2 Chronicles 2-9: A Political Detail

The Chronicler continues in his familiar style or "rewriting history," as it were, in his account of Solomon. His story restates and to a degree reinterprets the reigns of the Kings of Israel. For more on this author's methods, check out last week's post.

Solomon's narrative in Chronicles runs roughly parallel to the one given in 1 Kings, though the Chronicler is careful to remove Solomon's character flaws, just as he did for David. In contrast to 1 Kings, we do not read of king Solomon's love of foreign women, the way they turned his heart away from the Lord, and the Lord's ensuing promise to wrench the united monarchy from Solomon's son (for that, see 1 Kings 11). Nor do we hear that he "sacrificed and offered incense at the high places." (1 Kings 3.3) The Chronicler's Solomon is much more faithful to the Lord. When the kingdom is wrenched from his son... Well, it happens for a different reason, not because Solomon failed to walk in the ways of the Lord. Likewise, his ascension to the throne happens quite simply, without any intrigue, in stark contrast to the account in 1 Kings 1.

1 Chronicles prepared us well for the construction of the House of the Lord, the temple. The building is exectured in 2 Chronicles, as one of Solomon's first acts as king. The account runs largely parallel to Kings, yet as we shall see, it includes a detail that would have a profound effect on future theology, to say nothing of the incendiary politics of a small Middle Eastern nation, (re-)founded only in the last century. That country goes by the name of one of the great patriarchs of the bible, the progenitor of the 12 tribes: Israel.

This essential piece of information is the location on which the temple will be built. 1 Chronicles 21.28-22.1 details David's declaration that the house of the Lord will be built at the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. 2 Chronicles gives the place a new name: Mount Moriah.

Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to his father David, at the place that David had designated, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.
(2 Chronicles 3.1)

Whither this detail? The mention of Mount Moriah transports us all the way back to Genesis 22: Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son Isaac. God commands Abraham:

Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.
(Genesis 22.2)

So Abraham called that place "The Lord will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided."
(Genesis 22.14)

Mount Moriah is the locale of the sacrifice! Though the location is not designated as such in 1 Kings, the Chronicler names the place. Mount Moriah becomes the geographical location that connects the past and present - without the mention in either Genesis or Chronicles, it would be a place with much less history. The connection is made, however, by the biblical redactor of the Kings tale, not the original author of Kings.

Why is this important?* It gives a very real location to two very important events in the history of Israel. The location of the Abrahamic story could not be proved at the time of the bible's composition. However, the location of the temple could be. The reference also aids in authorizing the separateness of the place: this is the place where the Lord first and foremost appeared to Abraham, and afterwards the place that David experienced the divine presence of an angel and deemed the place holy. The characters God and David serve to authorize the site as divinely separate. The implicit reference to Abraham by way of "Mount Moriah" further attests to the site's status.

This one phrase contains such mythological power ("myth" meaning "story," rather than "fake") as to create the connection we understand in popular culture today, millennia later. Without the Chronicler's temporally linking term, "Mount Moriah," we would have a much different understanding of the place today.

Over the years the place has been the cause of great dispute as it housed the two temples of Jerusalem and eventually a mosque. Today the location is known as the Temple Mount/Al-Haram al-Sharif. It is one of the most disputed places in the world for its importance in the three Abrahamic traditions [Judaism, Christianity, and Islam]. The dispute territorial dispute is mostly between Jews and Muslims. Jews regard the place as one of the most holy, as it is the location of the two temples and the binding of Isaac. In the Talmud it is even considered to be the place from which God gathered the dust to form the first man. It is also the location of the mythical [again, a "story"] third temple, which some Jewish thought asserts will usher in a new period of peace and prosperity for Jews. Today, the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are located on the site, considered to be the third most-holy place in Sunni Islam. In Muslim theology, this is the location of Muhammad's Night Journey, in which he was transported to Jerusalem and then up to heaven. Some Christians view the Temple Mount/Al-Haram al-Sharif as an essential component of Christian eschatology. From this point of view, the end times mentioned in the Book of Revelation will not come until the rebuilding of the third temple by the Jews.

The (physical and political) battle for the location is of great importance today, especially as Israel faces a new outlook in the Middle East with the impending power shift in Egypt. Time will only tell what new stories will be added to the narrative of the Temple Mount/Al-Haram al-Sharif.

---

*In addition to emphasizing the consistency of holy sites, the detail also fulfills the symbolic biblical cycle of departure and return. Israel and his family went down into Egypt, to be led out years later by Moses. Now the biblical narrative returns to this historical place - a place already consecrated by theophany [experience of the divine].

Comparative Literature: 1 Chronicles 10-26 as a Retelling of 2 Samuel

I hope having "Comparative Literature" in the title didn't scare you off. Then again, you wouldn't be reading this if it did.

After a litany of genealogies, Chronicles retells the narrative of Samuel and Kings, with a few key differences. The Chronicler is focused on establishing a solid kingship - one not founded in the blood of Uriah the Hittite and the struggle for succession of Solomon. The Chronicler avoids these through clever editing, but still must contend with David's census.

The Chronicler glorifies David. With one apparent instance of wrongdoing during his entire reign, David serves as a model king, a king par excellence. His rise and rule flow smoothly, without the problems of adultery or a disloyal son to disrupt them. This extends even to the rise of Solomon, his son. The Chronicler delivers not a tale of intrigue - like the one in Kings - but rather a straightforward and uncontested transfer of power.

The Power of God
The Chronicler is very much concerned with the proper attribution of God's power and humankind's folly, and makes a point of inserting editorial opinions in a number of places. The first comes in Chronicles 10, following Saul's suicide:

So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the Lord in that he did not keep the command of the Lord; moreover, he had consulted a medium, seeking guidance, and did not seek guidance from the Lord. Therefore the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.
(1 Chronicles 10.13-14)

Saul's wrongdoing gives us a clear framework for what a king should do and in fact stands in sharp contrast to what David, his succesor, does do. A king is to be faithful to the Lord, to keep his commands and seek his guidance. A king is to acknowledge, respect, and rely on the Lord's power in battle.

The Importance of David
David does all this. Or, rather, the Chronicler has David do all this by editing the source text that comprises Samuel and Kings to remove incidents that reflect negatively on the David's reign, such as the Bathsheba incident. David's lone sin in Chronicles is to misplace his trust in the Lord by taking a census of the people. This is considered apostasy because a census is tailored to count the men able to fight for Israel. A census would call into question the efficacy of God's holy power over war. It is not the earthly army that win's wars for Israel, but God's divine army. So why worry about the number of men you have to fight when the Lord ensures your victory anyway?

Even the sin of taking a census is mitigated somewhat by the Chronicler, who assigns the blame to a third character: Satan. David is incited by a supernatural force - and who would not be! This tactic also exonerates God of any wrongdoing. In 2 Samuel 24 God explicitly incites David to take the census in what might be a test of faithfulness like the one God gives to Abraham. This brings up the sticky question of why God would do this. The text of Samuel tells us he is angry with the people of Israel, but there is no textual material to back it up. David seems to do a fairly good job of ruling, and the people are not shown to act wickedly. God's actions therefore seem a bit peculiar. By attributing the temptation to Satan, the Chronicler exonerates God, somewhat exonerates David, and creates an entirely different sticky question: Who is this Satan character? That is a post for another day.

Fallout
The aftermath of God's rage against David - enacted, peculiarly, against Israel itself (or perhaps not peculiarly at all, when we consider that the cause of this in Samuel is God's anger against Israel) varies greatly from Samuel to Chronicles. The differences between the two tellings reveal each author's intention.

The Samuel story goes like this:
David realizes his wrongdoing. He confesses his sin to the Lord and asks that his built be removed. The word of the Lord, delivered through the prophet Gad, is thus that David has three options: three years of famine, three months of fleeing before Israel's enemies, and three days of pestilence in the land at the hand of the Lord. David responds, "I am in great distress; let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall into human hands." The Lord sends pestilence and 70,000 die. The angel of the Lord nearly destroys Jerusalem before the Lord commands it to relent. David sees this angel of God standing by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite and beseeches the Lord, "I alone have sinned, and I alone have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let your hand, I pray, be against me and against my father's house." God instructs David to build an altar Araunah's threshing floor. David buys the man's floor and cattle, erects an altar, and makes sacrifices. These offerings cause the Lord to avert the plague from Israel.

The author of Samuel shows us a David whose thoughts seem to center on himself, yet whose "self-centeredness" can be expressed in a positive way." In the Samuel account, David clearly realizes that his decision affects all the kingdom: "Let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great." This is the ethically correct choice. However, a seemingly egocentric motive appears to follow: "Let me not fall into human hands. Later David will reverse this self-centered thinking for what would be the benefit of the Israelites: "I alone have sinned, and I alone have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done?" David then calls for action to be brought against him and his house, the true cause of the punishment. This reversal demonstrates that even though David has his shortcomings, overall he is still an excellent king.

The Chronicler:
The Chronicler, by contrast, has David thinking of himself the entire time - and rightly so, as he alone is the cause of the punishment. In fact, this has the effect of making David seem more righteous. David from this account acknowledges that he has done wrong and accepts total responsibility. Through careful editing, the Chronicler ensures that David is entirely:

David says to God, "I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing. But now, I pray you, take away the guilt of your servant; for I have done very foolishly." God then offers, through the word of Gad, three options similar to those found in Samuel: three years of famine, three months of devastation by the foes of Israel, "or three days of the sword of the lord, pestilence on the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout the territory of Israel." David's response? "I am in great distress; let me fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into human hands." The Chronicler has David entirely focused on his wrongdoing: he does not acknowledge even that his actions will affect Israel - though perhaps he doesn't want it to[?].

And in any case, it was all Satan's fault, right?

The Importance of Jerusalem
Jerusalem's importance to the Chronicler is evident in the description of David's purchase of Ornan's threshing floor for the construction of the altar (1 Chronicles 21.18-22.1). A parallel account is given in 2 Samuel 24.18-25 with the purchase of Araunah's threshing floor. The Samuel account has Araunah prostrate himself before David in a display of piety. Araunah then offers the threshing floor and oxen for free, so that David might make an offering. David, for his part, insists on paying. His supplication of the altar averts the plague.

The Chronicler tells a different story. Ornan (the parallel character to Araunah) sees the angel at his threshing floor, poised to destroy Jerusalem But the sight of a divine figure does not strike fear into him, as it does his sons, who hide. Ornan continues working until he sees David, and then goes before the king and does obeisance. The same transaction takes place, but Ornan receives six times the amount of gold as his contemporary in Samuel, which might be taken as a display of David's benevolence and/or Ornan's worthiness before the Lord. David makes a sacrifice of wellbeing, and Gods response exonerates David and proves the holiness of the site. God sends down fire to consume the burnt offering. The Lord commands the angel to sheath his sword. The place is then confirmed separate (that is, holy) by the lips of David: "Here shall be the house of the Lord God and here the altar of burnt offering for Israel." (1 Chronicles 22.1)

The tale of David given in Samuel ends here. but the Chronicler has a bit more to add in order to further glorify David.

The Temple
The king, unable to build the Lord's temple himself because of the blood he has caused to be shed, commissions his son Solomon to build the House of the Lord. Solomon will rule at a time when the Land is at rest from warfare - indeed, the Chronicler associates the words "rest" and "peace" very frequently with Solomon. A man whose reign has been characterized by international warfare, David now becomes a diplomat, arranging for the construction of the temple through the laborers of Israel and the materials of foreign lands.

The commissioning of Solomon takes part in two episodes. The first is a private conversation between David and his son. This passage touches on a number of binaries that are important in the biblical narrative: father/son, war/peace, experience/inexperience. The second episode consists of David's public oration to the people of Israel concerning the transfer of power and the temple's imminent construction [These two passages are separated by a litany of lists identifying Levitical genealogies and positions - the book is not referred to as "Chronicles" for nothing!]

Transition
David's reign comes to an end in three distinct parts:

1. Praise of God (which also functions as a farewell speech)
2. Transfer of power to Solomon
3. The formulaic summary of David's reign

This brings us to next week's post: 2 Chronicles and the reign of Solomon.

1 Kings 13-21: Prophet and the Loss Part I

All of God's fears of apostasy and exogamy are realized after the death of David with the new kings of Israel and Judah. These monarchs disobey God's commands by worshiping other deities and marrying outside of the Israelites. To counter these men and warn them of their wrongdoing, God sends prophets, vessels of his word, to speak out against the kings, inform them of their wrongdoings, and make an attempt at social change. The era of prophets ushered in with Samuel comes into full force in Kings, especially after the end of the united monarchy.

Prophets are interesting people in the bible. They are chosen by God to speak his word, though identifying the ones actually backed by God is tricky. They can lie to each other, and only know God's will insofar as he informs them. Sometimes prophets are ignorant of the plans of others or danger. Other times God is careful to keep them well informed.

The function of the prophet as mouthpieces of God helps to drive the plot of dialectical tensions that pushes the tale of Israel forward. Prophets arise when the Lord is being disobeyed. The book of 1 Kings features a number of prophets. Today's post will take a look at them and analyze how they function within the biblical narrative.

Getting to Know the Prophets: the Man of God


The South and the North - Judah and Israel - have been divided. Jeroboam now reigns over Israel, but like his ancestors has fallen from following the Lord. He has built golden calves for worship and appointed non-levitical priests. Apostasy like this is always condemned by the biblical author, and in this case a prophet directly condemns the action.

The unnamed "man of God" comes to King Jeroboam to deliver a bleak warning as he is about to offer incense on the altar:

O altar, altar, thus says the Lord: ‘A son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who offer incense on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.’
(1 Kings 13.2)

The message is not for the King of Israel, but on the altar of offering. This is indeed fulfilled hundreds of years later during the reign of Josiah. However, the man of God offers an additional message with a sign of the Lord's hand in the matter of the altar:

The altar shall be torn down, and the ashes that are on it shall be poured out.
(1 Kings 13.3)

Upon hearing these words, the king points to the man of God and orders that he be seized, only to find his had withered, a trick with its roots in the Moses narrative (Exodus 4.6-7). The Lord protects his servant the prophet with one of the classic displays of the Lord's power. This display continues as the altar is torn down and the ashes scattered with no apparent cause, in fulfillment of the man's prophecy of the Lord. The prophet further confirms the power of the Lord by healing Josiah's hand. Apparently grateful, the king invites the man to eat and drink with him, but the man refuses because the Lord has commanded he should not do so in Bethel.

What follows is one of our first glimpses of prophet interaction - a scene that reveals a little about the secret lives of prophets. A man of Bethel, identified as a prophet, tracks down the man of God and lies to him, saying:

I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord: Bring him back with you into your house so that he may eat food and drink water.
(1 Kings 13.18)

This deception is not detected by the man of God, indicating that prophets cannot identify false prophets by sight or the sound of their prophecies. In this sense prophets are only messengers of God, and are corruptible. Prophets, as explained by God through Moses, operate in a gray area:

You may say to yourself, “How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?” If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.
(Deuteronomy 18.21-22)

Their powers and messages can be imitated by others, and the only way to judge them is by the truth of their predictions or the power of their works, as in the destruction of the altar or the parting of the Red Sea. For day-to-day matters, prophecy seems to be indistinguishable from mere words. Truth is only revealed when the Lord takes action to prove or disprove the words. However, even the prophet of Bethel who speaks false words to the man of God is still a legitimate prophet. He fools the man of God into eating and drinking, at which time God comes to him to utter a legitimate prophecy:

Thus says the Lord: Because you have disobeyed the word of the Lord, and have not kept the commandment that the Lord your God commanded you, but have come back and have eaten food and drunk water in the place of which he said to you, ‘Eat no food, and drink no water,’ your body shall not come to your ancestral tomb.
(1 Kings 13.21-22)

Indeed, the man of God is killed by a lion who acts in a supernatural fashion. The lion's only prey is the man, not the donkey he rode on or those that pass by. The lion seems to have been sent by God to kill the man and stand besides his body.

Though responsible for his death, the prophet mourns the man of God as a brother. The dead man is recognized as a simple messenger - again, corruptible - and perhaps the prophet of Bethel realizes this as he mourns for the man as "my brother." The man of God is given a proper burial in the prophet's own grave, where the prophet himself will be buried when he dies. The prophet knows his guest was a true prophet, and so the two are to be buried together, both as vessels of the word of God.

Ahijah: The Mouthpiece of God


When King Jeroboam's son Abijah becomes ill, the king sends his wife to the prophet Ahijah to inquire after the boy's fate. She is to pretend to be another woman, but the Lord informs Ahijah of her purpose so that even the blind prophet knows who she is. Prophets, after all, are informed by the Lord, even if they do not desire to be. Ahijah utters a curse against Jeroboam: Because the king has not followed in the ways of David in leading Israel, all the men of his house will be "cut off" and will not receive proper burial. Rather, dogs and birds will pick at their corpses where they fall. In this way the boy is blessed. Only Abiah is to receive proper burial,

...Because in him there is found something pleasing to the Lord, the God of Israel, in the house of Jeroboam.
(1 Kings 14.13)

This is a twist on the traditional punishment afforded one who disobeys the Lord. The son dies for the father's sin, as usual, but the son is also exalted over the father - by receiving proper burial - for being a seed of promise. All Israel mourns the child's death.

The Lord delivers a further prophecy through Ahijah, prophecy characteristic of the later prophets of the bible:

The Lord will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water; he will root up Israel out of this good land that he gave to their ancestors, and scatter them beyond the Euphrates, because they have made their sacred poles, provoking the Lord to anger. He will give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, which he sinned and which he caused Israel to commit.
(1 Kings 14.15-16)

This is indeed fulfilled with the fall of Samaria in 721 BCE.

Elijah the Prophet: Supernatural

Elijah is introduced during the reign of King Ahab of Israel, inserted by the biblical author in such a place that he serves as a direct response to Ahab's fondness of the Canaanite god Baal. Baal is the god of storms and rain and fertility (among other things), so it is no surprise that Elijah's introduction undermines the god by predicting a three-year drought - caused by the Lord, of course. Elijah is the mouthpiece of God, and a man that will prove Baal's ineffectiveness.

Elijah's status as a prophet is quickly proven through three vignettes. In the first he is fed in the wilderness by the Lord's command by ravens bearing bread and meat (a story that draws obvious parallels to Exodus). In the second vignette, the Lord provides endless meal and oil to a widow so she may make cakes for Elijah, herself, and her son so that do not starve. In the third vignette, Elijah actually revives the widow's son from apparent death - with the aid of the Lord. Each of these stories shows Elijah either acting with the aid of God or God coming to Elijah's aid. In any case, Elijah has powerful backing.

When the Lord decides to end the drought, he sends Eljah to see Ahab, so that the rain may start again. Elijah has Ahab command the Israelites to meet at Mount Carmel so that the Lord's greatness may be demonstrated. The event directly challenges the 450 prophets of Baal to call on their god to light a fire on which a bull has been placed - an imitation of sacrifice at an altar. Baal's prophets fail, but Elijah succeeds in calling on the power of the Lord to light the fire. Consequently, the 450 prophets of Baal are killed for their inefficiency.

When it finally does rain, Elijah pulls off another superhuman display - this time of speed and endurance - running ahead of Ahab's chariot some 17 miles to Jezreel. Afterwards, Jezebel threatens Elijah's life, and he pulls off another miracle, surviving on mount Horeb 40 days and nights after eating only 2 cakes and drinking 2 jars of water. The man is like a biblical version of Chuck Norris!

In all seriousness, Elijah is a high-profile prophet, able to have a direct experience with God on Mount Horeb, just as Moses did. The encounter is one of the most poetic of the bible:

Now there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. Then there came a voice to him that said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”
(1 Kings 19.11-13)

The message of the biblical author is that God is ineffable. God is not in the wind, or the earthquake, or the fire. God is not even in the silence, though the silence leads to God. It is impossible by this description to exactly describe who or what God is. Perhaps this is the author's intent. It took a devoted prophet like Elijah to give us this glimpse of the supernatural.

Another Nameless Prophet and His Tool of the Trade

Farther into the narrative, a tradition of prophetic judgment called "juridical parable" is demonstrated by a nameless prophet. This tactic is used in Nathan's condemnation of David in 2 Samuel 12. Here the prophet appears to King Ahab as a warrior, and utters a parable that traps King Ahab in his own judgment. Ahab, thinking he condemns the man, utters words that describe his own impending condemnation.

Interestingly, the episode that follows closely follows the story of David's courting of Bathsheba. Here Ahab lusts for a piece of property - a vineyard - for which the owner is killed in order to claim it. A few details are changed, but the story remains the same, and punishment comes upon both Ahab and David. Elijah curses Ahab with the same language of 1 Kings 14.10-14, and curses Ahab and Jezebel specifically as well. For Ahab's prompt repentance his house is not destroyed in this day, but rather in the following generation.

1 Kings, 2 Kings: Infographic

I put a lot of thought into this post (and a lot of frustration toward my dying computer), but here, finally, is a post covering 1-2 Kings. It traces the kings of Israel and Judah from Saul to the fall and captivity of Judah. The x axis denotes the amount of time each king reigned over Israel or Judah. The y axis denotes the number of verses dedicated to each king.

Click the image below to see in greater detail!

2 Samuel 22: David's Song of Thanksgiving

2 Samuel 22 consists of a piece of biblical poetry, probably by multiple authors, but one with a consistent voice - that assigned to King David. The poem present a somewhat mystical image of God, in which God is not any one thing but is many things at once. Below the poem appears in 11 strophes that I defined by theme. I then analyze it in the subsequent section.

2 Samuel 22: David's Song of Thanksgiving
David spoke to the Lord the words of this song on the day when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.

[1]
He said: The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer,
my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge,
my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge,
my savior; you save me from violence.
I call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised,
and I am saved from my enemies.

[2]
For the waves of death encompassed me,
the torrents of perdition assailed me;
the cords of Sheol entangled me,
the snares of death confronted me.

[3]
In my distress I called upon the Lord;
to my God I called.
From his temple he heard my voice,
and my cry came to his ears.

[4]
Then the earth reeled and rocked;
the foundations of the heavens trembled and quaked,
because he was angry.
Smoke went up from his nostrils,
and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.

[5]
He bowed the heavens, and came down;
thick darkness was under his feet.
He rode on a cherub, and flew;
he was seen upon the wings of the wind.
He made darkness around him a canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water.
Out of the brightness before him coals of fire flamed forth.
The Lord thundered from heaven;
the Most High uttered his voice.
He sent out arrows, and scattered them
—lightning, and routed them.
Then the channels of the sea were seen,
the foundations of the world were laid bare
at the rebuke of the Lord,
at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

[6]
He reached from on high, he took me,
he drew me out of mighty waters.
He delivered me from my strong enemy,
from those who hated me;
for they were too mighty for me.
They came upon me in the day of my calamity,
but the Lord was my stay.
He brought me out into a broad place;
he delivered me, because he delighted in me.

[7]
The Lord rewarded me
according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands
he recompensed me.
For I have kept the ways of the Lord,
and have not wickedly departed from my God.
For all his ordinances were before me,
and from his statutes I did not turn aside.
I was blameless before him,
and I kept myself from guilt.
Therefore the Lord has recompensed me
according to my righteousness,
according to my cleanness in his sight.

[8]
With the loyal you show yourself loyal;
with the blameless you show yourself blameless;
with the pure you show yourself pure,
and with the crooked you show yourself perverse.
You deliver a humble people,
but your eyes are upon the haughty to bring them down.
Indeed, you are my lamp, O Lord,
the Lord lightens my darkness.
By you I can crush a troop,
and by my God I can leap over a wall.
This God — his way is perfect;
the promise of the Lord proves true;
he is a shield for all who take refuge in him.
For who is God, but the Lord?
And who is a rock, except our God?

[9]
The God who has girded me with strength has opened wide my path.
He made my feet like the feet of deer, and set me secure on the heights.
He trains my hands for war,
so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.
You have given me the shield of your salvation,
and your help has made me great.
You have made me stride freely,
and my feet do not slip;
I pursued my enemies and destroyed them,
and did not turn back until they were consumed.
I consumed them; I struck them down,
so that they did not rise; they fell under my feet.
For you girded me with strength for the battle;
you made my assailants sink under me.
You made my enemies turn their backs to me,
those who hated me, and I destroyed them.
They looked, but there was no one to save them;
they cried to the Lord, but he did not answer them.
I beat them fine like the dust of the earth,
I crushed them and stamped them down like the mire of the streets.

[10]
You delivered me from strife with the peoples;
you kept me as the head of the nations;
people whom I had not known served me.
Foreigners came cringing to me;
as soon as they heard of me, they obeyed me.
Foreigners lost heart, and came trembling out of their strongholds.

[11]
The Lord lives! Blessed be my rock, and exalted be my God,
the rock of my salvation, the God who gave me vengeance
and brought down peoples under me,
who brought me out from my enemies;
you exalted me above my adversaries,
you delivered me from the violent.
For this I will extol you, O Lord, among the nations,
and sing praises to your name.
He is a tower of salvation for his king,
and shows steadfast love to his anointed,
to David and his descendants forever.


Analysis of 2 Samuel 22

[1]
God's protection acts in a continuum of capacities: A rock connotes constancy, so God acts as a form of continual safety. A fortress connotes warfare, so God acts on behalf of David in battle. A deliverer connotes oppression, so God acts as a revolutionary who overthrows the old order. The three terms form a continuum from safety to a liminal state of danger to persecution. The next terms - shield, horn, stronghold, refuge - all hold their own connotations as well, with shield and stronghold both suggesting battle or willful confrontation, and horn and refuge both suggesting one who seeks safety (as in the safety offered by grasping one of the horns of the altar; in a similar way blood is dashed on the horns to expiate wrongdoing when a sin offering is made). The closing image is again one of a savior, so that the "strophe" begins at one end of the spectrum and ends at the other.

[2]
Strophe 3 introduces the first water images in the poem, the "waves of death" and "torrents of perdition." These synonymous images recall the destructive waters of the Red Sea that washed over the Egyptians as they pursued the escaping Israelites. The next two synonymous images are objects of binding: cords and snares. These images, like the preceding water images, give the sense that death is an active force that pursues the living. The poet is encompassed, assailed, entangled, and confronted, all actions that frighten or oppress.

[3]
Here is the anthropomorphic God, who lives in the temple. I would argue that the fact of God's hearing is not as important to his anthropomorphism as his residence in the temple. Of course, the mention of the temple indicates composition after the time of David, as Solomon would only build the temple of the Lord after his father's death. But if we consider the temple as part of the poet's cohesive vision, we find that the establishment of a temple serves to make God's temporary residence in the traveling ark permanent with a fixed building. God has been physically present with his people since the time of Moses, and remains with them when the Temple is established. God is not accessed on mountains (as with Moses) or beside a river (as with Jacob), but rather in the temple.

[4]
This strophe is perhaps our first introduction to the prophetic poetry of the bible, with what we might call "apocalyptic" imagery ["Apocalyptic" not in the sense of The Book of Revelation but rather in the sense of revelation of God's actions on earth]. The earth suffers a tumultuous time due to God's anger, in a scene reminiscent of a volcanic eruption. God's anger causes the earth to quake, smoke to arise, and fire and coals to shoot out. These physical manifestations of anger come from God's body, mixing emotion with a very physical reaction, though not an anthropomorphic one per se. God has human features, but these display superhuman capabilities: shooting fire and smoke. The poet seems to say that God is in some ways like humankind, but clearly certain aspects of him are manifested differently. There is a strong connection with the natural world, if only it is the destruction of the natural world.

[5]
Violent imagery continues in strophe 6 as God mounts a campaign against the poet's enemies. God thunders from heaven, the source of wind and clouds and water, taking these elements with him to form a canopy of clouds, like the one that led Israel by day as they wandered in the wilderness. God is conveyed on the wind wrapped up in the natural world elements of clouds and water, and image that combines the most primeval elements of Genesis. He then uses natural and unnatural means to fight the poet's enemies: arrows and lightning. These two parallel verses are synonymous, demonstrating God's ability to defeat armies through natural and supernatural means. God's power lays bare the entire earth, sea and land, a demonstration of his utter hegemony.

[6]
Just as God "came down" in strophe 6, he reaches "from on high" to rescue the poet. God's exact location is indeterminate, but clearly it is some place "up." Here God is not the God that resides within the temple, but the God that protects on the field of battle. In two parallel verses, God rescues the poet first from "mighty waters" and second from a "strong enemy" that is "too mighty for me." The mixing of metaphor and reality helps to muddle the meaning of the poem, as the poet mixes a figurative event with a literal one. Unless this poem is attributed to a person that was saved both from mighty waters and a strong enemy, it is safe to assume that the mighty waters part is metaphor. This allows the reader to question, "What else is metaphor in this poem?" Indeed, we can now interpret a great deal of this poem as metaphor. Perhaps God does not actually breathe smoke and shoot fire from his mouth. Perhaps this application of natural and human images to the divine serves as an attempt at mysticism, an attempt to experience (or in this case, convey) the ineffable through physical means. Mysticism does not tell us that God is something, but rather that God is like something. In this way God can occupy both high places and the temple because this is an acknowledgment that there are certain things we do not understand about him. Mysticism allows for alternative experiences and explanations of God where the traditional falls short.

[7]
The poem shifts here from the nature motif to a description of God's ways. The Lord delivers the poet because of the poet's righteousness and likewise because "he delighted in me," as stated in strophe 7. Keeping with the covenant and all of God's ordinances, the "ways of the Lord," is essential to keeping God's favor. Righteousness is equated with spiritual cleanliness, a way of keeping "holy." In biblical parlance, "holy" means "separate." Spiritual cleanness means staying away from the grime of sin.

[8]
The first four verses of this strophe display a mirroring quality to God: God reveals himself to people the way they are. [By extension, God reveals to people how they act; the loyal see their loyalty mirrored in God and could know that they are loyal.] Ideally the Israelites fall under the first three categories: loyal, blameless, and pure. These humble people conquer others through God's action; God acts as a shield for them in which they take refuge, assuming a passive state. God is a rock. In this sense it seems to be God's work alone that conquers Israel's enemies. However, a few verses clarify God's powers. The Lord is a tool; a lamp to provide light or something that gives crushing or leaping power to the poet. There are "historical" instances of actions like this in the bible, but I wonder whether the poet means it literally. I do not have an answer for this question - but I think the answer to the question would tell us a little more about the person or people behind this poem.

[9]
From this point to the end of the poem, the subject modulates frequently between God/He/You, and I. In classical mystic fashion, this creates an ambiguous quality to the work, so that addressing the Lord in the second person is the same as speaking of him in the third. The added third voice of the poet (I) further confuses the poetry, so that I becomes wrapped up in God, who is also You and He.

The poet is very much concerned with feet, footing, and balance, which conveys the feeling of balance and movement. The Lord secures the poet's feet and strengthens the poet's arms. The poet is aided by the Lord in warfare, so that the poet's enemies are destroyed. They fall under the poet's nimble feet like dust or the muck on a street.

[10]
This strophe makes clear the "poet" is David, or at least a king. The poet is a leader with so many subjects he does not know them all. His name invokes fear in people he has never met, and people surrender to him without a fight.

[11]
Strophe 12 recaps the opposite ends of the spectrum: God as rock and God as deliverer. It closes out the poem with praise for God, who loves and supports his anointed, the king. God is the Savior of Israel forever.

The vision of God presented in the poem is not entirely cohesive, but this allows for a mystical interpretation of the passage. The biblical poet may not have been driving toward a mystical vision, but the fact that we are able to interpret it as such may indicate that the poet held a view of God that the Lord was somehow ineffable, and that language failed to describe God or any experience with God.

2 Samuel 1-10: Poetry, Christian Interpretation, and Quantum Physics

Last week's entry concluded with the deaths of Saul and his son Jonathan, and David killing the man who claimed to mercifully murder Saul.

Today I will focus on David's early campaign as king. I will go about it a little differently than normal. Let me know if you like it! Or hate it!

David's Lamentation: 2 Samuel 1.19-27
David's mourning over Jonathan takes the form of poetry, in fact a complete poem with a great deal of repetition. The repetition helps to clarify David's psychology. Let's take a look:

Your glory, O Israel, lies slain upon your high places!

How the mighty have fallen! 


Tell it not in Gath,

proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon;

or the daughters of the Philistines will rejoice,

the daughters of the uncircumcised will exult.


You mountains of Gilboa,

let there be no dew or rain upon you,

nor bounteous fields!


For there the shield of the mighty was defiled,

the shield of Saul, anointed with oil no more.


From the blood of the slain,

from the fat of the mighty,

the bow of Jonathan did not turn back,

nor the sword of Saul return empty.


Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!

In life and in death they were not divided;

they were swifter than eagles,

they were stronger than lions.


O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul,

who clothed you with crimson, in luxury,

who put ornaments of gold on your apparel.

How the mighty have fallen

in the midst of the battle!


Jonathan lies slain upon your high places. 

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;

greatly beloved were you to me;

your love to me was wonderful,

passing the love of women.


How the mighty have fallen,

and the weapons of war perished!

The formula "How the mighty have fallen!" serves to structure the poem, appearing at the beginning and end as well as in the middle. However, the poem truly pivots on the verses that mention both Saul and Jonathan: "The bow of Jonathan did not turn back, / nor the sword of Saul return empty. / Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!" The poem begins with general lamentations for the glory of Israel, before focusing on the death of Saul. But David's mind isn't truly on Saul, for soon after the reference he includes Jonathan, before displaying his greater appreciation of Jonathan.

Over the course of the poem the formula: "X lies slain upon your high places" is repeated twice, opening first with Your Glory, O Israel and then with Jonathan, so that Jonathan is equated with the Glory of Israel, as opposed to his father, Saul. Of course, it is David and later his son Solomon that are the true glory of Israel, but David's sentiment exemplifies the great love he shared with Jonathan. Even with his emphatic defense of Saul, David appears to value Jonathan more. David is "distressed for you, my brother Jonathan," a sentiment that involves himself personally with Saul's son. On the other hand, David has the "daughters of Israel" "weep over Saul." As much as he supported King Saul, it was with Jonathan that David shared the truest friendship: "greatly beloved were you to me; / your love to me was wonderful, / passing the love of women." [For more on this type of friendship, read "Of Friendship" by Montaigne.]

Christian Interpretation of 2 Samuel 7
Christian interpretation of the bible is something I have steered away from thus far, but I just finished reading Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth and feel the need to speak out if only a little on this phenomenon.

David has built a house for himself and expresses a desire to build one for the Lord as well. The Lord's response, given to the prophet Nathan in a dream, explores the literal and figurative meanings of house and place. His speech is excerpted below:

Thus says the Lord: Are you the one to build me a house to live in?...I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel; and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. 

And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. 

Moreover the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 

I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever.

The Lord's speech represents a new iteration of the covenant of land and progeny, the patriarchal covenant that stretches back to Abraham. The old iteration of that covenant has been fulfilled: the land promised - Canaan - is now inhabited by the progeny - the Israelites. God's newly designated land will be Jerusalem, where the ark of the covenant will be kept. the promise of progeny is still "a great name," but that comes through one person: David's son Solomon. The old covenant being fulfilled, a new one is established. The spirit of both is the same, while the terms change. Of course, the Israelites are also still bound to the covenant of faithfulness to God established under Joshua.

God's emphasis on location is fitting in a conversation that centers around a house. David builds for himself a house without building a resting place for God. Yet God insists that he does not have to settle down just yet; David's progeny will take care of the house and its location. Not only will David not need to build a temple/house (literal) for God; God will in fact build a (metaphorical) house for David! What wordplay! [Does anyone speak Hebrew? Are the roots similar? Do both connote house?] The house the Lord will "build" for David is part of the promise of progeny. A great kingdom will be established through David's offspring. The new king will be a great man, his relationship with God like that between father and son. But God will not punish this man on his own. Instead, humans will inflict blows on him for his iniquity. Nevertheless, David's kingdom will be eternal.

That sounds like Solomon, right? David's progeny, iniquity, establishing God's house...The only place where the whole thing breaks down is at the very end, the establishment of the throne forever. The United Monarchy only lasted 5 generations.

Were you able to read that passage without thinking of Jesus? I wasn't. [Those two preceding sentences mimic the style of Hal Lindsey's book. You should check it out if you're still interested. Fair warning, though, it's a bit outdated.] Read enough prophecy and you will see Jesus everywhere. Who established an eternal kingdom on earth? Jesus! Who is an ancestor of David? Jesus! Who endured the blows of human beings? Jesus!

Despite these rather *ahem* remarkable findings, it is highly improbably that this section refers to Jesus. On its own, this is merely the story of God's promise to David of Solomon and a temple in Jerusalem. The problem is that the people who believe that the passage does point to Jesus are drawing from a number of different sources. Two interpretation issues come into play: Biblical inerrancy and metaphor.

God creates metaphor in this section by making the tangible idea of David's house intangible in the sense of the "house of David" - his line of successors. To a degree this gives the reader a license to interpret other things as metaphorical as well, such as the kingdom, which is taken by some Christian readers to mean the so-called "kingdom of heaven" that Jesus ushers in. The biblical inerrantist also has license to assume that the time of David's kingdom has not come yet because, well, the throne clearly was not established forever. By this reading the throne must be established in the future.

The biblical inerrantist has some problems to deal with as well, such as Saul's actions fulfilling most of God's promise. Also, God specifically states that David's son will be punished for his "iniquity" with "blows inflicted by human beings." Certainly Jesus was brutalized, but it definitely was not on account of any iniquity!

Occam's Razor, the idea that the simplest explanation for a quandary is the most likely choice, would seem to apply here. Why jump through hoops to prove Jesus when Solomon is a simpler explanation? Why forecast so far into the future when Solomon is a few years away?

If I haven't confused you enough, let me make one last attempt.

Context is key here. Suppose I was traveling along X road at Y speed in a car with mass Z. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, I would only be able to know either my momentum or my location at any given moment. In fact, this is not true. My momentum is given by the equation ZY and my location by X. So what happened?

It seems I have misapplied the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is applicable only at the quantum level. Context changes everything. If I am looking for a way to support my argument for Jesus, that is what I see. It might not be correct, and the way I apply laws may not yield a proper solution, but I can do it.

And because we are talking about something that no one can definitively prove either way [even if the author were alive, some would say the text could not be proven either way!] I am liable to believe whatever I like.

What do I believe? That a literary reading of the bible should acknowledge religious influences both inside and outside of the text. And so you have today's entry.

1 Samuel 16-2 Samuel 1: From Saul to David

1 Samuel 16: David's Story in Contrast to Saul's
After Saul's kingship is revoked due to his disobedience of Samuel and general incompetence as a follower of the Lord, the search begins for a new king, one that will not make the Lord and Samuel so "sorry" about the whole affair of kingship. The man chosen is David, a young man that contrasts Saul in many ways. These contrasts are highlighted in our introduction to the boy, which parallels the proclaiming of Saul as king.

1 Samuel 9 informs us that Saul is "a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he; he stood head and shoulders above everyone else." The phrase "head and shoulders" is not a figure of speech; Saul is literally a tall man. Samuel's discovery of Saul is a highly public affair. All the tribes are brought together and are narrowed down by tribe, then family, then individual men. But when Saul is chosen by lot, he cannot be found. Samuel has to ask the Lord as to Saul's location; the future king is discovered among the baggage. Saul is off in his own world, a trait that will typify him throughout his reign.

When David is anointed king, he is chosen specifically from among the sons of Jesse, a Bethlehemite. This makes the anointing a private affair, lessening the publicity that might occur from the choice of a second king in so short a time.

Saul's choosing is contrasted (and undermined) in other ways as well. It is not the oldest son, Eliab, that will be anointed. Indeed, the Lord explains, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature. Eliab is like Saul: tall and handsome. The Lord warns against judging by appearances, advice that surely extends to Israel as a whole. Israel may not be the biggest nation, and is bereft of iron weapons.* Israel is an underdog group. Likewise, David is the youngest of Jesse's sons. In biblical times this was an unfavorable position, but frequently in the biblical narrative it is the youngest son that is favored.

Like Saul, David must be called for. However, he is called under less public circumstances, and his calling serves to defy the normative expectation that the youngest would not be chosen as king. David is young and ruddy and handsome, with beautiful eyes. Yet he is small, an underdog, the youngest son of a Bethlehemite. This mismatched sense will follow David throughout his narrative, perhaps most strikingly displayed in the tale of David and Goliath.

*[The bible informs us that the Philistines control the metalworking process]

Evidence of the Documentary Hypothesis in the Davidic Narrative
A strong piece of evidence supporting the multiple authorship of the bible comes in the Davidic narrative. 1 Samuel 16 has him anointed by Samuel, after which time he goes to play the lyre for Saul in order to relieve him of his evil spirits. However, for the rest of the narrative, David does not seem to have ever been anointed, indicating the tale of David may actually be comprised of two or more traditions. Twice he abstains from killing Saul because Saul is "the Lord's anointed." David's anointing would seemingly override this, so perhaps David in that version of the story was not anointed at that time. If the multiple authorship hypothesis is correct, one of these traditions would have David anointed upon his introduction, while the other would have him anointed after the death of Saul. Indeed, there are three anointing scenes, one before and two after Samuel's death. Perhaps the biblical author wanted David to be anointed by Samuel, and so that tradition was added to the other anointing that occurs in 2 Samuel 2 and 2 Samuel 5

1 Samuel 17: David and Goliath
The story of David and Goliath is a classic in the biblical canon - as well as in art:


[Thanks David Gaya at Wikipedia!]

The setting: The Israelites and the Philistines are battling. A huge Philistine warrior by the name of Goliath offers a challenge of hand-to-hand combat, him agaisnt an Israelite. The winner's people will rule over the loser's. It is a simple wager, but no Israelite takes it - until the young David shows up. David is no soldier; he is simply delivering food to his three brothers who are in combat. However, David takes up the challenge, perhaps tempted by the promise of Saul's daughter and tax-free living in Israel. The young shepherd eschews Saul's armor and sword for a simple sling and five stones. The rest, as they say, is historicized fiction.

The tale of David and Goliath reinforces the underdog mentality of David and the Israelites as a whole. David is physically smaller and younger than Goliath, but that means he is light and agile. He is confident in his boast to Goliath:

"You come to me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defiled. This very day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head;"

David then turns Goliath's promise back on him:

"and I will give the dead bodies of the Philistine army this very day to the birds of the air and to the wild animals of the earth, so that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not save by sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord's and he will give you into our hand."

David invokes the Lord as divine warrior as champion of the Israelites. The Israelites only figure nominally into the battle, for "the battle is the Lord's." It was the Lord, David told Saul earlier, that saved him from lions and bears and allowed him to defeat them bare-handed. Battles are not won through sword and spear, but by what seem like fantastic actions resulting from trust in the Lord. David defeats Goliath with a mere stone. His boast that "the Lord does not save by sword and spear" has a peculiar resonance here, as 1 Samuel 13.19 informs the reader, "Now there was no smith to be found throughout all the land of Israel; for the Philistines said, 'The Hebrews must not make swords or spears for themselves.'" [It would therefore seem anachronistic that the Israelites "put X to the sword." But this is a matter for another time.] Only Saul and Jonathan have swords, and even these are not necessary to defeat the Philistines. Instead, Goliath is killed rather poetically by his own sword. Everything David promised is fulfilled, and the Philistines are defeated because of the Lord's actions.

Family Matters
There is an ever-so-brief period in which Saul is not jealous of David. It spans a whole five verses: 1 Samuel 18.1-5. In addition to Saul's adoration of his military prowess, Saul's son Jonathan develops an intense love for David, offering him many gifts to demonstrate his adoration. Jonathan's admiration of David saves the future king a number of times, while it simultaneously puts a wedge between Jonathan and his father.

Saul's jealousy stems from a legitimate source, though this source differs depending on what account we follow. If all the stories of David assume at this point that Saul's kingship has been revoked by Samuel, then Saul's fear might be that the new anointed has come. However, the Documentary Hypothesis allows the assumption that Saul's kingship was not revoked at all, and that the king is fending off a young upstart. It is a subtle difference, but knowing the reason could help us to better understand Saul's psychology.

Saul's jealousy is set off by a song that is sung as he and David return victorious from battle. The refrain haunts Saul, and he hears it repeated three times before his death:

"Saul has killed his thousands,
and David his ten thousands."
(1 Sam. 18.7, 21.11, 29.5)

With this jealousy as a basis, the rest of the narrative sees Saul hunting down David, and even when Saul concedes David's greatness and promises to stop hunting him, he resumes the hunt within a chapter. In classic laconic style we are never told the reason Saul's pursuit resumes. This fact is taken for granted, but again, understanding the reason would give us a greater insight into Saul's psychology. Multiple authorship makes it seem as though Saul reneges on his promise a number of times. And while this may have always been the intention of the story, there is a small chance that perhaps it was not.

In any case, David does not kill Saul when he gets the chance, an inaction that contrasts well with Saul's active pursuit of David. David refuses to kill the Lord's anointed - which would seem to indicate he has not yet been anointed himself.

Meanwhile, David is off making a name for himself, while Saul and his son Jonathan battle the enemies of Israel. Finally, the Philistines overcome the Israelites, and Saul, his armor bearer, and Jonathan all die. An injured Saul in fact kills himself rather than being killed by the Philistines - his armor bearer is refuses to kill him, and ultimately slays himself the same way.

David learns of Saul's death from an Amalekite that stumbles into his camp. carrying Saul's crown and armlet The news evokes genuine sorrow in David, and he demands to know the conditions. The Amalekite claims that Saul asked him to deliver his death blow because he is mortally wounded. Probably the Amalekite is lying, and probably stripped Saul of his jewelry before realizing it might be more valuable for him to give it to David. The tale prior to this one supports this idea. It does not even matter to David whether the man is lying or not - though he takes him at face value. In David's mind, the man has killed the Lord's anointed, and the punishment for that is death.

In the wake of this bloodbath David comes to power.

1 Samuel 7-10

Under the head priest Eli and his wicked sons, Israel has trouble against the Philistines. In last week's reading the Philistines even captured the Ark! Fortunately, the Lord plagues the Philistines and the Ark is returned. However, the Israelites still are wont to behave badly. They will live righteously for a short time under Samuel, but afterwards will reject God and demand a king for themselves. The first king of Israel, Saul, seems to serve as a rejection of Israel's choice. He is inept, incompetent. Later we will see that David is not perfect either. However, Israel in a very real sense seems to be punished by the Lord under Saul.

Samuel as Judge
Though the description of his life as judge is brief, Samuel is nevertheless a highly effective leader, and clearly one with divine support. Samuel is able to focus the Israelites' worship on God alone, which actually lasts through the tenure of his judgment. Samuel is also an excellent (nonviolent) commander in war. When the Philistines, who have caused Israel so much trouble, attempt an invasion, Samuel holds them off by offering burnt offering, at which time the Lord throws the Philistines into confusion and the Israelites pursue them. Under Samuel, Israel regains all the territory it lost - and Samuel judges on a circuit, travelling from town to town to administer justice.

Unfortunately, Samuel's sons are as bad as Eli's sons, which is perhaps the biblical author's attempt to tell us something about rebellious children as a way to preemptively reject a dynastic monarchy. in any case, it fits into the apostasy cycle, which seems to last roughly two generations. In the cycle one generation is faithful to the Lord, the next unfaithful, the one after that faithful, and so forth. The biblical author seems to be reacting to his source materials: If the sons of the high priest and judge of Israel cannot live up to their father's name, what will happen when the king - supreme overlord of Israel - has a son?

The elders of Israel use Samuel's rebellious sons as the prime example for why they need a king (and this is exactly what the biblical author is railing against - the Ignorance of Israel). Samuel (the mouthpiece of good sense) is not pleased. A king, he knows, will ultimately be very bad for Israel. But the people respond as a whole:

"No! but we are determined to have a king over us, so that we also may be like the other nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles."
(1 Sam. 8.19-20)

In effect this is a rejection of holiness - the separateness that differentiates the Israelites from the surrounding peoples. The Israelites are holy because they have no human king - because God is their "king." It is God as YHWH Sabaoththat leads them and fights for them in war and governs them through intermediaries on earth.

Even with Samuel's warning in 1 Samuel 8.11-18, the Israelites still desire a king. God knew this, of course, but Samuel is livid.

The man chosen to lead Israel as ing is a tall young wealthy Benjaminite named Saul. He is a man of Gibeah (AKA Benjamin), which seems to be a rather odd choice for a king. Gibeah was singled out in Judges 19-20 as a heinous town whose sins are not unlike those of Sodom. God's choice in the first king of Israel, however, is very suitable. Saul, who is tall, rich, and handsome, and from a militaristic tribe, only displays signs of outward greatness. (Plus he is a member of the tribe of Benjamin, the youngest son of Israel. [The youngest is generally the favorite in the biblical narrative]). What we don't see at first is that he is just as depraved and incompetent as anyone else. Saul will stand in stark contrast to the shorter lyre-playing Judahite David, who will become the second King of Israel.

God engineers a very complex method for establishing Saul's kingship, which will also stand in stark contrast to the ease of David's appointment. David will have to fight for the throne, but God's favor will be bestowed on his quickly and simply.

In the narrative of Saul's rise to power, what would normally be the extraordinary event of the choosing of a king is cloaked in a folkloric tale about lost donkeys and a seer (Samuel). Saul is drawn away from the donkeys and finds the seer, who proclaims him king and anoints him, before giving him specific instructions involving meeting different groups of people, gathering items, and going into a prophetic frenzy. Saul is also to wait seven days for Samuel once he gets to Gilgal. Samuel then comes to choose by lot a king from the tribe of Benjamin. In the earliest display of Saul's incompetence, he is nowhere to be found at the ceremony of his choosing - until we discover - oh, wait - he's actually over there in the baggage. It's a rather embarassing start to his tenure as king.

Ruth

The Book of Ruth is a very short book (four chapters) located between Judges and 1 Samuel. It bridges the two stories by centering around the Judge-era character Ruth, the great grandmother of David. Just one problem: Ruth is a Moabite.

The Lord has forbidden exogmy because it leads to apostasy, and yet here we discover that a Moabite is the forebear of the great King David. How is this possible? In a culture that emphasizes the family dynamic so much, how could a story asserts Ruth, a Moabite, is the great grandmother of David?

Rarely does the biblical author name a character if he does not wish to say something about that character. In the book of Ruth we find three women mentioned by name: Naomi, Orpah, and Ruth.

The book of Ruth is a female-centric story and therefore is also a very domestic story. Its core themes are home and household. But Ruth is also a story of alienation. To Israelite society Ruth would initially seem a person of very little importance: a woman, impoverished, widowed, a Moabite. Yet it is she that ultimately is glorified for her fulfillment of the Israelite value of family. Now that there is a congregation that is settled in one place and is devoted to YHWH, it takes an outsider to display the true values that God wishes to see among his people.

The book is set during a famine in the time of the Judges. A Judean named Elimelech takes his wife Naomi and his two sons Mahlon and Chilion down to Moab, presumably because there if food there.

The first two verses of the book center around Elimelech, but by verse 3 the subject changes to Naomi; we are even told that Elimelech is "the husband of" Naomi. The structure of the sentence puts Naomi as the more powerful subject and her husband as the less powerful object. Because Elimelech is spoken of only in reference to Naomi, clearly it is Naomi, a woman, that is the focus of the story. In addition, when Elimelech dies, the biblical author says that Naomi is "left with two sons," neither of whom appears to take responsibility for the family. Naomi now leads the family.

Mahlon and Chilion both take Moabite wives; which God has warned against because exogamy is frequently linked with apostasy (marrying a foreigner will cause a man to worship his wife's gods instead of the Lord). We are not told who married whom, but we are told the names of their wives: Orpah and Ruth. After ten years, both Mahlon and Chilion die, leaving Naomi without any men in her life, just her Moabite daughters-in-law. And without men, the three of them lack the security that men provide. This is especially a problem during a time of famine. However, Naomi hears that the Lord is providing for his people, so she decides to head to Judah and urges her two daughters-in-law to return to their homes (their feminine homes, no less - each to her "mother's house"). Ruth and Orpah insist on following Naomi back to Bethlehem. Naomi's response expresses the practical view: they should not follow her because she has no sons and will never again have sons. It would be impractical for them to follow her because not one of them is possessed by the requisite male.

Orpah returns home, and Naomi tells Ruth to follow, to go back to her people and her gods. But Ruth has found the Israelites and their God to be too wonderful:

Do not press me to leave you
or turn back from following you!
Where you go, I will go;
where you lodge, I will lodge;
your people shall be my people,
and your God my God.
Where you die, I will die -
there I will be buried.
May the Lord do thus and so to me,
and more as well,
if even death parts me from you!
(Ruth 1.16-17)

And so Ruth convinces Naomi to take her along.
When they get back to Bethlehem, Naomi tells the women of the town to call her Mara ("Bitter"), for the Lord has dealt harshly with her by taking away all her men.

Flight and return
Flight and return is a common theme in the Bible, with characters like Abraham and then Israel as a whole going down into a place like Egypt and then coming back up. The character leaves his or her homeland due to a famine, enters a foreign land, and after a time returns to the homeland changed in some way. It would be possible to see Naomi this way, having left the promised land for Moab and returning without any males. But another way to look at it is that Naomi leaves with a group of spiritually and physically weak men - Naomi's sons take Moabite wives and she outlives all the men of the family - and returns with a spiritually and physically strong woman, Ruth. The biblical author in this way undermines the traditional male dominance of Israelite life by asserting the strength of women; it is only Naomi and Ruth that return to the promised land, and Ruth is a convert at that.

This is not to say that the story is completely devoid of strong men. Indeed, the biblical author still asserts the importance of a man's presence in the character Boaz, Naomi's rich kinsman on her husband's side. Boaz is a man of the Lord from his introduction. His first words in the story, spoken to his reapers, are, "The Lord be with you." His reapers in turn bless him: "The Lord bless you."

Ruth has asked her mother-in-law to glean in the field, picking up the sheaves of wheat that the reapers missed as per the Deuteronomical law granting this ability to widows, orphans, and aliens. Ruth's hard work - she has been on her feet all day without resting - and her familial relations cause Boaz to protect her, even calling her "my daughter." He advises her to glean only in his field, promises the men will not bother her, and offers her food and water. Ruth is amazed that a foreigner would be treated so well, to which Boaz responds that he knows what she has done for Naomi, and that she has left her family.

Ruth is treated very well that day. She is offered bread and sour wine at mealtime, and Boaz commands the reapers to let her glean from the standing grain and to intentionally drop bunches from the bundles for Ruth to pick up. In all Ruth gathers an ephah of barley - quite a bit.

Boaz is again blessed, this time by Naomi when she is told of all he has done for Ruth. This is the biblical author's way of letting us know that he is a righteous man; everyone is quick to bless him.

Transactions
A frequent topic of this blog has been the sex-marriage economy, in which women are treated as pieces of property in marriage and family matters. This will be discussed a little later as we come to it. Here we will examine another type of transaction that occurs in Ruth. Chapter 2 saw Ruth working to support Naomi. Chapter 3 sees Naomi work to support Ruth. In this exchange for protection, each woman looks out for the other's best interest in an exchange of services. Naomi's aid comes in playing matchmaker between Ruth and Boaz. She commands Ruth to clean herself up and put on nice clothes to go to Boaz on the threshing floor, where he is spending the night. After he has eaten and drunk, she is to "uncover his feet" and lie down, at which point he will instruct her what to do. ["Feet" in biblical parlance is a euphemism for genitals; Naomi seems to be arranging a marriage.]

Ruth does this, but waits until Boaz is asleep. Boaz wakes with a start in the night and demands to know the name of the woman lying at his "feet." Ruth answers, "I am Ruth, your servant; spread your cloak over your servant, for you are next-of-kin." The symbolic spreading of a cloak over a woman signifies (for obvious reasons) acquiring her for marriage. However, marriage does not seem to be on Boaz's mind. He refers to her twice as "my daughter" and tells her that there is another man who is closer kin than he. He is willing to get married if the other man does not agree, but Boaz seems to want to follow Mosaic law precisely.

Ruth slips out in the morning before anyone could recognize she spent the night, however platonically, with Boaz. As a parting gift he gives her six measures of barley.

The sex-marriage economy
With the economic transaction of property and Ruth, the story logically shifts its focus to Boaz, a male. Boaz meets the kinsman closer to Ruth at the gate of the city, the area of commerce. He informs the kinsman that Naomi is selling a parcel of land that belonged to Abimelech. As per Deuteronomic law, the land should be redeemed by the closest kin member, who happens to be this kinsman. The next in line after him is Boaz.

The kinsman offers to redeem the property, upon which Boaz informs him that Ruth comes with the property, so that Elimelech's name may be passed down (again a piece Deuteronomic legislation. In this society a man's name is tied to his property, so if there is no brother or son to redeem it, it goes to the man's wife, who keeps the man's name associated with the property and hopefully produces a son who will carry on the family name along with the property.

Boaz's choice of delivery in describing the transaction builds tension by adding value to the deal while simultaneously complicating it. With the addition of Ruth into the equation the kinsman no longer simply considers buying property; now he must consider buying property and taking a wife that will pass on another man's name to their children. The kinsman refuses, claiming it would damage his own inheritance, and so Boaz claims all of Elimelech's property and Ruth, and promises to carry on her dead husband's name.

The witnesses accept the transaction and bless Boaz and Ruth, saying:

"May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you produce children in Ephrathah and bestow a name in Bethlehem; and, through the children that the Lord will give you by this young woman, may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah."
(Ruth 4.11-12)

Quite conveniently, all this occurs, as Ruth gives birth to Obed, who will be the father of Jesse, father of David. The biblical author, of course, knows that all this will happen, and uses the invocation of Rachel and Leah, matriarchs of Israel, to assert David's greatness.

And so Ruth and Naomi both receive the protection of a man. But there is still the problem that Obed's mother is a Moabite. The biblical author jury-rigs a reasonable solution: Ruth's son is taken by Naomi, who becomes his nurse, creating a literal and figurative connection between the child and Judah. The neighborhood women authorize the connection by saying, "A son has been born to Naomi." It is not her son, but it does allow Elimelech's name to be passed on. By this method the son has two "parents" that are descended from Judah: Boaz and Naomi.