Last
semester, I wrote a research paper on 1 and 2 Samuel, which were originally one
book. The book can be described as a history of Israel’s transition from being
ruled by local judges to being ruled by a king. I focused on two passages, one
of which made this transition look like a good thing, and one that made it look
like a mistake. In a series of posts, I’m planning to lay out my argument and
show how there’s actually no contradiction if we understand the passages
appropriately. This first post will present the problem and explain the
approach I’m taking.
1
Samuel 8 is a good example of an apparently anti-king passage. Here’s my
(greatly exaggerated) paraphrase:
People:
We want a king.
Samuel:
Israel has no king. Israel needs no king.
People:
We know we don’t have a king. That’s why we want one, dummy.
Samuel:
WHY ARE YOU REJECTING ME?
God:
Samuel, calm down. Let them have their king They’re not rejecting you …
People:
Ha! Told you so.
God: …
but they are rejecting me as king over them.
Samuel:
Ha! Told you so.
Samuel
then goes on to explain that the king will take their sons, their daughters,
their crops, their animals and so on. So, it seems like this is saying that any
human king is illegitimate, that God is the only rightful ruler of Israel and
that human monarchy is inherently oppressive.
Skip
ahead to 2 Samuel 7. David had become king and is more or less established so
he calls the prophet Nathan.
David:
I’ve got a great idea! I’m going to build a house for God!
Nathan:
Yay!
God: What?
I never said I wanted a house. Nathan, tell David I don’t need him. I established
Israel – and David. Without me, he’d still be chasing sheep around the hills of
Bethlehem. But I like David. I’m going to build him a house. One of his sons will build a temple for me. His
descendants will be my sons, and his dynasty will last forever.
Nathan:
What he said.
David:
Yay!
So here
God approves of kingship and gives David’s dynasty the right to rule. God even
calls the king His son, which means that the king has a unique relationship
with God. This is an incredibly positive view of kingship that even gives the
king spiritual authority.
So
what’s happening?
Many
scholars say these passages come from different sources that were edited into
one text. But that’s a little too simple. If we look deeper, there is a way to
reconcile them – to see when kingship is good and when it’s bad. The text is
actually more sophisticated than we realize if we write the passages off as a
difference of opinion. But we don’t realize this unless we’re willing to think
about it more.
There’s
another reason to go for a reading that combines the two views. Even if a
certain book of the Bible contains multiple sources, someone must have combined
them. Any book of the Bible deals with intense religious, political and ethical
issues. It seems unlikely that an editor would include texts that contradicted
his or her deeply held beliefs without modifying them enough to remove all
difficulties. Thus, the editors must have understood all the passages in a way
that did not contradict their actual opinions.
I’m
going to use a few posts to explain how this actually works. I hope it will
help us understand these texts better. But more importantly, I hope to use this
as an example of how looking at the Bible as a unified whole lets you
understand it in a more sophisticated way.
Awesome paraphrases!
ReplyDeleteWhat he said!
ReplyDelete