Tag: Samuel

12/17/19

It’s Good To Be King

© NejroN | 123rf.com

We are introduced to Saul, who would be later anointed as king of Israel in chapter 9 of 1 Samuel. From the beginning, we hear problematic information about the man who would be king. On the one hand he was from a wealthy family; he was handsome and he was tall. He proved to be skillful in battle and able to inspire others to follow him. On the other hand, he was an inept shepherd who could not find donkeys that had wandered away from his father’s home. From the beginning it did not seem Saul would live up to his potential.

In his commentary on 1 & 2 Samuel, Robert Bergen said Saul’s future unfitness as a shepherd of the Lord’s flock is suggested in the narrative of chapter 9. “Semitic leaders throughout ancient times were often referred to as shepherds.” The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses were all depicted as skillful shepherds. Also recall Psalm 23:1, “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.”

After three fruitless days searching for the donkeys, Saul was ready to give up and return home. Significantly, Saul did not think to seek divine help with his problem. It was his servant, not Saul, who recognized their need for spiritual guidance to find the donkeys. Also, Saul was apparently ignorant of who Samuel was, even though he lived nearby and was known to “all Israel” (3:20; 4:1). His cynicism or ignorance is also indicated by assuming spiritual favors had to be bought. “The future king’s life at this point was devoid of a spiritual sensitivity that looked to the Lord for help.”

One function of the Saul narratives is to depict the spiritual unfitness of the man who would serve as Israel’s first king. In so doing the writer demonstrates that Saul is spiritually, as in other ways, “a king such as all the other nations have.” Emblematic of Saul’s spiritual blindness is his initial encounter with Samuel. Though Samuel was the most famous and honored spiritual leader in Israel since the time of Moses, when Saul looked at him he saw only a stranger. The contrast between Saul and Samuel is striking: Samuel, the man of spiritual insight (the “seer”), knew all about an obscure young man even before he met up with him; Saul, the paragon of spiritual blindness, knew nothing of the most famous man in Israel even after he encountered him. The narrative motif of Saul’s incapacity to see the true nature of people would later be expressed in the context of his relationships with Jonathan, David, and Ahimelech. He would misjudge Jonathan to be an unworthy son and traitor; David, a treacherous revolutionary; and Ahimelech, a co-conspirator against the throne. All of these misreadings of others resulted in tragedy, both for Saul and others.

When Samuel met Saul, he invited Saul and his servant to stay with him overnight, telling them the donkeys have been found. The next day, Samuel said he had a private message from God for Saul (1 Samuel 10:1-8). The message was Samuel anointing Saul, telling him he would be leader over the Lord’s inheritance. Samuel also gave Saul confirmatory signs, saying he would meet two men who would tell Saul the donkeys have been found, but now his father was worried about Saul. Then he would meet three men going up to Bethel with provisions, and they would offer him two loaves of bread. Lastly, he would encounter a procession of prophets who would be prophesying. “Then the Spirit of the Lord will rush upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man” (1 Samuel 10:6). All three situations happened to Saul.

Saul’s first confirmatory sign would authenticate Samuel’s word concerning the issue that had motivated Saul to seek the prophet in the first place; two men near Rachel’s tomb would inform him of the return of the donkeys and the mounting anxiety for Saul’s safety back in his father’s household. The second sign would confirm the authenticity and legitimacy of Samuel’s act of anointing Saul: three men on their way to a Yahwistic worship center in Bethel (cf. Judges 20:18, 26; 21:2) would present Saul with food designated for use by one who was anointed. Though “the two loaves of bread” (v. 4) were originally intended by the pilgrims as a gift for an anointed Aaronic priest, Saul’s acceptance of the food would require him to accept the legitimacy of his own anointing. The third encounter would confirm Samuel’s assertion that the Lord had also anointed Saul (v. 1). In the presence of a group of prophets, “the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you in power and you will prophesy with them” (v. 6).

When these three signs happen, Samuel told Saul he should “do what your hand finds to do, for God is with you. Then go down before me to Gilgal.” There Samuel would offer burnt offerings and sacrifice peace offerings. Saul was to wait seven days until Samuel came and showed him what he should do (1 Samuel 10:8). But this prophecy was not immediately fulfilled as were the three confirmatory signs. Saul grew accustomed to his position as king of Israel and seems to have disregarded this prophetic instruction, a mistake which would become the defining moment of his kingship.

Saul wasn’t a ‘king’ in the same sense as other kings. His anointing by Samuel symbolized a divine claim on him. Before this time, anointing was reserved for sacred objects (Leviticus 8:10-11, 30; Numbers 7:1). Robert Bergen noted where it was customary in Egypt to anoint vassal kings; those who owed allegiance to the great king or Pharaoh. Saul was the vassal king under Yahweh. “In Israel’s monarchy royal authority was derived and secondary; the king was always to be under the Lord’s authority.”

And since the Lord’s prophets were conduits through whom the divine word came to kings, these prophets were in reality superior to kings before Yahweh. Royal power was divinely set by God, and the Lord’s prophets were to define those limits. Here was the fatal flaw in Saul as king of Israel. He had little or no regard for Yahweh and his prophets and he trusted in his own judgments more than God’s guidance. He did what seemed right in his own eyes. “Samuel’s words to Saul were thus the opening volley in an enduring struggle between human political will and divinely inspired religious conscience.”

From a secular standpoint, Saul was the ideal personification of a king. He was handsome, tall, successful militarily, and enjoyed popular support. But Saul’s kingship was impaired by his disregard of God’s counsel. From the early days of his kingship Saul demonstrated a pattern of disobedience and poor judgment that continued through his reign as king for 42 years. Samuel’s final words to Israel warned both them and Saul to fear Yahweh and serve him faithfully with a whole heart: “But if you still do wickedly, you shell be swept away, both you and your king” (1 Samuel 12:25). Two years into his kingship, Saul revealed how he was unfit to be king over Israel.

In chapter 13 of 1 Samuel, we read how Saul’s military success against the Philistines had enflamed a Philistine retaliation, where they raised three thousand chariots (thirty thousand was a probable copyist error), six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore (1 Samuel 12:5). Saul called for the people of Israel to join him at Gilgal, which they did. But when they realized the magnitude of the Philistine response, they became fearful and began to desert. Saul was at Gilgal, as Samuel had prophetically directed him. He waited until the seventh day appointed by Samuel, watching his army progressively dwindling. When there still was no sign of Samuel, Saul decided to offer the burnt offering. As he finished offering it, Samuel arrived.

Saul tried to do a “meet and greet” that welcomed Samuel and attempted to engage him in the rituals Saul had already begun, but he would not have anything to do with it. Samuel responded to Saul’s actions with a curt question: “What have you done?” Knowing Samuel saw through his attempted manipulation of the situation, Saul defensively pointed out how the people were scattering, that Samuel himself didn’t come within the appointed time, and that the Philistines were mustering at Michmas. So not wanting to enter into battle without asking Yahweh’s favor, he forced himself to perform the sacrifice.

Samuel ignored Saul’s excuses and said he acted foolishly by usurping the Levitical privileges of offering sacrifices. The Hebrew word for foolishly expresses a lack of moral or spiritual sense. By his actions, “Saul displayed his utter lack of spiritual comprehension.” According to Bruce Waltke in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament:

The verb is mostly used in contexts where a man acts out of fear and thus behaves rashly, rather than acting wisely out of a confidence based in God. Thus David recognizes that he acted foolishly in taking the census of Israel in order to determine his military strength. It was a foolish act because he sought his security apart from God (II Sam 24:10; I Chr 21:8). This practical atheism the Babylonians used to call “living in a ramanishu,” i.e. living by oneself, on one’s own resources, without dependence on God.

Saul had disobeyed the Lord’s command and would suffer the consequences. Samuel said if Saul had obeyed the command of the Lord, then his kingdom over Israel would have been established forever. “But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). Not only would Saul’s dynasty not continue, but another leader was commanded by Yahweh to be prince over Israel.

Saul was selected as a vassal king, a prince or ruler over Israel, but under the Lord. His actions at Gilgal revealed his heart. He was not whole heartedly devoted to Yahweh. As a result, God selected another who was a man after his own heart, who would keep his commandments and follow him with all his heart (1 Kings 14:8). There is a theological pattern here that can be traced back to the Garden of Eden, demonstrating a parallel between Saul and Adam.

As Robert Bergen noted, both men were leaders; both violated commands given them by the Lord; both failed to take personal responsibility for their actions when confronted. Both Saul and Adam sought independence from God, believing they had the right to disregard the commands of the Lord when they thought circumstances called for it. But that is not the prerogative of a vassal who was supposed to be loyal and obedient in exchange for the protection and blessing of the greater king. When the vassal violated this covenant, the greater king withdrew his protection and blessing. We see the same pattern repeated in the history of the kings of both Israel and Judah: the loss of position and privilege are inevitable consequences of violating the Lord’s commandments.

This is not simply a lesson for political leaders—be loyal and obedient to God or be removed from office. All those who are called by God are vassals to his greater kingship and are to pledge loyalty and obedience to Him. It’s good to be a king or leader, but that calling comes with an obligation to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelations 17:14, 19:16).

12/25/18

Be Careful What You Ask For

in the public domain; portrait of King Saul

Samuel was the last judge to rule over Israel before God granted their desire to have a king rule over them like the other nations around them. Although God had called up a series of judges to deliver and rule Israel since the time of Joshua, they did not have a king ruling over them. It seems they began to suffer from regal envy and political insecurity so they asked Samuel to appoint a king “to judge us like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:5). Be careful what you ask for, because you just may get it.

Modern governments divide their functions into legislative, executive and judicial departments, but ancient peoples did not always have these clear functional distinctions. So “judges” like Samson, Gideon, Samuel and others were rulers called by God to “judge” or rule Israel for Him in a time of trouble. We see where these rulers were primarily military leaders who delivered Israel from various oppressors. The primary sense of the Hebrew word for “judge” was to govern or rule, and not merely to exercise the more modern judicial function of a judge. But if they did preside over civil, domestic or religious cases judicially (in the modern sense), Israel’s judges were expected to do so with justice and righteousness.

During the early time that Samuel was a prophet and judge over Israel, the Philistines defeated Israel in battle twice, and even captured the ark of God (1 Samuel 4:1-11). But Israel repented of their idolatry and began again to serve the Lord alone, so God delivered them out of the hands of the Philistines (1Samuel 7:3-11). When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges (rulers) over Israel, but they were corrupt: “They took bribes and perverted justice” (1 Samuel 8:3). So the people of Israel told Samuel they wanted a king to rule them like the other nations surrounding them. This request displeased Samuel, so he prayed to the Lord, and God told him to give them what they asked for: appoint a king over them. “For they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them” (1 Samuel 8:7). But Samuel was also told by God to warn them what was coming by having a king rule them.

A king would draft their sons into a standing army. He will appoint for himself commanders to the divisions of his army and commandeer their lands for his own use and for his loyal servants. Their daughters would work as cooks, bakers and perfumers for him. He would even tax their grain and vineyards and give the proceeds to his officers and servants. He woul draft their servants and take their donkeys and flocks for his work (1 Samuel 8:11-18).

But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” 21 And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the Lord. 22 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king” (1 Samuel 8:19-22).

Now there were several good, common sense reasons for the people of Israel to want to have the centralized government of a king ruling (judging) them and fighting their battles. An aspect of ancient kingship was that the rule of law and government was embodied within the ruler. So the book of Judges repeatedly said that since “there was no king in Israel” (Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Also, according to Dillard and Longman in An Introduction to the Old Testament, the time of the book of Judges during the second half of the second millennium B.C. was a time of political and cultural upheaval. The cultures of the Hittites, Minoans and Myceneans were failing and then the Philistines (likely one of the Sea Peoples) settled along the coastal plain of the Mediterranean after a failed attempt to invade Egypt around 1190 B.C. See the follow map found in the Encyclopedia Britannica online.

The Philistines expanded into neighbouring areas and soon came into conflict with the Israelites, a struggle represented by the Samson saga (Judges 13–16) in the Hebrew Bible. Possessing superior arms and military organization, the Philistines were able (c. 1050 bce) to occupy part of the Judaean hill country. The Philistines’ local monopoly on smithing iron (I Samuel 13:19), a skill they probably acquired in Anatolia, was likely a factor in their military dominance during this period. They were finally defeated by the Israelite king David (10th century), and thereafter their history was that of individual cities rather than of a people. After the division of Judah and Israel (10th century), the Philistines regained their independence and often engaged in border battles with those kingdoms.

So under the guidance of the Lord, Samuel anointed Saul as the king of Israel (1 Samuel 10:1-8). Since he was tall and handsome, Saul had a kingly appearance (1 Samuel 9:2). After Saul defeated the Ammonites, Samuel reaffirmed his call as king at Gilgal (1 Samuel 11:14). Then Saul drafted his standing army with two thousand men under his command and another thousand under the command of his son, Jonathan. Both Saul and Jonathan had separate victories against the Philistines who then mustered an army of 36,000 against them. As Samuel had done before, he instructed Saul to wait for him seven days at Gilgal, where he would offer sacrifices and then tell Saul what the Lord said he should do.

But Samuel was late, and the army of Israelites under Saul began to desert. So Saul decided to offer the sacrifices himself . But as soon as he finished the burnt offering, Samuel came. When Samuel asked Saul why he failed to wait, he said the people were scattering because Samuel was late and the Philistines had begun to muster at Michmash. So he “forced” himself to offer the burnt offering.

Samuel told Saul he was foolish to disobey the Lord by personally offering the sacrifices instead of waiting for him to arrive. Samuel was still God’s prophet, even if he was no longer the ruler over Israel. Saul made “an executive decision” contrary to the explicit direction of God. As a result, God would not establish his dynasty over Israel. Instead, that would be the privilege of another, who would be a man after the Lord’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:1-14). This, of course, was an allusion to what God would do for David, who was a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22) who would have an everlasting dynasty (2 Samuel 7:8-13).

Under pressure, Saul had disobeyed God’s direction to him through the prophet Samuel and did what seemed right in his own eyes at the time. He made what would appear to be a common sense decision—dispense with the preliminary religious ritual and get on with fighting the Philistines before the entire army deserts. His decision showed how his religious behavior and his future actions as king weren’t from a heart devoted to God. Saul was exactly the kind of king Israel had asked for—a king that would rule over them like the other nations surrounding them—following what made sense to his own eyes. The lesson here is to be careful what you ask God for, because you just may get it.