To Err Is Divine: The Tetzaveh Haftarah

When it’s time to change, you’ve got to rearrange

The Brady Bunch

Mistakes happen. How do they happen? And when they do, what are the dynamics of change?

This Post analyzes these questions in the context of a divine mistake. A massive error threatening the Israelite’s newly enacted political reconfiguration. This miscue required change at the highest societal level imaginable. There are abundant practical takeaways from this extraordinary mistake. The tale of error comes from Tetzaveh’s Haftarah Portion.

In the Haftarah, the Israelite Nation’s very first monarch- Saul- became a problem. Thus, the analysis delves into how and why his choice as king became a mistake. Also, it looks at how was the problem was remedied.

To be appreciate the concepts of mistakes and change, a discussion of their nature is warranted.

Mistakes and Change

Mistakes don’t just happen in the moment; they can be realized over time.

While the initial action looked sound, it is possible that it can evolve into a mistake.

Correcting mistakes involves a process. Initially, there is the realization of the mistake is key. This can take time and much observation. For the person who made the mistake, the realization can be a blow one’s ego and confidence.

After appreciating the error, there is the decision to change and the eventual implementation of the corrective action.

With this process in mind, the background story to the Saul’s monarchy is necessary to comprehend the termination decision.

Tetzaveh’s Haftarah Background

With the Prophet Samuel’s sons being ill fitted for the Judge role, all of the elders of Israel gathered.

They rejected Samuel’s sons as his successor. They told the Prophet, “give us a king to judge us.” 1 Samuel 8: 4-6. [Note: The Judge role was that of being the nation’s leader.]

While Samuel was concerned over the elders’ request, the Lord approved it. This change in political structure came with a warning; there were protocols to be followed. 1 Samuel 8: 9-21.

With this, the Children of Israel’s Covenant with the Lord was essentially amended to include a Monarchy. Constitutional changes were tantamount made within the accord.

The nation was now to have provisions addressing matters of conscription, taxation and eminent domain. 1 Samuel 8:20. In exchange, the populace received someone who would fight their wars. Supra.

What were the elders’ true concerns: a protective and reliable military? A viable future leadership succession plan? The stark reality was that the nation- a loose confederation of tribes – needed stability. The structure was needed to meet the threats from its surrounding adversaries.

At the time, democracy in the region was not yet realized as an option. A monarchy was their alternative. Their decision to choose that direction was made unanimously.

They essentially walked away from the Judge-Deity arrangement. They preferred a political institution which would establish a professional military.

With this process, the leaders elected a new form of government. They did not, however, elect the candidate who would assume the position of king. That choice- of king – and the mistake- would be God’s.

The Fall of the Tall

Saul apparently met the divine’s criteria for a king. He was described as exceptional and goodly. He was both handsome and taller than anybody else. 1 Samuel 8:1-2.

During his reign, Saul enjoyed some success before his eventual fall from grace. This falling out is detailed in the Tetzaveh Haftarah.

In this instance, King Saul failed to follow divine instructions. In essence, rather than destroying the Amalekite nation, he acted in a manner to create wealth for himself. He did not kill the Amalekite King and he took for himself the Amalekite wealth. See 1 Samuel 15. [Note: What was the Lord’s ultimate strategy in attacking the Amalekites? Was the acquisition of wealth by the monarch problematic? Why was the Amalekite King’s life problematic?]

As a result of this failure to follow divine instructions, Samuel advises Saul: “…For rebelliousness is like the sin of sorcery, the verbosity is like the iniquity of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of God, He has rejected you as king!” 1 Samuel 15:23. [Note: does the alluding to idolatry connect to the Decalogue’s provisions? Was the action perceived as breaking the covenant?]

[Note: At Mt. Sinai, after the Golden Calf incident, God decided to eliminate the Children of Israel and to start anew. Moses, however, convinced the Lord that this was in error due to the events that had transpired. See Exodus 32. How can the Mt. Sinai decision be reconciled with the decision with respect to Saul?]

Why was such a draconian response required in response to Saul’s act of obedience?

The Decision-Making Process

When addressing relationships, roles are important. Every person plays a certain role, i.e. mother, father and child. Roles, over time, can change. For instance, with elderly parents, children become the caregivers.

Sometimes, however, an individual playing one role can impose themselves onto another role. Unwanted role changes can disrupt organizations.

The role matter was arguably in the decision-making process.

Analysis

In this situation, the Israelite nation’s ultimate authority came from the Lord. The King, in failing to follow instructions, positioned himself into the higher role- of the ultimate authority. Further, by having taken captive a foreign king, he was now the King among kings. Likewise, the wealth acquisition from the war created less reliance of the King for national support. He did not need as much support from his people. Since he did not need their support, this arguably weakened his commitment to them.

In essence, the disobedience was perceived as a rejection of authority. Arguably, Saul placed himself at the top of the totem pole.

When this happens, leadership appreciates that a mistake has occurred. There was a need for change.

With the error, a correction was needed. The fascinating part of the error correction was that Saul was merely placed on notice. A successor had not yet been named. Even more interesting, the eventual successor was brought into Saul’s Monarchy to serve. There, the young man, who knew he would be king, received valuable experience and became a man of valor.

Conclusion

Mistakes are not always instantaneous events. Rather, choices over time evolve into problems. In this matter, the power dynamic- a role shift- threaten the nation’s organizational chart. Role shifts, even in modernity, can disrupt businesses, organization and families. These events- once deemed a mistake- can lead to the necessity for corrective action.

In the Tetzaveh tale, while Saul was deemed qualified to be monarch, his emerging agenda was not aligned with upper management.

Arguably, his objectives disrupted the chain of command. His disobedience removed the Lord as an authority. It also gave Saul wealth which could impact his fealty towards the Israelite tribes.

With that, a change needed to be made. Surprisingly, the intent on terminating the agreement came with no immediacy. The next monarch would be brought along. He would be taken into the monarchy where he would gain both military skills and a reputation. His name was David.

The mistake’s correction would ultimately lead to King David’s ascension. During his reign, he created the professional military that the Israelite elders’ desired when they elected to have a monarchy.

Be well!!

Please like, follow, comment or share