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 As a judgment of Saul’s rebellion, Yahweh had withdrawn his protection of Saul, thus allowing spirits to torment him.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

Cruciform Aikido Pt 2: God-Forsaken Judgment
So if Jesus is the supreme revelation of what God is like, as we explained in our last post, what does that tell us about the nature of God’s judgment?
As Jesus was dying on the cross he cried out, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?,” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46). This shocking cry reveals…

Podcast: Where Does Forgiveness Fit in a Cruciform Theology?
Greg offers looks at forgiveness in a realm of natural consequences. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0298.mp3

A Cruciform Magic Eye
In this post I’d like to share the story of how I came upon the thesis I’m defending in the book I’ve been working on for the last four years entitled The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: A Cruciform Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament’s Violent Divine Portraits. It’s a much longer post than usual,…

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…

A Dialogue with Derek Flood Part 2: Is ALL of the Bible Inspired?
Image by TheRevSteve via Flickr Yesterday, I offered the first part of my response to Flood’s comments regarding my review of his book. Today I’ll finish up my thoughts. Scripture and Its Interpretation Flood confesses that he is confused as to how I can claim that “in the light of Christ, we must reject violent interpretations of Scripture”…

God of Sense and Traditions of Non-Sense
As the title suggests, in his book, God’s Problem: How The Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer, Bart Ehrman argues that the Bible has nothing compelling to say about the problem of evil. Well, I just put down a beautifully written four-hundred and fifty page book that compellingly argues…