In preparing for my own teaching, I’ve been listening to some more lectures from Dr Douglas Stuart’s OT Survey course, provided free by Biblical Training. He has one lecture in particular called Three Kings, contrasting David with Saul and Solomon. In it, he argues that when the Bible says, “The LORD has sought out for himself a man after his own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14), it is referring to David not being a syncretist, unlike the other two.
My immediate reaction was, “where is there evidence that Saul was a syncretist?” After all, it isn’t obvious in the narrative. There are many faults of Saul explicitly detailed, but worshipping other gods isn’t one of them. Stuart, however, argues that this was the case.
In 2 Samuel 2, Saul’s son, Ish-bosheth, was crowned king and set up as a rival to David. “Ish-bosheth” means “Man of Shame.” Stuart’s argument is that no one would name their son “Man of Shame,” that this is a later scribal change to his real name. His real name is to be found in 1 Chronicles 9:39, “Ishbaal.” This name means “Man of Baal.” This, of course, could be taken to mean “Man of the Master/Lord,” referring to God himself. Or it could be taken to refer to the Canaanite deity, Baal. Stuart’s argument is that the latter is more likely, since it helps explain why he is called “Man of Shame” in Samuel (scribal change, possibly to avoid the use of the name of Baal in one of the king’s sons, though I think very well could be debated). Thus, Saul himself was a Baal worshipper, going so far as to name one of his sons in honor of the pagan god.
Proving Solomon’s syncretism proves to be a much easier exercise. 1 Kings 11:4 says, “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of his father David had been.” Here Stuart sees a clear echo of the description of David in 1 Samuel 13, and I’m inclined to agree.
So what set David apart from these two kings, what made him a man after God’s own heart, was the fact that he held “exclusive trust” (Stuart’s term) in YHWH. For all of David’s faults, and there are many, he never wavered from his faith that God alone was his hope.
I’ve heard Stuart lecture on this as well. While I’m inclined to agree (in part because I can hold no candle to his exegetical prowess), I do find the scribal change argument on the weaker side. The OT has plenty of “bad” names (Jabez and Ichabod come to mind; Jacob isn’t exactly flattering either). It’s probably best in the end to argue from Chronicles, and offer the scribal change as a possible explanation for the difference in names, but not a necessity.
Yeah, I’m not convinced of the scribal change theory, either, though I’m not sure I have a better explanation at the moment. I almost left that part out of this post for fear of opening up a can of worms that distracted from the point. Thanks for proving me right.
The difference between Ishbaal and the other names you mention is that his name clearly offers tribute to another god (in Stuart’s reading). So it isn’t just a negative name; its an idolatrous one.
Re: the other names, I agree. I was just saying that Stuart claims nobody would ever name their son “man of shame.” I think that’s what is weak in his argument, since other OT names are negative, too. Of course, Stuart probably knows something about OT naming that I don’t. Scratch that. He definitely knows things about OT naming that I don’t.
Do you remember him offering anything else on 1 Sam. 13:14 being a reference to syncretism? The context of Saul’s official rejection as king is when he disobeys God’s specific commands to him regarding the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:11,19,23). Even though he acknowledges his sin, he doesn’t really seem to repent in the same way David does, either (i.e., 2 Sam. 12, and Ps. 51…if he wrote it). I always took this as the primary reason that Saul is not a man after God’s own heart.
Probably a dead horse by now. Interesting to ponder, though.
Yes, this is perhaps a dead horse, but I’ll keep beating. As I was reading in ZIBBCOT (review coming) they mention the replacement of “Baal” with “Besheth” in another place. 2 Samuel 11:21 refers to “Abimelek son of Jerub-Besheth,” who is actually “Jerubbaal” or “Gideon” (Judges 6:32).
What is interesting in this case, and perhaps speaks against Stuart’s interpretation, is that the use of “baal” in Gideon’s name isn’t an act of honoring the Canaanite deity. Jerubbaal means “let Baal contend” and is actually an act of defiance in a syncretistic culture. The point is that this is a case of the writer(s) of Samuel changing “baal” to “besheth” for a reason other than changing a tribute to a pagan god.
So, it’s possible that Saul named his child “Man of Baal” with “Baal” simply referring to “Master/Lord” as in YHWH. The writer(s) of Samuel seemed to want to avoid the use of “Baal” whether or not it was a tribute to the Canaanite god.
There’s also the fact that Saul’s daughter had a household idol readily available to put into David’s bed to deceive her father’s men. It suggests that idol worship was probably at least tolerated in Saul’s household.
True, although that incident occurred in David’s house, not Saul’s.
Right, but I get the impression that the marriage didn’t last long, and David was off at war most of the time anyway (and thus not with his wife even much of his time at home — see his statement to the priest in ch.21 about abstention from sex). I also think there are good indications to think this was standard practice in Israel during the time of Judges, and the only beginnings of movement away came with Samuel and his circuit judging of Israel, which didn’t exactly place him in direct contact with most families for very long or very often. It’s really David’s reorganization of the priests and centralization under Abiathar and Zadok that gives pride of place to Torah orthodoxy. So I think the assumption since Judges is that there wasn’t much resistance to idolatry of the syncretistic sort unless we’re told otherwise.
What really intrigues me is that many people ignore the fact that David was called a man after God’s heart before he ever became king. I should think that God meant someone who would be focussed on what the Lord would be interested in.