In the first subdivision, I will show my exegesis of 1 Samuel 24, in an effort to flesh out the character of King David and his purposes. Chapter 24 has been selected because it marks the decisive point in the Davidic Story, in which David foremost patterns restraint in expectancy that YHWH will administrate godly justness. This dogma becomes the basis of his reign as King and his function of Israelite hero. It should be understood that I am non interested in seeking for the “ historical David, ” as though one could insulate and place such a character. Rather, I will research David as a character in a compelling play who takes on a life of his ain. I have used secondary beginnings for the bulk of my Hebrew Bible commendations. I have drawn chiefly from the New Revised Standard Version ( NRSV ) , with auxiliary add-ons from my ain Hebrew interlingual renditions. Unless otherwise noted, scriptural transitions have been taken from the NRSV interlingual rendition.
In the 2nd subdivision, I will explicate Erik Erikson ‘s theory of psychosocial development, which is applicable to demoing the development that David undergoes in 1 Samuel 24. Erikson believed that personality develops in a series of phases and is impacted by societal experience across the whole lifetime. This theory will supply the lens through which I will look into this critical event in David ‘s life, found in chapter 24. This procedure will follow that of Walter Langer ‘s “ The Mind of Adolf Hitler. ”
Following this account of Erikson ‘s phases of development, Section Three will analyze the rhetoric and action of David as he begins to organize his worldview. These actions will so be juxtaposed to Erikson ‘s phases of development. This scrutiny of David ‘s character will mirror the work found in Gandhi ‘s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence-Erikson ‘s book on the psychological factors environing Gandhi ‘s revolution for India. Here I will support that 1 Samuel 24 contains the polar experience in David ‘s life: he views himself non as a military adult male but a male monarch who is required to pattern clemency.
More than any other individual, antediluvian Israel was fascinated by David,
profoundly attracted to him, bewildered by him, and on occasion embarrassed by him,
yet ne’er disowned him. -Walter Brueggemann
1 Samuel 24 Tells of David ‘s chance to kill Saul and convey an terminal to David ‘s changeless running. However, David patterns mercy by allowing YHWH enact justness harmonizing to the Godhead timetable alternatively of perpetrating regicide in the minute. David so confronts Saul ( by puting the male monarch on test ) in forepart of Saul ‘s work forces and YHWH. Chapter 24 resolutenesss with both work forces traveling their separate ways in the concluding poetry.
Before coping with the text, the construction of the chapter must be explored. Chapters 24-26 appear to be a quasi-unit, in which the focal point is either restraint when there should hold been action or action when there should be restraint ; it is David ‘s restraint that is cardinal to chapter 24. David restrains himself because of larger concerns -Saul is “ the Godhead ‘s anointed ” . Until this point in the narrative, direct confrontation between Saul and David has been avoided. However, chapter 24 presents the reader with their longest direct conversation therefore far in the narrative. These two chapters ( 24 and 26 ) are likely alternate memories of the same event remembered via an unwritten tradition. Neither Saul nor David indicates in chapter 26 that a similar incident had happened earlier. Both have a similar lineation:
A: David is in the wilderness flying from Saul. ( 24:4/26:3 )
Bacillus: David had an chance to kill Saul ( 24:5/26:8 )
Degree centigrade: There is a suggestion that the chance is provided by YHWH ( 24:5/26:8 )
Calciferol: Due to David ‘s regard for YHWH ‘s anointed, he refuses to kill Saul. ( 24:7/26:11 )
Tocopherol: David takes a piece of grounds as cogent evidence of said chance to kill Saul ( 24:5/26:12 )
F: Saul recognizes David ‘s artlessness and high quality. ( 24:21/26:25 )
The repeat of this event ( though some inside informations are changed ) underlines the importance of what is transpirating in the text. By understanding the lineation of this literary unit, the reader can now analyze the narrative more closely.
The concluding lines of chapter 23 Begin a new chapter in the Davidic saga: “ So Saul stopped prosecuting David, and went against the Philistines ; therefore that topographic point was called the Rock of Escape. David so went up from at that place, and lived in the fastnesss of En-gedi, ” ( 1 Samuel 23:8-9 ) . These poetries set the phase for chapter 24, in add-on to presenting the reader to Saul ‘s ceaseless chase of David. After a courier interrupts Saul ‘s chase of David to denote a Philistine invasion, Saul departs in order to run into the Philistines. Meanwhile David moves to a new part, likely looking for a more secure legal residence after the narrow equivocation at Selahammahlekoth. No Oklahoman does Saul return, another message is transmitted, “ Behold, David is in the wilderness of En-gedi. ” The fact that the storyteller gives no study about the result of Saul ‘s conflict with the Philistine ground forces, but alternatively returns to the chase of David must be a remark on Saulide precedences. Saul responds to this message by piecing 3000 work forces.
With his ground forces of 3000, Saul caputs in the way of the “ Cliffs of the Wild Goats ” to seek his quarry. Almost every observer felt obligated to do some comment about the terrain of this country, normally informing the reader about the topographically typical characteristic of the En-gedi landscape. From these commentaries, the reader learns that this part is ( theoretically ) ideal for a runaway, since the drops and stones are perforated with caves. Miscall goes every bit far as to indicate out that “ wild caprine animal ” in Hebrew is spelled the same as “ Yael ” in Judges 4. Aside from this lingual similarity, there seem to be other interesting analogues in both narrations ( 1 Sam 24 and Judges 4:17-21 ) . Both features a powerful figure traveling to a safe oasis indoors, yet this “ safe ” country contains an armed enemy. As Saul seeks out David, he adopts a side pursuit.
As the text continues, the male monarch stops in a cave to “ cover his pess ” ( a euphemism for “ to alleviate himself. ” ) Possibly, this is supposed to be interpreted as jeer of Saul -in the same manner that the Moabite male monarch, Eglon, was slayed by Ehud ( the left-handed adult male from the right-handed folk of Benjamin ) while in a similar position. Here in 1 Samuel 24, Saul is the adult male of Benjamin who is in a conciliatory place while many of David ‘s work forces would wish to run a blade into his royal belly. However it could besides merely be interpreted as the King was unguarded while in the cave as merely the most foolish soldier would attach to him at this clip. Over the past few chapters, Saul ‘s chase of David has been one of uncommon diligence. He has searched the Earth for David and his work forces. However now while non seeking the work forces out ; Saul is wholly incognizant that they are concealed by the cave.
David ‘s work forces acknowledge this chance and impute it to the fulfilment of the Godhead promise that YWHW will present David ‘s enemies into his manus. The Hebrew Bible does non enter this promise although it would hold been an appropriate promise at the anointing of David. Auld explains this as an unverified citation: “ we readers have ne’er been told of this promise ; David has ne’er spoke of Saul as his enemy. ” In other words the storyteller ne’er discloses YHWH ‘s words that would give David a licence to move as the people did in the yearss of Judges: “ do whatever is good in your eyes, and there will be no male monarch is Israel, ” ( Judges 17:6 ) . The ground this prophet is non recorded is because it ne’er existed.
But what are these work forces ‘s motivations for manufacturing YHWH ‘s words? The group that gathers around David is distressed, discontent, and in debt ( 1 Samuel 22:2 ) . They have every ground to desire Saul dead, in add-on to the fact that if Saul is dead, so are their condemnable records. This is besides non the last clip the reader will see the use of Godhead address ( 2 Sam 3 ) . Meanwhile, when Saul walks into the cave entirely the odds now shift in their favour: from 3000 vs. 600 to 600 vs. 1. With the odds now on his side and his work forces naming for Saul ‘s decease, David is pressured to move.
As David stealthy approaches the male monarch, he is improvizing. This leads to his careful pick to cut off merely a corner of the royal robe. What appears to others as “ the will of YHWH, ” for David it is a enticement from which the divinity will continue him. At this clip, covering with the sanctity of the anointed is chartless district and necessities geographic expedition through test and mistake. David ‘s pick to cut the robe is exhaustively equivocal, yet somehow it is non a misdemeanor of the anointed. Without harming Saul, David has by experimentation scanned the boundary line between himself and the Lord ‘s Anointed by perforating the domain of the sanctum. This experiment enables David to put a case in point for the state of Israel refering profanation in connexion with the monarchy David ‘s work forces recommend that David putting to death Saul even though it is presented in such a manner that gives David a pick. David takes the words of his work forces, “ do to him what you think fit, ” ( 1 Sam 24:5 ) literally and gives Saul life. David ‘s work forces construe this action as a great failure, if non a treachery of kinds. They do non see that David has done something fatal on a symbolic degree ; cutting off the corner of the robe has announced the terminal of Saul as male monarch. David ‘s originality, his sensitiveness to a boundary line experience in the heat of the minute transcends the black and white thought of his work forces, and provides the hereafter king a mediation place. David has proven that he is a existent leader who does non yield to the popular determination. How David really cuts the robe of Saul is non clear in the text. However, this act is symbolic of the land holding been torn from Saul ( in the same mode as Ahijah cutting up his robe in 1 Kings 11:29-31 ) .
After stealing back into his concealing topographic point, David ‘s bosom struck him. The same look is used in 2 Sam 24:10 when David is conscience-stricken after executing a nose count. However, the nose count is portrayed as a relatively serious evildoing, whereas the film editing of Saul ‘s robe is applaudable given the options. David ‘s express motivation for his restraint may be sincere, but it is surely to his rhetorical advantage -to have his work forces see him grief stricken in his following address. This minute of consciousness is besides limited, as David rapidly begins to turn to his work forces. This address can non be understood apart from the audience to whom it is delivered. After all, David is talking to a group who has merely created a godly principle for regicide. Therefore it is imaginable that this same group might be tempted to woolgather up a Godhead principle for slaying another “ anointed 1. ” David ‘s address efficaciously restrains his work forces from transporting out their will. With these words David “ cryings into ” his audience. This line appears to demo that David is keeping his work forces back from lifting up and killing Saul themselves. Thereby he accomplishes this restraint through his rhetoric and non beastly force.
“ The Lord ‘s anointed ” recalls the confusion of chapters 8-16. What does it intend to be “ the Lord ‘s anointed, ” whether it is Saul or David? What power and authorization comes from the rubric? David ‘s point of view on non harming Saul expresses that one time bestowed ; the Godhead spirit can non be revoked. Even though Saul has fallen from YHWH ‘s favour, he remains in ownership of some signifier Godhead spirit until his decease and is to be treated in such a mode. Others have seen David in vv.4-6 as self-serving, believing that he astutely decided that it would be in his best involvement to put an illustration by declining to harm the individual of the male monarch, thereby set uping a case in point for his hereafter reign. However, in visible radiation of the over arced subject in David ‘s life: worlds judge by sight while YHWH Judgess by the bosom ( 1 Sam 16:7 ) , the focal point of the poetries should be on David ‘s usage of his bosom to spot appropriate behaviour and Godhead will.
After this fleeting moral quandary, Saul so rises and leaves the cave to go on on his original way without the cognition that anything had transpired inside the cave. David ‘s subsequent confrontation of Saul in the staying poetries of the chapter are intended to coerce the message to all present ( and the subsequently intended audience ) the invalidness and the wrongness of Saul ‘s resoluteness to run and destruct David. This address is of exceeding importance ; at 26 lines it is the longest Davidic discourse in the Hebrew Bible. David leaves the cave and calls out toward Saul who shows restraint himself even though David is near, he makes no effort to gaining control or kill the Rebel. David so proceeds with a address proclaiming his artlessness and indicating out the futility in Saul ‘s chase of him. David so accuses Saul of listening to rumours of David ‘s purpose to harm the male monarch ( though it is of import to observe that David avoids straight impeaching Saul of such a belief by switching the incrimination to nameless betrayers v10 ) . This is important foremost, because David did non listen to the supplications of his work forces to kill Saul even though Saul does listen to the human impulses presented to him. Second, Saul appears to be the scoundrel because he pursued with military high quality a adult male who had no more significance so the last flea on a dead Canis familiaris as David quotes.
David repeatedly calls on YHWH to move as justice in the instance between these two work forces. In David ‘s eyes, his trueness to his predecessor is unquestionable. In his ain words Saul is “ my Godhead, ” “ the male monarch of Israel, ” and most significantly “ my male parent. ” This usage of “ male parent ” may be puting an accent on his familial tie to Saul as Michal ‘s hubby and his subservient place as “ boy. ” Saul is portrayed as overcome with emotion at this defence and concedes that David was guiltless while he himself was guilty. Here we see the reining anointed king confirm the legitimacy of the in secret anointed. As a consequence, Saul asks merely that David let his line to last. While he agrees to continue this petition, David has already symbolically cut Saul ‘s line.
The piece of robe that David now holds in his manus is a symbol of the land itself. Having ab initio rejected Saul ‘s royal armour and arms ( 1 Sam 17:38-39 ) because he had non yet passed his trial as king-elect and holding later received these effects upon his murder of Goliath ( 1 Sam 18:4 ) , he is now able to claim a piece of what is truly to go his at Saul ‘s decease: the royal robe. The robe is at one time a complement to the dramatic lacrimation in 1 Sam 15:27 and the completion of the procedure of Saul ‘s ‘ rejection. The cloak has become a symbol of the monarchy. As such the film editing of the robe is a much more elusive ( and perchance political ) manner of bespeaking the terminal of Saul ‘s reign than slaying the male monarch. The symbolic power of the robe in David ‘s manus is non lost on Saul, since he confesses that David will be king and that the land of Israel will be established in his hand.A Saul sees the skirt of his robe in David ‘s manus as a symbol of Samuel, of the land and of the Godhead ‘s rejection of Saul.
There are those who say that, historically, non killing Saul in the cave was David ‘s lone option. Some revisionists claim that the traditional reading of David ‘s gesture of restraint is incorrect, because restraint was the lone pick. Lemche argues, “ If David had killed Saul in the cave at En-Gedi, he would without a uncertainty have lost his ain life as good since Saul ‘s armyaˆ¦ , including Abner, was camped before the entryway to the cave. ” While it is interesting to conceive of what would hold happened if Saul had failed to re-emerge from the cave, there is no manner to accurately foretell how an ground forces would respond to the decease of its leader.
David will non personally attack Saul, irrespective of how wicked he may be. He claims “ my manus will non be against you. ” Vikander suggests that the word yad in the Hebrew becomes a keyword in this address:
The motive yad appears twice in David ‘s address, stressing his possible physical power over Saul, but bespeaking his recognition that such power must be exercised decently even when the chance for improper usage arises, as it had in the cave
But David does non seek rapprochement or even a surcease of Saul ‘s chase. David entreaties to the Deity for exoneration and protection ; David merely asks Saul to acknowledge that he means no injury to Saul. David entreaties to retributive justness as he speaks of immorality, wickedness, and wickedness- “ from the wicked comes evil, ” ( 1 Sam 24:14. ) He besides seeks judgement of who is right, “ I have non sinned against you, but you hunt my life to take it, ” ( 1 Sam 24:12 ) . It is here that the reader sees that David ‘s personal actions that have non provoked the royal decease sentence against Saul. The destiny of Saul is a consequence of his wickednesss. David ‘s demand is non for penalty to rectify Saul ‘s motiveless onslaughts, but instead for Saul ‘s public acknowledgment that his chase of David is unfair. David ‘s sparing of Saul ‘s life is now placed in the larger context: operation as “ cogent evidence ” of David ‘s artlessness. This underlies his demand for a elucidation, a statement of who is in the right and who is incorrect. David ‘s initial earnestness and daze are now transformed into an effectual political statement.
David ‘s full reference to Saul is a powerful illustration of spoting address, showing his ownership of the characteristic attributed to him by one of Saul ‘s Lords ( 1 Sam 16:18 ) . It is comprised of persuasive pieces of rhetoric working at assorted degrees, designed to do Saul recognize the mistakes of his ways and stop his Hunt for David. David ‘s address is so traveling that Saul eventually acknowledgesA ( as in 1 Sam 18:8 and 20:20-31 ) that David is to go male monarch. However Saul ne’er mentions the Lord in his avowal of David ‘s destiny.A This leads to a series of inquiries as to why David is to go male monarch. Is he “ more righteous ” so Saul? Is he better so Saul in a moral, military, or political sense? A This subdivision of text surrounds the characters in a craze of rhetoric, as both engage in series of inquiries. These rhetorical inquiries ( 5 10, 15 twice, and 17 ) appear to be forced declarations dressed up as petitions for information. An illustration of the nature of these inquiries is 24:17 where Saul asks David, “ Is this your voice, my boy David? ” This inquiry is asked after Saul had looked behind him to see who was at that place, in add-on to David merely completing seven poetries of duologue in which he spoke in footings that easy revealed his individuality. Brueggemann contemplates if in this inquiry of “ is this your voice, my boy David, ” the Deuteronomist is arousing an allusion to the narrative of Isaac, Jacob and Esau in Genesis 27. It excessively relates a narrative of a transferred approval:
The linguistic communication is strongly evocative of Isaac, who was lame and could non place his boy. ( Gen 27:18, 31 ) Is this inquiry placed in Saul ‘s oral cavity intended to remember Isaac? Is Saul, like Isaac, old and lame? Is Saul afraid of being duped? Is Saul covering with a David who is as Swift and crafty and unprincipled as the stealthy Jacob? Is David, in this forceful brush, about to prehend something from Saul that is non justly his, as Jacob seized from Isaac and Esau?
Though his inquiry is rhetorical, there is merely one response: “ Saul lifted up his voice and wept. ” ( 1 Sam 24:16 ) Like Esau, Saul weeps when confronted with his hereafter and the black house wherein he now dwells.
Saul ends his address in the same mode that his boy Jonathan did in chapter 20, by bespeaking that David non cut off Saul ‘s line of descendants. This raises the inquiry: what male monarch has the house of an enemy in his appreciation and allows that lineage to go on? In Judges 9, Abimelech destroys the house of his ain male parent, and subsequently male monarchs expeditiously destroy rival houses. An curse is sworn by David however. After David swears non to purge Israel of Saul ‘s line of descent, Saul calls off his rampant chase and returns place. David and his work forces, nevertheless, do non attach to the male monarch ; alternatively they return to the wilderness. The concluding line of this chapter suggests that David is still a fleeting. An episode marked by restraint of power terminals with the fright of the exercising of power. As presented in this chapter, the declaration is separation non rapprochement ; Saul simply acknowledges the fate of himself and of David. A
Chapter 24 illustrates how David, when confronted with a state of affairs -whether to kill a male monarch already rejected by YHWH and a male monarch who has many times sought to kill David -decides against the obvious reply. Every event in chapter 24 justifies David, even as everything in chapter 15 seemed to reprobate Saul. See the incident in the cave. The darkness here symbolizes uncertainness refering how David ‘s certain future meshes with Saul ‘s unsure terminal. David ‘s work forces incite him to force by stating him that YHWH has delivered Saul into his custodies. But what precisely is to be done with Saul? This is precisely what makes this narrative so cliff-hanging: one time David is chosen and Saul rejected, how will David obtain the land given to him by YHWH? David ‘s determination is non to kill the male monarch and its rightness is symbolized by an action that parallels the action in chapter 15 that symbolized Saul ‘s mistake ; merely as Saul tore off the skirt of Samuel ‘s robe, David cuts off the skirt of Saul ‘s robe. The first action is ragged, the 2nd crisp and acute. The loose terminals created by the first history now become clear. David ‘s film editing of Saul ‘s robe mentioned three times in Chapter 24 clearly symbolizes the transportation of royal power from Saul to David.
“ The purpose of life is self-development. To recognize one ‘s nature absolutely – that is what each of us is here for. ”
This subdivision of the essay will research one psychological theory that is relevant to David ‘s life. Erik Erikson theorizes that psychosocial development occurs in eight phases which a healthily homo will travel through from babyhood to late maturity. During each phase a individual confronts, and ideally Masterss, new crises. Each phase compounds the successful completion of each earlier phase. An inability to successfully reply the critical inquiry of any phase may re-emerge as jobs for the person in the hereafter. In this essay, I will disregard the first three phases as they describe early ages of development in which there is no Biblical certification for David ‘s life. Below is a list of footings ( in order that they appear in this essay ) that may be unfamiliar to those without some background in psychological science:
Definition of Footings:
Industry – feeling of deserving derived from success in a given undertaking
Inferiority- feeling of less importance, valuable, or worthy
Identity- personally cognizing who one is
Role Confusion- deriving a position of one ‘s ego from others
Intimacy – a stopping point, familiar, and normally affectionate or loving personal relationship with another individual or group.
Isolation- separation from others
Generativity- the ability to hold a permanent impact of future coevalss
Stagnation- to halt development, turning, come oning, or progressing
Ego Integrity – to accept the given circumstance and continue with life
Despair- to lose hope A
During the “ School age ” period ( 7-12 old ages of age ) an single conflicts with the crises of Industry vs. Inferiority and subconsciously inquiries, “ Am I good at what I do? ” Allen and Marotz province, “ Children at this age are going more cognizant of themselves as persons. ” These kids will endeavor towards “ being responsible, being good and making it right ” while being more sensible and get downing to portion and cooperate with others. At this phase, kids are willing to larn and get the hang complex accomplishments such as: reading, authorship, and revealing clip. They besides able to organize values, place cultural and single differences and manage most of their personal demands. During this phase, kids frequently assert their independency by being noncompliant, speaking back to authorization figures, and moving rebellious. Children in this stage demand to larn how to win. If the kid is non allowed to win, they will develop a feeling of lower status or incompetency. However, excessively much construction will take to kids who are non allowed to move like kids, which will do jobs in the hereafter. A balance is needed between industry and lower status which leads to competence.
During the “ Adolescence ” period ( 13-19 old ages of age ) a individual trades with Identity vs. Role Confusion, and attempts to work out the inquiry ” Who am I? ” The stripling is freshly concerned with how s/he appears to others. The stripling must do a witting hunt for individuality. This is built on the result and declaration of struggle in earlier phases. The ability to get down visualizing a hereafter, such as choosing a college or business is ideal during this phase. Up to this phase, development depends upon what is done to the person. From this phase frontward, development depends chiefly upon what the person does. From this point on, life becomes more complex as an single efforts to happen their ain individuality, struggles with societal interactions, and grapnels with moral issues. The major undertaking during this phase is to detect who one is as an single offprint from their household of beginning and as members of society as a whole. Unfortunately, in this procedure many go into a period of withdrawing from duties, which Erikson called a “ moratorium. ” If one is unsuccessful in voyaging this phase, they will see function confusion and turbulence.
Another important undertaking during this phase is to set up a doctrine of life. In this procedure one tends to believe in footings of rules, which are conflict free, instead than world. The issue is that these persons do non hold much experience and happen it easy to replace these rules for experience. However, one will besides develop a strong devotedness to friends and causes. Therefore, it is no surprise that most important relationships are with equal groups at this clip. This phase is where I will concentrate my attending while analysing the actions of David in 1 Samuel 14.
In the “ Young maturity ” phase ( 20-40 old ages of age ) , Intimacy V. Isolation leads a individual to inquire the inquiry, “ Am I loved and wanted? ” In this phase, the most critical events are happening and cultivating relationships. Familiarity refers to a stopping point, normally affectionate, or loving personal relationship with another individual. Any single who has non developed a personal individuality will avoid a committed relationship and withdraw and insulate themselves. It is of import to observe that holding an confidant relationship does non bespeak a sexual relationship. Peoples can be sexual without being committed and unfastened with one another. True familiarity requires a personal committedness to the other. A immature grownup must develop intimate relationships by being unfastened and swearing another person. By non deciding this struggle, the immature grownup will get down to experience isolated in life. Avoiding these experiences frequently leads to self-love and a feeling of high quality to others.
At the start of the Intimacy phase, individuality vs. function confusion should be coming to an terminal although it is still present at the base of the phase. Young grownups are still eager to tie in their individualities with friends because of the desire to suit in. When a individual arrives at this phase they should be prepared for both familiarity and isolation, holding the capacity to be entirely and separated from others. This balance between familiarity and isolation allows for the potency of love with others as a individual must cognize how to be happy with themselves in order to love. Having balance in the Intimacy phase will assist in the coming phases when unexpected isolation occurs, e.g. , decease of a important other. In this phase, an person should be ready for committedness and be able to take part in committed relationships. One ‘s self-importance should besides be prepared for rejection -via the tests of break-ups, isolation, and being entirely. Peoples are afraid of rejection, as rejection is painful due to the egos inability to bear hurting. Therefore, Erikson besides argues, “ Intimacy has a opposite number: Distantiation: the preparedness to insulate and if necessary, to destruct those forces and people whose kernel seems unsafe to our ain, and whose district seems to infringe on the extent of one ‘s intimate dealingss. ”
During the phase “ Middle maturity ” ( 45-65 old ages of age ) , Generativity vs. Stagnation is the chief focal point. Harmonizing to Erikson ‘s definition “ Generativity is the concern of set uping and steering the following coevals. ” Instilling social criterions and subjects are common looks of generativity. It is of import to observe, that merely holding kids does accomplish generativity. The most significant event in this phase is rearing and replying the inquiry, “ will I be able to care and steer the predating coevals? ” Every grownup must hold some manner to construct and back up the preceding coevals. Erikson provinces, “ A individual does best at this clip to set aside ideas of decease and balance its certainty with the lone felicity that is enduring: to increase, by whatever is yours to give, the good will and higher order in your sector of the universe. ” A focal point on the person ‘s at hand decease becomes a disability traveling into the following stage of life.
In “ Late maturity ” ( from 60 old ages on ) the psychosocial crisis becomes Ego Integrity V. Despair. Person who can reflect on positive minutes with felicity, on negative events with regard, and on declinations with forgiveness and penetration will happen a new sense of unity. While those disgruntled with the life that they have led will fall into depression and desperation. The indispensable inquiry here is, “ Have I lived a good life? ” A positive decision of this crisis is reached if an person can derive a sense of fulfilment about life, which leads to a sense of integrity within themselves and with others. As a consequence, they can accept decease as inevitable. Merely as a healthy kid does non fear the hereafter, a healthy grownup will does non fear decease. A negative stoping to this crisis causes the person to fear decease.
Psychosocial development as articulated by Erik Erikson explains eight phases through which a healthily developing human should go through from babyhood to late maturity. In each phase the individual confronts new crisis with each episode edifice on the successful completion of earlier stages. If the challenges of each phase that are non successfully conquered, they can be expected to resurface as jobs subsequently in an person ‘s development. The undermentioned subdivision will link how David passes through these phases to his life events.
“ Do we, the late-born, truly cognize anything at all about person who lived in the yesteryear? ”
-Grete Weil, The Bride Price
Using chapter 24 of 1 Samuel as our instance survey, the statement can be made that David successfully passes through the adolescent phase of development. Here one can see David try to reply the cardinal inquiry of “ Who am I? ” proposed by Erikson, by wrestling with moral issues. In chapter 24, one can besides see David battle with societal interactions with his work forces in the cave. By garnering a set of runawaies and populating as their head in the wilderness of Judah, David has discovered his natural ability in both combat and leading therefore widening ( as Erickson suggests ) the nexus between industry and individuality. More significantly, David strives to be a adult male of Godhead character which is shown by keep backing his ain justness from Saul by leting YHWH to function as justice and jury ( 1 Sam 24:12 ) . This refusal to partake in retaliation becomes a doctrine of life for David. However, this sometimes maps better as an ideal than a lived world for the new male monarch.
Another indicant of a successful transition of this phase is David ‘s refusal to ordain retaliation because he is self-aware of his ain wickedness and how this wickedness negatively correlates with YHWH ‘s intervention of the Israelites. David looks foremost at his ain evildoings and leaves the retaliation to his divinity. It is of import to observe nevertheless, that David has non transcended the desire for revenge. He craves exoneration in the face of unfairness, yet he refuses to take retaliation himself go forthing both judgement and penalty to YHWH.
Another indicant of the successful transition through the Identity vs. Role Confusion phase is how this doctrine on life matures through his life-time. The really following chapter of 1 Samuel shows Nabal denying David and his work forces nutrient. This angers both David and the work forces ; although he is dead set on retaliation, David abstains. Alternatively “ the Lord struck Nabal, and he died, ” ( 1 Sam 25:38 ) . Once once more, David defaults to the clemency that he learned in his stripling phase. Even later in life, this clip as male monarch, David leaves the penalty of Joab ( who slays Abner ) to YHWH mentioning, “ May the guilt autumn on the caput of Joab, and on all his male parent ‘s house ; and may the house of Joab ne’er be without one who has a discharge, or who is leprous, or who holds a spindle, or who falls by the blade, or who lacks nutrient! ” ( 2 Sam 3:29. ) This form of clemency through justness by allowing YHWH act as executioner continues tardily into David ‘s life. Saul, Nabal, Amnon, and Absalom all receive clemency from David, but have deceases that are viewed as judgement from YHWH.
David ‘s gallantry does non come from the battleground but from his heroic clemency. When placed in places to take between justness and clemency, David systematically opts for clemency. While this lenience frequently proves to be debatable, it is ne’er portrayed as a failing. David ‘s heroic clemency is created and sustained by his religion in YHWH, who is merely and whom David can swear to penalize the immorality he faces ( which leads to the following phase of development: Familiarity V. Isolation ) . This clemency is a direct consequence of David ‘s adolescent experience at En-gedi in 1 Sam 24.
“ I ‘ve heard there was a secret chord
that David played and it pleased the Lord
But you do n’t truly care for music, do you?
It goes like this, the 4th, the fifth
the minor autumn, the major lift
the befuddled male monarch composing Hallelujah ”
King David is one of the most well-know Biblical figures, yet small was known to explicate how the male child who was anointed male monarch as a kid and slew Goliath grew up to be the adult male that allows YHWH to ordain justness on his behalf. This essay explored a critical event in David ‘s life that proved polar to the development of his character. Although recent critics emphasize David ‘s obliqueness in his acclivity to the kingship, they seldom acknowledge the place in which David was placed. David was bound on one side by his ain anointment by Samuel and on the other by Saul ‘s anterior anointment. Both came from YHWH and as such, both are to be respected. It is funny that, despite near cosmopolitan understanding for Saul in current scholarship of 1 Samuel, few comment on David as the first to exhibit this understanding. He does non handle Saul as an opposition, but as a menace from which to fly. David does non utilize his popularity ( 1 Sam 18:7-8 ) to sabotage Saul ‘s place because David feels commiseration for Saul. The scriptural narratives about Saul ‘s last chase of David, ask for the reader to chew over on the significance of clemency. Because YHWH ‘s justness compels him to esteem the Lord ‘s anointed, David is taught that justness can dwell of clemency. For most scriptural heroes the significance of justness is reasonably clear. When a hero kills Philistines, he or she is put to deathing YHWH ‘s justness on the uncircumcised ; such in the instance when David kills Goliath. The penalty fits the offense. Faith here is a simple affair of believing that YHWH will do the smaller force victory over the enemy. However, David has to demo more faith than this in his competition with Saul. In this instance, detecting YHWH ‘s justness does non intend put to deathing a natural program of retaliation against his manque slaying, but expecting YHWH ‘s finding of fact. David has been anointed by the Lord ‘s prophesier, Samuel, but he has non gained the right to murder the King: “ May the Lord justice between me and you! May the Lord avenge me on you ; but my manus shall non be against you, ” ( 1 Sam 24:12 ) . Because David ‘s religion is tested to the extent of swearing in a justness that is non seeable to the bare oculus, he learns to be merciful.
Saul, although a scoundrel, is cryptically placed beyond injury ‘s range by YHWH ‘s anointment. David can non suit penalty to a offense, and therefore discovers mercy. If David is merely remembered as the harper or the killer of Goliath, he would merely be a inactive character. David ‘s gallantry comes non from workss of war, but from his heroic clemency. Forced to take between justness and clemency, David systematically opts for clemency. David ‘s heroic clemency is sustained and kept integral through his religion in a divinity who entirely is merely, whom he can swear to penalize the immorality he faces. Saul, Nabal, Amnon, and Absalon all receive clemency from David ‘s manus, but the accidents that befall them and their ultimate devastation are all seen as the judgement of YHWH.
David ‘s presentation of clemency in chapter 24, could be described as a fluctuation of the wisdom tradition. Wisdom plays on analogies and antonyms: the wise adult male and the foolish adult male, the wise married woman and the foolish married woman ( Prov 14:16, 15:21, 18:22, etc ) Saul and David are, severally the covetous and the merciful adult male. Whereas enviousness wants ill fortune on the other, therefore doing them a rival ; mercy volitions good luck, therefore making friendly relationship. Whereas Saul initiates their struggle by envying David and his “ 10 1000s, ” ( 18:8-7 ) David brings the struggle to a stopping point by demoing clemency to the male monarch.