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 have sometimes been puzzled by these chapters. Does God turn against Saul too easily? Is God more tolerant of David and his faults, than of Saul? Or is Saul’s heart inclined differently from David’s, and is God above all heedful of the heart? I have tried to find some kind of answer in the story itself.
ReplyDeleteIn ch. 12 Samuel recounts the deeds of the Lord, and the peoples’ history of episodic loyalty to the true God, and warns both the king and people to follow God—or else! The people, threatened with the immediate wreck of their harvest and the prospect of starvation, admit “the evil of demanding a king for ourselves.” (12:91) Samuel reassures the people that if they “turn aside after useless things that cannot profit or save,”(12:21) and maintain loyalty, they are after all God’s people and the lord shall save his people. The Lord will remain faithful to his people--but “if you still do wickedly,” watch out!
In ch. 13, Samuel accuses Saul of violating the Lord’s commandment by declaring war before its appointed time. Samuel, ever the prophet, tells Saul that because his heart has turned from the Lord, “your kingdom will not continue.” (12:14)
In ch. 14, Saul’s son Jonathan on his own initiative begins fighting the Philistines. Saul learned of this, brought his troops against the Philistines, and (intending to ensure victory) cursed anyone who would eat on that day. Jonathan, unaware of the curse, ate. After the Hebrews prevailed, many ate uncleanly—the blood along with the meat of the livestock they had seized. Saul, despite lack of God’s approval, decided to further pursue the Philistines. Saul swore to kill whoever had eaten despite the curse, unexpectedly found that Jonathan had eaten, but turned to the people (who had also violated the curse by eating) and secured pardon for Jonathan—against Saul’s own oath. Saul then discontinued his war against the Philistines, for the moment. (To me this narrative sounds a lot like the chaos of “real life.”)
But peace was only temporary. Under Saul, Israel had enemies on every side, and constant fighting.
In ch. 15, Samuel tells Saul that the Lord desires total extermination of the Amalekites and their livestock, for having opposed the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. But when Saul did not obey entirely, the Lord told Samuel that Saul has been listening to himself, and not to the Lord; “I regret that I made Saul king.”(15:11) Samuel, speaking for God, says that Saul disobeyed the Lord in failing to destroy all the livestock of the Amalekites, instead taking the best of those riches as spoils, doing “what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” (15:19) (Saul appears to have put pursuit of riches ahead of God’s command.)
Saul tries to justify himself, saying that he intended to save the best spoils for sacrifice to the Lord [really?]. Samuel tells Saul that he has disobeyed the voice of the Lord, rebelled and rejected God, and therefore is rejected as king. (15:23) [Does God seem to be overreacting—or is something else at stake, and not only full and literal obedience?]
Saul tries unsuccessfully to avoid this verdict of rejection, saying that he has listened to the people. But Saul, unwilling to achieve total destruction of the Amalekites had also failed to follow the Lord’s command to destroy Agag, king of the Amalekites. [Was Saul looking toward a ransom for this king?] Samuel has Saul call Agag, and because Agag has killed many Israelites, Samuel the prophet (acting for God,the story goes) chops Agag into pieces, “before the Lord in Gilgal.” ((15:34) Samuel grieved, as did the Lord. In the next chapter, Samuel is sent to find the new king.
Was Saul rejected by God, not because of God’s stubbornness, but because of Saul’s persistence in filtering God’s will through his own personal will? Did he set himself up as a rival source of will, a rival good to God’s? Are there echoes here of original sin in the Garden of Eden.