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 As a judgment of Saul’s rebellion, Yahweh had withdrawn his protection of Saul, thus allowing spirits to torment him.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

Quotes to Chew On: Conflicting Depictions of God
“This is something like the way I believe we should respond when we encounter biblical narratives that depict God doing things we can’t imagine Christ doing. For example, I can’t for a moment imagine Jesus—the one who made refusing violence and loving enemies a condition for being considered a child of God—commanding anyone to mercilessly…

Thinking Biblically?
Olga Caprotti via Compfight Micah J. Murray over at Redemption Pictures posted this reflection called Beware of Thinking Biblically. The image of a google search on the topic is worth the price of admission. Christians throw around this phrase in some really damaging ways, as Rachel Held Evans demonstrated in her recent publication of A Year…

Yahweh as the Dark Knight
I recently received an interesting analogy for The Crucifixion of the Warrior God from Aaron Reini. Thank you Aaron! In the final scene of “The Dark Knight,” Batman and Commissioner Gordon are standing over Harvey Dent, whom everyone in Gotham City looks up to as a hero, but whom the Joker had turned into a…

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…

Was the Early Church Pacifistic? A Response to Paul Copan (#11)
In Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG) I argue that Jesus and Paul instruct Christians to love and bless their enemies and to unconditionally refrain from violence (e.g. Matt 5:39-45; Rom 12:14-21). Moreover, I argue that this was the prevailing attitude of Christians prior to the fourth century when the Church aligned itself with the…

The Phinehas vs. Jesus Conundrum
I’ll be frank. This is not a blog that will be easy for some people to read. But it’s a blog I believe every follower of Jesus should read – even if you have to force yourself to press on. It’s about something we all wish was not true. It’s about the way the Bible…