We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

What is the significance of 1 Samuel 23:9–13?

“David heard that Saul knew that he was hiding in Keliah. Saul was seeking to kill David, so David wisely consulted the Lord as to what he should do. David said, ‘O Lord, the God of Israel, your servant has heard that Saul seeks to come to Keliah, to destroy the city on my account. And now, will Saul come down as your servant has heard? O Lord, the God of Israel, I beseech you, tell your servant.’ The Lord said, ‘He will come down.’ Then David said, ‘Will the men of Keliah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?’ The Lord said, ‘They will surrender you.’ Then David and his men…set out and left Keliah.”

This passage reveals that God’s foreknowledge is not always about what will certainly happen: it is often (if not usually) about what might happen. The Lord tells David that Saul will come to Keliah and that the people of Keliah will deliver him over. But David doesn’t consider this a declaration of an unalterable future such as if he believed that God had a sort of “crystal ball” perspective on the future. For he immediately attempts to alter what the Lord just told him would happen! He leaves Keliah and thus avoids what God foretold would happen.

Biblical authors don’t generally assume that God’s declarations about the future are unalterable. Indeed, they sometimes chastise people for drawing just this conclusion (cf. Jer. 18:12ff). If the classical understanding of God’s foreknowledge is correct, however, the future is unalterable! If God tells us what is coming in the future, it is no use to try to change it! The fact that the Word of God encourages us not to think this way suggests that the future is not exhaustively settled in reality, and thus not in the mind of God.

Some classical theologians attempt to explain verses like this by appealing to “middle knowledge.” In this view, God eternally knows not only what will certainly occur, but also what would occur under all other conceivable circumstances. Aside from the logical difficulties which attend to this view (and in my estimation there are many), there is nothing in this text which suggests God was certain what would ultimately transpire—and that it would be the opposite of what he told David would transpire (“he will come down,” “they will surrender you…”). From an Open Theist’s point of view, God knew and told David what was going to happen if the present state of affairs didn’t change. David set about to alter this decreed future by altering the present state of affairs: he left Keliah. But again, there is nothing to require us to believe that God was certain that what he told David would happen actually wouldn’t come to pass.

Category:
Tags: ,
Topics:
Verse:

Related Reading

How do you respond to Isaiah 46:9–11?

The Lord says, “I am God, and there is none other; I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying ‘My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intention.’” To distinguish himself from the dead idols Israel was…

What is the significance of Jeremiah 26:19?

“Did [Hezekiah] not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against [Israel]?” As in 2 Kings 20:1–6 and Isaiah 38:1–5, if the future is exhaustive settled, it seems God could not have been forthright when he told…

Topics:

Does your “dispositional” ontology avoid substantival categories?

Question: In Trinity and Process you argue against a “substantival” ontology and instead advocate a “relational,” “process” and/or “dispositional” ontology in which being, being-in-relation and being-in-process are one and the same. In your view, entity x is its relation to entity y (and all other relations) and is the disposition to interact with y (and…

What is the significance of Genesis 22:12 ?

Abraham passed God’s “test” (vs. 1) by being willing to sacrifice his son. The Lord says “…now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son…” If the classical understanding of foreknowledge is true, God’s statement “now I know” seems disingenuous. The meaning of God’s explanation for this knowledge — “since…

Topics:

How can people who believe the open view trust a God who doesn’t control the future and doesn’t know for sure what will happen?

It’s true that according to the open view of the future things can happen in our lives which God didn’t plan or even foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). In this view, trusting in God provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there…

Open2013

As I’m sure many of you know, the understanding of the Christian faith and the model of the Christian church is in the process of being transformed. All around the globe, and in a multitude of different ways, we are seeing new wine being poured out and old wine skins bursting apart. Many of us…