Both Saul and David faced a serious problem in consolidating their power over the disparate tribes of Israel. At first, not all the people were willing to accept Saul’s leadership just because Samuel anointed him. David, however, faced the problem of not being the legitimate heir to the dynasty, being an ambitious war hero not related to the previous king except through a childless marriage. It took time and effort to establish their hegemony over the disparate tribes of Israel. The passages found in I Samuel 11 and II Samuel 2 show the first acts of both men as kings, though in David’s case over Judah specifically rather than the whole tribal confederation. The problems they face in their early years of kingship are on one level the same: Saul faces a series of existential threats to the people of Israel, in the form of Ammonites, Philistines, and other ornery neighbors he has to fight off. David has to fight the same enemies, but he defeats them once and for all. On top of the external threat, David had to establish his rule over Israel itself through a protracted civil war, making his rise to power bumpier than Saul, who had no competition for the newly established throne. David’s greatness lies in his ability to manipulate the public, as seen in II Samuel 2 by his high praise for Jabesh-gilead’s heroic kindness in saving Saul’s body from the stakes the Philistines had stuck it on. He gives all the appearance, sincere or not, of grieving for the death of his predecessor, which he does whenever possible. Saul, on the other hand, is not so great in public, and given to bouts of paranoia. His only real advantage is being really tall compared to the average man. These chapters demonstrate the character of these two different men, through their actions and the reaction of Israel.
At the time of the Ammonite threat to the city of Jabesh-gilead, Saul does not wield true monarchial power as seen in 1 Samuel 10:27a, where “some worthless fellows” refuse to accept him as king. When he gathers the armies of Israel to fight Nahash, he does so in the same way a Judge from earlier times would, through the explicit threat of death to those who dare to break the treaty of tribal confederation. Indeed, his actions in cutting up the yoke of oxen are reminiscent of the Levite chopping up his concubine and calling for the destruction of the Benjaminite town of Gibeah, Saul’s own hometown interestingly enough, for its crimes in Judges 19. Saul at this moment isn’t leader because of Samuel anointing him in the name of the Lord, but because he is the man willing to call on the house of Israel to fight against an offense to tribal honor. He is a traditional warlord, rather than a divinely appointed king. Only after his spectacular victory over the Ammonites do the people say to him, “Who is it that said, ‘Shall Saul reign over us?’ Give them to us so that we may put them to death” (1 Samuel 11.12). Saul magnanimously overrides this death sentence, but the point is that now he has the authority to say who lives or dies. Only after demonstrating his worth to the people is he really the king of Israel. The ‘renewal’ of the kingship at Gilgal is not really a re-pledging of allegiance to Saul, but the first moment in which he is actually made king. Now, instead of tribal confederacy, it is the power of monarchy that protects Israel from threats external and internal. From this point forward, whenever the enemies of Israel come together, it is Saul or his successors who lead the army into battle.
When David first assumes power, he does so only after having consulted the Lord as to whether it’s the right course of action, as is right in the eyes of the Deuteronomist. His actual assumption of power, however, amounts to essentially an opportunistic military power-grab backed up by his extended kin group. Of the whole nation of Israel, only David’s own tribe supports his bid for the throne. The sons of Zeruiah, David’s sister, are instrumental in fighting the war against Saul’s house, and his power is initially based in the significantly large army he had gathered in his exile as a mercenary warlord. David also has a serious case of Thomas Becket Syndrome, especially with his nephew Joab. People who get in David’s way die, and then he gets very upset and punishes whoever did the killing, except for Joab, who gets away with it all the time. This chapter in particular shows Joab in his role of violent aggression, pursuing and fighting Abner from Gibeon to Ammah. It is significant that David does not take part in this battle himself. His nephew prosecutes the really messy civil war, while David stays out of the picture. David is the great warrior and general, yet he isn’t leading his men at the decisive crisis. David can’t lead his army in civil war in the Deuteronomist’s worldview, because that would look like the perfect servant of God fighting against Israel, the chosen people of God. Surely David would never do such a thing! Though instances of David doing wrong make it into the text, such as Bathsheba, David never fights against Israel, despite being a mercenary in the hire of the Philistine lords and being the center of two major civil wars over the course of his reign. David gets all the credit for victory over the Philistines, or over Ammon, but when a civil war breaks out, suddenly Joab is the one responsible for all the violence and murder. He is responsible for the convenient death of a huge number of David’s political and personal enemies, from Abner to Uriah. Abner himself is a kinsman of Saul, further highlighting the tribal nature of the conflict. The twelve youths at the pool of Gibeon represent Judah and Benjamin, not Judah and Israel. This is painted not as a lone tribe against all of Israel, but as two tribes fighting for the respect of the rest.
Strangely, his first action as king over Judah is to commend the city of Jabesh-gilead, far to the north, out of his realm of his influence in Judah, for their kindness to in burying Saul and Jonathan. This links the rise of David directly with the rise of Saul, and demonstrates the ways in which the Deuteronomistic History keeps track of places and events, weaving together different strands to create a whole. Jabesh-gilead is only mentioned in three episodes: as the town that sent no soldiers to fight the Benjaminites at Gibeah in Judges, as the town that Saul saves, and as the town that heroically saves Saul’s body under cover of darkness. These three episodes are importantly linked, as Gibeah is also the hometown of Saul, and the other episodes directly involve Saul. Saul’s kingship rested firmly on his actions in saving Jabesh-gilead from the Ammonites, and David begins his kingship by showering the same city with honor for their actions in saving Saul’s remains. This public relations move is so typical of David, always the consummate politician. Jabesh-gilead, as the notes to the text say, is one of Saul’s primary enclaves of support, due to his pivotal role in saving them from the Ammonites. His ultimate goal is to be king over all of Israel, so he needs to make those who loved Saul love him as well. He promises the loyal followers of Saul reward for their loyalty to their king, even as he tries to overthrow the legitimate son of Saul. This double-speak is the modus operandi of David throughout his reign, speaking sorrow and sympathy for his enemies who have an unfortunate habit of dying.
The link between Jabesh-gilead and Saul is also reflected in the Judges passage, which some scholars think was a propagandistic addition to denigrate Saul and his dynasty. The important role Jabesh-gilead plays in the episode, as the one town that doesn’t send men to fight against the tribe of Benjamin, is probably an integral component of the message the author of that tale was trying to get across to his ancient Israelite audience. One possibility is that is a cautionary tale told to Saul loyalists, demonstrating the fate of those who defy the will of the Lord. Not accepting David as king due to Saul’s serious blunders is as bad as not purging gang rapists from the house of Israel.
What do these two passages tell us about the Deuteronomistic History as a whole? Even though many sources, often contradictory, were used, the redactors managed to construct a complex, interweaved narrative that carries characters, events, places, and themes throughout. We learn that Saul and David are very different sorts of men, yet face the same essential problems in trying to rule a chaotic, disobedient people like the Israelites. Tribal concerns can be more important than taking the long view, such as the loyalty the tribes of Judah and Benjamin show to their respective sides during the civil war between David and Ishbaal. These chapters also encapsulate the cyclical nature of the Deuteronomistic History, as the problems of unity and leadership David and Saul face are the same ones faced by the Judges and kings throughout the pre-exilic history of Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment