Israelite Demand for A King | The Book of Samuel

BSU ((BlogSpot University)) Profile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Title: The Israelite Demand for A King: a Biblical Excursion
Author: HG Furaha///BlogSpot University online-editor-in-chief
Timescape: 2008
Type: Class Assignment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
feel free to use the information by HG Furaha in the way that best suits your scholastic needs. Citing any part of this page is free. Basically, put the words you are citing in quotes ("...") then, in brackets, indicate that you are quoting H.G. Furaha (n.d.)

________________________________________

There came a time in the life of Israel as a nation that its people demanded a human king. Israel had been living as a loose confederacy of tribes for very long and was, in the words of Manya (2008), “going round in a cycle of: sin>>punishment>>repentance>>blessing>>complacency, then back to sin again.” The period of the judges spans one hundred and fifty years, which are enclosed within another 400 years characterized by general apostasy. The people repeatedly turned from the LORD to other gods, and displayed the lack of a sound knowledge of God. Conversely – as depicted by the cycle – God in His love and grace always sent His people a deliverer in the form of a judge.
This time, when Israel transitioned from the leadership of the judges to a monarchic form of government, was a time of great change for Israel. Israel’s delicate internal balances of culture, government, ethos, and almost all other aspects of its societal existence were profoundly touched by this transition into a monarchy. The discussion that follows is based on chapter 8 of the book of Samuel, and is concerned with Israel’s quest for a king, and the implications thereof:
Samuel, the last judge of Israel, was both a religious and political leader. He was Israel’s prophet, priest and judge. As a prophet, he served as one who received divine utterance and communicated God’s will to the people – he is also referred to as a “seer” on numerous occasions throughout this book (1 Samuel). As priest, he wore the ephod of priesthood and conducted all religious practices and the Levitical rituals demanded of a priest by the Mosaic Law. As judge, he was Israel’s chief (and often final) decision maker: he solved cases, settled disputes as an arbitrator and offered advice to any who consulted him. Moreover, he was a deliverer – used by God to redeem Israel from the oppression of the surrounding nations (e.g. 1 Sam 7 speaks about his dealing with the Philistines). The Bible depicts him as a righteous individual, a man in a two-way relationship with God, and as Israel's deliverer from the clutches of sin and the apostasy that bound them tightly during the period of the judges. In what Hill and Walton (1991) call “The Shiloh Traditions (1 Sam 1:1 to 4:1a)” Samuel’s background is explained: his miraculous birth, arrival at the temple, radical calling and, finally, the start of his functioning as prophet, priest and judge of Israel after the demise of Eli and his family. (As briefly noted above, The Shiloh Traditions refer to 1 Samuel 1:1 to 4:1a were Samuel’s background is elaborately explained. They are thought to be obtained from oral narratives traditionally accepted by the Jewish people to be the story of Samuel’s birth and his life before taking position as Israel’s leader. The name Shiloh comes from the city in which the temple and the Ark of the Covenant resided.)
Israel at this time was in a tumultuous condition in which each tribe lived on its own accord with little or no regards of the other tribes. It was a loose confederacy of ethnic outfit. Samuel became a thread that wove through all of Israel in spite of the ethnic precincts and boundaries. Despite the fact that Israel was internally divided it can easily be seen that God, Samuel, and even outsiders considered it one nation. This can be judged from the following observations: when the Midianites (during Gideon’s times) or the Philistines (during Samson’s time) attacked the Israelites, they attacked them holistically – as one nation! Moreover, when God spoke, particularly through Samuel, he spoke to the whole of Israel – as one nation! The period of the judges ends dramatically. It closes with the Ark of the Covenant being captured by the Philistines. This capturing made Israel, and its God, objects of contempt and mockery. Researches on biblical anthropology and history explain that the nations of Ancient West Asia states regarded military victory as one nation’s deity conquering over another’s. This meant that the capturing of The Ark made Israel items of “scorn and ridicule”1 – the Philistines regarded it as capturing Israel’s God. The Israelites became items of divine abandonment, and were left in the webs of a “self-imposed exile of the Lord.”1 It is at these troubling times that Samuel emerges as a radical transitional figure and presides over Israel’s move into a monarchic form of statehood.

The Israelite’s demand a king: The events surrounding Israel’s demand for an earthly king are elaborately discussed in the section that follows:

As seen in the paragraphs above, Israel was in a chaotic state but God used Samuel to restore its dignity and stability. The Bible also states that as Samuel neared the end of his time as Israel’s leader there was a “great peace” in the nation, that even their fiercest enemies – the Philistines – “did not disturb them” (1 Sam 8). Now, Samuel grew old and returned to Armathaim (some versions: Ramah), his hometown, then, as the Bible records, “he placed his sons as judges over Israel” (1 Sam 8:13). Nonetheless, the Bible also mentions that Samuel judged Israel “all the days of his life” (1 Sam 8:15); this implies that although his sons were the “judges” of Israel they were merely ceremonial leaders, and quite unauthorized in that Israel still regarded Samuel as their real leader. This is also witnessed in the fact that the Israelites, when they asked for a king, did not consult his sons but went directly into the countryside of Armathaim to lie out their complaints before him. His sons were considered nominal leaders. The Israelites felt that there was no one appropriate to serve as prophet, priest and judge in Samuel’s place.

In verse 5 of 1 Samuel 8, the Bible states three reasons that the Israelites had for demanding a king, derived from what they themselves said in their petitions for a king. The next paragraphs deal with the reasons explicitly stated by the Bible for Israel’s demand of a king:

Samuel had grown old: the Israelite’s mention this to him in their demand for a king (verse 5). The great leader of Israel had started to wear out physically due to his advancing age. Actually, he had even returned to his hometown. This act of Samuel withdrawing to his hometown despite his dynamic roles (of prophet, priest and judge) carries the symbolic meaning that he had become very old and frail. It was customary for people in OT times to return to their hometowns when they thought that they were nearing death so that they would be “buried with their fathers.” It is also good to note that, in those times, old age was associated with wisdom, experience and, hence, good leadership. Therefore, Samuel’s retirement of the judgeship shows us that he was not simply elderly, but very aged – too old to retain his dynamic positions. This meant that he could not be as mobile as before, capable of serving the whole of Israel. Additionally, the Israelite’s discerned that no one was proficient enough to take over Samuel’s position as Israel’s sole administrator. However, or so they thought, a king with people working under him (as subordinates) would be a fuller national administrator after Samuel.
His sons were corrupt and vile leaders: the Israelites also complained to Samuel that his sons “did not follow his example.” They complained that his sons were despicable leaders – devoid of holiness and wisdom. Samuel had set them as judges over Israel, but, as verse 3 records, they were “seduced by the love of money, took bribes, and gave biased verdicts.” The people had expected that, as Samuel’s seed, they would be people of integrity, wisdom, and godliness. They probably even expected that they would raise the bar of stability and dignity that Israel found with Samuel. Israel’s elders were hurt by their evil actions, and at once ran to Samuel – whom they still regarded the “real judge” – and poured out their complaints to him. Joel and Abijah’s actions shattered all hope among the Israelites for a judge after Samuel. (Joel and Abijah are Samuel’s sons).
They desired a king “like the other nations”: the fact that all the surrounding Syro-Palestinian nations had kings who led and judged them, made the Israelite’s desirous of a king; thinking that it would further their stability and prosperity. They were attracted to the monarchic form of government – maybe just because they wanted to try something new, or because they wanted a human being, tangible and seeable, leading them – but mainly, we fathom, because of Samuel’s increasing age and the uncertainty therein that no one could take his position. They were driven by the uncertainty-avoidance characteristic of most Near Eastern cultures towards desiring something that would provide them added assurance that their internal balances would continue being in control. (It should be noted that we are not justifying Israel’s position but rather analyzing, through inferences, the most probable causes of its desire for the shift into a monarchic government.) Probably, they also were seeking a man who they, as a nation, could draw identity from. This shows the weakness of their spiritual state, because, originally they were to find their identity in God, and not elsewhere.

Apart from the three reasons that the Bible explicitly states there is a horde of other implied reasons as can be judged through a historical analysis of the times in which these events occurred. This section deals with the implicit reasons for Israel’s transition to a monarchy:

Syro-Palestinian political rivalry: the political unrest caused particularly by Israel’s enmity with the Philistines and to a small extent the other Syro-Palestinian nations (i.e. the Ancient Western Asiatic states) called for the merging of Israel’s tribes so as to form a greater alliance than the one they, at that time, had. These rivalries placed Israel in a position where they had to join and form a unified front in case of any external attacks or political interferences. The best option Israel had was to solidify their intertribal relationships by uniting under the leadership of a monarch. Hill and Walton (1991) assert, “Threats to Israel posed especially by the Philistines necessitated a greater amount of cooperation among the tribes than was the case previously, and these are directly responsible for the decision to switch to a monarchic form of government.” The picture of one Israel under one king became to them a hope and a symbol of larger national power. To them, it meant greater stability and security – it increased their chances of political constancy and national security. Due to the reasons elaborated above, they opted for a monarchic form of government rather than continuing as a slack coalition of ethnic outfit, which is relatively prone to defeat by their political rivals.
Difficulty in acquiring one to replace Samuel: the Israelites deemed it almost impossible to find a man to function as Israel's political and religious leader after Samuel’s regime. It was difficult to find one to serve as a judge with the same genuineness and administrative prowess of Samuel. Samuel’s wisdom, integrity, age, and leadership skills – together with his firm relationship with God – made him a strong figure in Israel’s political, social, and religious leadership. He assumed multiple vibrant roles as the prophet, priest, and judge of Israel. His leadership was divinely inspired for he was led by God’s Holy Spirit. These qualities won him reverence and great influence over Israel and even over other nations (as evidenced by chapter 7:13-15a). Now, the Israelites knew that there were only few, if any, people capable of serving in the capacity and qualities of Samuel. Thus, they opted for a relatively secular leadership – where governmental/administrative functions are separated from priestly/prophetic functions – and so they demanded a monarch.

This section will identify and elaborate the implications of this action of the Israelites demanding a human king:

A willful rejection of the Lord’s rule over them: When the Israelite’s went to Samuel and complained to him that they were tired of the situation they were in, and that they demanded a human king to sit on the throne and “judge” them it implied that they had deliberately rejected the leadership of the Lord. This is vividly seen in the startling statement God makes to Samuel in chapter 8:7 “It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.” Up to this point in history, the Israelites had always accepted God’s divine rule over them through a man in the form of a prophet, a priest, and/or a judge who received messages from God and reproduced them to the people – one who represented the nation before God. God made his will known through men like Moses, Joshua, the judges and Samuel himself, and the Israelites followed whatever their leader presented to them. God was king, and the earthly leaders were merely representatives who carried out his will. Now the Israelites were rejecting this system of divine leadership. The theocratic system of ruling was abandoned for a human regime of leadership, and though this human king was also to serve as a representative of the Divine King – Saul failed to do so.
A heavy influence of the surrounding nations on Israelite thinking and social order: One of the reasons the Israelites themselves gave for demanding an earthly king was that they should have a human king “like the other nations.” All of the other Western-Asiatic nations had kings who ruled over them – the Philistines, the Moabites, the Edomites, and all other surrounding nations that were Israel’s regional rivals had kings as their presiding administrators. This demand for a king “like the other nations” sheds light on the influence these nations had on Israel’s social order. From it, we can judge Israel’s social behavior. It implies that Israel would easily borrow many practices from the neighboring nations – these practices range from farming techniques, to morals, worldviews and even to religious systems (proven by the fact that Israel easily fell into idolatry and apostasy many times during the period of the judges). Israel followed the manners of the other nations. They separated themselves from God’s separation. God intended Israel to be a model nation and separated them by telling them “you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation a people set apart for God.” Nonetheless, Israel fell short of this blessedness and separation of the Lord. They were influenced behaviorally, culturally, and socially by their neighbor nations. It was a time of tremendous externally inspired cultural shifts. Israel had been in exile for many years, they had adopted many ways foreign to them. As a nation, and a culture, Israel was generally insecure; and despite Samuel’s achievements in restoring stability and security, they still were prone to various foreign influences.
A general deterioration of their relationship with God: it implied that Israel’s spiritual relationship with God had weakened and degenerated. Israel’s demand of a king was, among many other reasons, a quest to find a man they could draw identity from. From this, we observe that their relationship with God had weakened because, according to God’s purpose, they drew identity from him. Originally, it was a relationship whereby man was in the image of God. One where: we are what we are because God is what he is. This can be seen in Genesis 1 (where he says, “let us make man in our own image”) and in Leviticus where he says, “Ye shall be holy, because I am holy.” This shows God’s original plan of relationship with human beings. “Ye shall be…because I am…” We are because He is – we draw our identity from him! The model nation Israel had deviated from this plan.

From verse 10 of chapter 8, Samuel proclaims to the Israelites the many things that the king they have demanded would do to them and to their children. He prophetically speaks into Israel’s future as a nation – he mentions the various oppressions that the Israelites would suffer, and that the monarch’s regime will be harsh and exploitative. Despite his warnings, the Israelites kept on with their demand for a king.
The unenviable condition that Saul left Israel in after his leadership is merely a confirmation of Samuel’s prophecy. When Saul became Israel’s first king, he was their hope. Israelites found in him an assurance of greater political stability, economic prosperity, and social welfare – only to find that his was a temporary hope. “Saul had the potential to succeed, but he did not develop into a man who knew God. His naïveté becomes clear as the text recounts his failures. ”1 By willfully rejecting God, the Israelites had thrown themselves into a pit of troubles while thinking they were solving their problems. They acted in a manner suggested by the Swahili adage “kuruka majivu, kukanyaga moto” – translated it reads “jumping ashes only to fall into fire.” In their attempts to escape its problems and establish security, the Israelites fell into bigger problems – the threat posed by the Philistines increased, the economic condition worsened, and the people were pulled farther and farther from God. This is along the lines of Dr. Martin Luther King’s words (1963) “…the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.” In their endeavor to escape oppression from outsiders, they faced internal exploitation from Saul’s tyrannical regime and constant opposition from the neighboring nations.

Meaning is Internal and Individual

BSU ((BlogSpot University)) Profile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Title: The Main Aspects of Style in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart
Author: HG Furaha///BlogSpot University online-editor-in-chief
Timescape: 2008
Type: Class Assignment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
feel free to use the information by HG Furaha in the way that best suits your scholastic needs. Citing any part of this page is free. Basically, put the words you are citing in quotes ("...") then, in brackets, indicate that you are quoting H.G. Furaha (n.d.)

INTRODUCTION:
Communication is the process of understanding and sharing meaning between two or more people. It is a process of passing ideas and feeling to other people. It is a way of expressing feelings and thoughts. It also is a way of making one’s ideas, feelings and thoughts known to others.
There are several types of communication:
Intrapersonal communication
Small group communication
Public communication
Mass communication
Dyadic communication

MEANING IS INTERNAL AND INDIVIDUAL:
Meaning is internal and individual: this statement shows that meaning is always personal and unique to every individual. Although similar meaning can be held by different people, but precise meaning is always personal. When a communicator passes a signal, he has, in himself, a meaning that he has intended to convey to his receivers, but each of the receiving individuals will understand him in one’s own unique way.
When an individual communicates, he uses signals. These signals could be words (written or oral), gestures, pictures, touch, or visual objects. These signals are received through the receiver’s five senses: hearing, sight, touch, taste, and smell. From these senses, meaning is developed. When the meaning developed is similar to the meaning intended by the communicator, we have achieved, at most, a measure of communication. (Note: the key word here is “similar” because the shared meaning cannot be the same). However, at many times there seems to be no communication because the audience may not truly understand the intended meaning.
The developed meaning is determined by two factors: First is the different ways in which we use the signals according to our culture (i.e. every culture has a set of symbols to which meaning is assigned. Though different cultures may employ the same symbol, the meaning could be different in the cultures.) Secondly is the interpretation of those signals, the same signal will be interpreted in different ways because we have different needs and environments. In addition, though we might think that we are talking of the same thing, we could actually be referring to different things.

Factors that influence the development of meaning:
a) SIGNALS
These are objects or ideas that are used for passing information to the audience. They are the medium through which communication is achieved. Some of these communication signals include words, body motions (gestures/movements), food, pictures, touch and anything else that conveys information. (They are sometimes referred to as symbols.)

b) REFERENT
This is the idea that is held in a communicator’s mind – it is the intended meaning. The same idea may as well have different meaning in another communicator’s mind. Example of a referent is the word “table.” (To one, table could mean the surface on which we sit to eat, while to another it denotes geographical phenomena e.g. Table Mountains).

c) EXPERIENCES
From the perspective of communication, experience may refer to past interpretations of a certain signal, either bad or good in respect to the receiver’s interpretation. This experience is used for interpreting signals in use, to estimate intended meaning.
d) NEEDS
Needs are those things essential to us as humans e.g. food. They are things we require, and consider indispensable for our existence. They also affect the interpretation of symbols. For example, a hungry person will have a different response to a description of “a feast” from a person who has digestive problems. The man and woman who are getting married in a month will listen more closely to advice on how to have a happy family than he will a non-adolescent boy who is not even interested in girls (yet).

e) ENVIRONMENT
This in communication refers to the surrounding in which communication takes place. It also shapes interpretation of signals e.g. an Eskimo living in Northern Canada and a woman of South India protecting her baby against a draft in her home will have different interpretations of the idea of cold. The context within which the signal is used has a large influence on the meaning that will be given to it. This is of course a basic principle of literary interpretation and understanding the Bible.

A characteristic common in all these factors is that they affect the communicator, or the receiver, internally. Even when outside stimuli exist (as in the case of needs and environment), the impact is felt within the person. And from these one contrives meaning – showing that meaning is internal. In addition, they are not societal or shared entities. They happen to individuals. Their impact is felt internally at a personal level – one develops meaning, influenced by these factors, personally – showing that meaning is individual.
THE MENTAL MODEL
This is like an interpreter, taking signals and translating them – giving them significance. For the receiver, significance is given to the signals so that they can make sense. One does so making use of the model that seems most appropriate at the moment. One thing to be noted is that, the receiver’s model may be similar to the sender’s mental model or very different. Example of a mental model: A story of one Canadian’s experience in Tokyo illustrates how an incorrect mental model leads to erroneous interpretation. Unable to find a certain place, the Canadian went to a Japanese police officer and asked, in excellent Japanese how to find the place. The police officer replied in Japanese, “I do not speak English.” Then my friend responded, “If you listen carefully you will hear that I am speaking Japanese.” Without repeating the request for the direction, the Canadian waited. Suddenly a smile came to the Japanese police officer’s face. “Oh! Yes! I can tell you how to get there” and he gave him full direction to the place.
The police officer saw a white man – his face, size, and style of clothes – and thus recalled experiences with visitors who could not speak Japanese. His mental model left him unprepared to hear anything but English and prompted his almost automatic reply that he could not speak English. With more information, a different model was called up; the police officer heard the request and was able to answer without the words being repeated.
A conscious thought arises from one’s mental model, leading to an outward response, conveyed by a signal of some type. Using this outward response we are able to determine how close the meaning is to what we originally intended to develop in our audience. Human communication does not work like a copy and paste machine. Every body must understand on its own. Therefore, for good communication we should make sure the meaning of the audience is a close approximate to the original meaning. Meaning exists in peoples minds, when a signal is recorded; it seems a different thing because I interpret the record according to my experience, needs, and environment. The meaning developed internally will be as different from the original intended meaning as my experience, needs, and environment are different from the communicator. For a communicator to develop meaning that is approximately similar to its audience they should carefully learn: The original context, the receiver’s context, the concentration on transferring sufficient information (full information).t

INFORMATION
The term information is used in communication to have a meaning roughly equivalent to facts. Information is measured in BITs: Binary Information uniTs. A BIT is the basic unit for measuring the quantity of information. BITs are used to transfer information. It is the BITs of information transferred to the receiver’s mind that enables him to develop meaning.

People living in different cultures however, have fewer shared experience than do those living in the same culture. Therefore, the development of similar meaning becomes more difficult for the people in different cultures. Difficulty in inter-cultural communication is further increased by differing interpretations because of different mental models. The challenge of inter-cultural communication is to overcome these two major barriers to understanding – different experiences and different interpretations. For example, George Bernard Shaw once described England and America as “two countries separated by the same language.” When an American visits England, he believes he shares the same language, values, and culture of the British. After only a few hours, however, he realizes to his disappointment that the words he uses convey a completely different set of meaning to the British from the one he intended. For example, he goes into a coffee house and orders biscuits. After some minutes of waiting, he is surprised when the waitron brings him cookies. His use of some words common to everyday American speech shocks his hosts, who consider those words crude. The meaning assigned to gestures as well as words is different in York from what it is in New York.

For communication to be effective, we should concentrate on three key points, which include:
1. Understanding the models held in the peoples mind, different groups as well as different individuals would have different mental models. The general (shared) model of people must be learned first and then through dialogue, the specific models of the individual with whom we are communicating.
2. Understand how information is transferred in a specific culture and situations where we seek to minister.
3. Transfer sufficient information – give the full illustration so that the receiver can reconstruct a meaning closely approximating that which we intended.

BIBLICAL VIEW OF MEANING IS INTERNAL AND INDIVIDUAL
Read 1Corinthians 2:9-14: The difficulties addressed in these verses are those that develop when we try to pass on what we understand. We must always be alert to the danger of substituting our still-growing perception for the absolute meaning in the scripture. We are obliged to test constantly that which we seek to communicate of God’s truth using his own revelation of that truth in scripture. In another place, God’s word says, “to the pure, everything is pure.” Explaining that the attitudes and worldviews we use to counter the world determine how everything will be to us. If our attitudes are “pure” then we will view life in a “pure” light. Additionally, the verse goes on to elaborate how one’s perception of things affects his understanding of those things, and, ultimately, his way of living. This shows us that every individual is unique in his approach to everything, and, depending on his attitudes, his worldview, the cultural meanings assigned to certain symbols, his needs and the other above-mentioned factors, meaning will differ from individual to individual.
Furthermore, in our studying of God’s truth, we must not only study content – for we might assign meanings erroneously – but also context – striving to understand how these words must have sounded to their original receivers. It is proper that we seek a meaning closely approximate to that of the communicator and not rush into concluding meanings for passages we might not even fully understand. Moreover, we must be aware of the meaning and possible meanings attached by the listeners to the information we share.
God is absolute meaning. When asked to reveal his essence, he described himself as “I AM who I AM” appealing to nothing or anything else to explain himself. Jesus said, “I am the truth” because he is God – the totality of truth lies on him. He is the substance and essence of truth itself. He is the meaning of truth.

CONCLUSION
Although communication is the development of shared meaning, meaning is internal and individual. In human communication, we cannot just copy-paste the intended meaning from the communicator to the receiver: from teacher to students, from employer to employees or from preacher to the congregation. The meaning received is not a Xerox of the meaning given. Every one develops his own meaning from the information given by the speaker depending on one’s needs, environment, culture, and experiences. A simple experiment could be done if one is to prove that communication is internal and individual: ask a group of about fifteen to twenty five people to sit in a circle. The experiment starts by one whispering into the ear of the one next to him/her a random word(s) without repeating. Generally, you find that the last person in the circle will have a word (or phrase) completely different to the original word whispered by the first participant. As the word went circulating around the group, every receiver interpreted it to mean something in his/her own way. This shows us the obligation we have, if we are to be excellent communicators, to provide information with clarity and precision, as much as we can. As communicators, we should leave no room for ambiguity and at all times give information with as much exactitude and clearness as we can for the receivers to develop a meaning that is a close approximate to the one we originally intended.