The Rejection of Saul in First Samuel 13

Abstract

The figure of Saul became the focus of exilic reflection on election, rejection, obedience, and repentance. The Saul rejection accounts became, more broadly, about the election and seeming rejection of Israel because of infidelity to the Horeb covenant. The accounts became part of a wider deuteronomistic attempt to persuade an exilic audience of the importance of obedience centered on the YHWH-Israel bond articulated in Deuteronomic law. The Saul rejection accounts were placed at strategic points late in the development of the text of 1 Samuel. Both accounts appeal for obedience to the commands and words of YHWH (13:13-14; 15:1). In the end, these commands and words share the same referent—the book of the law—the priority of the final editors (DtrN). Following an introduction describing context, model, and method (Chapter One), this work focuses on the positive contribution—and shortcomings—of some synchronic approaches, identifying the need for an appropriate biblical poetics (Chapter Two). The value of a careful synchronic reading is complemented by a diachronic reading contributing to an understanding of the text’s development and final shaping (Chapter Three). Four stages are identified, ranging from 1) older, positive, Saul stories, to 2) prophetic tradition, to 3) a Deuteronomistic History expressive of preexilic hope informed by Davidic promise (Josianic), to 4) exilic, deuteronomistic thought, grappling with the crisis of exile while attempting to understand and articulate a response. The response of this final redactor (DtrN) consists of a call to renewed obedience to the book of the law expressive of the YHWH-Israel bond. These diachronic stages are also identifiable in the rejection of Saul passages. Both passages (1 Sam 13:7b-15 and 15:1-35) are carefully studied, synchronically and diachronically, resulting in several theological conclusions (Chapter Four). These conclusions are then compared and contrasted with a classic articulation of “Deuteronomistic Theology” (Noth and Von Rad), leading to even further refinement (Chapter Five). This is followed by a General Conclusion offering a final methodological, theological, and pastoral reflection. Out of exilic reflection, DtrN prioritizes the Deuteronomic law: it is, after all, expressive of the incomparable YHWH-Israel relationship in covenant. There can be no compromise. Yet one of the great strengths of Deuteronomistic Theology, modified by the theological conclusions drawn here, is that the prophetic voice still speaks through the final deuteronomistic text. The embedded call to repentance (šûḇ) tempers the final urgent call to obedience with hope of return to and renewed acceptance by YHWH. Awareness of the diachronic stages allows the later reader to hear, not only the voice of the final DtrN redactor, but also earlier voices. The multi-voiced model, about which concerns are raised in Chapter Two, contributes in its own way to a greater appreciation of the rich theological depth of these texts (Chapters Four and Five). It is the synchronic-diachronic methodological combination adopted that permits the theological message to emerge more clearly in its fullness. A debt is owed to the Deuteronomistic writers for the preservation, transmission, and adaptation of earlier strands. This dynamic of interacting traditions recalls the often overlooked vibrancy of Deuteronomistic Theology, suggesting a renewed appreciation. The Deuteronomistic writers formulated their own vision through interaction with received traditions. On the one hand, Deuteronomistic Theology is robust and uncompromisingly challenging: “Obey the words of YHWH!” (1 Sam 15:1). On the other hand, it is realistic, reconceptualizing, and compassionate: people will fail, but there is a way back. I suggest that the Deuteronomistic theologians offer a biblical foundation for the pastoral model of accompaniment.