Zone1 Samuel, Saul, and David

[Meriweather]

Are there people here familiar with the stories of Samuel, Saul, and David? Their stories have long fascinated me, but from the beginning I concluded Samuel was vastly unfair to Saul--and, on the other hand, the faults of David gravely overlooked.

Thoughts?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

but from the beginning I concluded Samuel was vastly unfair to Saul--and, on the other hand, the faults of David gravely overlooked

Because God looks at the INTENT of the person. David was greatly loved by God because of his attitude toward God. David was admittedly a sinful man, but God saw something different in his heart that Saul didn't possess. As the saying goes, "love covers (overlooks) a multitude of sins.

Btw, Samuel was faithful to God and only spoke as God commanded him. If you still believe Samuel was unfair, you are really saying GOD was unfair.

 

[Meriweather]

you are really saying GOD was unfair.

No, I am saying Samuel was unfair.

As a journalism student, I became fascinated with learning the 'other side' of any story. It is Samuel's story that is being presented, and we only have hints of what Saul's story might have been. Even from his first meeting with Samuel, there may have been hints that Saul did not altogether trust Samuel, or perhaps didn't quite agree with him?

This was the time we were told the Jews began calling for a king. We are told Samuel was a Judge and a Prophet, but in Samuel I also see a politician, and a rather powerful one at that. If there was to be a king, I suspect Samuel wanted a king he could control.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

No, I am saying Samuel was unfair.

As a journalism student, I became fascinated with learning the 'other side' of any story. It is Samuel's story that is being presented, and we only have hints of what Saul's story might have been. Even from his first meeting with Samuel, there may have been hints that Saul did not altogether trust Samuel, or perhaps didn't quite agree with him?

This was the time we were told the Jews began calling for a king. We are told Samuel was a Judge and a Prophet, but in Samuel I also see a politician, and a rather powerful one at that. If there was to be a king, I suspect Samuel wanted a king he could control.

Sorry, I don't agree with that at all. If you don't believe the account is inspired by God, I can see how you come to that conclusion. You will believe what you want to believe, but I don't agree

It is clear GOD was working with David, not Saul. Saul's sins, and then his attitude did him in, not Samuel.

 

[Thunk]

I loved it when the Lord said unto saul...

"I'll smack you so hard it'll change your name".

And then He did!

 

[Meriweather]

If you don't believe the account is inspired by God, I can see how you come to that conclusion.

The point is that I do see the account as inspired being by God, and that is how I can see a wider perspective. Note: I am not claiming I am right; I am merely open to seeing Saul in a better light. By the way--I feel the same about Esau.

 

[Meriweather]

I loved it when the Lord said unto saul...

"I'll smack you so hard it'll change your name".

And then He did!

Are we speaking of the same Saul? I am speaking of King Saul, the first Jewish king in the Old Testament. Are you speaking of New Testament Saul, aka Paul of Tarsus?

 

[JoeB131]

Are there people here familiar with the stories of Samuel, Saul, and David? Their stories have long fascinated me, but from the beginning I concluded Samuel was vastly unfair to Saul--and, on the other hand, the faults of David gravely overlooked.

Thoughts?

Um, okay, Samuel rejected Saul because Saul wasn't willing to commit complete genocide against the Amalekites... You see, why Saul murdered all the men, women, and Children, he kept the cattle and sheep!!!

Because God is apparently into genocide.

Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel:11"I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.12Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, "Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal."13When Samuel reached him, Saul said, "The LORD bless you! I have carried out the LORD's instructions."14But Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?"15Saul answered, "The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest."16"Stop!" Samuel said to Saul. "Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night." "Tell me," Saul replied.17Samuel said, "Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel.18And he sent you on a mission, saying, `Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.'19Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD?"20"But I did obey the LORD," Saul said. "I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.21The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal."22But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.23For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king."

 

[Thunk]

Are we speaking of the same Saul?

Nope...doesn't sound like it.

I'm not up on my old testament.

 

[Meriweather]

Um, okay, Samuel rejected Saul because Saul wasn't willing to commit complete genocide against the Amalekites... You see, why Saul murdered all the men, women, and Children, he kept the cattle and sheep!!!

Because God is apparently into genocide.

God values obedience. Samuel did put the men, women, and children to the sword--also all of the inferior animals. He kept the choice ones to sacrifice to God. (Keep in mind, a sacrifice to God meant that the fat of the animal was burnt as sacrifice--and then the people enjoyed the rest. Samuel also allowed their king to live.

The Hebrews were not to esteem anything Amalelkite. Not their lives, not even the life of their leader; not their possessions; not even the choice members of their herds. Every last thing Amalekite was to be shunned and destroyed, for the Amalekites were an evil people who brought evil to the Hebrews. The Hebrews were to turn their backs totally on all things Amalekite.

The temptation was too much. Among the wreckage they found something good...surely it was okay to take and savor what was good? That is generally how sin starts. Surely, this much of the sin is not so bad, it's even good...and then we are knee deep in all sin again.

This part I understand and can come to terms with the reasoning.

The part I wonder about is that Samuel gave the order, telling Saul it was from God. I see Saul disobeying Samuel, and Samuel (basically the ruling judge and prophet at this time) angry that Saul had not done as he, Samuel, had commanded. I see Samuel as saying, "I made you king, and I will take that away from you." All in God's name, of course. But it is easier for us modern people to see the hand of man in what Samuel commanded than the hand of God.

People of the Jewish faith are certain Samuel faithfully conveyed the Word of God to Saul--and Saul disobeyed God, not Samuel. I respect this, but am open to the possibility that the powerful Samuel was miffed because Saul disobeyed him.

War in those days was a brutal business. One of the early battles Saul undertook was when a town in his own tribe had been captured, and sent word to Saul that unless he surrendered even more, an eye of every man in town would be plucked out. Saul won that conflict.

 

[Augustine_]

Because God looks at the INTENT of the person. David was greatly loved by God because of his attitude toward God. David was admittedly a sinful man, but God saw something different in his heart that Saul didn't possess. As the saying goes, "love covers (overlooks) a multitude of sins.

Btw, Samuel was faithful to God and only spoke as God commanded him. If you still believe Samuel was unfair, you are really saying GOD was unfair.

Interesting point. A person can commit any number of evils and atrocities, but if he loves god it's all good. God is like a mafia boss.

 

[Meriweather]

A person can commit any number of evils and atrocities, but if he loves god it's all good. God is like a mafia boss.

God's wish was to rescue Israel from the evil that surrounded them, and to establish them as a loving nation, one that loved and obeyed God, one who loved their fellow Israelites and who welcomed strangers. The story of Israel and the Amalekites is that the Amalekites were the people who tormented Israel when they were hungry, ill, and lost.

Amalekites had a habit of attacking the women, children, and elderly at the rear of the traveling company, rather than the healthy males leading them. The Amalekites had been guilty of killing Hebrew women and children for decades. Yet all critics seem to remember is that in the course of one battle, Samuel and the Hebrew army killed all in a single tribe of these enemies.

 

[Augustine_]

God's wish was to rescue Israel from the evil that surrounded them, and to establish them as a loving nation, one that loved and obeyed God, one who loved their fellow Israelites and who welcomed strangers.

Then it must have been his wish to make Israel disappear for 1300 years as well.

 

[Meriweather]

Then it must have been his wish to make Israel disappear for 1300 years as well.

When? And under what circumstances?

 

[Augustine_]

When? And under what circumstances?

From the 8th century until the end of WW2. And circumstances? I'd ask god but we both know he won't answer.

 

[Meriweather]

From the 8th century until the end of WW2. And circumstances? I'd ask god but we both know he won't answer.

The diaspora. Not all left their homeland, but other Jews dispersed around the globe without losing their faith/nationality.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Interesting point. A person can commit any number of evils and atrocities, but if he loves god it's all good. God is like a mafia boss.

God forgives when Man won't. God is still better than you

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Then it must have been his wish to make Israel disappear for 1300 years as well.

2520 years actually. First the 10 tribes, then the Jews (Judah)

 

[JoeB131]

God values obedience. Samuel did put the men, women, and children to the sword--also all of the inferior animals. He kept the choice ones to sacrifice to God. (Keep in mind, a sacrifice to God meant that the fat of the animal was burnt as sacrifice--and then the people enjoyed the rest. Samuel also allowed their king to live.

Hmmm.. "Obedience". So by your logic, "I was only following orders" is a valid excuse?

The Hebrews were not to esteem anything Amalelkite. Not their lives, not even the life of their leader; not their possessions; not even the choice members of their herds. Every last thing Amalekite was to be shunned and destroyed, for the Amalekites were an evil people who brought evil to the Hebrews. The Hebrews were to turn their backs totally on all things Amalekite.

So what did the Amalekites do that justified their genocide? They didn't believe in Yahweh and they were on land the Israelites wanted.
Gee, it would be a pity if some future people took the bible and used that to rationalize genocide.

Oh, darn, that totally happened.

The temptation was too much. Among the wreckage they found something good...surely it was okay to take and savor what was good? That is generally how sin starts. Surely, this much of the sin is not so bad, it's even good...and then we are knee deep in all sin again.

So let's look at that. Saul decided to keep some of the best cattle to sacrifice to Yahweh. Not an unreasonable thing, since Yahweh kept asking these people who were barely living past subsistence farming to keep sacrificing perfectly good animals to him. (That is when God didn't demand the sacrifice of a virgin because dad made a foolish oath).

I'm am just not seeing where God or Samuel come out as the good guy here. Or Saul, for that matter, because he still committed genocide.

 

[Meriweather]

Hmmm.. "Obedience". So by your logic, "I was only following orders" is a valid excuse?

Let's stay on obedience. Obedience to what is right is good. My question is whether the order came from God or from Samuel. God is love, and a command to annihilate this specific community of Amalekites. (Amalekites were a collection of nomadic tribes, said to be the descendants of Esau. Jacob had stolen Esau's inheritance, which is why I am also interested in Esau.) Moving on...

The Israelites were also nomadic tribes, and when the two tribes ran into each other, the Amalekites were barbaric. Their strategy was to attack and kill women and children first. When the Israelites were in dire straights due to hunger, thirst, illness and lack of shelter, there was no help and no mercy from the Amalekites, because the Amalekites who saw it a provident time to attack.

After decades of being slaughtered like this by the Amalekites, the story that remains is the instance where the tables were turned, and Israel did exactly the same to one of the nomadic tribes of Amalekites.

Here is where I come back to the question of who--God or Samuel--was the author of the command to kill all the Amalekites and all they possessed. God is love. Would He give such an order? Considering all the Israelites had already endured at the hands of the Amalekites who slaughtered their women and children and would readily slaughter future generations, how could such an order be considered any less than loving? Israelite survival could well have depended on it.