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

Five Brief Philosophical Arguments for the Open View

Introduction I believe that sound philosophical arguments support the open view in which God doesn’t foreknow the future free decisions of humans. My main reasons for holding this view are biblical and theological, but since truth is one we should expect that the truths of Scripture and the truths of reason will arrive at the…

What do you think of Thomas Aquinas’ view of God?

Question: You have written (in Trinity and Process) that the relational God of the Bible is the antithesis of the immutable God of Thomas Aquinas. Could you explain this? Answer: Aquinas and much of the classical theological tradition borrowed heavily from Aristotle’s notion of God as an “unmoved mover.” God moves the world but remains…

Podcast: Is Open Theism Growing in the World?

Greg discusses the place of Open Theism in contemporary Christianity. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0149.mp3

Is There Room for Doubt in Faith?

Many Christians today assume that faith is the antithesis of doubt. In this view, a person’s faith is thought to be strong to the extent that they don’t question their beliefs or struggle with God in whom they believe. As widespread as this view is, I believe it is unbiblical and profoundly unhelpful. My experience…

How do you respond to 1 Samuel 2:25?

Eli’s sons “would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to kill them.” Compatibilists sometimes cite this text as an example of how God determines events for which humans are morally responsible. Eli’s sons were evil in not listening to their father, yet it was the…

Revelation 13:8 refers to “everyone whose names have not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life.” How does that square with open theism?

Three possibilities exist in terms of reconciling Revelation 13:8 with open theism. 1) First, the “from the foundation of the world” clause can attach to either “everyone whose names have not been written” or to “the lamb that was slain.” For example, the TNIV translates this passage “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the…