It is probably true though, despite all of this, that the ultimately flawed character of Saul contributes to a general bias against the Kingdom of Israel as a whole. It is much easier to sympathize with David, upheld as the model king and a forerunner of Jesus Christ Himself. However, David himself perfectly reveals the principle of a holy office filled by sinful individuals.
Throughout the Bible there is no mortal leader who is not imperfect. Gideon, who had first refused the crown, contributed to the practise of idolatry. David, who accepted the crown, was also guilty of having an affair with a married woman, and then having her husband killed. Even in the New Testament, the Son of God Himself was denied by every one of His apostles. It is therefore clear that a legitimate leader is not neccessarily an impeccable leader.
Perhaps, for the most accurate view of King Saul, we should look to the holy example of the future King David. Even after the spirit of God had left Saul, even after Saul had tried to kill David, an innocent man, after he had hunted and persecuted him, David would not strike back even when Saul was at his mercy. According to Scripture; David cut off a piece of Saul's robe as he slept, though he felt guilty even for doing this, and refused the urging of his friends to kill Saul.
"Saul then left the cave ... David too left the cave and called after Saul, 'My lord king!' Saul looked behind him and David bowed to the ground and did homage." When David produced the piece of cloth he had taken, even Saul had to admit, "You are a more upright man than I." Yet, why did David show mercy to this man who had been persecuting him? For David, the man of God, the issue was simple. "I will not raise my hand against my lord," David said, "for he is the anointed of God."
So, in spite of the bad points inherent in the monarchy, God's anointing of the kings made it a holy institution, one in which the monarch, regardless of character, was sacred and inviolable. This was an integral part of God's plan as is made clear by the 'Davidic Covenant' in which God promised David, He would preserve his offspring to rule. If they were wicked, God said, "I will punish him with the rod such as men use, with strokes such as mankind gives. Yet, I will not withdraw My favor from him, as I withdrew it from your predecessor (Saul). Your house and your sovereignty will always stand secure before Me and your throne be established forever" (2 Samuel 7:14-16).
In other words, much like the later Christian Church, the sinful nature of a royal could not effect the holiness of the royal principle itself. The point is stressed over and over again that we do not obey a king because he is strong or wise or virtuous, but because of our duty to the Heavenly Father who placed the king on the throne.
Ecclesiastes 8:2-5 says, "This I say: obey the command of the king, for the sake of the oath of God; do not rashly transgress it; do not be stubborn when the cause is not a good one, since he acts as he thinks fit; for the word of the king is paramount, and who dare say to him, 'Why do that?' He who obeys the command will come to no harm, and a wise man knows there will be a time of judgement."
If anyone doubts how seriously God takes an oath, they need look no farther than the story of Jephthah in Judges 11 and 12. It is made clear that our obedience to anyone is due only because of our obedience to God, which should not make it any less real to us. We should be able to make the simple distinction made in Scripture on this issue.
Psalm 118:8-9 says, "I would rather take refuge in God than rely on men; I would rather take refuge in God than rely on princes." Clearly, no mortal power can take the place of God, but this fact does not excuse us from the command in Proverbs 24:21-22, "Fear God, my son, and fear the king; do not rebel against either of them; for suddenly their vengance will arise, and then who knows what ruin both of them will send?"
Clearly, there is no contradiction and God's expectations are made simple. However, some would argue that these commands apply only to Israel and their own royal house, with no practical value for everyone else. Yet, according to the Prophet Daniel, even concerning the pagan King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, it was God who gave him his kingdom, majesty, glory and honor a generation before (Daniel 5:18).
Likewise, in the New Testament, the case remains exactly the same, even when the people of Israel are under the ultimate rule of the pagan Emperor of Rome.
People have a hard time, in spite of the evidence already given, accepting the idea of giving their loyal support to someone who is less than exemplary in the eyes of God. Most in the modern age justly feel that they owe nothing to anyone that is not 'deserved'. Yet, how fortunate it is that God does not use the same standard, treating us only as we deserve. Even as Christ was dying on the cross, He was pleading with the Father that we not be treated as we deserved.
In his first letter, chapter two, the apostle Peter says, "For the sake of the Lord, accept the authority of every social institution: the emperor, as the supreme authority, and the governors as commissioned by him to punish criminals and praise good citizenship. God wants you to be good citizens, so as to silence what fools are saying in their ignorance. You are slaves of no one except God, so behave like free men, and never use your freedom as an excuse for wickedness. Have respect for everyone and love for our community; fear God and honor the emperor".
It should be remembered that at the time Peter wrote this letter, the reigning Emperor of Rome was none other than the deranged and bloodthirsty Nero, who later had Peter himself crucified for preaching the gospel. Similarly, when Christ said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" He was commanding people to support the half mad, pagan Emperor Tiberias on the island of Capri. We can only speculate, regarding Peter's words at least, whether or not he had some idea of the fate in store for him, even as he wrote these surely controversial lines, for in fact, he goes on to be even more direct:
