The Lord’s Anointed In The Books Of Samuel

By Greg Goswell

[Greg Goswell is Academic Dean and Lecturer in Biblical Studies (Old Testament) at Christ College, Sydney, an affiliated college of the Australian College of Theology.]

Abstract

In the book of Samuel a messianic ideal is set forth in the persons of Saul and David, though it is also made clear that both leaders fail in their performance. The key aspects of the ideal are already present in the Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1–10): there is a strong bond between Yhwh and “his anointed,” the person anointed derives power from God, and he owes obedience to God. In the subsequent narrative, these three key features are developed along the following lines: the anointed one is pictured as fighting the Lord’s battles, the standard of behavior expected of him is nothing less than perfection, and the person of the Lord’s anointed is inviolate. These recurring motifs amount to a significant theological pattern and have the effect of fostering the hope of the coming of one who would fulfill this ideal, though that aspiration is not explicitly stated in the book.

----------------

Whatever view is taken of the concept of the Messiah in the OT, an essential starting point for thinking on this subject is the book(s) of Samuel, though this way of approaching the subject is not obvious to all.[1] The reason usually given is that those referred to under the title “the Lord’s anointed” (and variants on this title) and the persons who are anointed in Samuel are historical figures (notably Saul and David) and are reigning kings rather than eschatological figures. On that basis Joseph Fitzmyer quickly surveys and dismisses the passages in Samuel that will be the focus of my study, in each case declaring that they are devoid of messianic connotation; furthermore, he sums up his brief study by saying that they do not even hint at messianic expectation.[2] My argument to the contrary is that Saul and David are depicted as messianic figures in such a way that their position and roles presage a royal personage promised by God. Though the book of Samuel is not explicit concerning the prospect of a future ideal ruler in the Davidic line, the experiences of Saul and David present a messianic paradigm that helps to shape what God’s people are to expect to see in the coming messianic figure.

I. A Book About David? The Contribution Of Titrology

The usual English title of the book(s) of Samuel, derived from the Vulgate Liber Samuelis, coincides with the Hebrew naming of the book(s) (שׁמואל) after the first of its three main characters, Samuel, Saul, and David, whose interconnected lives and fates are recounted. The lives of Samuel, Saul, and David are intertwined in such a way that they follow a similar pattern, with each foreshadowing and reflecting the others as the narrative progresses.[3] This pattern is introduced to the reader in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam 2:4, 7–8). The pattern could be called the “rise of the lowly, fall of the mighty,” with Samuel, Saul, and David each enjoying a rise and then suffering a fall.[4] A partial climax in that history is found in Samuel’s (falsely supposed) farewell speech in 1 Sam 12, but Samuel is not accepting retirement, and he says he will continue to pray for and instruct the people and their king (1 Sam 12:23). He has important roles in 1 Sam 13, 15, and 16, and he is mentioned again in 19:18–24. Samuel’s death notice only comes in 25:1, and even then he returns one more time to haunt Saul (1 Sam 28). Samuel, in effect, superintends the career of Saul from its beginning to its end. Samuel is not featured at all in 2 Samuel, but his epochal role in anointing Saul and David is justification enough for the joint-book to be named after him. This encourages a reading that sees the messianic theology of the book as reflecting the concerns of prophetic circles. On that basis, it comes as no surprise that there are important roles for prophets in 2 Samuel, especially Nathan (chs. 7, 12) and Gad (ch. 24).[5]

On the other hand, Antony Campbell sees the book(s) of Samuel as being about David and orientated toward David (and his dynasty) from the beginning. It is true that Samuel is less visible after he has anointed David, which prompts Campbell to assert that “Samuel’s life-work is finished by 1 Sam 16:13.”[6] If that conclusion is accepted, a more appropriate title for the book would be “David,” although this possibility may have been excluded by the fact that the name “David” was early used as a way of referring to the book of Psalms.[7] A contrary viewpoint is provided by Diana Edelman, who understands the book of 1 Samuel as a “narrative about Saul,”[8] and certainly it concludes with the death of Saul (ch. 31). Perhaps nothing is to be gained by adjudicating what is likely to be a perennial dispute among scholars, for the good reason that there is a special interest within the book in the persons and personal characteristics of all three protagonists, and the theology of the book will only be accurately discerned if all three characters are given their proper place. Later OT texts strongly link messiahship to the Davidic tradition (e.g., Isa 7, 9, 11; Jer 23; Ezek 34), but the fact remains that the book of Samuel does not see the David-connection as all that needs to be said when presenting a messianic theology.

Notice of a significant death, that of Saul (2 Sam 1:1: “After the death of Saul”) is the trigger for the division of the larger book into two (1 and 2 Samuel) in the Greek canonical tradition (cf. Josh 1:1; Judg 1:1; 2 Kgs 1:1; 1 Chr 29:28).[9] It marks the beginning of the new era of David, yet it breaks the “Rise of David” sequence that began in 1 Sam 16, and the spectre of the house of Saul continues to hang over David throughout 2 Samuel in the persons of Ishbosheth, Michal, Mephibosheth (and Ziba), Absalom (the handsome competitor who seeks David’s life), and Shimei. On that basis, it is not clear that the book’s partition can be justified. Viewing 1 Sam 31 as an endpoint, however, turns 1 Sam 9–31 into a story about Saul and not a section detailing the rise of David (which does not end until 2 Sam 5). With regard to the division into the two books of Samuel, in the folio Bomberg edition of 1518 the numeration of the chapters begins anew at 2 Sam 1 (and at 2 Kgs 1, Neh 1, and 2 Chr 1), but the division is not recognized in the text itself (with separate book titles).[10] The book’s name, together with the point at which the unified book is divided (the changeover of Saul to David), highlights the leadership issue. It must not be forgotten that the first messianic figure on show in the book is Saul (see below).

The alternative names given in the Greek (and Latin) tradition for the books of Samuel, namely the (first and second) books of “Reigns” or “Kingdoms,” is approved by some commentators as “more apposite.”[11]The connection of the books Samuel and Kings is broadly accepted, and their linkage in the Greek Bible as Kingdoms 1–4 shows that many ancient readers saw their obvious relation as a history of kingship from its rise to its demise. This title highlights the transition to kingship that is plotted in the book of Samuel and throws the focus upon Saul and David as the first two kings. The book of Samuel gives a theological authorization to human kingship in Israel, yet the book is also alive to the dangers of this institution (e.g., the failure of Saul and the portrait of a faulty and inept David in 2 Sam 11–20). The title “Kingdoms” does not, therefore, have to be understood as a naïve endorsement of kingship as a trouble-free institution. If a messianic ideal is set forth in Samuel, it is also made plain that both Saul and David fall short of that ideal.

II. The “Anointed” Texts

The present study is not as such a word study, though every use of the root משׁח in the book of Samuel, both as a noun and a verb, will be examined.[12] What is immediately obvious from a survey of nominal uses of the root is that the noun (משׁיח) is always determined, either by a pronominal suffix, “his anointed” (1 Sam 2:10; 12:3, 5; 16:6; 2 Sam 22:51) or “my anointed” (1 Sam 2:35), where the suffix refers to Yhwh. Related are those instances where the noun is part of a Hebrew construct chain, usually “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam 24:6 [MT 7] [2x], 10 [MT 11]; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam 1:14, 16; 19:21 [MT 22]) and once in a poetic passage, “the anointed of the God of Jacob” (2 Sam 23:1). This practice is by no means an unusual occurrence in the OT; for example, in the Psalter the expressions that come closest to “the Messiah” are “his anointed” (e.g., Ps 2:2; 18:50), “your anointed” (132:10), and “my anointed” (132:17), with the personal pronoun referring in each case to Yhwh, and the titular designation “Messiah” is not found.[13] This construction suggests a strong bond between Yhwh and the person anointed and also implies the exalted position enjoyed by the royal figure (cf. the deferential way in which God and Saul are paired in the speech by the prophet Samuel in 1 Sam 12:3 and 5).

The verb “to anoint” (משׁח) is used some fourteen times. These verbal occurrences make the point that the person (Saul or David) was anointed by Yhwh (1 Sam 10:1; 15:17; 2 Sam 12:7), by the prophet under divine instruction (1 Sam 9:16; 15:1; 16:3, 12, 13), or by the people through their own representatives (2 Sam 2:4, 7; 3:39 [probably]; 5:3, 17; 19:10 [MT 11]).[14] Regarding the last category, except in the case of Absalom (2 Sam 19:10 [MT 11]), the action of the people is not out of step with God’s purposes and reflects popular knowledge that David was the one whom God wished to be their ruler (cf. the claim made by the Northern tribes in 2 Sam 5:2b: “and the Lord said to you, ‘You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel’”). There may be an element of flattery or of pious embellishment in what they say, in an effort to talk David into accepting their offer of the throne, though they do claim to be in step with God’s revealed will. Even though this is an unsubstantiated quotation, it is credible for it does sound like the way God himself speaks, as demonstrated by comparison with what God is quoted as saying to Samuel before his meeting with Saul in 1 Sam 9:16. There we see the phrase “my people Israel” as well as another divine idiom, “prince” (נגיד) in preference to “king” (מלך).[15] In both cases, the wording attributed to God shows that in condoning the appointment of a human king, God is not giving up his crown rights over his covenant people.

III. The Speeches Of Hannah And Abigail

The Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1–10) as the theological overture for the book prepares for all that follows. In particular it anticipates the rise of kingship as an indigenous Israelite institution. It is matched by David’s hymn in 2 Sam 22 (supplemented by “the last words of David” in 2 Sam 23:1–7), forming a poetic and theological inclusio around the canonical book. The link between the two poems is not just by means of shared vocabulary but also by plot development, for the poem by Hannah, the mother of Samuel, is echoed by David, who is anointed by Samuel.[16] The final note of this imbedded poem is “he [Yhwh] will give strength to his king, and exalt the power of his anointed [משׁיחו]” (2:10b).[17] This is the first use of “anointed” in the book, and it sets trends that nothing subsequent in the canonical book disputes or corrects. The parallel of “his king” and “his anointed” makes it plain that a royal figure is in view (the same expressions are found in parallel in 2 Sam 22:51 and are explicitly linked to “David and his descendants”), though the term is not limited to kings in the OT.[18] The point made is that the Lord’s worldwide rule guarantees the success of his anointed king, who is dependent on God for strength. In keeping with the rest of the poem, in which Hannah generalizes on the basis of her own experience of providence and depicts the Lord as a God who regularly puts down the proud and exalts the humble (vv. 4–8), and in which human might cannot guarantee success (v. 9), we are told that it is the Lord who gives strength to his king (as he did to Hannah),[19] and the Hebrew pronominal suffixes on “his king” and “his anointed” stress that he derives power from God and owes obedience to him. God “will exalt the horn [קרן] of his anointed” (2:10b), and at the end of the joint-book, in a poetic synoptic passage to Ps 18, David praises Yhwh as “the horn [קרן] of my salvation” (2 Sam 22:3), acknowledging that it is God who gave him victory over his enemies and claiming that this is because David is “blameless before him” (22:24).

The next use of the noun משׁיח in the book of Samuel is found in a long speech in which a prophetic figure (“a man of God”) announces God’s rejection of the priestly line of Eli (2:27–36). God says to Eli that he will raise up a replacement priest, who will walk to and fro before “my anointed [משׁיחי]” (2:35). This text assists a proper evaluation of what was earlier said by Hannah, who foretells the rise of kingship before the actual introduction of kingship into the Israelite constitution (2:10b). The startling announcement by Hannah need not be viewed as a secondary accretion,[20] but is to be viewed as a prophecy, though not explicitly designated as such in the biblical text. This construal is supported by 2 Sam 23:1–7, which links to 1 Sam 2:1–10 to form an envelope around the canonical book of Samuel, for “the last words of David,” in which he is recorded as calling himself “the anointed of the God of Jacob” (23:1), claim to be inspired speech (23:2: “The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue”),[21] such that Hannah is depicted as predicting the future rise of kingship before the institution was introduced in Israel. A reading of the book of Samuel in its canonical shape must identify the anointed one foretold by Hannah as David (with Saul as his messianic predecessor). But does this historical fulfilment exhaust the prophecy of Hannah? Perhaps not, for the heightened theology of the poetic frame leads some scholars to posit that the book of Samuel has a messianic flavor.[22]

1 Samuel 25 opens with the long-delayed death notice of Samuel (25:1), and Abigail takes his place, as shown by her speech to David in which she says things that only a prophet would know.[23] Abigail in 25:28 expresses the same two features found in 2:10b in what amounts to an important conceptual verse: “the Lord will certainly make my lord a sure house [נאמן בית],[24] because my lord is fighting the battles of the Lord; and evil shall not be found in you as long as you live.” As she explains, David is given victories by God, on behalf of whom he fights in “the Lord’s battles” (cf. 17:37; 18:17), and it is God who preserves David from sinning by incurring blood-guilt, in the present instance achieving this through the timely intervention of Abigail herself. Abigail prevented David from taking personal vengeance and falling into sin, as David himself acknowledges (25:32–34). Surrounding the account of the sparing of Nabal are two other instances of David’s restraint, where he spares Saul (chs. 24 and 26), and these stories create bookends around the Abigail story.[25] As was the case with Hannah, a woman expresses the theological concerns of the narrative that is at pains to depict a successful and faultless David.

IV. A Messianic Paradigm

Saul’s experiences provide a model of what is involved in being the anointed one.[26] We see the pattern of Saul as God’s choice (9:16), Saul’s anointing (10:1), his endowment with the Spirit of God (10:10; 11:6), and public proof of his charisma as provided by his victory over God’s enemies, the Ammonites (ch. 11).

In line with this theological schema, the same pattern recurs in the experience of David as God’s choice (16:1–3), an anointing with oil at the hands of Samuel (16:13a), Spirit-endowment (16:13b), and victory over God’s enemies, this time the slaying of Goliath the Philistine (ch. 17). In other words, this messianic paradigm is seen for a second time in the person of David.[27] Knierim goes as far as to the claim that a messianic theology lies behind the structuring of all of 1 Sam 9–31.

According to Knierim, what is on display is a prophetic-theological understanding of the place and role of the king, for both Saul and David are anointed at the hands of Samuel,[28] and this action is in line with later anointings by Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 19:16; 2 Kgs 9:3, 6, 12).[29] Indeed, in each case the prophet is explicitly instructed by God to anoint a particular person,[30] and the wording used by the prophet on these occasions makes it clear to the appointee that it is God who is anointing him (e.g., 1 Sam 10:1: “Has not the Lord anointed you to be prince over his heritage?” [RSV modified in line with the MT]; cf. 15:1, 17).[31] Knierim reads this emphasis as a prophetic corrective to older views, the point being that the anointed one is not authorized to rule by the people, but by Yhwh,[32] and so the one anointed must follow the instructions of God via his prophet. Certainly, the cause of Saul’s downfall is that he listened to the people rather than to divine instruction mediated through his prophet (13:13; 15:20, 24).

1. The Victorious Messiah

The anointed one is pictured in the book of Samuel as he who is fighting the Lord’s battles, and it is Saul’s defeat of the Ammonites that proves to his detractors that he is the God-appointed savior of Israel.[33] The rude question, “How can this fellow save us?” (1 Sam 11:27 [root ישׁע]) sets up the issue to be resolved in the textual unit that covers 10:26–11:13, and the sudden eruption of the Ammonite crisis gives Saul the opportunity he needs to show what he is capable of doing.[34] The aim of the unit is to show that Saul was wrongly despised, for he is the God-ordained savior of God’s people. Later, in 11:13, Saul hails his victory as the “salvation” (תשׁועה) won by the Lord. The section runs from 10:26 (after the dismissal of the assembly) to 11:13 (a climactic statement by Saul). Through the use of sequences similar to the book of Judges, Saul is portrayed as a judge-like deliverer: the distress (11:1–4), his possession of the Spirit (11:6), the mustering of the tribal levy (11:7–8), and the annihilation of the enemy (11:11). Indeed, Saul enjoys considerable success against the enemies of Israel (14:47–48). The other side of the coin is that Saul’s ineptitude as a military commander in the face of the Philistine threat in Sam 14 is a sign of his rejected state, and this may also be the explanation for his fear in 17:11 and 28:5.[35] As summarized by Knierim, “The function of the anointing charisma is that Yahweh grants victory to the anointed, and through him to the people.”[36]

The motif of military success is especially prominent in the presentation of David, starting with his defeat of Goliath, and in that uneven contest David confesses his reliance on God’s help for victory (1 Sam 17:37–40, 45–47, 48–51). This is only the first of many triumphs (cf. 18:5: “And David went out and was successful wherever Saul sent him”), such that he rivals his master Saul in his military achievements, both in the estimation of the people (18:7) and in reality (18:30). The explanation of David’s outstanding success was that “the Lord was with him” (18:14; cf. 16:18b). Later, in the supposed service of Achish, David continues to defeat and destroy the enemies of Israel, especially the Amalekites (27:8–12; 30:17–19). After the death of Saul, David gets the better of the forces of Ishbosheth (2 Sam 3:1), and David’s military successes are one of the reasons stated by the Israelite tribes for why they wish him to reign over them (5:2: “it was you [not Saul] that led out and brought in Israel”). The two decisive victories over the Philistines in 2 Sam 5:17–25 cause David to think that his fighting days are over and that it is a time of “rest” (7:1), but he is mistaken (7:11a: “and I [God] will give you rest”).[37] In line with this way of reading the text, the placement of 2 Sam 8 is apposite for it follows in chronological sequence after ch. 7 and provides a listing of David’s victories (8:1a: “After this…” [אחרי־כן ויהי]).[38] On that basis, God’s promise of rest from enemies in 7:11a can be viewed as foreshadowing the developments described in ch. 8,[39] which records the victories of David (“And the Lord gave victory to David wherever he went” [8:6, 14]). In line with this reading, the superfluity of references to David by name in ch. 8 emphasizes the exaltation of the king and his military triumphs.[40] Many scholars discount the chronological connector at 8:1a and suggest that ch. 7 is in reality later in time than ch. 8,[41] but the temporal succession is confirmed by the promise of a great name (7:9b: “and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth”), which is fulfilled in the victories of ch. 8 (esp. v. 13: “so David won a name for himself”). This chapter is, therefore, the highpoint in the presentation of the messianic ideal of the Lord’s anointed as a military victor.

2. The Messiah Must Be Perfect

The standard of God for his anointed is very high, in fact he is required to be faultless.[42] Saul’s apparent reluctance to become leader of God’s people establishes him as a sympathetic character in the eyes of the reader (9:21; 10:22; 11:5), and his hesitancy in accepting the role may be due to a realization of its inherent difficulty (how was he to please both God and the people?). Saul sins and is rejected by Yhwh. One sin is enough to ensure Saul’s judgment (ch. 13), and he is told that his kingdom will not continue (13:13–14). The reader is provided with two examples of Saul’s disobedience to a prophetic command. The account of the repeat offence is not superfluous (ch. 15), but clarifies any ambiguities in the first, for it confirms Saul’s guilt and shows that his disobedience is not an aberration, but a character trait. In this way, it justifies Yhwh’s harsh judgment.[43] In 1 Sam 14, Jonathan acts as a foil for Saul, showing the attitudes and actions that Saul should display, but does not (e.g., his trust in God’s ability to give victory [14:6]). Samuel’s sorrow over the rejection of Saul is another sign of the sympathetic treatment of the first king by the narrator (15:35; 16:1), but Saul is not rejected by God for no reason, and God’s choosing of David need not be seen as unfair favoritism.[44]

In contrast to Saul, David repeatedly passes the test, for he does not sin by taking action against Saul, as Jonathan points out when defending David to his father (1 Sam 19:4–5: “Let not the king sin against his servant David; because he has not sinned against you”). In this matter, David also claims to be without guilt (20:1, 8). He twice spares Saul’s life, and these occasions give David the opportunity to declare his innocence (24:9–17; 26:18), and for Saul himself to confirm David’s mercy (24:17–19; 26:21). In the intervening narrative, David recognizes Abigail as God’s agent in preventing him from incurring blood-guilt by slaying Nabal (25:32–34). In a highly ironic twist on this theme, Achish is convinced of David’s blamelessness (29:3, 6, 9), even though the reader knows that David has been playing him for a fool (27:8–12). Later, David is shown to be innocent of the deaths of Saul, Ishbosheth, and Abner (2 Sam 1:15–16; 2:5; 3:28, 39; 4:9–12).[45]

After this long record of faithfulness, David’s position is confirmed by way of covenant in 2 Sam 7, [46] God promising to treat his house differently to that of Saul (7:14–15: “When he commits iniquity … but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you”). However, from this point onwards David can virtually do nothing right (2 Sam 10–20),[47] with David failing both as a father and as a king. David’s private failings, particularly his failings as a father, impact his public role and success as king.[48] It could be argued that his sin of taking Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, is worse than any sin committed by Saul (ch. 11), a sin replicated in the sexual misdemeanours of his sons Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah. It is Nathan the prophet who confronts David with his sin (ch. 12), just as it had been Nathan who communicated the gracious promise of God (ch. 7). The two chapters stand in stark contrast with each other.[49] Would David’s heinous sin or God’s gracious promise have the final say over David’s life? David’s response to Nathan’s confrontation differs sharply from that of Saul when confronted by Samuel in a comparable situation. Saul tried to excuse what he had done (1 Sam 13:11–12; 15:15, 20–21, 24), whereas David is quick to confess his sin (2 Sam 12:13a), but this cannot fully explain the immediate offer of mercy (12:13b). Despite David’s faults, God remains true to his covenant pledge of 2 Sam 7, and the narrative logic of the book implies that this is the only reason David is maintained as king and not rejected as was Saul. Due to the covenant that God made with David, messianism in the OT from this point on is irrevocably linked to the election of David and his descendants.

3. The Messiah Is Sacrosanct

The person of the Lord’s anointed is sacrosanct,[50] such that Saul enjoys immunity and his anointing is of an indelible character. On that basis, due to the fact that the king is “the Lord’s anointed,” David refuses to kill Saul. David shows this restraint, despite the urging of others, and his response to those who urge him to act against Saul provides the opportunity for the motivation of his behavior to come to light (24:6 [MT 7], 10 [MT 11]; 26:9, 11, 16, 23),[51] and this is also David’s voiced explanation for his violent reaction to the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul (2 Sam 1:16). It is not necessary to judge David’s actions as ultimately self-serving, that is, David, with an eye to the future, does not want to create a dangerous precedent, and so he refrains from attacking Saul, for, as the Lord’s anointed, he too wants to enjoy a similar immunity from attack.

On the first occasion that David has an opportunity to dispatch Saul (1 Sam 24), he only goes as far as to cut off “the skirt [כנף] of Saul’s robe” (v. 4 [MT 5]), but even that action is afterward a matter of regret to him (v. 5 [MT 6]), though the piece of cloth is held up as visible proof that David has had Saul in his power and refrained from killing him (v. 11 [MT 12]). Earlier, the tearing of “the skirt of [Samuel’s] robe” (15:27–28) was used by Samuel as a sign and portent of the loss of the kingdom by Saul (cf. 1 Kgs 11:30–31), such that the action of David, consciously or unconsciously, here plays the same symbolic role.[52] Fokkelman views the “robe” (מעיל) motif as referring to monarchy, and he links the incident to Jonathan stripping off his “robe” (same Hebrew term) and giving it to David, the dynastic successor to Saul renouncing his right to the throne in favor of David (18:4).[53] At the same time, another nuance of “skirt, hem, wing” (= penis) may be at work in the present narrative (cf. Deut 22:30 [MT 23:1]; 27:20),[54] such that the cutting off (root כרת) of Saul’s offspring is also hinted at in the action of David. This interpretation is supported by the assurance of protection (reusing the root כרת) asked of David by Saul in this chapter (24:21–22 [MT 22–23]; cf. the similar request by Jonathan in 20:14–17).

On the second occasion that David has Saul in his grasp (1 Sam 26), he steals Saul’s “spear” (26:12), an object that earlier in the book was a symbol of his royal authority, for, on several formal occasions, Saul was depicted as seated and holding his spear (18:10; 19:9; 22:6). Additionally, the spear was the weapon that was used by Saul more than once against David in an effort to kill him (18:11; 19:10). Therefore, in taking Saul’s spear, David not only disarms him, he can be understood to symbolically strip Saul of his authority to rule. David suggests an arrangement whereby the spear may be returned to Saul (26:22), leaving the removal of Saul from office to God’s prerogative, which is where it belongs, for there is a protective taboo around Saul as the Lord’s anointed. Without actually physically harming Saul, David’s action subtly indicates what he hopes God in due time will do. David will leave it to God to “smite” (root ًâَ) Saul (26:10), using some other agency than David (age, disease, or falling in battle), just as the demise of Nabal was attributed to God smiting him (25:38 [using the same Hebrew root]),[55] and God’s action against Nabal may have encouraged David to leave matters in God’s hands.[56]

The Philistine menace was a major reason for the move to make Saul king. In 1 Sam 7 they are the threat, and the request by the elders for a king is so that he may “go out before us and fight our battles” (8:20).[57] Yet in their every appearance in the narrative the Philistines assist the rise of David.[58] The victory of 1 Sam 14 is Jonathan’s and not Saul’s. David’s successes against the Philistines (including Goliath) advance him at Saul’s expense in terms of public perception and popularity (18:7). Saul’s attempt to use the Philistines to destroy David misfires and David becomes his son-in-law (18:20–29). The Philistines recognize David’s kingship early in the story (21:11: “Is not this David the king of the land?”). David finds a refuge from Saul among the Philistines (ch. 27), and finally Saul is slain in the battle against the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (ch. 31). Most notable for our purposes, it is the Philistines themselves who prevent David’s involvement in that fateful battle (ch. 29),[59] whereas if he had fought alongside the Philistines, he would have been implicated in the death of Saul.

V. Conclusions

A messianic ideal is set forth in the book of Samuel in the persons of Saul and David, but it is also made clear that both leaders fail in their performance. That fact might foster the hope of the coming of one who would fulfill this ideal, though that aspiration is not explicitly stated in the book. The key aspects of the ideal are in evidence as early as the Song of Hannah: the strong bond between Yhwh and “his anointed,” the person anointed derives power from God, and he owes obedience to God. In the subsequent narrative, these three key features are developed along the following lines: the anointed one is pictured as fighting the Lord’s battles, the standard of behavior expected of him is nothing less than perfection, and the person of the Lord’s anointed is inviolate. Several factors suggest that the messianic theology of the book of Samuel does indeed have implications for the future. One factor is the repeated sequence of events to be found in the book, whereby the experiences of Saul are replicated in those of David, suggesting that they are an established pattern and therefore provide a model both for the present and the future. Another factor is that the book depicts a theological ideal, but this would have little point if it were never to be realized, and so this also implies the prospect of a future messianic individual. Yet another factor is that the messianic theology of the book is propounded by prophetic figures (notably Samuel) or others speaking like prophets (Hannah and Abigail), and we would not expect a major disjunction between earlier and later prophecy in which messianic predictions are to be found (e.g., Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel).

Notes

1. This material is often overlooked in treatments of the messianic theme; see, for example, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); John Day, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, JSOTSup 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Stanley Porter, ed., The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).
2. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 13–16. Susan Gillingham gives the references to an anointed one in eight psalms the same kind of treatment (2:2; 18:50 [MT 51]; 20:6 [MT 7]; 28:8; 45:7 [MT 8]; 84:9 [MT 10]; 89:38, 51 [MT 39, 52]; 132:10, 17); see Susan E. Gillingham, “The Messiah in the Psalms: A Question of Reception History and the Psalter,” in King and Messiah, ed. Day, 209–37, here 212–20.
3. The use of this narratival technique in the book of Samuel is emphasized by Moshe Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1983).
4. T. R. Preston, “The Heroism of Saul: Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early Kingship,” JSOT 24 (1982): 27–46. Preston points out that the first instance of the pattern, however, is Eli and the fate of his priestly house (p. 29).
5. Stanley D. Walters, “Reading Samuel to Hear God,” CTJ 37 (2002): 62–81, suggests that the title “Samuel” is a hermeneutical guide, alerting the reader to the prophetic outlook of the narrative, so that, as Walters states, “Royal ideology must be subservient to prophetic ideology” (p. 68).
6. Antony F. Campbell, 1 Samuel, FOTL 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 25; cf. A. Graeme Auld, I and II Samuel: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 2: “This is a book about David: all the other personalities are there so that we may see and know David better.”
7. See, for example, 2 Macc 2:13–15, Heb 4:7, and 4QMMT (= 4Q397) line 10 as reconstructed in Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumrân Cave 4.V: Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah, DJD X (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 59.
8. Diana Vikander Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, JSOTSup 121 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 11; cf. W. Lee Humphreys, “The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9–31, ” JSOT 6 (1978): 18–27; David Jobling, “What, if Anything, Is 1 Samuel?,” SJOT 7 (1993): 17–31, here 25.
9. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1969), 719, maintains, “In both Greek and Latin Bibles Samuel and Kings were regarded as one continuous history, divided for convenience into four sections.” We cannot follow him in his estimation of the divisions as arbitrary.
10. G. F. Moore, “The Vulgate Chapters and Numbered Verses in the Hebrew Bible,” in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader, ed. Sid Z. Leiman (New York: Ktav, 1974), 815–20, here 816.
11. For example, Ralph W. Klein, First Samuel, WBC 10 (Waco: Word, 1983), xxv.
12. Cf. K. Seybold, “משׁח משׁיח,” TDOT 9:43–54; DCH 5:515–18, 520–22; Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Biblical Idea of Statehood,” in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, ed. Gary Rendsburg et al. (New York: Ktav, 1980), 239–48, here 246; Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Concepts of māšîaḥ and Messianism in Early Judaism,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth, First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 79–115, esp. 88; J. J. M. Roberts, “The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations,” in Messiah: Developments, 39–51, here 39.
13. Nor, indeed, is it found in the OT as a whole. The two obscure references to “an anointed one” (anarthrous משׁיח) in Dan 9:25 and 26 are hardly exceptions, for there is scholarly disagreement over the referent of these two usages.
14. Ernst Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im alten Orient, BZAW 87 (Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1963), 52–63, argues that only anointing by the people reflected historical reality (derived from Hittite practice) and that it created a bond between the king and the people. This view is disputed by Roland de Vaux, “Le Roi d’Israël, Vassal de Yahvé,” in Bible et Orient (Paris: Cerf, 1967), 287–301. Vaux cites Egyptian analogies to argue for the anointed king as God’s representative, and he makes the point that anointing would have been at the hands of a single officiant (pp. 300–301).
15. For the two terms, see J. Gordon McConville, God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology, Genesis–Kings, LHBOTS 454 (London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 137–38.
16. J. P. Fokkelman, Vow and Desire (1 Sam. 1–12), vol. 4 of Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses, SSN 31 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 105–7.
17. Susan M. Pigott, “Wives, Witches and Wise Women: Prophetic Heralds of Kingship in 1 and 2 Samuel,” Review and Expositor 99 (2002): 145–73.
18. It refers to the high priest in Exod 29:7; Num 35:25; other priests in Exod 28:41; 30:30; 40:15; Num 3:3; and prophets in 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 61:1; Ps 105:15.
19. The parallel is emphasised by Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, 13.
20. See the arguments for its originality provided by John T. Willis, “The Song of Hannah and Psalm 113, ” CBQ 35 (1973): 139–54; David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 149–50; A. David Ritterspach, “Rhetorical Criticism and the Song of Hannah,” in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974), 68–74.
21. The connection is noted by Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, 150.
22. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM, 1979), 278; James W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Insert Hymns in Hebrew Narrative, JSOTSup 139 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 115.
23. These observations are made by Ellen van Wolde, “A Leader Led by a Lady: David and Abigail in 1 Samuel 25, ” ZAW 114 (2002): 355–75, here 355 and 367.
24. The wording echoes 1 Sam 2:35 and anticipates the Dynastic Covenant of 2 Sam 7.
25. Robert Polzin, 1 Samuel, vol. 2 of Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993), 205–8.
26. For this and what follows I acknowledge my dependence on Rolf P. Knierim, “The Messianic Concept in the First Book of Samuel,” in Jesus and the Historian: Written in Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell, ed. F. Thomas Trotter (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 20–51. Knierim focuses on what he sees as the pre-Deuteronomistic stratum in the stories of Saul and David in chs. 9–31, in which “significant parallel traditions have been combined in thematic unities” (p. 25).
27. For typological links between David’s rise and Jesus as the Messiah, see Knierim, “Messianic Concept,” 42–44; and James M. Hamilton Jr., “The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 16 (2012): 4–25.
28. For the view that the anointings of Saul and David are anachronistic, derived from the anointing of Solomon when this act was an essential element in the coronation ritual, see Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings, ConBOT 8 (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 203–8.
29. Knierim, “Messianic Concept,” 29.
30. In the case of Elisha, he sends one of the sons of the prophets to carry out the anointing of Jehu that Elijah failed to fulfill.
31. For Knierim, this represents a displacing of older historical traditions that held it was the people who anointed Saul and David (1 Sam 11:15 LXX [“and Samuel anointed (ἔχρισε) Saul there to be king”]; 2 Sam 2:4; 5:3) (“Messianic Concept,” 29).
32. Knierim, “Messianic Concept,” 30.
33. Sam Meier, “The King as Warrior in Samuel-Kings,” HAR 13 (1991): 63–76, here 65.
34. The chapter division at 11:1 is unfortunate. At 10:27b, 4QSama adds a sizable paragraph, the originality of which is defended by Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 342–44. The addition is incorporated into the text of the NRSV. Yet this approach fails to see that the section in fact begins at 10:26. The 4QSama addition is no evidence of an older, more reliable text, but is better viewed as a different edition of the story. In my judgment, this edition is inferior in literary terms, for no explanation for Nahash’s attack on Jabesh-Gilead is needed; see Alexander Rofé, “4QMidrash Samuel? Observations Concerning the Character of 4QSama,” Textus 19 (1998): 63–74, here 65–67; Terry L. Eves, “One Ammonite Invasion or Two? I Sam 10:27–11:2 in the Light of 4QSama,” WTJ 44 (1982): 308–26; Stephen Pisano, Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts, OBO 57 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 91–98, here 97; Edward D. Herbert, “4QSama and Its Relationship to the LXX: An Exploration in Stemmatological Analysis,” in Ninth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995, ed. Bernard A. Taylor, SBLSCS 45 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 37–55, here 53.
35. David Jobling, “Saul’s Fall and Jonathan’s Rise: Tradition and Redaction in 1 Sam 14:1–46, ” JBL 95 (1976): 367–76.
36. Knierim, “Messianic Concept,” 32–33.
37. R. A. Carlson, David the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel, trans. Eric J. Sharpe and Stanley Rudman (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964), 106.
38. Cf. Rachelle Gilmour, Representing the Past: A Literary Analysis of Narrative Historiography in the Book of Samuel, VTSup 143 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 74.
39. The connection is noted by Carlson, David the Chosen King, 115. In the words of Carlson, v. 11a “foretells the victory chronicle of 8:1–14” (p. 116).
40. Robert M. Good, “2 Samuel 8, ” TynBul 52 (2001): 129–38, here 132–34.
41. See, for example, Robert P. Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), 236, 242; John Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1971), 228.
42. Knierim, “Messianic Concept,” 38.
43. Claire Mathews McGinnis, “Swimming with the Divine Tide: An Ignatian Reading of 1 Samuel,” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, ed. Christopher R. Seitz and Kathryn Greene-McCreight (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 240–70, here 253.
44. McGinnis, “Swimming with the Divine Tide,” 248.
45. Cf. P. Kyle McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel, AB 8 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 27–28; Keith W. Whitelam, “The Defence of David,” JSOT 29 (1984): 61–87.
46. Knierim, “Messianic Concept,” 38.
47. Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the “Succession Narrative,” JSOTSup 221 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 150, argues that 2 Sam 1–9 are concerned with the consolidation of David’s power, and so she restricts the next unit to chs. 10–20, the focus being the humanity of David rather than David from “a more public angle.”
48. David M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, JSOTSup 6 (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1978), 87–94, views that it is the story of David as king and of David the man, and the interconnection between the political and private themes. David’s roles as father and dynastic founder are inextricably linked, and David’s story is one of struggle to reconcile these interests.
49. For the connections between the chapters, see Frank H. Polak, “David’s Kingship: A Precarious Equilibrium,” in Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature, ed. Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman, and Benjamin Uffenheimer, JSOTSup 171 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 119–47, here 129–30.
50. Seybold, “משׁיח, משׁח,” x50.
51. As noted by Knierim, “Messianic Concept,” 27–28.
52. As noted by Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 179; see also Robert P. Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Samuel 24–26, ” TynBul 31 (1980): 37–64, here 55–56.
53. J. P. Fokkelman, The Crossing Fates (1 Sam. 13–31 and 2 Sam. 1), vol. 2 of Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses, SSN 23 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986), 458–59.
54. Cf. André LaCocque, Ruth, trans. K. C. Hanson, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 84. Cf. the euphemistic use of “leg” (רגל) for the same body part a few verses earlier (24:3); see Andrea L. Weiss, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel, VTSup 107 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 194–97, though she takes another view of “wing” as a metaphor (depicting Saul as a bird fluttering from place to place).
55. As noted by Fokkelman, Crossing Fates, 536.
56. April D. Westbrook, “And He Will Take Your Daughters”: Woman Story and the Ethical Evaluation of Monarchy in the David Narrative, LHBOTS 610 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 66–67, 73.
57. See the comments on the Philistines and the monarchy in Robert P. Gordon, “Who Made the Kingmaker? Reflections on Samuel and the Institution of the Monarchy,” in Faith, Tradition and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 255–69, here 257.
58. See the extended discussion provided by David Jobling, 1 Samuel, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 212–43.
59. Cf. Walter Brueggemann, “Narrative Intentionality in 1 Samuel 29, ” JSOT 43 (1989): 21–35, here 24.