The Leadership of King David

The secret of what it takes to be a great leader is revealed in Psalm 72. In this Psalm, King David informs Solomon of what it takes to be a truly successful leader. Unfortunately, Solomon did not heed his father’s advice and caused the destruction of the United Kingdom of Israel and the disappearance of the 10 tribes. Psalm 72 also provides important lessons for today’s political and corporate leaders who wish to build thriving countries and organizations.

Leadership, as modeled in the life of David, is a function of community. Leadership structures respond to community needs (safety, wellbeing, opportunity, care, infrastructure, etc.) and goals (products or services generated) in a way that amplifies the gifts, abilities, and skills resident in the community and in the absence of gifts, abilities, and skills it recruits individuals who meet the need. David exemplifies leadership via two differential characteristics i.e., faith and perspective. These differential characteristics set biblical leadership apart from other models in both its character and its capacity to generate consistently healthy results. Hence, in developing leaders it is important to consider how to nurture faith and perspective in the behavior of emerging leaders. By healthy, I mean that the results of differential leadership enhance the wellbeing of followers so that the community is characterized by justice and equity.

This article employs an inner texture analysis of 1 Samuel 17:1-58 in order to extrapolate connections between charismatic leadership and servant leadership as discovered in the story of David and Goliath. Attention is given to the structural, repetitive-progressive, narrational, opening-middle-closing, and sensory-aesthetic textures of the pericope. This article discusses the differences between charismatic leadership and servant leadership and proposes the continued use of socio-rhetorical criticism as a valid tool for leadership research and practice.

Characters and Characterization in the Book of Samuel; LHBOTS 69; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2020

And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22).

European Journal of Training and Development, 2020

Purpose The initial purpose of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of intra-organizational training for developing leadership skills and the techniques used to assimilate course content. The study aims to understand incongruities in training and assess their impacts on training effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative research methods were used to assess a five-day course in the Israeli Defense Forces entitled, “Developing leadership skills in the spirit of the Bible.” Triangulation of data was achieved through observations, interviews and conversations with participants. Grounded theory and thematic analysis were used, respectively, to interpret and analyze the data. Findings Results suggest that the course did not support the development of leadership skills. The analysis revealed two themes representing different domains: form (training techniques) and content (values). Combining the two themes indicates an incongruity between the declared and actual con...

Journal of Asian Evangelical Theology 24, 2020

This article is part of my ongoing project aimed at reading 1 and 2 Samuel as a unified work focusing on politics. My project reflects a recent trend in biblical scholarship, spearheaded by Yoram Hazony, of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem, to read the Old Testament as primarily a work of philosophy rather than a religious document. Making an argument very similar to my own are Moshe Halbertal and Stephen Holmes in their recent book, The Beginning of Politics: Power in the Biblical Book of Samuel. Their close exegesis of the lives of Saul and David provides abundant insights that are applicable “wherever and whenever political power is at stake.” In this paper I build on Halbertal and Holmes’s work while adding a comparative element, discussing similarities between 1 and 2 Samuel and a medieval Chinese novel, The Three Kingdoms.

2014

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact ecommons@luc.edu. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2014 Tracy D. Lett

At the beginning of Samuel we read the beautiful song of Hannah that includes: He lifts the poor from the dust and the needy from the garbage dump. He sets them among princes, placing them in seats of honor. (1 Sam 2:8) and: Those who fight against the Lord will be shattered. He thunders against them from heaven; the Lord judges throughout the earth. He gives power to his king; he increases the strength of his anointed one." (1 Sam 2:10) In this, the reflection of Yahweh's justice and the expectation of justice from 'his king' are clear. David, "the standard by which the later kings are judged and mostly found wanting." 1 , in what Fokkelman calls "an oracle to good government" 2 spoke wistfully in 2 Sam 23:3-4: The God of Israel spoke. The Rock of Israel said to me: 'The one who rules righteously, who rules in the fear of God, is like the light of morning at sunrise, like a morning without clouds, like the gleaming of the sun on new grass after rain.'

Vetus Testamentum, 2007

Th e biblical presentation of David's ostensible willingness to fi ght on the side of the Philistines against Israel (1 Sam. xxvii-xxix) is examined. Th rough a literary analysis it is shown that David is not depicted as intending to betray Saul and Israel. On the contrary, the narrator provides many hints that the Philistine commanders' assessment of David is correct and that had he not been sent away he would have fought against the Philistines and for Israel. His dismissal, instigated by the Philistine commanders, is compatible with the divine plan for Israel's defeat, the destruction of the House of Saul, and David's succeeding Saul on the throne of Israel (1 Sam. xxviii [16][17][18][19].