Eternal promise of kingship in beis david

[adman]

Just a point of confusion on my part, which hopefully someone can clarify.

As I understand it there's the promise that the line of David through Solomon will eternally posses the rights to kingship. Could someone point out to me why this promise is unique as compared to the promises of eternal dynasties to Eli and to Saul, both of which g-d changed his mind about?

[Wolf]

Forgive the ignorance, but what promise was made to Eli regarding rulership?

The Wolf

[adman]

Hmm I did a quick google search and narrowed in on 1 Samuel 2:27-36.
To copy a piece of those verses here:

30Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

31Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house.


It seems the promise was not made directly to Eli but to his ancestors.

I suppose I may be able to answer my own question with regard to Eli in that like with Jeconiah that branch of the offpsring lose the right but since there are other branches the original promise can remain. Granted that works for Eli but not so much for Saul.

It seems as though the promises are conditional and if there are no longer any people of the line who can properly meet those conditions then the promise is completely done and the mind can be changed.

[Wolf]

And, having quickly perused the chapters, I don't see any promise of eternal kingship to Saul. Can you please show me where this is?

The Wolf

[adman]

From an article (via google):

In 1 Samuel 13, the battle between the Israelites and the Philistines at Michmash is described. Following military obstacles and a prolonged anticipation of Samuel’s arrival, Saul presents the burnt offering himself, though he was ordered in 1 Sam 10:8 to wait for Samuel. The resulting conflict between Samuel and Saul is presented in vv. 7-15a. Samuel delivers an oracle of judgment to Saul for his failure to heed the prophet’s command to await his arrival:

You have done foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which he commanded you. The Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever, but now your kingdom will not continue; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart; and the Lord has appointed him to be ruler over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.



---- I suppose it's possible that it refers to a promise that would have been made had certain preconditions been fulfilled/expectations met but since it was never actually made it was not technically revoked?

[Wolf]

Originally Posted by adman

From an article (via google):

In 1 Samuel 13, the battle between the Israelites and the Philistines at Michmash is described. Following military obstacles and a prolonged anticipation of Samuel’s arrival, Saul presents the burnt offering himself, though he was ordered in 1 Sam 10:8 to wait for Samuel. The resulting conflict between Samuel and Saul is presented in vv. 7-15a. Samuel delivers an oracle of judgment to Saul for his failure to heed the prophet’s command to await his arrival:

You have done foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which he commanded you. The Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever, but now your kingdom will not continue; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart; and the Lord has appointed him to be ruler over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.



---- I suppose it's possible that it refers to a promise that would have been made had certain preconditions been fulfilled/expectations met but since it was never actually made it was not technically revoked?

That would have been my argument as well. No such promise was made. It might have been at some point in the future, but it was not.

The Wolf