All posts by randymccracken

I am a teacher at Calvary Chapel Bible College York and the author of "Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel".

Tallness: Motifs in Samuel

Tallness: Motifs in Samuel

Robert Wadlow, the tallest man on record was considered a “gentle giant.”

Tallness has its advantages and disadvantages. A tall person will have less legroom on a plane or may have to duck their head when entering a doorway. Tallness is great for reaching things in high places or for being able to see above the crowd when watching a public event. Of course, these are all trivial advantages and disadvantages. On a more serious note, a recent study suggests that taller people (over 6 feet) may be more susceptible to COVID-19 (read here). Another study suggests that taller people are more susceptible to cancer, whereas shorter people are at a greater risk for diabetes. The article states, “For several years researchers have identified strange associations between height and disease” (Why Shorter People are at Greater Risk for Diabetes). At times, tall people may be considered intimidating (Why Tall People Feel So Intimidating). On the other hand, the tallest man on record, Robert Wadlow, was considered a “gentle giant” (see photo above).

Height in the Bible

In previous posts we have noted how the Bible uses physical language in a metaphorical way to communicate spiritual truth (e.g., feet, and head). The same is true with the ideas of height or tallness. Thus height can be literal, figurative, or both. Just as in real life, biblical imagery of tallness or things that are high, has both positive and negative connotations. For example, God is pictured as “high and exalted” (Isa. 6:1 ), or as “God Most High” (e.g., Gen. 14:22–Hebrew = El Elyon). The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, “Implicit in this imagery is an implied vertical hierarchy in which God and the unseen spiritual world that he inhabits are qualitatively ‘above’ earthly experience. We should not ignore the physical basis of such imagery: the ‘heavens are high above the earth,’ as the psalmist puts it (Ps 103:11), and the human imagination has always pictured heaven as being ‘up.’ God is therefore named as being ‘high’ in the Bible. This is encapsulated in the epithet ‘Most High,’ which occurs well over fifty times (NRSV). God is ‘high and lofty’ (Is 6:1; 57:7, 15), the one who is ‘high above all nations’ (Ps 113:4), and he dwells ‘in the high and holy place’ (Is 57:15)” (p. 384).

Temple Mount
The Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

In Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern thought, God, or the gods, often met with people on mountains or high places (Deut. 12:2). For example, God reveals Himself to Israel at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19:18-20), and later the temple is constructed on Mt. Zion (Ps. 48:1-2). Legitimate and illegitimate places of worship in the Old Testament are often described as “high places” (1 Sam. 9:12-14; 1 Kgs. 3:2-4; 11:7; 13:32). Not only is God “high” but he honors His people by lifting them up. The promise to Israel is, “. . . He will set you high above all nations which He has made, in praise, in name, and in honor, and that you may be a holy people to the Lord your God, just as He has spoken” (Deut. 26:19).

The Hebrew Root gbh (Tallness)

While the idea of height or tallness can be positive and negative throughout the OT, in 1 Samuel the picture is wholly negative. The Hebrew word we are looking at comes from the root gbh. It can be seen in the name of Saul’s hometown, Gibeah, which means, “hill” or “height.” Besides its occurrence in the name Gibeah, the root occurs 6 more times, all in 1 Samuel (1 Sam. 2:3 [2x]; 1 Sam. 9:2; 10:23; 16:7; 17:4). We will look at these passages in a moment, but first, more needs to be said about the negative connotations of this word in Scripture.

Tallness can equal arrogance
In the Bible when height is used in conjunction with the eyes or heart, it can be a reference to arrogance. Portrait–Leon Battista Alberti

Just as we might use the term “high” to refer to an arrogant person or attitude–“get off your highhorse,” “don’t be so high and mighty”–so too does the Bible. This negative aspect to the word is often connected with various parts of the body in Scripture. For example, the heart (Ps. 131:1), the eyes (Isa. 2:11), the spirit (Prov. 16:18), and the nose (Ps. 10:4), can all be said to be “high” (gbh). In all but one case (2 Chron. 17:6), this is a negative quality, variously translated as “proud,” “arrogant,” or “haughty.” Thus, while the word tallness, in and of itself, is a neutral term, context determines whether it carries the connotations of honor or arrogance.

Tallness in Samuel

Hannah's prayer
The words of Hannah’s prayer in 1 Sam. 2:3 set the tone for the meaning of “tallness” in 1 Samuel.

The first use of the Hebrew root gbh in Samuel is found in Hannah’s song in 1 Samuel 2:3. It occurs twice in this verse and sets the tone for its usage in the rest of 1 Samuel. Most English versions translate the opening line of verse 3 similar to the NKJV which reads, “Talk no more so very proudly.” “Very proudly” is the English rendering of a double use of the word gebohah. When Hebrew uses a word two times in succession, it is for emphasis. Hence the use of “very” in English translations. We could translate Hannah’s words as “Talk no more proudly, proudly.” If we wanted to be very literal, however, we would translate these words as Robert Polzin does, “Do not multiply your words, ‘Tall! Tall!'” (Samuel and the Deuteronomist, p. 34). Another alternative is Keith Bodner’s translation, “Do not multiply your speech, ‘O Tall one! O Tall one!’” (1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary, p. 28). In other words, although the word here means “tall” it’s intended meaning is “proud,” thus the rendering by English translations. As noted by many, Hannah’s song enunciates many of the main themes of Samuel (see my post on the Theology of 1&2 Samuel). Therefore the allusion that tallness represents pride anticipates the introduction of certain people in 1 Samuel. To be precise, there are three people in 1 Samuel who are said to be tall–Saul, Eliab, and Goliath. Bodner sums up this same point with some clever wordplay of his own. He writes, “Even a cursory glance ahead in the story of 1 Samuel reveals that ‘tall’ is a big issue in this narrative. Physical height can be, at the very least, illusory, and breed a false sense of security. Saul’s outstanding attribute is that he is taller than all the people, and Goliath’s height instills great fear in the fighting ranks of Israel. Yet both will fall down (forward) at different times before the end of 1 Samuel” (1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary, p. 28).

Tall Saul

Tall Saul was not all he appeared to be!

Saul is certainly the most significant figure of the above trio. From the moment we are introduced to Saul we are told, “From his shoulders upward, he was taller than any of the people” (1 Sam. 9:2). This distinguishing characteristic, seems to be the one that most impresses Samuel. When Saul is chosen by lots to be king, we are reminded that, “he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward.” Samuel then continues by saying, “Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people” (1 Sam. 10:23-24). Ironically this “kingly” looking man was found “hiding among the supplies” (1 Sam. 10:22). This story already begins to hint that Saul is not all his physical appearance makes him out to be. This is confirmed later in the story in numerous ways. It is noteworthy that Saul, the tallest Israelite, cowers in fear when Goliath challenges Israel (1 Sam. 17:10-11). Saul’s lack of obedience (1 Sam. 15:11), his building of a monument for himself (1 Sam. 15:12), and his pleas for Samuel to honor him before the elders of his people (1 Sam. 15:30), all suggest a problem with pride.

Tall Eliab

David's anointing
David’s brothers, including tall Eliab are rejected in favor of him.

The next tall person we encounter in 1 Samuel is David’s brother, Eliab. After Saul’s rejection from being king, God sends Samuel to Bethlehem to anoint a new king among the sons of Jesse (1 Sam. 16:1). As Samuel approaches Jesse’s sons, he comes to Eliab the firstborn and is convinced that the Lord’s anointed is standing before him (1 Sam. 16:6). Samuel is immediately rebuked by the Lord and told “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him” (1 Sam. 16:7). Once again Samuel is impressed by physical stature, but the Lord is not and offers a rebuke. Within the context, Eliab appears to be compared to Saul. He is said to be tall and that the Lord had rejected him–two things said of Saul as well. In the next chapter, Eliab opposes David’s inquiries about fighting Goliath (1 Sam. 17:28). In a subtle way, tall Eliab’s fear of fighting Goliath, once again compares him with Saul. Thus, for the second time in the narrative, tallness is rejected as a desirable quality. No doubt, the suggestion is once again that Eliab had a problem with pride (for more on Eliab, see my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel).

Tall Goliath

Tallness--David vs Goliath
Tall Goliath did not intimidate David.

Obviously, the most famous, or infamous, tall person in 1 Samuel is Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:4-7 gives a detailed description of Goliath, including his height (see my other articles on Goliath, here, here, and here). Tallness appears in what is clearly a negative context here. Once again, the tall person doesn’t turn out to be what we thought he was. Goliath is cut down to size by the young shepherd boy David, proving he was not as intimidating as he looked. Goliath’s pride is evidenced in his defying the army of Israel and its God (1 Sam. 17:25-26). Finally, there is some irony in these stories involving David’s interaction with Saul, Eliab, and Goliath. When David is introduced in 1 Samuel 16:11 and 1 Samuel 17:14, a certain Hebrew word is used that most English versions translate as “young.” This is a correct translation, and no doubt the intended meaning. However, the Hebrew word also means “small,” and is used intentionally to create a contrast between “small” David and these other “tall” individuals.

Gibeah, Ramah, and Tallness

As noted above, Gibeah was the hometown of Saul, while Samuel’s hometown was Ramah (1 Sam. 15:34). We have pointed out that the word Gibeah comes from the Hebrew root gbh and thus means “height,” or “tall.” Since Gibeah means “height,” it is not unusual that this name could be used to refer to different cities in Israel that were on a hill. This, indeed, was the case. The Gibeahs mentioned in Joshua 15:57, Joshua 18:28, and Joshua 24:33, are all different places and none are to be equated with Saul’s Gibeah. Ramah is a word that also means “height” or “hill.” Just as there were a number of Gibeahs in ancient Israel, so there were also a number of places called Ramah. The verbal form of Ramah ִis rûm (pronounced “room”), and means “high” or “exalted.” It is obvious that rûm and gbh are synonyms. It is interesting that the verbal form rûm occurs 7 times in 1&2 Samuel and always has a positive meaning (1 Sam. 2:1, 7, 8, 10; 9:24; 2 Sam. 47, 49). Notice that it occurs 4 times in Hannah’s opening song. In fact, in its first appearance in 1 Samuel 2:1, it actually takes the form “ramah.” The point of this is that, although these words are synonyms, the root for the word Ramah, always has positive connotations, while the root for Gibeah always has negative connotations in the books of Samuel. Not only does the root word for Gibeah have negative connotations in Samuel, Gibeah itself is remembered as a place where a terrible crime took place that turned into a civil war in Israel (Judg. 19-21). In fact, the story of Saul chopping his oxen into 12 pieces and sending them throughout Israel (1 Sam. 11:7) is an echo of the story of the Levite chopping his concubine into 12 pieces in Judges 19:29. All of this seems to be a subtle way of communicating that godly Samuel comes from Ramah (a word referring to a good use of “height,” meaning “exalt”), while ungodly Saul comes from Gibeah (a word associated with a negative use of “height,” meaning “pride”).

Conclusion: The Motif of Tallness Brings a Heightened Awareness in Samuel

The King of Akkad, Naram-Sin is depicted as towering over his enemies.

Once again by following a motif in the books of Samuel, we are given insight into the inspired author’s message. In her song, Hannah says that God will bring down the proud but lift up the humble (1 Sam. 2:6-8). The motif of tallness plays into this important theme of the book. Ancient people were smaller in stature and so a tall person would be impressive. Indeed, many of the portraits of ancient kings depict them as being taller than their subjects and enemies (the stele of Naram-Sin above is one example among others). The motif in Samuel turns this expectation on its head by stating that appearances can be deceiving (1 Sam. 16:7). Tallness becomes symptomatic of pride and arrogance. The books of Samuel teach, if you raise yourself up, be sure God will cut you down to size! But if you are lowly and humble, be encouraged for God will lift you up!

Administrative Site of the Kings of Judah Uncovered

Administrative Site of the Kings of Judah Uncovered

administrative site on slopes of Arnona
Aerial Photo of the Israel Antiquities Authority excavation on the slopes of Arnona (photo credit: ASSAF PEREZ/ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY)

The IAA (Israel Antiquities Authority) has recently uncovered a 2700 year old administrative site dating to the time of the biblical kings Hezekiah and Manasseh. This administrative site is located in a neighborhood of Jerusalem where the US Embassy now resides. The neighborhood, known as Arnona, is only 1.8 miles outside the Old City located between Talpiot and Ramat Rachel (where another ancient administrative site also exists). While preparing for a new residential complex two year ago, the discovery was made. As always in Israel, before any building activity can commence, an archaeological survey must be carried out by the IAA. Prior to excavation, the only ancient remains known consisted of a giant hill of flint stones. Excavating led to the discovery of a monumental concentric structure. The size of the site and the other objects discovered has led to the conclusion that it was an administrative site. The announcement about its discovery was released this past week (July 22, 2020).

An Administrative Site for Storage and Collecting Taxes

administrative site LMLK seal
LMLK seals usually consist of a disk with wings and ancient Hebrew script designating it as belonging to the king.

One of the discoveries includes a large collection of royal Judah seal impressions. The impressions on the handle of storage jars are known as LMLK seal impressions (see photo above). The letters LMLK in Hebrew mean “belonging to the king” (pronounced lam melech). About 120 of these stamped jars were found. Only about 1300 are known from various sites throughout Judah. The jars were normally used for tax collection purposes and included various agricultural items such as olive oil, and wine. The jars also include the names of four cities in Judah: Hebron, Socho, Ziph, and Memshat. Three of these are known from Scripture. The location of the fourth, Memshat, is still a bit of a mystery. These, and other finds, date the site to the eighth and seventh centuries–the time of Hezekiah and Manasseh, kings of Judah. One of the interesting observations to be made is that somehow this site survived the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib in 701 BC (Isaiah 37). It continued until the Babylonian destruction in 586 BC and began to be reused shortly after that up through the period of Persian rule.

What Else Was Discovered?

images from Arnona
Female and animals figurines, along with seal impressions were among the objects found. (Photo credit: Yaniv Berman/Israel Antiquities Authority).

Seals impressions bearing the names of a number of individuals were also found. These individuals are believed to be governmental personnel or wealthy land owners who held economic clout in the area. None of the names are known from the Bible, but they are found on jar handles at other sites in Judah. For the stout of heart who don’t mind reading ancient Hebrew names, here is the list: Naham Abdi, Naham Hatzlihu, Meshalem Elnatan, Zafan Abmetz, Shaneah Azaria, Shalem Acha and Shivna Shachar. Among the other items found are female and animal figurines which the excavators equate with idolatrous practices. This is not a surprise, since this is a well-known feature of ancient Judah. Although Hezekiah sought to rid the land of idolatry (2 Kgs. 18:1-6), his son Manasseh brought it back with a passion (2 Kgs. 21:1-10).

For more information on this discovery, including photos and videos of the excavation and surrounding area, check out the article in The Times Of Israel (Huge Kingdom of Judah Government Complex Found Near US Embassy in Jerusalem), and the article in the Jerusalem Post (Key Site From Biblical Kings’ Time Unveiled Near US Embassy in Jerusalem). The best video for English speaking people, as well as the most comprehensive, can be found at CBN News (Israel Uncovers Major Archaeological Find From the Times of King Hezekiah, Manasseh).

Cosmic Warfare in the Book of Joshua

Cosmic Warfare in the Book of Joshua

Ancient Jericho and Cosmic Warfare
Ancient Jericho or Tel es-Sultan, illustrates the aspect of Cosmic Warfare in Joshua. Courtesy of pininterest.

The book of Joshua has suffered a damaged reputation in recent years. Many archaeologists consider the account of the Conquest as fantasy. Kathleen Kenyon’s dating of the fall of Jericho to 1550 BC has led them to conclude that there was no city to conquer in the time of Joshua (1400, or 1250 BC, depending on the date accepted for the Exodus). This has been ably challenged by Bryant Wood and the team at ABR (Associates of Biblical Research), but conservative voices are easily overlooked these days, even if they offer persuasive evidence (see the article here, and the video here). The Book of Joshua has also come under fire for its language of “utterly destroying” the inhabitants of Canaan (e.g., Josh. 6:17, 21). I have written elsewhere on the problem of violence in the OT (see my series, Violence in the Old Testament). Here I would like to focus on a point that is far too often overlooked. This involves the Book of Joshua’s outlook on the Conquest as Cosmic Warfare.

What is Cosmic Warfare?

Cosmic Warfare
Battling the prince of Persia (Daniel 10).

It is sometimes stated (and I have probably done so myself), that warfare in the OT is physical, whereas warfare in the NT is spiritual. However, a more accurate picture of what Scripture teaches would be to affirm that both testaments teach that warfare is physical AND spiritual. Cosmic warfare involves understanding the Bible’s teaching that spiritual forces battling it out in the heavenly realm often manifest that conflict in the physical realm. Daniel 10 gives us a glimpse into this dynamic. Daniel is given a vision and waits 21 days until a heavenly messenger is able to come and reveal to him its meaning. This heavenly being states that he was opposed in arriving sooner because of opposition from the prince of Persia (Dan. 10:13). The vision, however, reveals what will happen “to your people in the latter days” (Dan. 10:14). Daniel’s visions involve the revelation of real historic events. Thus there is a combination of spiritual and physical realities. While this is widely recognized as a feature of the Book of Daniel, a similar dynamic is at work in the Book of Joshua. This outlook is pervasive throughout the book, but I will limit my observations to 5 (groups of) passages.

Meditate on the Word and Follow It (Joshua 1:7-8)

Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

The theme of Cosmic Warfare is inaugurated from the outset of the Book of Joshua. When God appears to Joshua promising to give Israel the land (Josh. 1:2-3), He does not do what we would expect. Certainly a general who is being sent on a military expedition, especially one as vast as the conquest of Canaan, needs some sage military advice. A clever plan outlining successful military tactics is what most commanders would hope for. Instead, Joshua is told to know and keep the Law of Moses! The Lord specifically says that if Joshua knows the Word, then he will prosper and have good success. Such a statement clearly implies that Canaan will not be won because of brute military strategy and force. The battle is more than a physical battle; it is first and foremost, a spiritual one! Although Joshua will battle a physical enemy, he needs to know that the physical resistance is a symptom of a greater spiritual reality.

The Preparation for Cosmic Warfare (Joshua 3-5)

Cosmic warfare-Crossing the Jordan
Israel prepares for cosmic warfare by following the ark across the Jordan.

The emphasis on spiritual preparation for battle continues in chapters 3-5. In chapter 3, the people are called upon to consecrate themselves as they prepare to follow the ark of God across the Jordan River (Josh. 3:2-4). Following the ark reinforces the idea that God is leading the way and fighting for Israel. The parting of the Jordan emphasizes God’s presence and recalls the similar miracle at the Red Sea when Israel left Egypt (Exod. 14-15). Just as the Lord had done battle with Pharaoh and the gods of Egypt and had triumphed (Exod. 15:4-12), so now He was leading Israel in the conquest of Canaan and its gods. After Israel crosses the Jordan, they do something counter-intuitive–they circumcise all the males (Josh. 5:2-9). Since the generation born in the wilderness had not been circumcised, this meant that every male of the nation needed to be circumcised except for Joshua and Caleb (the only two remaining from the previous generation). Such an action left the entire nation vulnerable to attack! All one need do is recall the story of Simeon and Levi attacking and wiping out the town of Shechem after all the males were circumcised (Gen. 34:24-29). For Israel, however, keeping the covenant (Gen. 17:9-14) was more important than physical vulnerability to the enemy. Following the recovery from being circumcised, Israel observes the Passover (Josh. 5:10-11). Once again, Israel is not following proper or even logical military protocol. The text is teaching us that being spiritually fit in order to maintain the Lord’s presence in the camp is far more important.

The Commander of the Lord’s Army (Joshua 5:13-15) and the Battle Plan for Jericho (Joshua 6:1-5)

Joshua and the Commander of the Lord's army
Joshua and the Commander of the Lord’s army by James Tissot. The Commander’s appearance is a clear announcement of Cosmic Warfare.

On the eve before the conquest of Jericho, Joshua has a strange and surprising encounter. He sees a man with a sword and inquires “Are you for us, or for our adversaries” (Josh. 5:13)? The man reveals that he is under allegiance to no one but the Lord by his response of “No.” He then proceeds to identify himself as “the commander of the army of the Lord” (Josh. 5:14). His deity is emphasized by the fact that Joshua falls down before him and the commander tells him to remove his sandals as he is on holy ground (Josh. 5:14-15). This statement is, of course, a direct allusion to God’s revelation to Moses at Sinai in the burning bush (Exod. 3:1-6). The continued references to the Exodus story remind us that just as the Lord conquered Egypt, so the Lord will conquer Canaan. The appearance of the commander of the Lord’s army could not be a more explicit reference to the nature of the coming conflict. What faced Joshua and Israel was not only a conflict with the people of Canaan, but a cosmic conflict.

The Fall of Jericho
The destruction of Jericho emphasizes that Israel was engaged in Cosmic Warfare.

The battle plan against Jericho (Josh. 6:1-5), as well as the subsequent account of the battle, continues to emphasize the spiritual nature of the battle. From a human point of view, Israel could not have had a worst strategy. March around the wall everyday with the ark and the priests leading the way and on day 7 march around 7 times, blow the trumpets and shout, and the walls will fall down. The skeptical would surely say…”Right, now there’s a sure-fire plan!” Yet the text states that this is what Israel did, and as the song says, “the walls came a tumblin’ down.” Even archaeologists who are skeptical of the biblical account will admit two things that the Bible makes clear. 1) The walls fell outward (a very unusual thing–usually they fall inward); and 2) Jericho was well fortified. This initial story of the conquest not only emphasizes that the Lord fought for Israel, but that the battle could not be won by flesh and blood alone. Again, cosmic warfare is being waged.

Cosmic War and the Sun and Moon Standing Still (Joshua 10:12-14)

Cosmic Warfare
Joshua 10:13-14 clearly demonstrates cosmic warfare, as Joshua calls on the sun and moon to stand still.

One of the most famous stories of the Book of Joshua is the battle to save Gibeon in which Joshua calls on the Lord to have the sun and moon stand still (Josh. 10:12-14). While there is no consensus on what Joshua was asking the Lord to do, our point here is to notice how the theme of Cosmic Warfare is once again being emphasized. The mere fact that the sun and moon are involved in this story suggests that the focus is cosmic. It is not uncommon in the Bible to see the Lord use the elements of nature (or the cosmos) to fight against the enemy. In Exodus 14-15, God uses the sea. In Judges 5:20-21, Deborah and Barak celebrate by singing that the stars and the Kishon River fought against their enemy Sisera. 2 Samuel 18:8 declares that, “the forest devoured more people that day than the sword.” In Joshua 10, we are told that the Lord sent great hailstones upon the enemy and that more died from the hailstones than by the sword (Josh. 10:11). Once again, the Book of Joshua could not be more explicit about the nature of the conflict. This is not merely a physical war between two nations, this is cosmic warfare.

The Destruction of the Anakim (Joshua 11:21-22)

To this point it is evident that the Book of Joshua depicts cosmic warfare. But the emphasis on the destruction of the Anakim clinches it beyond all doubt. Militarily speaking, the Israelites would have had little chance against the population of Canaan on their own. This is emphasized by the strength of the Canaanites and their fortified cities (Num. 13:28; Deut. 3:4-5). However, while Israel would have needed God’s help to defeat the Canaanites, the Scripture reveals that there was an enemy even more fearsome whose roots were in both the physical and spiritual realms. This enemy was the Anakim, the descendants of the Nephilim (Num. 13:32-33). No one has done more to demonstrate the cosmic view of Joshua than Michael Heiser by his investigation of the significance of this people group for the Conquest (see Heiser’s The Unseen Realm, especially Part 5 Conquest and Failure, pp. 181-217). Heiser writes, “Since the Nephilim were part of Israel’s supernatural worldview and their descendants turn out to be Israel’s primary obstacle for conquering the promised land, the conquest itself must also be understood in supernatural terms” (Unseen Realm, p. 185).

Cosmic warfare
The sons of God and daughters of men produced the Nephilim (Gen. 6:1-4)

We first learn about the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-4. The union of “the sons of God” (spiritual beings) with “the daughters of men” (human women) results in the birth of these hybrid beings. It is specifically the presence of the Anakim that terrify 10 of the 12 spies. They report, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them” (Num. 13:32-33). A number of passages in the OT demonstrate that the Nephilim and their descendants were spread throughout Canaan, Transjordan (Bashan), Edom and Moab (Gen. 14:5-6; Deut. 2:10-12, 20-23; 3:8-11; Amos 2:9-10). These passages show that they were called by various names including Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, Emim, Zamzumim (Zuzim), Horites, and Amorites. Heiser contends that the spiritual powers of darkness purposely planted their progeny in and around the Promised Land in order to prevent God from giving it to His people Israel. The main task of the Conquest was to rid Canaan and Transjordan of these people groups, as well as those who were intermixed with them such as the Canaanites, so that Israel could take up possession of the land. If Heiser is correct, and I think he is, this makes the Conquest more than just a clash between nations. It makes it cosmic warfare. This point is driven home in Joshua 11:21-22 which purposely focuses on the destruction of the descendants of the Nephilim. There we read, “And Joshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua devoted them to destruction with their cities. There was none of the Anakim left in the land of the people of Israel. Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some remain.” (For more on this aspect of the Conquest, see my article Giants or Canaanites? The Conquest.)

Joshua and Cosmic Warfare

More could be said, but the above discussion is sufficient to establish that the Book of Joshua pictures a cosmic conflict. When interpreting and teaching the Book of Joshua, as well as any discussion about the violence in Joshua, it is important to keep this ancient context in mind. In fact, the biblical worldview would teach us that with any conflict we need to see beyond the mere physical manifestation of that conflict. Scripture is clear, in both testaments, that there are spiritual enemies attempting to thwart God’s plan for this world. It is this worldview that prompts the apostle Paul to use the language of cosmic warfare as he reminds believers, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).

Revolutionary Revelation in a Cultural Package

Revolutionary Revelation in a Cultural Package

OT scholar John Walton refers to divine revelation as “revolutionary revelation” in his OT Theology

The Old Testament (OT) is a strange and foreign world to many, including many Christians. The reason for this is simple: The writings which compose the OT ( or Hebrew Bible) were written in a cultural milieu much different from ours. Yet in spite of its many similarities with the culture of the ancient Near East (ANE), the OT has many unique features and beliefs not found in any other neighboring country or region of that era. OT scholar John Walton refers to this phenomenon as, “revolutionary revelation in a cultural package” (Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief, p. 12–see link below).

This post is about some of the unique features of the OT. Such uniqueness causes one to ask, “How did writers in ancient Israel, come up with beliefs and ideas that were so counter-cultural?” Were they a race of geniuses? Or could it be that their claim of Divine Revelation is actually true? The context in which Walton uses the expression, “revolutionary revelation in a cultural package,” explains his answer to this question and is worth quoting at length. (The bold type and italics in the quote below are Walton’s and serve as one of the subheadings in his introductory chapter):

revolutionary revelation--John Walton
OT scholar and author John Walton

“Theology is to be understood within the framework of the ancient world, yet as the result of revelation that draws the people out of those ways of thinking. The Israelites were thoroughly immersed in the world and cultural framework of the ancient Near East, just as all of us are immersed in our own native cultures. However, God’s revelation of himself, though grounded in a specific culture, is capable of transcending culture. As a result, we can be transformed by that revelation, regardless of the time and space that separate us from the original revelation. The situation with ancient Israel was no different—God’s revelation called them away from the ways in which their culture inclined them to think and to be transformed in their minds. We have, then, a revolutionary revelation in a cultural package. But it is important to note that the Old Testament’s theology is situated against the backdrop of the ancient world’s customary ways of thinking.” (Walton, OT Theology, p. 12).

John Walton is not only an OT scholar, but is a scholar of the ancient Near East. As such, he is eminently qualified to address this topic. His writings include other works on the ancient Near East such as, “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament,” and “Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context.” The rest of this article will focus on 9 aspects of this “revolutionary revelation” in the OT as revealed in Walton’s Old Testament Theology. These are not the only unique features of Israel’s religion, there are others. These are enough, however, to substantiate that Israel’s outlook  and practices were qualitatively different in many aspects, in spite of sharing a common culture with its ancient Near Eastern neighbors.

Revolutionary Revelation in the Old Testament

  1. One Supreme God–this is probably the most obvious difference between Israel and its neighbors. It’s difficult to underscore just how revolutionary this belief is. All the nations of the ANE believed in a pantheon of gods. While one god might be considered the head of the pantheon, this could change. For example, the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish recounts how the god Marduk is elevated to the head of the pantheon. The OT reveals that God has a council of divine beings (e.g., Ps. 82:1, 1 Kgs 22:19-22). However, none of these beings are equal to God. In fact, all were created by God. God allows these beings to participate with Him, just as God allows humans to participate in His plans. Walton explains how foreign this concept was to the other peoples of the ANE. He points out that people functioned and found their identity within community. They believed the gods did likewise. Walton then states, “With this brief discussion as a backdrop, we can understand the challenge of the theology revealed to the Israelites. How could one God do it all? Why would one God do it all? It would have been difficult for them to think of Yahweh as a cosmic deity, a phenomenon deity, a national deity, and a clan deity all at the same time. It just would not have made sense” (OT Theology, p. 38). The fact is, many Israelites had a hard time accepting this belief themselves. The OT is full of examples of Israel worshipping other gods. Given the mindset of the ANE, the idea of one supreme God overall only makes sense if it was received by divine revelation. No one in that culture would come up with such an idea!

    Moses and the burning bush
    Revolutionary revelation: A God who reveals Himself! Courtesy of pininterest
  2. A God who communicates and reveals Himself–I was honestly shocked to learn this one.  In the ANE although gods did, at times, reveal answers to oracular questions through divination (Should we go to war?, Will this famine end soon?), they didn’t offer an account of their plans or their attributes the way we are accustomed to seeing the God of Israel do in the OT. Walton states, “In the ancient Near East it was more common for the gods to manifest themselves rather than to reveal themselves. Gods “manifested” themselves in objects, images, names, celestial bodies, or other things that comprised the divine constellation” (OT Theology, pp. 43-44). Revelation of the kind we are used to speaking of, simply was not a thought that occurred to an ancient person. The gods were about having their needs met (see below), not about revealing themselves.
  3. A God of relationship–Of course, one of the reasons for self-revelation is for the purpose of relationship. It appears the gods of the ANE were little concerned with developing a relationship with their worshippers. One of the aspects of the God of Israel is his desire to dwell in their midst (e.g., the tabernacle and temple). Walton states, “Other gods dwelled among people, but they were not prone to claim a people group as their own” (OT Theology, p. 65). No other ANE deity ever said anything like, “I will be your God and you will be My people” (Exod. 6:7; Lev. 26:12; Jer. 7:23; etc.). While the OT is full of expressions of God’s love for His people, and people’s love for God (Deut. 6:4; 7:7-8; 23:5; etc.), such an expression from the ANE gods is rare. Walton writes, “The gods in general are considered to love (e.g., in Akkadian râmu) people, and people likewise love the gods, though it has been demonstrated that terms such as these in the ancient world are sometimes used to express the presence of political relationships rather than emotions. But such expressions from the gods are rare and are more often directed to the king than to the people at large. Even considering the myriads of royal inscriptions wherein the kings speak at length about the relationship between themselves and a god, clear expressions of emotion in either direction are little attested” (OT Theology, p. 57).
  4. Exclusive worship–If God is the one true God then it makes sense that He would require exclusive worship. While other nations had patron deities, for example, the Moabites’ god Chemosh, or the Babylonians’ god Marduk, no one expected them to be worshipped exclusively. After all, exclusive worship would offend the other gods! When one ancient Pharaoh by the name of Akhenaten attempted to force the worship of only one god (the sun god Aten), he was considered a heretic (see wikipedia article here).  Walton says that Israel’s practice was, “an idea unmatched in its particularity in the rest of the ancient world” (OT Theology, p. 66). Even today the insistence on worshipping only one God as the true God causes offense to many. Why would Israel go against the grain of ancient society, unless, as they claim, such action had been revealed to them?

    Atrahasis Epic
    The Atrahasis epic contains one version of the Babylonian creation story.
  5. The reason for creation–Perhaps the most revolutionary revelation (besides one supreme God), is in regards to creation. In the accounts of the creation of the world and humanity, there is a significant difference between Israel and the nations of the ANE. Most people who read this blog are probably aware that other nations of the ANE had creation stories (as well as Flood stories!). Scholars have noted some similarities between these accounts with the account in Genesis 1-3. One similarity relates to the creation of humanity. Genesis states that Adam was created from the dust of the ground. The Atrahasis epic states that 7 male and 7 female embryos were fashioned from clay. However, the major difference between the ancient creation accounts and Genesis is why God/the gods created human beings. Walton refers to the ANE ideas contained in the various creation accounts as “The Great Symbiosis.” Several quotes from Walton flesh out what is meant by the Great Symbiosis, and how this contrasts with the biblical account. “According to the theology of the Old Testament, God created the world for humans. This theology, however, stands in contrast to the ancient Near Eastern idea that the gods created the cosmos for themselves. In this view, humans, as afterthoughts, were to function as slaves of the gods to ensure the cosmos would continue to serve the deities’ needs” (OT Theology, p. 71). A few pages later, Walton writes, “The other gods order the cosmos to function for themselves, and people merely function as cogs in the machinery…. But in the Old Testament, Yahweh orders the cosmos to serve people, not himself, and it is ordered to be sacred space (by virtue of his presence there) (OT Theology, pp. 83-84). One final quote from Walton emphasizes the ANE perspective on the creation of humanity: “Conventional wisdom was that the gods wanted to be pampered, and if the people succeeded in meeting their every whim, the gods might just treat them well. After all, if the gods desired all of this pampering, they had to protect and provide for those who were diligent and conscientious in their ministrations. Experience, as the people interpreted it, had taught them that the gods were fickle, demanding, capricious, and disinterested in the cares of humans; the gods were interested only in their own comforts and were concerned primarily with their own needs” (OT Theology, p. 112). I have spent extra space on this point and provided extra quotes from Walton because it is such a significant difference. The idea that humans were created as the slaves for the gods to do the work they didn’t want to do was ubiquitous throughout the ANE. The biblical depiction is clearly superior and certainly more attractive. The question once again arises, “How did Israel come up with such a radically different concept?” As a side note, I find it interesting that many people today have a more ANE view of God than they do a biblical view. The picture of a god who only wants to use people for his own purposes aligns perfectly with the ANE, but is diametrically opposed to the God of the Hebrew Bible.

    Enuma Elish
    The Babylonian tablets containing Enuma Elish, one of the ANE accounts of creation.
  6. Cosmic Conflict vs. No Conflict in Creation–We can keep this one short. The Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish speaks of conflict between the gods resulting in the creation of the world. Genesis evidences no such conflict. The Creator God is in complete control and all of the cosmos is created by his sovereign word.
  7. The image of God–The biblical creation story states that all human beings (male and female) are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28). The image is not a characteristic or quality; it is a status. Humans are to rule the earth as God’s representatives. We have already noted that, in the ANE, humans were created to be slaves to the gods. The only one mentioned as being in the gods’ image is the king. Only the king is granted the status of rulership. Walton states, “…in the Old Testament, the image of God provides the primary description of human purpose and meaning. Human dignity in the Old Testament is found in the status and function people have as God’s image (OT Theology, p. 97). Because humanity is created in God’s image, this also means that Israel was not to permit any other likeness or image of God. This, of course, is stated clearly in the 10 commandments (Exod. 20:4). Walton writes, “Aniconism is observable in various ways in other times and places in the ancient Near East….However, total aniconism in the ancient Near East outside Israel is unknown. The significance of this is far-reaching and cannot be overstated” (OT Theology, p. 150).
  8. Sin and separation from God’s presence–Walton writes, “There is nothing like the fall in ancient Near Eastern literature because there is no idealized primeval scenario (OT Theology, p. 102). Furthermore, “Even the discussion of sin is problematic in an ancient Near Eastern context” (OT Theology, p. 102). People in the ANE certainly knew what it was like to offend a deity and to suffer for it, but the concept of sacrificing for atonement to restore a relationship was foreign to them (Remember, the gods were not interested in a relationship as such. Their interest was in how they could benefit from human existence). In the biblical understanding, sin separates a person from God. An unrepentant sinner can be driven from the presence of God (Gen. 4:14), or God can remove his presence from a sinful nation (Ezek. 11:22-23). The gods of the ANE would be considered foolish for removing humanity from their presence–they needed them! Humans were created to do the work and to offer the sacrifices that fed the gods. To remove humanity would be devastating! In the Atrahasis epic the gods actually find this out when they attempt to destroy humanity with a flood. They soon realize their mistake as there is no one left to offer them sacrifices to feed them or to do their work. Fortunately, one of the gods, Enki, has saved Atrahasis in a boat (sound familiar?). When Atrahasis leaves the boat, he offers sacrifices to the gods. The story humorously states that the gods gathered around the sacrifice like flies! Although one can see a few similarities with the Genesis story of the Flood, the qualitative differences in the biblical story are undeniable.

    God makes a covenant with Abram
    The God of the OT (and NT) is a covenant-making God.
  9. A God who makes covenants with people–We have already noted that one of the distinctive features of the Bible is that God is a God of relationship, while the gods of the ANE are not much interested in partnering with people. One of the ways this is expressed in Scripture is the making of covenants between God and people. Once again we have a unique feature that is not found in the ANE. Walton states, “In the ancient Near East, the idea of a god who made a covenant with a group of people was unique to Israel—a circumstance for which we have little precedent. Gods did, however, make covenants with kings… (OT Theology, p. 105). We noted above that the image of God can apply to kings in the ANE, but not with the general public. The same is true of making covenants. But we have no record of gods making a covenant with a group of people. In the OT we read of God making a covenant with Noah and the whole earth, promising not to flood it again (Gen. 9:8-17). Beginning with Abram, God makes a covenant with an individual who will grow into a family, which will, in turn, grow into a nation. Along these lines Walton writes, “The transition from an agreement with a family to an agreement with an ethnic group/nation is paralleled by the transition of Yahweh from a family God (“personal god”) to a national God. No other examples exist in the ancient world of such a relational transition by a god” (OT Theology, p. 120). In other words, once a family god, always a family god. Once a national deity, always a national deity, etc. In the ANE, there was no need for one god to fill many roles, after all, there were plenty of gods to go around. Not so in biblical teaching. Only one God was supreme (see #1 above), and he fulfilled all necessary roles.

Conclusions Regarding Revolutionary Revelation

Very few people go against the values and beliefs that are prevalent in their culture. To do so leads to ridicule, rejection, and in severe cases, persecution and death. In fact, most of us assimilate our cultural values and beliefs without giving it much thought. Throughout this post we have noticed that Ancient Israel, while having many similarities with its neighbors, differed in significant ways. These beliefs and practices were enough to make them “stand out in the crowd.” According to Scripture, this was the purpose. Israel was to be a nation of priests to draw others to the true God (Gen. 12:3; Exod. 19:5-6; 1 Kgs. 8:43, 60). These differences, however, did come with a price (e.g., Daniel 3:8-18).

revolutionary revelation--3 men in the fiery furnace
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refused to bend to the cultural practices and beliefs of Babylon.

The OT testifies to the fact that not all Israelites were willing to swim against the current of ANE culture. We read of much compromise in its pages. This leads to the question of why a group within Israel proclaimed and clung to these radically different beliefs and practices–a question I have noted a few times above. Again, we must ask, “Where did these beliefs and practices come from?” Why Israel and no other nation? How is it that every other nation of the ANE had similar beliefs and practices, but Israel was unique? Not only that, but Israel also produced a unique literature we call the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. This characteristic is not only true of Israel in the Old Testament era, the same can be said for a group of Jewish believers in the New Testament era. Many of the beliefs and practices of early Christianity were also counter-cultural. I have noted some of these counter-cultural beliefs in an article entitled, “Evidences for the Cross and Resurrection.” Did Israelites just have a thing about being counter-cultural? Did they enjoy the ridicule and persecution of others? Why not another nation or group of people? Why always Israel? I believe Walton’s explanation is the best and most logical. Israel was gifted by God with a revolutionary revelation.

Walton’s Old Testament Theology is available at  Amazon USA / UK. A digital version is also available at Logos/Faithlife.

Revolutionary revelation


Sword and Spear Part 2: Motifs in Samuel

Sword and Spear Part 2: Motifs in Samuel

sword and spear
The motif of the spear is mostly negative, suggesting a trust in weapons and human strength.

In my previous post I introduced the sword and spear motif in Samuel (see here for Part 1). There I noted that this motif “…ranges from a proclamation of trust in God’s power to deliver, to a rejection of that trust.” In 2 places where the words “sword and spear” appear together, the motif is a neutral one, speaking of powerlessness (1 Sam. 13:19, 22). It is the stories that follow which define whether these verses are interpreted positively or negatively (see below). In two other occurrences the motif is positive suggesting trust in the Lord (1 Sam. 17:45, 47). In the fifth occurrence, the motif is negative, suggesting David’s lack of faith (1 Sam. 21:8). In Part 1 we noticed that when the word “sword” appears by itself, the motif has a mixture of positive and negative associations. As we examine the usages of the spear motif, we will see a similar mixture, but the negative aspects are more prevalent. Including the 5 passages that mention both sword and spear, the spear motif occurs a total of 29 times in the books of Samuel (20 in 1 Samuel and 9 in 2 Samuel). Perhaps the best, and most insightful way to examine the spear motif is to notice who it is associated with. The breakdown is as follows:

  1. Goliath (5 occurrences–1 Sam. 17:7 [2x], 45, 47; 2 Sam. 21:19)
  2. Saul (16 occurrences–1 Sam. 13:19, 22; 18:10, 11; 19:9, 10 [2x}; 20:33; 22:6; 26:7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 22; 2 Sam. 1:6)
  3. David (1 occurrence–1 Sam. 21:8–this passage was considered in Part 1 and so will not be covered here)
  4. Abner (2 occurrences, both in 2 Sam. 2:23)
  5. David’s mighty men (4 occurrences)
    • Abishai (2 Sam. 23:18)
    • Benaiah (2 Sam. 23:21 [3x])
  6. Unrighteous ruler(s) (1 occurrence–2 Sam. 23:7)

This breakdown demonstrates that the overwhelming number of occurrences of the spear motif (16 out of 29) are related to Saul. Below we will examine the significance of this, as well as its occurrence with other individuals.

Goliath’s Spear

sword and spear
Goliath’s trust is in his sword and spear. David’s is in the Lord.

One of the intimidating features of Goliath’s description in 1 Samuel 17:4-7 is his spear. The writer spends time describing its shaft (like a weaver’s beam), and the weight of its head (600 shekels = 15 lbs. or 6.8 kg.). As noted in the previous post, one of the points of the story is Goliath’s trust in his weaponry, while David’s trust is in the Lord. This point is driven home when Goliath’s spear is mentioned two more times in the account (1 Sam. 17:45, 47). Goliath’s spear is mentioned one final time in the perplexing passage which speaks of Elhanan killing him (2 Sam. 21:19). Its size, noted again in this passage, was clearly one of its distinguishing and well-remembered features. Yet it did Goliath no good, proving the truth of Hannah’s words in 1 Samuel 2:9 when she stated, “not by might shall a man prevail.”

Saul’s Spear

sword and spear
Saul’s spear is always at hand!

As noted above, the overwhelming number of occurrences of the spear motif in Samuel are associated with Saul. This association is sometimes seen as a symbol of his kingship (David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT, p. 479). If this means to communicate that Saul is a king like the nations (1 Sam. 8:5), then this observation is correct. The point is that Saul, like any worldly king, trusts in his spear more than he does in the Lord. This is emphasized in at least two ways. First, in the narrative immediately following the Goliath story, Saul hurls his spear twice at David (1 Sam. 18:10-11). Not only has the previous story declared that “the Lord does not save with sword and spear” (1 Sam. 17:47), but it is Saul’s jealousy concerning David’s victory over Goliath that prompts him to use it! Therefore, Saul shows himself to be cut out of the same cloth as Goliath. A second way in which this is demonstrated is that following the story of Goliath, Saul is never seen without his spear in hand or nearby. In fact, the next 5 verses that mention the spear involve Saul throwing it either at David (1 Sam. 18:10-11, 19:9-10) or his own son Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:33)!

sword and spear
David spares Saul’s life a second time.

Saul’s use of such weaponry also contrasts him with his son Jonathan. Recalling 1 Samuel 13:19, and 22 which introduces this motif, we are told there that only Jonathan and Saul had sword and spear. In our previous post, however, we have noted that Jonathan uses his sword in the context of trust in the Lord (1 Sam. 14:6-14). Furthermore, following the Goliath episode, Jonathan presents his sword to David as a gift (1 Sam. 18:4), whereas Saul presents his spear to David in a less supportive and friendly way (1 Sam. 18:10-11)! When Saul complains to his men that they are more loyal to David than to him, he does it with his spear in his hand (1 Sam. 22:6). This incident leads to the slaughter of Ahimelech and the priests of Nob. On one of the occasions when David has the opportunity to kill Saul, he chooses instead to take his water jug and spear (1 Sam. 26). With a sort of poetic justice, Abishai insists on using it to “pin” Saul to the ground (1 Sam. 26:8), the way Saul had attempted earlier to “pin” David to the wall (1 Sam. 18:11; 19:10). David refuses and insists only on taking it as evidence that they had been in the midst of the Saul’s camp. Saul’s spear is a major motif in this chapter, occurring six times (1 Sam. 26:7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 22). It reminds us that, given the chance, he would have used it against David, although David refuses to use it against him. It also demonstrates that, in spite of its presence by his head, it brings no protection for Saul, for the Lord is with David (1 Sam. 26:12). Once again we are reminded that “the Lord does not save with sword or spear.”

Given the prevalence of this motif in Saul’s story, one would almost expect Saul to die by the spear. If this were merely an imaginary story, this is surely what would have happened. But this is not what happened historically and so the inspired author records how he fell on his own sword (1 Sam. 31:4). This does not mean, however, that Saul’s spear is absent from the account of his death. In the retelling of Saul’s death by the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1, he states that when he came upon Saul, Saul was “leaning on his spear” (2 Sam. 1:6). It can be demonstrated that the Amalekite’s account of Saul’s death is fabricated as it conflicts with the author’s version recorded in 1 Samuel 31:1-5. Nevertheless, the mention of both sword and spear in the accounts of Saul’s death are an ironic reminder to the reader that the man who trusted in his weapons, ultimately died by one of them. When we consider the negative connotations of Saul’s spear in the narrative, it is no wonder that in David’s eulogy of Saul and Jonathan, it is Saul’s sword which is mentioned in a favorable light (2 Sam. 1:22). After all, how could David praise the spear of Saul that had been lifted against him on so many occasions?!

The Motif’s Mixed Reviews in 2 Samuel

sword and spear
Abner kills Asahel

Having already commented on 2 Samuel 1:6 and 2 Samuel 21:19, we will consider the other 7 references to the spear in 2 Samuel. Two of these references occur in the story of Asahel’s pursuit of Abner. In fact, they are both found in the same verse (2 Sam. 2:23). During the battle between Judah and Israel, Asahel pursues Abner in an attempt to kill him (2 Sam. 2:18-23). Although the spear motif has been largely negative up to this point, and Abner himself is an unsavory character, the motif is more tragic than evil here. It is clear from the story that Abner does not wish to kill Asahel. He warns him several times. However, as the hot breath of Asahel breathes down Abner’s neck, he is forced to defend himself. But rather than use the tip of his spear, as would be customary, with a backward thrust, using the butt end of his spear, Abner brings Asahel’s pursuit to a deadly halt. Abner’s persistent warnings, and the use of the backend of his spear, protest his desire to use it against Asahel. Nonetheless, whether back end or front end, the spear proves just as deadly. Unfortunately for Abner, his reluctant use of the spear results in his death by the sword at the hands of Asahel’s brothers, Joab and Abishai (2 Sam. 3:27, 30). For more on this incident see my post, “Asahel Running Into Trouble” (see also my book Family Portraits for this story and an evaluation of Abner’s character–see link below).

David's mighty men
David’s mighty men

There are other ambiguous uses of the spear in 2 Samuel. These concern David’s mighty men. In 2 Samuel 23:18, the aforementioned Abishai is praised for wielding his spear against three hundred men and killing them. Although the context is definitely positive, we should recall that this is the same Abishai who wanted to “pin” Saul to the ground with his own spear (1 Sam. 26:8). Furthermore, this is the same man who contributed to the death of Abner and was ready and willing to kill whenever he thought the occasion called for it (e.g., 2 Sam. 16:9). Therefore, although we have a positive reference to the spear, it is wielded by yet another unsavory character (see Abner above). Another one of David’s mighty men, Benaiah, fights an Egyptian with a spear (2 Sam. 23:21). In the Egyptian’s hand, the spear is clearly a negative motif, but Benaiah is able to wrest it from the Egyptian and kill him. This heroic deed turns a negative situation into a positive one.

We conclude our examination of this motif by looking at David’s last words recorded in 2 Samuel 23:1-7. This poem is a bit obscure and hard to translate in places. However, one thing that is clear is that David is contrasting the just ruler (himself), with an unjust ruler/rulers. In the concluding line (v. 7) he says of such a one that he “arms himself with iron and the shaft of a spear.” One can’t help but think that within the larger context of Samuel this contrast recalls Saul.

Concluding Summary

An examination of the spear motif leads to the conclusion that it is largely a negative commentary of the use and abuse of human power. This negative picture is largely associated with Goliath and Saul, who are the primary personages of this motif. While this negative picture is tempered somewhat in 2 Samuel, its association with unsavory characters still casts a shadow over it.

When we step back and sum up the overall motif of sword and spear in Samuel, we must conclude that the main function of the motif is to warn people about trusting in their own strength and the severe consequences that oftentimes follow. Trusting in weaponry and military might is a mistake made throughout the ages including down to the present time. There are many examples throughout history that show the undermanned and the under-equipped sometimes come out on top. This motif is not about the underdog coming out on top, however. It is a declaration that trust in God is superior to any human power or weapon. However, using sword and spear is the way that nations always have and always will conduct business. That is until the words of the prophet Isaiah are finally realized: “He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore (Isa. 4:2).

Until that day, the question for God’s people is to ask what this motif in Samuel teaches us. How should we respond to our enemies based on the teaching of Scripture? Jesus’s answer was to “turn the other cheek,” and to “do good to those who persecute you.” Sadly, the first reaction of some Christians today is to physically arm themselves against their foes. We forget that the weapons of our warfare are spiritual (Eph. 6:10-18; 2 Cor. 10:4). We don’t give God the chance to defeat whatever Goliaths may come our way because we are too busy arming ourselves with “sword and spear.” This is a tough message to hear and the conclusion is not always a popular one even with believers. Shouldn’t the innocent be protected? We should certainly do everything in our power, short of violence, to protect the innocent. The fact remains that the New Testament nowhere sanctions a believer taking up the sword and spear for personal protection, and certainly never for revenge. The government is the one who bears the sword (Rom. 13:4). A Christian serving in the military, or serving in a local police force is a different matter, since they are serving the government whose job it is to protect its citizens and administer justice.  As individual believers, it is easy to overlook this teaching in the books of Samuel, not to mention the clear teaching of Jesus and the apostles. Jesus may well have been referencing this motif in Samuel when he rebuked Peter in the garden and said, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). Christians do their best fighting on their knees, by returning good for evil, and by remembering that the real enemy is not flesh and blood.

For a more in depth study of the books of Samuel, purchase a copy of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Family Portraits


Sword and Spear Part 1: Motifs in Samuel

Sword and Spear: Motifs in Samuel

sword and spear
Sword and spear is an important motif in 1&2 Samuel.

The sword and spear motif in Samuel emphasizes a key theological teaching of this book. The use of this motif in Samuel ranges from a proclamation of trust in God’s power to deliver, to a rejection of that trust. Since Samuel is about the establishment of the monarchy in Israel, this idea is at the heart of the book. Will people trust in God’s ability or in their own? What is the source of true power? Is it found in human strength and ingenuity, or in trusting in a power (i.e., God) greater than one’s own?

Occurrences of Sword or Spear in Samuel

The use of both words together, as in the expression, “sword and spear,” occurs only 5 times in Samuel (1 Sam. 13:19, 22; 17:45, 47; 21:8). However, by themselves, these words are prevalent throughout the book. Including the five passages where they occur together, the word “sword” occurs 38 times (24 in 1 Samuel and 14 in 2 Samuel), while the word “spear” occurs 29 times (20 in 1 Samuel and 9 in 2 Samuel). Because of the significance of this motif, and the number of occurrences, I will divide my treatment into two posts. In this post we will look at those passages in 1&2 Samuel that speak of the sword. In the next post, we will look at the motif of the spear.

Sword and Spear: David’s Confrontation with Goliath

sword and spear
Using Goliath’s own sword, David finishes the victory achieved by a sling and a stone.

The theological significance of these weapons is highlighted in David’s battle with Goliath. The story emphasizes how well Goliath is prepared for battle, at least humanly speaking, by giving an inventory of his armor and weaponry (1 Sam. 17:4-7–see my posts here and here). Saul attempts to clothe David similarly by giving him his armor and his “sword” (1 Sam. 17:38-39). David rejects these items and chooses instead a sling and 5 smooth stones. When Goliath sees David, he disdains him as an unworthy competitor. David’s response, which is now classic, highlights our motif. He replies to Goliath, “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel whom you have defied” (1 Sam. 17:45). In this first statement, David highlights the weaponry of Goliath. As he concludes his speech, David again uses our key words: “…the Lord saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hand” (1 Sam. 17:47).

David’s victory demonstrates the truth of his words. The point is unmistakeable. No amount of human technology or strength can overcome one who allows the Lord to do his/her fighting for him/her. This same theology is announced in Psalm 20:7 when the psalmist (David) says, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” This is an important theme in the warfare of the Old Testament. It is emphasized in such stories as the parting of the Reed (or Red) Sea and the tumbling down of the walls of Jericho. David’s statement in 1 Samuel 17:47 sets the standard by which every other occurrence of the words sword and spear should be measured in 1&2 Samuel.

Use of “Sword”: The Big Picture in Samuel

When surveying the overall usage of these words in Samuel, there are several ways in which they could be categorized (the same is true of other motifs in this series). I have broken the use of the sword into 6 categories below. The number of occurrences are in parentheses. There is, of necessity, some overlap of categories.

  1. People’s relationship to the sword–Samuel (1), Jonathan (2), Saul (4), Saul’s armor-bearer (2), Doeg (2), David (15), Joab (1), and Absalom (1).
  2. Israelites killing enemies–Philistines, and Amalekites (5 occurrences)
  3. Enemies killing Israelites–Philistines, Doeg, David/Ammonites, Absalom (5 occurrences–the last 3 would, also fit category 1 as well).
  4. Israelites killing Israelites–(8 occurrences–more overlap here).
  5. Being powerless, trusting in the Lord, or a lack of trusting in the Lord (5 occurrences).
  6. A reference to the military (1 occurrence–“men who draw the sword”).

I will take up each of these categories below. Group 1 involves the most lengthy treatment. I will then group together categories 2-4. Since there is only 1 occurrence of category 6 and since it has an obvious meaning, I will not discuss it. That leaves category 5 as the final category I will examine.

sword and spear
Ancient Near Eastern sword.

People’s Relationship to the Sword


King David
David is associated with the sword more than any other person in Samuel.

By viewing the occurrences in this way, one thing which is immediately clear is that David is associated with the sword more than any other person in Samuel–a total of 15 times! Not all of these occurrences, however, are negative. For example, when David says, “the Lord doesn’t save by sword or spear,” or when the text says, “there was not a sword in David’s hand” (1 Sam. 17:50), these are obviously positive statements about David’s relationship to the sword. Of the 15 times David is associated with the sword, however, only 4 are in a positive context (all are in 1 Sam. 17–see vv. 45, 47, 50, 51). When David fled from Saul, he went to the high priest Ahimelech and asked, “Then have you not here a spear or a sword at hand?” (1 Sam. 21:8). Ironically he is given the sword of Goliath (1 Sam. 21:9)! This request for a “spear or sword,” along with the slaughter of the priests in the next chapter (1 Sam. 22), demonstrates that David has allowed his fear, rather than his faith to guide him. Later when David is insulted by the no-good Nabal, it is revenge that associates him with the sword. In fact, we find this association 3 times in one verse: “And David said to his men, ‘Every man strap on his sword!’ And every man of them strapped on his sword. David also strapped on his sword” (1 Sam. 25:13). Although the wise Abigail prevents him from shedding innocent blood on this occasion, the opposite is true in his murder of Uriah the Hittite. When the prophet Nathan unveils David’s sin, he states, “You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house” (2 Sam. 12:9-10). This is a sad ending for the man who declared, “The Lord saves not with sword and spear.”


Saul falls on sword
Saul’s own sword brings his life to an end.

Sometimes the sword has a positive association in spite of the fact that people are killed. For example, Saul is commanded to destroy the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:3). Therefore, when we are informed that he “devoted to destruction all of the people with the edge of the sword” (1 Sam. 15:8), this is in fulfillment to the Lord’s command. Of course, Saul wasn’t totally obedient, so in the same story we have Samuel hacking king Agag to pieces with the sword (1 Sam. 15:33). As chilling as this scene is to us, not only is it in fulfillment of God’s command (although perhaps excessive on Samuel’s part!), Samuel’s words demonstrate that Agag had been guilty of using his sword in a similar manner. David also eulogizes Saul and his sword when he sings, “From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty” (2 Sam. 1:22). This too is presented in the positive light of Saul killing the enemies of Israel. Unfortunately, Saul didn’t trust that the Lord could use him to defeat Goliath. His trust in weaponry rather than in God is made clear when he attempts to clothe David in his armor and give him his sword (1 Sam. 17:39).  The final appearance of Saul’s sword is ironically in his death scene.  With the Philistines following hard after him, Saul meets his ultimate demise at his own hand by falling on his sword (1 Sam. 31:4). This is fitting for one who trusted in sword and spear more than in the Lord. It is also a fitting end for one who used his servant Doeg the Edomite to slaughter the priests of the Lord with the sword (1 Sam. 22:19). In one sense, Saul’s sin is similar to David’s who used the sword of the Ammonites to kill Uriah. The difference–and it’s a major one–is that Saul slaughters a whole town of faithful followers who were holy to the Lord!

Joab and Absalom

Joab and Absalom
Joab and Absalom

It is surprising that the motif of sword and spear is not connected more frequently with Joab and Absalom, the worst villains in 2 Samuel (see my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel for an evaluation of their character. See links below.). Only in the murder of Amasa, is Joab’s sword mentioned (2 Sam. 20:8). It is clear that Joab uses the same method on the unsuspecting Abner (2 Sam. 3:27), but his sword is not mentioned. David’s reaction, however, involves a curse on the house of Joab that includes those who “fall by the sword” (2 Sam. 3:29). As for Absalom, the only mention of a sword is connected to David’s fear that if he stays in Jerusalem, Absalom will strike the city with the edge of the sword (2 Sam. 15:14). Perhaps the lack of connection between Absalom and the sword is because he is all show and no substance.

Saul’s Armor-Bearer and Jonathan

Sword and spear--Jonathan
Jonathan and his armor-bearer defeat the Philistines.

There are two more individuals connected with the sword. Both are in 1 Samuel and both are, for the most part, positive associations. I will mention the last first. Saul’s armor-bearer is commanded by Saul to draw his sword and kill him. To the armor-bearer’s credit, he is afraid to lift his hand against the Lord’s anointed. As a result, Saul falls on his own sword (1 Sam. 31:4). Once the amor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell on his own sword. We might view this action negatively, as a suicide, but I believe the intent of the text is to demonstrate the loyalty of Saul’s armor-bearer. He was afraid to lift his sword and kill his master, but he was not afraid of death itself. Finally, there are two passages that associate Jonathan with the sword. The first is 1 Samuel 13:22. After noting that none of the people of Israel had sword or spear (1 Sam. 13:19), the text tells us that both Saul and Jonathan did. In light of the later text in 1 Samuel 17:45, 47, this could be viewed as a negative statement. Indeed, regarding Saul’s sword, 1 Samuel 17:39, does imply that Saul trusts his weapon more than God. The same, however, is not true of Jonathan. After noting that Jonathan had both sword and spear, the story continues by showing that Jonathan demonstrated great faith in God by going against the enemy even though he was greatly outnumbered (1 Sam. 14:6-14). Therefore, although Jonathan possessed sword and spear, his faith was in the Lord. The other occurrence of the sword in connection with Jonathan is when he surrenders his sword as a gift to David (1 Sam. 18:4). Jonathan’s surrender of his sword, as well as other royal items, is a sign of his friendship and covenant with David. Within the larger context of Samuel, it is also a sign of Jonathan’s acknowledgement of David’s future kingship (see 1 Sam. 23:17).

Israel and Its Enemies

An obvious usage of the sword motif involves Israel and its enemies. There are 5 occurrences of Israel’s enemies being struck with the sword. Some of these instances involve individuals we have already looked at above. These include Samuel striking Agag (1 Sam. 15:33), and David eulogizing the sword of Saul which did not return empty against his enemies (2 Sam. 1:22). A third occurrence involves one of David’s mighty men, Eleazar, striking the Philistines. The text says he fought so long and so hard that his hand clung to the sword (2 Sam. 23:10)! When Saul is commanded to utterly destroy the Amalekites, we are told that he (and the people) utterly destroyed Amalek with the edge of the sword (1 Sam. 15:8). In an unusual twist (although this phenomenon is seen elsewhere in Scripture), the Philistines turn their swords upon themselves in the panic and confusion of battle (1 Sam. 14:20). Although other battles and wars against other enemies are recorded in Samuel (e.g., 2 Sam. 8), the sword, as a weapon that defeats Israel’s enemies, is only mentioned in battles against the Philistines and Amalekites.

sword and spear
Saul defeats Amalek

Of course the books of Samuel also mention enemies slaying Israelites with the sword. Twice we are told that Doeg the Edomite slaughtered the priests of the Lord and the town of Nob with the edge of the sword (1 Sam. 22:19). 2 Samuel 1:12 reports the mourning of David and his men because Saul, his sons, and Israel had fallen by the sword at the hands of the Philistines. A fourth occurrence is a bit obscure. This involves David’s curse on the house of Joab that there would be those who would fall by the sword (2 Sam. 3:29). Presumably David means by an enemy’s sword, although this is not specified. Finally, David’s killing of Uriah by the sword, can also be put into this category. Nathan points out that he did it with “the sword of the Ammonites” (2 Sam. 12:9).

The saddest use of this motif are those passages which speak of fellow Israelites killing one another by the sword. The most prevalent occurrences of this motif  (4 out of 8) are found in the stories of the two civil wars recorded in 2 Samuel. In 2 Samuel 2:16 we have the infamous contest in which 12 from Israel are pitted against 12 from Judah and all fall dead as each stabs the other with their sword. This precipitates a battle which leads to Abner’s pleas to Joab at the end of the day, “Shall the sword devour forever?” (2 Sam. 2:26). In the battle triggered by Absalom’s rebellion, the narrator tells us that “the forest devoured more people that day than the sword” (2 Sam. 18:8). It is also within the context of Absalom’s rebellion that David flees Jerusalem because he fears Absalom will strike it with the edge of the sword (2 Sam. 15:14–see comments above). A particular expression used in 3 instances where Israelites kill Israelites is “the sword devours.” We have already looked at 2 of these (2 Sam. 2:26; 18:8). The third instance is, perhaps, the most disturbing of all. After David is informed of Uriah’s death, he callously replies, “The sword devours one as well as another” (2 Sam. 11:25).

When we look back over this survey of the sword motif of Israel versus its enemies, it seems that Israel comes out the worst. There are only 5 passages which speak of Israelites striking their enemy with the sword, whereas there are 13 passages which speak of Israel’s enemies striking them (5 times), or fellow-Israelites striking each other with the sword (8 times). Israel actually uses the sword against itself more (8 times), than against its enemies (5 times). A sad commentary indeed!

Sword and Spear: Powerlessness and Trusting in the Lord

Sword and spear
David obtains the sword of Goliath from Ahimelech, the High Priest.

Our final category of the sword motif involves all of the passages that mention sword and spear. As noted above, there are 5 verses that use both words. These passages communicate one of two themes. 1) The theme of powerlessness; or 2) the theme of trusting/not trusting in the Lord. These two themes are not necessarily at odds with each other, although they can be.

The first occurrence of the sword and spear motif occurs in 1 Samuel 13:19, 22. The purpose in this passage is to emphasize the powerlessness of Israel. Humanly speaking, they are outmatched by their foes the Philistines who have a monopoly on blacksmiths and weapons. Only Saul and Jonathan are said to have sword and spear. The people have only farming implements, and they must even go to the Philistines to have them sharpened! Although the verses emphasize the powerlessness of Israel militarily (also emphasized by the fact that they are outnumbered and surrounded), the verses set us up for the Israelite victory that occurs in 1 Samuel 14. This victory is achieved by the Lord acting through the faith of Jonathan and his armor-bearer. The point of the story then, is to emphasize that Israel (and the reader) should not trust in physical weapons, or fear the technological and numerical advantages of the enemy. Rather, trust in the Lord can overcome any disadvantage. This is a common theme in Scripture and a very common theme in the battles recorded in the Old Testament (see comments above).

The next occurrence of the sword and spear motif is found in 1 Samuel 17:45, 47, in the story of David’s defeat of Goliath. We have already looked at these verses above. Here, I will simply note again that these verses establish the meaning of the motif. David’s words teach that the bottom line is trust in the Lord. This brings us to the final passage that uses both of these words. In 1 Samuel 21:8, David is fleeing from Saul. He comes to the High Priest, Ahimelech, at Nob, requesting food and weapons. I have already noted above that David’s request for a “spear or a sword,” and his taking of the sword of Goliath demonstrate a lack of faith in this context. The man who boldly faced Goliath without a sword or spear, now feels the need to take the sword of Goliath to protect himself in his flight from Saul. In one sense, no one can condemn David for his desire to have a sword for protection. If any of us were in a similar circumstance, we would probably want the same. The point, however, is that the inspired author is clearly making the point that David’s faith has wavered and he is headed in a precarious direction. This is further confirmed by his flight to Achish King of Gath, where David’s life is endangered (1 Sam. 21:10-15).

In our next post, we will continue our look at the sword and spear motif in Samuel by focusing on the use of the spear. Until then, try not to cross swords with anyone!

For a more in depth study of the books of Samuel, purchase a copy of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Family Portraits


Demons: What the Bible Really Says

Demons: What the Bible Really Says

Michael Heiser’s book “Demons” is available at Lexham Press, Amazon USA / UK and other outlets.

Are all demonic beings the same? How many spiritual rebellions does the Bible speak of? Is there an evil being named Satan in the Old Testament? Did Satan rebel before the creation of human beings and take a third of the angels with him? Are demons fallen angels? These are just a few of the many questions answered in Michael Heiser’s new book Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness. How many of the foregoing questions do you think you know the answer to? Are you sure you’re right? If you’d like to test your knowledge on demons take the quiz Demons: Biblical or Myth? A word of warning, however–the quiz is designed to be tricky. Michael Heiser himself confesses that he missed two of the questions! You can see him and Rabbi Eric Walker talk about it here.  I took the quiz and did well, but that’s because I had already read Heiser’s book! Had I taken the quiz first, I would probably have gotten half or less correct. In other words, there’s a lot to learn from this book. Not only will the average person learn new things about what the Bible really teaches on this subject, some misconceptions will also be corrected.

Demons is Heiser’s companion volume to Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host (see my review here). Both books are based upon his foundational study entitled: The Unseen Realm (see my review of the movie version recently released by Logos/Faithlife). No one has done more to reveal the Bible’s teaching on the spiritual realm to the average person than Michael Heiser. This most recent book continues that tradition.

Content of Demons

Heiser’s book is divided into four main sections. Section I is entitled, “Biblical Vocabulary for the Powers of Darkness.” These opening chapters are not for the faint of heart. After a brief introductory chapter, he dives right in to the Hebrew (chapter 1) and Greek (chapter 2) words that describe the demonic realm. According to Heiser, “We simply cannot depend on English translations for an Old Testament study of demons or the infernal powers” (p. 1). His point is that both Hebrew and Greek use a wide variety of terms to describe these powers of darkness and English translations do not fully reflect the significance of the various words and their meaning.

Chapter 1–Heiser groups Hebrew words describing evil spirits into three broad categories: 1) Terms associated with the realm of the dead and its inhabitants; 2) Terms that denote geographical dominion of supernatural powers in rebellion against Yahweh; and 3) Preternatural creatures associated with idolatry and unholy ground (p. 8). Heiser examines more than 15 words that describe evil supernatural powers in the OT. Most readers will be unfamiliar with many of these terms. If you don’t know Hebrew but remain patient, you’ll learn a lot!

Chapter 2–In this chapter, Heiser turns to the Greek terms used in the Septuagint (LXX–Greek translation of the OT). Heiser’s main goal is to establish that the LXX has faithfully transmitted the outlook of the Hebrew OT regarding the spiritual realm of evil beings. This is important as some OT scholars advocate the view that the OT contains vestiges of polytheism that are “cleaned up” in the LXX. Heiser demonstrates conclusively that this is not the case. The OT does not have any vestiges of polytheism, and the LXX is faithful in communicating the same view of the spiritual realm as the Hebrew Bible. What Heiser has to say on this subject is important, but I’ll leave the details of this argument for the interested reader to find out.

Section II is entitled, “The Powers of Darkness in the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism,” and is comprised of chapters 3 through 8. Heiser, convincingly in my opinion, maintains that the OT teaches that there were three spiritual rebellions. The first was by the serpent in Eden (Gen. 3). The second by the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4, and the third at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-8; Deut. 32:8-9). In the succeeding chapters, Heiser looks at each spiritual rebellion. He begins by investigating what the OT teaches, and then follows that up with what the literature of Second Temple Judaism (these are the writings from what is also known as the “intertestament period”) teaches on the same subject. Below are the topics of each chapter.

Chapter 3 tackles what the OT teaches about the rebellion in the garden.

Chapter 4 looks at what the writings of Second Temple Judaism (hereafter, STJ) have to say about this event.

Chapter 5 investigates the OT teaching on the rebellion by the sons of God in Genesis 6.

Chapter 6 follows with the STJ viewpoint on this rebellion.

Chapter 7 looks at the OT rebellion at Babel, recorded in Genesis 11:1-8 and commented on in Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

Chapter 8 concludes this section with the STJ viewpoint and commentary.

Demons author Michael Heiser
Author Michael Heiser

These chapters are full of informative discussions about the meaning of the spiritual rebellions in the OT and how STJ furthers that discussion. One example of this that will surprise many readers is Heiser’s contention that the OT uses the word satan (note the small “s”) in its original meaning of “adversary,” but it does not use it as a proper name referring to the prince of demons (no, not even in 1 Chron. 21 or Job 1). Heiser traces how the use of satan in the OT develops into the proper name Satan during the Second Temple period. Thus, by the time of the NT period Satan has become the proper name of the leader of spiritual wickedness. If this sounds shocking, get the book and make up your own mind. This discussion alone is worth the price of the book.

Section III is entitled, “The Devil and His Angels: The Powers of Darkness in the New Testament.” This section consists of three chapters (9-11). In these chapters, Heiser examines what the NT teaches about these powers and demonstrates how the teachings of both the OT and STJ contribute to the NT worldview. Once again, the chapters are divided according to the three spiritual rebellions mentioned in the OT.

Chapter 9: “The Devil–His Dominion and Destiny,” looks at the original rebel from Genesis 3 and what the NT teaches concerning him.

Chapter 10: “Evil Spirits–Demons and their Destiny,” is an extremely insightful chapter. This chapter shows the connection of the demons of the NT with the rebellion of Genesis 6:1-4. Following what the OT and STJ teaches, the demons are understood to be the dead spirits of the Nephilim. Again, read the book to understand this one!

Chapter 11: “The Ruling Powers: Their Delegitimization and Destiny,” examines the NT language regarding the spiritual rebels from the Tower of Babel. These territorial spirits mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the Book of Daniel, are “the rulers, the authorities, the cosmic powers and spiritual forces of evil” that Paul refers to in Ephesians 6:12, as well as other places.

Section IV is a very helpful concluding section entitled, “Questions and Misconceptions.” Here are a few samples of the kinds of questions and misconceptions addressed. Demons are fallen angels. Can Satan and demons read our minds? Can a Christian be demon possessed? What is spiritual warfare?, and many more.


Heiser’s writings have been a theological game-changer for me personally. Passages I used to ignore, not only make more sense, but I understand how they fit into the overall story of Scripture. Demons adds yet another layer which contributes to that understanding. As I noted in my evaluation of Angels, this book is probably not for the novice. It is full of copious footnotes and references to Hebrew and Greek words. It is most suited for a pastor,  Bible college student, or teacher. But anyone who has a desire to understand what the Bible says on this subject will benefit. It never hurts to stretch ourselves theologically, so I wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from reading this book who wants to grow in their knowledge of Scripture in this area. The practical questions in the last section of the book are an example of how much there is to learn. Just be aware that you’re diving into the deep end of the pool, but it’s well worth the swim!

Interested readers may also want to check out the review of Demons  and Heiser’s other related books in Christianity Today.

Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness is available at Lexham Press, Amazon USA / UK, Logos/Faithlife, and other outlets.

Many thanks to Lexham Press for this free review copy. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review.


Head in a Book: Motifs in Samuel

Head in a Book: Motifs in Samuel

Head in a bookSomeone who has their “head in a book” is usually considered a studious person. Hopefully you have your head in various books of the Bible, including 1&2 Samuel. This post, however, is not about having your head in a book, but rather, the HEAD-motif in the BOOKS of Samuel. In our previous post, we looked at the significance of the motif of feet (see here). So now we’re moving from the bottom to the top. You could say we’re “headed in the right direction!”

The Use of Head in Modern Idioms

Like “feet,” “head” can be found in various expressions. We might have our “head in the clouds,” or have “a big head.” We could be a “hot head,” but hopefully “cooler heads will prevail.” How many phrases can you think of that use the word “head?” Before you “scratch your head,” trying to think of examples, let me give you a “heads up” and suggest you check out other idiomatic usages at The Free Dictionary. Because we use various idioms without “giving them a second thought,” it can be surprising how frequently we use words like, “head” or “feet” when communicating. The same is true in our reading of Scripture. We can easily pass over a motif being used by the inspired author because it seems so common-place to us. So let’s “put our heads together,” and see what we can learn by looking at the head motif in the books of Samuel.

R’osh in Samuel

Two heads are better than one! Gloria and me in the English countryside.

The Hebrew word for “head” is r’osh. This word, or a word derived from this root, occurs sixty times in Samuel. There are twenty-seven occurrences in 1 Samuel and thirty-three in 2 Samuel. These occurrences are usually obvious in our English translations, but there are a few places where the word r’osh, or its derivatives, go undetected in our English Bibles. As was true of the foot motif, there is not just one meaning behind the usage of the head motif. I have discovered the use of r’osh in at least eight different ways in Samuel. I have used bold print to highlight the basic meaning in each usage. Here they are, in no particular order except for number 1.

  1. David and the Deuteronomist
    Polzin’s book is available at Amazon USA / UK.

    The most prevalent usage of the head motif in Samuel involves those who lose their head, or whose head is involved in their death. Out of the 60 uses of r’osh, 16 of them (27%) fall into this category. Notice the following quote by Robert Polzin in his book David and the Deuteronomist: ” …from the beginning of his career to the end, David’s character zone is intimately connected with the head as a locus of guilt and death. For one thing, David either wittingly or unwittingly, is constantly associated with the contemplated or actual beheading of his enemies” (p. 34). This includes Goliath (1 Sam. 17:46, 51, 54, 57), Saul (1 Sam. 31:9), Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 4:7, 8[2x], 12), Shimei (2 Sam. 16:9), and Sheba (2 Sam. 20:21-22). Not all of these are David’s doing (Saul and Ishbosheth), and in one instance (Shimei), he even prevents a beheading. Still Polzin’s conclusion is arresting as he states, “…blood flows upon and from the heads of David’s enemies more often than with any other character in the Bible” (p. 34). We should also point out that God does some beheading of his own. When the ark of God is placed in front of Dagon, the Philistines find their idol on the ground with his hands and head severed (1 Sam. 5:4)! Besides these instances, the Philistines worry about losing their heads if David and his men go to battle with them (1 Sam. 29:4–not obvious in the English translation), and twelve warriors of both Israel and Judah (24 in total), grab one another by the head and fall down dead together when each stabs the other in the side (2 Sam. 2:16). Finally, there is the story of Absalom whose head gets caught in a tree as he attempts to flee the battle against David’s men (2 Sam. 18:9). At least part of the answer to the significance of all of these beheadings and “head” problems can be answered by looking at the next usage of our motif.

  2. On seven occasions, the word r’osh is connected with kingship or leadership (1 Sam. 15:17; 19:20; 2 Sam. 10:16; 22:44; 23:8, 13, 18). It is quite natural for us to speak of a leader as the head of the government or of an organization. Polzin once again points out the significance of this language as he connects it to the usage in number 1 above. When commenting on the military contest of the 24 warriors who seize each others’ heads (2 Sam. 2:16), Polzin states, “This contest is about seizing headship over the tribes of Israel” (p. 34). This insight applies to Saul and Ishbosheth as well, who both lose their heads because they are not the legitimate head of Israel. The same can be said for Absalom who tries to usurp the throne of his father David and become head of Israel, but instead his head gets caught in a tree (2 Sam. 18:9).
  3. The books of Samuel also give voice to the familiar biblical theme of retribution found in the expression “return on your own head.” There are three occurrences of this phrase. When David hears of Nabal’s death, he says, “The Lord has returned the evil of Nabal on his own head” (1 Sam. 25:39). Similarly, when David executes the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul, he says, “Your blood be on your head, for your own mouth has testified against you…” (2 Sam. 1:16). Finally, in his curse against Joab, David speaks of the blood of Abner and states, “May it fall upon the head of Joab…” (2 Sam. 3:29).
  4. Next I will look at what I will call the “literal” use of head, as referring to the physical body. This is a loose category because, technically all of the beheadings are literal and fit here as well. Furthermore, some of the literal uses also have other significances as we will see. Describing armament, we are told that Goliath had a helmet of bronze on his head (1 Sam. 17:5). The same story points out that Saul also possessed such protective gear (1 Sam. 17:38). The correspondence between Goliath’s and Saul’s helmet is important. It shows they both trust in their weapons and armor, rather than in God. When Michal deceives the troops of her father Saul in order to protect David, we are told twice that she takes an image and puts goat’s hair on its head and covers it up to make it look like David is lying in the bed (1 Sam. 19:13, 16). When David and Abishai sneak into Saul’s camp, we are told four times that the spear and the water jug they steal are by Saul’s head (1 Sam. 26:7, 11, 12, 16). The reference here is clearly to Saul’s vulnerability. Finally, we have the mention of the hair on Absalom’s head (2 Sam. 14:26 [2x]). This passage is designed to impress the reader with Absalom’s good looks and military prowess (see my article “Absalom’s Hair, or, Give Me a Head with Hair“).
  5. When someone wants to show honor, the head, or language about it, is common (see the episode on my podcast entitled: Honor & Shame for more details). In Samuel this is noted by Saul being placed at the “head” of the table (1 Sam. 9:22), or his anointing by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:1). Hannah’s request for a son includes her vow of consecration stating that “no razor shall touch his head” (1 Sam. 1:11). David conquers the king of Ammon and has his crown placed on his head (2 Sam. 12:30[2x]). The importance of giving the best part of an offering to the Lord is expressed in the phrase, “the head of the offering” (1 Sam. 2:29; 15:21). This one is easily missed in English translations which usually use a word like “best.” Finally, the Philistine king Achish says that he will make David, “the keeper of his head” (1 Sam. 28:2). This one is also easily missed in English and translates to being the king’s bodyguard, a position of honor and leadership.
  6. Ishbosheth loses his head
    When kings lose their head in the books of Samuel, it demonstrates that they are not the legitimate ruler!

    The opposite of honor, thus a reference to shame or mourning is intended in the passage about David’s flight from Absalom. There we are told that both David and the people with him “covered their heads” (2 Sam. 15:30 [2x], 32). The same is true in stories which speak of a person putting dust on their head. This is what messengers do when they are carrying a report of defeat from the battlefield (1 Sam 4:12; 2 Sam. 1:2). Saul’s loss of his crown in battle is also a symbol of dishonor (2 Sam. 1:10). Tamar’s act of putting ashes and her hand on her head, also speaks of her shame at what has happened to her (2 Sam. 13:19 [2x]). Beheading is the ultimate act of shaming a person. Thus, the passages in number 1 above also fit in this category.

  7. The Hebrew word r’osh is also missed in English translations which refer to the “top” of the spear (1 Sam. 17:7), the “top” of trees (2 Sam. 5:24), or the “top” of a mountain (1 Sam. 26:13; 2 Sam. 2:25; 15:32; 16:1). This might seem like an incidental use of the word, and indeed, it can be. However, our friend Polzin points out that its usage in 2 Sam. 15:32 and 16:1 contributes to the prevalence of this motif throughout 2 Samuel chapters 15-16 (pp. 161-163).
  8. The final way in which r’osh is used is in two idiomatic expressions. One of which is still in use today. When Saul threatens to kill Jonathan, the people rescue him and say, “There shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground” (1 Sam. 14:45). In a different context, Abner says that he is not a “dog’s head” of Judah (2 Sam. 3:8). Clearly this is a derogatory expression and Abner is chiding Ishbosheth for treating him this way.

Headed Toward a Conclusion

As I noted in the conclusion of the foot motif, the categories I have suggested above are not set in stone. They merely point to ways in which this motif is used in the books of Samuel. The categories have a certain amount of fluidity as I have noted above. While this motif occurs in various ways and in different contexts, it is clear that one of its primary uses is in regard to kingship. After all, these are books about the establishment of the monarchy. All of the beheadings that surround David are one way of suggesting that he is Israel’s rightful king. It also suggests that, when it comes to power, people have a way of losing their heads! This motif also contributes to the theme of honor and shame which I have identified elsewhere as a significant theme in the books of Samuel (see The Theology of 1&2 Samuel, or my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel–see the link below). Finally, the biblical theme of “reaping what you sow,” also known as retribution (see #3 above), is emphasized through the use of this motif in Samuel. There are many motifs remaining in the books of Samuel. We will look at more in the future. Until then, keep your head up!

For a more in depth study of the books of Samuel, purchase a copy of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Family Portraits


Getting Our Feet Wet: Motifs in Samuel

Getting Our Feet Wet: Motifs in Samuel

Getting one's feet wet
Accordind to Vappingo, getting one’s feet wet is an idiom that comes from the Book of Joshua. Picture taken from

“Getting one’s feet wet,” according to The Free Dictionary means “a first-time experience with something,” or, “to venture into new territory.” According to, this idiom actually comes from the Book of Joshua where the priests were commanded to put their feet in the Jordan River and then it would part (Joshua 3:13-16). In this post I’m attempting to get our feet wet by looking at the use of “feet/foot/legs” as a recurring motif in the books of Samuel. For some reading this article the idea of motifs in Books of the Bible may be a new concept (see my posts here and here). Others, perhaps may have never noticed this prominent motif in Samuel, or never taken the time to consider what messages are being communicated through its usage.

The Use of “Feet” and Related Words in Modern Idioms

How many modern idioms about feet can you think of?

How many modern idioms can you think of that use the word “feet,” “foot” or “leg/legs?” On my own I can think of a few such as “you’re pulling my leg,” or “I really put my foot in my mouth on that one.” How about, “I just want to get my foot in the door,” or “stop dragging your feet?”How’s that for “thinking on my feet?” I recently Googled idioms using feet and here are a few others:

  1. To have “itchy feet”
  2. To have “two left feet”
  3. To have “one foot in the grave”
  4. To be “swift of foot” (we’ll actually see this one in Samuel!)
  5. To “pull the rug out from under one’s feet”
  6. To “put one’s feet up”

For these and a lot more, see 50 Idioms About Leg, Feet, and Toes. In the following examination of this motif in Samuel, I will try to put my best foot forward in order to keep you on your toes when looking for  other motifs in the books of Samuel.

The Motif of Feet and Legs in Samuel

Swift feet
Asahel, whom 2 Samuel 2:18 describes as “swift of foot as a wild gazelle,” pursues Abner.

In my search for this motif in Samuel I found 36 passages which use the Hebrew root rgl (the noun form of this root is written as regel),the basic meaning of which is “feet” or “legs.”  There are twelve occurrences of this root in 1 Samuel and twenty-four in 2 Samuel.  Although it should be remembered that 1&2 Samuel were originally one book, this breakdown illustrates that this Hebrew root occurs with greater frequency in the second half of the book. One of the functions of a motif is how it links various stories together. For example, the use of “foot” or “leg” should recall other stories where the word was recently utilized. This is especially true when it occurs many times so as to be an obvious motif.

One final point should be made regarding the use of motifs before proceeding: We are examining motifs in their literary setting, but they may also have served to link stories together when they were first told orally. It’s possible that any or all of the motifs in Samuel were originally part of the oral telling of the story. Whether they originated orally or when the stories were first committed to writing, these motifs would serve to keep the listener engaged while acting as devices that both entertain and teach.

A Survey of Rgl in Samuel

Because of the different ways in which English must translate various Hebrew words, it’s important when studying a motif to look at the original language. As this post will demonstrate, if only the English is consulted, other uses of a Hebrew root may be overlooked This is easily illustrated by the fact that rgl can be translated as feet or legs in English–two different, though related words. This also means, that the motif has its most profound affect in the original language since word plays are sometimes made which cannot be noticed in translation.

Deer feet
In 2 Samuel 22:34 David writes, “He made my feet like the feet of a deer and set me secure on the heights.”

But what about the meaning of this motif? Is there a singular theme that is highlighted or is it used in various ways? As the survey below demonstrates the Hebrew root rgl has various meanings. The meaning is dependent on whether the noun or verbal form of the word is used, whether it occurs in a proper name, and whether it is used figuratively or literally. Besides a literal meaning, context may also indicate an additional meaning to the word (or phrase in which the word is used). I have discovered roughly twelve different ways in which the Hebrew root rgl is used (I have highlighted in bold the meanings or usages). In no particular order, here they are:

  1. As noted above, the root is used in two different place names, which appear to have special significance. Jonathan and Ahimaaz, the sons of the high priests Abiathar and Zadok, were staying at a place known as En-Rogel (2 Sam. 17:17). En-Rogel (notice the Hebrew root rgl in the word) is located where the three valleys of ancient Jerusalem (the Kidron, Tyropoeon, and Hinnom) come together. Ironically the place means, “Well of the Spy.” These young men were hiding out there so that they might deliver intelligence information to David during Absalom’s revolt. We are also told that during Absalom’s revolt a man named Barzillai came from Rogelim (plural form of rgl) to bring much needed supplies to David and his people (2 Sam. 17:27; 19:31).
  2. Since we have noted that En-Rogel means “Well of the Spy,” we should also note that the root rgl is used several times in Samuel to refer to a spy or spies (1 Sam. 26:4; 2 Sam. 10:3; 15:10). It is also used once in its verbal form meaning “to slander.” Mephibosheth, the man who is lame in his “feet,” ironically accuses his servant Ziba of “slandering” him to King David (2 Sam. 19:27). Ziba had earlier claimed that Mephibosheth wanted to reclaim the throne of his grandfather Saul (2 Sam. 16:1-4), and therefore had stayed behind in Jerusalem and not gone with David during Absalom’s revolt. The meaning of “spy” and “slander” is thought to come from the idea of a person who moves their feet too much! In other words, in the case of a spy, the movement of their feet suggests “shiftiness,” while the movement of a slanderer suggests a “busybody.”
  3. Speaking of Mephibosheth, it is noted on several occasions that he is “lame in his feet” (2 Sam 4:4; 9:3, 13). While this is, of course, a reference to his literal feet, there is also a meaning of weakness, or helplessness. David’s generosity of allowing Mephibosheth to come eat at his table as one of the king’s sons is a demonstration of how David imitates God by caring for those who are less fortunate (e.g., Micah 4:6-7; Zeph. 3:19). It may also be a way of suggesting that Mephibosheth is no threat to take the throne of his grandfather Saul. The context in 2 Samuel 4 (see v. 4 particularly) seems to suggest that with the death of Ishbosheth and the lameness of Mephibosheth the dynasty of Saul literally “doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”
  4. When Mephibosheth appears before David, he exclaims “Here is your servant (2 Sam. 9:6). The concept of feet is also suggestive of servanthood and humility. When David marches with 400 men to destroy Nabal’s house, it is the action of Abigail who “falls at his feet” (1 Sam. 25:24), along with her wise words that dissuades David from his vengeful plan. Later when Nabal dies, David requests Abigail to become his wife. Her reply shows great humility as she says, “Behold your handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord” (1 Sam. 25:41). Since feet were exposed to the dirt and filth of the streets, they were considered an unclean part of the body. Washing the feet was an action of a lowly slave. In this expression, Abigail once again demonstrates true humility.
  5. In contrast to weakness or humility, feet could also be a symbol of stability and power. The image of God making the king’s enemies a footstool (e.g., Ps. 110:1), or the conqueror placing his foot on the necks of his enemies (Josh. 10:24) evokes this meaning. Since 1&2 Samuel are books about power, it is surprising that we don’t see this meaning more often. Nevertheless, this image occurs twice in David’s psalm in 2 Samuel 22. In 2 Sam. 22:10 it refers to God as David says, “He bowed the heavens and came down; thick darkness was under his feet.” David uses it of himself when, speaking of his enemies he says, “they fell under my feet” (2 Sam. 22:39). Once again the image of feet is a concrete one (referring to God’s and David’s), but the symbolism behind these expressions conveys a deeper, meaning.
  6. Speaking of a reference to a physical part of the body, Goliath is said to wear bronze grieves on his “legs” (1 Sam. 17:6). This statement, along with the rest of the description of Goliath, is clearly intended to intimidate and inspire fear. Absalom is said to be handsome, “from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head” (2 Sam. 14:25). This kind of expression is known as a “merism” where the words “foot” and “head” are a reference to the entire body. We still use this expression today.
  7. On a more mundane note, the root rgl is used to refer to infantry, or foot-soldiers on four occasions in Samuel (1 Sam. 4:10; 15:4; 2 Sam. 8:4; 10:6).
  8. “Following after one’s legs” is an idiom which communicates loyalty or faithfulness to the one being followed. The idea is following in someone’s footsteps. This expression is used of those who follow David (1 Sam. 25:27; 2 Sam. 15:15, 17, 18), and of the servants that follow Abigail (1 Sam. 25:42).
  9. Security, or protection is often the result of following after someone powerful. This is the idea in 1 Samuel 2:9 when Hannah says that God will “guard the feet of his faithful ones.”  In 2 Samuel 22:34, David voices the security he finds in God by comparing himself to a deer whose footing is sure on rocky heights (see the photo and caption above).
  10. Feet can take a person where they shouldn’t go  (e.g., Prov. 1:16; 4:26; 5:5). Asahel’s swiftness of foot should have been an asset to him, but instead it brought about his destruction (2 Sam. 2:18-23–see my expanded treatment of this here, or in my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel). The brothers who killed Ishbosheth allowed their feet to take them where they shouldn’t have gone. As a result, David had their hands and feet cut off when he executed them (2 Sam. 4:12).
  11. There is one example where the physical exertion of using one’s hands and feet point to stepping out (no pun intended) in faith. In 1 Samuel 14:13, Jonathan and his armor-bearer climb up a side of a mountain to defeat the Philistines.
  12. I will lump the final uses of rgl under the category of figurative usage. Among these are two euphemistic phrases. When David and his men are hiding from Saul in a cave, Saul is said to go in and “cover his feet,” which means he was using the toilet (1 Sam. 24:3). David wants Uriah to go down to his house and “wash his feet,” by which he means “have sex with your wife” (2 Sam. 11:8, see Uriah’s response in v. 11). We have here the same idiom of washing feet as we saw in the Abigail story above, but with a very different meaning! Another figurative usage is found in David’s lament of Abner’s death where he says, “your feet were not fettered” (2 Sam. 3:34). In other words, Abner wasn’t helpless and yet died a sad and foolish way. The idea of vulnerability is attached to this expression, as it is also in the story of Saul relieving himself in the cave. A final figurative use describes David’s hiding place when he is fleeing from Saul. Saul is told by the Ziphites that David is in their territory to which he replies, “know and see the place where his foot is” (1 Sam. 23:22).

A Footing…Uh, I Mean, Fitting Conclusion

The twelve categories above are a starting point. They are suggestive and not meant to be exhaustive. Furthermore, the use of rgl can, in certain instances, fit in several of the above categories. This survey demonstrates the pervasive nature of the foot motif in Samuel. It also demonstrates that this motif does not carry a single message. Context is the determining factor. The foot motif adds spice to the narrative of Samuel. In one sense, it is a running pun throughout the story. Once it is recognized, the reader might become intrigued on how the inspired author will use it next. Through its various shades of meaning it helps elucidate a given event, personality, or action. It is part of the glue that connects many of the stories together, particularly in the last half of Samuel. The foot motif is one of many that enriches, amuses, and informs God’s inspired message in the books of Samuel. We will look at another motif next time. Until then, keep your feet on the ground!

For a more in depth study of the books of Samuel, purchase a copy of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.Family Portraits

Motifs in Samuel: Meaning and Significance

Motifs in Samuel: Meaning and Significance

Motifs in Samuel. Samuel anointing David
Join me for a study of motifs in Samuel and see how following a motif can help with the interpretation of a biblical passage.

A number of years ago I wrote a post that pointed out how the recognition and study of motifs within a biblical narrative can contribute to its understanding (see here). In that post I surveyed motifs found in Genesis (the Jacob story), Judges (the Samson story), and Samuel (Saul’s story). I also noted a number of other motifs in Samuel with the promise of one day writing about them further. It’s been a long time coming but that day has finally arrived. This post is an introduction to the topic. I will briefly discuss what a motif is and then note various motifs in Samuel that will be the subject of future posts.

What is a Motif?

If you google a definition of what a motif is you will find this useful definition: “A motif is a recurring symbol which takes on a figurative meaning. … In fact, almost every text commonly uses the literary device of the motif. A motif can be almost anything: an idea, an object, a concept, a character archetype, the weather, a color, or even a statement” ( Bernard Aubert defines a motif very simply as a “recognizable pattern or unit” (The Shepherd-flock Motif in the Miletus Discourse, p. 16–for an online version of this book click here).

Using rope to illustrate a motif
A motif is like different strands of a rope.

Brian A. Verrett points out that “A motif is to be distinguished from a theme. A motif is a thread, and a theme is the rope made of different threads” (The Serpent in Samuel, p. 8, n.54). Rachelle Gilmour states, “In each case the motif is a concrete image that points to an abstract meaning, even if this meaning changes over time or across types of literature. This is typical of the biblical narrative, which in general avoids explicit statements of abstract meaning, using instead a concrete image to represent it” (Gilmour, “Reading a Biblical Motif” p, 32). An example of what Gilmour is saying would be the use of “hand” in the biblical text. Hand is a very concrete image but it points to the abstract meaning of “power.” For example, when the Bible states that Israel was delivered into the hand of the Philistines, this means they were defeated by them and came under their control or power. “Hand” is, in fact, a motif in Samuel that we will be examining.

Motifs in Samuel

Beauty is one example of a motif in Samuel.

Motifs Addressed by Biblical Scholars

Bible scholars have long recognized the use of motifs in Samuel. In my previous post I reviewed a book by Brian A. Verrett entitled, The Serpent in Samuel: A Messianic Motif (see my review here). In his book Verrett seeks to demonstrate that the Samuel narrative repeatedly casts characters as serpents (p. 8). Other motifs in Samuel that have been discussed by scholars include, the exodus, beauty, displaced husbands, food provision lists, and allusions to the patriarchal stories in Genesis. Several, or perhaps all of these motifs, have probably never occurred to a casual reader of the books of Samuel. The value of beginning to recognize these, and other motifs, is the way they enrich the meaning of the narrative. Being sensitive to motifs will also cause the reader to slow down and ask why a certain motif continues to recur. Thus creating a learning opportunity. Searching for motifs also increases the pleasure in reading.

Other Motifs in Samuel

There are many other motifs in Samuel. Here I offer a list which is not meant to be complete by any means. In future posts, I will be examining some of these motifs.

  1. Sword and spear
  2. Heads
  3. Hands
  4. Feet
  5. Eating and not eating
  6. Clothing, especially robes
  7. Dead dog
  8. Angel of God
  9. Seeking and (not) finding
  10. Asking (inquiring)
  11. Shepherd
  12. Rebellious sons

Some motifs found in the books of Samuel also occur in other books of the Bible. My purpose is to narrow the focus to only 1&2 Samuel. I will identify some of these motifs and ask how they function in Samuel. How is our reading of the text enhanced by noticing these motifs and inquiring about their significance? In my next post, we will start from the bottom up. I will be looking at the significance of the motif of “feet” in Samuel.