The end of the matter

Joseph and Saul recede into the background only because space at a critical juncture in each story is given to a more fortunate neighbor. One may even say that their less fortunate position is merely relative. On the one hand, this confirms that God deals with the world primarily through his chosen. Those who are unchosen derive their status from their relationship with the elect, and remain in the elect’s shadow. On the other hand, however, this may give some hope for those who are concerned with the fate of the unfavored ones. Perhaps their relative status vis-à-vis those who are chosen is not the last word concerning their destiny. Perhaps there is more to the fate of the unfavored than simply that which is made clear in the biblical narratives, where they remain eclipsed by their chosen neighbors.—The Unfavored, page 208

<idle musing>
And that's the end of this book. The conclusion reminds me of the conclusion to Chosen and Unchosen, by Joel Lohr and also in the Siphrut series. I personally think we've got the whole chosen/unchosen wrong; I tend to follow the thinking here and in Lohr's book.

Next up? Well, I've been reading New Testament Christological Hymns. I'll probably start posting from that. I've also been reading from Son of God, but that one doesn't lend itself well to extracting short snippets. I also just started Robert Miller's Baal, St. George, and Khidr, which will probably find its way onto this blog in time.

Meanwhile, it's two weeks before AAR/SBL and I have to finish up some things before the conference, so don't look for a flurry of posts before that.
</idle musing>

Theologically rich reading isn't easy

In particular, as these segments [Gen 38, 49; 1 Sam 13:7b–15a] appear to have been written with a knowledge of Judah’s and David’s future election, stemming from traditions that appeared later than those captured in the stories themselves, they may be seen as suggesting that one fruitful way of reading these complex stories is to read them, so to speak, backwards. More specifically, a reading that is attuned to the compositional depth of these narratives will combine a linear approach with a complementary method that rereads the narratives with an eye on their future denouement. Such a robust interpretation will not be simplistic—that is, reading the crucial stories of Israel’s religious and political life as developing only from beginning to end—nor will it overwhelm the earlier stories with their later progress. A theologically rich approach will benefit from a dialogue between both linear and backwards readings that mirrors the development of the texts themselves.—The Unfavored, page 204

Up and down the kingship staircase

The second stage of Saul’s rejection is reached [in 1 Sam 15]. Chapter 13 saw the loss of dynastic status, but Saul remained as king. Although ch. 14 showed some successes, it was still critical of his leadership, especially compared with Jonathan. Just as Saul moved towards the throne through three key stages (anointing, acclamation, battle victory), his removal takes three stages (loss of dynasty, announcement of loss of rule, and death).—David Firth, Samuel, cited in ;The Unfavored, page 200

what about divine repentance?

The irrevocability of Saul’s rejection is the main subject of Moberly’s study [“Does God Change?,” pages 107–43 in Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013)], which puts forward two main ideas regarding 1 Sam 15:29 and its sibling text, Num 23:19. First, Moberly notes how these two statements define God’s non-repentance vis-à-vis human repentance. In a fashion akin to apophatic theology they demonstrate what YHWH is not: he does not lie or speak falsely, and in changing his mind he is not like a human being. This observation—supported by the occurrence of differing terms for divine (נחם) and human repentance (שׁוב)—sets an important parameter for future investigation as it explains that God repents on a different level from that of human beings: “It is not mutuality and responsiveness in relationship, but insincerity and faithlessness that are specified for denial.” Second, both texts concern election: Num 23:19 occurs in the midst of Balaam’s forced attempt to curse Israel (Num 22–24), while 1 Sam 15 is concerned with the divine choice of David, hinted in v. 28.—The Unfavored, page 176

Who chooses?

The main difference between sacrifice and ḥerem seems to consist in the question of who designates what should be given to the deity. In the example of חרם [ḥrm] it is usually God who decides what falls under this category (Num 21:2–3 is an exception). In situations of זבח [zbḥ] it is the worshipper who selects, within certain parameters, what he deems suitable as a sacrifice to YHWH.—The Unfavored, page 169 n. 87

What's going in with Agag?

Saul brings up the capturing of Agag, but offers no explanation for this curious omission from the ban. The reader is thus left guessing as to what the reasons are for this sparing of the Amalekite king. On the one hand, Saul is not at all ashamed or sorrowful because of this act, prompting one to wonder whether Agag also was intended to be sacrificed before YHWH at Gilgal. On the other hand, if anybody was most responsible for the behavior of Amalek, it was presumably their king, and thus one would expect him to be the prime candidate for the implementation of the ban. It is curious that in the previous chapter Saul was ready to kill his own son, yet here he is not willing to kill the Amalekite king, the head of the “sinners, the Amalekites.”—The Unfavored, page 165

The importance of showing hospitality

He lays wait in the valley, close to the city of Amalek, and approaches the Kenites, urging them—by the sequence of three consecutive imperatives, “Go! Leave! Withdraw!”—to depart, so that they would not be destroyed together with the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:5–6). The reason given is again related to the Israelite journey out of Egypt, where the Kenites acted towards the Israelites with kindness (ḥesed Judg 1:16), which is implicitly contrasted with the disrespectful behavior of the Amalekites. Whereas the Amalekites will perish, the Kenites are spared for their kindness and Saul makes sure that they have a chance to escape, which they use. Saul thus brings out to the open what may be implicitly part of the biblical portrayal of ḥerem: one’s ḥesed has a potential to deliver a person or a group of people from the ban.—The Unfavored, page 160

<idle musing>
And I ask, where does that put the United States, as it slams the doors and builds walls and turns away the sojourner? That is clearly, not displaying ḥesed!

I ran across a good definition of gar, the Hebrew word for a resident alien, the other day. Basically, it's the undocumented aliens in our midst. According to scripture (you do still read that, right?), we are to be hospitable to them. The consequences aren't pretty if you don't. Read the prophets and universalize it based on books in the NT like Revelation.

Turn off Fox News, CNN, etc. and read scripture. It might bring a bit of balance into your life.
</idle musing>

Reading the text as is

I regard this discrepancy between what YHWH would do and what Israel should do a typical characteristic of the mutuality of their relationship. Even though these differences may be explained by pointing to different textual sources, I see theological value in trying to understand them as saying something complementary about the relationship between God and his people.—The Unfavored, page 158 n. 40

<idle musing>
I like that. The whole "canonical approach" can be an excuse to not look at the back-history of the text, but so also the historical-critical approach can miss the theological nuggets hiding in plain sight in the received text. One or the other? No, both and.
</idle musing>

Sound like anyone you know?

Furthermore, because Amalek assaulted the weakest of Israel, he is labeled in Deut 25:18 as one who “does not fear God.” According to Moberly, the phrase “fear of God” in the Old Testament signifies “moral restraint out of respect for God, a moral restraint specifically that refuses to take advantage of a weaker party when it would be possible to do so with apparent impunity.” This fundamental respect for life the Amalekites, at least according to Deut 25:17–19, did not embody. Moberly’s conclusion describes the logic of the ban well: “Its logic appears to be that the attack on defenseless people constitutes such a fundamental denial of God that those who do such things thereby deny their own humanity and so lay themselves open to a treatment not otherwise given to other human beings.” It was the malicious attack upon the most vulnerable of Israel that was behind Israel’s animosity towards Amalek and YHWH’s order of the ban in 1 Sam 15:32 They respected neither human conventions nor God, and therefore became liable to be subjected to this horrifying ordeal.—The Unfavored, page 156

<idle musing>
That sounds amazingly like the current policies of the United States, doesn't it?
</idle musing>

Word-play in Numbers 14?

In Num 14:39–45 the Israelites, despite Moses’s warning, go to Canaan and are attacked by the Amalekites and the Canaanites, who pursue them in battle as far as Hormah (Num 14:45). The last word of the chapter is ָחְרָמה with the definite article attached to it. It likely stands for a place, but given our present discussion, it is worth noting that it comes from the verbal root חרם. Is it possible that Israel was pursued, among others by Amalek, almost to destruction?—The Unfavored, pages 155–56 n. 26

Listen to the voice of the words of YHWH...

In the Hebrew text Samuel says: “and now listen to the voice of the words of YHWH” (1 Sam 15:1).8 This seems to be a peculiar way of constructing the phrase, since the command “listen to the words of YHWH” would seem sufficient. The inclusion of “voice,” however, may be important in terms of evoking resonances later in the chapter, when Samuel hears the voice of sheep among the Israelites (15:14), when he accuses Saul of disobeying YHWH’s voice (15:22–23), and when Saul confesses that he yielded to the people’s voice (15:24). Furthermore, the catchwords “voice” (קוֺל [qôl]) and “listen/obey” (שׁמע [šm']) connect the instruction to destroy the Amalekites with the emphasis, prevalent in ch. 12, placed upon listening to God’s voice as a prerequisite for a successful monarchy under God (esp. 1 Sam 12:14–15). Israel and its leader should live in obedience to YHWH and his voice—a fundamental feature of Israel’s life, exemplified most concisely in the book of Deuteronomy (e.g. Deut 13:5; 15:4–5; 26:17),11 and seemingly finding its way also into the construal of Israel’s kingship in 1 Sam 15.—The Unfavored, pages 152–53

The battle belongs to the LORD

The section 1 Sam 14:6–15 thus reveals Jonathan’s rationale for his courageous action and its outcome. He relies on YHWH, for whom the smallness and ill-equipped nature of Israel’s army presents no problem. Accompanied by his faithful armor-bearer, Jonathan devises a sign that assures him of God’s favor and as a result he attacks the Philistines. While Jonathan’s attack was a blow to the Philistine camp, the panic created by God is what provided the key difference in the ensuing battle.—The Unfavored, page 138

A Good Beginning

Saul is a suitable candidate for Israel’s throne not only from a human point of view, but he is also chosen by God. Samuel, having been instructed by YHWH, anoints Saul and sends him on a peculiar journey full of unusual signs—an excursion which also places the newly anointed leader under Samuel’s tutelage. These signs gradually locate Saul within the sphere of divine activity and in the end seem to transform him into a different kind of man (1 Sam 10:6, 9). The Spirit’s empowerment he experiences among a circle of prophets in 10:10–13 seems to be a foretaste of his Spirit-prompted action in ch. 11, where he rescues the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead from their Ammonite oppressors (11:6).—The Unfavored, page 120

Is this the one?

Saul’s name (שָאוּל [šāʾûl) means “asked for,” which may immediately raise the reader’s expectation that Saul could be the person for whom the elders had asked in 1 Sam 8:10, in terms of their plea for a king. The verb also occurs seven times in chs. 1 and 2, during the episode in which the barren Hannah asks for a child—then receives, and later gives up again, Samuel (1:17 [×2], 20, 27, 28 [×2]; 2:20).—The Unfavored, page 120 n. 5

Conditional chosenness

There are a number of parallels between the rejection of the Elides in 1 Sam 2–3 and Saul’s rejection in 1 Sam 13–15. Both Saul’s and Eli’s family are initially chosen, yet they are rejected by YHWH through the prophetic word because of an issue involving sacrifice. Their rejection is final, which in turn brings severe consequences for both their families and Israel as a whole. Simultaneously, a person better suited for the task is appointed in their place.—The Unfavored, page 117 n. 4

<idle musing>
Reminds me of Rev 2:5:

5 So remember the high point from which you have fallen. Change your hearts and lives and do the things you did at first. If you don’t, I’m coming to you. I will move your lampstand from its place if you don’t change your hearts and lives.

</idle musing>

The evolving nature of being chosen

Unchosenness, at least when it occurs within the elect group, may be dynamic rather than static, and the Joseph story, with the rivalry between these two brothers pointing beyond its horizon, may testify to this dynamic, unseen elsewhere in the Genesis material. As far as the Joseph story is concerned, Joseph does not lose his favored status, yet Judah seems to achieve a place that goes well beyond his unfavored position at the beginning of the narrative, which is later actualized in the stories of Judah’s descendants. If the topic of election in the closing chapters of Genesis also revolves around the notion of kingship, then the situation in subsequent Old Testament narratives changes even more. Although Gen 48 may suggest that the future monarch will be an Ephraimite, Israel’s most enduring dynasty will come from Judah.—The Unfavored, page 114

Beyond explanation

Perhaps it must be that a story [the Joseph cycle] containing such a rich texture of themes associated with the idea of chosenness will also include elements that remain unexplained, and thus will continue to provoke one’s understanding and imagination. The nature of election itself defies rationalization. If one could find satisfying reasons for God’s choice in a person’s motives, words, or deeds, the choice would perhaps cease to be divine. The tendency to rationalize and to find possible reasons for chosenness is understandable, but it must be complemented, or perhaps preceded, by an acknowledgment that God’s reasons for his choices may remain beyond human reach.—The Unfavored, pages 109–10

Learning from his mistakes

When one attempts to envisage the influence of [Genesis] ch. 38 on the rest of the Joseph story, this subplot may be viewed as having a bearing upon the situation endangering Benjamin in chs. 43–45. It is possible that Judah’s emphasis on the continuation of Israel’s family line and his understanding that the life of the youngest might need to be risked in order to ensure the future (Gen 43:8) might be seen as stemming from Judah’s own experience in ch. 38. His willingness to be a surety for Benjamin (Gen 43:9) may further show that he wanted to prevent a similar scenario happening again.—The Unfavored, page 75

Wrong priorities are nothing new

Judah seems to care more about his reputation within the Cannanite culture where he lives, than about the continuation of his clan, which at this point is in the immediate danger. Judah’s lax attitude towards his own family and his preoccupation with his good reputation thus stand in contrast to the unconventional action of Tamar, who risked her own reputation in order to acquire a son who would carry on Judah’s family line.—The Unfavored, pages 72–73

Steps to reconciliation

Yet Joseph does not accept their [his brothers'] servantship, refusing to exercise dominion over them. He sees himself as subservient to God (Gen 50:19), and his power not as a means to rule over his siblings but as God’s way of providing for them in a time of crisis. He is able to perceive God’s hand even in his brothers’ merciless act towards him, an act which eventually resulted in much good for many (50:20). He does not speak harshly to his brothers any more (42:7) but reassures and comforts them (50:21), which further rectifies the hostile relationship which began in 37:4.—The Unfavored, page 62