Difficult occurance in Bible

[blah1234]

1 samuel 15

yes, this one. God ordered the genocide of the Amalekites. In examining 1 samuel 15:9

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.

Were the women and children spared? Could they have been part of 'all that was good?' Later on Samuel kills Agag, but there is no mention of anyone else being killed after Saul's attack.

God repented of his decision to annoint Saul as king; why? Why would God do something he would regret, could it have been a part of the plan?

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

 

[singpeace]

1 samuel 15

yes, this one. God ordered the genocide of the Amalekites. In examining 1 samuel 15:9

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.

Were the women and children spared? Could they have been part of 'all that was good?' Later on Samuel kills Agag, but there is no mention of anyone else being killed after Saul's attack.

God repented of his decision to annoint Saul as king; why? Why would God do something he would regret, could it have been a part of the plan?

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

For God to say, "I feel sorrow that I made Saul king," is not the same as saying, "I would not make him king if I had it to do over." God is able to feel sorrow for an act in view of foreknown evil and pain, and yet go ahead and will do it for wise reasons. And so later, when he looks back on the act, he can feel the sorrow for the act that was leading to the sad conditions, such as Saul's disobedience.

Hence we have our precious fighter verse in Numbers 23:19 - "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" I say it is precious, because here God's commitment to his promises hangs on his not repenting like a man. In other words, God's promises are not in jeopardy, because God can foresee all circumstances, he knows that nothing will occur that will cause him to take them back.

God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge. God's way of "repenting" is unique to God: "God is not a man that he should repent" (the way a man repents in his ignorance of the future).

 

[Bible2]

canadianicon25 said in post 1:

God ordered the genocide of the Amalekites.

Regarding 1 Samuel 15:3, note that even babies are sinful (Psalms 58:3, Psalms 51:5, Romans 3:10), because of original sin (Romans 5:19a). And as the Creator of all babies, God has the right to decide what to do with them, even before they're born (Romans 9:11-24). Also, in Deuteronomy 5:17, "kill" meant murder (Matthew 19:18), not capital punishment (Deuteronomy 17:5-7, Romans 13:4).

Also, 1 Samuel 15:3 could be employed in our future by the Antichrist to utterly revile YHWH as being an evil god (cf. Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36). And the Antichrist could do this while still claiming to be a "Christian", and while still claiming to hold "Jesus" in high regard.

Indeed, it's important for Christians to realize that during the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 13:4-18), even though the world will worship both Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) (Revelation 13:4-8, Revelation 12:9), this won't require that the Antichrist's one-world religion will say that Jesus is evil, or will turn the world against Jesus. For almost the entire world reveres Jesus, at least as being a good man. The Antichrist could confirm this basic world belief, but simply (in his words) "clarify" that while Jesus is indeed a good man, Jesus himself isn't the Christ or the Son of God (1 John 2:22). No doubt the Antichrist will also deny that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, as this, just as believing that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God (John 20:31, John 3:36), is one of the core beliefs of the gospel by which people become saved (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

So what the Antichrist could do is keep the idea of a good Jesus, but strip it of everything by which Jesus saves people from hell. And this wouldn't require that the Antichrist deny Jesus' 2nd coming. Indeed, the Antichrist and his False Prophet (Revelation 19:20) could even try to employ to their own ends the Biblical prophecy of Jesus' 2nd coming, as well as the Muslim prophecy which says that the miracle-working prophet Jesus will return bodily from heaven in the last days to bring the whole earth into the worship of the true God. For the False Prophet could claim that he is Jesus, returned to bring the whole earth into the worship of the true God. And he could perform amazing miracles (Revelation 13:13) as purported proof of his claim (cf. John 3:2). This is one reason why it's so important to know when and how the real Jesus' 2nd coming will happen (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21).

Once the False Prophet by his amazing miracles has brought the world under his spell (Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20), including many Muslims and Christians who may not care much for scriptural dogma, but could go wild over his signs and wonders, he could begin to (in his words) "restore to the world the real message which was spoken by me (Jesus) at my first coming, and by the great prophet Mohammed, but which message became corrupted by power-hungry men when they copied and changed the early manuscripts of the Bible and the Koran". He could then gradually initiate the world into the Antichrist's Gnostic Luciferianism (1 John 4:3, Revelation 13:4-6), a religion which could have existed since ancient times in some "mystery" cults, and which still exists today in the highest degree of initiation of a worldwide secret society. The False Prophet could present his miraculously calling fire down from heaven (Revelation 13:13) as purported proof that Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and the Antichrist are the true God (Revelation 13:4-8, Revelation 12:9), in an inversion of how back in Old Testament times, Elijah miraculously called fire down from heaven to prove that YHWH is the true God (1 Kings 18:37-39).

The person whom the Antichrist will revile is YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36), whom many people mistakenly think of as being (in their words) "the God of only the Old Testament, that cruel and hateful God who ordered people to commit genocide and kill babies (1 Samuel 15:3), while Jesus came and preached love for everyone (Matthew 5:44)". The truth is that Jesus confirmed that the God of the Old Testament, YHWH (Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18), is the same as the God of the New Testament (Mark 12:29-31), and that the Old Testament is true (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44-48). Jesus died for our sins in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy from YHWH (Isaiah 53; 1 Peter 2:24). And he rose from the dead in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy from YHWH (e.g. Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:31). Jesus died to establish the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28), which YHWH had foretold in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 31:31-34). And Jesus died to bring about the defeat of Satan (Hebrews 2:14), which YHWH had foretold from even the first book of the Old Testament (Genesis 3:15).

Nonetheless, building on many people's misconceptions of YHWH as being (in their words) "the cruel God of the Old Testament", no doubt one of the Antichrist's chief blasphemies against YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36) will be that YHWH is an evil god. This is one of the ancient blasphemies of Gnosticism, another being the antichrist lie that Christ isn't in the flesh (2 John 1:7). The world will be deceived into completely rejecting YHWH and worshipping Satan and the Antichrist instead (Revelation 13:4-8, Revelation 12:9). Satan could be worshipped not as "Satan", which most everyone sees as a bad name (it means "Adversary"), but as "Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12), which means "the morning star". The Antichrist could lie and say that it's YHWH who is the true "Satan", the true "Adversary" of mankind.

Because the Antichrist and his False Prophet (possibly masquerading as Jesus) will deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22), and will deny that Christ is in the flesh (1 John 4:3), and because they will bring the world into the worship of Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) instead (Revelation 13:4, Revelation 12:9), they could lie and say that (the non-mortal flesh) Lucifer is the Christ, that the new name of Christ (Revelation 3:12c) is "Lucifer Christ". For just as "Lucifer" means "the morning star", so Christ is the morning star (Revelation 22:16b). Also, Christ identified himself with the serpent (John 3:14), and Lucifer is the serpent (Revelation 12:9). Also, Christ said "Ye are gods" (John 10:34), and it was the serpent who said "ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5).

The truth is that Lucifer fell from his office of morning star (Isaiah 14:12) and became Satan (cf. Luke 10:18). Jesus Christ has taken over the office of morning star (Revelation 22:16). And Jesus Christ identified himself with only the brass serpent on the pole in Numbers 21:8-9 (John 3:14), which typified Jesus Christ's crucifixion for our sins (John 19:16, Matthew 26:28). And in John 10:34, Jesus Christ (John 20:31) was quoting YHWH in Psalms 82:6-7, which shows that even though humans have knowledge of good and evil as gods do (Genesis 3:22), they will still die like humans (Psalms 82:7), contradicting the serpent's lie (Genesis 3:4). Nonetheless, the Antichrist could falsely say that Lucifer is the Christ and the true and beneficent God of mankind, and that the False Prophet is the miracle-working prophet Jesus (cf. John 3:2, Acts 3:22-24), returned to point the world to the true Christ/God. The Antichrist could falsely say that he (the Antichrist) is the human/divine "Son" of Lucifer, who must be worshipped as God along with Lucifer (Revelation 13:4,8). This would be similar to how Biblical Christians now rightly worship the human/divine Jesus Christ (John 1:1,14) as God (the Son) along with God the Father (John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8).

Near the end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6-18 and Matthew 24, unclean spirits like frogs will come out of the mouths of Lucifer, the Antichrist, and the False Prophet (Revelation 16:13). And these unclean spirits like frogs will go forth and perform amazing miracles to convince the unsaved world's armies to gather together at Armageddon (Har Megiddo: Mount Megiddo in northern Israel) (Revelation 16:16) in an attempt to fight and defeat YHWH himself (Revelation 16:14, Revelation 19:19). After gathering together at Armageddon, the armies will travel south and pillage Jerusalem, right before the real Jesus (who is YHWH: John 10:30) returns from heaven and defeats them completely (Zechariah 14:2-21, Revelation 19:20 to 20:3).

canadianicon25 said in post 1:

God repented of his decision to annoint Saul as king; why? Why would God do something he would regret, could it have been a part of the plan?

Regarding 1 Samuel 15:35, God "repenting" from something, in the original Hebrew, doesn't mean that he'd done something wrong (because he can't do anything wrong: e.g. Psalms 145:17), but simply means that he "sighed" over something, in the sense of feeling grief over something (cf. Genesis 6:6).

Also, the fact that God knows everything that's going to happen (Isaiah 46:10, Revelation 1:1, Acts 2:23) doesn't mean that he can't feel grief when people wrongly employ their free will to commit sin (James 1:13-14), such as in Genesis 6:5-6. An analogy of how God can know something will happen but still feel grief when it happens would be a mother being told by a doctor that her infant son has only a few days to live. The mother could fully believe the doctor and so be fully expecting the death of her son in only a few days, and yet she could still feel grief when her son dies.

 

[Harry3142]

canadianicon25-

"Harsh times make for harsh decisions."

That is a saying which applied to those who lived in the Middle East during this era. When an army attacked a city, that army destroyed all that was in the city, and spared nothing. This is how wars were fought in that time period.

A few years ago archeologists found an ancient city, dated to circa 6500 BC, in what is now northern Syria. When they started uncovering it they found the remains of its citizenry still lying in the streets where they had fallen. The army which attacked and destroyed that city had simply left the bodies where they were slain, taken what they considered to be valuable, and then buried the entire city.

And why had they done that rather than taking those people as slaves? Personally, I suspect that the cities which were destroyed were rampant with diseases, especially STD's, for which there was no treatment at that time. We want to think of the spread of STD's as relatively modern, having begun only about 500 years ago. But scientists and anthropologists are now suspecting that STD's were a serious threat to societies during, and even before, the time of the patriarchs.

That's why Leviticus devoted so many of its laws to the limiting of sexual activity. In all likelihood the author of Leviticus knew of societies which had been decimated by these diseases to the point at which they became easy prey for other societies around them, and his knowledge included exactly how they had contracted the diseases which had led to their destruction. He also knew that those societies which suffered from the diseases were seen as dangerous to other societies around them if permitted to live. He didn't know the particulars concerning bacteria, but he knew enough to realize that unless those societies were destroyed, whatever was afflicting them would eventually afflict other societies as they came in contact with their citizenry.

Hence the ordering of the total destruction of their citizenry, and even their livestock. Since they knew the STD's to be horrific, they knew that they were spread through sexual contact, but they didn't know whether the children of these infected people, or even their animals, might also be carriers of these diseases, they found it necessary to kill everyone in order to 'seal in' the diseases which had so weakened the society that they had just conquered.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know if that's the case in every case, although it does seem to have something to do with the situation of the plague of Peor. There certainly seems to be a definite indication there of a deadly STD.

The fact that scripture makes it pretty clear with regard to Peor suggests to me that it was not the general case. For instance, there was no problem with rescuing Rahab and eventually integrating her and her family into Israel, even though Jericho was under the same order to destroy all.

canadianicon25-

"Harsh times make for harsh decisions."

That is a saying which applied to those who lived in the Middle East during this era. When an army attacked a city, that army destroyed all that was in the city, and spared nothing. This is how wars were fought in that time period.

A few years ago archeologists found an ancient city, dated to circa 6500 BC, in what is now northern Syria. When they started uncovering it they found the remains of its citizenry still lying in the streets where they had fallen. The army which attacked and destroyed that city had simply left the bodies where they were slain, taken what they considered to be valuable, and then buried the entire city.

And why had they done that rather than taking those people as slaves? Personally, I suspect that the cities which were destroyed were rampant with diseases, especially STD's, for which there was no treatment at that time. We want to think of the spread of STD's as relatively modern, having begun only about 500 years ago. But scientists and anthropologists are now suspecting that STD's were a serious threat to societies during, and even before, the time of the patriarchs.

That's why Leviticus devoted so many of its laws to the limiting of sexual activity. In all likelihood the author of Leviticus knew of societies which had been decimated by these diseases to the point at which they became easy prey for other societies around them, and his knowledge included exactly how they had contracted the diseases which had led to their destruction. He also knew that those societies which suffered from the diseases were seen as dangerous to other societies around them if permitted to live. He didn't know the particulars concerning bacteria, but he knew enough to realize that unless those societies were destroyed, whatever was afflicting them would eventually afflict other societies as they came in contact with their citizenry.

Hence the ordering of the total destruction of their citizenry, and even their livestock. Since they knew the STD's to be horrific, they knew that they were spread through sexual contact, but they didn't know whether the children of these infected people, or even their animals, might also be carriers of these diseases, they found it necessary to kill everyone in order to 'seal in' the diseases which had so weakened the society that they had just conquered.

 

[RDKirk]

You've raised two different issues here.

1 samuel 15

yes, this one. God ordered the genocide of the Amalekites. In examining 1 samuel 15:9

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.

Were the women and children spared? Could they have been part of 'all that was good?' Later on Samuel kills Agag, but there is no mention of anyone else being killed after Saul's attack.

The issue of the Amalekites is interesting in that scripture indicates an intense enmiity of God against Amalek that had existed for many generations.

That's something that calls for your greater study--it did not start with Saul's attack. The issue is a much larger principle of God versus evil that has applications for us today...which is why it's in scripture.

God repented of his decision to annoint Saul as king; why? Why would God do something he would regret, could it have been a part of the plan?

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

Well, it was definitely part of "the plan" because God is sovereign. It's a very good question to wonder why Saul was chosen as king in the first place. Scripture shows us he was not someone who should have been king at all--he was a bumbler from the beginning, a pretty-boy airhead. And he even knew he was the wrong man for the job.

But then...God didn't like the idea of Israel having a king anyway. Maybe He chose a loser on purpose.

Seen from another perspective, Saul wasn't a bad king. If I were a soldier in Judea, I would have greatly preferred Saul's leadership over Davids. Saul was a decent "soldier's king."

 

[Prayer Circle]

It's wild that humans have to try and use their intellect in order to come to terms with what omniscient omnipotence had recorded in his word, isn't it?

Yes, Saul did as God bid him to do. He destroyed all when he and his troops descended upon the Amalekites. 1 Samuel 15:1-11

There are numerous scripture wherein God ordered the genocide of other tribes, calling the Jews to act on his word.
How is this surprising? In Exodus God drowned the whole planet save for one related family whom he spared to populate the world later. And what of Noah?

God is not a Humanist.
Satan is.

1 samuel 15

yes, this one. God ordered the genocide of the Amalekites. In examining 1 samuel 15:9

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.

Were the women and children spared? Could they have been part of 'all that was good?' Later on Samuel kills Agag, but there is no mention of anyone else being killed after Saul's attack.

God repented of his decision to annoint Saul as king; why? Why would God do something he would regret, could it have been a part of the plan?

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

 

[blah1234]

Maybe it's a show of God's grace as well. Perhaps he chose Saul because he knew it would leave a remnant of the Amalekites. Another chance for them to repent or at least not clash with the Israelites?

 

[RDKirk]

Maybe it's a show of God's grace as well. Perhaps he chose Saul because he knew it would leave a remnant of the Amalekites. Another chance for them to repent or at least not clash with the Israelites?

No, at that point in time, the Amalekites were already marked for complete destruction.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi:

For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. -- Exodus 17:14-16

Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God.

Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget. -- Deuteronomy 25

Apparently, they still didn't kill them all, because the OT continues to mention later skirmishes with the Amelakites, even as late as the book of Esther, where they fight their last conflict in Persia with Haman, who is described as a descendent of Agag.

As I mentioned before, I think this really represents something to us of a greater spiritual principle of God versus evil.

 

[Sketcher]

The Amelekites deserved it for raiding the helpless and all their other sins. They were one of the few nations so thoroughly corrupt, the Israelites couldn't even keep their livestock.

 

[blah1234]

i just meant that maybe God gave them chances to repent/change their ways but knew that they wouldn't do it, so saying what he said in Exodus was true.

 

[Sketcher]

i just meant that maybe God gave them chances to repent/change their ways but knew that they wouldn't do it, so saying what he said in Exodus was true.

That is consistent with God's character for dealing with a number of sinful peoples.

 

[blah1234]

i guess the fact that he chose a king that would fail also shouldn't be too surprising, even David failed when he 'pursued' Bathsheba.

as for the killing of infants is this an example of eye for an eye....

Amalek's people killed the weak so it was done to them. perhaps God even showed some grace in that as children go to Heaven.

i still wonder what was included in the 'good' from my passage in my OP. i still think that maybe the upright and innocent were not slaughtered.

EDIT: after reading it again, it appears that God didn't considered anything to be good. Saul must of chosen what he thought was good and spared them.

 

[parsley]

In all likelihood the author of Leviticus knew of societies which had been decimated by these diseases to the point at which they became easy prey for other societies around them, and his knowledge included exactly how they had contracted the diseases which had led to their destruction.

Notice how any risk of contact with bodily fluids was cause for confinement or going outside the city walls temporarily, calling oneself unclean for a while.

God repented of his decision to anoint Saul as king; why? Why would God do something he would regret, could it have been a part of the plan?

God's plan was a network of judges and priests, family tribes that assigned their own leaders -- and no supreme leader over all of them. The people saw how neighboring countries had kings, and they asked God for a king, someone with stature. God answered their request, which He considered unwise.

People tend toward wanting strong leaders and pyramidal structures. God keeps trying to empower individuals and small groups, and oddly we keep resisting that.


I Sam 14: 47 Now when Saul had taken the kingdom over Israel, he fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, the sons of Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zobah, and the Philistines; and wherever he turned, he inflicted punishment. 48 He acted valiantly and defeated the Amalekites, and delivered Israel from the hands of those who plundered them.

You see here a mix of Saul being bloodthirsty, and also needing to defend his borders. That was his job, to protect the people within their territory.

We like to think of kings as dressed up in velvet and munching on a leg of lamb, but back then kings were continually challenged with armies trying to take over their land. We even carry that over into what we think a president or PM should be like... nice suit, wife in designer dresses... but in reality, their jobs are very messy.

Not every action in the Bible is the perfect will of God - much of the Old Testament is a record of events.

From Adam Clarke's Commentary:

The Amalekites were a people of Arabia Petraea, who had occupied a tract of country on the frontiers of Egypt and Palestine. They had acted with great cruelty towards the Israelites on their coming out of Egypt.
​

Exodus 17:8 .. Deuteronomy 25:18


From Dummelow's:

Amalek had attacked Israel at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8) and opposed their entrance into Canaan (Numbers 14:45 : cp. Deuteronomy 25:7; They are mentioned as allies of the Midianites in Judges 7:12.

​

About the women and children... today we read news on children being used in the front lines of battle, and women carrying in explosives because they appear more civilian. We are overly trusting, and probably the Israelites were too. We assume that everyone acts on the same premises, and that assumption or trust causes us loss.

Who knows, maybe they had been duped too many times by women and children being used as spies, soldiers, or decoys. Remember Hitlerjugend -- many teens fought in battles, their goal being "combat readiness."

 

[ChristianLife08]

i guess the fact that he chose a king that would fail also shouldn't be too surprising, even David failed when he 'pursued' Bathsheba.

as for the killing of infants is this an example of eye for an eye....

Amalek's people killed the weak so it was done to them. perhaps God even showed some grace in that as children go to Heaven.

i still wonder what was included in the 'good' from my passage in my OP. i still think that maybe the upright and innocent were not slaughtered.

EDIT: after reading it again, it appears that God didn't considered anything to be good. Saul must of chosen what he thought was good and spared them.

Just remember, God didn't choose Saul. the Israelites did. He simply allowed the choice.

 

[RDKirk]

Just remember, God didn't choose Saul. the Israelites did. He simply allowed the choice.

Um. No. God chose Saul and the people accepted His choice.

Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, “Has not the Lord anointed you ruler over his inheritance? -- 1 Samuel 10:1

Samuel summoned the people of Israel to the Lord at Mizpah and said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I brought Israel up out of Egypt, and I delivered you from the power of Egypt and all the kingdoms that oppressed you.’ But you have now rejected your God, who saves you out of all your disasters and calamities. And you have said, ‘No, appoint a king over us.’ So now present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and clans.” -- Samuel 10:17-19

When Samuel had all Israel come forward by tribes, the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. Then he brought forward the tribe of Benjamin, clan by clan, and Matri’s clan was taken. Finally Saul son of Kish was taken. But when they looked for him, he was not to be found. -- 1 Samuel 10:20, 21

So they inquired further of the Lord, “Has the man come here yet?” And the Lord said, “Yes, he has hidden himself among the supplies.” -- 1 Samuel 10:22

They ran and brought him out, and as he stood among the people he was a head taller than any of the others. Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see the man the Lord has chosen? There is no one like him among all the people.”

Then the people shouted, “Long live the king!” -- 1 Samuel 10:23, 24

 

[ChristianLife08]

Um. No. God chose Saul and the people accepted His choice.

Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, “Has not the Lord anointed you ruler over his inheritance? -- 1 Samuel 10:1

Samuel summoned the people of Israel to the Lord at Mizpah and said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I brought Israel up out of Egypt, and I delivered you from the power of Egypt and all the kingdoms that oppressed you.’ But you have now rejected your God, who saves you out of all your disasters and calamities. And you have said, ‘No, appoint a king over us.’ So now present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and clans.” -- Samuel 10:17-19

When Samuel had all Israel come forward by tribes, the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. Then he brought forward the tribe of Benjamin, clan by clan, and Matri’s clan was taken. Finally Saul son of Kish was taken. But when they looked for him, he was not to be found. -- 1 Samuel 10:20, 21

So they inquired further of the Lord, “Has the man come here yet?” And the Lord said, “Yes, he has hidden himself among the supplies.” -- 1 Samuel 10:22

They ran and brought him out, and as he stood among the people he was a head taller than any of the others. Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see the man the Lord has chosen? There is no one like him among all the people.”

Then the people shouted, “Long live the king!” -- 1 Samuel 10:23, 24

Ah yes, Amen! Now, remember though. the PEOPLE wanted a king, NOT the Lord. He even reiterates in v. 19. You quoted it, but seemed to glance over that important part. Please read also 1 Samuel 8:7-10; 19&20. Please remember, or learn if you haven't yet, that Saul is described as a king after the people. For they wanted to be like OTHER NATIONS. But yet, DAVID was the King that God took delight in choosing. David was a man after Gods own heart.

Please my friend, I also encourage you in learning tact. And in how you approach and address someone. May the Lord bless you.

 

[RDKirk]

Ah yes, Amen! Now, remember though. the PEOPLE wanted a king, NOT the Lord. He even reiterates in v. 19. You quoted it, but seemed to glance over that important part. Please read also 1 Samuel 8:7-10; 19&20. Please remember, or learn if you haven't yet, that Saul is described as a king after the people. For they wanted to be like OTHER NATIONS. But yet, DAVID was the King that God took delight in choosing. David was a man after Gods own heart.

There were probably many men who could have been a "king after the people," but the point is, God did select Saul specifically, even after the short scene given of Saul shows him to be less than kingly material.

Please my friend, I also encourage you in learning tact. And in how you approach and address someone. May the Lord bless you.

Tact. Well, sometimes that's difficult to express in this format.

For instance, I am initially offended by your "Please read also 1 Samuel 8:7-10; 19&20. Please remember, or learn if you haven't yet, that Saul is described as a king after the people."

My initial reaction to that is "Does he think I quoted chapter 10 without having read chapter 8? Is he calling me stupid?" I could take that attitude, but I suspect it was not your intention to offend me.

My point is that it's useful not to presume offense in this format unless someone actually uses offensive terms.

 

[Nails74]

That is a good question, why would God do something he would later regret? Wouldn't he have the foresight to see it was not a good decision? Also, physisists recently discovered that it is possible to travel back in time, but our technology isn't advanced enough yet. But if time travel is possible, God could have travelled back in time and made the correct decision in the first place. couldn't he?

The previous quote said that God repented of His decision to make Saul King...take a little closer look at the statement.

Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel, “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions.”[1 Samuel 15:10-11]

He doesn't say that He wishes He never did it or that He didn't make the right decision. Indeed, this is the way it had to be. God's plan for David can be seen through Saul's mess and their interaction.

Note what Samuel says to Saul after this whole mess.

Furthermore, the Eternal One of Israel does not lie or change His mind, for He is not man who changes his mind.” [1 Samuel 15:29]

 

[RDKirk]

but if god really wanted him to follow his instructions, why wouldn't he turn back time, alter his communication with Saul and try again. Don't you know that many problems on earth are the result of a miscomunication? Furthermore, if Saul were incapable of carrying out these instructions, why wouldn't god alter past events to ensure that Saul never became king and was hence never be the receiver of such instructions. Again, all of this should be possible since God is all powerful and can reverse time.

God is eternal and omnipresent, which means, technically, that having created time-space, God exists outside of time-space and has continual view and access to all time-space simultaneously. This is called "extratemporal simultaneity."

God sees all points in space and all moments in time simultaneously, analogous to the way a human can draw a picture on a sheet of paper and take in the entire drawing at a single glance. For God, all of the space-time continuum exists as a fully created thing--He finished all His creative work on the universe on the sixth day.

So God's view of what we call "the future" is not the future for God. Every moment in time is "the present" for God because He sees it all in a glance and has access to it all, moment by moment. That is why He can say he is the I AM--there is no "was" or "will be" for God, only "am"--always in His own present.