Grant F. Gates[1]
grant.gates@cst.edu
This paper builds upon the interdisciplinary approach of reading the Hebrew Bible with the support of disability studies that has been introduced in both biblical studies and theology in the last few decades.[1] In particular, this study argues that the Deuteronomistic History[2] portrays kings of the Davidic line in certain ways with respect to disability in order to contribute to the formation of national identity. Of the kings of Judah in Samuel and Kings, only Asa, Azariah, Hezekiah, and Josiah are described in the Book of Kings as doing what was pleasing in the eyes of YHWH like their father David. Three of these—all except Josiah—are depicted having a disability. This paper will begin by presenting a working definition of disability and its relationship to the Hebrew Bible, with a particular interest to its significance in the narratives of Davidic Kings. I will next focus on examples of disability in the narratives of the life of David, then argue for the identification of Asa, Azariah, and Hezekiah as kings with disability, and finally relate these results to the theological questions of kingship and Judah’s exile. This paper takes inspiration from Nancy Eiesland’s identification of her own life with disability as a fundamentally ordinary human life[3] to argue for a similar perspective in Samuel and Kings as well. That is, rather than specifically exploring a theology of disability, this paper aims to show that disability plays both normal and normative roles in Samuel and Kings—normal in that disability imagery and studies are portrayed as normal human experiences and normative in that disability imagery plays an ideological role in the ongoing formation of Israelite identity.
Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible
In discussing the relationship of disability to studies in the Hebrew Bible, the first issue is defining disability. Biblical Hebrew does not have an equivalent to the English word disability. Three major models related to disability are the medical model, the social model, and the cultural model.[4] The medical model understands disability primarily in terms of its somatic properties; disability is viewed as a medical condition that requires medical cure.[5] This model tends to ignore the social factors involved in disability; this would seem to imply that disability is essentially the same in different places and times. One of the major drawbacks of the medical model is its failure to account for our intuitions and experiences. For example, a young child using a wheelchair or walker is perceived differently than an elderly retiree in a retirement home using the same devices. Additionally, modern experiences of disability with legal protections such as the Americans with Disabilities Act,[6] the UN’s establishment of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,[7] and medical advancement are very different than before these developments. Social and historical location are important factors in the experience of disability.
One model that recognises these social and historical features is the social model of disability. The key development under the social model was the distinction between an impairment and a disability; the former refers to the somatic medical condition and the latter to the environmental and social effects experienced.[8] This model emphasises the socially constructed nature of disability. While a helpful advancement, this model tends to assume too strong a separation between impairment and disability and further through its social view can potentially minimise the reality of disability as a lived experience, taking too much attention off the person with disability. A natural refinement is the cultural model of disability; this model views a culture’s view of disability as an inherent and necessary part of the culture’s social development, allowing the study of disability in thinking through a culture’s values and outlook on disability.[9] A cultural model of disability takes particular interest in how disability is represented in cultural artifacts such as literature,[10] making it a natural fit for consideration in the study of biblical narratives.
Operating under this cultural model of disability requires identification of the certain impairments that would have been culturally considered as disability in the historical world from which the Hebrew Bible emerged. Several key categories include the so-called defects(mum)[11] several nouns exhibiting the qittel pattern associated with “defectiveness” (ivver/blind, illem/mute, kheresh/deaf, pisseakh/lame,[12] etc.),[13] the skin anomaly traditionally translated as leprosy (tsaraʿat),[14] barrenness (e.g. aqar) in certain cases,[15] and genital flows (zov).[16] Such impairments would not be universally recognised as the experience of disability today; understanding these particular impairments as disability is productive for understanding the ideology of the Hebrew Bible. A potential significance of the illness and disability of Judah’s kings is Judah’s own ideology of their identity as a people or nation. Like disability, nationalism and national identity are modern concepts, not grounded in the historical context of the Hebrew Bible.[17] However, certain elements of these concepts seem applicable to the concepts of Israel and Judah in the former and latter prophets. For example, that Hebrew prophets would associate certain political actions by kings with acts of divine judgment on the people of the land connects people to polity in a manner reminiscent of nationalistic concepts.[18] Understanding a nation is “an imagined political community,”[19] the Hebrew Bible has examples that reflect the following aspects of the identity construction of Judah as a nation: a collective story narrating the nation’s past and future, shared culture, specific land, and prototypical character of a member of the nation.[20] Key examples include David’s place in Israel’s history as a sort of mythological mythical hero[21] and Josiah’s role, not just in arguably shaping Israelite identity in his reform policy,[22] but as paradigmatic king presented in the Deuteronomistic History.[23] Reflecting on how Judah’s kings are presented is a significant part of reflecting on Israel’s identity as constructed via the Deuteronomistic History. Since a pattern of disability emerges in those kings presented as most Davidic and hence most paradigmatic, considering disability in the context national identity is productive.
David’s Relationship with Disability
Given the strong association of Judah’s kings like their father David with disability, a natural question is the relationship of David to disability. Viewing the David narratives as divided between the History of David’s Rise and the Succession Narrative[24] provides a structure for understanding the portrayal of David’s relationship to disability. In the History of David’s Rise, David generally wields power over people with disabilities; he is able-bodied and energetic. In the Succession Narrative, people with disabilities sometimes exert power over David; moreover, in his old age he becomes a person with disability. These developments paint a multi-layered picture of David’s relationship to disability. One primary means of doing this is his relationship to Mephibosheth.
Following canonical order, the introduction to David’s relationship with disability is a brief comment made in 2 Samuel 4:4—describing the son of Jonathan who was “crippled in his feet” (nekeh raglayim).[25] Poetically, the first word of the verse refers to Jonathan and the last to Mephibosheth, contextualising the future relationship between David and Mephibosheth. The root word (regel, foot) introduced here becomes a Leitwort in describing David’s relationship with Mephibosheth. As the verse is canonically placed here, it creates a problem of narrative tension for 2 Samuel 5:6–8 and 2 Samuel 9:1ff. Upon the Jebusites mocking the David saying that the “blind and the lame” would repel his invasion of the city, David responds that his soul hates the blind and the lame (2 Samuel 5:8). The writer extends this to a prohibition on “the blind and the lame” entering “the house” (5:8). Interpreters have debated whether this “house” refers to David’s personal house or the temple.[26] Ultimately, because of the lack of temple motifs or themes in 2 Samuel 5, as well as because of the lack of explicit prohibition on the entry of the blind and the lame to the temple in more relevant priestly passages, David’s house best fits the context. David and Jonathan loved each as their own souls (1 Samuel 18:1). But David’s soul hated the blind and the lame (2 Samuel 5:8), and Jonathan’s son was lame, stricken in his feet (2 Samuel 4:4). The reader is then left to wonder how David will respond to Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth.
In 2 Samuel 9:1–13, upon inquiring for a member of the house of Saul to honour on Jonathan’s behalf, Ziba mentions the son of Jonathan who is crippled in his feet (regel). However, though 2 Samuel 4:4 describes Mephibosheth as “becoming lame” (pisseakh), the same root as the “lame” whom David’s soul hated, the word (pisseakh) is not used anywhere in the conversation in 2 Samuel 9. Only the narrator’s comment in verse 13 describes Mephibosheth in this manner, also mentioning that he resided in Jerusalem. While house (bayit) is a frequent word in the chapter—the house of Saul (4x), the house of Machir (2x), and the house of Ziba—2 Samuel 9 nowhere refers to the house of David or the house of the king. Mephibosheth is brought to the king’s table, yet in the text Mephibosheth is lame (pisseakh) but is not described entering the house. But in the actual interaction, what does happen is David speaks to Mephibosheth by name (2 Samuel 9:6), like Saul had done to him (1 Samuel 24:17).[27] David brought Mephibosheth to his table (2 Samuel 9:7), as Saul had done to him (cf. 1 Samuel 20:5, 29). Mephibosheth described himself to David as a dead dog, as David had described himself to Saul (1 Samuel 24:15).[28]This could be seen as merely part of how Saul serves as David’s foil.[29] Yet in comparing Saul to David, while David’s better treatment of Mephibosheth serves pro-Davidic purposes, the parallels already observed between Mephibosheth and David associates disability imagery with David himself, anticipating later developments in David’s life.
During Absalom’s rebellion and David’s flight from Jerusalem, Mephibosheth’s former caretakers Ziba and Machir materially support David (2 Samuel 16:1–4; 17:27). Earlier, Mephibosheth had been displaced from Jerusalem as David took the kingdom, and David became Mephibosheth’s benefactor. Now David is displaced from Jerusalem by political upheaval, and Mephibosheth becomes David’s benefactor. Rather than the powerful king who could proclaim that his soul hated the blind and the lame, David as potential beneficiary of Mephibosheth could be seen as under the power of the lame. This situation is additionally complicated in the interaction with Ziba, who seems to deceptively misrepresent Mephibosheth’s attitude toward David (2 Samuel 19:25–31).[30] The question of Mephibosheth’s loyalty to David remains unresolved in the narrative. Mephibosheth depicts his disability as the key factor in his failure to accompany David out of Jerusalem (19:27), while also using the Leitwort regel to describe how his servant Ziba slandered Mephibosheth to David (19:28).[31]
In Samuel, disability imagery associates Mephibosheth with David, and hence disability with David, without portraying David as a person with disability. Moving beyond the book of Samuel and David’s relationship with Mephibosheth, disability imagery is used to characterise an impotent, elderly David in 1 Kings 1. He is described as unable to get warm (1 Kings 1:1), requiring a human body to warm him (1:2), for which purpose Abishag the Shunammite is introduced (1:3). Such a king would be unable to participate in normally expected royal functions, likely setting the stage for Adonijah’s self-promotion to the crown (1:5–11). This inability could be construed as disability, a disability making David unfit to be king. Although this is an expected unfitness due to his old age, it remains significant given the pattern already observed in Asa, Azariah, and Hezekiah. Why kings like David are portrayed as having disability, why David is associated with disability yet not as a person with disability, and why Josiah is not portrayed as having a disability raises engaging theological questions.
Asa
According to Kings, when he grew old, Asa was diseased in his feet (1 Kings 15:23), which could be seen to indicate some level of divine disapproval.[32] Multiple interpretive options have been proposed for this diagnosis. One option is to follow the medical model and understand this as some sort of physical disability affecting Asa’s ability to walk; that is, a medical condition affecting his literal feet.[33]Sweeney however identifies “feet” as a euphemism for genitals.[34] Schipper moves beyond questions of diagnosis in his proposal for the dependence of 1 Kings 15:23 on Deuteronomy 24:5.[35] In particular, he proposes that Hezekiah violated a divine commandment resulting in the illness as a form of divine punishment. Under a cultural model of disability, the diagnosis of the disease itself is less important than its function within the historiography. The potential divine origin of the disability—as proposed by Schipper—and the literary usage of imagery for ideological ends are key considerations. Regardless of diagnosis, at issue is the significance of the disability imagery in the text.
Schipper’s proposition regarding Asa’s disability follows the Rabbinic connection between Asa’s city building in 15:22 and the provision that newly married men would be free from public service in Deuteronomy 24:5, made by Rashi as well as in b. Sotah 10a in the Talmud.[36] This theory has strong supporting arguments. First is the connection between Deuteronomic regulation and The Deuteronomistic History material; it would be expected to base a theological cause of Asa’s illness in Asa’s violation of a Deuteronomic law.[37] Additionally, 1 Kings 15:22 depicts Asa ordering all of Judah to assist in the building project with no exception, in the words, eyn naqi. Deuteronomy 24:5 describes the freedom of the newly married in the same word, naqi. This produces a lexical argument for the intertextual connection. The significance of the disability under this proposal uniquely lies in Asa’s relationship to the Deuteronomic precept.
However, the Rabbinic proposal is not the only alternative. In the more proximate canonical context of Kings, theological issues at stake are generally less often particular legal regulations (although regulations on intermarriage and kingship practices are important) but more often issues of temple and foreign alliance.[38] In that light, Asa’s alliance with Aram and his funding of that alliance with the gold and silver of the temple (identified as the House of YHWH in 1 Kings 15:18–19) should be viewed as more likely proximate causes of divine displeasure. Additionally, that Asa is described as diseased in his feet (khalah et raglayw, 1 Kings 15:23) invites lexical comparison to Mephibosheth who had crippled feet (nekeh raglayim, 2 Samuel 9:3). Thus, in the case of a Davidic king, disability imagery is associated with the motifs of (bayit/house) and (regel/foot). Asa is the first of several kings in the Davidic line to experience an illness that could be construed as disability. In the additional context of the Mephibosheth narratives, with the possibility of divine displeasure at the end of his reign, the narrative invites reflection on the flaws of Asa, who had previously been identified as a king who did what was pleasing to YHWH like his father David (1 Kings 15:11).
Azariah
Azariah’s leprosy in 2 Kings 15:5 is clearly ascribed to divine agency.[39] However, no specific justification is provided. The Chronicler clearly describes the reason as Azariah’s (Uzziah’s) involvement in temple sacrifice, typical of the greater emphasis on priestly matters than is usually seen in Kings (2 Chronicles 26:16–21). Indeed, Azariah’s whole reign is described only very briefly in Kings despite its long tenure, with the highlights being his righteous behaviour but failure to remove the high places. When he was struck with the skin disease tsaraʿat, he was isolated outside the house that his son was put in charge over, a recurrence of the motif of bayit. This echoes the theme of disability driven from David’s house from 2 Samuel 5. As such he is the second king who acted righteously like David mentioned in Kings to be struck by YHWH with a specific medical condition.
While 2 Kings 15 focuses on the rise of Assyria and the fall of the northern kingdom, 2 Kings 16 turns more attention on Judah and Azariah’s grandson, Ahaz. Ahaz is depicted allying with Tiglath Pileser of Assyria and paying for this alliance with the treasury of the temple, like Asa before him (2 Kings 16:7–8). However, the basis of this summons was very likely not a new alliance. The implication instead (and the historical probability) was that Assyria already had Judah under Assyrian vassalage at least as far back as the time of Azariah. Such an alliance could inform the portrayal of Azariah, tying the theme of foreign alliance as well as the motif of (bayit) to the divinely caused disability, repeating themes seen in the life of Asa.
Hezekiah
In 2 Kings 20:1–11, Hezekiah is described becoming very sick (khalah) unto death. Strictly speaking illness would not be viewed as a disability in the Hebrew Bible in itself,[40] but in 2 Kings 20:7 Isaiah instructs the royal servants to place a cake of figs on the shekhiyn (boil) on Hezekiah. The word shekhiyn is only used 13 times in the Hebrew Bible. The word’s usage in association with the plagues on Egypt (Exodus 9:9–11; Deuteronomy 28:27) and as punishment for violating the Deuteronomic law (Deuteronomy 28:35) correlate the condition with divine causation. Additionally, the term is used to describe a potential skin anomaly already identified as disability (tsaraʿat, Leviticus 13:18–23)—that is, the presence of the boil prompted the priestly investigation of potential skin disease. Since while under investigation the subject was ritually impure, and especially in light of Hezekiah’s own words regarding his ability to go to the house of YHWH (1 Kings 20:8), it would be reasonable to conclude that the boil made Hezekiah ritually impure. Olyan argues that genital flows (zov) may be temporarily disabling;[41] the (shekhiyn) on Hezekiah should be seen in the same light. It is a temporarily disabling condition, ostracising Hezekiah due to the potential for ritual impurity. Therefore, Hezekiah’s sickness should be seen as a temporary disability, divinely caused and divinely removed in the same narrative.
This incident bears some thematic parallels and shared motifs to the incidents in the lives of Uzziah and Asa. Upon his diagnosis, Isaiah instructed Hezekiah to put his house (bayit) in order. After his recovery, 2 Kings 20:12–19 describes Hezekiah’s welcome of Babylonian messengers, in which he displayed all the riches in his treasury, armoury, and his own house (all three of which are referred to in Hebrew with bayit). Isaiah prophesies the coming end of the monarchy and Babylonian exile based on Hezekiah’s actions here. The motifs of bayit, foreign alliance, and disability are related in Hezekiah to a royal failing that directly correlates to a major theological problem of The Deuteronomistic History—theologically explaining the Babylonian exile. In Asa and Azaraiah, echoes of David’s relationship to disability in Mephibosheth and issues of blurring boundaries of royal fitness foreshadow the relationship of disability and Hezekiah to the Babylonian exile; The Deuteronomistic History uses disability imagery in its exploration of royal failings that caused the exile.[42]
The accounts in Kings connect disability imagery in Asa, Azariah, and Hezekiah with the failings of the Davidic kingship that ultimately end in exile with the parallel motifs of house—inviting connections between temple and David’s house, both destroyed by Babylon—and foreign alliance. Yet these kings were not the ones the Book of Kings identifies as unfaithful or not like David or who promoted other religions in Judah. These kings are some of the most strongly associated with David—of kings described as doing what is pleasing to YHWH like their father David, only Josiah is missing from this list.[43] That the kings most associated with David are the ones most associated with disability imagery is striking. David’s central place in The Deuteronomistic History strongly figures into development of Israel’s identity in the exile; the strong association of disability with the most Davidic kings therefore strongly associates disability with Israel’s national identity in the post-exilic period.
Davidic Kings, Disability, and National Identity
Under a cultural model of disability, disability imagery is a productive tool for evaluating a culture’s values and identities. Samuel and Kings use disability imagery to complicate the ancient Near Eastern view of disability as unfitness. In the surrounding ancient Near Eastern cultures, disability would have been seen as disqualifying in royal candidates. The Akkadian šumma ibzu, for example, describe physical anomalies that would have been seen as precluding kingship, especially given the cultural expectation that kings lead their peoples into war.[44] The Deuteronomistic History complicates this imagery in certain cases. For example, Asa and Hezekiah’s disabilities are not seen as disqualifying (unlike with Azariah). The Deuteronomistic History seems to grant that disability can be part of disqualification, for example in the co-regency necessitated by Azariah’s leprosy (2 Kings 15:5), but it also complicates the relationship between the two.
The Deuteronomistic History uses disability to complicate the view of righteous kings who are like David. While The Deuteronomistic History generally portrays David and his successors very positively, disability imagery is used to nuance this portrayal. Though Asa, Azariah, and Hezekiah are portrayed positively overall, disability imagery is used to complicate the portrayal in their biographies, undermining their fitness as king, and in Hezekiah’s case providing the occasion for his greatest failure. In David’s case, disability in those around him was used to comment on his power and consistency of character. Since David’s words regarding disability do not match his actions, disability imagery in The Deuteronomistic History complicates the otherwise positive portrayal of David. He is not just the gracious benefactor he seems to be to Mephibosheth in 2 Samuel 9, nor does he have the power to actually enforce his own prohibition as recorded in 2 Samuel 5.
Perhaps the reason for this less than triumphalist view of David and his paradigmatic heirs is to be found in the role of Josiah in The Deuteronomistic History. Kings portrays Josiah as the ideal monarch for Judah: he serves YHWH like his father David (2 Kings 22:2) and discovers the Torah of Moses. After this discovery, he is portrayed as serving YHWH in a way no other monarch in the Deuteronomistic History is portrayed, ending sacrifices outside the Jerusalem temple and worship outside the centralised temple cult (2 Kings 23:5–10). And yet his reign is cut short by his death at Megiddo in 2 Kings 23:29–30.[45] The role of disability in bringing disqualification on Asa, Azariah, Hezekiah, and even David could serve the interest of promoting Josiah by contrast. Likely, however, this is not the only significance of royal illnesses and disability in ideal Davidic Kings. Despite the efforts of the best Davidic kings, and despite the sweeping reforms depicted in Josiah’s reign, Kings and The Deuteronomistic History overall must deal with the historical fact of the Babylonian exile only shortly after Josiah’s death.
Disability can contribute to an understanding of the exile. For example, The Deuteronomistic History complicates the view of disability as divine punishment. While divine causality is strongly associated with disability, divine punishment is only sometimes associated with disability. In the case of the Davidic kings with disability, the suggestion runs counter to the retributive theology often associated with The Deuteronomistic History. The notes of unfitness associated with, for example, Hezekiah in Kings through disability imagery are not depicted in terms of sins that deserve punishment, but rather of inherent bodily limitations outside their direct moral control. Perhaps the exile should not be seen purely as punishment for sin either. Perhaps disability in the lives of otherwise ideal kings normalises them. Depicting these ideal kings as themselves having disability presupposes disability as a normative human experience. Indeed, any failures of their kingdoms become more understandable. Their own humanity limited their potential to prolong periods of political stability. Josiah’s death, in a sense, corresponds to the other kings’ disabilities, in that both these serve to impose limitations on otherwise idealised periods.
How this theologically reflects on Israel’s identity extends beyond Davidic kingship to broader Israelite national identity. Within David’s life, the failing of his own words regarding disability speaks to the issue of determining membership in Israel. In the Jebusites and Mephibosheth we see disability imagery used to depict those inside Jerusalem, that is, members of “Israel” symbolically.[46] More directly, however, the importance of the Davidic kings for developing the concept of the national character and the nearly mythological role played by David himself in the memory of Israel’s history[47] underscores that characterisation of the Davidic kings—especially those most like David—involves development of the idealised prototypical national character. In this case, the prevalence of disability imagery associated in collective national memory with examples of the prototypical national character speaks to national identity as a whole.
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that using a cultural model of disability can yield productive readings of the historiographical material in Samuel and Kings on David and Mephibosheth, Asa, Azariah, and Hezekiah in relation to the theological issues of Israel’s national identity and Judah’s Babylonian exile. In particular, one of the key uses of disability imagery in The Deuteronomistic History is to depict Israel metaphorically as a disabled body, utilising common aspects of national identity including shared memory and national character. This characterisation, in the context of a nuanced view of disability particularly in Kings, tempers the understanding of the exile as primarily due to Judah’s sins against YHWH. Disability as depicted here is a normal part of human experience not uncommon even for kings,[48] yet normative in promoting a particular vision of Israel’s identity formation after exile. The hope of this study is to motivate further integration of disability studies with biblical studies, particularly as it relates to how Israel conceptualised itself and the roles of heroic figures in the nation’s consciousness.
Bibliography
Adams, Ellen. “Disability Studies and the Classical Body: The Forgotten Other. Introduction.” Pages 1–36 in Disability Studies and the Classical Body: The Forgotten Other. Edited by Ellen Adams. London: Routledge, 2021.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised edition. London: Verso, 2006.
Avalos, Hector. Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel.Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995.
Baden, Joel S. “The Nature of Barrenness in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 13–27 in Disability Studies and Biblical Literature. Edited by Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011.
Barnes, Colin. “Understanding the Social Model of Disability: Past, Present and Future.” Pages 14–31 in The Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies. 2nd edition. Edited by Nick Watson and Simo Vehmas. London: Routledge, 2020.
Ben-Noun, Liubov. “What Was the Disease of the Legs that Afflicted King Asa?” Gerontology 47.2 (2000): 96–99. doi:10.1159/000052781.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013.
Brueggeman, Walter. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1990.
Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 10. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2001.
Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Eiesland, Nancy L. The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1994.
Gottwald, Norman K. “Themes and Perspectives in the Historical Writings.” Pages 277–99 in The Old Testament and Apocrypha. Vol. 1 of Fortress Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Gale A. Yee, Hugh R. Page Jr., and Matthew J. M. Coomber. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014.
Jang, Sehoon. “Is Hezekiah a Success or a Failure? The Literary Function of Isaiah’s Prediction at the End of the Royal Narratives in the Book of Isaiah.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42.1 (2017): 117–35. doi:10.1177/0309089216661175.
Kim, Uriah Yong-Hwan. “The Realpolitik of Liminality in Josiah’s Kingdom and Asian America.” Pages 84–98 in Ways of Being, Ways of Reading: Asian American Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Mary F. Foskett and Jeffrey Kah-Jin Kuan. St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2006.
McKenzie, Steven L. 1 Kings 16–2 Kings 16. International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019.
Mitchell, David T., and Sharon L. Snyder. Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000.
Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981.
Olyan, Saul M. Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Difference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Raphael, Rebecca. Biblical Corpora: Representations of Disability in Hebrew Biblical Literature. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 445. London: T&T Clark, 2008.
Rost, Leonhard. The Succession to the Throne of David. Reprinted and translated by Michael Rutter and David M. Gunn. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1. Sheffield: Almond, 1982.
Schipper, Jeremy. Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 441. London: T&T Clark, 2006.
———. “Deuteronomy 24:5 and King Asa’s Foot Disease in 1 Kings 15:23b.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128.4 (2009): 643–48. doi:10.2307/25610211.
———. Disability and Isaiah’s Suffering Servant. Biblical Refigurations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Series, Lucy. “Disability and Human Rights.” Pages 72–88 in The Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies. 2nd edition. Edited by Nick Watson and Simo Vehmas. London: Routledge, 2020.
Sherman, Tina M. Plant Metaphors in Prophetic Condemnations of Israel and Judah. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 49. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2023.
Snyder, Sharon L., and David T. Mitchell. Cultural Locations of Disability. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Stewart, David Tabb. “Sexual Disabilities in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 67–87 in Disability Studies and Biblical Literature. Edited by Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011.
Sweeney, Marvin A. I & II Kings: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.
———. King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996.
Watson, Nick, and Simo Vehmas. “Disability Studies: Into the Multidisciplinary Future.” Pages 3–13 in The Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies. 2nd edition. Edited by Nick Watson and Simo Vehmas. London: Routledge, 2020.
Westbrook, Raymond. “Law in Kings.” Pages 445–66 in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Reception. Edited by André Lemaire and Baruch Halpern. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 129. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cilia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart. The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Translated by Angelika Hirsch, Richard Mitten, and J. W. Unger. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
Zwickel, Wolfgang. “Priesthood and the Development of Cult in the Books of Kings.” Pages 401–26 in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Reception. Edited by André Lemaire and Baruch Halpern. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 129. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
[1] Several key early contributors to this discussion include the theological work of Eiesland and the historical and biblical works of Avalos and Raphael. See: Nancy L. Eiesland, The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1994), Hector Avalos, Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995), and Rebecca Raphael, Biblical Corpora: Representations of Disability in Hebrew Biblical Literature, The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 445 (London: T&T Clark, 2008).
[2] While Martin Noth is known as the originator of the theory of Deuteronomistic History and the corresponding Deuteronomistic Historian, the system has become commonly accepted in scholarship as a whole with various modifications. Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 15 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981). See also: Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 10 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2001), 96–100. Norman K. Gottwald, “Themes and Perspectives in the Historical Writings,” in The Old Testament and Apocrypha, vol. 1 of Fortress Commentary on the Bible, ed. Gale A. Yee, Hugh R. Page Jr., and Matthew J. M. Coomber (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014), 278. Steven L. McKenzie, 1 Kings 16–2 Kings 16, International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019), 26–27. This study basically assumes a unified finalisation of the core of the historical material relevant to the paper in Samuel and Kings. Key to the historical conclusions here is that this finalisation was situated after the fall of Jerusalem and therefore wrote historiography as a political and theological exercise to contextualise Israel and what it meant to be Israel after the fall of the Davidic monarchy, from a perspective generally perceived to be strongly pro-Davidic. Also key is the assumption of the central role of Josiah and the Davidic dynasty in the Deuteronomistic History, further clarified below. As a result of this simplification, the term Deuteronomistic History in this paper refers to a corpus read largely synchronically rather than to an editorial hand read diachronically.
[3] Eiesland, The Disabled God, 14.
[4] To be clear, these models are those constructed by contemporary readers in interaction with portrayals of disability in the ancient texts. These are not necessarily the models of disability that would have been historically taken by the writers of those texts. A medical model may in interpretive practice focus attempts on diagnosing particular impairments portrayed in a text. A cultural model in interpretive practice asks questions regarding how the disability may have been contextualised in the world of the formation of the text, perhaps then comparing this to contemporary experiences. It has been suggested that none of these models best describes the ancient world; for example, Ellen Adams identified ritual or moral models as perhaps more appropriate in her study of the Greco-Roman world. Ellen Adams, “Disability Studies and the Classical Body: The Forgotten Other. Introduction,” in Disability Studies and the Classical Body: The Forgotten Other, ed. Ellen Adams (London: Routledge, 2021), 6–8, 18.
[5] See Lucy Series, “Disability and Human Rights,” in The Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, 2nd ed., Nick Watson and Simo Vehmas (London: Routledge, 2020), 81–82. Also Nick Watson and Simo Vehmas, “Disability Studies: Into the Multidisciplinary Future,” in Watson and Vehmas, The Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, 10. For a perspective within biblical studies, see Jeremy Schipper, Disability and Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, Biblical Refigurations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 15.
[6] More information on these legal protections is available at https://www.ada.gov. Accessed April 3, 2024.
[7] More information regarding the Convention is available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities. Accessed April 3, 2024.
[8] Colin Barnes, “Understanding the Social Model of Disability: Past, Present and Future,” in Watson and Vehmas, The Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, 14–31. Also, Raphael, Biblical Corpora, 6–8. Also Watson and Vehmas, “Disability Studies: Into the Multidisciplinary Future,” 4.
[9] Schipper, Disability and Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, 18. Raphael, Biblical Corpora, 8–9. Sharon L. Snyder and David T. Mitchell, Cultural Locations of Disability (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 5–11. This fits in with various moves away from primarily material approaches to understanding disability toward cultural or ideological critical approaches toward understanding disability as discussed in Watson and Vehmas, “Disability Studies: Into the Multidisciplinary Future,” 5. See also Jeremy Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 441 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 19–20.
[10] In particular, these artifacts are used to place disability studies within the context of other disability studies while reflecting on the culture’s values as represented in the artifacts. David T. Mitchell and Sharon L. Snyder, Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000), 1–10.
[11] Saul M. Olyan, Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 26–46. Schipper, Suffering Servant, 14. See also in the narrower perspective of sexual disabilities David Tabb Stewart, “Sexual Disabilities in the Hebrew Bible,” in Disability Studies and Biblical Literature, ed. Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011), 69–71.
[12] I recognise the English term “lame” has been used disparagingly and can have offensive connotations. I preserve the term here because it is frequently used in lexical definitions of pisseakh and because it is used as a translation in standard English translations, such as the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition.
[13] Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 65–67.
[14] Perhaps best translated as simply skin disease.
[15] For discussion on this and delimitation of particular cases, see Joel S. Baden, “The Nature of Barrenness in the Hebrew Bible,” in Moss and Schipper, Disability Studies and Biblical Literature, 13–27.
[16] Olyan, Disability, 54–56. Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 95.
[17] Indeed, nationalism has been argued to be foreign to the Hebrew Bible. See Uriah Yong-Hwan Kim, “The Realpolitik of Liminality in Josiah’s Kingdom and Asian America,” in Ways of Being, Ways of Reading: Asian American Biblical Interpretation, ed. Mary F. Foskett and Jeffrey Kah-Jin Kuan (St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2006), 85–88.
[18] Or likewise, the association of certain metaphors with the collective people (e.g., city as woman, nation as plant). See: Tina M. Sherman, Plant Metaphors in Prophetic Condemnations of Israel and Judah, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 49 (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2023), 4–9.
[19] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. ed. (London: Verso, 2006), 6.
[20] Sherman, Plant Metaphors, 16, 55–56. Also, as cited by Sherman: Ruth Wodak et al., The Discursive Construction of National Identity, trans. Angelika Hirsch, Richard Mitten, and J. W. Unger, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 27–31.
[21] Joseph Blenkinsopp, David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 4–10.
[22] Kim, “The Realpolitik of Liminality in Josiah’s Kingdom and Asian America,” 84, 97–98.
[23] As has become a widely accepted view regarding a pre-exilic redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 286–89. Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 21–32.
[24] Following the descriptions of Leonhard Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, repr. and trans. Michael Rutter and David M. Gunn, Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982). The relevant passages are 2 Samuel 4:4; 9:1–13; 16:1–4; 19:25–31.
[25] I recognise the English term “cripple(d)” is problematic due to how it has been used disparagingly. I have kept the English term here in this discussion because the underlying Hebrew nakeh is very rare; two of the four times it occurs in the Hebrew Bible are in reference to Mephibosheth. For this reason, not only has “cripple(d)” become a common English definition in standard lexicons, but it is the term used in English translations including the Good News Translation, New Living Translation, New Catholic Bible, and New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition.
[26] For the two perspectives, compare Olyan, Disability, 141–42. Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 105.
[27] Walter Brueggeman, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1990), 268.
[28] Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 111.
[29] Following the pattern established initially in 2 Samuel 16:14–23 in which Saul’s literary role is primarily to serve as a foil for David’s rise. See Brueggeman,First and Second Samuel, 124.
[30] For a review of this literature, see Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 49–60.
[31] Regel here in 19:28 used as a piel verb meaning to spy.
[32] See, for example, Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996), 212.
[33] So Liubov Ben-Noun, “What Was the Disease of the Legs that Afflicted King Asa?” Gerontology 47.2 (2000): 96–99, doi:10.1159/000052781. Walsh also seems to be open to this. Walsh, 1 Kings, 212.
[34] Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 195. For the conclusion that this would count as a disability, see Stewart, “Sexual Disabilities in the Hebrew Bible,” 71–72.
[35] Jeremy Schipper, “Deuteronomy 24:5 and King Asa’s Foot Disease in 1 Kings 15:23b,” Journal of Biblical Literature 128.4 (2009): 643–48. doi:10.2307/25610211.
[36] Cited in Schipper, “Deuteronomy 24:5,” 645.
[37] As Schipper himself notes and shows is perhaps captured in the Lucianic recension’s assertion that Asa did evil later in his life. “Deuteronomy 24:5”, 645–46.
[38] See the notes Sweeney makes on the theological motivation of Kings. Sweeney, I & II Kings, 3, 12, 18–19. See also Wolfgang Zwickel, “Priesthood and the Development of Cult in the Books of Kings,” in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Reception, ed. André Lemaire and Baruch Halpern, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 129 (Leiden: Brill, 2010): 401–426. Also Raymond Westbrook, “Law in Kings,” in Lemaire and Halpern, The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Reception, 461–66.
[39] The dual naming of Azariah/Uzziah is itself another issue beyond the scope of this paper; both names are used in 2 Kings 15.
[40] In particular, khalah is used as a general term for illness or weakness. So HALOT, s.v. “חַָלָה I.” While a number of medical conditions, examples of which are given in the section above, are associated with disability, khalah should not automatically be read as a reference to disability. Samson’s use of khalah in Judges 16:7, 11, 17 indicates that he would become “like other men,” foreclosing the possibility of disability in that context, but rather a relative weakness compared to his state otherwise. Likewise references to being “lovesick” in Song of Songs 2:5; 5:8 are likely not references to disability.
[41] Olyan, Disability, 54–56.
[42] See the reflections on the parallel account in Isaiah 39 by Sehoon Jang, “Is Hezekiah a Success or a Failure? The Literary Function of Isaiah’s Prediction at the End of the Royal Narratives in the Book of Isaiah,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42.1 (2017): 134, doi: 10.1177/0309089216661175. Although this reflects on a different version of the history, the strong literary relationship between the Kings and Isaiah accounts allows the comments to translate naturally to Deuteronomistic History.
[43] Note Jehoshaphat and Amaziah are described as doing what is pleasing in the eyes of YHWH but not as doing so like David.
[44] Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 71–74.
[45] Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah, 3–4.
[46] Schipper, Disability and the Hebrew Bible, 103–8, 118. This not only includes David’s conquest of Jerusalem—expelling the metaphorical “blind and the lame” and taking up residence himself—as well as David’s invitation of Mephibosheth to Jerusalem and David’s flight from Jerusalem during Absalom’s rebellion—in which Mephibosheth plays the role of benefactor to David from within Jerusalem.
[47] Blenkinsopp, David Remembered, 1–10.
[48] In contrast to cultural views of disability including tragedy to be overcome, the result of sin, or object of charitable action. See Eiesland, The Disabled God, 75.
[1] I would like to thank the Healthcare and Disability in the Ancient World program unit for the opportunity to present an earlier version of this paper at the Society of Biblical Literature 2023 Annual Meeting. I would also particularly like to acknowledge and thank Jeffrey Kah-Jin Kuan, Marvin Sweeney, Eleanor Vivian, and the anonymous reviewers working with the Journal of Interdisciplinary Biblical Studies for their very helpful feedback and comments on this work during its development.