The Philistines were descendants of the Sea Peoples.
Interpretations of the Sea Peoples have changed in recent decades. The older version of them was that, starting in the fourteenth century B.C.E., the Sea Peoples moved from Greece to Asia Minor then to the eastern Mediterranean region. They destroyed the Hittite Empire (in Asia Minor). The Sea Peoples attacked Egypt during the twelfth century B.C.E., but the Egyptian forces defeated them. Afterward, the Sea Peoples settled on the coast of Canaan, assimilated with the local population, and became the Philistines.
The Sea Peoples’ defeat at Egyptian hands is a matter of the historical record.
However, the former historical consensus regarding the Sea Peoples may have been wrong. The Bronze Age Collapse (circa 1177 B.C.E.) affected the Mediterranean region. The powers were interdependent. Then a combination of climate change and natural disasters, followed by social and economic collapse, may have driven a diverse group of refugees from one land to another, then to another. Some of the ancient empires may have collapsed from within, not due to the Sea Peoples. Nevertheless, the Sea Peoples may still have proven disruptive. Certainly, they were not welcome.
The Philistines were one of the oldest enemies of the Hebrews. The Philistines oppressed the tribes of Israel for an undefined period of time (Judges 3:31) and again for about 40 years (Judges 13-16). Hostilities between the Philistines and the Israelites continued into the twilight of the age of the judges and into the time of the Israelite monarchy (1 Samuel 4-31; 2 Samuel 1-5, 8). In fact, the Philistine military threat was the main justification for creating the Israelite monarchy.
I have already read prophetic oracles against Philistia during this project of reading the Hebrew prophetic books, roughly in historical order. I have read the oracles in Amos 1:6-8 and Isaiah 14:28-32.
The oracle in Ezekiel 25:15-17 awaits my attention, in due time.
Jeremiah 47:1 establishes a temporal setting for the oracle against Philistia:
before Pharaoh attacked Gaza.
—The New American Bible–Revised Edition (2011)
Pharaoh Neco II (r. 610-595 B.C.E.) attacked Gaza in 609 B.C.E.
The Septuagint copy of the Book of Jeremiah lacks 47:1. The rest of the germane text of Chapter 47 refers to the Chaldean/Neo-Babylonian conquest of Philistia circa 604 B.C.E., followed by mass deportations. The juxtaposition of these facts indicates editing subsequent to the time of Jeremiah the prophet.
Jeremiah 47 depicts God as destroying Philistia. The prophet pleads:
Ah! Sword of the LORD!
When will you find rest?
Return to your scabbard;
stop, be still!
–Verse 6, The New American Bible–Revised Edition (2011)
The answer in verse 7 is that the sword of the LORD cannot rest until God commands it to do so.
Walter Brueggemann writes:
Yahweh is not dominated by any of our conventionalities, but acts in sheer freedom, owing no one anything. Listeners to this poem are invited to face this undomesticated God who may violate our sensitivities, this God who maybe the only hope for the Philistines as for Israel.
—A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (1998), 441-442
God refuses to fit into human categories and metaphorical theological boxes. God does not issue trigger warnings. God remains undomesticated, despite human discomfort. So be it. If we object, we have the problem; God does not.
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
JUNE 14, 2021 COMMON ERA
THE FEAST OF SAINT METHODIUS I OF CONSTANTINOPLE, DEFENDER OF ICONS AND ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE; AND SAINT JOSEPH THE HYMNOGRAPHER, DEFENDER OF ICONS AND THE “SWEET-VOICED NIGHTINGALE OF THE CHURCH”
THE FEAST OF DAVID LOW DODGE, U.S. PRESBYTERIAN BUSINESSMAN AND PACIFIST
THE FEAST OF FRANCIS J. UPLEGGER, GERMAN-AMERICAN LUTHERAN MINISTER AND MISSIONARY; “OLD MAN MISSIONARY”
THE FEAST OF FRANK LAUBACH, U.S. CONGREGATIONALIST MINISTER AND MISSIONARY
THE FEAST OF MARK HOPKINS, U.S. CONGREGATIONALIST MINISTER, THEOLOGIAN, EDUCATOR, AND PHYSICIAN
When I began my preparation for writing this post, I read the text aloud. While doing so, I got theological whiplash. Late in the reading, I also detected evidence of subsequent, Judean editing of the text, as in 1:7 and 1:10-2:1/2:3. (I wrote about reasons for subsequent, Judean editing in the original text of the Book of Hosea in the previous post.)
Adultery and prostitution, in the Bible, are sometimes simply adultery and prostitution. On other occasions, they are not literal references, but metaphors for idolatry. And, on other occasions, they are both literal and metaphorical. Regarding Gomer, the third option is germane.
Idolatry was widespread in ancient Israel. Polytheism was ubiquitous in the ancient world, so monotheism was an outlying theological position. Canaanite religion was popular in ancient Israel, much to the consternation of God, God’s prophets, and pious priests. Pious priestly religion and folk religion were quite different from each other. The cult of Baal Peor, the Canaanite storm and fertility god, entailed shrine prostitution, to ensure continued fertility and productivity of the soil, officially. Gomer (“to complete,” literally) was probably one of these prostitutes.
A competing scholarly opinion in commentaries holds that Gomer was a different type of prostitute. Some books I consulted suggested that she may have resorted to prostitution out of economic necessity, that her alternatives may have been starvation and homelessness. These scholars write accurately that many women in patriarchal societies have found themselves in this predicament, and that, in Gomer’s society, women lacked property rights.
Gomer being a shrine prostitute fits the metaphor in the Book of Hosea better.
Metaphorically, God’s covenant with the Jews was a marriage. Worship of Baal Peor, therefore, constituted infidelity. God was, metaphorically, her husband, and the Jewish people were God’s wife.
The marriage of Hosea and Gomer dramatized the divine indictment of Israel. The prophet played the role of God, and Gomer took the role of Israel. The children of Hosea ben Beeri and Gomer bath Didlaim bore names that revealed God’s terse messages.
The first son was Jezreel, literally “God sows.” Jezreel was a city (as in Joshua 15:56) and a valley (as in Judges 6:33). Apart from the Book of Hosea, this place name occurred in Joshua 15, 17, and 19; Judges 6; 1 Samuel 25, 27, 29, and 30; 2 Samuel 2, 3, and 4; 1 Kings 4, 18, and 21; 2 Kings 8, 9, and 10; 1 Chronicles 4; and 2 Chronicles 22. The city of Jezreel had a bloody past. There, for example, Queen Jezebel had plotted the murder of Naboth (1 Kings 21). And, when King Jehu founded the dynasty to which King Jeroboam II belonged, Jehu did so by assassinating the entire royal court at Jezreel. What had come around was coming around, God warned. In 747 B.C.E., King Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II, died after reigning for about six months. His life and the House of Jehu ended violently when King Shallum staged a palace coup. About a month later, King Shallum died in another palace coup (2 Kings 15:11-15). Hosea, by the way, disagreed with the perspective of 2 Kings 9-10, the author of which held that God had authorized Jehu’s revolution.
Lo-ruhamah was the daughter of Hosea and Gomer. The daughter’s name meant “not accepted” and “not shown mercy.” (Poor girl!) God refused to accept or pardon the House of Israel.
Lo-ammi was the second son. His name meant “not My people.” (Poor boy!) The House of Israel had ceased to be God’s people.
Pronouncements of divine judgment continued after 1:9. But first, in 1:10-2:1/2:1-3 (depending on versification), came an announcement of divine mercy. Those God had just condemned as not being His people would become the Children of the Living God, shown mercy and lovingly accepted. This passage may have been a subsequent insertion into the Book of Hosea.
The juxtaposition of material serves a valuable theological purpose. It reminds us that divine judgment and mercy exist in balance. Therefore, do not abandon all hope or presume on divine mercy; God both judges and forgives. I recognize this balance without knowing where judgment gives way to mercy, and mercy to judgment.
The marriage of Hosea and Gomer also dramatized God’s continued yearning for Israel. R. B. Y. Scott wrote:
Hosea speaks of judgment that cannot be averted by superficial professions of repentance; but he speaks more of love undefeated by evil. The final words remain with mercy.
—The Relevance of the Prophets, 2nd. ed. (1968), 80
History offers a complicating factor. John Adams, while defending the accused British soldiers charged in the so-called Boston Massacre, said,
Facts are stubborn things.
Consider the following stubborn facts, O reader:
The Assyrian Empire absorbed the (northern) Kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C.E. A mass deportation followed. This was not the first mass deportation. A previous one had occured in 733 B.C.E., when that empire had claimed much of the territory of the (northern) Kingdom of Israel.
Many refugees from the (northern) Kingdom of Israel fled south, to the Kingdom of Judah after these events. These refugees merged into the tribes of Judah and Simeon.
Many other Israelites remained in their homeland. Many who did this intermarried with Assyrian colonists, producing the Samaritans.
The Ten Lost Tribes assimilated. Their genetic and cultural heritage spread throughout the Old World, from Afghanistan to South Africa, over time.
The two kingdoms did not reunited, contrary to Hosea 1:11/2:2.
Nevertheless, I like what R. B. Y. Scott wrote:
The final word remains with mercy.
I hope so.
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
MAY 13, 2021 COMMON ERA
THE FEAST OF THE ASCENSION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
THE FEAST OF HENRI DOMINIQUE LACORDAIRE, FRENCH ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, DOMINICAN, AND ADVOCATE FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
THE FEAST OF FRANCES PERKINS, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF LABOR
THE FEAST OF SAINT GEMMA OF GORIANO SICOLI, ITALIAN ROMAN CATHOLIC ANCHORESS
THE FEAST OF SAINT GLYCERIA OF HERACLEA, MARTYR, CIRCA 177
THE FEAST OF UNITA BLACKWELL, AFRICAN-AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST
King David had a large, dysfunctional family. He had seventeen children by seven women.
For the purposes of this post, one needs to know the following:
Tamar and Absalom were children of David and Maacah. One may remember Maacah from 2 Samuel 3:3 and 1 Chronicles 3:2.
Amnon was the son of David and Ahinoam. One may remember Ahinoam from 1 Samuel 25:43; 1 Samuel 27:3; 1 Samuel 30:5; 2 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 3:2; and 1 Chronicles 3:1.
This story assumes intergenerational punishment, consistent with Exodus 20:5-6 and contrary to Ezekiel 18.
Amnon was a sick puppy. He lusted after and raped his half-sister, Tamar. Then he sent her away, forcing her to remain unmarried for the rest of her life. Amnon disobeyed Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which secured a rape victim’s social position by requiring her rapist to marry her. As Amy-Jill Levine has said about certain aspects of the Hebrew Bible, people did things differently then.
Anyway, I refuse to defend Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Tamar wore an ornamented tunic, which wound up torn. This was a garment a high-status person wore. The only other mention of such a garment in the Hebrew Bible was in Genesis 37. Joseph also became a victim of family violence and perfidy. And his ornamented tunic became torn, too.
Why did David not punish Amnon and sympathize with Tamar?
Absalom served up the cold dish of revenge; he ordered Amnon’s murder two years after the rape of Tamar. Then Absalom fled. He spent several years in exile as David grieved for Amnon.
This story presents David in an unflattering light. It makes clear that the monarch did not punish Amnon for raping Tamar. The story also depicts David as yielding to Absalom in verses 24-27.
Although I reject intergenerational punishment by God, I acknowledge both positive and negative intergenerational influences. Children learn what they live. Based on what I have read in 1 and 2 Samuel, I do not know how one could grow up in David’s family and not be warped.
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
SEPTEMBER 27, 2020 COMMON ERA
PROPER 21: THE SEVENTEENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST, YEAR A
THE FEAST OF SAINT FRANCES DE SALES, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF GENEVA; SAINT VINCENT DE PAUL, “THE APOSTLE OF CHARITY;” SAINT LOUISE DE MARILLAC, COFOUNDER OF THE DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF SAINT VINCENT DE PAUL; AND SAINT CHARLES FUGE LOWDER, FOUNDER OF THE SOCIETY OF THE HOLY CROSS
THE FEAST OF ELIZA SCUDDER, U.S. UNITARIAN THEN EPISCOPALIAN HYMN WRITER
Consistent chronology is not the organizing principle of 1 Samuel. Chronologically, the correct order at the end of the book is:
27:1-28:2
29:1-11
30:1-11
28:3-25
31:1-13
Saul had become the King of Israel with a charge to free the Israelites from the Philistine threat. He had failed. After his death, most of Israel came under Philistine domination. Saul, early in his reign, had rescued the people of Jabesh-Gilead (1 Samuel 11). Ironically, Saul was beyond rescue in Chapter 31. Residents of Jabesh-Gilead rescued his corpse, however. Saul had chosen honorable suicide over captivity. His story had a sad ending.
Saul’s dynasty continued, though. One son, Ishbosheth, survived. He became the King of Israel in 2 Samuel 2.
Notice, O reader, the consistency between 1 Samuel 31:1-13 and 1 Chronicles 10:1-14. Both of them state that Saul committed suicide. Then, O reader, contrast that version with with the tale the Amalekite told David in 2 Samuel 1. One lesson a person can learn from reading certain portions of the Hebrew Bible is never to trust an Amalekite. Also remember that not everybody in the Bible speaks honestly.
The unnamed Amalekite, I suppose, sought a reward from David for having allegedly killed Saul, even allegedly at Saul’s request. The Amalekite lied to the wrong man. Saul, as David acknowledged, was God’s anointed.
David also mourned for Jonathan, his friend and brother-in-law. Jonathan had good character. He was also loyal to his father to the end. Jonathan had been honest about Saul’s failings as a man, a ruler, and a military commander. Jonathan had spoken up on David’s behalf and incurred Saul’s verbal wrath. Jonathan had helped David while the latter was on the run from Saul. Yet Jonathan had never been disloyal to the kingdom and the monarchy.
The germane texts depict Jonathan as a decisive military commander and a man of good character. I wonder about a counterfactual scenario in which Jonathan succeeded his father. I wonder what the Biblical evaluation of King Jonathan would have been. That, of course, is not the story we have. The death of Jonathan in 1 Samuel 31 and 1 Chronicles 10 may be sadder than that of King Saul.
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
Consistent chronology is not the organizing principle of 1 Samuel. Chronologically, the correct order at the end of the book is:
27:1-28:2
29:1-11
30:1-11
28:3-25
31:1-13
Just in case we had forgotten that Samuel had died (1 Samuel 25:1a), 1 Samuel 28:3 reminds us.
The Philistine war mentioned in 28:1-2 had started. King Saul, greatly concerned, inquired of God, who was silent. The monarch, who had outlawed necromancy, disguised himself to consult a necromancer. The disguise did not work for long.
Samuel, in popular belief, was in Sheol, an early notion of the afterlife in the Bible. Sheol was the underworld, without reward or punishment. Sheol was “the Pit,” slimy and mucky. Sheol was a mire.
Samuel was irritated, Saul was in a terrible spiritual and emotional state, and the necromancer was concerned for the monarch’s well-being.
The focus in this reading is the depth to which Saul, rejected by God, had fallen. One should contrast Saul with David, on the ascendancy and favored by God, the germane texts tell us.
I wish that those (especially despots) not on God’s side would meet with more frustrations. Yet I know the past too well to believe that they do not succeed, at least for a time. Genocidal dictators are not strictly figures of the past. Those who transform republics into dictatorships are also figures of current events. Such people explain much of the appeal of belief in reward and punishment in the afterlife. Sheol proves unsatisfactory.
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
Consistent chronology is not the organizing principle of 1 Samuel. Chronologically, the correct order at the end of the book is:
27:1-28:2
29:1-11
30:1-11
28:3-25
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
The editing of 1 Samuel 27-29 is interesting. 1 Samuel 28:3-25 (Saul and the Witch of Endor) interrupts the narrative that spans 1 Samuel 27:1-28:2 and 29:1-11. Based on geography and troop movements, 29:1 precedes 28:4 chronologically. Also 1 Samuel 28:3-25 properly precedes Chapter 31 by one day.
David, on the run from King Saul, found safety in Gath, under the authority of King Achish. David had feigned insanity to flee Achish in Chapter 21. In Chapters 27, 28, and 29, however, David served Achish (sort of) without fighting Israelite forces. David lied to Achish about the purpose of his raids. David was a successful military leader who killed potential witnesses to his acts of seizing livestock and clothing. Saul had seized flocks in Chapter 15, much to Samuel’s chagrin. Yet David did the same, without (strong) condemnation in the text. David’s motivations were clear: survival and enrichment. Achish’s motivation seemed to have been that the enemy of his enemy was his friend. The Philistine king trusted David. Achish’s lords, however, distrusted David. Perhaps they were good judges of character. They pressured Achish into giving David and his men the ancient equivalents of honorable discharges. David, feigning offense, went on his way happily.
What are we supposed to make of David killing potential witnesses? How should we evaluate that behavior morally. I cannot justify that behavior morally. And the more I read about David, the less I like him. I understand that Saul had pushed him into serving Achish. I also agree that so much killing was unnecessary.
The narrative depicts God as favoring and aiding David. I do not know what to make of that. I know that, according to Genesis, God, favored, adided, and worked via the trickster Jacob, too. I remain unsure what to make of that.
Grace is not what we deserve. That is the best I can do, and it feels unsatisfactory to me.
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
AUGUST 22, 2020 COMMON ERA
THE FEAST OF JACK LAYTON, CANADIAN ACTIVIST AND FEDERAL LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
THE FEAST OF SAINTS HRYHORII KHOMSYSHYN, SYMEON LUKACH, AND IVAN SLEZYUK, UKRAINIAN GREEK CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND MARTYRS, 1947, 1964, AND 1973
THE FEAST OF SAINTS JOHN KEMBLE AND JOHN WALL, ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND MARTYRS, 1679
THE FEAST OF SAINTS THOMAS PERCY, RICHARD KIRKMAN, AND WILLIAM LACEY, ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC MARTYRS, 1572 AND 1582
Above: The Royal Family of Gilboa with Captain David Shepherd
Image Source = NBC
KINGS (2009)
Starring
The Royal Family and Close Relations:
Ian McShane as King Silas Benjamin
Susanna Thompson as Queen Rose Cross Benjamin
Allison Miller as Princess Michelle Benjamin
Sebastian Stan as Prince Jonathan “Jack” Benjamin
Dylan Baker as William Cross
Macaulay Culkin as Andrew Cross
Sarita Choudhury as Helen Pardis
Other Principal Characters:
Chris Egan as Captain David Shepherd
Becky Ann Baker as Jessie Shepherd
Eamonn Walker as Reverend Ephram Samuels
Wes Studi as General Linus Abner
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Bible is full of excellent stories ripe for modern adaptations, not just costume dramas. The former is frequently the best way to go, I am convinced, for such an approach makes the story in question fresher than it would be otherwise. Consider, for example the power of Clarence Jordan’s Cotton Patch versions of New Testament books, including Gospels. Transplanting the world of first century CE Roman-occupied Palestine to the U.S. South of the twentieth century works well.
To that column we can add Kings (2009), a short-lived (a two-hour pilot plus eleven other episodes) series from NBC. The writers and producers rearranged elements from 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel (mostly from the former) and set the series in the Kingdom of Gilboa, based on the Kingdom of Israel yet resembling the United States of America. Gilboa, in its current form, is a new nation, just three decades old. Its new capital city, a gleaming metropolis complete with skyscrapers, is the rebuilt Shiloh, which resembles a CGI-altered New York City. (The series did film in the Big Apple.) Silas Benjamin, once a general, united three kingdoms–Gilboa, Carmel, and Selah–via war. He is now the absolute monarch. Yet he is not all powerful. His brother-in-law, industrialist William Cross, is a leader in the military-industrial complex and an ardent opponent for peace with the neighboring Republic of Gath. Peace is bad for business. Yes, this is the story of Saul and David updated and told with allusions to the Second Iraq War. There are even allusions to the Israel-Palestine conflict, for a land-for-peace deal is a plot element throughout the series’ brief run.
In the pilot episode, Goliath, we meet David Shepherd, a farm boy whose father died in the Unification War. David is in military uniform during a follow-up border war with Gath when he rescues the captured Prince Jonathan “Jack” Benjamin from the forces of Gath and destroys a Gath tank, a Goliath, with a well-thrown wrench. This is a retelling of sorts of 1 Samuel 17. David, now a national hero, goes to Shiloh and becomes an unwilling pawn in the hands of King Silas, whose glory, he is stealing. And David falls in love with Princess Michelle (1 Samuel 18:17-30) and even plays the piano. (The biblical David played the lyre in 1 Samuel 16:14-23.) The troubled Silas-David relationship in the series ends with David having to flee to Gath (1 Samuel 27:1-28:2) for fear of his life. The story would have continued had the network not cancelled the series. (The ratings were low.)
Other interesting parallels occur in the series. Silas makes an unlawful sacrifice, as in 1 Samuel 13:1-22, but in the show the sacrifice is allowing soldiers to die needlessly. So the Reverend Ephram Samuels, who helped Silas forge the united Gilboa and install him in power, relates God’s rejection of the monarch. And Silas has a mistress, Helen Pardis, as Saul had a concubine, Rizpah (2 Samuel 3:7). Instead of the spirit of Samuel (1 Samuel 28:3-25) Silas consults the deposed King of Carmel, officially dead yet imprisoned at a location code-named Gehenna. Furthermore, the head of the military is General Linus Abner, a warmonger who betrays Silas and dies by the monarch’s hand. (Joab killed Abner in 2 Samuel 3:22-39).
There is a Jonathan analog, but Prince Jack in the series is more like Absalom than the biblical Jonathan in some ways. This Jonathan, like his biblical counterpart, has a troubled relationship with his father. In the series he resents his father, who dislikes the fact that the crown prince is a homosexual. That would be acceptable in a second son, Silas says, but those who would have power must surrender what they want. And Jack is not willing to do that. The Prince Jack of the series is also a sulking, back-stabbing character who is willing to kill innocents and to frame David for treason–until he is not. But the guiding rule for Prince Jack is his perceived best interest.
I encourage you, O reader, to find the series and watch it legally. So I will not reveal all the plot lines. I also urge you to think deeply about the moral implications of decisions the characters make. The characters in Kings are flawed; David Shepherd is especially flawed while being very heroic. These characters make bad decisions. Sometimes they reap the consequences of these decisions; on other occasions other people do. But God still acts through many of these same characters.
King Silas, in the pilot episode, tells Reverend Samuels, who has just announced God’s rejection of the monarch,
To hell with God.
In the last episode Silas informs the ghost of Samuels (Silas does not know that he is speaking to the Reverend’s spirit) that he (Silas) and God are at war. Silas, the rejected chosen one of God, has embraced his rebellion against God. He does not even labor under the illusion of being on God’s side. And, with actor Ian McShane playing the part, the scenes are a pleasure to watch. Yet that pleasure comes mixed with the knowledge that the monarch’s fate did not have to come down to this.
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
MAY 17, 2012 COMMON ERA
THE FEAST OF SAINT PASCHAL BAYLON, FRANCISCAN
THE FEAST OF WILLIAM CROSWELL DOANE, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF ALBANY
THE FEAST OF WILLIAM HOBART HARE, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF SOUTH DAKOTA
BLOGA THEOLOGICA 
You must be logged in to post a comment.