The deaths of Saul and his three sons clears the way for David, a man after God's heart, to become king. However, the succession of David to the Israelite throne was not a foregone conclusion, as the opening chapters of 2 Samuel make clear. David, even though he is a military hero and the (once) son-in-law of Saul is not the only person with a claim on the throne; a heretofore unmentioned son of Saul, Ishbaal, supported by the Israelite general Abner, has a more direct claim. The struggle between David and Ishbaal -- and more importantly, the struggle between their supporters -- for the throne lasts roughly two years.
David learns of the death of Saul from someone who claims to have rushed from Saul's side to give David the news. David is rather unbelieving of the news and questions the man thoroughly. Over the course of the interview, it becomes clear that the man, an Amalekite, was not with Saul at the time of his death (even though he claims to have killed the king himself at the king's request); likely the man was seeking favor from the notorious David by bringing what he imagined would be well received news. Instead, David is heartbroken by the king's (and Jonathan's) death, and he and his men rip their clothes and enter a period of mourning. Further, he orders the conniving Amalekite be executed.
David's response to Saul's death is similar to the response of the men of Jabesh-gilead, who conducted a raid to recover the king's body from the Philistines. He leads his men in a period of weeping and fasting for the fallen king of Israel. Then the young poet-general (sounds like a poor man's philosopher-king) composes a lamentation about the death of Saul and Jonathan, which is preserved in 1 Samuel (and there is no reason to doubt that David wrote it). In this response, we see David's respect for Saul as God's anointed king, despite Saul's personal death-wish for him; perhaps we even see the affection of the younger David who had once been like a son to Saul and a brother to Jonathan.
But David is not overwhelmed by Saul's death, and he quickly acts to assert his claim on the Israelite throne (the realization the promise made by Samuel's anointing him as a boy). As he had previously begun to bribe, or at least soften, the influential leaders of the south, David expects their support. He (and his army) resettle in the land of Judah in the city of Hebron; there David is anointed king by the leadership of the Hebrew tribe of Judah.
But Judah is but one tribe of the Israelites, and the other tribes recognize Ishbaal, the son of Saul who is supported by the military leader Abner and his army, as king. (This is the first obvious rift that will eventually split the Hebrews into two countries, the Kingdom of Israel in the north and the Kingdom of Judah in the south.) Both sides believe that their king has the claim to rule the entire Hebrew kingdom, and soon they are at war with each other.
Interestingly, David again tries to refrain from attacking other Israelites; just as he had refrained from attacking the army of Saul, David refuses to lead an attack against the army of Ishbaal. However, supporters of David do fight on his behalf, even defeating Ishbaal's army, under Abner, at Gibeon. While this battle does not reunify the kingdom, it does begin the process by which David will become king of all the Hebrews.
After the battle and after a personal confrontation with Ishbaal, Abner approaches David to negotiate a deal by which Abner will switch his support, and implicitly that of his army, from Ishbaal to David. During the negotiation, David insists that his previous wife, Michel, be returned to him; because Saul had married her to someone else after David went into exile, this required that she would be separated from her current husband. Further, the act would recognize David's power and stature. Ishbaal, seeing the writing on the wall with the defection of Abner, sends Michal to David, hoping that this would placate David.
After the deal between Abner and David is reached, and while Abner is traveling, one of David's subjects seizes the general and kills him to avenge the death of his brother, killed in the Battle of Gibeon. When Ishbaal learns of Abner's death, he becomes completely distraught because he knows that the allegiance of the people is switching more and more to David. Before Ishbaal can take any decisive action, however, he is assassinated by two brothers who think that King David will reward those who pave the way to uniting the Israelite kingdom. Much like the scheming Amalekite who told David of Saul's death, the two brothers are shocked by David's harsh rebuke: for their part in killing a recognized king, they are put to death.
This is a recurring pattern for much of David's life, at least according to the scripture writer of 1 and 2 Samuel -- David bears no involvement, and thus no guilt, in several dark deeds that benefit him. He never raises a hand against Saul, who eventually dies. He never raises a hand against Abner, who eventually dies. He never raises a hand against Ishbaal, who eventually dies. In some ways, on might wonder if there's some revisionism in this story, cleaning it up a bit. Even if not, it is obvious that David is quite the opportunist, skilled at playing people off each other (remember his dealings with the Philistine king Achish), condoning people to fight on his behalf while maintaining plausible deniability for their actions (those who fought against the army of Ishbaal).
With the death of Ishbaal, support of the leaders of Israel coalesces around David, who becomes king of all the tribes of Israel, reestablishing Saul's kingdom. Like any astute leader, he seeks a common purpose to further unify the people, which he finds in leading a war against the Jebusites, who have land holdings within the Israelite kingdom. The outcome of this war will be the focus of Sunday's sermon.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Codex Sinaiticus Premieres Online
If you're like me (and who isn't), the most exciting thing that you've heard this past week is that the oldest complete Greek manuscript of the New Testament is going online. The Codex Sinaiticus, which dates to the 4th Century, is currently being digitized so that people can access images of the full manuscript. The new website, a joint collaboration of several entities, went live on Thursday.
The story of Codex Sinaiticus, or at least the "discovery" of the codex is a fascinating tale of intrigue, involving clueless monks, more wary monks, and a scholar for hire in the 19th Century. While staying at the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai in 1844, Dr. Constantin von Tischendorf (as part of a larger tour of the Mideast looking for ancient Biblical manuscripts), he noticed some parchments in the trashcan which proved to be early Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament (easy to date on sight because they are written in uncial Greek script (uppercase) as opposed to later minuscule script (lowercase and cursive)). von Tischendorf was allowed to keep these parchments, which he took back to the University of Leipzig.
On later trips, von Tischendorf attempted to find out if there were more parts of the codex, but the monks sensed that they might have something valuable on their hands and became quite closed-mouth. In 1859, von Tischendoft presented the steward of the monastery with a copy of the book he had published about the parchments he had taken to Europe; the steward said that he also had a book of such documents, which turned out to be the remainder of the Codex, which still had large parts of the Old Testament and a full copy (in good condition) of the New Testament. von Tischendorf tried to negotiate the sale of the codex, but the monks were not interested; they were, however, looking for a new abbot, so they were persuaded to make a gift to the Czar of Russia (the most powerful political influence on the eastern church) -- the entire extant codex. [After the Russian Revolution, the British Museum would purchase this codex from the Russian government, which then had little interest in Christian artifacts.]
Aside from this great story (which I've actually condensed) of its rediscovery, the Codex Sinaiticus is an extremely important early manuscript of the New Testament. It is the earliest complete Greek New Testament, and the only complete Greek New Testament written in uncial Greek script (all uppercase, no spaces). It is remarkably good condition, with very little physical deterioration, unlike p46, the earliest New Testament manuscript we have, all of whose pages have significant deterioration and many of which are lost. The original codex dates to the 300s, though there is evidence of later corrections/notations in the margins which are of uncertain era.
Because of its completeness, its early dating, and its timely mid-19th Century discovery, the Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most influential early New Testament manuscripts. No two early manuscripts agree completely, so the New Testament we have is a scholarly reconstruction of what is believed to be the most authentic text from among the variant readings. (This is not to suggest that there are wildly variant readings among the ancient manuscripts -- there are very few dramatic differences between the texts. But these differences must be accounted for -- scholars do the same things with the various manuscripts of everyone from Homer to Shakespeare. In fact, it is amazing how closely all the manuscripts of the New Testament agree with each other, especially when one takes out scribal mistakes and abbreviation differences.)
The Greek New Testament I have in my office contains all of the major variant readings of the New Testament, and it includes a scholarly apparatus to show which manuscripts have which readings. Among the various manuscripts, Sinaiticus enjoys a prime position, evident in the scholarly shorthand for it. The ancient codexes are catalogued by capital letter, first in the Roman alphabet (A, B, C), then in the Greek. But Sinaiticus is represented by the Hebrew aleph. (Happily, this makes it instantly recognizable; I have to consult a book to remind myself what codex goes with what capital letter.)
The website does not yet have the full Codex Sinaiticus yet -- they expect to finish the digitization process by the end of 2009. But what they do have is beautiful, a three-part screen which features: 1) a digitized view of each page of the codex (shot in your choice of two different lightings); 2) a transcription of the Greek, with proper spacing and chapter and verse indicators; and 3) a space for a translation of the passage in English, German, modern Greek, or Russian. For textual scholars, there is even an additional part which features detailed physical descriptions of the parchment and text, including the specific repairs and treatments made to it. The codex is searchable by Bible passage or by its own quire and page.
If you have a few minutes, you should check it out: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/. There is a lot of contextual information, including a history of the manuscript and its transmission. Go to the "See the Manuscript" tab and look at the beginning of Mark (currently, the only part of the New Testament online). See a glimpse of where our English Bible comes from -- just having that in your mind's eye will quite possibly change your view of the entire Bible -- any Bible -- that you ever hold in your hand.
Some days technology is a maddening thing. And we have growing pains yet to go through as more of our lives, and our information, becomes Internet-driven. But sometimes technology is truly a wonderful thing. The number of people who have been able to see this manuscript online in the past few days surely dwarfs the number of people who have been able to read this manuscript in person in its entire history.
The story of Codex Sinaiticus, or at least the "discovery" of the codex is a fascinating tale of intrigue, involving clueless monks, more wary monks, and a scholar for hire in the 19th Century. While staying at the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai in 1844, Dr. Constantin von Tischendorf (as part of a larger tour of the Mideast looking for ancient Biblical manuscripts), he noticed some parchments in the trashcan which proved to be early Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament (easy to date on sight because they are written in uncial Greek script (uppercase) as opposed to later minuscule script (lowercase and cursive)). von Tischendorf was allowed to keep these parchments, which he took back to the University of Leipzig.
On later trips, von Tischendorf attempted to find out if there were more parts of the codex, but the monks sensed that they might have something valuable on their hands and became quite closed-mouth. In 1859, von Tischendoft presented the steward of the monastery with a copy of the book he had published about the parchments he had taken to Europe; the steward said that he also had a book of such documents, which turned out to be the remainder of the Codex, which still had large parts of the Old Testament and a full copy (in good condition) of the New Testament. von Tischendorf tried to negotiate the sale of the codex, but the monks were not interested; they were, however, looking for a new abbot, so they were persuaded to make a gift to the Czar of Russia (the most powerful political influence on the eastern church) -- the entire extant codex. [After the Russian Revolution, the British Museum would purchase this codex from the Russian government, which then had little interest in Christian artifacts.]
Aside from this great story (which I've actually condensed) of its rediscovery, the Codex Sinaiticus is an extremely important early manuscript of the New Testament. It is the earliest complete Greek New Testament, and the only complete Greek New Testament written in uncial Greek script (all uppercase, no spaces). It is remarkably good condition, with very little physical deterioration, unlike p46, the earliest New Testament manuscript we have, all of whose pages have significant deterioration and many of which are lost. The original codex dates to the 300s, though there is evidence of later corrections/notations in the margins which are of uncertain era.
Because of its completeness, its early dating, and its timely mid-19th Century discovery, the Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most influential early New Testament manuscripts. No two early manuscripts agree completely, so the New Testament we have is a scholarly reconstruction of what is believed to be the most authentic text from among the variant readings. (This is not to suggest that there are wildly variant readings among the ancient manuscripts -- there are very few dramatic differences between the texts. But these differences must be accounted for -- scholars do the same things with the various manuscripts of everyone from Homer to Shakespeare. In fact, it is amazing how closely all the manuscripts of the New Testament agree with each other, especially when one takes out scribal mistakes and abbreviation differences.)
The Greek New Testament I have in my office contains all of the major variant readings of the New Testament, and it includes a scholarly apparatus to show which manuscripts have which readings. Among the various manuscripts, Sinaiticus enjoys a prime position, evident in the scholarly shorthand for it. The ancient codexes are catalogued by capital letter, first in the Roman alphabet (A, B, C), then in the Greek. But Sinaiticus is represented by the Hebrew aleph. (Happily, this makes it instantly recognizable; I have to consult a book to remind myself what codex goes with what capital letter.)
The website does not yet have the full Codex Sinaiticus yet -- they expect to finish the digitization process by the end of 2009. But what they do have is beautiful, a three-part screen which features: 1) a digitized view of each page of the codex (shot in your choice of two different lightings); 2) a transcription of the Greek, with proper spacing and chapter and verse indicators; and 3) a space for a translation of the passage in English, German, modern Greek, or Russian. For textual scholars, there is even an additional part which features detailed physical descriptions of the parchment and text, including the specific repairs and treatments made to it. The codex is searchable by Bible passage or by its own quire and page.
If you have a few minutes, you should check it out: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/. There is a lot of contextual information, including a history of the manuscript and its transmission. Go to the "See the Manuscript" tab and look at the beginning of Mark (currently, the only part of the New Testament online). See a glimpse of where our English Bible comes from -- just having that in your mind's eye will quite possibly change your view of the entire Bible -- any Bible -- that you ever hold in your hand.
Some days technology is a maddening thing. And we have growing pains yet to go through as more of our lives, and our information, becomes Internet-driven. But sometimes technology is truly a wonderful thing. The number of people who have been able to see this manuscript online in the past few days surely dwarfs the number of people who have been able to read this manuscript in person in its entire history.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
David, Gun for Hire (A Blog Exclusive)
In the next few weeks, there will be a few Blog Exclusive pieces in our Early Jewish Monarchy series, which will tell parts of the story that we won't have time to focus on during Sunday worship. While the end of 1 Samuel tells the repetitive story of Saul's descent into overwhelming paranoia, it also tells how David cagily survives Saul's death-wish against him, through ever-more unbelievable means. While parts of 1 Samuel 21-30 are included what follows, 1 Samuel 27-30 is the focus.
As Saul becomes more persistent in his desire to have David killed, and even starts dispatching the Israelite army hither and yon for that expressed purpose, David goes to greater lengths to survive, fleeing from place to place, sometimes into lands beyond Israelite control. And Saul becomes ever more determined to track David down, to the extent that he even lashes out at David's perceived allies. In one particularly gruesome tale, Saul orders the deaths of all the priests of Nob, who are known to have hosted David for a time.
And Saul's own family is not spared. We learn that Michal, David's wife and the king's daughter, is given to another husband by her father -- obviously as a punishment against David. Jonathan appears very little in the story, which suggests that Saul is keeping his son on a very tight leash. It is fairly certain that Jonathan is not allowed to lead, or even accompany, the expeditions mounted to track down the fugitive David, even though we know that Jonathan himself was an honored general who had success in battling the Philistines.
Throughout this ordeal, David keeps one step ahead of Saul and his warriors and performs a delicate balancing act. He refuses to act out against Saul or any part of his army. Twice, quite dramatically, David will have the opportunity to kill Saul and he refuses to lay a hand on the king. This is again part of David's loyalty to the kingdom, even though the power of Israel has turned against him. As he becomes more of a fugitive, however, David is forced to ally with Israel's enemies, the Philistines.
This is the final resort of David. Saul's army has followed David into the wildernesses, so that these lands cannot provide a safe refuge. David evidently has approached certain wealthy Israelites, hoping that they might use their power to shelter him and his small army, but he is rejected. One story, an interaction between David and a wealthy Calebite named Nabal, dramatizes this rejection. Sensing the threat that David poses, Nabal rebuffs David's requests for assistance; the denial is so harsh that Nabal's wife Abigail intercedes with a peace offering, fearing that David and his men will take retribution on the household. Ironically, when Nabal learns of his wife's actions, he suffers a heart attack and dies. And David, man of honor and hopeless romantic that he is, marries the widow Abigail. (As we will see, David seems to have an eye for other men's wives.)
Seeing no other choice, David flees the land of Israel, settling near the city of Gath, hometown of Goliath and prominent Philistine city. When David first tried to approach the King of Gath, King Achish, he evidently got cold feet and pretended to have lost his mind while he was in Gath. The second time, David has no such qualms. He makes his presence known to King Achish and demands to live autonomously; the king grants his request and gives David control of the city of Ziklag (formerly an Israelite city that had been captured by the Philistines).
David's reputation as a great military leader is obvious in this negotiation. The Philistines are under no obligation to help David, who has led armies successfully against them time and again. In fact, one would expect them to try to capture and punish David. Evidently, David's personal army is powerful enough to prevent this and to demand that the Philistine king treat David respectfully. This implies that David had sufficient military power to take on Saul directly if he had desired; David refuses to act militarily against either the Israelite king or any other Israelites. This self-imposed restraint, along with the undeniable cunning that preserves David, are David's most notable traits in this part of the story. [Preachers and Biblical commentators usually take this to stress that David is showing great faith in God's promise to him given during his anointing by Samuel; while David is faithful, I think his actions show his own determination to prevent any claim that he is unfit for the Israelite throne. Lacking any contrary data (prophecies telling David which course he should take), it seems to me that David's faith would have justified his attacking Saul directly and taking the Israelite throne by force. But I digress.]
David has no reticence about attacking non-Israelites, and he uses Ziklag as a bandit refuge from which to launch raids against unsuspecting non-Israelite and non-Philistine tribes. Ruthlessly, David and his men attack, take everything that isn't nailed down, and kill everyone so there are no witnesses to reveal his identity. Ostensibly, David does this so that he can lie about his actions to both King Achish and, in the future, the Israelites. Even though he continues to attack only the enemies of Israel, David reports to the Philistine king that he is attacking Israelite settlements.
David is able to maintain this double-life until King Achish decides to launch another Philistine campaign against the Israelites and he demands Davids participation as a loyal Philistine subject. David has no choice but to accept the king's call; the king gives David and his men the prominent responsibility of being the king's bodyguard during the battle. This would remove David's men from the front lines, minimizing the chance for actual contact with the Israelites during the battle.
But of course, there is still the chance that David and his men would be forced to actually fight the Israelites. Unbelievably, David's overwhelming good luck holds and eliminates even this chance. Other Philistines learn of David's presence in the camp, and they demand that he be sent home as untrustworthy in the upcoming battle. Though King Achish vouches for David's loyalty three times -- the last swearing it by God, even -- David and his men are released from obligation and sent home.
The story would seem to have a happy ending, except that David finds that the Amalekites have raided Ziklag in his absence, captured much loot, and taken his wives and children prisoner. This leads to an attack instead by David and his grumbling men on the Amalekites. It is likely no coincidence that David must again face the group that Saul failed to annihilate, which led to him losing God's favor. David is successful and defeats the Amalekites.
In the aftermath of this victory, David makes overtures to attempt to reenter the land of Israel. He takes all that he captures from the Amalekites and sends it to the cities in the Southwestern part of the Israelite kingdom. This part of David's plan is nullified by a dramatic change brought on in the battle between the Israelites and the Philistines -- Saul and his sons are killed, which opens the way for David to claim the throne.
This then is the man after God's own heart. In his steadfast faith that he is called to be king, David preserves his claim to the throne. He becomes a fugitive to escape the king's wrath. He becomes a thief and an ancient bandit to support himself and his army; he lies over and over to his patron, King Achish the Philistine. He attempts to bribe his way back into the good graces of the Israelites. And, nostalgically, he becomes the symbol of all that once was good and right and hopeful in the land of Israel.
As Saul becomes more persistent in his desire to have David killed, and even starts dispatching the Israelite army hither and yon for that expressed purpose, David goes to greater lengths to survive, fleeing from place to place, sometimes into lands beyond Israelite control. And Saul becomes ever more determined to track David down, to the extent that he even lashes out at David's perceived allies. In one particularly gruesome tale, Saul orders the deaths of all the priests of Nob, who are known to have hosted David for a time.
And Saul's own family is not spared. We learn that Michal, David's wife and the king's daughter, is given to another husband by her father -- obviously as a punishment against David. Jonathan appears very little in the story, which suggests that Saul is keeping his son on a very tight leash. It is fairly certain that Jonathan is not allowed to lead, or even accompany, the expeditions mounted to track down the fugitive David, even though we know that Jonathan himself was an honored general who had success in battling the Philistines.
Throughout this ordeal, David keeps one step ahead of Saul and his warriors and performs a delicate balancing act. He refuses to act out against Saul or any part of his army. Twice, quite dramatically, David will have the opportunity to kill Saul and he refuses to lay a hand on the king. This is again part of David's loyalty to the kingdom, even though the power of Israel has turned against him. As he becomes more of a fugitive, however, David is forced to ally with Israel's enemies, the Philistines.
This is the final resort of David. Saul's army has followed David into the wildernesses, so that these lands cannot provide a safe refuge. David evidently has approached certain wealthy Israelites, hoping that they might use their power to shelter him and his small army, but he is rejected. One story, an interaction between David and a wealthy Calebite named Nabal, dramatizes this rejection. Sensing the threat that David poses, Nabal rebuffs David's requests for assistance; the denial is so harsh that Nabal's wife Abigail intercedes with a peace offering, fearing that David and his men will take retribution on the household. Ironically, when Nabal learns of his wife's actions, he suffers a heart attack and dies. And David, man of honor and hopeless romantic that he is, marries the widow Abigail. (As we will see, David seems to have an eye for other men's wives.)
Seeing no other choice, David flees the land of Israel, settling near the city of Gath, hometown of Goliath and prominent Philistine city. When David first tried to approach the King of Gath, King Achish, he evidently got cold feet and pretended to have lost his mind while he was in Gath. The second time, David has no such qualms. He makes his presence known to King Achish and demands to live autonomously; the king grants his request and gives David control of the city of Ziklag (formerly an Israelite city that had been captured by the Philistines).
David's reputation as a great military leader is obvious in this negotiation. The Philistines are under no obligation to help David, who has led armies successfully against them time and again. In fact, one would expect them to try to capture and punish David. Evidently, David's personal army is powerful enough to prevent this and to demand that the Philistine king treat David respectfully. This implies that David had sufficient military power to take on Saul directly if he had desired; David refuses to act militarily against either the Israelite king or any other Israelites. This self-imposed restraint, along with the undeniable cunning that preserves David, are David's most notable traits in this part of the story. [Preachers and Biblical commentators usually take this to stress that David is showing great faith in God's promise to him given during his anointing by Samuel; while David is faithful, I think his actions show his own determination to prevent any claim that he is unfit for the Israelite throne. Lacking any contrary data (prophecies telling David which course he should take), it seems to me that David's faith would have justified his attacking Saul directly and taking the Israelite throne by force. But I digress.]
David has no reticence about attacking non-Israelites, and he uses Ziklag as a bandit refuge from which to launch raids against unsuspecting non-Israelite and non-Philistine tribes. Ruthlessly, David and his men attack, take everything that isn't nailed down, and kill everyone so there are no witnesses to reveal his identity. Ostensibly, David does this so that he can lie about his actions to both King Achish and, in the future, the Israelites. Even though he continues to attack only the enemies of Israel, David reports to the Philistine king that he is attacking Israelite settlements.
David is able to maintain this double-life until King Achish decides to launch another Philistine campaign against the Israelites and he demands Davids participation as a loyal Philistine subject. David has no choice but to accept the king's call; the king gives David and his men the prominent responsibility of being the king's bodyguard during the battle. This would remove David's men from the front lines, minimizing the chance for actual contact with the Israelites during the battle.
But of course, there is still the chance that David and his men would be forced to actually fight the Israelites. Unbelievably, David's overwhelming good luck holds and eliminates even this chance. Other Philistines learn of David's presence in the camp, and they demand that he be sent home as untrustworthy in the upcoming battle. Though King Achish vouches for David's loyalty three times -- the last swearing it by God, even -- David and his men are released from obligation and sent home.
The story would seem to have a happy ending, except that David finds that the Amalekites have raided Ziklag in his absence, captured much loot, and taken his wives and children prisoner. This leads to an attack instead by David and his grumbling men on the Amalekites. It is likely no coincidence that David must again face the group that Saul failed to annihilate, which led to him losing God's favor. David is successful and defeats the Amalekites.
In the aftermath of this victory, David makes overtures to attempt to reenter the land of Israel. He takes all that he captures from the Amalekites and sends it to the cities in the Southwestern part of the Israelite kingdom. This part of David's plan is nullified by a dramatic change brought on in the battle between the Israelites and the Philistines -- Saul and his sons are killed, which opens the way for David to claim the throne.
This then is the man after God's own heart. In his steadfast faith that he is called to be king, David preserves his claim to the throne. He becomes a fugitive to escape the king's wrath. He becomes a thief and an ancient bandit to support himself and his army; he lies over and over to his patron, King Achish the Philistine. He attempts to bribe his way back into the good graces of the Israelites. And, nostalgically, he becomes the symbol of all that once was good and right and hopeful in the land of Israel.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Coming Up Sunday, July 20
After the great victory of David over Goliath, and thus the Israelites over the Philistines, the history of 1 Samuel focuses on Saul's family. David, we are told, leaves his father Jesse's household and joins King Saul's household, eventually becoming his son-in-law.
The reasons for this, and the timeline, are a little unclear. 1 Samuel offers several possibilities: David, the poet and singer, was the only person who could calm the king; David, the slayer of Goliath, was rewarded by being invited to join the king's family (and eventually marry one of his daughters); David, the successful general, appeared to be a threat to Saul's authority, and he wanted to keep a close eye on this potential challenger to the throne (i.e. "keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer"). Perhaps David was already part of the royal household before he faced Goliath; perhaps only afterward.
In any event, David becomes a recognizable figure alongside Saul's biological children, especially his son Jonathan and his daughter Michel (who becomes David's wife). Like many ancient kings, Saul sees his children not only as the future -- that is, as people who can succeed him after he dies -- but as a present threat -- that is, as people who might try to hasten either the king's death or defeat. So we get several stories of family politics, which suggest some pretty dramatic love/hate relationships between those involved.
This common motif of history (the most notable Biblical practitioner of this was King Herod aka "Herod the Great" who was likely King of Judea when Jesus was born, and who likely killed several of his children to prevent them from usurping the throne) is also a common theme of tragedy, perhaps most notably of Shakespeare's King Lear, where all the king's children are girls which both explains Lear's desire to control them and his subsequent descent into madness.
Consider this brief exchange between Goneril and Regan after the King has disowned their sister Cordelia (from Act I, Scene 1):
GONERIL:
Sister, it is not little I have to say of what most nearly appertains to us both. I think our father will hence tonight.
REGAN:
That's most certain, and with you. Next month with us.
GONERIL:
You see how full of changes his age is. The observation we have made of it hath been but little. He always loved our sister most, and with what poor judgement he hath now cast her off appears too grossly.
REGAN:
'Tis the infirmity of his age; yet he hath ever but slenderly known himself.
GONERIL:
The best and soundest of his time hath been but rash; then must we look from his age to receive not alone the imperfections of long-engrafted condition, but therewithal the unruly waywardness that infirm and choleric years bring them.
REGAN:
Such unconstant starts are we like to have from him as this of Kent's banishment.
GONERIL:
There is further compliment of leave-taking between France and him. Pray you, let us sit together. If our father carry authority with such disposition as he bears, this last surrender of his will but offend us.
So it is in the house of Saul. Saul is beginning to act strangely and erratically, post David and Goliath. His mood swings are greater; his impulses are less controlled and less rational. The children have to cope with this. They love their father; moreover they owe obedience to him. But Saul makes this difficult.
So the kids talk about it behind the king's back. They plan what to do whenever Saul goes off the deep end. Michel marries David, and grows to love him. Jonathan is enthralled with David and develops a deep friendship with him -- perhaps even more than that, politically speaking, an alliance. They protect the king and each other. Eventually one of them, David, is disowned and forced to leave Saul's household.
And so begins the downfall of the House of Saul.
This is some of what we'll consider Sunday as we continue our study of the early Jewish Monarchy.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Coming Up Sunday, July 13
This week we will turn our attention to the most famous military engagement of the ancient Israelite kingdom: David and Goliath, the young Hebrew boy going toe-to-toe with the giant Philistine warrior.
This story is familiar to many people, with the giant taunting the young boy who then hurls a stone from a slingshot that catches Goliath right between the eyes. Over the years, it has been most often told as an illustration of appropriate faith. With God, all things are possible. So in the face of insurmountable odds, and defying all logic, the young boy, who wears no armor and carries no sword or shield, but confident in his trust in God's power, faces down the great Philistine champion, who lets down his guard and gets defeated.
To some extent there's a lot of wisdom in this interpretation. We should always be aware that God acts in strange ways sometimes, choosing unlikely representatives and unlikely places and times. If we have faith in God, we should be eager to see God's hand in our lives, and we should pay special attention to the unconventional ways God may reach out to us.
But sometimes this reading of the story can get us into problems, when we fail to see God's hand in the world -- or specifically, when we fail to see God's hand in our lives when we face challenges. And then we sometimes chastise ourselves, and think that we must have no faith because God does not act for us.
That could be true, but I think that's a rather limited understanding of faith. In fact, there's a deeper faith at work in this story, one man's great faith, that I think is the more important lesson of this story. This man's faith, which represents an entire nation's faith, suggests important lessons not only for our personal faith, but for our shared faith.
This story is familiar to many people, with the giant taunting the young boy who then hurls a stone from a slingshot that catches Goliath right between the eyes. Over the years, it has been most often told as an illustration of appropriate faith. With God, all things are possible. So in the face of insurmountable odds, and defying all logic, the young boy, who wears no armor and carries no sword or shield, but confident in his trust in God's power, faces down the great Philistine champion, who lets down his guard and gets defeated.
To some extent there's a lot of wisdom in this interpretation. We should always be aware that God acts in strange ways sometimes, choosing unlikely representatives and unlikely places and times. If we have faith in God, we should be eager to see God's hand in our lives, and we should pay special attention to the unconventional ways God may reach out to us.
But sometimes this reading of the story can get us into problems, when we fail to see God's hand in the world -- or specifically, when we fail to see God's hand in our lives when we face challenges. And then we sometimes chastise ourselves, and think that we must have no faith because God does not act for us.
That could be true, but I think that's a rather limited understanding of faith. In fact, there's a deeper faith at work in this story, one man's great faith, that I think is the more important lesson of this story. This man's faith, which represents an entire nation's faith, suggests important lessons not only for our personal faith, but for our shared faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)