The Book of Ruth is very short. It tells about the great-grandmother of David, a woman of the tribe of Moab by the name of Ruth. When her first husband, a man from Bethlehem died, she was allowed by law to marry his kinsman Boaz. Of this marriage Obed was born, whose son Jesse became the father of David. The Book of Ruth teaches that trust in God is rewarded. Also, we see God’s goodness reach beyond the frontiers of Israel bringing to a member of the tribe of Moab the singular privilege of being the great-grandmother of Israel’s most revered king.
Since the time of the Greek translation of the Bible, Samuel has been divided into two books. They contain accounts of the key figures of this period in Israelite history: Samuel, Saul, and David. They also tell of the setting up of kingship as the form of government for the Israelite tribal organization, replacing kinship based on blood or covenant relationships where moral authority was inherent in the elders and heads of families.
In our language, kinship and kingship differ only by the letter “g.” Even for us, however, there is a vast difference in meaning and significance. There was much greater difference among the Israelites for there was strong opposition to the idea of having a king of any kind. The covenant of Yahweh with the people seemed to leave no room for earthly royalty, for their King was Yahweh Himself. Others thought that since Yahweh’s spirit seemed to leave no room for earthly royalty, for their King was Yahweh Himself. Others thought that since Yahweh’s spirit could rest upon the Judges, as we saw in the Book of Judges, it could be argued that , it could be argued that Yahweh.s spirit could rest permanently, by anointing, on a king and his successors. The concern to make a change in the traditional form of government was due to the threat of Philistine expansion. With the very survival of the nation in question, permanent, central authority seemed to be the only solution.
While the idea of kingship was foreign to the thinking of the Israelites, it was practically the only form of statehood and organized government known to the ancient Near East whether in city-states or in the great empires. Kingship was a religious institution. In Mesopotamia, the king was the mediator who represented the people before the gods. In Egypt, he was elevated to being an incarnation of the gods. In both countries, the people’s prosperity, the stability of human society, the fertility of the land, the right functioning of everything depended on the king’s health and the carrying out of his ritual and administrative functions. He was anointed and installed by the gods. His incapacity or lack of success were signs that the gods had withdrawn their approval their “blessing” from him. When the Israelites invaded Canaan, the whole of Syria was made up of city-states, each with its king, under the rather remote control of Egypt.
It wasn’t too long after the invasion that kinship among the Israelites yielded in significance to local relationships, to village and territory. There was no central authority. Joshua, the successor of Moses, did not wield the same influence and when Joshua died, there was no successor. There was only the periodic appearance of “Judges” when a crisis had already arisen. One of these Judges, Samuel, thought that he could help solve the problem by establishing his sons as hereditary judges. The elders of Israel thought otherwise for we are told in I Samuel 8:4) and following: “Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. ‘Look,’ they said to him, ‘you are old, and your sons do not follow your ways. So give us a king to rule over us, like the other nations.’” If the historical sequences and consistency of thought seem at times to be confusing, we must recall that the work is not from one author or from one traditional account.
Samuel, after whom the books are named, is the first of the “classical” prophets who claimed to be inspired by the spirit of Yahweh and who uttered messages from Him. The first meaning of “prophet” was spokesman or interpreter; only secondarily did it mean one who predicts the future. Samuel was acknowledged as messenger of Yahweh and interpreter of His will. He anointed Saul as king but judged him in the name of Yahweh for Samuel understood Yahweh’s will while Saul did not.
Saul reigned from about 1025 until about 1005. He was a capable and inspiring leader. However, he failed to reconcile kingship with the requirements of being a follower of Yahweh. Kingship involved religious functions. In performing these religious functions, Saul went wrong every time despite the fact that he was a loyal worshipper of Yahweh as a private member of the tribe of Israel. The result was that Yahweh transferred His spirit and His blessing to David. Thereafter, Saul with no guidance acted in the dark, and finally destroyed himself and his house.
David reigned from about 1005 until 960. He was a king “after Yahweh’s heart” because he kept the kingship subordinate to the Covenant. Yahweh rewarded him by a special covenant with him and his descendants. This was[i]seen in the remarkable stability of the southern Kingdom of Judah for more than four centuries. In the northern kingdom of Israel, where the older charismatic concept of kingship held, there were frequent assassinations and changes of dynasty. David had extraordinary religious intuition and ideals. He advanced Yahwehism by humility and faith.
At the same time he had an extraordinary cunning, revealed in his attempted cover-up of his sin with the wife of Uriah. If it had not been for the prophet Nathan, e probably would have succeeded. It was the same prophet Nathan, who previously had made the promises about the House of David which sustained and nourished the messianic hope. The New Testament refers three times to Nathan’s prophecy. Jesus is presented as a descendant of David and when the people salute Him as “son of David” they are acknowledging Him as Messiah.