Why would G-d give the kingship over to a servant anyway? I have a few different theories. Perhaps this was supposed to be demeaning to Shlomo, which would be a method of "teaching him a lesson." Or maybe, a servant would be the only logical choice because they are accustomed to following orders, and this would be G-d's nway of showing Shlomo what went wrong. Then again, a servant may be a natural choice because they would not have been blessed with everything they ever wanted, and because of this they would probably be very unlikely to be swayed by hubris or be too narcissistic. What do you guys think about my opinions? Do you have any answers to the questions above? PLEASE feel free to respond to anything in this post in the comments below!
Monday, September 2, 2013
All to a Servant?!
This past week our class discussed one of the consequences that would occur if Shlomo did not follow G-d's rules: a servant would take over the kingship. What could this mean? Does this mean an actual servant of Shlomo's, or just a person that had the status of servant? Why in the world would G-d hand over the kingship of Israel to a servant? Doesn't this seem to be demeaning to position of king? What about royal bloodlines? What about Shlomo's family: will consequences befall them because of Shlomo`s actions? Would that be fair? How does a servant get picked to be a king?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like how you started off your summary. I also like how you asked the Questions in the summary and then answered it. It is a perfect lengh. Great Job.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinions Emma. I also think that the Shlomo is being punished and Hashem is trying to lower his position in the kingdom. By giving the kingdom to his servant, it shows that Shlomo did wrong and he needs to punished. Shlomo had been warned before he did bad. It is his fault that his family lost the kingdom and yes, it's sad they get punished for Shlomo's actions, but Hashem DID warn Shlomo in the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI also was wondering about the servant thing. It was keeping my up at night.
ReplyDeleteI like your theories, and I think giving the kingship to a servant could go one of two ways: either the servant would not be affected by the riches that surround him, like you said, or on the other hand, what may be even more likely, is that the servant has gone from having nothing to having everything, and the effects of his newly gained wealth and power may have an even stronger impact on him, and he could become corrupted. (That was for sure a run-on sentence..)
Shana Tovah!!
I also was wondering about the servant thing. It was keeping my up at night.
ReplyDeleteI like your theories, and I think giving the kingship to a servant could go one of two ways: either the servant would not be affected by the riches that surround him, like you said, or on the other hand, what may be even more likely, is that the servant has gone from having nothing to having everything, and the effects of his newly gained wealth and power may have an even stronger impact on him, and he could become corrupted. (That was for sure a run-on sentence..)
Shana Tovah!!
I think it doesn't matter- he could be a servant of Shlomo's or someone with the status of a servant. If he was Shlomo's servant then he would know a lot about the workings of the kingdom. Also, like Mrs. Perl said, a "servant" isn't a lowly person, he has a lot of responsibility and is respected, he is simply a worker and not the boss.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you do recall- Shaul was merely a nice guy who cared for his dad's animals, but God chose him to be king. Greatness can come from anywhere.
People can't help it if they are not born into royal families, does that mean it needs to be 'demeaning' if they get chosen to do something that requires honor and responsibility?