When preparing sermons on King David, preachers over the years have pored over every detail of David’s life and every trait of his character to expound lessons and examples for believers to learn and imitate. Preachers have also interpreted patterns, events, or characters in the David story to prefigure or symbolize Christ and the Church. Such lessons, examples, types, or symbols become even more apparent when King Saul is introduced as David’s foil. In general, we tend to focus on how we can improve our personal faith and life by reflecting on the life and deeds of David but rarely explore how we can advance our society and local communities by engaging David in his historical environment. Even when preachers appropriate biblical scholarship to add historical details in their sermons, they seldom explore how understanding David in his historical milieu can speak specifically to our contemporary society. In this article I examine David and Saul in their “multi-people” environment so that we can appreciate some characteristics of their leadership that are useful in our multicultural context.

A multi-people context

It does not take much imagination to see Canaan as a multicultural region or at least as a “multi-people” milieu when we read the books of Judges and Samuel. This is not surprising since the biblical texts reflect the time after the collapse, decline, and fragmentation of the Late Bronze Age empires, when regionally or perhaps even ethnically defined peoples emerged in Canaan during the Iron Age I (c. 1250 to 1000 BCE) to form “a mosaic of local cultures and ethnicities that formed the foundations of the biblical world” (Anne E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity 2005, p.1). Therefore we can surmise that the heterogeneous highlanders who would later become the people of Israel were surrounded by peoples who were ethnically, culturally, or religiously different from them, such as the Amalekites, Ammonites, Arameans, Canaanites, Edomites, Midianites, Moabites, Philistines, Phoenicians, and Sidonians, among others. Each group may have had its own god, culture, language, and history, and each group had to interact and compete with one another to establish its own place in Canaan. The region in which the people of Israel emerged was indeed a rich contact zone where “disparate cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other” (Mary Louis Pratt, Imperial Eyes 1992, p. 5). Within the porous borders of Israel, there were many non-Israelites living with them like the Amorites, Calebites, Gibeonites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, Kenites, Perizzites, and others. Moreover, the formation of Israel’s identity itself was just taking shape and who belonged to Israel fluctuated not only during this period but also throughout its history, expanding or contracting according to its shifting socio-political landscape.

It is apparent from the opening chapter of Judges that Israel’s occupation of Canaan had not been settled and the Israelites were still scrambling to secure their territories. Some tribes resided among the Canaanites and other tribes had the Canaanites living amongst them. Judges acknowledged that the Israelites continued to coexist and comingle with Canaanites and other inhabitants of the land. Toward the end of Judges and the beginning of Samuel, the Philistines emerged as Israel’s archenemy—the Other. The biblical texts, especially Judges and 1-2 Samuel, as well as archaeological evidence suggest that the Philistines were the external threat that compelled the heterogeneous highlanders to become the people of Israel, that is, as Avraham Faust suggests, “The Philistines seem to have been the anvil on which Israel’s identity was forged” (Israel’s Ethnogenesis 2006, p. 148). Was David a better leader because he was better man than Saul?

In such an environment Saul emerged as a leader by consolidating a mixed multitude of highlanders into a kingdom with the support of his own tribe that fended off threats from the Philistines. Saul was a successful leader; however, we regularly preach Saul as a failure because in the story he is cast as David’s antagonist. The biblical narrative gives a simple explanation for Saul’s purported failure: God departs from Saul, “Now the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him” (1 Sam 16:14), and chooses to be with David. The expression “Yahweh was with David” (1 Sam 16:13, 18; 17:37; 18:12, 14, 28; 20:13; 2 Sam 5:10) runs through the narrative as a theological leitmotif to explain why David was able to defeat Saul, win over the people’s hearts, and establish his kingdom. Anyone God chooses is a winner! Anyone God abandons is a loser! This may sound right enough, at least from a theological perspective, but from a pragmatic perspective, such an explanation is not useful.

We need to explore what practical factors or skills made David a successful leader in a multi-people environment so that we can consider them to improve our leadership in similar contexts. However, preachers still insist that there was something special about David that attracted God’s favor. Did David succeed because of his pure heart, outstanding character, and uncompromising faith? Could these traits be essential elements of leadership in multicultural contexts? According to the narrative in the book of Samuel, the narrator rationalizes that God chose David because his heart, character, and faith were better than Saul’s. Even though exactly in what ways David was better than Saul is quite ambiguous we usually concur with and too willingly follow the narrator’s rhetoric and preach about David’s special qualities that made him God’s favorite. Does David’s success have something to do with his internal qualities? Was David indeed a better man than Saul? Most preachers would answer in affirmative in spite of his sin against Uriah the Hittite and other dubious deeds. They often point to God’s description of David as “a man after God’s own heart” (even though this statement can be translated as “a man of God’s own choosing,” emphasizing God’s sovereignty rather than David’s special quality) to justify their favorable view of David. On one hand, there are many questions we can ask about David’s heart, character, and faith; yet, on the other hand, we can make a strong case that Saul was as good as or even better than David. It is sufficient to say for this article that there is at least one fact in the story, rather than a biased statement from the narrator, that tilts the balance in favor of Saul. He is taller and bigger than David. In spite of what the narrator says about God preferring the heart over the appearance, according to the convention of the biblical narrative, Saul’s grand physical stature is viewed as a sign of God’s favor. It is Saul who has the objective and external sign of God’s blessing, in contrast to David whose sign of blessing is subjective and internal.

It is unclear, at least to me, that David had better character qualities than Saul. The difference between these two men could be a matter of their personalities or dispositions; they had distinctive leadership styles—with strengths and weaknesses. Saul was a shy, humble, and reserved leader who reluctantly became king of the Israelites; in fact, it took three “installations” for him to feel comfortable in his role (1 Sam 9:25-10:1, 10:17-24, and 11:14-15). David, in contrast, was a charismatic, cocky, and ambitious leader who wanted to become king from the beginning. In our culture, however, we love winners and have the tendency to overlook their faults and mistakes. We love to turn successful people, including preachers, into models (sometimes into idols) and then try to emulate their skills and personal traits, in the hope of becoming just as successful or of receiving God’s blessings. But even if David had an outstanding heart, moral character, and faith, these qualities do not explain why David was a better leader than Saul in their multi-people/multi-cultural context.

What made David a good leader in a multi-people context?

We need to read the narrative critically and contextually to identify what made David a better leader than Saul in their multi-people/culture milieu.

First, Saul was an exclusivist who relied on his own tribe to establish his kingdom and implemented tribal-centric policies. First Samuel 22:7 is a critical passage in understanding his policies:

Saul was sitting at Gibeah, under the tamarisk tree on the height, with his spear in his hand, and all his servants standing around him. Saul said to his servants, “Hear now, you Benjaminites; will the son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, will he make you all commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds?”

Saul’s inner circle of leadership was made up of his clansmen, Benjaminites, serving as “commanders” of his army. This may have been acceptable when his kingdom was limited to his tribal boundaries, but this became problematic as his kingdom expanded.

In contrast, David was an inclusivist whose power was based on alliances outside his clan and included “outsiders” to the inner circle of his leadership. The makeup of his army, for example, was diverse; he included in his army the Philistines, the Cherethites and the Pelethites, the Hittites, at least one Cushite (2 Sam 18:21), the Gibeonites, the Israelites, the Benjaminites, the Calebites, and others. David did not distinguish between Israelites and non-Israelites. When he had to muster his men to fight against Absalom’s force, he set “commanders of thousands” and “commanders of hundreds” over his men (2 Sam 18:1) without any mention of dividing his men or choosing “commanders” according to their group identity. Moreover, he let a Philistine, Ittai the Gittite, be the general of one third of his army (2 Sam 18:2). Ittai and other non-Israelites had an equal opportunity to serve and thrive in David’s army.

Second, Saul played favorites in his distribution of wealth. When David was gathering his men in rebellion against him, Saul asked the Benjaminites whether they would fare better in David’s army: “Will the son of Jesse give everyone of you fields and vineyards?” (1 Sam 22:7). This verse indicates that Saul had indeed favored the Benjaminite commanders in the distribution of properties. We have a good example of this. There may be an historical incident behind the Gibeonites’ complaint to David about Saul’s campaign to wipe them out from Israel (2 Sam 21:1-2). In 2 Sam 4:3, there is a note that the people of Beeroth, who were the Gibeonites, had fled from Beeroth, and they were displaced by the Benjaminites, for it notes that “Beeroth is considered to belong to Benjamin” (2 Sam 4:2). This aside is given to explain how two Benjaminite captains of Saul’s army (now under Saul’s son Ishbaal) are from Beeroth, which originally belonged to the Gibeonites. That is, Saul removed the Gibeonites from their territory in order to give “fields and vineyards” to his clansmen.

In contrast, David was egalitarian in his distribution of wealth. We see a clear example of David’s egalitarian ethos in action when he equally divides the spoils recovered from the Amalekites between the four hundred men who continued with David to the Amalekite camp and the two hundred men who stayed behind because they were too exhausted to continue the pursuit (1 Sam 30:21-25). Some of the four hundred men complained to David, “Because they did not go with us, we will not give them any of the spoils that we have recovered, except that each man may take his wife and children, and leave” (1 Sam 30:22). They wanted to expel the two hundred men from David’s community because they didn’t partake in the actual raid against the Amalekites. But David would have none of it and declares to them in 1 Sam 30:23-24: “You shall not do so, my brothers, with what the Lord has given us . . . For the share of the one who goes down into the battle shall be the same as the share of the one who stays by the baggage; they shall share alike.” The narrative claims that because of David’s action on that day (and also because David has made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel), this egalitarian practice “continues to the present day” (1 Sam 30:25). This radical practice of the distribution of wealth reflects David’s egalitarian leadership.

Third, Saul remained partisan throughout his career and sought a position of advantage when he maintained Gibeah—“Saul was sitting at Gibeah” (1 Sam 22:6)—as the seat of his kingdom even though his kingdom was expanding beyond his tribal territory. He could have moved his capital to another location to appease those who were not from the tribe of Benjamin, but he continued to put the interest of Benjamin before that of the entire kingdom.

In contrast, David was non-partisan and sought a position of neutrality when he moved his capital from Hebron, which belonged to Judah, to Jerusalem as his kingdom expanded. This change was a brilliant political career move. Jerusalem offered an excellent strategic position from which to rule his ever expanding kingdom. It was centrally located between Israel and Judah but outside of either of their territories. He wisely conquered Jerusalem with his own men, “the king and his men” (2 Sam 5:6) the text tells us, without the use of troops conscripted from Judah or Israel. Therefore, Jerusalem became David’s personal city, “the city of David” (2 Sam 5:7), a neutral site from which he could rule over his multiple constituents.

Fourth, Saul was conventional and afraid of making changes. It was not entirely his fault that his leadership became ineffective for things began to change around him. He no longer ruled a tribe, and his kingdom had expanded and included disparate peoples. But he was micro-managed by his mentor Samuel who insisted on doing everything according to tradition. Samuel did not want the system to change and conceded to the people’s wish for a king very reluctantly. The people, on the other hand, wanted changes. Saul was indecisive because he was stuck between his strong-willed, tradition-minded mentor and the change-demanding population.

In contrast, David was unconventional and innovative; he was not afraid to make changes. He didn’t allow himself to be micro-managed by either Samuel or Saul, or to be restrained by convention. David’s innovative thinking was clearly demonstrated in his battle against Goliath. Everyone expected a conventional hand-to-hand combat, but David reframed it into a long-distance fight. Goliath had no shot–literally. David combined the northern religious tradition, the Jerusalem priestly tradition, and the kingship of Judah to form a more inclusive cult and polity. He utilized the Ark of the Covenant that was associated with the northern tribes, as the state icon of his kingdom. Moreover, David appointed Abiathar, whom the narrative claims is a member of the house of Eli, which served Saul during his reign, and Zadok from Jerusalem, the city of Jebusites, as his chief priests. He embraced different traditions and was open to changes rather than dogmatically adhering to the past. He was an innovator of religious traditions and established Jerusalem as the center of his multi-(tribal?) kingdom.

It is worth repeating that Saul possessed the same character qualities as David, qualities essential to a good leader. In fact, Saul was successful in consolidating a mixed multitude of people into a kingdom and keeping the Philistine threat at bay, but he failed to change his ways when his kingdom expanded and the makeup of his people became more diverse. In our multicultural society where diverse populations live in a dynamic contact zone and where changes are constant, David’s inclusive, egalitarian, non-partisan, and open-to-change leadership style would be a better fit than Saul’s leadership style of exclusivism, favoritism, partisanship, and traditionalism.

About the author

Uriah Kim wrote one article for this publication.

Dr. Uriah Kim is Professor of Hebrew Bible at Hartford Seminary, with previous positions at the San Francisco Theological Seminary, the Pacific School of Religion, and as a visiting lecturer at the Graduate Theological Union. Dr. Kim’s latest publication, Decolonizing Josiah: Toward a Postcolonial Reading of Josiah explores new interpretative readings of biblical texts.

• Blog