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 196
196 JONATHAN H. WALTON 196
VIII. Divine Manipulation
One of the primary functions of an ancient Near Eastern king
was to ensure the continued favor and attention of the gods 76. In
theory, as in Israel, this was accomplished by piety, ritual diligence,
and maintenance of order and justice, but in practice the process
was more subversive. As Greenwood notes, “Although the king
proclaimed and portrayed a humble, unconditional piety, the reality
was that service to the gods served a practical purpose. It provided
a hope that the deities would, in turn, take care of the kings, whether
in battle, in legacy, or in provisions” 77. This is because, in ancient
Near Eastern religion, humans were supposed to provide for the
needs of the gods. “The literature from throughout the ancient Near
East clearly addresses the fact that the gods have needs that are met
by human beings. […] rituals and other cultic activities were de-
signed to address those needs. The king and the priests each had
duties in the process” 78. The neediness of the gods and their de-
pendence (at least partially) on the services of the king — offering
sacrifices, building and repairing temples, maintaining civic order
so that ritual activity could proceed efficiently, etc. — gave the king
some leverage with which to “negotiate” for the favor of the gods.
There are two issues involved here, both theologically problematic
for orthodox Israel: the first is initiative, the second is dependence.
As noted above, the elders of Israel take the initiative in hauling
the ark to battle, rather than first inquiring of God. They do not
want YHWH to decide when (or if, or against whom) wars will be
fought; they want to decide this for themselves. A “king like the
nations” is able to take this initiative; as long as he has been suitably
attentive to his duties, the gods will fall in behind him:
I approached Ishtar the most high, I placed myself before her […].
I am Asurbanipal, king of Assyria […]. I am the one who visits reg-
ularly your dwellings, I come to worship you and take care of your
rituals. […] you are the most warlike among the gods! Scatter [the
king of Elam] like a load in the tumult of battle; raise against him a
destructive wind and storm! Ishtar heard my desperate sighs. […]
76
WALTON, Thought, 281-83.
77
GREENWOOD, Aššur, 86.
78
WALTON, Thought, 136.