God’s First King. Shaul Bar

was not accidental. It was east of Jericho and close to the Jordan crossing; thus it was convenient to the tribes from west and east to meet and strengthen the king’s rule. There is also a possibility that this location was chosen because of a pre-existing altar that symbolized the connection between the tribes of the Trans-Jordan and the tribes of the west (Joshua 23). The place was called Gelilot (Josh 18:17) and an altar was built there, therefore it is probably Gilgal. In contrast to the past two ceremonies, here at Gilgal, we are told that Saul and all the men of Israel celebrated exuberantly.75 Klein balanced the statement of celebration with critical comments about kingship from the book of Hosea: “They have made kings, but not by my sanction,” (8:4), and “All their misfortune [began] at Gilgal, for there I disowned them” (9:15).76 This is not surprising, since the text echoes Samuel’s prior rejection of kingship. The arrival of kingship would signal a decline of prophetic power.

      Following the victory against the Ammonites and before the celebrations at Gilgal we read that the people of Israel had already accepted Saul. Evidently, his victory removed any doubt about his leadership abilities. Thus, when the people of Israel asked Samuel, “Who was it who said, ‘Saul shall not reign over us?’” (11:12). They turned to Samuel who was still perceived as a judge, and demanded these people be put to death. But Saul interfered and declared that no one should be slain. Here Saul appropriated the authority to judge from Samuel, after this episode, Samuel’s decline began. By taking the authority to judge, Saul became like the other kings of the ancient Near East who judged their people.

The proclamation of Saul’s kingship was done by all the people. Interestingly Samuel’s name is not mentioned as taking part in the celebration. The people sacrificed peace offerings, part offered to God while the rest was eaten by the worshipers. Despite the absence of the covenant terminology in v. 15, the ceremony focused on the ratification of a covenant between the king and the people before Yahweh.77 There is some evidence for the use of sacrificial rites in connection with the proclamation of kingship (1 Kgs 1:19). This was the second public coronation of Saul. As pointed out there were people who did not accept Saul’s kingship. Thus, the coronation in Gilgal came to strengthen his claim as undisputed king of Israel, and to incorporate the tribes from the Trans-Jordan into his new monarchy.

      In conclusion, Saul was anointed privately and secretly at Ramah as nāgîd, which means a person chosen by God for kingship. He was designated by God to deal with the threat that the Israelites were facing. This was the first stage where God selected a young man for promotion. The second time, at Mizpah, Saul was designated as king following the casting of lots, which indicates divine selection. This was done in the presence of the tribes and their representatives. According to the biblical account, there was dissatisfaction by some of the people with Saul’s kingship (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12). Thus, following the victory against the Ammonites, a third ceremony took place where Saul was declared king. This third ceremony had one purpose: to strengthen Saul’s rule by incorporating the Israelite tribes from the Trans-Jordan. It signified his undisputed authority as king over Israel and over the Israelite tribes in Trans-Jordan. The main reason for the election of Saul was the Philistine threat. The temporary leadership that existed since the period of the judges could not deal effectively with the Philistine threat, or with the Ammonites who oppressed the Israelites in Trans-Jordan. Evidently, there were other reasons that required a change, a moral decline as well as social and economic development in Israelite society. The increased population and expanded agrarian productivity were catalysts in transforming the Israelite social structure. The old system could not respond to the emerging new reality; only a new monarchial system that offered young people new opportunities could respond. In two major speeches “the rights of the king” (1 Sam 8:1–22) and his farewell speech to the people of Israel (1 Samuel 12), Samuel rejected the idea of kingship. This is because he tried to establish his own prophetic dynasty, and human kingship meant decline of his power and status, and posed a threat to his authority. Samuel’s speeches projects future battles over power and authority between the prophets and the kings of Israel.

1. Josephus mentions a tradition that has one son in Bethel and the other in Beer-sheba (Josephus, Ant. 6.32).

2. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 71.

3. Ne’eman, “לואש תכלמה,” 97.

4. R. P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 109.

5. The verb špṭ can mean either “to govern” or “to judge.” For a detail discussion of the word špţ in West Semitic languages, see Ishida, History and Historical, 41–44.

6. Ackroyd, First Book of Samuel, 73.

7. Faust, “Settlement Patterns,” 14–38.

8. Greenspahn, “Egyptian Parallel,” 129–30.

9. Peden, Egyptian Historical, 213.

10. Ibid.

11. Frick, Formation of State, 26, 66, 138, 191–204.

12. Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, 655–58.

13. Finkelstein, “Emergence . . . Socio-Political Aspects,” 21; Finkelstein, “Emergence . . . Socio-Economic Aspects,” 59.

14. Stager, “Archaeology,” 25–27.

15. McKenzie, King David, 22.

16. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 255–56; Wellhausen, Israelitische, 51, 197, 280; Wellhausen, Die Composition, 240.

17. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 184.

18. Kaufmann, Toledot ha-’emunah, 371–73 (Hebrew).

19. In contrast according to Garsiel, the rejection of the monarchy originated from the opposition to change in the existing rules reflected in 1 Sam 8:7–8; 8:11–18, “the law of the king,” and in 1 Sam 10:17–19; 12. He believes that “the law of the king” was written during or after Solomon’s reign. See Garsiel, “Dispute,” 325–27.

20. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom, 151–59.

21. Tsevat, “Emergence,” 67.

22.