Jonathan H. Walton, «A King Like The Nations: 1 Samuel 8 in Its Cultural Context.», Vol. 96 (2015) 179-200
Commentators on 1 Samuel 8 offer a variety of interpretations about what the requested king is expected to replace: judgeship, YHWH himself, or Israel's covenant identity. This article demonstrates that none of these proposals account for the Biblical text adequately. It is proposed instead that the king is intended to replace the Ark of the Covenant. The king will then manipulate YHWH into leading in battle. This is what ancient Near Eastern kings were able to do with their gods, and what the ark failed to do in 1 Samuel 4.
02_Walton_179_200_179_200 10/07/15 11:58 Pagina 194
194 JONATHAN H. WALTON 194
they do not want YHWH to stay home. They want YHWH to come
with them to fight their wars. The king is not a replacement for the
judge, or judgeship, or deity. The king is a replacement for the ark.
VII. The Role of the Ark
Broadly, two explanations are offered for the loss of the ark in
1 Samuel 4. The first is that it is taken away as punishment for
covenant negligence, especially on the part of the Elides 67. The
second is that it is lost as a consequence of its misuse. While these
are not mutually exclusive, the second interpretation is more im-
portant for our purposes since it allows us to take into account the
motives of the elders. In partial defense of this preference, we will
note that the text does not indicate that YHWH enticed the elders to
send for the ark so that it would be lost in battle; cf. 1 Kgs 22,20;
2 Sam 24,1; Exod 7,3. This is at least circumstantial evidence for a
more immediate cause.
If the king is indeed a replacement for the ark, we can examine
the account in ch. 4 to determine how the Israelites expect it to
function, and in what way that expectation provoked YHWH to aban-
don them. Even as early as von Rad 68, the ark was interpreted to
represent a battle palladium, an artifact that signifies the presence
of deity accompanying the army 69. This conception in itself is not
theologically problematic; the ark is used this way in Joshua 6 with
no negative consequences. However, the elders do not want it to
serve merely as a symbol, but as a tether to drag YHWH into battle:
“Israel believed that the ark’s presence guaranteed victory […]. V.
3 presumes that the ark will save the people because of the pre-
sumed control this brings over Yahweh, compelling his action” 70.
67
So P.D. MILLER – J.J.M. ROBERTS, The Hand of the Lord (Baltimore,
MD 1977) 33, 70; see also ESLINGER, Kingship, 166-173; MCCARTER, Samuel,
109; KLEIN, Samuel, 39; BALDWIN, Samuel, 69-70.
68
G. VON RAD, “The Tent and the Ark” (1931), The Problem of the Hexa-
teuch and Other Essays (London 1984) 103-124.
69
For example, TSUMURA, Samuel, 191: “The conception of the ark as a
visible sign of Yahweh’s presence gave a military importance to the ark. […]
It functioned as a battle palladium for the armies of Israel; it showed that the
Lord was present and fighting for Israel”. See also MCCARTER, Samuel, 109.
70
FIRTH, Samuel, 85.
FOLLOW US