What is the significance of the three sets of sons in the early chapters of 1 Samuel?
This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘The Problems of Becoming and Being a King’ (1990).
If you're asking me what is the significance of the sets of sons in the early chapters of Samuel, I should fall back upon the simple observation that the trouble was Eli and his sons. So, even at the superficial level, God's answer to it was Hannah and her son, perhaps also Phineas' wife and her son, but finally the milk cows and their 'sons'. Certainly Hannah and her son and the milk cows and their sons were the means, in God's hands, of bringing back Israel from the terrible state they got in because of Eli's mismanagement of his sons.
Would you say that down the road there would be a relation, then, to the ultimate solution of God?
Oh surely so. In later chapters, it's going to be one of the major themes of the book. After Samuel's wonderful reign, chapter 8 is going to tell us that when he was old he made his son's judges, and the sons went bad. That is why Israel opted for a king. It was a rather funny solution that Israel proposed. The problem had always been the sons: Eli and his sons, and Samuel and his sons. It's been a problem for centuries, ever since Adam had a son, you know, because we come of a fallen race. And as they say, grace doesn't run in the blood, and even if father gets converted the children are still born under the taint of sin, aren't they? This is the problem of sons in humankind and in the human race.
The issue at stake with Saul eventually is going to be: will God maintain his dynasty? What do I mean by that? God appointed Saul as king. God didn't destroy Saul; the Philistines destroyed him. Actually, he destroyed himself. But what Saul was anxious about was: was his son going to reign after him? In other words, was he going to have a dynasty that was dependent on having a son? And when we observe what Jonathan the crown prince did, no wonder Saul swore at him because it ruined all the hope that Saul would have a son that would succeed him on the throne.
As I say, when the problem was sons it was a very funny solution that Israel proposed that now you should have a hereditary monarchy. You tell me how that would solve the problem, if the problem were sons! Why would you institute a hereditary monarchy where the king's son automatically rules? What a daft solution.
But then you say, 'Wait a minute. David was a king and chosen of God, wasn't he?'
Yes, and in spite of his failures, God maintained David's dynasty and said, 'Now I will not cut off your son and your house as I cut of Saul's house. I will set up your dynasty after you. When you have fallen asleep then your son that comes out of your body shall be your heir; and I will set him on your throne. I will maintain your dynasty. If he sins, I will chastise him, but I will not take my mercy from him. I will maintain your dynasty and I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son' (see 2 Samuel 7).
You say, 'That promise was not kept, was it? I mean, eventually David's sons, the kings of Judah, became so bad that God wiped the lot off the scene, didn't he?'
He did, yes. And the psalmist of Psalm 89 writes down the problem he had: 'Oh God, you promised to David to set his son on his throne, that there would never be missing a man on his throne. How on earth is it that the throne of Judah has been utterly destroyed? Where is your promise, Lord?'
And the answer, of course, is to be found in the New Testament. Listen to the Epistle to the Hebrews, how God has solved the problem: a son—David's son (1:1–14)! The gospel is concerning God's Son, of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Romans 1:3). Really human, son of a human being, and yet, because he is divine, he is sinless and has broken the ugly entail of the fall. He is God's anointed sat on the throne of David.
So this matter of sonship is one of the keys to the book, isn't it? It enters into the very foundations of our Christian gospel.
1 That is, to be composed or written.