|
|
Does fate of Saul or David await bill?
GARY ROSENBLATT
New York Jewish Week
How does one gauge the level of President Clinton's contrition in light of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and whether it is enough to allow him to remain in office? An avid Bible reader, the president could look to the Book of Samuel for two paradigms of kings of Israel who committed grievous sins, and see how they were responded to by God, and history.
Saul, the first king of Israel, disobeyed God's command, given through the prophet Samuel, to destroy all the people of Amalek, the personification of evil and the eternal enemy of the Jewish people. When Saul spares the life of Agag, the Amalekite king, in battle, Samuel becomes very angry, and tells Saul, "Because you rejected the Lord's command, he has rejected you as king." Saul is stripped of his authority, and after he dies in battle, the throne does not pass to his sons.
History has not been kind to Saul, who became increasingly obsessed with and jealous of young David, who he felt would succeed him as king. But it should be remembered that at the outset of his career, Saul was an enormously appealing figure in terms of his physical appearance and military courage. One of his character flaws, though, was a desperate need to be liked, which had an adverse effect on a national leader called upon at times to make unpopular decisions.
Even closer to home is King David, who is bright, handsome and righteous - but unable to curb his sexual drive. Upon seeing the lovely Bathsheba, he takes her to him, even after determining that she is married. When she later informs him that she has become pregnant, he orders her husband, Uriah the Hittite, to be sent to the battle front so that he will die.
Uriah and a number of the king's most loyal officers are killed in battle. David marries Bathsheba, and the text offers that God was "displeased with what David had done." But he remains king, and is succeeded upon his death by Solomon, his son by Bathsheba, who builds the Holy Temple.
Why is David forgiven for his sin with Bathsheba and allowed to remain king, while Saul is condemned and loses the throne? One answer is that Saul failed to execute the duties of his office. He was commanded to eradicate Amalek, and, however well intentioned his behavior, he disobeyed God's instructions. David's sin, on the other hand, involved his personal life rather than his professional responsibilities, so when he prayed for forgiveness, it was granted to him.
In a talk several months ago to the Orthodox Union, Yitzchak Breitowitz, a noted Washington rabbi and law professor, touched on the subject and suggested that in contemporary terms, we may view President Clinton's indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky as falling under the King David category of personal and moral offenses - but not necessarily impeachable ones. The rabbi also cited several traditional commentaries that distinguished between how Saul and David responded to their sins. David admits his behavior was wrong and repents; Saul, when confronted, first denies his sin, then minimizes its importance, and finally blames others.
"I did wrong to transgress the Lord's command and your instructions," he tells Samuel. "But I was afraid of the troops and yielded to them. Please forgive my offense and come back with me, and I will bow low to the Lord." For Samuel, though, Saul's apology was too little, too late. Is that how Americans feel about the President's recent national confession, and what has since been revealed in investigative reports from the independent counsel?
As the Clinton drama plays itself out in the weeks ahead, it appears that the important criterion for the American people will be to believe that the president has both acknowledged his sins and apologized for them in a genuine fashion. Until he does, the jury of public opinion will remain out.
Gary Rosenblatt is editor and publisher of New York Jewish Week.
|
