I Samuel 12-15 - The Rejection of Saul

In these chapters, we get our first hints of David. Samuel, never a big fan of Saul or the idea of kingship, tells Saul: “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” (13:13-14). Two chapters later, he gets more specific: “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors – to one better than you” (15:28).

Of course, Samuel could just be bluffing. (See Robert Alter’s The David Story – New York: WW Norton & Co., 1999, p. 73). He hasn’t met David yet, much less anointed him. Why does Samuel have it in for Saul? While the LORD may have grudgingly accepted the notion of kingship, Samuel never really does. He sees no need for a king. Samuel has been a good judge. He has not treated the people as their kings will. He has not taken bribes or oppressed them – although he hasn’t stopped his sons from doing just that.

So what are Saul’s big crimes? He steps in for a tardy Samuel in offering a burnt sacrifice, and he fails to annihilate utterly the Amalekites. After both offenses, Samuel tells him that he has violated the commandments of the LORD. Are the prophet’s commandments and the LORD’s always the same thing?

How reliable a prophet is Samuel? At the end of chapter 15, he makes this pronouncement after Saul begs him – and the LORD - to give him another chance: “The Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind” (15:29). Yet isn’t that exactly what seems to be happening in these chapters? The LORD tells Samuel outright: “I regret that I made Saul king.” If God is truly free, then isn’t God also free to change direction or do something new?

Of course, Saul doesn’t do much to help his cause in these chapters. Already he’s setting up monuments for himself (15:2) – in contrast to the humility he displayed earlier. While he sits passively under the pomegranate tree, his son Jonathan stages a brave raid against the Philistines. In Jonathan’s words, “It may be that the LORD will act for us; for nothing can hinder the LORD from saving by many or by few” (14:6). While Jonathan is out saving the day, Saul makes a foolish oath (without Jonathan’s knowledge) and forbids his hungry troops from eating anything until he is fully avenged – as if this is his personal battle. After it is discovered that Jonathan unknowingly violated his father’s command, Saul would rather maintain a foolish consistency than spare his own child. Fortunately, the people intercede for Jonathan – and David’s future best friend is spared.

Perhaps Saul is not fully aware of the implications of his actions. He doesn’t see himself as his people see him. For all of Samuel’s questionable behavior in these chapters, his question to Saul is spot on: “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel?” (15:17)

As for Samuel’s command (supposedly from the LORD) to wipe out the Amalekites, a number of questions arise. What could the Amalekites have possibly done to deserve annihilation? Apparently, they fought with the weary Israelites as Moses led them through the wilderness 400 years before when they were unable to defend themselves (Exodus 17:8-16, Deuteronomy 25:17-19). Does the LORD really hold that kind of grudge? Whether or not the command is from the LORD, Saul’s motive in sparing the Amalekite king and the best of the animals is not mercy. He and his soldiers destroy only what they cannot use. Saul denies this at first, claiming that they were going to sacrifice the animals to the LORD. Under pressure from Samuel, he then changes his story – saying that he listened to the people instead of the LORD. After making his point (“to obey is better than sacrifice” (15:22)), Samuel uses what he might call the “measure for measure” principle of punishment. Since Saul rejected the LORD’s command, the LORD now rejects him as king. Seemingly no amount of repentance on Saul’s part will change the outcome. But does Saul’s punishment really fit his crime?

What do you think? What could David learn from Saul’s mistakes up to this point? Click on “comments” and add your thoughts!

I Samuel 8-11 - The Rise of Saul

If this is the David story, why start here? Our expectations of David are framed by the leaders who come before – namely, Samuel and Saul. We start with the people’s demand for a king – so they can be “like other nations.” Israel was never meant to be like the other nations; their very identity was wrapped up in a radical dependence on the steadfast love and faithfulness of the LORD. Here they attempt to shake off those bonds. They reject the One who delivered them from slavery in Egypt for a king who will take their land and conscript their children. In Samuel’s words, “you shall be his slaves” (8:17).

Was it really so wrong for them to want a king? Was the tribal confederacy with its system of judges any better? While Samuel was a good judge, his sons “took bribes and perverted justice” (8:3). Already we’re seeing what happens when sons automatically inherit their father’s role. 

The problem is more complex than it first appears. This is more than a simple indictment of centralized government. We’re told in Judges 21:25 that without a king, “all the people did what was right in their own eyes.”  The book of Judges is a tale of chaotic violence and anarchy. Kings can bring unity when unity is required. They offer the promise of protection, even if they are not always able to guarantee it. The people are quite clear in what they want – “that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight for us” (8:20). Kings also provide convenient targets for blame, but that’s another story.

Be careful when you get what you want. The LORD makes sure that the people are warned and then lets them live with their choice. The relationship between God’s will and human freedom is complicated in I and II Samuel. While the LORD does act to influence outcomes, humans also have room to make real choices. Perhaps this interplay is nowhere better illustrated than in the life of Saul. He’s both tragically set up to fail and responsible for his own choices.

Saul never asked to be king. While out chasing his father’s donkeys, Samuel takes him aside at the LORD’s prodding and anoints him as the next ruler of Israel. Saul is understandably baffled. He says nothing to his family about it. Then when he’s chosen publicly by lot to be king, they find him hiding among the baggage. The next time we find him, he’s “coming from the field behind the oxen” (11:5). It takes a while before he actively grabs the reins of power.

Why did the LORD pick him? Like David, he’s handsome and comes from humble origins. As part of the tribe of Benjamin (the youngest son of Jacob), he comes from “the least of the tribes of Israel” (9:21). That part is not so disturbing; the God of the Old Testament is known for choosing the least likely for greatness. And like David, the spirit of the LORD enters him in startling ways. In chapter 10, Saul shows a capacity for David-like ecstasy and self-transcendence. Saul too dances before the LORD. We’re told in this moment that “God gave him another heart” (10:9). There’s almost heartbreaking potential here.

Yet even at this early date, some are asking: “How can this man save us?” (10:27) To his credit, Saul does not overreact. At the moment of his great triumph over the Ammonites when he could easily take vengeance, he shows remarkable restraint. He even gives credit where credit is due: “Today the LORD has brought deliverance to Israel” (11:13).

The violence we read about in chapter 11 is undoubtedly disturbing. Was butchering a yoke of oxen really necessary to get the people’s attention? Whether or not it was necessary, it worked. The tribes were bound by oath to join in any action needed for the defense of their fellow Israelites. Saul acts decisively here to defend the brutally bullied of Jabesh-gilead, and it appears that the LORD approves. While we are understandably squeamish at any divine “approval” of war, it’s worth noting that this moment is not about conquest. It’s about survival.  Victims of injustice are seemingly allowed to defend themselves. The strong are not free to abuse the weak. (For more on this, see Walter Brueggemann's First and Second Samuel - Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990, p. 88). Of course, defining what is “just” becomes more complicated over time, and the definitions of who is “strong” and who is “weak” will continue to shift.  

What do you notice in these opening chapters? Do you see any signs of trouble to come? Click on “comments” and join the discussion!