The Life and Period of King Saul - Essay Example

?Reflections on the Life and Period of King Saul I. Introduction The Christian or Jewish bible is more than a source of religious inspiration and faith. It is also a documentation of a people’s way of life and how they think and lived in a period. Understanding the context of the biblical period and how they people live involved in the period live and think will most likely help us understand better the faith that was derived from the literature or document that is known as the Holy Bible. The insights that may develop from the awareness of literature may help many understand the religion, life and beliefs of the people of that period. II. Life and Period of King Saul In this work, we focus on the life and period of King Saul. The life and period of King Saul are documented in the two books of Samuel, in the Book of the Chronicles, and in the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. The bible narrates that when the Prophet Samuel grew old, the elders of Israel demanded a king for Israel because the sons of Samuel were not walking in the ways of Samuel and also because they need a leader “like other nations” (1 Samuel 8.5). At first, Samuel attempted to dissuade his people from having a king. Samuel was also “displeased” and prayed to God. In response, God communicated to Samuel that it was not Samuel’s leadership that the people was rejecting but God’s kingdom (1 Samuel 8.7). God asked Samuel to tell his people what a king would do: draft citizens for army service, get a tenth of the harvest, and turn people to slaves (1 Samuel 8.10-18). However, the people remained steadfast in asking Samuel for a king and God eventually conceded (1 Samuel 8.21). The Israelites wanted a king “like the other nations” to lead them, go with them, and fight their battles (1 Samuel 8.20). According to the biblical account, God told Samuel that he has chosen Saul to be king and to lead in the delivery of Israel from the Phillistines and God also told Samuel that the cries of the people of Israel has reached him (1 Samuel 9.15-17). Biblical accounts describe Saul as a Benjamite who was the tallest Israelite during his time. In revealing God’s choice for Saul to become king, Samuel reminded the Israelites that God has been protecting Israel and that by demanding a king, they were rejecting God (1 Samuel 10.17-19). It is important to note that the bible reported that Samuel explained to Israel the regulations of the kingship (1 Samuel 10.25) but nowhere in the bible were the regulations of kingship described or documented. Interestingly, when Saul was anointed king, 1 Samuel 12.1-25 told us that Samuel made a farewell speech, indicating that Saul was to fulfil many functions that Samuel used to fulfil. This indicates that in the movement from Samuel to Saul leadership, there was a movement from theocracy to monarchy. At the same time, in that monarchy, particularly in the Israeli monarchy under Saul, religious figures like Samuel continued to play an important role such in 1 Samuel 13, Samuel rebuked Saul and that Samuel continued to play a role in the military affairs of the Saul monarchy. Eventually, however, in 1 Samuel 15, Samuel after declaring earlier or in 1 Samuel 15.1 that he was the one sent by the Lord to anoint Saul as king declared later that “the Lord has rejected Saul as king over Israel” in 1 Samuel 15.26. Samuel and Saul parted ways and Samuel anointed David to succeed Saul as king (1 Samuel 16.1-13). David entered Saul’s service (1 Samuel 16.13-23). David eventually succeeded Saul as the king of Israel even when the former became the object of Saul’s jealousy and liquidation plots. Saul’s death is recorded in 1 Chronicle 10. III. The Literature on the Life and Period of King Saul In 1928, in an article published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, E.G. Kraeling described the “real religion of ancient Israel” (133). According to Kraeling, Yahweh or God is never compared to a king because God is the king (152). God is the one “who sits (enthroned) on mount Zion” that “roars forth from Zion and from Jerusalem” and “gives forth his voice” (Kraeling 152). God’s kingship “is the primary thing to the Hebrew” (Kraeling 153). For Hebrews, prior to Saul’s monarchy, “the temple is the true seat of government” (Kraeling 153). Thus, it was “not accidental that the Babylonian word ekallu, “palace,” became the Hebrew word for temple, hekal, for the temple is nought else than the palace of the divine king” (Kraeling 153). Consistent with the world view, Kraeling said “Jerusalem is the ‘daughter of Zion’ because Zion, the temple-hill, is the source of life” (153). “The basic importance of the temple is still plain from Haggai’s teaching that Yahweh will only ‘bless,’ i.e. give fertility, to the land if the desolate temple be built” (Kraeling 153). Further, God’s sovereignty, “as established by subjugation of his enemies and his enthronization on Zion, was the real theme of the Feast of Tabernacles, when the latter was the great state festival of the royal city of Jerusalem” (Kraeling 154). Kraeling’s work utilized his knowledge and analysis of the Hebrew language and languages in interpreting biblical passages such that it was possible for him to draw unique insights on the passages of the bible. His insights on the bible are not possible to be drawn when one has no knowledge of the Hebrew texts. In the discussion of Michael Avioz, the king in ancient Israel was the “supreme legal authority, arbiter of justice, and appellate court” (2). The Hebrew ancient king “had military duties and often went to war himself” (Avioz 2). However, according to Avioz, “with reference to the book of Samuel, we find that he is depicted as a military leader only, i.e., not as a judge” that is in contrast with the portrayal of David by Samuel in that “David administered justice and equity to all his people” (Avioz 2). Laura Betzig, on the other hand, emphasized that when “Samuel anointed Saul as Israel’s first king, he was acquiescing to “all elders of Israel gathered together” (216). Betzig’s interpretation of Saul’s monarchy is that Saul’s rights as king “were limited by law, and he lost his office when he stopped listening to his prophets” (216). In addition, Betzig emphasized that kingship is a matter willed by God or allowed by God because God could take all what he gave to kings (220). Daniel Master portrayed Ancient Israel in the time of Saul as a United Monarchy although adequate evidence has not been offered although he claimed that his write-up is backed by archaeological studies (123). He pointed out that contextual element in the story of Saul is that the Philistines were considered as the archenemy of Israelites during the period of Saul and this is supported by “extensive archaeological excavation of the Philistine Pentapolis” (123). Archaeological evidence points to periods where Philistines are strong and periods where Philistines are weak (123). Based on archaeological studies, the reign of Saul was chiefdom in contrast with the “heterogeneous, multi-ethnic state” of King David (Master 125). Master’s approach on the study of ancient Israel focused on state formation. Unfortunately, however, Master’s write-up does not appear very helpful for us in understanding deeper the biography and period of Saul beyond saying that it was a period of state formation. Nevertheless, it is worth noting from the work of Daniel Master that Israel society did not change much before and after the time of Saul and before and after the reign of King David. According to Master, “the kin-based authority relationships of the patrimonial system remained constant despite the shifting allegiances of various tribes” as Israel society moved from pre-monarchy period of Saul to post-King David. It should follow that the religious perspectives have remained the same, including the perspectives on kingship and the belief that God is the real king of Israel. Thus, it remains helpful that the transgressions of Saul as reported in the bible is seen and analyzed from the said perspective. The view that the movement of Israel from pre-Saul to the Saul period is movement towards chiefdom was also articulated by Robert Gnuse based on the work of Frank Frick. Based on the work of Frick, Gnuse said that Israel was chiefdom during the time of Saul and became a state under the time of David and Solomon (729). The work of Frank Zimmerman reviewed and summarized the work of Roland de Vaux and John McHugh on Ancient Israel. Vaux and McHugh suggested that there never was an Israelite idea of a state (Zimmermann 172). Ancient Israel was basically a religious community (Vaux and McHugh, as cited Zimmermann 172). Concomitant with the role of the king was his role as a saviour (Vaux and McHugh, as cited by Zimmermann 172). However, the king has a royal household, a harem, Great Lady, children and attendants (Vaux and McHugh, as cited by Zimmermann 172). King Saul initiated “a professional army with a corps of mercenaries and chariots” Vaux and McHugh, as cited by Zimmermann 172). Based on the work of Zimmermann, perhaps the only thing notable on the Vaux and McHugh description of ancient Israel is the idea that ancient Israel was basically a religious community despite her transgressions and the idea that there never was an Israelite idea of the state. Viewed in this context, Saul’s kingship need not be seen as separate from religious authority. This means, for instance, that Saul’s kinship is basically God-willed even if asking for a king was considered a transgression during the time of Saul. The focus of the work Jeong Bong Kim is on another area: instead of focusing on the faults or transgressions of Paul, Kim focused instead on King’s Saul’s “mustering of all Israel” described in 1 Samuel 11.6-7. According to Kim, the “mustering of all Israel” emphasized the “empowered leadership of Saul that was absolute and critical in the impending national crisis with the Ammonites” (1). The verses also show that the leadership of Saul “was highly authoritative and on this occasion highly successfully, causing the people of Israel to respond as one in defeating their enemy” (1). Further, “the literary context of the event (1 Samuel 8-12; cf: 1 Samuel 8:5, 11:12-15; 12:12-13) shows us that the response to Saul indicated the people welcomed the kingship of Saul” (1). However, this is to belabour the point because it is clear that it was the people of Israel who requested a king in the first place. It is only natural that the people of Israel would welcome Saul as king because it was their request in the first place. Consistent with our discussion that ancient Israel theology considers God or Yahweh as king, Kim emphasized that while Israel acclaimed Saul as king or, Samuel “announced him as chosen by Yahweh” and anointed Saul as military leader or (3). Note the subtlety of the language used. Further, according to Kim, quoting 1 Samuel 11.5, all the people made Saul king of Israel or. Kim surprisingly argued that Saul’s kingship is basically denied in 1 Samuel 11.1-11. Thus, he posed the following questions: if Saul’s kinship is basically denied in 1 Samuel 11.1-11, how was Saul crowned king of Israel? Further, he asked how can Saul be crowned king of Israel where he merely played the role of a judge and not as a military leader? We need not go into the details of Kim’ arguments but we have to stress that in Saul’s time, Israel’s religion taught that it is only God who is king. Yet despite this and notwithstanding Kim’s argument, we are informed by 1 Samuel 11.14 that “all the people went to Gilgal together with Samuel and “confirmed Saul as king in the presence of the Lord.” IV. Discussion We focus on the main themes that can be identified from the life and period of Saul, especially those that can be found in Books of Samuel. Firstly, a theme highlighted in the first book of Samuel is that when Israel sought for a king, they have sinned before God. However, I Samuel 12.13-17 provides the clue on the real nature of the sin the Israelite committed. In the said verse, Samuel revealed that Israel asked for a king when the Ammonites were moving against Israel even though God was king. The verses suggest that the fundamental sin committed by the people Israel is not really because they have asked for a king but fundamentally because they have failed to trust God. As Samuel pointed out, “If you fear the Lord and serve and obey him and do not rebel against his commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the Lord your God---good! But if you do not obey the Lord, and if you rebel against his commands, his hands will be against you, as it was against our fathers.” Thus, based on the verses, what is suggested that it is not really the demand for a king which was the fundamental transgression of the Israel but Israel’s failure trust completely their God. Furthermore, Samuel’s reminder to the people of Israel of their pledge to be faithful to their God in 1 Samuel 12.10-11 indicates that what has been the issue pertaining to kingship was not really the people’s demand for a king but their lack of faith for their God. In any case, 1 Samuel 12.19, the people of Israel had acknowledged “the evil of asking for a king.” Nevertheless Samuel lamented in 1 Samuel 12.20-25 that the people of Israel were not really sorry for their sin and reminded them once more to “serve the Lord with all your heart.” Secondly, Samuel’s rebuke on Saul in 1 Samuel 13.7-14 was a rebuke on Saul’s lack of faith in God. In 1 Samuel chapter 14, Saul’s weaknesses as a leader and failure to see God’s action at work, particularly in the exploits of his son Jonathan, were depicted. Finally, in 1 Samuel chapter 15, Saul was described to have been rejected by God as king for Israel. In the narration of 1 Samuel chapter 15, God rejected Saul because Saul disobeyed God on His command for total annihilation of the Amalekites and their livestock. In addition, 1 Samuel 14 narrated that Saul also lied to God by claiming total obedience to God’s command of total annihilation when in fact Saul actually spared Agag and the Amalekites’ good livestock. Finally admitting to Samuel his transgressions, Saul justified to Samuel his sins on the ground that he committed the sin because he was “afraid of the people” and so he gave in to them (1 Samuel 14.24). However, Samuel did not honour what had appeared as Samuel’s continuous lying. Samuel affirmed that Saul has rejected the word of God and God in turn rejected Saul’s kingship over Israel (1 Samuel 15.26-34). Samuel mourned for Saul and, more importantly, God grieved that He made Saul king of Israel (1 Samuel 15.34). V. Conclusion A conclusion to this work is in order. I propose to conclude the work by highlighting what I believe to be the key transgressions committed by the people of Israel and Saul’s personal transgression on why Saul earned the wrath of God. I believe that the key transgression committed by the people of Israel is in demanding for a king given that the basic tenet of the Hebrew religion at that time is that only God is king. With regard to the personal transgression of Saul, I believe he earned the wrath of God fundamentally because he lacked faith and lacked the zeal of unconditional obedience and unconditionally following that God commanded him to do. Related to this, it is important to point out the explanation of I Chronicle 10.13, “Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the Lord.” Thus, “the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom to David, son of Jesse” (1 Chronicle 10.13). It follows that apart from the fundamental transgression of being unable to fully and unconditionally devote himself to God and follow God’s commandments without reservation, Saul committed a transgression that is prohibited under Leviticus 20 and Deuteronomy 18 when he turned to mediums and spiritists. Despite this, I maintain that the two most important themes in the biography of Saul is the kingship of God and its transgression by the people of Israel on one hand and God’s requirement for unconditional obedience among the faithful on the other. As a faithful, Saul was scheming (against David) but his primary transgression was not in the scheming but in the point revealed in 1 Samuel 28.16: Saul lost favour before the Lord because he failed to carry out the Lord’s command for him to annihilate the Amalekites. Work Cited Avioz, Michael. Saul as a Just Judge in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8.18 (2008): 2-9. Betzing, Laura. Sex and Politics: In Insects, Birds, Mammals, the Ancient Near East and the Bible. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 23.2 (2009): 208-232. Frick, Frank. The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Models and Theories. Sheffield: Almond, 1985. Gnuse, Robert. The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Models and Theories. The Society of Biblical Literature 107.4 (1988): 729-731. Kim, Jeong Bong. King Saul’s mustering of all Israel (1 Sm 11:6-7): An idealised leadership. Verbum et Ecclesia 32.1 (2011): 1-7. Kraeling, E.G. “The Real Religion of Ancient Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 47.2 (1928): 133-159. Master, Daniel. State Formation Theory and the Kingdom of Ancient Israel. Journal of Eastern Studies 60.2 (2001): 117-131. Vaux, Roland and John McHugh. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. New York-Toronto-London 1961. Zimmermann, Frank. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. The Jewish Quarterly 53.2 (1962): 171-172. Read More