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.
Did God Kill King Saul?
When we approach Scripture with the assumption that it is all God-breathed for the purpose of bearing witness to Christ, even the most trivial contradictions in Scripture can acquire theological significance. This is what I argue in Cross Vision. Here I want to illustrate this by briefly discussing the theological significance of a curious discrepancy in one of the biblical accounts of King Saul’s death.
In 1 Chronicles, we read that after Saul was gravely wounded in a battle with the Philistines, he implored his armor-bearer to kill him so he would not be captured and tortured to death by his enemies. The armor-bearer could not bring himself to do this, however, so Saul decided to take his own life (10:3-4). Interestingly enough, the author goes on to explain that Saul died because he “did not keep the word of the LORD” and did not “inquire of the LORD,” but instead “consulted a medium for guidance.” For this reason, the author concludes, “the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David …” (vss. 13-4, emphasis added). The obvious question is, how can this author claim that Saul killed himself while also claiming that the Lord killed him?
One could of course explain this conflict by proposing that this author/redactor spliced together different authoritative traditions that contained conflicting accounts of Saul’s death. Alternatively, one could account for the discrepancy by appealing to any number of exegetical considerations.
But the discrepancy acquires a much more profound significance when we reflect on it in a crucicentric way. As a judgment of Saul’s rebellion, Yahweh had withdrawn his protection of Saul, thus allowing spirits to torment him. He also had allowed Saul to sink deeper and deeper into his self-chosen sin as he consulted a medium at Endor (1 Sam 28; cf., Deut 18:9-14) and foolishly headed into battle without Yahweh’s instruction to do so and without his protection. Yet, while Yahweh was not responsible for Saul’s sinful decisions or for the self-destructive consequences of these decisions that resulted in his suicide, Yahweh nevertheless assumed responsibility for them by allowing himself to be depicted as doing what he merely allowed. In this way, the portrait of the Lord putting Saul to death can be understood as a literary crucifixion, pointing to the crucified God who takes responsibility for the sin of the world.
Image: “Death of King Saul”, 1848 by Elie Marcuse (Germany and France, 1817–1902)
Category: General
Tags: Cruciform Theology
Related Reading
Does Jesus’ Abandonment on the Cross Destroy the Trinity?
In my previous blog I argued that Jesus’ experience of God-forsakenness on the cross was genuine and that, as a matter of fact, there was a genuine abandonment of Jesus by the Father on the cross. In fact, I am convinced that a good deal of our theology hangs in the balance on our affirming…
Christus Victor Atonement and Girard’s Scapegoat Theory
Many of the major criticisms of Crucifixion of the Warrior God that have been raised since it was published four weeks ago have come from folks who advocate Rene Girard’s understanding of the atonement. A major place where these matters are being discussed is here, and you are free to join. Now, I have to…
A Dialogue with Derek Flood: Is the Bible Infallible?
I’m happy to see that Derek Flood has responded to my four part review of his book, Disarming Scripture. His response—and, I trust, this reply to his response—models how kingdom people can strongly disagree on issues without becoming acrimonious. And I am in full agreement with Derek that our shared conviction regarding the centrality of…
Can Good Theology Be Innovative?
For many in conservative Christian circles innovation in theology and biblical interpretation is viewed as suspect, if not sinful. To this I would simply respond by pointing out that the attitude that would dismiss hermeneutical or theological proposals (like those offered in The Crucifixion of the Warrior God) simply on the grounds that they include…
Reviewing the Reviews: Tom Belt (Part 1)
Tom Belt has written a four-part review of Crucifixion of the Warrior God on his blog An Open Orthodoxy. Parts 1 and 2 offer an overall fair and balanced summary of CWG, at least to the point that correcting misunderstandings would feel petty. In Part 3 Tom offers a critique of volume I, and this is what I’d like…
Caught Between Two Conflicting Truths
In my previous blog I tried to show that adopting a “Christocentric” approach to Scripture isn’t adequate, as evidenced by the fact that people adopting this approach often come to radically different conclusions. In fact, it seems to me that the “Christocentric” label is often close to meaningless inasmuch as it doesn’t meaningfully contrast with anything. If a “Christocentric”…