Why didn't God show Saul mercy?

[JEBrady]

Sometimes people want to know the answer to this sort of question because they expect God's actions should fit into some sort of idea they have about fairness and justice.

Innocent children die every day.

In WWI 900,000 Brits were killed from a country with a population around 30 million. A whole generation of young men wiped out, and most of them were better men than me.

I could go on, but I expect you get my point.

In the context of God's favour, God said:

And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
Exodus 33:19b ESV

God is sovereign, which is one reason we should fear Him.

peace,
Simon

Not only fair, since we all deserve hell, but merciful. He won't cast out anyone who comes to Him, and He won't put to shame those who fear Him. And for those who reject the grace of God, or who impose on it, they will find him shrewd. God can't be played as a fool.

As to innocent children who die, the judge of all the earth shall do right.

 

[whatfor]

Where are those that were not given mercy as you put it?
Maybe they just got to go home early and so were given mercy that way.

 

[Simon_Templar]

First off, not that history doesn't have its bad points, but it is often quite different than what it is made out to be. Particularly Christian history.

The Crusades in particular are an oft misrepresented and misunderstood topic.

Leaving that aside for the moment, the primary issue between Saul and David was their respective hearts.

Saul was not rejected for one solitary act of disobedience. He was ultimately rejected because he was not a man after God's heart, which is to say, he did not love the things that God loved and hate the things that God hated.

Saul's story is short by comparison to David's but there is a pattern in Saul's story that he defaulted to not trusting or obeying God. On the contrary, Saul appears to have been willing to obey until it became difficult, until it would cost him, or until it really required trust.. at that point he stopped obeying and took matters into his own hands.

Saul's refusal to wipe out the Amalekites was the last in a sting of poor decisions on his part. The first reported in scripture is when Saul had gathered an army to deal with the philistines. They were waiting for Samuel to arrive and offer sacrifice before they went to battle. Samuel was late and the people were beginning to doubt, so Saul took matters into his own hands and offered the sacrifices himself, something that was forbidden by God's law. This was the first time he profaned the sacrifice.

At that point Samuel told him that God would eventually turn his kingdom over to another because God was seeking a man after his own heart. The clear indication is that Saul was not a man after God's heart.

Even after that initial transgression God gave Saul victory and blessed him for a time but Saul continued to act according to his own will rather than God's.

Through out all of this, Saul never really repents of his actions. Every time he is confronted about his disobedience he makes excuses. In the incident with the Amalekites Saul took everything that was good and valuable and destroyed only the goods that were worthless. Clearly the implication is that this was an act of greed, and they desired to profit from the plunder.
Then when Samuel confronts Saul, Saul effectively lies to him (and to God) saying that he only kept the good live stock so that he could offer it to God (profaning the sacrifice yet again).
When pressed further, Saul changes his story (further indicating that he's lying) and tells Samuel that he didn't destroy the livestock because the people wanted to keep them and he was afraid of the people (that may have been true as Saul's character repeatedly shows that he is fearful above all else of losing his kingship).

Saul fears losing God's favor and he fears punishment so he tries to get Samuel to mend things with God, but still he does not repent. When Samuel says he won't smooth things over with God, Saul instead asks Samuel to accompany him before the people so that he won't lose honor in the eyes of the people.

Through out all of this Saul is continually more concerned with himself, and his desires than he is with God. Through it all, he never really repents, nor does he change his ways.

After this point, Saul continues on violating God's laws in his attempts to take matters into his own hands when he goes to a medium to consult with Samuel's spirit.

Through all of this he just spirals downward from disobedience to disobedience. He never truly repents, nor does he make a serious attempt to rectify his disobedience.

David on the other hand committed terrible sins, in some ways far worse than Saul's. The difference is that when it came down to it David loved God and thus loved what God loved and hated what God hated. He was occasionally disobedient, but in every case, as soon as he was confronted with his sins, he genuinely repented. It is important to note that his repentance was not simply about being sorry that he got caught, or fearing the consequences. He repented because even though he did great evil.. he genuinely hated sin and loved righteousness. He is an example of the hypocrisy that is innate in fallen human nature, the same thing we all struggle with. But in the end he always subordinated himself to God and God's commands.

As for the Amalekites, they do serve as a kind of archtype of the enemies of God. They were there afflicting the Israelites when they first came to the promised land. They were continual, perenial enemies of God and his people.
As has been pointed out, they had fallen so completely that there was no chance of redemption for them. Their wickedness was so complete, so great that it infected the very land and the animals.

Through out all of this, remember that God knows the hearts of men. God knew before the Israelites went into Egypt that the canaanites would become unredeemably wicked and do great evil, and yet he gave them time to complete their fall.
He also knew when he appointed Saul that Saul would fail. He knew that Saul was not truly a man after his heart. Just as he knew that David was.

None of this is to say that God made their choices for them. They made their own choices. It does point out, however, that God knows what he is doing, and he does everything for a reason.

There was and is a reason that Saul was made king, even though God knew he would fail. There was, and is a reason that God sent the Israelites into Egypt and brought them out in exodus into the promised land. etc.

 

[therebelprophet]

I wish there was a "dumbfounded" smilie for that post, Simon. WOW. Perfect response. Two points!

 

[AudioArtist]

First off, not that history doesn't have its bad points, but it is often quite different than what it is made out to be. Particularly Christian history.

The Crusades in particular are an oft misrepresented and misunderstood topic.

Leaving that aside for the moment, the primary issue between Saul and David was their respective hearts.

Saul was not rejected for one solitary act of disobedience. He was ultimately rejected because he was not a man after God's heart, which is to say, he did not love the things that God loved and hate the things that God hated.

Saul's story is short by comparison to David's but there is a pattern in Saul's story that he defaulted to not trusting or obeying God. On the contrary, Saul appears to have been willing to obey until it became difficult, until it would cost him, or until it really required trust.. at that point he stopped obeying and took matters into his own hands.

Saul's refusal to wipe out the Amalekites was the last in a sting of poor decisions on his part. The first reported in scripture is when Saul had gathered an army to deal with the philistines. They were waiting for Samuel to arrive and offer sacrifice before they went to battle. Samuel was late and the people were beginning to doubt, so Saul took matters into his own hands and offered the sacrifices himself, something that was forbidden by God's law. This was the first time he profaned the sacrifice.

At that point Samuel told him that God would eventually turn his kingdom over to another because God was seeking a man after his own heart. The clear indication is that Saul was not a man after God's heart.

Even after that initial transgression God gave Saul victory and blessed him for a time but Saul continued to act according to his own will rather than God's.

Through out all of this, Saul never really repents of his actions. Every time he is confronted about his disobedience he makes excuses. In the incident with the Amalekites Saul took everything that was good and valuable and destroyed only the goods that were worthless. Clearly the implication is that this was an act of greed, and they desired to profit from the plunder.
Then when Samuel confronts Saul, Saul effectively lies to him (and to God) saying that he only kept the good live stock so that he could offer it to God (profaning the sacrifice yet again).
When pressed further, Saul changes his story (further indicating that he's lying) and tells Samuel that he didn't destroy the livestock because the people wanted to keep them and he was afraid of the people (that may have been true as Saul's character repeatedly shows that he is fearful above all else of losing his kingship).

Saul fears losing God's favor and he fears punishment so he tries to get Samuel to mend things with God, but still he does not repent. When Samuel says he won't smooth things over with God, Saul instead asks Samuel to accompany him before the people so that he won't lose honor in the eyes of the people.

Through out all of this Saul is continually more concerned with himself, and his desires than he is with God. Through it all, he never really repents, nor does he change his ways.

After this point, Saul continues on violating God's laws in his attempts to take matters into his own hands when he goes to a medium to consult with Samuel's spirit.

Through all of this he just spirals downward from disobedience to disobedience. He never truly repents, nor does he make a serious attempt to rectify his disobedience.

David on the other hand committed terrible sins, in some ways far worse than Saul's. The difference is that when it came down to it David loved God and thus loved what God loved and hated what God hated. He was occasionally disobedient, but in every case, as soon as he was confronted with his sins, he genuinely repented. It is important to note that his repentance was not simply about being sorry that he got caught, or fearing the consequences. He repented because even though he did great evil.. he genuinely hated sin and loved righteousness. He is an example of the hypocrisy that is innate in fallen human nature, the same thing we all struggle with. But in the end he always subordinated himself to God and God's commands.

As for the Amalekites, they do serve as a kind of archtype of the enemies of God. They were there afflicting the Israelites when they first came to the promised land. They were continual, perenial enemies of God and his people.
As has been pointed out, they had fallen so completely that there was no chance of redemption for them. Their wickedness was so complete, so great that it infected the very land and the animals.

Through out all of this, remember that God knows the hearts of men. God knew before the Israelites went into Egypt that the canaanites would become unredeemably wicked and do great evil, and yet he gave them time to complete their fall.
He also knew when he appointed Saul that Saul would fail. He knew that Saul was not truly a man after his heart. Just as he knew that David was.

None of this is to say that God made their choices for them. They made their own choices. It does point out, however, that God knows what he is doing, and he does everything for a reason.

There was and is a reason that Saul was made king, even though God knew he would fail. There was, and is a reason that God sent the Israelites into Egypt and brought them out in exodus into the promised land. etc.

Thanks again for another great response.

It's interesting what you said about the Crusades. I've often thought there was an alternative to the mainstream historical consensus on them. I was thinking of buying 'God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades' by Rodney Stark. Would that be a good place to start?

 

[Simon_Templar]

Thanks again for another great response.

It's interesting what you said about the Crusades. I've often thought there was an alternative to the mainstream historical consensus on them. I was thinking of buying 'God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades' by Rodney Stark. Would that be a good place to start?

I've never read God's Battalions so I can't give it a recommendation one way or the other. I did, however, order it just now because it looks interesting. So I guess I can let you know in a few weeks maybe, depending on how busy I am.

The difficulty when it comes to history of the crusades is not necessarily the facts, as it is the context, the spin, and the interpetation.

For example, most historians depict the crusades as a war of agression and even imperialism against muslims etc.

The reality is that all of the lands in question (plus much more) were originally Christian lands that had been conquered by Islam. Far from war mongering, the Christian church at the time and the period leading up to the crusades was closer to pacifist than blood thirsty. The Christian world as a whole had been struggling with the question of what to do about Islam's aggression and invasions for 400 years by the time the Pope finally called for a crusade.

Further, it should be rememberd that Islam had already conquered the middle east, north africa, turkey, and spain, all of which were formerly Christian lands. The Muslims had already invaded the heart of European Christendom once in the 8th century and were turned back by Charles Martel.

The Church had for 400 years listened to the cries of Christians who were conquered and put under the heal of Islam, without lifting a weapon to defend Christendom. The had depended upon the temporal rulers of Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire to fulfill the duty of defending Christendom with the sword.

In 1071 the Byzantine Empire suffered a crushing defeat at the battle of Manzikert and the next emperor called to the west for help. For the first time, it looked as though the bulwark of byzantium may fall and the Islamic horde would roll into Europe. (lest people think this fear to be unfounded... this is exactly what did eventually happen).

As a result the Pope issued a call for western nobles and knights to take up the cross and go to defend Christendom.

The response was totally unexpected by the Pope and certainly by the Emperor in Byzantium.

The crusades are often characterized as a horde of criminals and greedy lords going to plunder and get rich. The truth is that the vast majority of the people involved were motivated by genuine religious feeling and principle. Most of them gave up virtually all their worldly posessions with little hope of ever returning home or gaining back what they sold or left behind.

There were of course many of people involved who were not so noble of character but that is true of any army.

The crusades, and the people who went on crusade are complex and varied. In that you could say they are very human. As all wars, they exhibit the best and the worst of humanity.


In terms of reading, I haven't found a particularly good treatment of the crusades from a Christian historian, or a historian who really clearly understands Christianity and Christendom.

Cambridges "A History of the Crusades" by Seven Runciman is a good scholarly treatment and it doesn't get too biased. It is, however, more sholarly and thus it might not be a great read and it is a few volumes. Good if you want to learn the facts.

My personal favorite thus far is a two volume set by Harold Lamb. The first book is Iron Men and Saints, this focuses on the first crusade. The second book is The Flame of Islam, this covers up through the third Crusade.

While I wouldn't call these books 'scholarly' their history is accurate, and they draw heavily on the accounts of the crusades written by the various chroniclers who were actually there. In fact one of the reasons they wouldn't be considered great scholarly works is because they rely too heavily on the first hand accounts of the chroniclers and don't engage in much criticism or analysis.

The Crusades by Lamb are an enjoyable read, in my opinion, and do a really good job of highlighting the chracters of the crusades. Especially in the first and third Crusade era there are a lot of great characters, very interesting people.

I'll let you know about God's Battalions

 

[Simon_Templar]

Hey Audio Artist,

I have now read God's Battalions. I highly recommend it! The book doesn't go into a lot of detail about the individual battles etc. Rather it focuses more on the broad scope of the whole crusading period and it gives a great analysis of the myths that have been perpetuated by the majority of historians since the enlightenment about the "Middle Ages" in general and crusading in specific.