul NOR His
certain future knowledge (at least not about Saul).
You also wrote:
Saul was NEVER viewed by God or by Samuel as a possible good king...The
reign of Saul was NEVER blessed by God or intended to be of any use to Him -
except to teach His people a lesson...In fact, it is NEVER stated in Chapters
8-14 that God expected Saul to be a good king at all.
I'm afraid, on the basis of 1Sam 13:13 (quoted above), I cannot concur.
We need to give 'equal weight' to texts like those in our evaluation of the
data. The bottom line here is: Do you believe God genuinely
intended to 'establish Saul's kingdom over Israel for all time'? If no,
why not, exegetically speaking? Can
this text be a primary factor in our evaluation of God’s
intentions/foreknowledge in the passage?
Also, in 1Sam 16:1 God asks Samuel, "How long will you mourn for Saul,
since I have rejected him as king over Israel?" which makes no sense if
God has rejected him from the start. What integrity is there to say that
one rejects someone if one has NEVER ACCEPTED him and has PLANNED his failure
all along? Whatever else, it's obvious Samuel himself didn't see the
destiny of Saul's monarchy as failed from the beginning (the whole of chapter
15 makes this seem implausible).
Notice how Saul is described in Chapter 9,
"There was a Benjamite, a man of standing, whose name was Kish son of Abiel...He had a son named Saul, an impressive young man without equal among the Israelites--a head taller than any of the others." Saul is not described as good or righteous or pure or anything relating to his moral character and standing before God, but merely as "a head taller than any of the others”(1Sam 9:1-2)
Now, this is what Israel asked for isn't it?
"We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."(1Sam 8:19-20)
Saul was taller, and most likely brawnier and stronger,
than most men of the time. His role as king, then, was defined from the
start by his appearance and militaristic qualities. God says in 9:16 only
that, "he will deliver my people from the hand of the Philistines".
Again, I'm not sure I can see a problem with the open view in this case.
The following outlines my view of ‘what happened’:
· The Israelites wanted a 'warrior-king'.
· God was upset and warned them that kings (not least the warrior-type) come with problems of their own (8:9-18).
· The Israelites throw a fit, something spurred on by the Philistine threat.
· God sadly concurs and looks for a king for them.
·
Saul, being at least physically like a warrior, was
chosen IN THE HOPE that he would be more than simply a 'head above others'.
In a word, I see no overwhelming need to postulate that God deliberately chose Saul to fail in order to judge Israel (in spite of the lack of pious references for him). Not only that, the repentance of God (in 15:11 and 29) would then make perfect sense without needing explaining away.
(My friend continues with an argument from Messianic prophecy):
The coming Messiah was prophesied to come through the
tribe of JUDAH, but Saul was from the tribe of BENJAMIN. The Lord knew of
His plan of redemption (open theists can at least agree to this) and what
descendents of people the Christ would come out of. Benjamin was NOT that
tribe and therefore it cannot be said that Saul was expected to serve God
well.
The Lord gave Israel what they wanted, not what He
wanted. This is also strikingly apparent as the Lord directs Samuel to
anoint the "rightful" king David in Chapter 16 v. 7, with these words
to Samuel concerning His choice, "Do not consider his appearance or his
height...Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the
heart."
This is a good point. The area of prophecy is certainly one open theists
need to look at more carefully.
In this case, however, it looks like a double-edged sword
for the traditional view. Because if we
consider the fact that God NEVER intended for Israel to have a monarchy (1Sam
8:7-9), we cannot then conclude that He MUST have planned that the tribe of
Judah be king. If we agree that God was so displeased that Israel asked
for a king, do we have the right to say that God foreordained all along for
Judah's tribe to take the throne (and use this as a premise)? We can't
have our cake and eat it too.
The potent question here is: Could there have been ANOTHER way that the Christ could hail
from the tribe of Judah WITHOUT the presence of a monarchy in Israel? Was that possible?
Gen 49:10 (where the prophecy was first made) speaks more, as I see it, about a Messianic rule than about the Messiah descending from a king of Israel. Either way, it's doubtful that the verse was understood as a code for the future 'rightful' king because it would be SO EASY for this to have been an issue in 1Sam! There were many prophets in Israel at the time in addition to Samuel (see 1Sam 10:5) who could instantly highlight this; that it was not argues strongly that perhaps prophecy can be fulfilled (and understood) in many different ways than we moderns imagine.
The argument from the prophecy of the Messiah thus, though
worth looking at, seems not to be as strong as it initially looked.
In conclusion, I think your view would create too many problems for the
integrity of God, His words and His anointing, not to mention Samuel
himself. Most importantly, it's difficult to see how you derived your
understanding from a holistic and inductive reading of the passages; the texts
showing contingency and 'openness' have not, as I see it, been given a fair
hearing.
I look forward to your response.
Blessings,
Alwyn