Can God’s enabling fail? (1 Sam 10:1-16)

I still vividly remember the news about a gifted pastor of a high-profile church, who left his wife and moved in with his secretary. The shock rocked Christians who knew the pastor and listened to his faithful, Bible-based sermons week after week. How could a man of God used so powerfully by Him fall so deeply? Worse still, how could he explain away his actions and persist in sin as if it were acceptable? Were his messages a sham? Should people have detected the internal rot earlier? How could God’s gifting and enabling co-exist with such sin?

Saul’s story points us towards some answers. Our passage describes his anointing and enabling to fulfil God’s call, yet in the end he will fail miserably. Incidentally, God’s provision for the task again confirms that He does not intend Saul to fail. The first sign given to him will corroborate the news about the donkeys that he has heard from Samuel earlier (1 Sam 10:2; 9:20) and reassure him that the prophet’s message (including God’s choice of him as king) is true. Further, the loaves of bread and the gift of God’s Spirit (1 Sam 10:3-4, 6) highlight the Lord’s provision for Saul’s physical needs (cf. 1 Sam 9:7) as well as his spiritual enabling. Saul’s prophesying was not a permanent role, but an initial ecstatic experience that would prove to onlookers God’s empowering by His Spirit.  Although spiritual empowerment is the most important part, I am encouraged that God also cares about our physical needs. When God calls, He provides what we need and equips for the task.

It is important to understand what such equipping means and does not mean because this will point us towards an answer to the initial questions I raised. The expression that the Spirit of God will come on Saul (vv.6, 10) is a fixed phrase that is only used seven times in the OT, including in the case of Samson (Judg 14:6) and David (1 Sam 16:13). It has the sense of the Spirit ‘rushing’ on the person indicating the force of empowerment. Yet, despite these strong expressions, none of these men were paragons of virtue. Although David’s adultery is a one off, Samson is a particularly pertinent example because his life is so full of questionable moments including moral and religious failures.[1] Yet, God’s enabling continues for a while before Samson’s final downfall (Judg 16:20) and there is a similar delay in Saul’s case (1 Sam 13:13-14; 15:26; 16:14). These examples demonstrate some key principles. First, God is merciful and gives us a chance to repent and, in the meantime, He may well use our efforts to bring good for others. Secondly, giftedness does not equal godliness. God empowered these OT heroes, but did not take away their will. Likewise, God bestows gifts on us, but how we use these will depend on us.

The anointing of Saul makes it clear that God gives a king on His terms, not Israel’s. This is underlined by the use of nagid (prince or ruler – 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1), rather than melekh (king) as if to distinguish in these early stages between the people’s desire and God’s purpose. Moreover, Saul will be ruler over God’s inheritance. Thus, his authority is a delegated one; he is a steward of the people who properly belong to the Lord.[2] This idea is also indicated by the process of anointing, a rite practised elsewhere at the instatement of a vassal king.[3] Thus, Saul is not an independent ruler who does as he pleases, but the Lord’s vassal and under His authority. Sometimes situations will obviously present themselves calling for action and Saul is to move forward with confidence, while at other times, his dependence on God will need to be demonstrated through waiting for His timing and guidance (1 Sam 10:7-8). Through Saul’s story we are reminded that our abilities and gifting do not make us free agents even when others look to us for leadership. We are God’s servants and under His authority.

---

[1] E.g. He takes a Philistine woman despite the injunction on Israelites not to marry outside God’s people (Judg 14:3 cf. Deut 7:3) and later lives with another woman, Delilah (Judg 16:4). He also breaks his Nazirite vow by eating honey out of a lion’s carcass, which is considered unclean (Judg 13:4-5).

[2] Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension, JSOTSS 264 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 287. He also explores the ideological significance of how the two terms (nagid and melekh) are used and confirms that nagid aligns with God’s purposes of a ruler who is first among equals and must submit to God’s authority and guidance. Ibid., 281-301.

[3] David G. Firth, 1&2 Samuel, AOTC 8 (Nottingham: Apollos; Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 125.