Historicla Analysis Of 1 Samuel 16 Sample Assignment

Historical Analysis of 1 Samuel 16:1-7 The books of Samuel describe the very beginnings of kingship in Israel and give a detailed account of the reigns of Israel’s first two kings Saul and David. The selected pericope (1 Samuel 16:1-7) is often grouped amongst what scholar’s label as the third narrative. The third narrative is largely known as the historical narrative that tells the story of David’s rise to power and gives evidence that “The Lord is with him”[1]. Without question, this text is pivotal because God sends Samuel to anoint young David as King of Israel.

However, before the writings of the Deuteronomistic Historian are discussed in regards to the book of Samuel, one must understand the backdrop of the text. After the successful crusade to take the Promised Land documented in the book of Joshua, Israel began a gradual spiritual decline that progressed for more than three centuries. During this time Israel was a confederation of tribes scattered all over the land God promised their ancestor Abraham. Over time Israel’s commitment to obey Yahweh had waned. As a result, the nations that initially were defeated by Israel began to regain strength, and eventually conquered their former captors.

During this time, God sent deliverers, or judges, to rescue His people from their distress, but every deliverance was short lived. By the end of Judges the spiritual, social and political condition of the nation had sunk to an abysmally low point in her brief history. [2] Israel had departed from following Yahweh and gone after the idols of the surrounding pagan nations and “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Our pericope, written by the Deuteronomistic Historian, commences at the end of the period of Judges in the 11th century B. C. 3] Here the writer walks us through Israel’s transition from a theocracy, or state ruled by a religious leader, to a monarchy, a state ruled by a political leader. Furthermore, the first book of Samuel is setup to establish a monarchy for Israel according to the pattern of God’s or Yahweh’s announcement in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. Moreover, the narratives reveal that Yahweh alone reserved the right to appoint his King. He personally instructed His prophet to anoint the head of the Saulide dynasty. Likewise, His prophet was instructed to anoint the head of the Davidic dynasty.

Perhaps, Yahweh’s intention to reserve the selection of the king at His prerogative is best seen in the contrast between His statements regarding the appointment of Saul. “Listen to their voice and set a king over them” (1 Samuel 8:22), and his statement regarding David’s appointment, “I have selected a king for Myself (1Samuel 16:1). ”[4] Directly related to the divine prerogative of selecting the king was Yahweh’s designation of the king as His “anointed. ” To anoint meant that one poured or smeared sacred oil on a person’s body, usually the head, or on sacred objects associated with worship rituals.

The ceremony of anointing was viewed as symbolic of the coming of God’s spirit on a person or an object. [5] This term is used 34 times in the Old Testament in apposition to a royal person and emphasizes Yahweh’s choice or selection of the individual in view. [6] The narratives in 1 Samuel are intended to answer the following questions: 1) Why did Israel need a monarch? 2) What will Israel’s monarchy be like? 3) What will the ideal king be like? [7] The first question is answered in the opening narratives depicting the sad state of affairs common in Israel prior to the establishment of the monarchy (1 Samuel 1-7).

The author (Deuteronomistic historian) answers the second question by letting the audience, the Northern Yahwists and those who backed Saul and were at the brink of witnessing the end of his reign; know that Yahweh had not been removed as King. [8] Rather, the king would be Yahweh’s representative and was to give primary attention to obeying His will and instruction. That is exactly why the selected pericope becomes relevant. In evaluating Saul by God’s criteria, the audience is forced to conclude that while Saul may have had some admirable characteristics; he didn’t quite measure up to Yahweh’s standards.

Since Yahweh remains sovereign, and since Yahweh has standards for kings, it is inevitable that Yahweh will assess Saul’s effectiveness by his faithfulness to those standards. As this assessment unfolds in 1 Samuel 13-15, it becomes apparent that the Lord does not judge according to whether or not Saul performs as well as kings of other nations, though Israel does so (1 Sam. 8:4-5). God determines Saul’s future by the king’s obedience to divine commands. When Saul fails in the manner, Yahweh removes him as divinely anointed ruler.

The human agent who carries God’s assessment is Samuel the prophet. [9] The third question answered by the narrative is related to the nature of the king himself. What would the king be like? The author of answered by contrasting both Saul in David in 1 Samuel 13-15. Although, some scholars argue that the narratives presenting David are intentionally crafted as propaganda to defend David’s legitimacy. This Samuel account of David was not written as a strict historical record, but as a carefully crafted narrative with certain theological and political perspectives. 10] In short, these narratives revealed the criteria by which Yahweh evaluated “His Anointed”, that in order to rule well, you must first be ruled by Yahweh. In this light, David was the ideal king rather than Saul. So, here in the pericope David is revealed as Yahweh’s personal choice to replace Saul as the next king of Israel. It is probably no mistake that David’s identity is concealed in the first half of the text in order to around the anticipation of the reader, and to direct his attention to an even more significant matter than the identity of the new king; namely, the basis by which Yahweh selected him (16:1).

As a result, Yahweh Himself makes His final rejection of Saul (16:1). A further function of this text is to reintroduce Samuel’s prophetic role in preparation for the task of anointing a new king. But the primary function of verses 1-7 is to reveal the basis of Yahweh’s choice of a king. The text makes it clear that Yahweh is the one who chooses in 16:1 and then reveals the basis of that choice in 16:7, thus framing the narrative and revealing this to be the central theme. Any future King of Israel must realize that he rules because Yahweh has appointed him, and the basis of that appointment is what Yahweh sees.

Yahweh evaluates in ways that ordinary men cannot. Men are limited to seeing what is external and thus must learn to depend on Yahweh who alone can discern the true inner character of an individual. While the text does teach that we are to consider more than external appearance, it is a mistake to use this teaching to imply that man by himself has the ability apart from God’s revelation. This is clearly seen in the flow of the passage and Yahweh’s emphatic statement that He would show Samuel what to do (16:3). Samuel struggled with God’s decision and mourned over Saul (16:1).

Nevertheless, he does what Saul refused to do; he gave full obedience to what Yahweh said (16:4) and went to seek out God’s anointed at Bethlehem. Samuel mistakenly assumed Eliab must be the chosen one on account of his external appearance (16:6) and was rebuked for his hasty assumption (16:7). Yahweh proceeded to reveal that He alone was qualified to select the next monarch because He alone could evaluate the candidate’s heart. Earlier the book of Samuel the people made the same mistake in selecting Saul that Samuel made here in evaluating Eliab.

It is here in the text that the audience arrives at the theological heart of the narrative. The intent of the text is to instruct all future Israelites and their leaders that they must learn Yahweh Himself who is making His final rejection of Saul and to trust Yahweh implicitly by seeking out His direction in all matters including the selection and evaluation of monarchs, for He alone is able to rightly discern what a man truly is internally. Solomon would later express this concept in Proverbs: Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding”

Stress Theory: The Nature Of Stress And The Body’s Response To Stress

The patient, a female aged 27, has normal vital signs and WNL lab values. However, the term “normal” is subjective and can have various interpretations among individuals. In the nursing field, normalcy is often defined in relation to homeostasis.

Homeostasis, originally proposed by 20th century physiologist Claude Bernard, was further expanded upon by physician Walter Canon. Canon used feedback mechanisms to explain the regulation of Bernard’s concept. Both Bernard and Canon recognized that the body’s physiological processes can adapt to changes in the environment. Later, Hans Selye, a Doctor of Medicine and Chemistry who studied in Prague and later at Johns Hopkins, contributed to this understanding.

Researching stress began in 1926 at McGill University in Canada. The concept was inspired by an endocrinological experiment where various organ extracts were injected into mice. This led to the development of general adaptation syndrome (GAS), a theory of stress. Originally, it was thought to be a new hormone discovery, but further experimentation proved this to be incorrect. Each injection of an irritating substance resulted in the same symptoms – swelling of the adrenal cortex, atrophy of the thymus, gastric and duodenal ulcers.

The text describes how Selye’s observation of people with different diseases exhibiting similar symptoms led to his initial description of the effects of “noxious agents.” While caring for sick individuals, Selye noticed recurring clinical manifestations such as loss of appetite, weight loss, feeling and looking ill, and generalized muscle aching and pain. He later introduced the term “stress,” which has become a part of multiple languages. We selected Stress Theory because it applies to various situations. Both us and our patients experience stress in our lives.

By understanding the expected physiological reaction to stress, we are able to focus on providing nursing care to identify when patients are experiencing “noxious stimuli” and prevent the occurrence of complications. Dr. Hans Selye’s work demonstrates that nursing theory can be applied in our daily practice and can endure over time. Description and Analysis of the Theory and Components: Dr. Hans Selye (1930’s-1970’s) defined stress, whether positive or negative stress, as “wear and tear on the body” and developed the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) to explain the physiological response to stress.

Stress and stressful events can come from within or outside of a person and can last for either a short period of time or a long period of time. They can originate from small annoyances in daily life or major incidents, with their significance varying for each individual (McEwen & Wills, 2007). Stress has the ability to cause general or specific disorders that affect both the body and mind. It directly or indirectly impacts physical functioning by increasing levels of adrenaline and corticosterone, which leads to an increase in heart rate, respiration, and blood pressure. This puts additional stress on bodily organs.

Experiencing stress for a prolonged period can lead to heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, and other illnesses. When individuals encounter a stressor, they enter the alarm phase. In this phase, they initially feel shocked and experience ongoing sympathetic arousal due to adrenaline/epinephrine and nor epinephrine. These effects include elevated heart rate and increased blood flow to the heart, brain, and skeletal muscles. Conversely, there is decreased blood flow to organs and an enlargement of the adrenal glands that release hormones. Collectively, these physiological responses are known as counter shock.

During the resistance phase, the individual moves to this stage if there are extra stressors or if the original stressor persists. The main objective of the endocrine system in this phase is to regain balance within the body. In order to achieve this, hormones are released by the adrenal glands that increase blood sugar levels and provide energy for dealing with stressors. This energy is referred to as adaptation energy. If adaptation energy effectively counteracts the effects of stressors, balance is restored. However, if coping mechanisms fail to restore balance, exhaustion occurs.

According to McEwen (2005), when the homeostatic control systems fail, the signs of the alarm stage reappear, resulting in stress-related illness. In order to restore homeostasis, intervention is needed. At this point, medical intervention becomes necessary to diagnose and treat the stressor associated with the illness. It is important to note that adaptation energy is limited, as continuous distress leads to depletion, exhaustion, and potentially death.

The application of theory in nursing involves understanding the impact of stress on individuals and their response to it. Stress theories provide a framework for this understanding, as stress is inevitable in everyone’s life and requires coping and adaptation. If an individual successfully adapts to stress, they reach a state of equilibrium, but if not, they may experience physiologic or psychological disorders. Using Stress Theory, nurses can assess an individual’s stressors, resources, and support for coping with these stressors. They can then provide assistance with problem-solving or cognitive restructuring to improve coping and adaptation.

(McEwen & Wills, 2007)

A patient may have unexplained physical complaints, but a nurse can identify their stressors and coping mechanisms through assessment. The nurse can provide appropriate resources or referrals when needed. Long-term stress can contribute to various health conditions such as cancer, hypertension, heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, asthma, tuberculosis, emphysema, irritable bowel syndrome, sexual dysfunction, obesity, anorexia, bulimia, connective tissue disease ulcerative colitis Crohn’s disease infections allergic or hypersensitivity diseases.

According to Clancy and McVicar (1993), Seyle’s definition of freedom from stress is death. Numerous other theories and studies have been derived from Seyle’s work, specifically those focusing on psychological changes. Given the broad range of diseases that can be influenced by stress, all categories and spectrums of nursing can connect to this theory. Stress Theory elucidates various physical and psychological ailments across different age groups.

This theory is directly applicable to a situation that occurred in an outpatient therapy setting involving an adult female patient who had high levels of anxiety, Tourette’s syndrome, and Crohn’s disease. Throughout the course of her treatment, which included group therapy, education, meetings with a psychiatrist, and medication, the patient’s anxiety levels decreased and her physical symptoms improved. This highlights the strong connection between the mind and body in relation to stress. An example of how Stress Theory has been utilized in research is the assigned reading (Hays, All, Mannahan, Cuaderes, and Wallace) that examined stressors and coping mechanisms utilized by nurses working in intensive care units.

In the study, it was discovered that the shortage of staff was the most commonly reported high to maximum stressor. This was followed by issues related to patients’ families. The two most frequently reported methods of coping were escape-avoidance and confrontive approaches. The analysis revealed a weak statistical correlation between the identified stressors and coping strategies. Furthermore, there was no statistical significance found when comparing the identified stressors and chosen coping methods among different demographic variables such as gender, length of employment in the ICU, age, marital status, and highest level of education.

Kenney & Bhattacharjee (2000) conducted a study on women’s stressors, personality traits, and health problems, utilizing Seyle’s theory and other theories. The study explored how stress reactions, according to the psychoneuroimmunology (PNI) model, can impact the immune system and potentially weaken resistance against various illnesses. In another study examining stress theories and incorporating Seyle’s work, Olofsson, Bengtsson, and Brink (2003) focused on nurses’ experience of stress in the workplace.

The text explores how the autonomic nervous system, consisting of both sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, reacts to a perceived or actual threat. This involves converting stored energy into usable energy. In essence, there is an identifiable physiological response to stress in the body. Selye classified this response into three stages known as Alarm, Resistance, and Exhaustion within his General Adaptation Syndrome.

The application and testing of this theory in nursing research, including its relation to the psychoneuroimmunology (PNI) model, supports the belief that the body will show symptoms. Based on this application, it is recommended to include GAS in undergraduate nursing education to introduce nursing theory early in a career, as previously discussed in this course. Selye’s work serves as a great example of how theory can easily connect to the fundamentals of our care.

Undergraduate education starts by establishing a solid foundation in physiology. During this stage, it is an ideal moment to introduce theories like Selye’s. In terms of our guidance, it is important to incorporate the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS). By acknowledging the significant influence of stress on the body, nurses can educate patients about its effects. Concrete information and examples are often the most effective teaching methods. Therefore, using Selye’s theory to enlighten individuals about the repercussions of failing to decrease stressors in their lives is an application of nursing theory.

By utilizing the stages outlined, we can also track our patients (particularly those in outpatient or long-term care) and strive to minimize unnecessary stress caused by healthcare interventions. As aspiring advanced practice nurses, it is our duty to build upon the previous contributions in order to better serve our patients and profession. While Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome may be rudimentary, it remains highly applicable and a valuable resource for advancing our individualized care and our field.

The questions below are related to the unit content and will be discussed in the Unit Discussion, open for reading and posting from November 3, 2009. Please post your entries to the corresponding questions during that week.

  1. Identify the three stages of Stress Theory, The General Adaptation Syndrome, and apply the theory to a clinical situation. Explain what is occurring during the three phases as they apply to your situation and state how you can provide nursing intervention.
  2. After reading the research article regarding stressors and ways of coping utilized by ICU nurses, provide examples of stressors in your area of employment and the coping methods you use to resist those stressors. Have you ever attended an educational or work related program that taught you coping and stress reduction methods?

“From George Wallace To Newt Gingrich” Is An Amazing Book

From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich book by Dan T. Carter is more of a collection of four essays. These essays take a look at the role of race in the development of American politics. The four essays are “Politics of Anger”, “Politics of Accommodation”, Politics of Symbols”, and the “Politics of Righteousness”. Each essay talks about how our politicians handle race and used it and other issues to influence voters. Politics of Anger is the first essay.

It goes in to detail about George Wallace and how he used race as a way to gain voters. George Wallace was a very racist man, behind closed doors that is. George Wallace’s inaugural address show how racist he was because of his famous line, “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever! ” George Wallace insists that it was symbolic meaning, “State now! State tomorrow! State forever! ”, but he was not fooling anyone. The book state that his campaign adopted a kind of soft porn racism in which fear and hatred could be mobilized without mentioning race itself.

He was a racist person but chose not to show it to the public, by doing this along with supporting segregation using state power as a cover story he gained the trust of the people. Second is Politics of Accommodation, in which Richard Nixon and his staff moved from the dark ages to the brave new world. Nixon’s staff was much more calculating in its attempt to craft the shape of his campaign. The book states that voters are basically lazy, basically uninterested in making an effort to understand what candidates are talking about, but television changed all that.

The television played a critical role in the reemergence of Nixon. Television gave the lazy voters a chance to see and understand the candidates. Richard Nixon was pulling a Wallace; he basically stated that it’s not what’s there that counts, it’s what’s projected. Nixon was doing what George Wallace did. He was showing voters the image of a candidate they wanted, but not really being the voters’ image of that candidate. Third is the Politics of Symbols. Carter talks about Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Bush and Reagan take a different path from racial politics to economic politics.

The book states that Ronald Reagan was dealing with economic rights and educational opportunities for blacks in an inflexible way. His task was to ensure equality of opportunity for individuals, not equality of results for groups. George Bush at one point was against equal rights for blacks, but his views changed over time. In the 1980 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, he supported Equal Right Amendment and apologized for his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Both candidates move away from race to economics.

Fourth and last is the Politics of Righteousness. The American’s attention has moved from racism to religion. In this essay it talked about George Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s views on religion. To sum this essay up, Patrick Buchanan said during a convention “that this is a religious war and in this struggle for the soul of America Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are on the other side and George Bush is on our side. ” Basically Patrick Buchanan was trying to say that only one person can be right, leaving the other to be wrong.

error: Content is protected !!