King David and King Saul Difference


#1

In 1st Samuel Samuel is instructed to: And the LORD said to Samuel, "Hearken to their voice, and make them a king." (1Samuel (RSV) 8). So Israel gets Saul.

16 "Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince over my people Israel. He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines; for I have seen the affliction of my people, because their cry has come to me." 17 When Samuel saw Saul, the LORD told him, "Here is the man of whom I spoke to you! He it is who shall rule over my people." (1Samuel (RSV) 9)

Interesting that Saul's title from God is "prince" and not King. Also similarly,
"for I have seen the affliction of my people, because their cry has come to me" and God's words to Moses at the "Burning Bush":Exodus 7 Then the Lord said, “I have seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters; I know their sufferings, 8 and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Per′izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb′usites.

Latter-on The LORD said to Samuel, "How long will you grieve over Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons." (1Samuel (RSV) 16)

Did God ever intend for Israel to ever have a "king"? It seems he wanted a "Prince" to rule in His name with the title of King but He would always be the true "King of Israel"?

`Since the day that I brought my people out of the land of Egypt, I chose no city in all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there, and I chose no man as prince over my people Israel; 6 but I have chosen Jerusalem that my name may be there and I have chosen David to be over my people Israel.' (2Chronicles (RSV) 6)

Does this indicate a "flexibility" in the mind of God in response to the response of the People of Israel?

Similarly does this not prefigure the role of Pope as Jesus Christ's vicar on earth? And in the appointment of the Pope a reflection of God's indication of what the Church needs at that time?


#2

If it helps, in the passage you noted God refers to Saul as being both a prince and a king. It was possible to be both, since in Old Testament usage prince refers to, not the son of the king or a lesser type of ruler in lieu of a king (as we might think of it), but as governors of clans and small populations leaders of armies.

You can see this when the Bible refers elsewhere to "princes'.

1 Chronicles 28:1
* And David assembled all the princes of Israel, the princes of the tribes, and the captains of the companies that ministered to the king by course, and the captains over the thousands, and captains over the hundreds, and the stewards over all the substance and possession of the king, and of his sons, with the officers, and with the mighty men, and with all the valiant men, unto Jerusalem. *

See more here:

Princes in the Bible (KJV)


#3

“Prince” here is used in the sense of a monarch, much like Monaco and Andorra are today.


#4

[quote="Terry_Ypsilanti, post:1, topic:316411"]

Did God ever intend for Israel to ever have a "king"? It seems he wanted a "Prince" to rule in His name with the title of King but He would always be the true "King of Israel"?

Does this indicate a "flexibility" in the mind of God in response to the response of the People of Israel?

Similarly does this not prefigure the role of Pope as Jesus Christ's vicar on earth? And in the appointment of the Pope a reflection of God's indication of what the Church needs at that time?

[/quote]

Origionally, Man was supposed to be a priest/king. Adam sort of failed in that. And it took Jesus coming as the "New Adam", a priest/king in the order of Melchizedek (the priest/king from Gen 14:18-20) to put things right again.

I'm sure God knew that He would eventually give the people a king. He wanted the people to know that an earthly king is an unacceptable alternative to His Kingship. He told them that the kings would take their sons and daughters, their fields and crops, etc., but gave them a king anyway. (see 1 Sam 8)

It's interesting that the first king, Saul, was a proud and ambitious king, whereas David was a king "after God's own heart." It's almost as if God wanted the people to know the difference between a good king and a bad king right away.

The role of king prefigures Jesus, not the Pope. The Pope is more like the prime minister. In the absense of the king, the keys (a symbol of authority) are given to the prime minister to rule in the king's stead. (see Is 22:20-24) Jesus quotes this passage when He conferrs the keys to Peter. (Matt 16:19)


#5

That seems to be the case. The NABRE and the Douay both translate the word “prince” as “ruler”. The Haydock commentary on this verse says the following:

Ver. 16. Ruler. Hebrew, Nagid, “Leader.” Septuagint, “Archon.” Chaldean, “King.” The Israelites demanded a king, to lead them, and to fight for them; and Homer (Iliad iii.) gives this idea of the chief magistrate, “a good king and stout warrior,” which Alexander so much admired…
haydock1859.tripod.com/id619.html


#6

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.