We all know the Biblical story of King Saul-Saul fears for a coming battle, so he contacts a necromancer (the “Witch of Endor”).
The witch raises the dead Prophet Samuel-who is quite visibly pissed off “why have you disturbed my rest?”
Samuel goes on to explain that, not only will Saul lose the battle, he (and his sons) will be killed (“tomorrow you will be with me”).
Saul committed two grave sins, IMHOP:
he failed to trust in the Lord-his weakness caused him to seek counsel from the witch
he did contact the dead-this is expressly forbidden, as it undermines the authority of the Lord
Which was the greater sin? Could Saul have escaped his fate, if he immediately repudiated the witch’s counsel, and made immediate penance?
1 Sam 15 goes into this, the Lord’s rejection of Saul, though there is a lot more to the story and more that lead up to this - such as 1 Sam 12:20 where Saul is instructed to serve the Lord.
My church was really hot on him being a “willful” person, as a background reason for the disobedience being such a big sin. It wasn’t the single act of disobedience that doomed Saul, it was his pattern of trusting in himself, and of being impulsive and trying to rely on his own devices to solve problems instead of “letting go and letting God” handle everything. If he had just disobeyed once, that may not have been quite so bad* but it was his underlying personality that was flawed and needed to be repented of.
Needless to say, I am aware now that there was a bit of an ulterior motive for my particular church to harp on that interpretation quite so strongly. Still, it does make sense. The OT God was very patriarchal and tribal, and in those aspects, respect and absolute unquestioning obedience to the authority figure was pretty important, and fairly standard across the area.
*although God was pretty damn harsh on disobedience in any form, regardless of patterns of behavior - note specifically Moses denied entry to the Promised Land.
We do? While not religious myself, I visited quite a few churches growing up, I’ve read a decent portion of the Bible as literature for a university elective, and participated in the musical Godspell (from the orchestra pit, and I heard all the lines). Not once do I recall hearing this particular parable.
He’s the original King of Israel, before David. He tried to kill David and is the king that gave David the chance to kill Goliath. He got really jealous of David afterwards and sought to murder him.
As an apathetic atheist, not sure why I’m posting. But I was raised Baptist, and I think I remember being told (more than once) that there is no hierarchy of sin, or words to that effect. I.E., sin is sin, and if you die in a state of sin, you won’t be needing a sweater:eek:. I have no idea how usual/unusual that doctrine is.
Of course, I think I was also told that Jews had a separate contract with God from Christians, so maybe there used to be a hierarchy?
It has nothing to do with the Witch–Saul was doomed well before then. He was told (by the LORD) to kill all the Amakalites–the men, women, and children, and leave no survivors (aka genocide), but instead he only defeated them and captured their king. That made the LORD angry, and He decided to anoint David. And even before that, Saul was kind of an idiot, making hasty oaths and generally being incompetent or only marginally competent. Really, though, that’s what God gets for picking out the tallest guy out of a crowd and making him king of the Israelites. Although it’s not like He wanted to pick out a guy in the first place. Really, I wonder if He took a terrible king so that the people would complain, and then God would go, ‘See? This is why kings are bad!’ Maybe that was his plan, but then he was so enamored with David that he abandoned it.
Ok, I know this is a hijack, but I totally agree. When I was reading that section in church, or studying the kings in school, it really did seem to me that the whole set-up there was for them to be kingless - that they were supposed to be above that, and not need anyone between them and God. Saul was obviously a “forced choice” and I never got the impression that God/the prophets liked him or wanted him to succeed.
Then, after all that effort of picking a bad king and all, we get to David, who isn’t the best person either, but God has a hard-on for him, so it’s all ok, and suddenly having a king (and a dynastic one at that) was the coolest!11!
I never understood that, and it always bothered me. It was like having a story change plotlines halfway though because someone developed a Mary Sue and couldn’t bring themselves to do her in as originally planned.
I believe the story of Saul’s death is where we get the expression “to fall upon one’s sword.”
Saul made a lot of bad decisions and disobeyed God several times prior to the incident with the witch. I think attempting to seek advice from Samuel was the last straw; he was clearly unrepentent of his disobedience. Contrast that to David’s actions when his disobedience to God is revealed: weeping and sack-cloth and acceptance of his punishment.
David is not a Mary Sue character, he is a adulterous murderer. And it is not like the dynasty works out well for Israel, David’s grandson is such as jackass that most of the country rebels rather than follow him.
You mean that to Baptists, saying dammit and murdering your mother are exactly the same?
Glad I’m Catholic if that’s the case. But I’m guessing it isn’t because it sounds so stupid. Something else was probably meant.
I have been taught that there are capital sins and venial sins, and the former are very serious sins (like murder) that sever your relationship with God unless you sincerely repent. It’s a short list. Venial sins, like eating too much pie or jamming parking meters, don’t do that.
Ulfreida … I was raised Baptist so lemme see if I can 'splain it a little better …
Back in the days of the Law, when they were sacrificing sheep n such … the lamb that was brought to be sacrificed had to be “without spot or blemish.”
So let’s say you have some lambs. Now remember … the standard is lily white, no spots, no illness, no nothing.
Lamb #1 has a GIANT huuuuuuuuge black spot on its back.
Lamb #2 has a tiny little tuft of black wool on the inside of one of its adorable little lamb ankles.
Since the standard is perfection … neither lamb would be an acceptable sacrifice. Lamb #2 is certainly closer to being acceptable than lamb #1, but it’s still a no go.
So it goes with sin. There’s perfection … and then there’s sin. Sin is sin is sin and is, in short, anything that’s not perfection. BUT … different sins have different consequences – kinda like how cursing pales in comparison to cold blooded murder. They’re both, by definition, sin, because they fall short of perfection. Both need God’s forgiveness … but chances are cursing isn’t gonna get you 25 to life.
Fortunately the cross took care of venial sins, capital sins and all others in between
Just curious, not a debate. For Baptists: how does the cross affect pre Jesus sinners (like King Saul and David or Lot’s wife)? I can’t believe I’ve never asked this before.
In a sense, the cross is irrelevant. What actually matters is obedience. In the Old Testament, God laid down through Moses certain things that were supposed to be done. The discussion touched on this earlier, but here is I Samuel 15:22–
“And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”
This really gets to the heart of what sin is. Cruden’s Concordance gives this definition of sin: “Any thought, word, action, omission, or desire, contrary to the law of God.”
Another definition is “missing the mark;” the mark being the law or will of God. This comes from Philippians 3:14–“I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”
In other words, it doesn’t matter if you disobey God before or after the cross–you’re in trouble either way.
