The Violence of the Ark

Proposals that the violence of the ark in 2 Sam 6:7 can be explained in terms of punishment or educative violence are reviewed and shown to be unsupported by details in the text. Unlike the parallel account in 1 Chr 13 and 15, no laws are sufficient to ensure safety from the ark and the ark is simply removed. Similarly, there is a lack of evidence for punishment or educative violence in 1 Sam 6:19. It is proposed that the violence of the ark remains inexplicable, and fits the concept of Divine Violence as defined by Walter Benjamin. Divine Violence is neither a means to an end or end to a means, it is beyond law. It irrupts in the context of a misalignment in the world and is beyond ethics.

Retribution and 1 Sam 12

The dynamics of retribution and divine characterisation in 2 Sam 11–20 are compared and contrasted with the formulation of divine violence in 1 Sam 12. In 1 Sam 12, retribution is threatened but not yet enacted. Thunder and rain on the people’s crops in 1 Sam 12:18 is educative violence, warning the people for future obedience. The king is sidelined throughout Samuel’s speech, and included in the consequences but not transgression in the formulations for obedience and disobedience, democratising divine retribution from the king to the people in the post-exilic period. God is again characterised as transcendent king and judge, using the language of ‘evil that you have done in the eyes of the LORD.’ God’s words are all mediated through the prophet, and whereas David intercedes on his own behalf in 2 Sam 12, the Israelites must rely on Samuel’s intercession.

The Ethics and Characterisation of God, and the Rejection of Saul

In dialogue with the thought of Martha Nussbaum, divine emotions point to God’s cherished projects and are relevant for the ethical evaluation of divine violence. There is complexity in analysing ancient concepts broadly labelled ‘emotions’ that hold emotive, cognitive, and physical dimensions, including regret and favour. Divine regret suggests that the divine violence against Saul is not a repayment of Saul’s guilt but a repayment of God’s own prior action in making Saul king. Divine regret is an emotion/cognition that is not based on an attempt to determine good and evil but on divine attachments and values, the need to remove Saul, and God’s favour for his neighbour. God’s characterisation is also described through the phrase ‘according to [God’s] own heart,’ and divine presence indicated the divine spirits upon Saul and David.

Who is Able to Stand before the LORD, this Holy God?

Two accounts of the ark’s violence in 1 Sam 6:19 and 2 Sam 6:7 have prompted a multitude of interpretations in scholarship. Most explanations for the violence of the ark assume the violence is related to the right (or wrong) treatment of the ark. Even if these interpretations acknowledge that the violence is out of proportion to the transgression, they propose, nevertheless, that a known law has been broken; or the violence establishes a custom for the ark’s treatment or endorses the ark’s holiness. This chapter introduces the thought of Walter Benjamin whose work gives categories to understand divine violence as neither preserving or creating law.

Bloodguilt, Curse, and 2 Sam 21

The dynamics of retribution and divine characterisation in 2 Samuel 11–20 are compared and contrasted with the formulation of divine violence in 2 Samuel 21. The famine that breaks out in the land and the expiation of the land through the deaths of Saul’s sons are attributed to natural consequences of breaking an oath and incurring bloodguilt on the land. The famine is not a divine punishment, but a consequence for unatoned bloodguilt. The oath is sworn in God’s name, the land is a ‘possession of the LORD’ and the slaughter takes place ‘before the LORD.’ Yet overall there is little divine characterisation, and the famine takes place because of a lack of divine intervention, rather than a result of divine punishment.

The LORD Kills and Brings to Life

Through the example of David’s census in 2 Sam 24, key issues related to divine violence in the book of Samuel are introduced: the occurrence of inexplicable divine violence; the interplay of divine and human sovereignty; God’s emotion; and the relationship between forgiveness and punishment. The parameters for the use of the term ‘divine violence’ in this study are defined, taking into account the distinction between subjective and objective violence and Walter Benjamin’s technical use of the term. The methodology of this study is outlined. Debate regarding a proposed ‘dark side’ of God will be addressed through contemporary thinkers who challenge the dominance of retributive frameworks in ethical evaluation. An account of the characterisation of God will be given that acknowledges a diversity of traditions in the text and focuses minimally on narrative gaps. Political contexts for the divine violence will be proposed, both monarchic and exilic.

The LORD will Exalt the Power of his Anointed

To conclude, the limits of Kantian retribution for ethics are reviewed and the diversity of approaches to ethical reasoning that may be applied to divine violence in the book of Samuel are emphasised. Three ethical, literary, and political considerations of this study are highlighted. Firstly, the study is organised around instances of subjective violence, but attention to systemic, objective violence has raised alternative evaluations of the ethics of the violence. Secondly, different kinds of emotions/cognitions of God are correlated with the formulations of divine violence. For each emotion/cognition resulting in violence, a corresponding example is given where the same emotion/cognition results in blessing. The contiguity of different formulations of divine violence in 2 Sam 24 suggests a coherence to God’s characterisation despite the diverse traditions, not a ‘light’ and a ‘dark’ side to God. Finally, the political visions of divine violence in the book of Samuel are oriented towards an ideology of the Davidic kings. Although human monarchic sovereignty is expansive, it is also limited by divine violence.

He Shall Repay the Lamb Fourfold

When retributive divine punishment against David in 2 Samuel 12 includes the death of David and Bathsheba’s newborn child, troubling issues surrounding God’s character are identified by many commentators. In order to examine the divine violence against David’s household in 2 Samuel 11–20 in Part 1, the terms punishment and retribution are defined. Punishment is pain imposed on a person judicially determined as guilty, either through declaration by an authorised party or through transgression of an established law. By this definition, David’s newborn is not individually punished but either collectively punished as part of David’s household, or the victim of collateral damage. Retribution is distinguished from natural consequences that proceed from transgressions, and defined as backward looking, proportional payback for an offence. Elements of Kant’s formulation for retributive punishment are introduced.

The Characterisation of God in the Stories of the Ark

The Divine Violence of the ark in 1 Sam 6:19 and 2 Sam 6:7 springs from the misalignment of the holy transcendent God being present in the ark. The conception of divine presence does not conform to JE, Priestly, Zion-Sabaoth, or Deuteronomistic theology precisely, but it contains elements found in all of these traditions, confirming that the transcendent God is understood as actually present in the ark in 1 Sam 6:19 and 2 Sam 6:7. God is characterised as holy in these narratives, but God also shows no privilege for God’s own people, treating them akin to the Philistines. God is angry in 2 Sam 6:7, and the concept of anger as an unleashed volatile rage is explored. The thought of Walter Benjamin is used to suggest that the Divine Violence of the ark is beyond ethics: it cannot be justified, but it also does not justify other acts of violence.

Reading the Rejection of Saul Politically

The rejection of Saul contributes to a pro-Davidic ideology via justification from divine violence and the evidence for divine attachments to Davidic kings. The rejection of Saul also propounds a rejection of an ideology of northern kingship that includes popular participation and support for the monarchy. There are connections between Saul and Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 11–14 and Ahab in 1 Kgs 20:42; and the Assyrian crisis is a likely context for the development of the ideology in these texts. By contrast, in a southern ideology of kingship, the king does not listen to the people except to listen to their cases; the king, not prophet, establishes mishpat, or judgement; and the king protects the people but does not spare enemies.