Yahweh’s Poetic Mishpat In Israel’s Kingship: A Reassessment Of 1 Samuel 8-12

By Jerry Hwang

[Jerry Hwang is Assistant Professor of Old Testament at Singapore Bible College in the Republic of Singapore.]

I. Introduction

The overlapping careers of Kings David and Saul have inspired countless depictions in art, literature, and music. These kings are popularly portrayed with Saul as the villain and David as the godly “man after God’s own heart” (1 Sam 13:14). As Baruch Halpern observes, however, such a stark contrast between the kings oversimplifies “a circumstantial character history whose complexity makes even the most sophisticated ancient biography seem like a cartoon in comparison.”[1] Furthermore, the biblical narrative betrays an ambivalence regarding kingship itself: Is the text negative (1 Sam 8; 10:17-27; 12) or positive (1 Sam 9:1-10:16; 11) toward the institution of kingship? Was kingship necessitated by sociopolitical realities within Israel (8:1-5a), or was it a reluctant concession to Israel’s demands (8:5b-22)?[2]

Current attempts to answer these questions tend either to fragment the text or to harmonize it using questionable metaphysical or theological assumptions. Source and redaction critics posit that multiple traditions were joined in the final form of the text, while scholars using the close reading methods of the “new literary criticism”[3] often resort to extra-textual models of fatalism or divine finitude to reconcile the tensions. What these literary-critical and new-literary scholars have in common is the charge of inconsistency, whether leveled against the unity of the biblical text or against the character of Yhwh. This article argues, in contrast to such positions, that kingship is portrayed in 1 Sam 8-12 as a form of Yhwh’s poetic justice upon Israel.[4] Yhwh grants Israel’s sinful request for kingship, not by way of concession, but by his design simultaneously to allow evil and punish his people, but fulfill his will in inaugurating Israel’s monarchy.

Poetic justice has typically been defined in biblical studies as the quid pro quo causality of natural law which arises from a mechanistic or deistic universe.[5] In contrast to natural law, however, Yhwh’s poetic justice is better seen as a deliberate action whereby he turns the tables on his people in granting their evil requests. Thus we could rename the biblical version of poetic justice more descriptively as poetic mishpat, rather than poetic justice, in order to distinguish poetic mishpat’s theocentric character from its naturalistic counterpart. The reasons for using the term mishpat will become evident in our discussion of wordplays on the verbal root שפט in 1 Sam 8-12.

II. Methodological Survey And Proposal

Existing approaches to the issues in 1 Sam 8-12 reflect a combination of two methodologies. On the one hand, historical-critical scholarship has typically used source and redaction criticism to explain this passage as originating from competing traditions. Since Julius Wellhausen’s time,[6] it has been customary to divide the kingship election narratives into two sources, one pro-monarchical, the other anti-monarchical. While there is little unanimity on how to reconstruct the source tradition,[7] the pro-monarchical source is usually considered a pre-exilic voice that is sympathetic toward Saul and reflects some semblance of historical events.[8] By contrast, the anti-monarchical source represents a theologized retelling from the divided monarchy or the exile, both periods of time when kingship’s disasters necessitated a harsher reassessment of Israel’s experiences with monarchy.[9]

Among the many such proposals that could be adduced, Bruce Birch’s work offers a representative example of the speculation involved in reconstructing tradition layers. Birch attributes 1 Sam 8:1-7 to an older, pro-monarchical tradition in which kingship was justified by Israel’s clouded future under Samuel’s sons, who “did not walk in his [Samuel’s] ways” (1 Sam 8:3). Birch then assigns 1 Sam 8:8-18 and its Deuteronomistic features to the later, anti-monarchical tradition. However, according to Birch’s classification of 1 Sam 8, Israel’s request for a “king like all the nations” (1 Sam 8:5) falls within the pro-monarchical text. Since Birch considers “king like all the nations” an anti-monarchical and Deuteronomistic phrase (cf. Deut 17:14; 1 Sam 8:20), he suggests that a Deuteronomistic editor inserted the reference to a “king like all the nations” into an earlier, pro-monarchical text.[10] Thus Birch posits a redactor’s addition whenever the textual data contradict his view, leaving his proposal vulnerable to the charge of circular reasoning. Even if Birch’s redactional proposal were correct, his suggestion that the earlier, pro-monarchical writer held to a “sinful-but-still-of-God”[11] view of kingship postpones the inevitable theological question: How could a sinful institution be allowed or ordained by a righteous God? Since literary-critical approaches are generally unconcerned with the theological coherence and literary unity of larger narratives, and even derive their momentum from alleged inconsistencies within texts,[12] they ultimately prove inadequate to address the theological issues in 1 Sam 8-12.

“New-literary criticism” of this passage, on the other hand, attempts to rectify literary-critical scholarship’s failure “to examine the possibility that the different viewpoints in 1 Sam 8-12 may be subordinate to a single encompassing authorial point of view that is expressed and can only be heard in the narrative as a whole.”[13] Among non-evangelical literary analyses of 1 Sam 8-12, however, a disturbing picture of Israel’s God emerges. Lyle Eslinger, David Gunn, Cheryl Exum, and Sarah Nicholson each present some version of the thesis that Saul is a tragic figure who ignorantly trips over Yhwh’s vague or irrational commands.[14] By implication, Yhwh is an unpredictable deity who condemns Saul unjustly for minor transgressions. The strengths and weaknesses of new-literary readings of 1 Sam 8-12 are evident in the following statement by Edwin Good: “I am not particularly concerned about the apparent multiplicity of sources . . . [and] not even particularly concerned with the ‘Saul of history.’ I am interested in the story, which bears its own integrity” (emphasis added).[15] New-literary approaches thus furnish a useful corrective to diachronic methods in understanding the narrative’s larger shape and use of literary devices such as irony and tragedy. But like traditional literary criticism, new-literary approaches on their own remain insufficient for matters of theology.

Other studies deploy metaphysical speculation concerning the limits of Yhwh’s knowledge and agency in order to reconcile the tensions among Israel’s sin in asking for a king, Yhwh’s election of Saul, and Saul’s poor performance as king. Among non-evangelical literary approaches, Terence Fretheim and Bernhard Anderson confine their attention to 1 Sam 15’s apparently contradictory statements about Yhwh’s change of mind.[16] Fretheim and Anderson both suggest that Yhwh lacks exhaustive foreknowledge of kingship, Saul’s choices, and all human decisions. Among evangelical approaches, J. Barton Payne speaks for many theologians when he suggests that kingship represents a “Plan B” that violates God’s preceptive will but still falls within God’s decretive will.[17] The approaches of Fretheim, Anderson, and Payne implicitly make use of extra-textual constructs, namely, Arminian or Molinist systems which examine the text primarily through theological or philosophical lenses. Such approaches tend to be insensitive to literary considerations, however, most notably the hierarchy of narrative voices in 1 Sam 1-12.[18] As Yairah Amit has observed regarding the narrator elsewhere in 1 Samuel, the credibility of each speaker in the story must be judged by the degree to which he or she agrees with the narrator.[19]

Evangelical treatments of 1 Sam 8-12 by OT scholars also illuminate the promise and limitations of new-literary approaches. V. Philips Long, focusing on the final form of the text method and building on the pioneering work of Baruch Halpern and Diana Edelman, has offered a plausible explanation for the multiple accession accounts of Saul. In Israelite ideology, kingly accession would be expected to follow a three-stage process of designation, demonstration, and confirmation.[20] Long persuasively argues that Saul failed to prove himself in battle by ignoring Samuel’s order to strike the Philistines (1 Sam 10:7-8), thereby necessitating two reenactments of the designation (1 Sam 9:1-10:13, 17-27) and demonstration (1 Sam 11:1-13; 13:1-3) phases until his belated confirmation (1 Sam 13:4-15).[21] While Long resolves the question of Saul’s accession and rebuts the diachronic tendency to fragment the text, he largely sidesteps the issue of divine election of kings by agreeing with Eslinger’s contention that kingship itself is neutral, but the people’s anti-covenantal desire for a “king like all the nations” is sinful.[22] Similarly to Long, Knut Heim suggests that the tension between Yhwh’s kingship and Israel’s sociopolitical needs for a king favors Birch’s “sinful-but-still-of-God” view.[23] While Long and Heim are helpful in tracing the tension between pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical sections, their ambivalent suggestions regarding divine election still fail to resolve the theological question posed earlier: How can a sinful institution be allowed or ordained by a righteous and sovereign God? In the analysis of 1 Sam 8-12, the inevitable issues of theodicy are either addressed using a priori systems or bracketed out. Thus we will undertake a theological reassessment of kingship in 1 Sam 8-12 in conjunction with new-literary methods.

III. Poetic Mishpat In Israel’s Kingship

1. Poetic Mishpat Ironically Inaugurated (1 Samuel 8:1-22)

First Samuel 8 records Israel’s request for a “king like all the nations” (1 Sam 8:5, 20; cf. Deut 17:14).24 The unrighteousness of Samuel’s sons (8:3) prompts the people to ask him to “appoint for us a king” (8:5). This request is “evil in the eyes” (8:6) of Samuel, which prompts him to pray to Yhwh. In spite of Yhwh’s omniscient observation that the people’s request reflects their rejection of not merely Samuel, but their God who “brought them up out of Egypt” (1 Sam 8:8), Yhwh commands Samuel to “listen to the voice of the people,” not once but three times (1 Sam 8:6, 9, 20). Samuel complies by warning the people of the tendency of royals to take the best possessions of their subjects for themselves (8:10-18). The people repeat their request for a king, prompting Samuel to respond by sending the people home to their own cities (8:19-20).

1. The narrative’s wordplays on שפט roots. Since this chapter’s general storyline is uncontested, redaction critics direct their attention to reconciling the pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical sections. However, this diachronic approach overlooks the myriad of semantic clues that invite the audience to read this chapter as not only a literary unity, but Yhwh’s tour-de-force of poetic mishpat. Significantly, ch. 8 introduces the Leitwörter (“lead words”) that function as thematic clues for the kingship election narratives: שפט (“to judge”), שים (“to appoint”), and שאל (“to ask”).

This chapter’s repetition of שפט and its derivatives vividly displays the literary importance of the Leitwort. Robert Alter, speaking generally of Leitwörter, explains that “[t]hrough abundant repetition, the semantic range of the word-root is explored, different forms of the root are deployed, branching off at times into phonetic relatives (that is, word-play), synonymity, and anonymity; by virtue of its verbal status, the Leitwort refers immediately to meaning and thus to theme as well.”[25] In 1 Sam 8, the narrator introduces Samuel’s sons as שפטים (“judges”; 8:1) whom Samuel appointed to שפט (“judge”; 8:2), but who pervert משפט (“justice”; 8:3). The people respond by asking Samuel to appoint instead a king to שפט (“to judge”; 8:5, 6, 20). In turn, Yhwh commands Samuel to warn the people solemnly of the משפט המלך (“procedure of the king”; 8:9, 11).[26] Compared to the rest of 1 Samuel, this chapter contains three of the seven occurrences of משפט (8:3, 9, 11; cf. 2:13; 10:25; 27:11; 30:25) and five of the fifteen occurrences of שפט (8:1, 2, 5, 6, 20; cf. 3:13; 4:18; 7:6, 15, 16, 17; 12:7; 24:13, 16[2x]). If one includes ch. 7’s four additional occurrences of שפט, which establish an essential background for the events of ch. 8, then the narrative unit of chs. 7-8 contains nine of the fifteen references in all of 1 Samuel. Clearly, this clustering of שפט and its derivatives is intentional.

The שפט wordplay functions on multiple levels. Samuel’s appointment of his sons as “judges” (8:1) provides a hint of Samuel’s desire for continuity with his own tenure as Israel’s “judge” (7:6, 15, 16, 17).[27] Robert Gordon rightly observes, “Late in life Samuel conducted his own little dynastic experiment when he appointed his sons to succeed him in the office of judge.”[28] But in contrast to Samuel, and in parallel with Eli’s evil sons,[29] Samuel’s sons “did not walk in his ways” (8:3) but took bribes and perverted משפט. The immediate juxtaposition of his sons’ responsibility to שפט, followed by their perversion of משפט, underscores the backfiring of Samuel’s master plan. Thus when the people approach Samuel to protest the perverted משפט of his sons,[30] it is notable that they repeatedly demand another leader to שפט them (8:5, 6). Such repetition of שפט derivatives as Leitwörter suggests that the rug has been pulled out from under Samuel. The people’s demand thus constitutes a rejection of Samuel and his entire family. Indeed, the people’s repetition of שים (“to set, put, appoint”; 8:5), which earlier described Samuel’s appointment of his sons as judges (8:1), emphasizes the poignant reversal in Samuel’s ministry.

The hurtful nature of the people’s request is confirmed by Yhwh’s response to Samuel, as highlighted in the inverted word order of Yhwh’s statement: לא אתך מאסו כי־אתי מאסו (“Not you have they rejected, but me have they rejected”; 8:7). While scholars are quick to comment on Yhwh’s anger at being spurned, they often neglect to see that Yhwh’s declaration presupposes Samuel’s disappointment at being rejected.[31] Thus in the first of many ironic reversals in ch. 8, Samuel’s dynastic hopes have been dashed with a painful dose of poetic משפט. While the rejection of Samuel’s sons closely parallels that of Eli’s sons, Samuel largely escapes condemnation, for both the narrator and the people assert the righteousness of Samuel’s ways. Samuel’s rebuke by Yhwh is relatively minor, but such misplaced dynastic ambitions foreshadow the themes of his potential fallibility and limited knowledge. This nuanced characterization of Samuel has significant implications for interpreting subsequent narratives.

While most commentators notice that the pun on משפט and שפט adds a “special, almost bitter nuance”[32] to Samuel’s rejection, they typically neglect to trace the wordplay further in the chapter.[33] Indeed, the poetic משפט perpetuated in this chapter extends beyond Samuel to the people of Israel. The wordplay on שפט continues with Yhwh’s repeated command to Samuel to “listen to the voice” of the people and warn the people of the משפט המלך (8:9, 11). While משפט is rightly translated elsewhere in 1 Samuel as “custom” (1 Sam 2:13; 27:11; 30:25), several factors militate against the common translation of משפט here as merely “ways” (NLT) or “procedure” (NASB). As noted earlier, the ubiquity of the שפט word family within the immediate context suggests a Leitwort usage in this instance. But just as it commences, most scholars conclude the wordplay by translating משפט as “right/rights,”[34] “justice,”[35] “practice,”[36] or “ways.”[37]

Numerous features of the narrative suggest that משפט should also carry a connotation of “judgment” rather than only a benign “custom.” By extension, משפט המלך would be a pun that carries the double sense of a possessive genitive (“the king’s procedure”) and instrumental genitive (“judgment from/by means of the king”). In support of this pun, the syntax immediately preceding the משפט המלך (8:11) indicates a progression (ועתה, “now then”; 8:9) from the description of sin (8:7-8) to the consequences and punishment for sin (8:9-18). This judgment against the sinful request for kingship comes, perhaps surprisingly, in granting precisely what the people have demanded: שמע בקולם (“listen to their voice”; 8:7, 9, 22). In return for the people’s rejection of Yhwh, they would reap the consequences of their desire for a “king like all the nations.” By exchanging Yhwh’s covenant benefits for a ruthless “king like all the nations,” the pagan משפט המלך would be exactly what the people receive.[38]

The verses subsequent to the משפט המלך (8:8) likewise confirm Yhwh’s judgment in granting the people’s request for a king. The people had earlier asked Samuel to תנה־לנו (“Give to us”; 8:6) a king. But rather than giving the people what they desire, this king will לו . . . יקח (“he will take . . . for himself”; 8:11, 12). The immediate juxtaposition of the antithetical terms, נתן and לקח, לנו and לו, poignantly demonstrates the reversal of the people’s demand. At the precise moment when the reader would expect a third reference to שים (“to appoint”; cf. 8:1, 5) a king, the narrative shifts the verb to נתן (“to give”; 8:6) in order to prepare the impending contrast with its opposite, לקח (“to take”; 8:11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). The selfish “king like all the nations” will not be a giver to his people, but a taker of their sons, daughters, the best of their agriculture, their servants, their animals, and a tithe of their seed (8:10-18). In the משפט המלך, it is extremely telling that the only instances of נתן occur when the king “gives” Israel’s possessions to his own servants (2x in 8:15-16) rather than to the people.

The narrative’s portentous tone is buttressed by several rhetorical flourishes in Samuel’s speech. In the grammatical syntax of the list of precious items taken by the king, his selfish motivation is highlighted by six instances of inverted word order (e.g., “your sons . . . he will take”), thus placing an unmistakable emphasis on these objects. Also, every instance of לקח is sandwiched between the people’s possessions (e.g., “your vineyards”) and the king’s appropriation of these possessions for his kingdom (e.g., “to his servants”). The insatiable greed of the king in 8:11-17 is accentuated by the cumulative force of twelve occurrences of 3rd masculine singular suffixes (i.e., “his”).

The conclusion of Samuel’s speech confirms that kingship is a form of divine judgment. Regarding the king for whom they have “asked” (שאל; 1 Sam 8:10; cf. 12:13, 17, 19), Samuel warns that the king’s tyranny will become the impetus to “cry out [זעק] in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves but Yhwh will not answer you” (1 Sam 8:18). Here the wording recalls Israel’s deliverance from slavery, when the “Israelites groaned . . . and cried out [זעק]” (Exod 2:23). The Exodus reference provides a palpable irony, for though the people seek the leadership of a new Moses who would “judge us” (1 Sam 8:5, 20; cf. Exod 18:13, 16, 22, 26) or a new Joshua who would “go out before us and fight our battles” (1 Sam 8:20; cf. Josh 9:2; 10:25), instead they would receive a Pharaoh figure who would enslave and oppress them. The people’s “choice” (בחר; 1 Sam 8:18; cf. 12:13) of their own king, rather than the one whom “Yhwh will choose [בחר]” (Deut 17:15), soon results in disastrous consequences. Thus משפט has been displayed in both of its connotations: the “custom” and practice of sinful kings, and Yhwh’s “judgment” on his sinful people. The construct chain משפט המלך thus serves as a pun that emphasizes both the king’s conduct (i.e., “the king’s procedure”) as well as the king as Yhwh’s instrument (i.e., “judgment from/by means of the king”).[39]

2. The Narrative’s Portrait Of Yhwh

In light of these observations concerning kingship as Yhwh’s inauguration of poetic משפט, what can be said of Yhwh’s character and his stance toward kingship? It should first be noted that the majority of commentators see a concessive force to Yhwh’s granting of Israel’s kingship. Walter Brueggemann states, “The narrative (and speech of Yhwh) struggles between a deep theological reservation about the introduction of monarchy and the brute fact that a monarchy was introduced.”[40] Because the omniscient narrator himself affirms the unrighteousness of Samuel’s sons (8:1-3), Robert Bergen suggests that God reluctantly granted kingship according to Israel’s military and physical need.[41] P. Kyle McCarter similarly asserts that kingship was sinful and “permission does not include approval.”[42]

Though the consensus follows Birch’s influential characterization of a “sinful-but-still-of-God” kingship,[43] does the narrative paint a picture of a troubled Yhwh who granted kingship only reluctantly? This interpretation necessitates an abrupt shift in Yhwh’s mood that is missing in the narrative flow of the passage. In 8:7-8, Yhwh expresses his anger against his people, whose request for kingship indicates that “they have forsaken me and served other gods.” In 8:9a, Yhwh simply commands Samuel: “Now then, listen to their voice.”[44] Since this command indicates that Yhwh straightforwardly granted the people’s request, most commentators are forced to locate Yhwh’s ambivalence in the phrase immediately following:

אך כי־העד תעיד בהם והגדת להם משפט המלך אשר ימלך עליהם 

However, you shall surely warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them. (8:9b NASB)

Of particular interest is the particle אך, which is always rendered using adversative terms that connote discontinuity or contrast: “yet,”[45] “though,”[46] “but,”[47] “only,”[48] or “however.”[49] While אך can function in this restrictive sense, it can also function in an asseverative or emphatic sense in which it “introduces a statement or expression of truth, or highlights an unexpected truth, quite often in speech or colloquial language, by expressing a conviction as to its correctness.”[50] The narrative of 1 Samuel uses אך in both the restrictive (1 Sam 12:20) and asseverative (1 Sam 12:24) senses. In order to adjudicate between the two uses, Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor observe that the presence of אך with an infinite absolute reinforces the affirming, intensifying function of the infinitive absolute.[51]

The use of אך with the infinitive absolute in 1 Sam 8:8 (העד, Hiphil infinitive absolute of עוד, “to testify, bear witness”) indicates that אך functions here with the asseverative-emphatic force rather than the restrictive force. Indeed, the asseverative-emphatic force of the entire אך clause is supplemented by the כי prefixed to the Hiphil infinitive absolute. Thus the Hebrew syntax unambiguously points to an asseverative-emphatic force for the entire clause. Returning to the theological issue in question, the text betrays no shift in Yhwh’s thinking which would indicate that kingship was a reluctant concession to Israel’s demands.

The asseverative-emphatic force of the אך clause can also be confirmed by appealing to the narrative context. Though Yhwh is obviously angry with Israel’s idolatrous request for a king, the question is whether this anger is accompanied by tortured indecision (restrictive use of אך) or steadfast conviction (asseverative-emphatic use of אך). Contrary to the impression given by some interpreters, Yhwh is steadfast in this passage, repeatedly commanding the unwilling Samuel to “listen to the voice of the people” (8:7, 9b, 22). Since Yhwh reiterates these instructions three times, both before and after he is allegedly reluctant in granting this concession (8:8-9a), it is most logical to conclude that Yhwh is of resolute mind. In addition, the narrator and Yhwh’s wordplays on שפט throughout the chapter lend an air of sustained intentionality to these proceedings. By contrast, Samuel comes across as frantic, switching frequently between conversation partners and embarking on a lengthy, breathless speech. The people are intransigent and Samuel is anxious, but Yhwh remains unflappable.

In light of the syntax and the narrative’s presentation of the sovereignty of Yhwh, it is best to conclude that the אך clause should be translated with an asseverative-emphatic force. Adding the previous clause for context’s sake, the English rendering should read as follows: “Now then, listen to their voice. Indeed, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the judgment [as well as “justice” and/or “procedure,” in accordance with the wordplay] of the king who will reign over them” (8:9). Yhwh has granted kingship in order to punish Israel, not as a concession to Israel’s demands or needs. The process of poetic משפט has now begun, with the next section introducing Yhwh’s personal agent of משפט המלך.

3. Poetic Mishpat Privately Personified (1 Samuel 9:1-10:16)

Israel’s king arrives in ch. 9 in the person of Saul, the “asked-for one” (שאול; 1 Sam 9:2). While scholars have tended to characterize this narrative as a redacted hodgepodge,[52] a close reading will show that this narrative is a theological unity that advances the theme of Yhwh’s poetic משפט. Saul is ominously introduced as a “choice [בחור] and handsome man, and there was not a more handsome person than he among the sons of Israel; from his shoulders and up he was taller than any of the people” (9:2). The impressive description of Saul presages an ongoing tension within the Books of Samuel between outward appearance and inward reality.[53] Saul’s physical height foreshadows his narcissism,[54] perhaps also signaling a contrast with the humble Deuteronomic king “whose heart may not be lifted above his brothers” (Deut 17:20).

When Saul arrives on the scene, he engages in the mundane task of locating his father’s lost donkeys (1 Sam 9:3-5). His initial sweep of the area proves fruitless, so his servant suggests that they consult the anonymous “man of God” (9:6), also known as a “seer” (9:9). When Saul realizes that they have prepared no gift for him, the servant providentially produces a quarter shekel of silver for the seer (9:5-8). Though the issue of the seer’s gift has been resolved, Saul and his servant now face a new problem: Where is the seer? Precisely at that moment, they chance upon some servant girls drawing water who are able to provide information about Samuel’s location and daily routine (9:11-14). But rather than the expected betrothal type-scene, in which a hero finds his bride at the well (e.g., Rebekah, Rachel, and Zipporah), this pericope abruptly ends with a coronation rather than a betrothal (9:15-10:8). Though Saul is later coronated king, this episode’s rather jolting conclusion hints that Saul’s future will be more clouded than that of the typical hero.[55]

1. Ironic undercurrents in an ostensibly pro-monarchical passage. Since Yhwh orchestrates the serendipitous encounters and conversations that lead Saul to Samuel (1 Sam 9:1-14),[56] scholars typically classify this section as a pro-monarchical passage. Saul’s mission “to deliver my people from the hand of the Philistines” (9:16) represents Yhwh’s answer to the request for a leader “who will go out before us and fight our battles” (8:20). The leadership vacuum within Israel was real, for both the omniscient narrator and the people state that Samuel’s sons “do not walk in your ways” (8:3, 5),[57] much like Eli’s sons (2:12-17, 22-25). But without negating Saul’s divinely appointed role as military commander, this passage also contains ironic elements that intimate his role as Yhwh’s bearer of judgment. Though kingship is Yhwh’s means for delivering Israel from its enemies, the thematic crosscurrent of kingship as Yhwh’s poetic משפט has been overlooked by most commentators.

Samuel’s opening encounter with Saul smacks of skillful irony (1 Sam 9:17-23). Yhwh, when pointing out Saul from afar, states that the future king will עצר (“to restrain, hinder, retain, rule”; 9:17) over Israel. In place of the verbs previously used to denote the king’s accession, שים (“to appoint”; 8:5) and מלך (“to rule”; 8:22), it is striking that the narrative uses עצר, a verb whose semantic range includes both negative (“to restrain, hinder”) and neutral (“to rule, govern”) connotations. McCarter denies any negative sense, instead rendering עצר as “to muster” in order to denote a martial metaphor of Saul’s mobilization of Israel for battle.[58] This common interpretation, however, overlooks the predominantly negative usages of עצר: sterility (Gen 16:2; 20:18), drought and famine (Deut 11:17; 1 Kgs 8:35), slavery and imprisonment (Deut 32:36; 2 Kgs 17:4), and silencing (Job 4:2). As Bergen notes, “By employing the verb [עצר] here, the writer was suggesting that the Lord had determined to use Saul’s career as means of punishing the nation. Saul would literally fulfill the various meanings of this verb.”[59] In a very real sense, then, Saul’s kingship will both rule and restrain Israel.

The chapter’s repeated use of donkeys also foreshadows Saul’s destiny as the personifier of Yhwh’s poetic משפט. In the previous chapter, donkeys appear in the list of possessions that will be taken from the people (8:16) by virtue of the משפט המלך.60 Chapter 9 not only opens with Saul already seeking donkeys, but also juxtaposes donkeys with kingship in a rather cryptic way. A closer look at 1 Sam 9:20 reveals a poetic interjection that interrupts the narrative’s unbroken sequence of waw-consecutive forms. The table below reveals a possibly chiastic structure with two sets of contrastive relationships. In A/A’, Saul’s donkeys are paired with Saul’s dynastic prospects; in B/B’, Saul’s לב (“heart”) for the donkeys is paired with Israel’s חמדה (“desire”) for a royal dynasty:[61]

Marker	Hebrew	English
A	ולאתנות האבדות לך היום שלשת הימים	and for your donkeys lost three days ago
B	אל־תשם את־לבך להם	do not set your heart on them
C	כי נמצאו	because they have been found
B’	ולמי כל־חמדת ישראל	and for whom is all Israel’s desire
A’	62הלוא לך ולכל בית אביך	Is it not for you and all your father’s house?

 While Jan Fokkelman recognizes the plain interpretation that “Saul may allow the small matter of yesterday [i.e., the lost donkeys] to fall from his heart . . . so that there is the maximum amount of room for ‘all that is in the heart’ [i.e., kingship],”[63] much more appears to be happening in this verse than the exchanging of Saul’s לב (“heart”) for the national חמדה (“desire”) for his royal accession. In the B/B’ chiasmic pair, the verses are more than antithetical parallels, namely, Saul’s desire vis-à-vis Israel’s desire. They may also be synonymous parallels in that both phrases refer to Saul’s desire and possession. Such an ironic interpretation would play on the ambiguity of two constructions, למיand כל־חמדת ישראל. First, the ל preposition could function in either a spatial sense (i.e., “directed toward whom”) or possessive sense (i.e., “to whom belongs”). Second, the construct chain כל־חמדת ישראל could refer to Israel’s own possessions (i.e., “all of Israel’s best things”)[64] rather than merely to Israel’s attitude toward Saul (i.e., “all of Israel’s longing”). If כל־חמדת ישראל refers to Israel’s possessions, then Samuel’s words immediately recall the משפט המלך in that the king will take Israel’s possessions (1 Sam 8:10-16; cf. Deut 28:31).

In summary, there are two options for understanding the rhetorical force of ולמי כל־חמדת ישראל: either (1) “and belonging to you are Israel’s best things,” or (2) “and directed toward you is Israel’s desire.” Either way, the ambiguous syntax is pregnant enough to imply that Saul need no longer worry about donkeys, not only because his father’s donkeys have been found, nor even because Israel desires him to be king, but because his royal privileges will soon afford him all the donkeys and other possessions that he seeks.

This ironic tinge to Samuel’s words is supported by the narrative’s use of חמדה, a term which typically emphasizes the outward attractiveness of, rather than the inward desire for, a thing.[65] Thus it seems more likely that חמדה refers to Israel’s possessions which will soon belong to Saul, rather than Israel’s desire for Saul as king. Even if חמדה refers to Israel’s longing for Saul, the continual emphasis on Saul’s outward appearance mirrors Israel’s ongoing obsession with externals rather than strength of character. The narrative stage is now set for Saul’s rise and fall.

2. Samuel as intentional or unwitting instrument? If Samuel’s words are indeed double-edged, as the lexical and syntactical data indicate, then the extent of Samuel’s conscious participation in Yhwh’s poetic משפט becomes a key question. Is Samuel fully cognizant of Yhwh’s actions so that he speaks with intentional double entendre, or does he naively think that “Yhwh anointed you [i.e., Saul] a ruler over his inheritance” (1 Sam 10:1)? Three factors suggest that Samuel is an unwitting, ignorant participant who sincerely believes that Yhwh has chosen Saul for a dynasty. First, Samuel seems to exhibit genuine affection when he kisses and anoints Saul (10:1). This fondness is also reflected in Samuel’s unwillingness to stop grieving over Saul’s rejection later (16:1). Second, the narrative sows the seed for a subsequent critique of Samuel by repeatedly identifying him as the ראה (“seer,” Qal masculine singular participle of ראה; 9:11[2x], 18, 19). In later chapters, Samuel will be described as the one who “sees” (ראה; 16:7) improperly, much like the elderly Eli is unable to “see” (ראה; 3:2; 4:15).[66] Third and on a related note, the introduction of donkeys in a prophetic context echoes the beginning of the Balaam narrative (Num 22), a passage in which the “donkey” (אתן) repeatedly “sees” (ראה; Num 22:23, 25, 27, 33) what Balaam cannot “see” (ראה; Num 22:31). First Samuel 9’s juxtaposition of the Leitmotiv of sight with the presence of donkeys may suggest that Samuel is a myopic “seer” (ראה) who will require Yhwh’s correction. Thus the narrative presents Samuel as a more complex character than the infallible and authoritative king-maker that he is often perceived to be.[67] Not unlike Saul, the prophet Samuel is a finite and sinful instrument used to fulfill Yhwh’s purposes.

Our analysis suggests that the narrative of Saul’s first appearance is not categorically pro-monarchical, as usually held by scholars. While the narrative clearly states that Yhwh has chosen Saul as king (1 Sam 9:15-18), the narrator introduces a series of wordplays that subtly impugn Saul and foreshadow his checkered career. Saul thus personifies Yhwh’s sublime purposes of poetic משפט to simultaneously deliver and punish Israel. The people indeed choose their own king, but this king embodies Yhwh’s chosen instrument for poetic משפט.

4. Poetic Mishpat Publicly Pronounced, Part 1 (1 Samuel 10:17-24)

In 1 Sam 10:17-24 as well as the next passage to be analyzed (12:12-25),[68] the subtlety of wordplay is replaced by explicit statements of Yhwh’s poetic משפט. Saul now receives his public coronation in the presence of all Israel. Given the parallels between 1 Sam 10:17-24 and ch. 8, the former passage is typically classified as anti-monarchical. In contrast to Saul’s second coronation (12:11-25), the first coronation in ch. 10 concludes on a celebratory note (“Long live the king!”; 10:24).

The coronation procedure itself is surprising. After Samuel has pronounced Yhwh’s displeasure upon Israel’s request for a king, he commands Israel to “present yourselves before Yhwh by your tribes and by your clans” (1 Sam 10:19) in order to “be taken” (תלכד; 10:20, 21[2x]). The use here of the Niphal stem of לכד (“to capture, seize, take”) immediately recalls Josh 7, in which the eight instances of לכד Niphal refer to the exposing of a guilty person by means of casting lots (Josh 7:14-19). Lot casting for this same purpose, and with the same terminology, is subsequently repeated by Jonathan’s condemnation by lot as the reason for Israel’s defeat before the Philistines (1 Sam 14:41-42). Through a comparison of Josh 7 and 1 Sam 14 with 1 Sam 10, the reader senses that the peculiar mode of Saul’s selection adumbrates his guilt. The practice of casting lots to establish this verdict also provides an apt metaphor for divine sovereignty working in conjunction with human actions, thereby reinforcing the theme of poetic משפט introduced in 1 Sam 8-9.

The ensuing portrayal of Saul accentuates his unfitness to be king. After his selection by lot (1 Sam 10:20-21), Saul is nowhere to be found until the people forcibly remove him from his hiding place (10:22-23a). As he stands among the people, his handsomeness and height are again noted (10:23b; cf. 9:2). The impressiveness of Saul’s appearance contrasts sharply with his absence from the lot-casting ceremony and his persistent silence about his status as king (cf. 10:16). The reluctance of Saul to assume kingship clashes with both Samuel’s emphatic declaration, “Surely [כי] there is no one like him among all the people!” as well as the people’s affirmation, “Long live the king!” (10:24).

Why would Samuel continue to proclaim that Saul was Yhwh’s king despite Saul’s evident flaws? As with previous passages, the narrative portrayal of Samuel’s credibility needs to be taken into account. Immediately after the narrator has described Saul’s physical stature, Samuel fixates upon these same features of Saul: “Do you see [ראה] whom Yhwh has chosen?” (1 Sam 10:24b). As he does later in misevaluating Jesse’s sons based on their physical stature,[69] Samuel errs in paying attention to height and handsomeness. While speaking correctly that Saul is Yhwh’s “chosen” instrument, Samuel does so from a faulty rationale. Samuel’s highlighting of the same attributes that Yhwh would later reject in Eliab and his brothers thus demonstrates that his criteria for kingship had largely eroded into a “king like all the nations” (8:5).

Despite Samuel’s fallibility, it is not necessary to conclude with Robert Polzin that Samuel is “a prophet who fails his commission by leading his people down a false path.”[70] Polzin’s conclusion reflects the questionable metaphysical view that Samuel’s fallibility threatened and ultimately frustrated Yhwh’s purposes. In contrast, the biblical narrative portrays Yhwh as the deity whose sovereignty expects and encompasses human culpability rather than being thwarted by it. Samuel is Yhwh’s king-maker and Saul is Yhwh’s king, but their collective mistakes are mysteriously used by Yhwh to punish Israel and usher in the next phase of its history. Such an emphasis on the theme of poetic משפט finds reinforcement in Saul’s second public coronation (12:12-25), the next section to be analyzed.

5. Poetic Mishpat Publicly Pronounced, Part 2 (1 Samuel 12:12-25)

As in chs. 8 and 10, Samuel’s speech in 1 Sam 12:12-25 warns Israel of the dangers of kingship. While this anti-monarchical tone causes some scholars to regard 1 Sam 12 as a duplicate or secondary expansion of 1 Sam 10,[71] numerous features of this chapter point to a separate historical event rather than a literary doublet or Deuteronomistic reworking of ch. 8 or 10. Most notably, 1 Sam 12 weaves an apologetic treatise that anticipates broader theological issues regarding kingship as Yhwh’s poetic משפט. Unlike chs. 9-11, which were primarily concerned with King Saul, ch. 12 forms an inclusio with ch. 8 by emphasizing the institution of kingship rather than the personal instrument of Yhwh’s poetic משפט. King Saul recedes from sight, his name being nowhere mentioned in ch. 12.[72] Previous chapters emphasized Yhwh’s judgment upon the people’s sin of asking for a king, but this chapter prefaces this condemnation with an extended treatment of the innocence of Samuel and Yhwh at the beginning of the monarchy. Three section divisions are evident: (1) the innocence of Samuel and Yhwh (12:1-11); (2) the theological fullness of kingship as Yhwh’s poetic משפט (12:12-16); and (3) the charge concerning the future of nation and king (12:17-25).

1. The innocence of Samuel and Yhwh. The chapter begins with Samuel’s speech vindicating himself and Yhwh. Samuel challenges the people to find any sin in him: “Here I am; testify against me before Yhwh and his anointed. Whose ox have I taken [לקח], or whose donkey [חמור] have I taken [לקח], or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed, or from whose hand have I taken [לקח] a bribe to blind my eyes with it? I will restore it” (1 Sam 12:3). Samuel’s innocence regarding the “taking” (לקח) of any “donkey” (חמור) notably contrasts him with the משפט המלך (1 Sam 8:9, 11), in which the selfish king “takes” (לקח) his people’s “donkeys” (חמור) for himself. The people, unable to mount any rebuttal to Samuel’s declaration of innocence, affirm that “you have not defrauded us or oppressed us or taken [לקח] anything from any man’s hand” (12:4). Though Samuel has been subtly criticized in various ways, as noted earlier, the narrative goes to great lengths to reestablish his credibility and contrast him with the משפט המלך before the crucial words to follow regarding kingship.

Having established his own blamelessness, Samuel proceeds to vindicate Yhwh’s righteousness as well. Yhwh was quick to answer when Israel “cried out” (זעק; 12:8, 10; cf. 8:18) for help against Egypt (12:8) and Sisera (12:10). Though God had delivered Israel countless times, Israel failed to trust Yhwh and instead asked for a human deliverer in the form of a king. Thus Samuel lays the blame for kingship squarely at the feet of Israel. He and Yhwh are innocent in the matter, for kingship is Israel’s self-imposed sentence rather than Yhwh’s premeditated curse upon Israel.

Does Samuel speak only for himself or for Yhwh as well? Rather than undermining Samuel’s speech as the petulant rant of an old man,[73] Yhwh validates Samuel’s perspective through the performance of a sign: “So Samuel called to Yhwh, and Yhwh sent thunder and rain on that day. Then all the people greatly feared Yhwh and Samuel” (12:18). Contra those scholars who would seek to separate them, the perspectives of Samuel, Yhwh, and the omniscient narrator are in perfect agreement at this juncture.

2. Samuel’s preemption of theological objections. From Samuel’s vigorous defense of himself and Yhwh, what might have been the objections that the people could conceivably have brought against them? The transitional verses after Samuel’s apologia reveal his desire to erect the proper theological framework for understanding the interplay of divine and human agency in kingship. In the span of a few verses, all the theological complexities of chs. 8-12 come into play: “Your God is your king” (12:12b),[74] the people have “chosen” their own king (12:13a), and “Yhwh sets a king” over Israel (12:13b). No source or redaction critic is so atomistic as to splice these adjacent statements into pro-monarchical and anti-monarchial sources, once again confirming the inability of diachronic methods to address the theological issues at stake.

The transitional verses of 1 Sam 12:12-15 elucidate two theological principles that, when set in proper balance with each other, define the fullness of Yhwh’s poetic משפט. First, Israel has rejected Yhwh by choosing its own king. Second, Israel’s sin, while heinous and idolatrous, was graciously used by Yhwh to inaugurate a new era of Israel’s history. These complementary principles offer a framework for understanding Israel’s kingship as poetic משפט. The biblical narrative offers its own account of kingship as metaphysical compatibilism, thereby obviating the need for extra-textual metaphysical models.

Without the first principle’s affirmation of Israel’s sinfulness, the putative reasons for desiring kingship would be legitimated by Israel’s circumstances: “When you saw that Nahash the king of the sons of Ammon came against you, you said, ‘No, but a king shall reign over us’” (1 Sam 12:12a). But in light of Yhwh’s deliverance from the Philistines (1 Sam 4-7), Israel’s demand for a king was as unjustified as it was irrational. Just as Yhwh had delivered from the Egyptians (12:6-8), Moabites (12:9), and Philistines (12:9), Yhwh’s power would have been sufficient to deliver Israel from the Ammonite threat (cf. 1 Sam 11).

If the first principle of Israel’s sinfulness is taken in isolation from the second, however, then kingship would constitute only a punishment of Israel’s sin. The people would have irreversibly brought the consequences of the משפט המלך upon themselves. In contrast to this premature conclusion, the narrative’s presentation of Yhwh’s poetic משפט indicates that divine discipline serves both punitive and redemptive functions. Yhwh gives the people the punishment that they deserve (i.e., kingship), but also redeems king and nation by giving a new opportunity for obedience. In 1 Sam 12:14-15, Yhwh’s offer of covenant restoration echoes the blessings and curses of Deut 27-28, as shown in the following positive/negative conditional statements:

Verse	Protasis	Apodosis
1 Sam 12:14 (positive act-consequence)	If you will fear Yhwh and serve him and listen to his voice and not rebel against the mouth of Yhwh . . .	. . . then both you and also the king who reigns over you will follow Yhwh your God.
1 Sam 12:15 (negative act-consequence)	But if you will not listen to the voice of Yhwh and rebel against the mouth of Yhwh . . .	. . . then the hand of Yhwh will be against you, as against your fathers.

The subsequent verses reinforce the delicate balance between kingship as divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Once Yhwh has performed a sign to validate Samuel’s words (1 Sam 12:18), the people are terrified that their sins are unforgivable: “Pray for your servants to Yhwh your God, so that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking for ourselves a king” (12:19). This expression of contrite terror is the first instance where the people recognize their sin in rejecting Yhwh’s kingship.[75] But before this first principle can be taken to an unwise extreme, Samuel comforts the people with the second principle working in conjunction with the first: “Do not fear! You have committed this evil, yet do not turn aside from after Yhwh, but serve Yhwh with all your heart” (12:20). As in Deuteronomy, Israel’s past sin is condemned, but the people are forgiven and given a new opportunity to follow Yhwh. Samuel affirms Yhwh’s compassion during the entirety of Israel’s history: “Yhwh will not abandon his people of his great name, for Yhwh has been pleased to make you a people for himself” (12:22). Rather than fearing Yhwh’s punishment through kingship, the people are commanded to fear Yhwh instead (12:24). By offering the possibility of real obedience, Yhwh has restored king and nation to a tabula rasa in which past sins are forgiven and present obedience is demanded.

These theological principles demonstrate that Yhwh’s poetic משפט transcends its literary counterpart of poetic justice, which is built upon the act-consequence causality that is characteristic of natural law. As typically understood, poetic justice includes natural law’s tenet that sinful behavior invites a corresponding punishment (i.e., the first theological principle), but it omits poetic משפט’s theocentric distinctive of redemption (i.e., the second theological principle). Having established the people’s culpability in kingship, Samuel is quick to reassure the people of Yhwh’s mercy. The king can continue to be “his [Yhwh’s] anointed” (1 Sam 12:3, 5; cf. 2:10, 35) as long as he is obedient to Yhwh. But if he disobeys Yhwh, he ceases to be Yhwh’s “anointed” and reverts to being “your king” (12:25; cf. 8:18). Thus the king belongs to Yhwh when he is righteous, but to the people when he is evil.

Since both kings and their people are held accountable for their freely chosen actions, King Saul’s later failures should be separated from the office of king. The narrative’s negative portrayal of Saul cannot be extended to the institution of kingship in general.[76] In this compatibilistic manner, the narrative paints a coherent picture of divine sovereignty and human responsibility that presents its own theodicy. Kingship may have been occasioned by a sinful request, but kingship for Israel is still Yhwh’s chosen state of affairs.

IV. Conclusion

This theological and new-literary study of kingship in 1 Sam 8-12 has argued that kingship is an intentional act of Yhwh’s poetic משפט, in which the consequences of freely chosen actions become an unforgettable punishment and vivid reminder against future mistakes. The patience of Yhwh toward his people underscores divine wisdom and sovereignty rather than indicating divine fallibility or ineptitude. If such an assessment of 1 Sam 8-12 is correct, there are significant ramifications for diachronic studies of the Deuteronomistic History, which tend to use ostensibly shifting attitudes toward the monarchy as a key redactional criterion to identify competing Deuteronomistic layers of tradition. Thus the time is ripe for a comprehensive reassessment of the literary relationship between the Deuteronomic “law of the king” (Deut 17:14-20) and the kingship passages in the Deuteronomistic History. Such a study should begin with close readings of relevant texts rather than speculative attempts to correlate Deuteronomistic strata with different eras of Israel’s history.[77]

Since kingship appears to be another manifestation of the intractable mystery of divine sovereignty and human freedom working together, any reassessment of kingship within the OT would need to recognize that the pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical voices within the text relate to one another as a dialectic rather than a dichotomy. Human power exercised before God is neither boundless nor free, but always comes with divine restraints for the good of God’s people.[78] The theological coherence of poetic משפט in structuring the narrative of 1 Sam 8-12 thus problematizes any characterization of kingship as purely positive or negative, when it is irreducibly both within the divine economy.[79]

Notes

1. Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 5.
2. These references are those usually cited as examples of textual contradictions. My analysis will not construe these texts as contradictory but instead seek to resolve the tensions.
3. The term “new literary criticism” encompasses those approaches focusing on literary artistry, repetition, and thematic development in the final form of the text. See the discussion by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, “General Introduction to the Old Testament,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode; London: Collins, 1987), 11-35.
4. Poetic justice has been defined in literature as “the distribution, at the end of a literary work, of earthly rewards and punishments in proportion to the virtue or vice of the various characters” (M. H. Abrams, “Poetic Justice,” in A Glossary of Literary Terms [9th ed.; Boston: Wadsworth, 2008], 270). My study’s emphasis lies on Yhwh’s design for sin’s consequences to come full circle as punishment upon the sinner.
5. E.g., John Barton, “Natural Law and Poetic Justice in the Old Testament,” in Understanding Old Testament Ethics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 32-44.
6. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (trans. Menzies and Black; New York: Meridian, 1957), 245-72.
7. The most comprehensive histories of interpretation are given by Eddie Gerald Gerbrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History (SBLDS 87; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 18-38; and F. Langamet, “Les récits de l’institution de la royauté,” RB 77 (1970): 161-200.
8. E.g., Karl Budde, Die Bücher Samuel (KHC; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1902), 52-82; Otto Eissfeldt, Die Komposition der Samuelisbücher (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs Buchhandlung, 1931), 6-11.
9. E.g., Timo Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977), 115-22. However, the following are notable exceptions to the rule in regarding the anti-monarchical strands as early rather than late in Israel’s history: Hans Jochen Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums in den deuteronomistischen Abschnitten des I. Samuelbuches: Ein Beitrag zum Problem des «deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks» (WMANT 31; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969); Tomoo Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel (BZAW 142; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), 26-54; and Frank Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum: Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat (WMANT 49; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 54-73.
10. Bruce C. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: The Growth and Development of I Samuel 7-15 (SBLDS 27; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), 21-29.
11. Ibid., 27.
12. Norman Habel (Literary Criticism of the Old Testament [GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 6-7) thus offers a series of evaluative questions on how to identify literary-critical seams: “Are there logical or thematic inconsistencies within the document? Is one unit interrupted by a digression or secondary comment? Is there a sudden change in literary style? Do variant versions of the same account appear in the document? Do specific groupings of words keep reappearing in different contexts? Is a definite viewpoint espoused, lost, and then reaffirmed later in the same text?”
13. Lyle M. Eslinger, Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1-12 (Decatur, Ga.: Almond Press, 1985), 37.
14. Ibid., 307; David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul (JSOTSup 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 134; J. Cheryl Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 16-42; Sarah Nicholson, Three Faces of Saul: An Intertextual Approach to Biblical Tragedy (JSOTSup 339; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 36-76.
15. Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981), 57-58.
16. See Terence E. Fretheim, “Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constancy, and the Rejection of Saul’s Kingship,” CBQ 47 (1985): 597-602; Bernhard W. Anderson, “When God Repents,” BRev 12 (1996): 21-44.
17. J. Barton Payne, “Saul and the Changing Will of God,” BSac 129 (1972): 321-25.
18. Lyle M. Eslinger, “Viewpoints and Points of View in 1 Samuel 1-12,” JSOT 26 (1983): 61-76. However, Eslinger errs by driving a wedge between the perspectives of Yhwh and the narrator in asserting that only the narrator is omniscient and righteous. Thus the door is opened to Eslinger’s recharacterization of Yhwh as a tyrant.
19. Yairah Amit, “‘The Glory of Israel Does Not Deceive or Change His Mind’: On the Reliability of Narrator and Speakers in Biblical Narrative,” Proof 12 (1992): 201-12, rebuts the view that 1 Sam 15’s statements regarding Yhwh’s mind are contradictory. Amit convincingly demonstrates that Samuel’s voice is purposely contrasted with the omniscient narrator’s voice, thereby revealing that Samuel is mistaken for telling Saul that “the glory of Israel will not change his mind” (1 Sam 15:29).
20. V. Philips Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence (SBLDS 118; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 173-94.
21. See Long’s summary chart and concise restatement in Iain W. Provan, V. Phillips Long, and Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 210-14.
22. Long, Reign, 181-82.
23. Knut M. Heim, “Kings and Kingship,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books (ed. H. G. M. Williamson and Bill T. Arnold; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), 616-17.
24. A full treatment of the relationship between 1 Sam 8 and the “law of the king” (Deut 17:14-20) lies outside our scope. The most recent comparison of kingship in the books of Samuel and Deuteronomy is offered by Reinhard Achenbach, “Das sogenannte Königsgesetz in Deuteronomium 17,14-20,” ZABR 15 (2009): 216-33.
25. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 95.
26. These renderings of שפט and its derivatives reflect the NASB, which, like most English versions, obscures Leitwort puns by “constantly translating the same word with different English equivalents for the sake of fluency and supposed precision” (Alter, Art, 93).
27. J. P. Fokkelman points out that the attention devoted to the names and birth order of Samuel’s sons recalls the “genealogical passion of Genesis,” thus anticipating a major transition and conclusion (Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel [4 vols.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981-1993], 4:326).
28. Robert P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), 109.
29. Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Waco: Word Books, 1983), 74.
30. The people repeat the information that the narrator had earlier provided, namely, that Samuel was old and that his sons did not walk in his ways. Since the people’s observation mirrors that of the narrator, it can be safely assumed that Samuel’s sons were morally reprehensible.
31. E.g., Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (NAC 7; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 115, portrays Samuel as the “ideal prophet” who exhibits righteous indignation in this case.
32. Klein, 1 Samuel, 76.
33. A recent exception to this rule is provided by David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Apollos Old Testament Commentary 8; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 112, 114.
34. David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 254-55; Klein, 1 Samuel, 72.
35. P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation With Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 8; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984), 153.
36. Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: Norton, 1999), 42, although he also notes that the wordplay on משפט turns on an “untranslatable pun.”
37. Gordon (1 & 2 Samuel, 110) suggests a dual meaning of both “ways” and “justice,” but not “judgment.”
38. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (OTL; trans. J. S. Bowden; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 72. Cf. Eric A. Mitchell, A Literary Examination of the Function of Satire in the mišpaṭhammeleḵof I Samuel 8 (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 2007), 202-5, who recognizes the paronomasia of the phrase משפט המלך, but overstates the matter by labeling Yhwh’s response as “a satiric attack on the request for a king” (213).
39. The משפט wordplay possibly extends to 1 Sam 10:25, where in another anti-monarchical speech, Samuel tells the people the משפט המלכה (“judgment/law of the kingdom”; MT reading) and deposits it in a book before Yhwh. For this phrase, the LXX renders τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ βασιλέως (“law of the king”) which would match משפט המלך from 8:9 and 8:11. However, McCarter (I Samuel, 191) is probably correct in suggesting that the MT preserves the more difficult and therefore original reading.
40. Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 62-63.
41. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 112-13.
42. McCarter, 1 Samuel, 157.
43. Birch, Monarchy, 27.
44. It is improbable that ועתה should be rendered with a restrictive force, i.e., “but now,” since “it often denotes a new stage in an argument, though with continuity of subject” (Allan Harman, “Particles,” NIDOTTE 4:1031). Thus ועתה is best translated as “now then.”
45. McCarter, I Samuel, 153.
46. Alter, David Story, 42.
47. Klein, 1 Samuel, 72.
48. Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, 251; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 70.
49. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 110.
50. Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 129-30.
51. IBHS §35.3.1f. Cf. a similar construction in Judg 20:39.
52. E.g., Birch, Monarchy, 29-42.
53. For example, Yhwh rebukes Samuel for mistaking the physical attributes of Eliab, Jesse’s eldest son, for kingly potential: “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him” (1 Sam 16:7). The description of Saul’s handsomeness also foreshadows that of Absalom, who is described in strikingly similar terms (2 Sam 14:25-27). Similar to Saul, Absalom also receives poetic משפט, for his beautiful hair becomes his undoing (2 Sam 18:9-15).
54. Barbara Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen? A Dialogical Study of King Saul in 1 Samuel (JSOTSup 365; London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 218: “He [Saul] is tall, not a propitious quality in this story where the tall are prone to fall.”
55. Alter, Art, 60-61.
56. An observation confirmed by Yhwh’s private vision to Samuel regarding Saul’s identity and impending arrival (1 Sam 9:15-16).
57. See n. 30 above. Alter (Art, 116-17) notes that exact lexical correspondence between narration and dialogue (in this case the wordplay on שפט and משפט in 1 Sam 8) serves to validate the reliability of a narrative character’s perspective.
58. McCarter, I Samuel, 179.
59. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 123.
60. However, the Hebrew word used in 1 Sam 9 is אתון (“female donkey”), as opposed to חמור (“a male ass”; 1 Sam 8:16). Given the significant value attached to both genders of donkey in the ancient Near East as well as the donkey’s association with the accession of kings (e.g., Zech 9:9), the shift in gender is likely immaterial. See the general discussion of donkeys in the ancient Near East by Kenneth C. Way, The Ceremonial and Symbolic Significance of Donkeys in the Biblical World (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011).
61. These contrastive elements do not form an explicit chiasm since word pairs are not repeated in the A/A’ and B/B’ elements. However, the poetic diction of 1 Sam 9:20, in contrast to the prose around it, invites a comparison of the parallel members as shown.
62. The interrogative particle הלוא (“Is it not . . . ?” expects a positive answer and probably carries no ironic overtones.
63. Fokkelman, Art, 4:400.
64. Cf. Hag 2:7, where חמדת כל־גוים clearly indicates the “possessions belonging to the nations.”
65. David Talley, “חמד,” NIDOTTE 2:168.
66. Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: 1 Samuel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 49-50.
67. Cf. Bergen (1, 2 Samuel, 115, passim), who continuously paints Samuel in a positive light.
68. Space precludes discussion of 1 Sam 11, a chapter beset by numerous literary-critical issues. Not only have Israel’s enemies shifted from the Philistines (9:16; 10:5; 12:9) to the Ammonites (11:1-11), the manuscript 4QSama also preserves a longer variant (see discussion in McCarter, I Samuel, 199-202). For our purposes, it is sufficient to observe that the MT version of this chapter is not as pro-monarchical as usually argued. Long (Reign, 228-32) notes several negative elements in the portrayal of Saul. First, he is empowered by a generic רוח אלהים (“spirit of God”) rather than the specific יהוה רוח (“spirit of Yhwh”; cf. 10:6; 16:13). Second, the shift of enemies from Philistines to Ammonites suggests that Saul has shirked his original mission to defeat the Philistines (9:16). Third, Saul’s attempt to rally Israel against Ammon by dismembering and distributing an ox recalls the Levite’s similar treatment of his concubine in rallying the people against the Benjamites (Judg 19:29-30), a sordid era in which “there was no king in Israel” (Judg 19:1).
69. See n. 53 above. Bergen (1, 2 Samuel, 132) makes the insightful observation that a tall person in the Bible is always a non-covenant person. Among the Israelites, only Saul is described thus.
70. Polzin, Samuel, 106.
71. E.g., Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 50-51; S. R. Driver, The Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1890), 67-68.
72. Even so, Saul’s presence looms in the background with the repeated pun in 1 Sam 8-12 between שאול (“Saul,” i.e., “asked-for one”) and שאל (“to ask”; 3x in 12:13, 17, 19; cf. 8:10).
73. Such a self-defensive attitude in Samuel’s speech is sensed by Polzin, Samuel, 117-24; and John Goldingay, Men Behaving Badly (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 67.
74. Most translations render the verbless clause ויהוה אלהיכם מלכיכם as “although Yhwh your God was your king.” This past-tense translation is inadequate on several counts. While it is syntactically possible to render the ambiguous verbless clause as a past tense, such a rendering obscures the stative force of the verbless clause and reflects the tendency to minimize the passage’s tension. Such an interpretation is reinforced by rendering ו with the adversative term “although,” which is also possible but not necessary.
75. The people’s confession that they have requested kingship לנו (“for ourselves”; 1 Sam 12:19) represents a long-awaited acknowledgment of their selfishness in the earlier request of a king לנו (“for ourselves”; 8:5, 6). The construction לנו, often called an ethical or centripetal dative, highlights the people’s self-centeredness. See the discussion by Takemitsu Muraoka, “On the So-Called Dativus Ethicus in Hebrew,” JTS 29 (1978): 495-98.
76. Though an analysis of other OT kingship texts falls outside our scope, it should be noted that kingship was already predicted in the Pentateuch (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11; 49:10; Num 24:7, 17). Any attempt to redate these texts as ex vaticinium eventu pronouncements, from a later period when monarchy was viewed favorably, becomes a circular argument.
77. Bernard M. Levinson, a leading Deuteronomy scholar, thus observes a significant weakness in current studies on the Deuteronomistic History: “Astonishingly, there has been no attempt that I am aware of, by proponents of either the Göttingen or the Cross school [of theories on the Deuteronomistic History], to establish that the various editorial strata that they distinguish within the Deuteronomistic History can also be identified within Deuteronomy itself. Conversely, scholars specializing in Deuteronomy have made little headway in linking the various later (Deuteronomistic) strata that they isolate within the text of Deuteronomy with those in the Deuteronomistic History. There simply seems to be an impasse” (Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998], 153 n. 18).
78. J. G. McConville, God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 133-50.
79. I would like to thank Professor Daniel Block for his comments on an earlier version of this article.