Shaul's Sin in Gilgal/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Shaul's Sin in Gilgal
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
It is difficult to understand what was so problematic about Shaul's not heeding Shemuel's directive to wait for seven days that it resulted in his losing the kingship. Some commentators suggest that Shaul's actions demonstrated a lack of understanding that victory and defeat lie in the hand of Hashem, not man. Shaul's reliance on himself was a fatal flaw for a king as it was likely to lead the people to similarly rely on their monarch, and forget the true King, Hashem.
Radak agrees that Shaul sinned against Hashem, but focuses on the act of disobedience itself. Shaul erred in not recognizing that despite his position as king, he must still be subservient to both prophet and Hashem and not deviate even slightly from Hashem's word. A final position sees in Shaul's actions an act of defiance against not God but the prophet. Shaul sinned in trying to usurp Shemuel's authority and consolidate all power into the position of monarch. It is also possible that a combination of all these factors led to the decree.
Sin Against God
Shaul's actions constituted a sin against Hashem. His disobedience was problematic either because it stemmed from a misunderstanding of the relative roles of man and God in war or because not heeding the word of Hashem is problematic in and of itself:
Over Reliance on Self
In not waiting for Shemuel, Shaul demonstrated that he doubted Hashem's powers to save the nation and preferred to rely on his own strength and strategies. He erred in forgetting that victory is due to Hashem, not man.
Sources:Modern scholars1
Why make Shaul wait? Hashem wanted to ensure that the people recognized that it was Hashem's hand which lay behind their military victories, and not the power of man. As such, Shemuel made a strategically illogical demand, telling Shaul to wait rather than seize the opportunity to defeat the Philistines while they were still unorganized. Hashem intentionally had Shaul tarry until his army dispersed and he was left with but 600 men. As such, no one could possibly think to take credit for the victory but rather all would recognize that it was due to Hashem's aid.
Severity of sin – Demonstrating that war is not won by human might was especially important after the establishment of the monarchy, when the people were likely to attribute all success to their king and not Hashem. Shaul's disobedience proved all of Shemuel's fears in appointing a king valid; soon the people would come to rely on him in place of the true King, Hashem.2
Comparison to Gidon
- Similarities –The description of the battle here contains many parallels to the story of Gidon's battle against Midyan.3 [For elaboration, see Gidon and Shaul.] In both stories, the vastness of the enemy is likened to the sand by the sea, while the Israelite fighting force consists of only a few hundred soldiers. In the story of Gidon, it is explicit that this is a reality imposed by Hashem "פֶּן יִתְפָּאֵר עָלַי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר יָדִי הוֹשִׁיעָה לִּי". The parallel might support the idea developed here that in Gilgal, too, Hashem had wanted to ensure a small army lest the nation applaud themselves.
- Contrasts – While Gidon gathers his men telling them that they can win with Hashem's help: "קוּמוּ כִּי נָתַן י"י בְּיֶדְכֶם אֶת מַחֲנֵה מִדְיָן," Shaul is afraid to attack with so few soldiers, betraying the fatal flaw in his kingship.
Contrast to Yonatan – Yonatan's behavior stands in contrast to that of his father and highlights Shaul's failure. As opposed to Shaul who was unwilling to fight with his meager army,4 Yonatan went to attack the Philistines with just his arms bearer. Unlike Shaul, Yonatan recognized that numbers in battle are not nearly as important as Hashem's backing, as he says "כִּי אֵין לַה' מַעְצוֹר לְהוֹשִׁיעַ בְּרַב אוֹ בִמְעָט."
Other manifestations of self-reliance – Later in Chapter 14, Shaul commits a similar mistake, acting on his own from fear that he lose an advantage in war. After Yonatan's attack, Shaul originally intends to seek Hashem's advice, but when he sees the confusion in the Philistine camp he tells the priest, "withdraw your hand," preferring to take advantage of the enemies' weakness and attack immediately than to wait for Hashem's word.5 Once again, Shaul portrays ignorance of the fact that "לֹא בְכֹחַ יִגְבַּר אִישׁ".
Comparison to Shaul's sin in the battle against Amalek – This position might claim that the sin in the two stories was identical. In taking from the booty of Amalek, Shaul demonstrated that he viewed himself, rather than Hashem, as the victor of the battle, once again betraying an attitude that attributes success to man's abilities and forgets Hashem's role. See Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek for elaboration.
David versus Shaul – David might be chosen in Shaul's stead because he succeeds specifically where Shaul fails:
- Golyat – David's first feat after being anointed is his defeat of Golyat. His willingness to fight the giant, with neither armor nor sword, stems from his knowledge that wars are won by God, not man. As he tells Golyat, "אַתָּה בָּא אֵלַי בְּחֶרֶב וּבַחֲנִית וּבְכִידוֹן וְאָנֹכִי בָא אֵלֶיךָ בְּשֵׁם י"י."
- Philistines – The commentary attributed to R. Yosef Kara suggests that Hashem tested David in his battle with the Philistines in the same way He had tested Shaul at Gilgal. Hashem told David to wait to fight until he heard rustling in the trees, despite a potential counter-attack in the interim. David, as opposed to Shaul, withstood the test and refused to act except via Hashem's command.
Not Heeding Hashem's word
Shaul sinned in not heeding the prophetic word, equivalent to disobeying a directive of Hashem. Though seemingly a minor infraction, such disobedience portrays a lack of subservience to Hashem.
Problematic sacrifice? Radak emphasizes that the fact that Shaul brought a sacrifice on his own was not problematic since in this era individual worship on high places was permitted. His only sin was in not abiding by Shemuel's instructions to wait for him.
God versus prophet – According to this approach, blind obedience to the prophet is required of a king, for his word is like the word of God. Radak proves that acting against the prophet is equivalent to acting against Hashem from Shemuel's accusation: "לֹא שָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת מִצְוַת י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ". In these words Shemuel equates his command with that of Hashem.
Severity of punishment – A leader cannot deviate even just a small degree from the prophetic word, for he must always remember and demonstrate that he is subservient to the higher authority of Hashem. This is especially true for a monarchic leader, whom the people might soon substitute for Hashem.
Comparison to Shaul's sin in Chapter 15 – In Chapter 15, too, Shaul sins and is punished for not abiding by Hashem's directive. See Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek.
David versus Shaul – It is possible that Shaul and David's differing attitudes towards kingship come to the fore during Michal's squabble with David in Shemuel II 6. She is upset with David for mingling with the masses during the celebration in honor of the Ark, since in her view, the king is meant to be supreme. David responds that he is dancing before Hashem, and as such, is no different than anyone else. He, in contrast to Michal "the daughter of Shaul," recognizes that an Israelite king is always subservient to the true King, Hashem.
Defiance of the Prophet
Disobeying the directive to wait for Shemuel was an attempt to usurp Shemuel's authority.
Sources:Modern commentators6
Problematic sacrifice? M. Segal and R"Y Bin-Nun claim that in sacrificing instead of Shemuel, Shaul infringed on the prophetic and priestly authority. The powers of king and priest / prophet were supposed to be separate7 and Shaul sinned in trying to concentrate them all into one position.
King versus prophet – Already when the nation requested a king, Shemuel viewed it as a rejection of himself.8 Even though Hashem told him, "לֹא אֹתְךָ מָאָסוּ כִּי אֹתִי מָאֲסוּ מִמְּלֹךְ עֲלֵיהֶם", it is possible that the division of power between king and prophet was always a source of tension.
Shemuel's directive – This position could suggest that Shemuel's directive to wait for seven days was not a Divine one, but a personal one and that Shemuel was intentionally testing the king's loyalty and subservience to the prophetic word. If so, in not abiding by the command, Shaul might not have been defying Hashem, but only the individual Shemuel.
Slaughter at Nov – R"Y Bin-Nun suggests that Shaul's later slaughter of the priests of Nov is another manifestation of his desire for total control and marks his subjugation of the priesthood to the monarchy.9
Tearing away of kingship – This position might suggest that it is Shemuel, on his own, who declares that Shaul deserves to lose his kingship, while Hashem Himself had not yet so decreed. Shemuel is personally hurt by Shaul's lack of obedience and sees in his actions signs of unworthiness.
Comparison to sin with Amalek – This position might view the sins as distinct. In the war with Amalek, Shaul does not attempt to take on prophetic authority or tasks. In fact, if anything, it is Shemuel who moves into a role traditionally expected of the king, killing Agag, the enemy monarch, by himself.
Difficulties – There are several difficulties with this reading of the story:
- If Shaul's intention was really to usurp Shemuel's role, he would have sacrificed immediately after arriving in Gilgal rather than waiting seven days.
- Similarly, the fact that he asks the priest, Achiyah, to use the Efod to ask of God (Shemuel I 14:18-20), suggests that he had no problem with others having priestly authority.
- Finally, since everyone was allowed to offer sacrifices at this time, it is hard to say that the action was intended to send a message of defiance.
Combination of Factors
The above approaches are not mutually exclusive and and it is possible that a combination of factors contributed to Shaul's downfall.
