Читать книгу God’s First King - Shaul Bar - Страница 9

In Ancient Near Eastern civilizations it was believed that kingship came down from heaven. It was a divine institution, and some kings were even considered to be the offspring of gods, or at least semi-divine in nature. Not so in the Hebrew Bible, which records that a human was chosen king; this was none other than Saul. The book of Samuel is the only source from the ancient world that gives us a detailed description of how the monarchy was established. Indeed, the Israelites urged Samuel to appoint a king over them. The elders demanded a king who would govern and rule them. This is described not as a myth or a legend that existed among other nations, but as an accurate tradition reflecting a historical process. Therefore, we will investigate what suddenly prompted the Israelites to ask Samuel to appoint a king over them.

Until this request, Israel was a theocracy, and their heavenly king endowed earthly judges with charismatic powers to fight and deliver them from their enemies. So what prompted Israel’s demand for a king? Was it fear of the Philistines? Or were there social and political motives for the request? In two major speeches, “the rights of the king” (1 Sam 8:1–22), and in his farewell speech to the people of Israel (1 Samuel 12), after he had already anointed Saul as a king, the prophet Samuel rejects harshly the idea of kingship. This rejection is puzzling since God already told Abraham: “I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you; and kings shall come forth from you” (Gen 17:6). More so, there is no prohibition against human kingship in the laws of Deuteronomy. Thus, in what era were these anti-monarchial views composed, and by whom? What was the main reason for Samuel’s objections to kingship? Was there any personal agenda behind his rejection of kingship? In addition, Saul’s coronation appears in three versions. These different versions have provoked much debate among modern scholars, and what stands behind each version requires analysis. Why are they related in different places and in different ways? Are there links between the different traditions?

Appoint a King for Us

Samuel’s old age and his sons’ corruption led the elders of Israel to implore Samuel to appoint a king to judge them (1 Sam 8:5). Surprisingly, in the Hebrew Bible old age is not always a sign of grace and wisdom, but sometimes is the reason for failure by the biblical hero. Therefore, Isaac’s old age facilitated Rebecca and Jacob’s deception, and helped appropriate the birth right from Esau (Genesis 27). Eli, in his old age, did not rebuke his sons for their sins (1 Sam 2:22; 3:2, 13). King David, in old age, did not scold Adonijah for his boasting (1 Kgs 1:6); and the aged King Solomon married foreign women and worshiped other gods (1 Kgs 11:4).

Another reason the elders mentioned was the behavior of Samuel’s sons. They are described as being bent on gain, accepting bribes, and subverting justice. These transgressions are associated with judges and people with power; personality types the biblical narrators criticize. In Deuteronomy (10:17; 16:19; 27:25) and Exodus (23:6, 8) they appear as transgressions against God’s laws. The wicked lives led by Samuel’s sons are analogous to Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, who were known for their sinful lives (1 Sam 2:12–17). Evidently, the criticism of Samuel’s sons initiated a crisis and caused tension between Samuel and the elders. This tension is noted as: “Samuel was displeased” (1 Sam 8:6).

At first glance, it is not clear whether the appointment of Samuel’s sons as judges was to replace him or to relieve him of judicial responsibilities at a remote site.1 It was not customary for a judge to appoint his own sons as judges since judgeship was not hereditary. By appointing his sons, Samuel broke the customary practice of God appointing a new judge. Samuel probably tried to create “a hereditary succession” to replace the house of Eli.2 Therefore, after the destruction of Shiloh he did not ask the people to rebuild Shiloh, but built an altar in his hometown of Ramah (1 Sam 7:17). Moreover, he called the people to fast, pray, and sacrifice at Mizpah. He did not even mention the presence of the Ark of the Covenant housed in Kiriath-jearim.3 It appears that Samuel sought to establish his own dynasty, but the people opposed this attempt. According to R. P. Gordon, Samuel conducted his own “little dynastic experiment.”4 The people of Israel did not want to confront Samuel directly, so they raised concerns about his age and his sons’ behavior. Their opposition was directed against the dynastic idea.

The elders believed that the current system was insufficient to handle the Philistine threat. Therefore, the elders do not request a new righteous judge, but asked instead for a king to judge them like all the other nations.5 This request is repeated after Samuel describes “the rights of the king” (1 Sam 8:11–17). Samuel attempts to persuade the people to abandon the idea of human kingship. Despite Samuel’s harsh criticism of human kingship, the people refuse to listen and repeated their demand for a king (8:19; 10:19; 12:12). In 8:20, the people demand that the king will “go out before us and fight our battles.” Ackroyd points out that this verse refers to functions of kingship that emphasize “order and security.”6 The people of Israel thought and believed that kingship would bring military advantages; the king would lead them and fight their battles. The Israelites constantly battled with the Philistines, who had oppressed them at the end of the period of the judges and during Eli’s tenure as priest. After the defeat at Aphek, the Philistines controlled a large part of the territory of Ephraim. Their army controlled and occupied part of the land of Israel; they set prefects to control those areas. Recent archaeological data show that late in the eleventh century many villages were destroyed and abandoned and others grew in size and became regional centers.7 Inhabitants of these villages moved to larger and more protected sites. The Philistine threat induced this process. The war with the Philistines was long and continued throughout Saul’s lifetime. During Samuel’s era, the Philistines were repelled from Ekron to Gath in the south (7:11–14). This victory was short-lived. Later, during Saul’s monarchy, after the victory over Goliath, the Israelites chased the Philistines from Gath to Ekron (17:52). Evidently, the temporary leadership that existed since the time of the judges could not deal effectively with the Philistine threat. Therefore, strong leadership was necessary, and a drastic change inevitable. But, was there more than just a threat from the Philistines?

The threat from the Philistines in the west was not the only problem faced by Israel. At the same time, the Ammonites posed a threat on the east side of the Jordan River. The Ammonites had oppressed the Israelites since the time of Jephthah. The victory against the Ammonites was brief (Judg 11:29–34; 12:1–7). There is probably historical truth to the story of the rise of Nahash, the king of the Ammonites (1 Sam 12:12). Most likely, the Israelite tribes in the Transjordan asked for a king in order to face the threat from the Ammonites. Their proximity to the Ammonites, coupled with the fact that Ammon and Moab were monarchies, contributed to their fears. Additionally, 1 Samuel reads: “But when you saw that Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, had come against you, you said, ‘No! A king shall rule over us’” (12:12). This is the first example of a demand for a king to fight the Ammonites.

The demand for a king for military reasons is a repeated motif in the other parts of the narrative. In the story of Saul’s coronation, God chooses Saul to deliver the Israelites from the hands of the Philistines (9:16). In his speech after the victory against the Ammonites, Samuel describes the idyllic kingship. When the Israelites see that Nahash, king of the Ammonites, was advancing they say to Samuel: “No! A king shall rule over us” (12:12). The demand for a king and desire to be like other nations is ironic. God calls the Israelites his own people; however, they aspire to be like all the other nations. God was their King; nevertheless they want a human king.

Moral and Economic Changes

There was also a moral dimension to the request for a king. Starting at the period of the judges, there are repeated statements about lack of justice that prevailed among the Israelites because there was no king. In Judges 17–21 we find the common refrain: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did as he pleased.” This formula unifies diverse stories in Judges by demonstrating the chaos that existed in the absence of a king.8 The author describes murders, wars, strife among brothers, rapes, and cultic sins. This kind of reality also existed on the eve of the monarchial period. It was the lack of justice and prevailing anarchy that also contributed to the demand for a king. Interestingly, an almost identical formula appears in Egyptian literature from the same period. Papyrus Harris I, most likely dating from the reign of Ramesses IV (ca. 1150 BCE), includes a retrospective history of the interval before the pharaoh Sethnakht’s accession, which is described as a time of lawlessness: “The land of Egypt was abandoned, every man a law unto himself. They had no leader (for) many years previously, until other times, when the land of Egypt had officials and city rulers, one (man) slew his fellow, great and humble.”9 After this period, the document describes another time consisting of “empty years” in which the Syrian Irsu set himself up as a prince of Egypt, followed by an account of Sethnakht being chosen by the gods, saying, “He (re)established order (in) the entire land, which had languished: he slew the rebels who had been in Egypt; he cleansed the Great throne of Egypt.”10

Another possible explanation for the formation of the monarchy in Israel lies in social and economic changes that occurred in Israelite society. The boost in population and growth in agriculture needed to be accommodated.11 It was the technological advancements, such as agricultural terracing and plastered cisterns for holding rainwater, coupled with the new iron technology that enabled the expansion of settlements and the creation of agricultural surplus. These new independent settlements with their flourishing agriculture attracted the Philistine aggression, which led to the formation of kingship. Gottwald mentions the Philistines as the main reason for the establishment of the monarchy, nevertheless he also claims that the use of iron and plastered water cisterns allowed the expansion of agriculture in the hill country, and thus led to population growth. The production of surpluses required complex management beyond the family unit; this led to social changes.12

By the end of the eleventh century the population in the central hill country more than doubled, and other regions of the highlands followed this pattern.13 The growth in population increased the growth in agricultural productivity, which transformed the Israelite social structure. Population growth within the current social structure of the Israelite society, where only the oldest son received double the inheritance, deprived many young men from relying solely on farming for a livelihood. The land in the highlands was very limited, thus many young, unmarried males looked for other economic opportunities. Yet, the establishment of the monarchy created new opportunities; it offered the young people a “safety valve,” enabling careers in the military, government, or priesthood.14 It is believed that David, who was the youngest in his family, was forced to leave home because there wasn’t much inheritance left for him when he became of age. David left home because he was looking for a new resource for his livelihood. He found it in the military activity in the service of Saul and later as the leader of his own outlaw band of mercenaries.15

Samuel’s Denunciation of Kingship

In contrast to the elders’ demand for a king, Samuel the prophet vehemently rejected the idea of human kingship. Modern scholars disagree strongly concerning the reason behind Samuel’s denunciation of kingship, and the timing of its composition. Wellhausen believed that the stories describing Samuel’s anti-monarchial views were composed in the Second Temple period. Theocratic views were prevalent among the priests and sages who governed during that period. The disappointment arising from the destruction of the temple buttressed this ideology, which viewed human kingship as a sin. The ideal was a religious community, which, through the study of the Torah and the fulfillment of God’s commandments, would receive God’s mercy and salvation.16

Budde held that the anti-monarchial stories were composed in the second half of the eighth century BCE, marked by the decline of the northern kingdom and its eventual destruction. To support his view, he points to the prophecies of Hosea that describe disappointment with human kingship (Hos 3:4–5; 8:4, 10; 13:10–11).17 Nevertheless, the same prophet embraced messianic expectations, prophesying that in the end days the Israelites: “Will seek the Lord their God and David their King” (3:5).

The opposition to kingship did not emerge in a later period, for it had already existed much earlier among the Israelite tribes. The verses in Samuel that object to kingship do not reflect a later period; they do describe the reality that existed during Saul’s period. Those passages were probably composed at the beginning of Saul’s reign.18

Opposition to human kingship is an early phenomenon and appears in the book of Judges with the story of Gideon.19 When the men of Israel say to Gideon: “Rule over us—you, your son, and your grandson as well,” Gideon replied: “I will not rule over you myself, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord alone shall rule over you” (Judg 8:22–23). Rejection of human kingship is also found in the fable of Jotham (Judg 9:8–15). The fable parodies human kingship, with its origin in the “plants legend” found in Sumerian literature.20 In the fables of Gideon and Jotham, the rejection of human kingship is a theme. The stories possess literary traits of an earlier period and do not have traits of later composition, such as Deuteronomistic terminology. One senses that people did not want to give up their individual freedom and liberties.21

It was Samuel, not God, who was unhappy with the people’s request.22 Samuel’s main objection was the fear that the Israelite kingship would be similar to “the other nations,” but as noted already, Samuel had a different agenda; he tried to establish his own prophetic dynasty.23

Samuel outlined the rights of the king (1 Sam 8:11–18) to express his objection to human kingship. The whole section is directed against the demand for a human king. Samuel included the following reasons for his objections:

1. The demand for a human king displays distrust in God and his ability to save his people.

2. The request for a king is similar to worshiping other gods.

3. Human kings will appropriate all the people’s possessions, control their lives, and revoke their liberties.

4. Since humans and not God choose the king, God will not answer their pleas or deliver them of their distress (v. 18).24

This is one-sided; Samuel avoids mentioning the positive elements of kingship such as establishing justice, providing leadership, and maintaining security. The people of Israel were aware of Samuel’s motives and told him: “Let our king rule over us and go out at our head and fight our battles” (1 Sam 8:20).25

The rejection of human kingship is also repeated in Samuel’s farewell speech (1 Samuel 12). The speech is presented as a dialogue between Samuel and the people where Samuel is the protagonist. It has three major sections: (1) The prophet is compared to the king; (2) the power of the prophet is demonstrated; and (3) the future of the prophet is foretold.26 In the speech, the king is portrayed as a person who does things for his own self-interest, not as a leader, judge, and warrior. To strengthen this, the king is described as a person who will take (laqaḥ) everything from the people and enslave them.27 Yet, Samuel takes nothing from the people. The king described in Samuel’s speech is antithetical to the judges who previously delivered the Israelites from oppression. The implication is clear; this kind of leader is neither needed nor desirable. In comparing the old and the new, the prophet glorifies the past while criticizing the future king.

Samuel viewed himself as God’s instrument on earth, and saw human kingship as a threat to his authority and status. It was a direct threat to establishing his dynasty. The demand was also a threat against the authority of the priests in the holy places like Mizpah, Bethel, and Gilgal. A human king meant a decline in priestly power and influence. Evidently, Samuel’s fears were justified and from the time that Saul was elected, Samuel’s stature declined steadily. He had no role in the establishment of the army (1 Sam 13:2), or the recruitment of people in the war against the Philistines. Moreover, Saul assumed cultic leadership of making sacrifice, a function formerly held by Samuel. Another blow to his status was the return of the priests of the house of Eli, who became priests in the service of the king. Indeed, from here on, the priests came increasingly to serve the kings of Israel. Not surprisingly Samuel opposed the idea of kingship, realizing that kingship meant a diminution in his power. Samuel’s speeches reflect the early monarchial period foreshadowing the future of constant battles over power and influence between the prophets and the kings of Israel.

The Lost Donkeys of Kish

The story of Saul searching for the lost donkeys of his father, and then founding the kingship has been termed by scholars as a Legende.28 The story describes ancient events directed by God. In other words: God chooses the king and the prophet anoints the king. But the Bible does not elucidate why God picked Saul. Similarly, when God chose Abraham no detail of his past life is given, his first seventy-five years are ignored. The same pattern occurred with Gideon, Samson, and David; no explanations for their selection are provided. This evidently troubled the sages, who tried to clarify the rationale for the selection of Saul. According to them, Saul was known for his bravery in the battle of Ebenezer, where he snatched the tablets from the hand of the Philistine warrior Goliath and brought them to Shiloh.29

Scholars point to several layers in the account, which includes the story of the lost donkeys and the anointing of Saul. However, they disagree on the subject of which verses to assign to each story.30 Recently, several studies point to a single account that has been revised and expanded during the process of transmission.31 The earliest part of the tale belonged to the folkloristic story, describing Saul searching for his father’s donkeys.32 While searching, he encounters a seer or a man of God who indicates his future greatness. The story of Samuel anointing Saul as a prince was inserted into this story.33 The editor who inserted this section was influenced by a “call form,” which is found in stories about Moses, Gideon, and several prophets.34

Saul first appears as a young man sent by his father to search for lost donkeys. The Bible describes him as “an excellent young man; no one among the Israelites was handsomer than he; he was a head taller than any of the people” (1 Sam 9:2). The Hebrew term bah.ur suggests that he was a young man about to enter adult life. In other words, Saul had reached his maturity and was ready to assume adult responsibilities. Richter suggests that the term means one who can fight in war, receive inheritance, and was of marriageable age.35

The second detail about Saul was his physical attraction. The rabbis stress his physical stature, noting he was one of the biblical personalities who were created in God’s likeness.36 Describing an Israelite hero as attractive is a biblical staple, e.g., Joseph (Gen 39:6), Moses (Exod 2:2), David (1 Sam 16:12), Absalom (2 Sam 14:25), and Esther (Esth 2:7). Eissfeldt claimed that God chose Saul because of his height, “he was taller than all the rest of the people from his shoulder upward” (1 Sam 10:22).37 This is unlikely since God tells Samuel: “For it is not as a man sees that God sees: a man looks into the face, but God looks into the heart” (16:7).38

Saul’s father, Kish, loses some donkeys. He enlists Saul to help him find the lost animals. In ancient times nobility rode donkeys, and in Zech 9:9 the messiah rides an ass. Mules are mentioned with the elevation of Solomon as a king (1 Kgs 1:33–35, 38–40). Hence, loss of the donkeys denotes poverty and inability to function as a leader.39 C. H. Gordon compares Saul with King Agamemnon, whom Nestor encountered wandering at night, and he asks if he is looking for one of his mules or comrades (Iliad 10:84).40

The search for the lost donkeys leads Saul and his servant across the hill country of Ephraim. Failing to find them, Saul becomes discouraged and resolves to turn back. At this point, the servant urges Saul to seek the help and advice of the man of God who will inform them correctly about their journey. The Hebrew word used for advise is yaggid from the verb higgid (inform/ make known), which is related etymologically to nāgîd, the title that Samuel subsequently bestows on Saul in 10:1. Ironically, Saul asks the man of God to tell him higgid about the lost donkeys, but he informs him that he will be king nagid of Israel.

It was customary to pay the man of God for advice; hence, Saul was dispirited because of his inability to compensate the man of God with a gift. Paul calls it an “interview fee.” Indeed, we read about Jeroboam’s wife who accepted gifts when she visited Ahijah (1 Kgs 14:3); gifts for Elijah (2 Kgs 4:42); and prophetic fees in Amos 7:12 and Mic 3:5.41 Gifts were vital in establishing good relations, and were part of social interaction in the ancient world. After a long journey, a traveler was especially expected to return bearing many gifts.42 As mentioned above, Saul was dejected because he bore no gift for the prophet.43 Later, coincidentally, we read that Saul’s servant found a quarter of a shekel of silver to give to the prophet. The servant is the dominant character here. First, he urged Saul to consult the prophet after he abandoned his search for the donkeys. Then, after Saul was disheartened for not having a gift, it is the servant again who rescued him with a quarter shekel of silver.

The Meetings

The narrative records a meeting between Saul and the maidens at the well, even before Saul meets with Samuel. This resembles previous meetings at wells, including Abraham’s servant meeting Rebecca, Jacob meeting Rachel, as well as Moses meeting Ziporah. All these meetings result in marriages; but in this meeting, the girls direct Saul to Samuel, who would anoint Saul as king. The girls knew about the prophet’s arrival, where he was staying, and about the sacrifice. They were heralds who directed Saul to his destination. Similarly, when Joseph sought his brothers, he encountered a man in the field who had seen them and knew their final destination. In both episodes one senses God’s guiding hand, acting behind the scene and directing events. The sages point out that Saul asked the girls a brief question, “Is the seer here?” while the girls replied at length. The Gemara comments: “Because women are talkers, another answer: But Shmuel said: They delayed in order to gaze upon Saul’s handsomeness. As it is written about Saul: from his shoulders up, he was taller than any of the people.”44

Saul did not anticipate the meeting, but Samuel knew about it in advance (9:15–16). God revealed Saul’s arrival to Samuel, and instructed him to anoint Saul. Likewise, in the New Testament, God told John the Baptist that Jesus is the Messiah and he will baptize him (John 1:29–34). Ironically, when Saul met Samuel, and he says “tell me” (haggidah-na), the reader already knows that Samuel has to designate him as nagid/king. Therefore, when Saul says to Samuel “tell me” (haggidah-na li), it might mean “designate me.”

Samuel asked Saul to dine with him, at which time he will tell him everything that is on his mind. The narrator does not tell us that Saul asked about the donkeys per se, but we learn that they have been found. In addition, Samuel told Saul: “And to whom do the riches of Israel belong if not to you and to your father’s house” (9:20). Saul understood it as a reference to kingship. The people of Israel knew that Samuel was looking for a king. Therefore Saul said: “‘Am I not a Benjaminite?,’ i.e., from the smallest tribe of Israel and from the humblest clan of all the tribe of Benjamin? Then why have you spoken to me this way?” Saul claims he is unworthy, a typical response by people called for a mission by God, as did Moses (Exod 3:11) and Gideon (Judg 6:15).45

Saul is God’s anointed; therefore Samuel brought him to a sacrificial meal, placing him at the head of thirty guests. The number thirty is typological, and appears often in Judges and Samuel.46 The LXX and Josephus have seventy guests.47 Seventy is an artificial number identifying the guests with the institution of the “elders of Israel” that the Torah numbers seventy (Exod 24:1; Num 11:16, 24). Additionally, Adonijah held a banquet-sacrifice when he planned to succeed his father David as a king, while Absalom invited two hundred people to a banquet-sacrifice as part of his plan to become king (2 Sam 23:13, 18).

Saul sat at the head of the table as a form of introduction. Saul was introduced to those who would be his subjects. Similarly when Moses introduced Joshua as his successor, it reads: “Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and before the whole community, and commission him in their sight” (Num 27:19). At the meal, Saul received the “thigh of consecration”—that part of the sacrificial animal reserved for the priests and their families.48 He is the only king who received the “thigh of consecration,” and is treated as a priest as he is given the priestly share of the sacrifice (1 Sam 10:4). Leviticus (8:32) states that only Aaron and his sons are allowed to eat from this sacrifice, and what was not eaten had to be destroyed. C. H. Gordon points out that all guests were not equal in rank, which was indicated by the amount and quality of their serving. He terms it a “proportionate feast” with parallels in the Odyssey (8.98; 11.185).49 By giving Saul the “thigh of consecration,” Samuel indicated Saul’s future role.

The encounter between Saul and Samuel contains several motifs found in other prophetic stories. Samuel appears as a prophet; he knows what will happen to Saul on his return journey and whom he will meet (1 Sam 10:2, 3–4, 5–6, 10–11).50 Samuel prophesied that Saul would meet a band of prophets and prophesy along with them (1 Sam 10:5–6). Thus, like prophets, Saul becomes God’s messenger. Another element typical to the prophetic stories that we alluded to was the giving of a suitable gift for his consultation to the prophet (1 Sam 9:7–8; 1 Kgs 14:3; 13:7; 2 Kgs 5:15; 8:8–9).

Saul’s Anointing

Ramah

At the break of day, Samuel secretly anointed Saul. The servant is dispatched. Saul is left alone with Samuel. In the biblical literature, a divine call is depicted as a private experience. Samuel anointed David among his brothers (17:3–5, 13); Jehu was anointed by one of the disciples of the prophet Elisha (2 Kgs 9:10); Ahijah the Shilonite told Jeroboam that he would become the king when they were outside of Jerusalem (1 Kgs 11:29). On the other hand, the Bible reveals that the coronation ceremonies of Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32–39) and Joash of Judah (2 Kgs 11:12, 14) were public. The high priest, dignitaries, and representatives of the people participated. The high priest did the anointing while the people shouted praises.51

When Saul was anointed, he was not termed king (melek), but is given the title nāgîd. This has led some scholars to believe that Samuel and the tribal leaders never intended to elevate Saul to the kingship.52 However, the term nāgîd means a person chosen by God for kingship.

Samuel anointed Saul, which consisted in rubbing or smearing with oil. This act, it was believed, transferred the sanctity of the national god to the king. Anointing symbolized a covenant between God and the king, indicating that God would protect the king, and it bestowed legitimacy.

The sages believed that kings who formed a new dynasty, or renewed an interrupted dynasty, or kings with a disputed coronation, were anointed:

They anoint kings only on account of civil strife. Why did they anoint Solomon? Because of the strife of Adonijah. And Jehu? Because of Joram. And Joash? Because of Athaliah. And Jehoahaz? Because of Jehhoiakim his brother, who was two years older than he. A king requires anointing, [but] a son of a king does not require anointing. A high priest, son of a high priest, even up to the tenth generation, [nonetheless] requires anointing.53

Thus the question arises: why was there a need to hide the anointing of the first king of Israel since he did not usurp the office? According to Elat, the story of Saul’s secret anointing contains no historical truth.54 Its origin lies in a literary motif reflecting the social and political realities of Israel where prophets like Ahijah, Elijah, and Elisha fought against sinful kings. They anointed a person they believed was chosen by God, in place of a sinful king. It was the prophetic circles who, from the time of David and Solomon, acted and continued subsequently in the northern kingdom. This prophetic circle introduced Samuel as the father of their circle, who anointed the first king.55 Yet, we must stress that Saul did not replace a sinful king.

The anointing of Saul was done secretly and privately because there are two stages of the election depicted here. The first stage entailed divine designation before the proper enthronement ritual. Many times, the chosen person was young, weak, and felt unworthy. A private ceremony could encourage him and instill confidence in his ability to carry out his task successfully. The two-stage election is manifest with Jeremiah who says that he was selected from the womb, and later when he was young, was sent on a mission (Jer 1:5–6).56 Parallels exist in Egyptian and Mesopotamian traditions. Thut-Mose III claimed that the god Amon said that he would be upon his throne while he was still nestling. Later it was Re who established his throne.57 Thutmose IV claimed that Re told him in a dream that he shall bequeath the kingdom to him long before he ascended to the throne.58 Mesopotamian literature tells of kings like Assur-rêsh-ishi, Asshurbanipal, and Nabonidus, who claimed to be designated in the womb.59

In the biblical story, the first stage takes place in Ramah, where Saul is designated as future king. In Mizpah, where Saul is crowned before the whole nation, the second act occurs. Saul’s anointing also includes a message from Samuel: Saul would liberate the Israelites from their enemies. Samuel gives Saul signs that God has anointed him as a king of Israel. These three signs would occur in three different locations. The first will take place at Rachel’s tomb, where he will meet two people who will tell him three things: the donkeys were found, his father had given up on finding the donkeys, and his father is worried about him.

The second will take place at the Oak of Tabor where he will meet three people. One will carry three kids, one will carry three bags of bread, and one will carry a jug of wine. They will greet him and offer him two wave offerings of bread, which he will accept. The bread is intended for God, but Saul is instructed to accept it.60 It is possible that the second sign is a fulfillment of the royal tribute that was mentioned by Samuel (9:20). Indeed, Wiseman points out that the bread was to be accepted “since such ‘greetings’ and gifts were part of the customary diplomatic acknowledgment of a king’s new position and authority.”61

The third encounter will occur at the Hill of God where the Philistine prefect was located. Saul will encounter a band of prophets who will have timbrels, flutes, and harps in front of them, and they will be prophesying with musical instruments.

Samuel predicted that the encounter with the band of prophets would change Saul, as “The spirit of God will rush upon” him, and he would prophesy (1 Sam 10:6). This is a typical expression in the stories of Samson and Saul where the hero is empowered by God’s spirit to perform heroic actions (Judg 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam 11:6). Saul started to prophesy by musical inspiration the same way Elijah prophesied by music (2 Kgs 3:15). As the spirit rushes upon him he changed (1 Sam 10:9). And when the spirit departs, while David was playing the lyre (1 Sam 16:14, 23), an evil spirit seizes Saul (1 Sam 18:10).

The Coronation at Mizpah

Contrasting the private secretive anointing of Saul, the coronation at Mizpah was public. Saul was anointed by Samuel first as nāgîd, now he is elected a king. As Herzberg pointed out, Saul’s rise to power was narrated in different ways in different places. However, he acknowledges the general agreement that God directs the events and uses Samuel as his instrument.62

Here, Saul is chosen king by a “lot.” The Hebrew Bible maintains that a lottery was used to determine an unknown offender. In the Achan story, a lot was cast to find the person who did not follow the laws of the ban (Josh 7:1). Later a lot was cast to find out who broke Saul’s vow (1 Sam 14:24–29). In each case the reader knows who will be caught. It is not clear why a lot was cast to identify the king of Israel since Samuel had already anointed Saul. Moreover, the fact that a lot was cast to find the king of Israel gives the impression that Saul might be guilty of something. The feeling that things will turn deleteriously arises. According to McCarter “there is a clear, if subtle, implication that he is an offending party by the virtue of the election itself.”63 The word “lot” is not used, but is inferred. Instead the writer uses the word hiqrib “present,” which also means sacrifice.

Since Saul was not found, Samuel again asked Yahweh. There is a play on words: the verb ša’al “ask, inquire,” and the name Saul (šā’ûl). Saul was hiding the entire time the casting of lots took place. This motif of hiding also appears in the New Testament. In the Gospel of John we read that Jesus runs to the mountains when they came to crown him (John 6:15).64 It does not say why Saul was hiding. Was it modesty or shyness? The Talmud commenting on this passage asserts that Saul was a model of humility. This detail is significant in understanding the different stages in Saul’s coronation. Saul’s hiding proves that there is a link between Saul’s secret anointing and the anointing in Mizpah. Why does Saul hide? How did he know that he would be chosen? Evidently, one tradition holds that there were two stages of Saul’s anointing. Therefore, he concealed the matter of the kingdom from his uncle (1 Sam 10:17); and he hid because he already had been anointed by Samuel, suggesting that he knew he would be chosen by lot.

When Samuel brought Saul forth from his hiding place, the narrator repeats some of the details mentioned previously in the anointing story. Once again we are told that he was taller than the rest of all the people, yet this will be repudiated later in the story (1 Sam 16:7).65 Further repeated details are that Saul was the son of Kish from the tribe of Benjamin, and that he was modest and shy. Modesty is a quality associated with Moses (Num 12:3), Gideon (Judg 6:15), David (1 Sam 18:23; 2 Sam 7:18–21), and Solomon (1 Kgs 3:7). In Saul’s anointing and coronation ceremonies, his modesty is stressed. It is mentioned in connection with Saul’s appearance (1 Sam 9:21), when Saul was elected by lot (10:22), when Saul concealed the kingship from his uncle (10:16), and lastly when Saul already was the king of Israel (15:17).

Saul was presented as Yahweh’s chosen one. This reflects the belief that the king is God’s elected one and the elected one of the people. Samuel quickly tells the people of Israel: “And now here is the king you have chosen! Yahweh has appointed a king over you” (12:13). Likewise, we read that Hushai justified his support for Absalom saying: “No, the one chosen by the Lord, by these people, and by all the men of Israel” (2 Sam 16:18). The belief that the king is the one chosen by God and the people is also known from ancient Near Eastern texts. In the Hebrew Bible the preeminently chosen one of Yahweh is David; but at the early stages of the monarchy, Saul was seen as the chosen one. By shouting, “Long live the king!” the people of Israel recognized Saul as king. This phrase is repeated throughout the historical books of the Bible to express the approval of the king (1 Kgs 1:25, 34, 39; 2 Kgs 11:12). R. P. Gordon points out that: “for the first time since his introduction in 9:1f. Saul is called ‘king’; significantly, it is the people who acclaim him so.”66

In spite of Saul’s election by God and his recognition by the people, some people did not accept Saul as a king. The Bible mentions two groups, stalwart men and worthless men. The former refers to soldiers or warriors, and connotes loyalty. They were part of the army that Saul gathered (1 Sam 14:52). The second group refers to disloyal traitors. They expressed their contempt to the new king by words and actions. They asked, “How can this fellow save us?” (v. 27). They spurned him and tendered no gifts. No evidence exists for giving a gift following a new king’s election; nevertheless the biblical narrator stressed that fact. Gift giving by a vassal to a king was considered a sign of recognition and loyalty to the king.67 The same people’s contempt towards Saul will be mentioned after his victory over the Ammonites.

Saul Proclaimed King at Gilgal

After the victory over the Ammonites, Samuel asked the people to join him in renewing the kingship at Gilgal (1 Sam 11:14). The people went to Gilgal and, in the presence of Yahweh, crowned Saul as their king. There they sacrificed to Yahweh, and Saul and all Israel rejoiced. Medieval commentators such as Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, 1040–1105) and Radak (Rabbi David ben Joseph Kimh.i, 1160–1235) raised the question: why was a third coronation needed in Gilgal? They claimed there was disagreement about Saul. Many people rejected him believing he could not save them (10:27; 11:12). After he proved his military ability a need arose to renew his kingship.

Modern scholars also debated the existence of the three different versions of Saul’s coronation. It was pointed out that the three versions are problematic and difficult to reconstruct what really took place.68 According to McKenzie, the three stories came from three different sources that were available to the Dtr. Instead of choosing one of them, the Dtr merged the three stories by a series of editorial additions.69 Mettinger says that Saul’s rescue of Jabesh-gilead is the most reliable tradition describing the events that led to Saul’s coronation. This tradition is unfamiliar with the casting of lots at Mizpah, and so he believes that 1 Sam 11:1–15 is an independent tradition and never had any connection with the Mizpah version.70

Edelman does not accept the view that Saul’s rescue of Jabesh-gilead led to his coronation. According to her, Saul’s ability to lead his people in a battle after defeating the Ammonites is historically implausible. This battle took place only after Saul became a king with a strong army.71

Perhaps the confusion and disagreement among scholars for why a third ceremony was needed at Gilgal derives from their failure to discern the meaning of the Hebrew word uneeh.addeš. The word is usually translated to renew or restore. In other words, the people wanted to renew Saul’s kingship.72 But examination of the Hebrew word shows that it has a second meaning, which means to strengthen. According to 2 Chr 24:5, 12, King Jehoash decided to renovate the temple. There we read that the word leh.addēš is parallel to leh.azzek, which means to strengthen.73 Thus, the ceremony that is described at Gilgal strengthened Saul’s rule. One purpose was to strengthen his kingship by bringing the Israelite tribes in the Trans-Jordan under the authority of the new king. Having freed the Israelite tribes from the oppression of the Ammonites, it was the right time to make Saul king.74

The location of the coronation in Gilgal was not accidental. It was east of Jericho and close to the Jordan crossing; thus it was convenient to the tribes from west and east to meet and strengthen the king’s rule. There is also a possibility that this location was chosen because of a pre-existing altar that symbolized the connection between the tribes of the Trans-Jordan and the tribes of the west (Joshua 23). The place was called Gelilot (Josh 18:17) and an altar was built there, therefore it is probably Gilgal. In contrast to the past two ceremonies, here at Gilgal, we are told that Saul and all the men of Israel celebrated exuberantly.75 Klein balanced the statement of celebration with critical comments about kingship from the book of Hosea: “They have made kings, but not by my sanction,” (8:4), and “All their misfortune [began] at Gilgal, for there I disowned them” (9:15).76 This is not surprising, since the text echoes Samuel’s prior rejection of kingship. The arrival of kingship would signal a decline of prophetic power.

Following the victory against the Ammonites and before the celebrations at Gilgal we read that the people of Israel had already accepted Saul. Evidently, his victory removed any doubt about his leadership abilities. Thus, when the people of Israel asked Samuel, “Who was it who said, ‘Saul shall not reign over us?’” (11:12). They turned to Samuel who was still perceived as a judge, and demanded these people be put to death. But Saul interfered and declared that no one should be slain. Here Saul appropriated the authority to judge from Samuel, after this episode, Samuel’s decline began. By taking the authority to judge, Saul became like the other kings of the ancient Near East who judged their people.

The proclamation of Saul’s kingship was done by all the people. Interestingly Samuel’s name is not mentioned as taking part in the celebration. The people sacrificed peace offerings, part offered to God while the rest was eaten by the worshipers. Despite the absence of the covenant terminology in v. 15, the ceremony focused on the ratification of a covenant between the king and the people before Yahweh.77 There is some evidence for the use of sacrificial rites in connection with the proclamation of kingship (1 Kgs 1:19). This was the second public coronation of Saul. As pointed out there were people who did not accept Saul’s kingship. Thus, the coronation in Gilgal came to strengthen his claim as undisputed king of Israel, and to incorporate the tribes from the Trans-Jordan into his new monarchy.

In conclusion, Saul was anointed privately and secretly at Ramah as nāgîd, which means a person chosen by God for kingship. He was designated by God to deal with the threat that the Israelites were facing. This was the first stage where God selected a young man for promotion. The second time, at Mizpah, Saul was designated as king following the casting of lots, which indicates divine selection. This was done in the presence of the tribes and their representatives. According to the biblical account, there was dissatisfaction by some of the people with Saul’s kingship (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12). Thus, following the victory against the Ammonites, a third ceremony took place where Saul was declared king. This third ceremony had one purpose: to strengthen Saul’s rule by incorporating the Israelite tribes from the Trans-Jordan. It signified his undisputed authority as king over Israel and over the Israelite tribes in Trans-Jordan. The main reason for the election of Saul was the Philistine threat. The temporary leadership that existed since the period of the judges could not deal effectively with the Philistine threat, or with the Ammonites who oppressed the Israelites in Trans-Jordan. Evidently, there were other reasons that required a change, a moral decline as well as social and economic development in Israelite society. The increased population and expanded agrarian productivity were catalysts in transforming the Israelite social structure. The old system could not respond to the emerging new reality; only a new monarchial system that offered young people new opportunities could respond. In two major speeches “the rights of the king” (1 Sam 8:1–22) and his farewell speech to the people of Israel (1 Samuel 12), Samuel rejected the idea of kingship. This is because he tried to establish his own prophetic dynasty, and human kingship meant decline of his power and status, and posed a threat to his authority. Samuel’s speeches projects future battles over power and authority between the prophets and the kings of Israel.

1. Josephus mentions a tradition that has one son in Bethel and the other in Beer-sheba (Josephus, Ant. 6.32).

2. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 71.

3. Ne’eman, “לואש תכלמה,” 97.

4. R. P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 109.

5. The verb špṭ can mean either “to govern” or “to judge.” For a detail discussion of the word špţ in West Semitic languages, see Ishida, History and Historical, 41–44.

6. Ackroyd, First Book of Samuel, 73.

7. Faust, “Settlement Patterns,” 14–38.

8. Greenspahn, “Egyptian Parallel,” 129–30.

9. Peden, Egyptian Historical, 213.

10. Ibid.

11. Frick, Formation of State, 26, 66, 138, 191–204.

12. Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, 655–58.

13. Finkelstein, “Emergence . . . Socio-Political Aspects,” 21; Finkelstein, “Emergence . . . Socio-Economic Aspects,” 59.

14. Stager, “Archaeology,” 25–27.

15. McKenzie, King David, 22.

16. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 255–56; Wellhausen, Israelitische, 51, 197, 280; Wellhausen, Die Composition, 240.

17. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 184.

18. Kaufmann, Toledot ha-’emunah, 371–73 (Hebrew).

19. In contrast according to Garsiel, the rejection of the monarchy originated from the opposition to change in the existing rules reflected in 1 Sam 8:7–8; 8:11–18, “the law of the king,” and in 1 Sam 10:17–19; 12. He believes that “the law of the king” was written during or after Solomon’s reign. See Garsiel, “Dispute,” 325–27.

20. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom, 151–59.

21. Tsevat, “Emergence,” 67.

22. Givati, “הכולמה טפשמו ךלמה טפשמ,” 220–27.

23. Ibid., 224.

24. Elat, Samuel, 60 (Hebrew).

25. Garsiel, “Dispute,” 341.

26. McCarter, I Samuel, 218.

27. Weiser, Samuel, 40. There are some similarities here to Moses’s speech. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram challenged Moses leadership. In his response, Moses said: “I have not taken the ass of any one of them, nor have I wronged any one of them,” (Num 16:15). For Hittite parallels see Hoffner, “Crossing,” 184.

28. Wildberger, “Sage,” 1641–44; Fohrer, “Die Sage,” 60.

29. Midr. Sam. 11.1; Midr. Pss. Soh.er Tov 32.

30. Birch, “Development,” 55–68; Miller, “Saul,” 157–61; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 80–98; Klein, 1 Samuel, 84.

31. Schunck, Benjamin, 86–89; Schmidt, Menschlicher, 58–102.

32. Klein, 1 Samuel, 84.

33. Ibid.

34. Birch thus points to the existence of the “call form” that includes the following elements: divine confrontation, (9:15), an introductory word (9:16–17), commission, (10:1), objection (9:21), reassurance (10:7b), and sign (10:1b 5–7a). Habel points out that there is a different order in the Saul episode from the standard “call form.” He explains this discrepancy by asserting that the call was attached to the pre-existing story of the search for the donkeys. In addition, he points to the function of Samuel who serves as the human mediator of the call. None of this is attested in the Bible. In contrast to Habel, Richter sees parallels between the call of Saul to the calls of Gideon and Moses. He points to the following elements: 1. I have seen the affliction, 9:16, Exod 3:7; 2. Their cry has come to me, 9:16, Exod 3:9; 3. The Sending, 9:16, Judg 6:14–15; Exod 3:10, 15; 4.The anointing as prince, 9:16; 10:1; 5. Savior formula 9:16, Judg 6:14–15; 6. Objection, 9:21, Judg 6:15, Exod 3:11; 4:1, 10; 7. The formula God is with you, 10:7b, Judg 6:16, Exod 3:12; 4:12. 8. Giving of the spirit, 10:6, Judg 6:34. See Richter, Die sogenannten, 50; Birch, “Development,” 55–68; Klein, 1 Samuel, 84; Habel, “Form and Significance,” 297–323.

35. Richter, Berufungsberichte, 30.

36. Sot.ah 10a.

37. Eissfeldt, Die Komposition, 7.

38. In the Koran (2:248), the name that was given to Saul was T.alut, which is an allusion to his exceptional height. This name was probably influenced by the name given to Goliath, Jalut.

39. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, 202.

40. C. H. Gordon, Before the Bible, 229.

41. Paul, “I Samuel 9:7,” 542–44.

42. C. H. Gordon, Before the Bible, 272–73; Homer, Od. 11:355–61.

43. The word for gift here is tešurah—a hapax legomenon. It probably comes from the verb šwr, to see. Thus tešurah is a “gift of greetings.” Interestingly, the man of God is called ro’eh, which was an old name for the word prophet. Ro’eh means seer, and is a participial form of the Hebrew verb “to see.” Thus, there is a link between the gift and the prophet. For more information, see Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena, 24.

44. Ber. 48b

45. R. P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 115.

46. Judg 10:4; 12:9; 14:11–13, 19; 20:31, 39; 1 Sam 19:21.

47. Josephus, Ant. 6.52.

48. Milgrom, “Alleged Wave Offering,” 33–38.

49. C. H. Gordon, Before the Bible, 241.

50. Similarly, Elijah directed Ahab on his journey from Carmel to Jezreel (1 Kgs 18:45–46). Elisha prophesied to Kings Jehoram and Jehoshaphat what would take place in their military campaign to Moab (2 Kgs 3:19, 25).

51. 1 Sam 10:24; 1 Kgs 1:39; 2 Kgs 9:13; 11:12.

52. Alt, Kleine Schriften, 2:324; Noth, Geschichte Israels, 156 n. 2; Bright, History of Israel, 185.

53. T. Sanh. 4:11.

54. Elat, Samuel, 97.

55. Ibid.

56. Halpern, Constitution, 127–28.

57. “Divine Nomination” ANET, 446–47.

58. “Divine Oracle,” ANET, 449.

59. For Assur-rêsh-ishi and Ashurbanipal, see Luckenbill, Ancient Records, 209, 765. For Nabonidus see Langdon, Die neubabylonischen, 218, 1:4–5.

60. Afterwards, David, to Saul’s displeasure, will accept bread from the priest of Nob (1 Sam 21:7).

61. Wiseman, “Is it Peace?,” 318.

62. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 87.

63. McCarter, I Samuel, 196.

64. Daube, New Testament, 19

65. Note the story of Athtar in the Baal myth, where we read: “sits on Mighty Ba‘lu’s seat. (But) his feet do not reach the footstool; his head does not reach the top (of the seat).” Thus, because he was short, he was rejected as king. See Pardee, “The Ba‘lu Myth,” 269.

66. R. P. Gordon, 1& 2 Samuel, 121.

67. 1 Kgs 5:1; 2 Kgs 3:4; 17:3–4.

68. Bright, History of Israel, 182–83; Jagersma, History of Israel, 88–89.

69. McKenzie, King David, 29.

70. Mettinger, King and Messiah, 83–84.

71. Edelman follows Halpern, who pointed to a three-part designation; the search for a candidate, his anointing that showed divine approval, and public acclamation, expressed by the phrase “Long live the king.” She believes that those three stages were followed by a testing stage. However, the rescue of Jabesh-gilead could not have been the catalyst triggering the foundation of the monarchy. See Edelman, “Saul,” 993; Edelman, “Saul’s Rescue,” 195; Halpern, Constitution, 127, 130, 134.

72. BDB, 293–94; HALOT, 1:294.

73. Elat, Samuel, 124.

74. Interestingly, the author of 1 Chr 29:22 uses the word šēnît meaning again and not leh.addēš to describe Solomon’s second coronation.

75. Another place we read that Saul rejoiced is after the victory against Goliath. But this is indirectly described by Jonathan (19:5).

76. Klein, 1 Samuel, 109.

77. Alt, “Formation,” 195.