The Burning of Ziklag and David’s Pursuit of the Amalekites   Leave a comment

Above:  Ziklag

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING 1-2 SAMUEL, 1 KINGS, 2 KINGS 1-21, 1 CHRONICLES, AND 2 CHRONICLES 1-33

PART XXVI

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 Samuel 30:1-11

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Have mercy on me, O God,

for my enemies are hounding me;

all day long they assault and oppress me.

–Psalm 56:1, The Book of Common Prayer (1979)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Consistent chronology is not the organizing principle of 1 Samuel.  Chronologically, the correct order at the end of the book is:

  1. 27:1-28:2
  2. 29:1-11
  3. 30:1-11
  4. 28:3-25
  5. 31:1-13

King Achish of Gath had granted Ziklag to David in 1 Samuel 27:5-7.

David, recently liberated from being a vassal of the Philistine king, returned to Ziklag, his base of operations.  David found Ziklag burned, and the women, sons, and daughters gone.  Amalekites had raided the town and taken captives.  David, facing a revolt by his armed men, sought strength in God.  God answered.  David and most of his forces attacked and defeated the Amalekites, rescued all the captives, and took booty–stolen livestock.  Those troops no longer wanted to rebel against David.  The other troops, guarding supplies at Wadi Beson, also received a share of the booty, spoils of war. They were also on David’s side, of course.

This story supports the legitimacy of David’s claim to kingship.  The narrative depicts his legislating as a king did.

1 Samuel 30:6b-8, in which David consulted God and God replied, contrasts with 28:6, in which King Saul consulted God and God did not answer.  Again this passage supports the legitimacy of David’s kingship.

The following may seem heterodox; so be it.  Saul, according to my reading of the germane Biblical texts, comes across as being better than most of his successors.  In some ways, I prefer Saul to David.  I read of David’s excesses and errors, as well as of Saul’s excesses and errors.  David causes me to cringe morally more than Saul does.  The relevant texts depict Saul as a flawed man who was in over his head and was frequently tentative when he needed to be decisive.  I suspect that Saul may also have had psychiatric problems.  The germane texts emphasize David, I know.  The reputation of Saul, therefore, suffers because of that agenda.

I set off on this tangent because I noticed that both Saul and David consulted God at about the same time, but that God answered only David.  My parents taught me that God answers prayers, sometimes with “no.”  Yet, in 1 Samuel 28:6, Saul got the divine cold shoulder–not even an active “no.”

I do not know what to make of that.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

AUGUST 23, 2020 COMMON ERA

PROPER 16:  THE TWELFTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST, YEAR A

THE FEAST OF SAINTS MARTIN DE PORRES AND JUAN MACIAS, HUMANITARIANS AND DOMINICAN LAY BROTHERS; SAINT ROSE OF LIMA, HUMANITARIAN AND DOMINICAN SISTER; AND SAINT TURIBIUS OF MOGROVEJO, ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LIMA

THE FEAST OF THEODORE O. WEDEL, EPISCOPAL PRIEST AND BIBLICAL SCHOLAR; AND CYNTHIA CLARK WEDEL, U.S. PSYCHOLOGIST AND EPISCOPAL ECUMENIST

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: