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".

Character Studies, Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

Saul and Eli: Similarities of Rejected Leaders

February 5, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

Saul and Eli: Similarities of Rejected Leaders

Looking Like a Leader

1 Sam. 1:9 offers a very impressive introduction of Eli as leader.

The impressive introduction of Eli in 1 Samuel 1:9b often goes unnoticed by English readers. The reason is that many of the Hebrew words are capable of more than one translation. The NKJV represents a typical translation: “Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat by the doorpost of the tabernacle of the Lord.” Eli’s name means “exalted” and the “seat” he is sitting on is the usual word for “throne.” The fact that Eli sits by the “doorpost of the tabernacle,” may recall the command in Deuteronomy 6:9 to write the commandments “on the doorposts of your house.” This might suggest that Eli sits by the doorpost of the tabernacle as one who oversees the keeping of the Law. Finally, the word translated “tabernacle” is better translated “temple” or “palace.” Keeping in mind the double-meaning of these words, we could translate 1 Samuel 1:9b as “Now Exalted the priest was sitting on the throne by the doorpost (as law-enforcer) of the palace of the Lord.” This translation leaves us with a very different impression of Eli! The words “throne” and “palace” also introduce the theme of kingship and demonstrate that 1 Samuel 1 anticipates this important theme in the books of Samuel.

Ancient kings were often depicted as taller than the people. Hence the significance of Samuel's words in 1 Sam. 10:23-24. — Ancient kings were often depicted as taller than the people. Hence the significance of Samuel’s words in 1 Sam. 10:23-24.

Saul is also introduced with glowing words. After learning that Saul’s father Kish is a “mighty man of power,” 1 Samuel 9:2-3 describes Saul as “choice” and “good.” In fact, he is described as “better than all the children of Israel,” and taller than all the people from his shoulders upwards. English versions often translate the word “good/better” as “handsome.” I have used a more literal translation because it allows for a certain amount of ambiguity. Is Saul “good/better” in only a physical sense, or is he perhaps “good/better” in a spiritual or moral sense as well? The reason this is important is because later in the story when the Lord rejects Saul as king, Saul is told, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you” (emphasis mine). Later when Saul is pursuing David and David spares his life, Saul acknowledges that David has done “good” to him (1 Sam. 24:16-20). By this point in the story, we have come to know that Saul’s “goodness” is only related to his physical looks, not to his spirituality. However, at the beginning of 1 Samuel 9 all of this awaits discovery. All we know at the beginning of Saul’s introduction leaves us with a good impression of him. Thus Saul and Eli both have positive introductions, leaving the reader impressed with their good qualities. Both introductions leave the reader hopeful that God has found a good and competent leader. The negative qualities of each are only discovered as one continues reading.

Leaders Who Corrupt the Worship of God

Eli and his sons were corrupt leaders who stole from the people and from God. Picture taken from http://randalldsmith.com/1-samuel-226-36-the-portrait-hall-eli-and-the-ignorance-excuse/

Just as Eli and Saul both present initial favourable impressions as leaders, their character flaws come into sharpest focus in the same way–through corrupt worship of Yahweh. 1 Samuel 2:12-17 describes the corrupt practice of Eli’s sons regarding the abuse of the sacrifices brought to the tabernacle. Not only do they steal from the worshipper (1 Sam. 2:13-14), they steal from God (1 Sam. 2:15-16)! Eli’s crime is twofold: 1) He does not effectively discipline his sons for their sacrilege (1 Sam. 2:22-25; 3:13); and 2) He participates in eating the stolen sacrifices (1 Sam. 2:29). When God accuses Eli of honoring his sons above Him, He says that Eli and his sons have made themselves fat with the “head of every offering of My people Israel.” I have highligted the word “head” because of its importance in the story of Saul’s sin below.

Similarly, Saul is also convicted of sin in regards to sacrifice. In 1 Samuel 13:7-10, Saul succombs to the pressure of events and offers sacrifice, instead of waiting for Samuel as directed. When God commands Saul to destroy the Amalekites, Saul again fails by sparing Agag, “along with the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good” (1 Sam. 15:9). According to Saul, the purpose was to bring them back and sacrifice them to the Lord (1 Sam. 15:15, 21). When Saul speaks of the people sparing the “best” of the animals in 15:21, the word he chooses is “head,” the same one used in describing the sin of Eli! Samuel’s response is classic and announces a key theme of 1&2 Samuel: “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams”(1 Sam. 15:22).

In Search of Better Leaders

Both Eli and Saul are rejected with two separate words of judgment. Both men are told that God will seek for a leader "after His own heart." — Both Eli and Saul are rejected with two separate words of judgment. Both men are told that God will seek for leaders “after His own heart.”

When the Lord sends a Man of God to pronounce judgment on Eli and his sons, he states, “Then I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest who shall do according to what is in My heart and in My mind. I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before My anointed forever” (1 Sam. 2:35). Similarly, when God rebukes Saul for his disobedience Samuel says, “The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14). Furthermore, this man after God’s heart (David) will receive a “sure house” (1 Sam. 25:28; 2 Sam. 7:16), like that promised to the faithful priest of 1 Samuel 2:35. The parallels extend beyond the wording. Eli receives two words of judgment (1 Sam. 2:27-35; 3:11-14), and so does Saul (1 Sam. 13:11-14; 15:13-29). In each case it is the first words of judgment that contain the similar language about one “after God’s heart.”

Leaders Who Receive a Similar Judgment

God disposes of the leaders Eli and Saul in similar ways.

Part of the judgment visited upon Eli is that he is told that both of his sons will die on the same day (1 Sam. 2:34). In 1 Samuel 4 Israel is attacked by the Philistines. Eli’s two sons Hophni and Phinehas are both killed on the same day as prophesied (1 Sam. 4:11). But the tragedy doesn’t end there. Eli himself dies when he hears the news that the ark of God was taken by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:18). Ironically we are told that when Eli heard the news, he “fell off the seat backward,” broke his neck and died. This seat is the same one mentioned in 1 Samuel 1:9b which is usually translated “throne.” In other words, just as God will later dethrone Saul, here he dethrones Eli. Along with the deaths of Eli and his sons, his daughter-in-law also dies giving birth (1 Sam. 4:19-20). Most importantly, Israel experiences a devastating defeat at the hands of the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:10).

Drawing attention to the details surrounding Eli’s death may cause the reader to recall that the circumstances surrounding Saul’s death are eerily similar. Note that, like Eli and his sons, Saul and his sons die on the same day (1 Sam. 31:2-5). The battle is not only against the same foe–the Philistines–but the Philistines are said to gather at Aphek (1 Sam. 29:1), just as they did in the days of Eli (1 Sam. 4:1)! As in the days of Eli, Israel experiences an overwhelming defeat (1 Sam. 31:7). As Saul’s end nears the narrator informs us, “The battle was heavy against Saul” (1 Sam. 31:3, my translation). When Eli dies, the narrator states that he was “old and heavy” (1 Sam. 4:18). Finally, just as Eli falls from his “throne” (a sign of his leadership), so an Amalekite brings David Saul’s crown and arm bracelet (symbols of his leadership–2 Sam. 1:10).

Better Leaders and Better Days

God replaces ungodly leaders with godly ones. Samuel replaced Eli and David replaced Saul.

If you haven’t noticed these similarities before, you may be wondering about their significance. At the beginning of 1 Samuel, Hannah offers a song of praise to Yahweh (1 Sam. 2:1-10). In this song she praises the Lord’s sovereignty and describes how He operates among people. We could sum up the words of Hannah’s song in the words of James 4:6, “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Through their disobedience both Eli and Saul bring judgment down upon themselves and their houses. Their rebellion is similar and so their judgment is similar. God had raised both them and their houses to positions of supreme authority and leadership in Israel, but their sin brought ruin on them and their houses. Just as Hannah had said, the Lord “brings low and lifts up” (1 Sam. 2:7). In each case, however, the Lord doesn’t leave His people leaderless. In place of Eli, He raised up Samuel (and later the priesthood of Zadok–see 1 Kings 2:27, 35), and in the place of Saul, the Lord raised up David.

For more information on Eli, Samuel, Saul, and David see my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at Amazon UK / USA and WestBow Press.

Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

David and Bathsheba: Sending, Taking, Laying

January 26, 2015 randymccracken 1 Comment

David and Bathsheba: Sending, Taking, Laying

David and Bathsheba: The Sin

Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward starred in one of Hollywood's versions of the David and Bathsheba story. — Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward starred in one of Hollywood’s versions of the David and Bathsheba story.

When David commits adultery with Bathsheba the reader looks in vain for any psychological insight into what David and Bathsheba are thinking or what motivates their actions. Unlike the following story describing Amnon’s rape of his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13), words of emotion (lust, desire, love, anger, hate) are totally absent from the description of the deed committed by David and Bathsheba. Three words–all words of action–control the description of David’s sin. We are told, “Then David sent messengers and took her; and she came to him and he lay with her…” (2 Sam. 11:4). These 3 words not only leave the encounter between David and Bathsheba surrounded in ambiguity (why did David send for her?, why did she come?, etc.), they become the keywords which provide the movement of the story from sin, to judgment, and, finally, to forgiveness. In other words, through the recurring words “send,” “take,” and “lay,” the reader is able to follow the fate of David and Bathsheba. Furthermore, with each new context, these words experience a transformation of meaning giving deeper insight into how God is able to deal with David and Bathsheba’s sin by bringing judgment that ultimately results in redemption.

David and Bathsheba: The Judgment

The Lord "sends" Nathan to convict David of his sin. — The Lord “sends” Nathan to convict David of his sin.

Following David’s adultery where he “sent” for Bathsheba, we are told that “she sent and told David and said ‘I am with child'” (2 Sam. 11:5). Ironically, David’s sending results in Bathsheba’s sending. But while the first sending was, presumably, for pleasure, the second brings news of a serious nature. As I state in my book Family Portraits, “David’s sending resulted in the planting of a seed which was now growing in the womb of Bathsheba. Bathsheba’s sending teaches us that David now reaps what he has sown” (p. 236). Sadly, this news only prompts more sending on David’s part as he “sends” for Uriah (2 Sam. 11:6), hoping to induce him to sleep with his wife. When this tactic fails, David “sends” a letter with Uriah to Joab–a death warrant that seals Uriah’s fate (1 Sam. 11:14-15). All of this sending finally culminates in the Lord’s judgment on David when we are told: “Then the Lord sent Nathan to David” (2 Sam. 12:1). Although we have been following the significance of the word “send,” at this point in the story all 3 keywords reappear. In Nathan’s story about the rich man and the poor man (told to convict David of his sin), he uses the word “lay” to describe the action of the ewe lamb (representing Bathsheba–2 Sam. 12:3), while employing the verb “take” twice in 2 Samuel 12:4 in describing the transgression of the rich man. Once Nathan confronts David as the man he is indicting (“You are the man!”–2 Sam. 12:7), he describes David’s sin as “you have taken his wife to be your wife” (2 Sam. 12:9, 10). As a result, Nathan says the Lord will “take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun” (2 Sam. 12:11). The word “lay” also occurs in the sad scene of David pleading for the life of the child born to this adulterous relationship. We are told that “David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground” (2 Sam. 12:16). Note that Nathan uses 2 of the 3 keywords in describing the consequences that David will face, plus David’s “laying all night on the ground” presents a vivid picture of the consequences of his sin. Thus all 3 words come together in this scene where the Lord, through his prophet Nathan, “sends” and convicts David of his sin. In this scene, the keywords, “send,” “take,” and “lay” take on a nuance they did not previously have in the story. Although they still describe David’s sin, they also now describe his judgment. By using the same 3 words, the author shows that David has indeed reaped what he has sowed.

David and Bathsheba: Forgiveness

David and Bathsheba give birth to Solomon. Drawing by Arlene Karnes from history.com taken from pininterest.com

Thankfully the Bible teaches that in spite of the worst kind of sin (even adultery and murder), God’s purpose in punishment is not to destroy, but to redeem. This truth is evident in the conclusion of the story. After the death of David and Bathsheba’s child we are told, “Then David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in to her and lay with her.” The result is the birth of Solomon. The birth of a child is one way in which the Old Testament demonstrates God’s blessing. This blessing is emphasized by the statement, “Now the Lord loved him and He sent word by the hand of Nathan the prophet: So he called his name Jedidiah [beloved of the Lord], because of the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:24-25). In this scene, 2 of the keywords reappear, but here the context is one of grace and acceptance. The word “lay” which once characterized David’s sin and judgment, now leads to the birth of a beloved child. Notice also that the Lord once again “sends” Nathan, but this time it is with a word of grace, stating his love for the child and even giving Solomon a nickname meaning “beloved.” It should also be noted that the word “comfort” suggests an act of kindness on David’s part, the first time we have seen David treat Bathsheba with any kind of compassion. But what of the third keyword? It actually occurs in the final scene of this story. The context of David and Bathsheba’s adultery is the war with Ammon (2 Sam. 10), which finally comes to a climax in 2 Samuel 12:26-31. It should be recalled that the event which precipitated David and Bathsheba’s sin was David staying in Jerusalem, rather than going with the army to besiege Rabbah (2 Sam. 11:1). In the final scene, Joab “sends” for David (2 Sam. 12:27). After David’s arrival at the battle front, we are informed, “So David gathered all the people together and went to Rabbah, fought against it, and took it” (2 Sam. 12:29). Following his victory we are told that David then “took their king’s crown from his head” (2 Sam. 12:30). This scene demonstrates that God gives David victory in spite of his sin. Once again, the picture is one of forgiveness and restoration and 2 of the three keywords appear in this final scene. Including the scene with the birth of Solomon, all 3 words occur in the context of grace and forgiveness at the end of the story. The repetition of these same 3 keywords at the end of the story emphasizes that God is able to take the worst situation and redeem it. The words that once characterized David’s sin and God’s judgment, in the end characterize his forgiveness!

Bible Backgrounds, Book Reviews, Commentaries

New Testament Bible Background Commentary

January 22, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

New Testament Bible Background Commentary

IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, Second Edition by Craig S. Keener, (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014), 816 pp. Available from Amazon USA / UK

The New Testament Bible background commentary by Craig Keener has been a standard reference work for many years. The new second edition only makes this commentary more valuable. Keener has done a thorough revision of the original and has expanded his treatment of many passages. The goal has remained the same: “The sole purpose of this commentary (unlike most commentaries) is to make available the most relevant cultural, social and historical background for reading the New Testament the way its first readers would have read it” (p. 14). Thus, Keener is not seeking to offer theological commentary on the New Testament, but rather background material that will aid the reader in coming to theological conclusions. Although it is not his main focus, Keener also makes literary observations from time to time (for example, inclusios or chiastic structures–see his final chart at the end of the book entitled, “A Chiasmus: Acts 2:22-36“)

Keener’s audience remains the same as the first edition. He writes for “busy pastors and other Bible readers who have fewer resources and less time available” (p. 19). As a result, Keener omits most references that scholars and more curious Bible readers would find useful. With this target audience in mind, Keener’s New Testament background commentary begins with a 36-page introduction on how to use the commentary and why there is a need for such a commentary. As in the first edition, Keener has retained an introductory section discussing the significance of the gospels, as well as, New Testament letters. Each New Testament book is also preceded by a brief introduction. The glossary (also included in the first edition) has some new additions, such as “magic” and “Pilate,” while some definitions have been expanded such as “Satan” and “Son of God.” The maps and charts section at the end of the book remains basically unchanged (an additional map of Paul’s missionary journeys has been added rather than having one map for journeys one and two).

New Testament Bible Background Commentary: New Content

Craig S. Keener, author of IVP's New Testament Background Commentary — Craig S. Keener, author of IVP’s New Testament Bible Background Commentary

Besides the changes mentioned above, the commentary itself has been expanded in many places. As an example, I compared Keener’s treatment of Luke and Acts with the first and second editions of his commentary. These additions include anything from a sentence to a whole new paragraph. Sometimes additions are weaved around previous material and in other instances a new paragraph, or more, may be added. Some examples of ample additional material include Keener’s comments on ancient literacy in Luke 4:16, and his comments on hospitality and the woman who anointed his feet in Luke 7:43-46. Keener has greatly expanded his comments about Paul’s sea voyage to Rome (Acts 27), as well as his circumstances in Rome (Acts 28), compared to his earlier treatment of this material. Keener has also added some helpful new tables within the commentary such as Table 1 in the Gospel of Luke (“Early Parallels in Luke’), Table 2 (“Echoes of Hannah’s Song”–comparing the Mary’s Magnificat with 1 Samuel 2:1-10), and Table 7 in 1 Thessalonians (“Parallels Between 1-2 Thessalonians and Jesus’ Teachings”). At times, Keener has also omitted some material. For example, in the story about the widow of Nain in Luke 7:11-17, he omits his previous comment about what philosophers would often say to console the bereaved (compare Luke 7:13 in both editions).

What Can Be Learned From Keener’s New Testament Bible Background Commentary?

What can be learned from this commentary? Much more than there is space to tell! The reader will learn about ancient weights, measurements and money, funeral customs, weddings, geography (including how understanding certain facts about various ancient cities helps one to better understand a particular story), the nature of teachers and their disciples, honor and shame, kinship bonds and relations, education, schooling, and literacy, population estimates of various significant cities, Roman government officials, Roman armies (their makeup, their leaders), and on and on.

Whether you are new to the study of New Testament backgrounds, or a more knowledgeable student, Keener’s New Testament Bible background commentary contains something that everyone can benefit from. Allow me to cite two examples. Keener notes that ancient authors writing either histories (like Acts) or biographies (like the gospels) often drew parallels between people in the narrative. An example of this is the contrast between Zacharias’s response to the birth announcement by the angel with that of Mary’s (see comments on Luke 1:26-38, p. 180). Another helpful insight concerns the way ancient histories were written. Keener notes that ancient authors intentionally varied their vocabulary when talking about an identical event. He states, “This pattern should warn us not to read modern expectations of verbatim quotation into ancient works that no one would read that way” (p. 319, comments on Acts 1:1-5). This observation is helpful for understanding the slightly different versions that Luke gives of Jesus’ words before he ascends (comparing Luke 24 and Acts 1), as well as, Paul’s three slightly different accounts of his conversion.

In conclusion, Keener has made an excellent commentary even better with this newly revised edition. This is definitely a book that should be on everyone’s shelf who is interested in better understanding the New Testament.

Purchase The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament at Amazon USA / UK

Hardcover: 816 pages
Publisher: IVP Academic; 02 edition (January 3, 2014)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0830824782
ISBN-13: 978-0830824786
Product Dimensions: 6 x 2.2 x 9 inches

(Thanks to IVP for providing a copy of this New Testament Bible background commentary in exchange for a fair and unbiased review).

Character Studies, The Book of Samuel

Goliath’s Death Part 2

January 19, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

A Closer Look at Goliath’s Death

The defiance of Goliath by James Tissot. The story demonstrates that Goliath's death is the result of his defiance of both God and David, God's representative. — The defiance of Goliath by James Tissot. The story demonstrates that Goliath’s death is the result of his defiance of both God and David, God’s representative.

In a previous post I looked at a possible way in which David may have slain Goliath (How David Killed Goliath: Are You Sure?). In this post I would like to explore more carefully some of the theology behind Goliath’s death, especially as it is related in 1 Samuel 17:41-51. Although the entire chapter of 1 Samuel 17 builds toward the contest between David and Goliath, these verses focus on the confrontation between the two of them.

As Goliath approaches David we are told, “And when the Philistine gazed and saw David, he despised him because he was a youth, ruddy, and beautiful in appearance” (1 Sam. 17:42, my translation). Several of the words used in this verse are found previously in key contexts in 1 Samuel, and I have italicized and underlined them in order to highlight their importance. Notice that three of the words concern “seeing” (gaze, saw, appearance). Each of these words occur in 1 Samuel 16:7, a key verse in the story of David’s anointing. The Lord tells Samuel not to gaze at Eliab’s appearance because he has rejected him. The Lord continues by stating that he does not see as a man sees but he sees the heart. The repetition of these words in the current story demonstrates that Goliath is making the same mistake that Samuel made in the previous chapter, but with deadlier consequences. Goliath is judging by appearance. Goliath is not the only one to make this mistake, however. Israel and Saul have also judged by appearance, and thus they have feared Goliath, and Saul has thought David incapable of killing him. Saul’s doubt, along these lines, is recalled in Goliath’s observation that David was a youth. This is the same word Saul had used when trying to discourage David from fighting Goliath: “For you are a youth, and he a man of war from his youth” (1 Sam. 17:33). David is the only one in this story who truly “sees” correctly, and this is because he “walks by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7).

How Despising, Cursing, and Reproaching Lead to Goliath’s Death

God's judgment on Eli's house. Drawing from http://mimaryvee.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/gods-judgement-on-elis-house.html — God’s judgment on Eli’s house. Drawing from http://mimaryvee.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/gods-judgement-on-elis-house.html

As Goliath makes the mistake of judging David by his appearance, we are informed that he despised him (v. 42), and “cursed David by his gods” (1 Sam. 17:43). In the bigger picture of 1&2 Samuel, for someone to despise and curse (also translated “lightly esteem”) either God, or his representative, is to invite judgment. A key passage in the story of judgment on Eli’s house also includes these key words. God says to Eli, “Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed” (1 Sam. 2:30). This statement, found at the beginning of 1 Samuel, provides a key for understanding why certain people in 1&2 Samuel are honored (raised up), while others are brought low (destroyed or dishonored–For a more indepth look at this theme see my book Family Portraits). However, not only does Goliath despise and curse David, we are told 6 times that he reproaches (defies) God and his army (1 Sam. 17:10, 25, 26 [2x], 36, 45). “Reproach” is a word depicitng the heaping of shame on another. Once again, 1 Samuel 2:30 reminds us what happens to those who do not honor God. Anyone attuned to this theme is aware that Goliath is toast!

Goliath’s Death Brings Honor to God

Carravagio's famouse portrait of Goliath's death. — Carravagio’s famous portrait of Goliath’s death.

It is clear that David’s speech in 1 Samuel 17:45-47 is at the heart of the theology of this chapter. Victory isn’t about who is the biggest, strongest, or best armed, it is about whose god is the true God. The story that began with an intimidating look at Goliath, his weapons, and his armor (1 Sam. 17:4-7), comes full-circle with David’s declaration that “Then all this assembly shall know that the Lord does not save with sword or spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hands” (v. 45). As Davis states, “The focus of the chapter is not on David’s courage but on Yahweh’s adequacy in David’s weakness. David himself has told us this (vv. 37, 45, 47). An interpretation that refuses to see this steals the glory from God which in this Scripture he has designed to receive for himself” (Davis, D. R., 1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart, 2000, p. 189).

As noted in my previous post, each item of Goliath’s armor is mentioned throughout the story and shown to be inadequate (see link above). David’s victory with “a sling and a stone” substantiates his words in 1 Samuel 17:45-47. The significance of this truth is further emphasized by Goliath falling “on his face to the earth” (1 Sam. 17:49), which is an ironic way of speaking of his submission. People fall on their face when they approach a king (e.g., 2 Sam. 9:6), or when they are worshipping a deity. After reproaching, despising, and cursing, Goliath now shows the proper respect for the true king of Israel (David), and the true God! This verse also echoes a similar incident found in 1 Samuel 5:3-4. After judgment was brought on Eli’s house, and Israel (1 Sam. 4), the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it to Ashdod. Once there they put it in the temple of Dagon their god, in order to show their god’s superiority over the God of Israel. The next day, however, Dagon was bowing face down before the ark! The following day, after having been put back in his place (a little Hebrew humor about a god who can’t help himself!), the priests not only find Dagon face down before the ark, but with his hands and head cut off. Goliath, who lays prone before David, and the God of Israel, suffers the same fate as his god when David removes his head (1 Sam. 17:51).

Thus the story of Goliath’s death at the hands of a shepherd boy serves several functions within the narrative. In the immediate context it begins to confirm that God has chosen David (1 Sam. 16:1-14). Unlike Saul, David trusts God. Like God, David “sees” differently (1 Sam. 16:7). Within the larger narrative context it operates as another example of the importance of honoring the true God. Why is David raised up and Saul rejected? Because Saul reacts in fear (1 Sam. 17:11) and trusts in the physical realm (1 Sam. 17:38-39), whereas David defends God’s honor and trusts him for the victory over his foes (1 Sam. 17:26, 37, 45-47).

Book Reviews, The Book of Samuel

David, Saul, & God: Book Review

January 14, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

David, Saul, & God: Book Review

Paul Borgman, David, Saul, & God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (Oxford: University Press, 2008), 335 pp.

David, Saul, & God is also available at Amazon USA / UK

After reading Paul Borgman’s David, Saul, & God, I felt like I often do after devouring a satisfying meal. It is definitely one of the best books that I have read on 1&2 Samuel. Borgman’s careful attentiveness to the repetitive patterns in the books of Samuel, as a way of unlocking its understanding of David, Saul, & God, is refreshing and insightful. Borgman contends that uncovering and solving the questions posed by the story of 1&2 Samuel “depends on close attention to the dozen or so broad patterns (he actually enumerates 11) of repetition governing the narrative’s progress” (p. 3). Borgman makes the helpful suggestion that, “The story’s modern audience often misses answers to the central questions driving the drama of David’s story because the text is read in a straightforward manner, rather than in the circular way demanded by the ancient text’s dependence on patterns of repetition. That is, recognizing a developing pattern requires a remembering of what has gone before, a circling-back action of the mind” (p. 4, emphasis mine). Readers would do well to heed Borgman on this point, not only regarding David’s story, but Old Testament narrative in general.

David, Saul, & God: The Main Course

Paul Borgman's book David, Saul, & God is full of "food for thought." — Paul Borgman’s book “David, Saul, & God” is full of “food for thought.”

David, Saul, & God consists of 9 chapters plus an introduction and conclusion. Among the 11 repetitive patterns discussed such as “David’s Multiple Introductions” (pattern 3), “Saul’s fear” (pattern 4), “Sword and Spear” (pattern 5) and “News of Death–Public and Private Davids” (pattern 9), I would like to note two that I found particularly insightful. Readers of 1&2 Samuel have often noted that there is a theme of “Failed Fathers” (Borgman’s pattern 8), but to my knowledge, no one has explored its significance until Borgman (but see my book Family Portraits, where I explore the connection between family failures and national consequences). The failed fathers of 1&2 Samuel include Eli, Samuel, and, especially, David. Borgman notes that the pattern of failed fathers has, in each case, important consequences for the nation of Israel. Eli’s failure with his sons leads to a national crisis in which the Philistines defeat Israel and capture the ark of God (1 Sam. 4). David’s over-indulgence with his sons Amnon and Absalom, similarly leads to national disaster (2 Sam. 13-20). Borgman writes, “Just as Eli did before him, David falters grievously as a father, with momentous negative consequences for the people he is supposed to be ruling” (p. 121). The difference with David, however, is a twist in the pattern, which occurs as he nears death and his son Adonijah attempts to take the throne (1 Kings 1). In this scene, David refuses to allow his self-indulgent son to take the throne. Borgman states, “At his physically weakest…David nonetheless rises to the occasion, evidencing the listening capacities we have seen in the past: he is receptive to advice from good people in the interest of Israel’s well-being” (p. 133). He continues, “What breaks this pattern of fathers-sons-death is the strength of a father standing up to an ill-directed son–displeasing that son for the sake of a greater communal good” (p. 139). Although this last example falls outside the bounds of the Samuel narrative, scholars are well-aware of the close link between the books of Samuel and Kings (especially the first 2 chapters of 1 Kings).

Paul Borgman, author of David, Saul, & God.

The second pattern I would like to note (Borgman’s 11th pattern) concerns the contrast made between Saul and David at the end of 2 Samuel. Readers are often puzzled by what appears to be a miscellaneous grouping of material found at the end of 2 Samuel in chapters 21-24. Scholars now recognize that this material is artfully arranged with a chiastic structure as follows:

A Saul sins, 3 year famine, resolution (2 Sam. 21:1-14)

B David’s warriors, leadership (2 Sam. 21:15-22)

C David’s poem concerning blamelessness and God (2 Sam. 22:1-51)

C’ David’s poem, ideal ruler and God (2 Sam. 23:1-7)

B’ David’s warriors, leadership (2 Sam. 23:8-39)

A’ David sins, 3 days plague, resolution (2 Sam. 24:1-25)

Borgman spends chapter 9 looking at the outer two stories of the chiasm (A & A’) involving Saul and David (in chapter 8 he explores the inner parts of the chiasm). Building on the insights of Herbert H. Klement he points out that, “What emerges clearly is the stark difference in the sinning of Saul and that of David” (p. 205). “Not only is there none of Saul’s equivocating response to wrongdoing, there is in David what is inconceivable for the Saul we meet early in his story: a radical willingness to look at himself critically, and further, to offer his own suffering on behalf of communal well-being” (p. 213, see 2 Sam. 24:17). By the end of the story, Borgman contends that we are able to understand why God chose David over Saul. David is a man who, not only repents when he sins, but in 2 Samuel 24 recognizes his own sin without the intervention of prophet or anyone else, and then offers himself in order to protect the nation. As David’s character unfolds throughout the story, we not only learn who he is, but we learn more about who God is.

Odysseus and his men put out the eye of Polyphemus the Cyclops (The Odyssey)

In the conclusion to the book, Borgman contrasts the hero Odysseus (and the gods) from Homer’s The Odyssey with David. His purpose is “to shed another angle of light on the dynamic among David, Saul, and God” (p. 221). Here are a few of his observations: “David inhabits a moral world…quite different from that of Odysseus” (p. 227). “David learns and changes from experience to experience; Odysseus, however fascinating, becomes more of what he has always been…” (p. 235). “Athene’s focus in The Odyssey is helping Odysseus become more of what he is, while the biblical God helps David become more of what he can become. But this development is not for David’s sake alone, or even primarily, but for the sake of this God’s unchanging will for communal well-being.” Borgman’s final line of the book is fitting: “In coming to see David, we have come to understand the story’s God as well” (p. 244).

David, Saul, & God: The Hor d’Oeurves

I realize that in any fine meal the hor d’oeurves are served before the main course, but please indulge me. After all, it’s my metaphor! Since hor d’oeurves are side items to develop one’s taste for the main course, I think the metaphor is appropriate here. Throughout his book, Borgman carries on a conversation with other scholarly points of view. He does this some in the text itself, but more thoroughly in the endnotes (57 pages of them!). A lot of modern scholarly treatment of David, Saul, & God (meaning the characters in 1&2 Samuel, not Borgman’s book), in my opinion, has fallen prey to the prophet’s critique that some “call evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20). In other words, many make Saul the “good guy,” or, more accurately, “the victim,” while David and God become “the bad guys.” Borgman argues strenuously, and I believe effectively, against such an interpretation throughout his book. Again and again, he demonstrates how the repetitive patterns in 1&2 Samuel clearly picture Saul as the “bad guy” (my terminology), God as just and compassionate, and David as, at first mysterious, certainly far from perfect, but ultimately, a man after God’s heart. Rather than crafting his own portrait of David, Saul, & God (and misrepresenting the text as some do–at least in my opinion), Borgman allows the text to speak through his careful reading of the repetitive patterns he explores.

David, Saul, & God: The Bones

There actually aren’t many “bones to pick” over in this book. In fact in terms of Borgman’s treatment and methodology, I have no quarrel whatsoever (although there are, of course, a few places where I have a slightly different view from him). My complaint lies with the poor editing of David, Saul & God. The book is filled with grammatical and spelling errors and has the appearance of being hastily prepared for publication without being carefully proofread. Errors of every kind exist, from missing words, to words occurring in the wrong order, to wrong numbers for the endnotes, as well as endnotes missing entirely! Perhaps the most glaring error is the spelling error that occurs in the title of chapter 9. It reads in large letters: “Chiastic Conclusion: Final Contrast, Soul [instead of “Saul”] and David Sinning.” Hopefully in a future edition, these errors will be caught and corrected. Although the errors mar the aesthetic quality of the book, the content more than makes up for this inadequacy. I highly recommend David, Saul, & God to anyone seeking a deeper understanding of 1&2 Samuel.