Then Samuel went to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul.
Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel. (1 Samuel 15: 34-35)
The passage, preceding the anointing of David, anthropomorphizes the divine. The authors of 1 Samuel, typically identified as the Deuteronomistic historians, do not portray God as omniscient, but as experiencing the emotion of regret to have made Saul the king of Israel. This odd moment at the start of Israel’s monarchic period arguably reflects tension, not just regarding Saul’s kingship in particular, but the concept of kingship itself that characterizes the book as a whole.
I Samuel is set during the time period in which the Philistines, after an unsuccessful naval attack on Egypt, settled along the coast of Israel. Building up cities at sites including modern-day Gaza and making use of fertile land along the plains, the Philistines began to launch military attacks on the Israelites who had already settled the hill country to the east.
Although the word “Philistine” today is used to refer to an uncouth, materialistic person who has no sensitivity to art or beauty (“What a Philistine!”), the actual Philistines came from Crete, leaving an archeological record of pottery in the style we associate today with ancient Greeks. Archeologists have found parts of war chariots dating from this time period in territory controlled by the Philistines, but in no adjoining lands, indicating their advanced military technology. The description of Goliath’s spear, armor, shield, and helmet in I Samuel 17 matches the archeological record of armor that Philistines used in battle.
A phrase that crops up in high school history class is “the divine right of kings.” Few countries today still have kings who wield tangible authority. Yet it is not difficult to point to recent leaders whose rhetoric implies a belief that their actions are not only politically justified, but imbued with a divine mandate. This particular passage, and the chapters succeeding it, offer a portrayal of a king who has lost what the authors refer to as “the spirit of the LORD,” and how the religious community deals with the ensuing conflict.
I Samuel, and this lectionary passage in particular, raise questions that are relevant in light of recent current events. For example: from where does a political ruler derive legitimacy? How might religious communities go about determining whether obeying the political ruler corresponds with right action? The crisis in I Samuel is not just one of military self-determination, but concerns the religious identity of the community. Rather than giving a clear-up, unambiguous answer to these questions, the authors offer a complex portrait of both the advantages and pitfalls of kingship.
Leading up to the introduction of monarchy in Israel, dated as approximately the end of the 11th century BCE for Saul’s reign and the beginning of the 10th for David’s, Israel was governed by what were called Judges. During the time of Judges, the Israelite tribes were a loose confederation rather than a unified power, and thus vulnerable to outside attack.
In her essay “There Were No Kings in Israel,” which takes its title from the phrase repeated in the book of Judges, Jo Ann Hackett characterizes premonarchic Israel as follows:
“. . . the lack of centralization of the society in religious, political, and military matters and the concomitant lack of a permanent administration, including a standing army . . . clarify one of the most interesting aspects in the book of judges as presented in the biblical text: the heroes themselves are often unlikely. In these contexts, women and outcast men can seize power that would be beyond their reach in a society ruled by a hereditary elite. The theological interpretation of this lack of a predicable organization and of the noticeable inappropriateness of many of the era’s leaders was that Israel’s only true leader was Yahweh . . .” (Hackett, 134).
Hackett calls attention to Gideon as an example of an “inappropriate leader” from this era. Like Moses protesting that he is not eloquent, when Gideon receives a divine calling, he protests that he is the least important member of the poorest clan (Hackett, 135). Yahweh’s response, “but I will be with you,” (Judges 6:16), indicates the theological point that humans cannot ensure victory themselves, but are instruments of Yahweh (Hackett, 135). After he has saved Israel, Gideon refuses to be made a king and start a dynasty (Hackett, 136).
In The People Called: the Growth of Community in the Bible, Paul Hanson describes how Israel’s origins as a group of liberated slaves, attributing their freedom to Yahweh’s gracious acts, rendered the community suspicious of kings. If escape from a system of kingship in Egypt hugely influenced the tribes’ identity, it stands to reason that distrust of absolute power would shape leadership structures. Hanson refers to Samuel’s angry reaction in I Samuel 8, when the Israelites beg for a king in order to fend off attackers. The rhetorical pattern Samuel uses is that if the Israelites elect a king, “He will take your X to be his Y.” The fear expressed is that the power inherent in the office of a king, even if it might result in short-term victory, will usher in a fundamental institutional change (Hanson, 93):
So Samuel reported all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king. He said, these will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots . . . He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards . . . And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you. (1 Samuel 8:10-18).
In the passage from this week’s reading, David is described as coming from the same vein of “inappropriate leaders” Hackett describes. Receiving a directive from the LORD, Samuel goes to Jesse of Bethlehem to find a replacement for Saul. Jesse brings all of his sons before the esteemed judge and prophet except for the youngest, David, who is tending the sheep: “Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel, and Samuel said to Jesse, ‘The LORD has not chosen any of these’” (10). When Samuel sees David, he anoints him, and “the spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward” (13).
Although the chapters immediately following portray David as a hero, rescuing the Israelites from the Philistines, later chapters show David indeed falling to temptations arguably foreshadowed by 1 Samuel 8. For example, he sleeps with a married woman, Bathsheba, and then intentionally sends her husband to the frontlines of battle where he is killed. The narrative of Tamar gives a negative portrayal of David as a father, unable to shield his daughter from rape or punish her rapist.
In closing, the chapter immediately preceding this week’s reading is likely to be extremely disturbing to modern readers. It puts forward a portrayal of God that many readers, including me, may reject as bloodthirsty, and refuse to claim as part of their community’s religious heritage. Virtually everyone who grew up attending Sunday School is familiar with the story of David and Goliath, and it is not unusual to conceptualize Saul as the “bad” king and David as the “good “king. Yet the reason the Deuteronomic authors give for Saul falling out of Yahweh’s favor is his hesitance to immediately kill all people and animals of the Amalekites. The following passage is worthwhile keeping in mind when “Amalekites” are mentioned in contexts of modern warfare:
Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey’ (1 Samuel 15:2-3).
Other readings for the lectionary this week are as follows: I Samuel 15:34-16:13; Psalm 20; II Cor 5:6-10; 14-17; Mark 4:26-34.
--Elizabeth Fels
Sources:
Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Hackett, Jo Ann. “There Was No King in Israel’: the Era of the Judges,” in Coogan, Michael D. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Hanson, Paul J. The People Called: the Growth of Community in the Bible. Lousiville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986.
No comments:
Post a Comment