King Saul’s Downfall: Sight and Sound

Saul’s failure to see and be seen when the Bible first introduces him signals his dismal prospects for a successful reign. Afraid of his soldiers, Saul listens to the wrong voices instead of YHWH.

The final verse of the book of Judges attributes the societal chaos of the preceding chapters to the lack of a king, where absent any objective rule of law, “right” is determined by the individual:^[1]

^{שׁפטים כא:כה} בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה.

^{Judg 21:25} In those days there was no king in Israel; every man acted in accordance with what was right in his own eyes.^[2]

However, the narratives of the monarchy that follow in the book of Samuel are instead crafted to rule out kingship as a viable political guarantor of a stable polis.^[3]

Saul’s Enthronement

From the moment Saul enters the scene, his biography amounts to an unrelenting assault on the legitimacy of, at the very least, his own monarchy, if not monarchy altogether. Saul is introduced as a figure of great height, implying that he is both visible to others and able to see beyond what others can:

^{שׁמואל א ט:א} וַיְהִי אִישׁ מִבִּן־יָמִין [מִבִּנְיָמִין] וּשְׁמוֹ קִישׁ בֶּן אֲבִיאֵל בֶּן צְרוֹר בֶּן בְּכוֹרַת בֶּן אֲפִיחַ בֶּן אִישׁ יְמִינִי גִּבּוֹר חָיִל.

^{1 Sam 9:1} There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish son of Abiel son of Zeror son of Becorath son of Aphiah, a Benjaminite, a man of substance.

^ט:ב וְלוֹ הָיָה בֵן וּשְׁמוֹ שָׁאוּל בָּחוּר וָטוֹב וְאֵין אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל טוֹב מִמֶּנּוּ מִשִּׁכְמוֹ וָמַעְלָה גָּבֹהַּ מִכָּל הָעָם.

^9:2 He had a son whose name was Saul, an excellent young man; no one among the Israelites was handsomer than he; he was taller from the shoulders up than everyone.

Yet Saul’s ability to see is stymied as soon as he is introduced; he is unable to find his father’s stray asses:

^{שׁמואל א ט:ד} וַיַּעֲבֹר בְּהַר אֶפְרַיִם וַיַּעֲבֹר בְּאֶרֶץ שָׁלִשָׁה וְלֹא מָצָאוּ וַיַּעַבְרוּ בְאֶרֶץ שַׁעֲלִים וָאַיִן וַיַּעֲבֹר בְּאֶרֶץ יְמִינִי וְלֹא מָצָאוּ.

^{1 Sam 9:4} He passed into the hill country of Ephraim. He crossed the district of Shalishah, but they did not find them. They passed through the district of Shaalim but they were not there. They traversed the territory of Benjamin, and still they did not find them.

Saul’s servant suggests that they seek help from a man of God, a seer, in a nearby town:

^{שׁמואל א ט:ט} לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כֹּה אָמַר הָאִישׁ בְּלֶכְתּוֹ לִדְרוֹשׁ אֱלֹהִים לְכוּ וְנֵלְכָה עַד הָרֹאֶה כִּי לַנָּבִיא הַיּוֹם יִקָּרֵא לְפָנִים הָרֹאֶה.

^{1 Sam 9:9} Formerly in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he would say, “Come, let us go to the seer,” for the prophet of today was formerly called a seer.

The root ר.א.ה/י, “see,” is a leitwort^[4] incorporated into Saul’s enthronement narrative to highlight how the perception and appearance of him prove to be an illusion. YHWH tells Samuel that He has chosen a ruler for Israel because He sees His nation in trouble. Though screams of suffering reach God that imply hearing as well, it is God’s sense of seeing which is noted by the verse:^[5]

‏^{שׁמואל א ט:טז} כָּעֵת מָחָר אֶשְׁלַח אֵלֶיךָ אִישׁ מֵאֶרֶץ בִּנְיָמִן וּמְשַׁחְתּוֹ לְנָגִיד עַל עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת עַמִּי מִיַּד פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי רָאִיתִי אֶת עַמִּי כִּי בָּאָה צַעֲקָתוֹ אֵלָי.

^{1 Sam 9:16} “At this time tomorrow, I will send a man to you from the territory of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him ruler of My people Israel. He will deliver My people from the hands of the Philistines; for I have seen My people, for their outcry has come to Me.”

Samuel, the seer, then sees Saul:

^{שׁמואל א ט:יז} וּשְׁמוּאֵל רָאָה אֶת שָׁאוּל וַי־הוָה עָנָהוּ הִנֵּה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ זֶה יַעְצֹר בְּעַמִּי.

^{1 Sam 9:17} As soon as Samuel saw Saul, YHWH declared to him, “This is the man that I told you would govern My people.”

For his part, however, Saul cannot identify the seer, the very one of whom he inquires as to the seer’s whereabouts:

^{שׁמואל א ט:יח} וַיִּגַּשׁ שָׁאוּל אֶת שְׁמוּאֵל בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׁעַר וַיֹּאמֶר הַגִּידָה נָּא לִי אֵי זֶה בֵּית הָרֹאֶה.

^{1 Sam 9:18} Saul approached Samuel inside the gate and said to him, “Tell me, please, where is the house of the seer?”

Saul is unable to discern the identity of the person directly in front of him.^[6]

When lots are cast singling out Saul as YHWH’s elect, he, like his family asses previously, is nowhere to be found (1 Sam 10:21).^[7] The people must ask YHWH where he is:

^{שׁמואל א י:כב} וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ עוֹד בַּי־הוָה הֲבָא עוֹד הֲלֹם אִישׁ ס וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הוָה הִנֵּה הוּא נֶחְבָּא אֶל הַכֵּלִים.

^{1 Sam 10:22} They inquired of YHWH again, “Has anyone else come here?” And YHWH replied, “Yes; he is hiding among the baggage.”

Saul has failed to see, and the people cannot see him.^[8]

The first crisis Saul faces as a monarch is an invader’s threat to blind the right eyes of the entire village of Jabesh-gilead:

^{שׁמואל א יא:ב} וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם נָחָשׁ הָעַמּוֹנִי בְּזֹאת אֶכְרֹת לָכֶם בִּנְקוֹר לָכֶם כָּל עֵין יָמִין וְשַׂמְתִּיהָ חֶרְפָּה עַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל.

^{1 Sam 11:2} But Nahash the Ammonite answered them, “I will make a pact with you on this condition, that everyone’s right eye be gouged out; I will make this a humiliation for all Israel.”

If the “eyes,” at the conclusion of Judges, a metaphor for decrepit moral and political consciousness, were in desperate need of alteration, then the narrative’s weave of variations on sightlessness in Saul’s story would indicate increasing distortion rather than a corrective to that state.^[9]

Saul’s Reign

Saul’s dismal performance at his launch portends a far worse career that is marked by what many scholars have taken to be various shades of mental illness.^[10] There are glaring instances of what appear to be bouts of manic depression and schizophrenia, evidenced by the biblical locution, רוּחַ רָעָה, “evil spirit” (e.g., 16:14; 18:10), climaxing in an extreme paranoiac episode where Saul strips naked and lapses into an ecstatic trance for an entire night (19:24).

Saul’s psychosis casts him as the living embodiment of a consciousness that recognizes no rule of law, acting impulsively as the moment dictates without any apparent awareness of previous attitudes or commitments:

Saul is intimately familiar with David at one instant and inquires as to his identity the next (16:21 vs. 17:55).^[11]
At one instant Saul malevolently intends to skewer David to a wall, and in the next instant fearfully appoint him as commander in chief of his troops (18:11 vs. 18:13).^[12]
Saul murderously pursues David, then expresses a filial love for him, and abjectly concedes his dynasty to him (24:17–23).

The two episodes that explicitly warrant Saul’s loss of monarchy both involve offenses against a king’s essential duties: leading his people and maintaining their relationship with YHWH.

To Retain His Throne, Saul Offers Sacrifices

In the first incident, Samuel instructs Saul to travel to Gilgal. Samuel will follow seven days later and will offer sacrifices to YHWH:

^{שׁמואל א י:ח} וְיָרַדְתָּ לְפָנַי הַגִּלְגָּל וְהִנֵּה אָנֹכִי יֹרֵד אֵלֶיךָ לְהַעֲלוֹת עֹלוֹת לִזְבֹּחַ זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תּוֹחֵל עַד בּוֹאִי אֵלֶיךָ וְהוֹדַעְתִּי לְךָ אֵת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה.

^{1 Sam 10:8} “After that, you are to go down to Gilgal ahead of me, and I will come down to you to present burnt offerings and offer sacrifices of well-being. Wait seven days until I come to you and instruct you what you are to do next.”

When the time comes, Saul is preparing to confront an enemy in battle, but the Israelite army begins to scatter after Samuel fails to appear at the appointed time (13:8). Faced with a daunting enemy, military unrest, and mass desertion, Saul pre-empts Samuel with sacrificial offerings:

^{שׁמואל א יג:ט} וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל הַגִּשׁוּ אֵלַי הָעֹלָה וְהַשְּׁלָמִים וַיַּעַל הָעֹלָה.

^{1 Sam 13:9} Saul said, “Bring me the burnt offering and the sacrifice of well-being”; and he presented the burnt offering.

When an angry Samuel demands Saul’s rationale for disobedience, Saul reiterates the precariousness of the situation and discloses an internal psychological struggle:

‏^{שׁמואל א יג:יא} וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל מֶה עָשִׂיתָ וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל כִּי רָאִיתִי כִי נָפַץ הָעָם מֵעָלַי וְאַתָּה לֹא בָאתָ לְמוֹעֵד הַיָּמִים וּפְלִשְׁתִּים נֶאֱסָפִים מִכְמָשׂ. ^יג:יב וָאֹמַר עַתָּה יֵרְדוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אֵלַי הַגִּלְגָּל וּפְנֵי יְ־הוָה לֹא חִלִּיתִי וָאֶתְאַפַּק וָאַעֲלֶה הָעֹלָה.

^{1 Sam 13:11} But Samuel said, “What have you done?” Saul replied, “I saw the people leaving me and scattering; you had not come at the appointed time, and the Philistines had gathered at Michmas. ^13:12 I thought the Philistines would march down against me at Gilgal before I had entreated YHWH, so I forced myself to present the burnt offering.”

The sense carried by וָאֶתְאַפַּק (v. 12) is that Saul overcame his own will in favor of his constituency’s.^[13] Saul’s excuse virtually amounts to a self-confessed abdication from the throne. Not only does he follow the will of the people, rather than his own will as king, but by performing the sacrifice, he also takes on Samuel’s role as judge and prophet.

At the same time, in Saul’s manipulative hands, sacrifice, the most ubiquitous form of religious worship in the ancient Near East, becomes a tool to maintain the military’s allegiance so that Saul’s own hold on the reins of power will remain intact.[14] Politics has divorced itself from religion in the service of imperial interest. In effect, by using religious observance to retain his own position as king, Saul has replaced YHWH with himself as the ultimate object of sacral worship.^[15]

At this point, Samuel declares that Saul’s dynasty will not endure, but Saul retains his throne (v. 14).

Saul is Afraid of His Soldiers

When YHWH decides to punish the Amalekites for their treatment of the Israelites as they were leaving Egypt (Exod 17:8–13),^[16] He prohibits the Israelites from taking spoils and instead tells Samuel to instruct Saul not to spare anyone or anything:

^{שׁמואל א טו:ג} עַתָּה לֵךְ וְהִכִּיתָה אֶת עֲמָלֵק וְהַחֲרַמְתֶּם אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וְלֹא תַחְמֹל עָלָיו וְהֵמַתָּה מֵאִישׁ עַד אִשָּׁה מֵעֹלֵל וְעַד יוֹנֵק מִשּׁוֹר וְעַד שֶׂה מִגָּמָל וְעַד חֲמוֹר.

^{1 Sam 15:3} “Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses!”

Saul, however, does spare the Amalekite king, Agag, as well as some choice livestock:

‏^{שׁמואל א טו:ט} וַיַּחְמֹל שָׁאוּל וְהָעָם עַל אֲגָג וְעַל מֵיטַב הַצֹּאן וְהַבָּקָר וְהַמִּשְׁנִים וְעַל הַכָּרִים וְעַל כָּל הַטּוֹב וְלֹא אָבוּ הַחֲרִימָם וְכָל הַמְּלָאכָה נְמִבְזָה וְנָמֵס אֹתָהּ הֶחֱרִימוּ.

^{1 Sam 15:9} Saul and the troops spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the second-born, the lambs, and all else that was of value. They would not proscribe them; they proscribed only what was cheap and worthless.

When Samuel questions Saul about why he did not exterminate the Amalekites as instructed, Saul protests that he did obey YHWH, and he shifts responsibility for taking the spoils to his soldiers:

‏^{שׁמואל א טו:כ} וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל אֶל שְׁמוּאֵל אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּקוֹל יְ־הוָה וָאֵלֵךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחַנִי יְ־הוָה וָאָבִיא אֶת אֲגַג מֶלֶךְ עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת עֲמָלֵק הֶחֱרַמְתִּי. ^טו:כא וַיִּקַּח הָעָם מֵהַשָּׁלָל צֹאן וּבָקָר רֵאשִׁית הַחֵרֶם לִזְבֹּחַ לַי־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בַּגִּלְגָּל.

^{1 Sam 15:20} Saul said to Samuel, “But I did obey YHWH! I performed the mission on which YHWH sent me: I captured King Agag of Amalek, and I proscribed Amalek, ^15:21 and the troops took from the spoil some sheep and oxen—the best of what had been proscribed—to sacrifice to YHWH your God at Gilgal.”

Saul’s claim that the animals were taken for sacrifice is a disingenuous rationalization. As in the first incident, he has exploited an expression of religious devotion to preserve his own position.^[17] As Samuel continues to chastise him, Saul eventually acknowledges that he was afraid to deny the troops desire for spoil:

^{שׁמואל א טו:כד} וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל אֶל שְׁמוּאֵל חָטָאתִי כִּי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת פִּי יְ־הוָה וְאֶת דְּבָרֶיךָ כִּי יָרֵאתִי אֶת הָעָם וָאֶשְׁמַע בְּקוֹלָם.

^{1 Sam 15:24} Saul said to Samuel, “I did wrong to transgress YHWH’s command and your instructions; but I was afraid of the troops and I yielded to them.

He thus not only admits to relinquishing his authority to the people but casts them in the same mold as himself. They have committed the same offense he previously committed—offering sacrifices that have been divinely proscribed. Saul failed to lead and instead set a standard of disobedience for the people to follow.

Saul Fails to Hear YHWH

The repeated occurrence of ש.מ.ע, “hearing/obedience,” and קוֹל, “sound,” throughout the exchange between Saul and Samuel charts a course of deepening decay of Saul’s kingship.

Samuel instigates the battle against Amalek with the exhortation: שְׁמַע לְקוֹל דִּבְרֵי יְ־הוָה, “listen to the sound of the words of YHWH” (15:1).
Saul is described calling up the reserves with: וַיְשַׁמַּע שָׁאוּל אֶת הָעָם, Saul made the people hear” (v. 4).
After victory, Samuel’s first accusatory query of Saul is: וּמֶה קוֹל הַצֹּאן הַזֶּה בְּאָזְנָי וְקוֹל הַבָּקָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ “what is the sound of sheep in my ears and the sound of oxen that I hear” (v. 14).
Samuel berates him with an angry question: וְלָמָּה לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹל יְ־הוָה “why did you not obey (hear) the sound of YHWH?” (v. 19).
Saul protests: שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּקוֹל יְ־הוָה, “but I did obey (hear) the sound of YHWH” (v. 20).
Samuel then offers a theological desideratum which rejects a cult of placating YHWH by sacrificial offerings in favor of listening to the sound of YHWH: הַחֵפֶץ לַי־הוָה בְּעֹלוֹת וּזְבָחִים כִּשְׁמֹעַ בְּקוֹל יְ־הוָה הִנֵּה שְׁמֹעַ מִזֶּבַח טוֹב, “Does YHWH delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obedience (listening) to the sound of YHWH? Surely, obedience (listening) is better than sacrifice” (v. 22).
Finally, Saul admits personal culpability for yielding to the people: וָאֶשְׁמַע בְּקוֹלָם, “I listened to their sounds” (v. 24).

A battle launched by a rallying call to listen to YHWH perversely unfolds as one driven by a listening to the sound of the people. If we follow the logic of the interplay between hearing, obedience, voice and sounds, the people and Saul have declined much further than merely replacing YHWH’s voice with their own. Ultimately, the sound of animals determines their course of action: Saul has listened to the people’s voice that, in turn, has allowed the voice/sound of sheep and cattle to drown out the voice of YHWH.^[18]

Thus, YHWH rejects Saul as king (15:23, 26) and Samuel tells Saul that YHWH has chosen another to take Saul’s place (v. 28).

Saul’s Weakness is Samuel’s Strength

Deficiency in the sense of hearing now aligns with that of the sense of seeing in a deadly combination for the viability of Saul’s kingship, or for that matter kingship altogether as an ideal form of political governance. Just as failure to “see” the stray animals prior to Saul’s coronation so does “listening” to animals rather than YHWH signal a dismal future for the monarchy as a corrective to the “eyes” of anarchy described at the end of Judges.

Saul’s sensual handicap directly contrasts with Samuel’s perfect coordination of both hearing and seeing what YHWH wishes, which prefaces Samuel’s first encounter with Saul:

^{שׁמואל א ט:טו} וַי־הוָה גָּלָה אֶת אֹזֶן שְׁמוּאֵל יוֹם אֶחָד לִפְנֵי בוֹא שָׁאוּל לֵאמֹר.

^{1 Sam 9:15} The day before Saul came YHWH uncovered Samuel’s ear saying…

^{שׁמואל א ט:יז} וּשְׁמוּאֵל רָאָה אֶת שָׁאוּל וַי־הוָה עָנָהוּ הִנֵּה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ זֶה יַעְצֹר בְּעַמִּי.

^{1 Sam 9:17} As soon as Samuel saw Saul, YHWH declared to him, “This is the man that I told you would govern My people.”

Anarchy Continues Even under a King

The narrative captures a continuity of consciousness between the pre-monarchic and monarchic regimes where, despite the introduction of a new political authority, no such authority is acknowledged, neither from the people below nor above from Saul, the very seat of authority itself. As such, Saul can be more appropriately characterized as Israel’s last judge rather than its first king.^[19]

A combined stultification of senses now ironically anticipates more of the same anarchic “eyes” we were left with at the end of Judges: there is no ruler nor is there a rule of law by which the state or individuals can order their affairs.^[20] Saul is the failed experiment with kingship that inaugurates what is endemic to virtually the entire sequence of subsequent historical narratives regarding kings.

View Footnotes

Published 2024-07-17

The same comment appears earlier (in Judg 17:6) as a criticism in the story of Micah’s house of God and the founding of the temple of Dan (chs. 17–18; and see 18:1, which notes the absence of a king). A reference to the absence of a king also begins the final narrative in the book of Judges (19:1), in which spousal betrayal and separation graduate into increasing moral degeneracy and violence and culminate in gang rape, dismemberment, civil war, massive casualties, ethnic cleansing, and kidnapping (chs. 19–21). Editor’s note: On this story as a critique of Saul, see Sara Milstein, “The Story of the Concubine at Gibeah: A Satire on King Saul,” TheTorah (2017). The moral disintegration that the phrase “doing right in one’s own eyes” signifies is corroborated by its characterization of Samson’s penchant for foreign women, notably those who belong to the Philistines, Israel’s enemy (Judg 14:3).
Biblical translations follow NJPS, with modifications.
The Samuel narratives are composite of multiple sources, but my focus is the final redacted Masoretic version as we now have it. In a literary sense it reflects, at the very least, an editor who, as Moshe Garsiel noted, “reworked his material with such genuine creative artistry that he cannot be regarded as an ‘editor’ in the restricted technical sense of collecting and arranging together material and providing editorial links and glosses; rather he seems to have been a skilled creative artist—an author in the full meaning of the word.” See Moshe Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies, and Parallels (Ramat Gan: Revivim, 1983), 15. For a small sampling of others who have approached the Masoretic text this way, see Peter Miscall, I Samuel: A Literary Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986). Also see Robert Alter’s comments in his introduction to The David Story (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999), where he criticizes biblical scholarship, which has “badly underrated this book by imagining that ideological strands can be identified like so many varieties of potatoes and understood as simple expressions of advocacy” (p. xiv). See also David Gunn and Dana N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), and the lengthy list of literary studies of Samuel under section N of the bibliography; and Gary A. Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986), which argues against source criticism in favor of reading biblical narratives as large, unified blocks of literature.
A leitwort, “leading word,” is a key word or root that is repeated within a text for literary effect.
This contrasts with the screams that emerge from Israel’s Egyptian enslavement experience, which draw YHWH’s attention and which are “heard” by Him. See Exodus 2:24.
Although I agree with the basic thesis proposed by Marsha White that the inauguration of Saul contained in 1 Samuel 1–14 consists of a “fixed document” from which a “highly nuanced account emerges that coheres and moves logically from segment to segment,” my interpretation of these scenes is vigorously at odds with her characterization of the story as “pro-Saul” and an “apologia for Saul’s kingship.” This scene of the stray asses is but one example of our opposing readings. Where White sees that these lost beasts of burden “providentially [lead] him to the priest and prophet Samuel,” I see the repeated failure to find and see as an indication of meager talent and a strike against the quality of his candidacy for the throne. See Marsha White, “History of Saul’s Rise: Saulide State Propaganda in I Samuel 1–14,” in A Wise and Discerning Mind: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long, ed. Saul M. Olyan and Robert C. Culley, Brown Judaic Studies 325 (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 271–292, esp. 273–274 and 285–286.
^{שׁמואל א י:כא} וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת שֵׁבֶט בִּנְיָמִן לְמִשְׁפַּחְתָּו [לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו] וַתִּלָּכֵד מִשְׁפַּחַת הַמַּטְרִי וַיִּלָּכֵד שָׁאוּל בֶּן קִישׁ וַיְבַקְשֻׁהוּ וְלֹא נִמְצָא.
^{1 Sam 10:21} Then Samuel brought forward the tribe of Benjamin by its clans, and the clan of the Matrites was indicated; and then Saul son of Kish was indicated. But when they looked for him, he was not to be found.
The story also plays on the ability to speak, as disaffection with Saul’s reign immediately sets in, before which Saul remains mute:
^{שׁמואל א י:כז} וּבְנֵי בְלִיַּעַל אָמְרוּ מַה יֹּשִׁעֵנוּ זֶה וַיִּבְזֻהוּ וְלֹא הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ מִנְחָה וַיְהִי כְּמַחֲרִישׁ.
^{1 Sam 10:27} But some scoundrels said, “How can this fellow save us?” So they scorned him and brought him no gift. And he made himself silent.
An opinion in the Talmud sees the crisis as a punitive consequence of Saul’s inability to exercise leadership and quell the rumblings against his authority (b. Yoma 22b).
For the recurrent pattern of sight imagery and blindness thematically constructed by the Deuteronomist as “a corollary of wickedness” in the Saul narrative see David Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1987), 228–233.
The literature on this subject is vast; see, e.g., Herman Van Praag, “The Downfall of King Saul: The Neurobiological Consequences of Losing Hope,” Judaism 35.4 (1986): 414–428.
Although there is a scholarly consensus that chapters 16 and 17 represent two opposing traditions on David’s introduction to Saul, Robert Alter (The David Story, 111 n. 55) accounts for the final redaction of both side-by-side as a foreshadowing of David’s complex character, which the reader will confront in the coming narratives. Taken as a whole, they reveal a multidimensional, often contradictory personality.
Saul’s madness introduces another dimension in which the conflict between him and David plays itself out. As Zev Wiseman states, “The confrontation between Saul and David has shifted from the overt real and rational sphere to the hidden psychopathological and chaotic sphere evinced in Saul’s madness.” See Zev Wiseman, Political Satire in the Bible (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 54.
The reflexive hitpaʿel form of this rare verb is rendered as “force oneself” or “restrain oneself” in BDB (Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford, 1906], s.v. אפק) and DCH (Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, s.v. אפק). (HALOT [The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. אפק] proposes a translation of “to pluck up courage, to venture” for this verse, though it renders the verb elsewhere as “to control oneself.”) Other than expressions of divine conduct, this term appears in relation to only two other biblical personalities, Joseph and Haman, both vice regents wielding the full power of the monarch. Joseph, who is second only to Pharaoh in the Egyptian court, suppresses the urge to reveal his true identity to his brothers, who do not recognize him after a lengthy absence (Gen 43:31; also 45:1, where he no longer can contain himself). Thus, Joseph wields power while his identity is obfuscated. Haman, who has aspired to a position of power similar to that of Joseph, restrains himself from retaliating for Mordechai’s insolence, another member of the royal court who does not rise or bow in Haman’s presence (Esth 5:9, 10). Haman is fully recognizable but is powerless to act against defiance that undermines that recognition. With Saul, the term may import both senses—powerlessness and lack of identity—as he accedes to the will of the people and assumes Samuel’s role.
I concur with L. Daniel Hawk, “Saul as Sacrifice: The Tragedy of Israel’s First Monarch,” Bible Review 12.6 (1996): 20–25, 56, that sacrifice is a central leitmotif that permeates the entire Saul narrative, but not with his interpretation that its significance is to transform Saul into a sacrificial figure “to appease Yahweh’s anger over the people’s demands and thus to make possible Israel’s transformation from confederacy to monarchy” (p. 22). My argument here in part accords with James G. Williams’ incisive analysis, which associates Saul’s mishandling of sacrifices with Saul’s role as a scapegoat, though from a different perspective. Pertinent to my claims here of Saul personifying the anarchy at the conclusion of Judges is his assertion, “The king is the sacrifice if he cannot handle the processes of exchange and substitution which prevent a reversion to chaos, and this is the fate of King Saul.” See James G. Williams, “Sacrifice and the Beginning of Kingship,” Semeia 67 (1994): 73–92, at 89.
Saul’s role as a facilitator of sacrifices (here and in the Amalek episode, discussed below) achieves much more than depicting him as a cultic bungler. It is not simply a matter of ignorance, as Cristiano Grottanelli argues: “As opposed to a priest who is schooled in sacred things, he reveals himself to be absurdly ignorant.” It is also that Saul’s “religious” gesture is moved by self-preservation, and therefore the offering is directed ultimately to him rather than YHWH. See Cristiano Grottanelli, Kings and Prophets: Monarchic Power, Inspired Leadership & Sacred Text in Biblical Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 96–97.
No other battle in the Bible is depicted so starkly as being conducted along two distinct fronts as the original one between Amalek and the desert-wandering Israelites of the Egyptian exodus. Joshua spearheads the military charge against the enemy while Moses stands at a distance managing the conflict on a metaphysical plane of existence. The rise and fall of Moses’ arms toward YHWH determine the fortunes of the battle. The two fronts however operate in tandem, one mirroring the other. Thus, a war with Amalek is an especially suggestive vehicle to underscore the failings of the monarchy which stands for the rupture between the political and religious dimensions of the polis. Editor’s note: On Amalek in the Bible and in the account of Saul’s reign, see Gili Kugler, “Amalek: A Pawn in the Rivalry Between Saul and David’s Legacy,” The Torah (2022).
Saul’s excuses in both incidents amount to an incriminating vindication of YHWH’s earlier concern that the people’s request for a king is a rejection of His own kingship (1 Sam 8:7).
Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), points out the dramatic effect of listening in this narrative: “This loaded verb, whose sense extends from hearing to obedience, resonates more than any other throughout the structure of repetition” (p. 513). Though he emphasizes the contrasting interplay between vox dei and vox populi, I have stressed the collapse of both into a vox animali.
Thanks to Marc Brettler for this insight. See, e.g., P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 26–27, 205–207.
As Joel Rosenberg points out, “Saul’s kingship is but an extension of the idioms of judgeship…he never fully rises above the haphazard and ad hoc conditions of charismatic leadership.” See Joel Rosenberg, “1 and 2 Samuel,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 122–145 (at 128).

Essays on Related Topics:

A King Who Reads Torah

Dr. Cynthia Edenburg

The Story of the Concubine at Gibeah: A Satire on King Saul

Prof. Sara Milstein