by Chris Alexion, Copyright March 02, 2008, all rights reserved. 1350 views
Saul, the first king of Israel, was People magazine's choice for "King of the Year." Well, not exactly. But he was the people's choice. He was "a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people" (9:2). Apart from his Matt-Damonesque looks, Saul apparently had spirituality and humility. He prophesied (10:10) and at first shied away from the honor of kingship (10:22).
Saul was also a valiant warrior; his rule was marked by incredible military success. First he came to the rescue of one of Israel's cities and whipped the Ammonites (ch. 11). Then he and his sturdy son Jonathan fought successfully against the Philistines (ch. 13-14). To sum up, "When Saul had taken the kingship over Israel, he fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, against the Ammonites, against Edom, against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines. Wherever he turned he routed them. And he did valiantly and struck the Amalekites and delivered Israel out of the hands of those who plundered them" (14:47-48).
So far, so good. A mighty and patriotic leader. The headquarters of modern-day Israel's intelligence service is even located on a boulevard in Tel Aviv named for King Saul. But something was wrong. Maybe it was present all along; maybe it began to grow in Saul only after he became king. Maybe it was pride; mabye it was rebellion; maybe emotional problems were involved. Whatever it was, Saul failed to do what had made Samuel great: He failed to listen to God.
Saul's dark side first surfaces in chapter 13. Saul is about to battle the Philistines and is waiting for Samuel to arrive so the sacrifice to the Lord can be offered. Saul is not a priest, and he was specifically instructed to wait for Samuel. Samuel doesn't show. Saul waits. Still Samuel doesn't come. Finally Saul offers the sacrifice himself. In a twist of irony we read, "As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came" (13:10). Saul tries to make an excuse, but as we saw in the last post, Samuel confronts him plainly with his disobedience and prophesies the loss of Saul's kingdom.
You might think Saul would learn from this experience. Yet sometime later, after his victory over the Amalekites, he disobeys God again. God had commanded, for reasons of His justice, that the nation of Amalek be completely destroyed, livestock and all. No one was to be spared. Saul, however, knows better. He takes the king, Agag, as a prisoner of war and keeps the livestock for his army. "All that was despised and worthless," however, "they devoted to destruction" (15:9). God had, of course, explicitly forbidden this, and again it falls to Samuel to rebuke the wayward king.
Even though the past two failures had determined the end of Saul's reign, the end was still a ways off. Saul continues as king, and his spiritual condition worsens. Things even start to go poorly militarily, until a young man named David appears and slays a Philistine giant named Goliath. Saul welcomes David; his son Jonathan treats David like his own brother. But a new evil springs up in Saul. Before, he was disobedient to God; now he's jealous of his fellow man. His blood boils when he hears the Jewish women singing, "Saul has struck down his thousands / and David his ten thousands" (18:7). He'd thought he was People's hottest man of the year; who is this David to take his place?
Saul's life quickly spirals out of control. A "harmful spirit from God rushed upon" him (18:10), robbing him at times of his own sanity. He attempts to kill both David (18:11, 19:10-17) and Jonathan (20:33). He still pursues David, even though David spares Saul's life twice. He dabbles in witchcraft (ch 28), a perfect complement to his rebellious spirit. Eventually Saul, the great warrior, falls on his own sword after losing both a battle and his three sons (31:4).
What do we take away from Saul's life story? What most grips us about his rule and its violent end? It seems shallow to say "Saul should have listened to God" or "Saul should have been less self-absorbed," because we know deep down that we don't listen to God, and that we're just as self-absorbed–only in "nicer" forms. These PowerPoint cliches don't cut past the surface. It's like watching Training Day and then saying, "Don't do drugs."
Maybe it would be more worthwhile to put ourselves in Saul's place and try to identify the places where our leadership choices line up with his. When was the last time we judged success by victory on the "battlefield" of dollars or stats? Where have we predicted a good leader based on appearances? Why did we throw that verbal barb at someone whose success threatened ours? Where have we cut corners, ethically, to get ahead? What "accepted," "expected," and "common" things have we done along with everyone else?
All of this self-judgment, of course, can't be separated from the Gospel of redemption. It's redemption that Saul's life, ended by his own sword on a bloody field, so sorely lacks. Saul's choices made him more and more of an enemy of God. That's us. We were God's enemies, until, as Paul reminds us, "while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10).
1 • Abigail • March 07, 2008 • 3:38 PM
How are the mighty fallen! What a promising start, what a disasterous end.
Excellent conclusion!
——-