Category Archives: Character Studies

Character Studies, Insights from Family Portraits

My Musings About Going to Church

4 Comments

My Musings About Going to Church

What comes to our mind when we speak of "going to church?"
What comes to our mind when we speak of “going to church?”

When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, a popular slogan was coined which said, “Jesus ‘Yes,’ the Church, ‘No.'” This statement spoke of what some saw as the irrelevancy of the church. Some people were relating to what they learned of Jesus, but they were turned off by what was referred to as the “institutional church.” For some, the church conjured up images of monotonous rituals with no relevancy to daily life, cold, unfeeling, and hypocrital people, lavish buildings, and money-hungry preachers. There was much in this negative portrayal of the church that had a basis in reality, and certainly needed to be addressed. While some have sought to address these and other issues facing the church, new issues continue to arise and some continue to reject the church or the need for going to church.

What Do We Mean By “Going to Church?”

How would you identify the church in this picture? Is it the building or the people?
How would you identify the church in this picture? Is it the building or the people?

The statement “going to church” is, in certain ways, a misnomer. It is an expression that has developed over the centuries meaning the building where people meet. Of course, biblically, it refers to the body of believers for whom Christ died–those who are “called out” and saved by the blood of Christ. While many Christians understand this difference, our use of the phrase “going to church” waters down the true meaning of “church.” I wonder if Christians revived the biblical meaning of church if we would be as quick to dispense with the church. When I determine that, “I’m not going to church anymore,” it can have a very impersonal ring to it. By it I may mean, “I don’t need an institution or building to worship God in,” which is true enough. But if I understand “church” to mean “the family of God,” “the people  for whom Christ died,” “the body of Christ,” etc., then my statement takes on a different meaning. Is it true that I don’t need the family of God, or that it’s alright for me to separate myself from fellow believers for whom Christ died? It’s much easier to disassociate myself from a building or institution, but do I have the right to disassociate myself from worshipping with fellow believers?

God’s People Have Always Worshipped as a Community

moodyFrom the day of Pentecost onward, believers in Jesus have gathered together to worship. “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42, NKJV). The early believers did this quite naturally because it was their heritage as the people of God to meet together to worship God. Whether meeting at the tabernacle, the temple, or later in synagogues, the people of God had always gathered together to worship, celebrate, fellowship, and learn of God. While the Scripture focuses on individuals who displayed great faith in God in their own personal lives, the context of their story is always the community of God’s people. In other words, the Bible never entertains a solitary believer who is not a part of the community of God’s people. My point here is not to denigrate home bible studies; after all, the early church usually met in homes. But I do have a concern with those who intentionally isolate (and insulate) themselves from the church body by “doing church” at home in the form of listening to Cds, or the radio or TV (I am not speaking of the elderly or those who are physically incapable). My concern is also with “drive-in” churches or similar arrangements where it is not necessary to fellowship or interact with the body of Christ.

When a Christian's attitude is, "It's all about me," we can dispense with going to church.
When a Christian’s attitude is, “It’s all about me,” we can dispense with going to church.

Our Western World, and this is especially true of America, has promoted the value of Individualism. Americans are especially proud of “pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps,” or singing “I Did It My Way.” However, this focus on the individual alone is contrary to biblical values which, not only focus on the significance of community, but the interdependence of God’s people on one another. Try reading Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11-14 with an individualistic mindset. Statements such as, “But now indeed there are many members, yet one body” (1 Cor. 12:20); “And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually” (1 Cor. 12:26-27), become nonsensical. Our individualistic spirit might consider the writer of Hebrews exhortation “And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the Day approaching,” (Heb. 10:24-25) as being a bit melodramatic. “C’mon, I can do this Christian thing on my own. I don’t need others to stir me up to love and good works. I don’t need others to encourage my walk with the Lord. I don’t need others to help me keep a correct perspective on doctrine and belief.” Seriously? I doubt any one would word it this way, but in practice this is what it boils down to. Not only does “forsaking the assembly” of believers rob me of many good things that God intends for me, it also prevents God from using my gifts for the benefit of the body.

Going to Church: The Example of Elkanah (1 Samuel 1-2)

1 Samuel 1-2 pictures Elkanah as a godly man who consistently takes his family to worship God in Shiloh.
1 Samuel 1-2 pictures Elkanah as a godly man who consistently takes his family to worship God in Shiloh.

While the New Testament is filled with good reasons for “going to church,” my inspiration for faithfulness in worshipping God with His people comes from an unusual place. It’s through the example of Elkanah (Samuel’s father) in 1 Samuel 1-2, that God spoke to me the most clearly about “going to church.” While Elkanah is far from a perfect man, one of the things stressed in 1 Samuel 1-2 is his commitment to worship God with his family at the place where God had commanded. Elkanah’s commitment to worship God at Shiloh (where the tabernacle was in those days) is emphasized 4 times in the first two chapters of 1 Samuel (1 Sam. 1:3, 7, 21; 2:19-20). This may not seem remarkable at first glance, but the writer notes a number of obstacles that Elkanah faces which makes his commitment all the more remarkable. The first obstacle is the corrupt priesthood of Eli and his sons. The first statement of Elkanah’s commitment to worship God is found in 1 Samuel 1:3, which also notes that the sons of Eli are the priests at Shiloh. 1 Samuel 2:12-17 reveals the wickedness of these men and how they steal the sacrificial offerings of the people. Next we learn that there is rivalry and bitterness between Elkanah’s two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. We are specifically told that this rivalry rears its ugly head each year when the family is making its pilgrimage to Shiloh to worship the Lord (1 Sam. 1:6-7). Corrupt leadership alone would seem a good enough reason for Elkanah to dispense with the yearly visits to Shiloh. Add to that the dysfunction of his own family, and Elkanah has multiple reasons not to make the yearly trek to Shiloh. The devil has always been good at discouraging people from worshipping God due to our own hypocrisy or the hypocrisy of others. He whispers, “Why do you want to go church? There’s no one there but a bunch of hypocrites!” Or, “Who do you think you are to take your family to church when it is in such a mess?” Or, “Look at the problems that develop everytime you try to go to church. It’s too much trouble, why don’t you just stay home?” These ploys have proven very effective over the centuries and the devil has, apparently, seen no need to change his strategy.

Elkanah and Micah: Going to Church vs. Homemade Religion

Instead of "going to church" Micah opted for his own brand of homemade religion in Judges 17.
Instead of “going to church” Micah opted for his own brand of homemade religion in Judges 17.

Elkanah’s example is particularly powerful when contrasted with a story found in Judges 17. In fact, I believe Elkanah is deliberately contrasted with Micah and the Levite in Judges 17. In the Hebrew Bible the Book of Judges immediately preceeds the Books of Samuel (Ruth is found among “the Writings” in the Hebrew division of the Bible). Both stories begin with the story of certain men who are living in “the mountains of Ephraim” (Judg. 17:1; 1 Sam. 1). Both stories deal with corrupt priests and corrupt worship (Judg. 17:4-13; 1 Sam. 2:12-17). Finally, both stories include levites. Judges 17 clearly speaks about a Levite who comes to dwell with Micah in the mountains of Ephraim (Judg. 17:6-10). The author of 1 Samuel never tells us that Elkanah is a Levite. However, this may have been obvious to the readers of his day based on the genealogy given in 1 Samuel 1:1 (Elkanah is also called “an Ephrathite,” but levites lived throughout the tribes of Israel). The writer of Chronicles clarifies Elkanah’s lineage as being from the levitical family known as the Kohathites (1 Chron. 6:33-35). The point of the contrast between Micah and Elkanah suggests that, even though Elkanah may seem to have many “legitimate” reasons to start his own homemade religion, he refuses to do what Micah and the Levite had done. In spite of all the obstacles, Elkanah remains faithful to the command to worship God in the place God had chosen (Deut. 12:5-8). Elkanah’s example of faithfulness in worship, in spite of many difficult obstacles, stands as a testimony to modern believers who often forsake “going to church” (i.e., worshipping God with fellow believers) for less trivial reasons (I got my feelings hurt; I don’t like the pastor; I don’t like the music; etc.). In fact, Micah’s homemade religion suggests the dangers inherent in forsaking the worship of God with His people in favor of a “I’ll do what is right in my own eyes, thank you very much” spirituality.

Purchase at Amazon USA / UK, or get the ebook from westbow press.com
Purchase at Amazon USA / UK, or get the ebook from westbow press.com

Does the modern Church have problems? Do I really need to answer that? The Church, and the people of God of all ages, have always had problems. That’s precisely why we need the Lord and each other! God knows that and so He has created a community, a family, which He has purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28). We forsake that blood-bought community at our own peril. No, the Church is not perfect, and as has often been said, if it were and we attended it, we would ruin its perfection! However, it is God’s gift to us, and we honor God and the sacrifice of Christ when we participate in it and assemble together to worship our God and Savior.

This article was inspired by the research in my book–Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Please check it out at westbowpress.com or at Amazon USA / UK. Available in hardback, softcover, or e-book.

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

Saul and Eli: Similarities of Rejected Leaders

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.
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/
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.
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.
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.

Character Studies, The Book of Samuel

Goliath’s Death Part 2

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).

Character Studies

Joseph’s Significance in Matthew’s Nativity Narrative

2 Comments

Joseph’s Significance in Matthew’s Nativity Narrative

Joseph, Mary, and Jesus
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus

Choosing a title for this post has proven to be a challenge. If I say it is about Joseph, many would assume I was writing about the famous figure from the Book of Genesis who was sold into slavery by his brothers, and who later delivered Egypt, as well as his family, from a severe famine. The Joseph I am talking about, however, needs a further tag placed on his name. If I speak about Joseph and Mary, then it is obvious who I mean. If I say, “Joseph, the husband of Mary,” or “Joseph the adoptive father of Jesus,” or “Joseph, the step-father of Jesus,” then it is equally clear who I have in mind. All of this suggests that Joseph is a relatively obscure figure in the Bible. His significance is based on his relationship to other important characters, especially Jesus. This is actually not a bad position to find oneself in. After all, I, and every Christian I know, finds their ultimate significance in their relationship to Jesus as well. Of course Joseph has a special kind of relationship that none of us can claim, and yet that relationship often seems to diminish his value in the eyes of some. After all, Joseph is not the real father of Jesus; he is only the adoptive father, or perhaps worse, the step-father.

In the Jewish world of the first century A.D., it was believed that you could know a lot about a person based on the character of his/her parents. If the parents were honourable people, then the child was probably honourable. If, however, the parents had a shameful reputation, or the circumstances surrounding the birth of the child were suspect or shameful, then the child would be considered a shameful individual.

Order Craig Keener's commentary from Amazon USA / UK
Order from Amazon USA / UK

The Gospels address the question of Jesus’ parentage in different ways, but all seek to demonstrate that he came from an honourable background. Although Joseph is mentioned in all of the Gospels, only the Gospel of Matthew gives us any kind of character portrait. One of the purposes of Matthew’s portrayal of Joseph is to demonstrate that Joseph is a man of exceptional character. Matthew pictures Joseph as a righteous, compassionate, and obedient person. These qualities are displayed in at least 4 different ways. In what follows, I adopt an outline on Joseph’s character, based on Craig Keener’s commentary on Matthew. Keener uses his knowledge of New Testament Backgrounds to illuminate Matthew’s portrait of Joseph.

Matthew Portrays Joseph and Mary as a Model of Sexual Restraint

Whether living in ancient or modern times, there are only 3 known ways that an unmarried woman can normally become pregnant: 1) rape; 2) unfaithfulness; or 3) by a boyfriend or fiancée. The circumstances surrounding Mary’s pregnancy and the birth of Jesus would certainly have raised the suspicions of many. Matthew not only seeks to explain the unusual nature of Mary’s conception, but he also seeks to show the exemplary self-control exercised by this couple. Jewish couples were normally betrothed for the period of one year. During this year, the commitment was considered so legally binding that a divorce was necessary to break it. However, the couple was forbidden to have sexual relations until after the marriage. Any breach of the conduct expected would bring shame on the couple. Matthew seeks to demonstrate that neither Mary nor Joseph had transgressed in this matter. Mary’s conception was totally unique; it was of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20). Although Joseph was instructed by an angel in a dream to take Mary as his wife, out of reverence for this unique occurrence, he did not have sexual relations with her until after the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:25).

This verse testifies to Joseph's remarkable self-control.
This verse testifies to Joseph’s remarkable self-control.

This statement is remarkable in at least two respects. First, Joseph and Mary appear to have been poor (compare Luke 2:24 with Lev. 12:8). This would most likely mean, not only sleeping in the same room, but also sleeping in the same bed! It is remarkable to think that a married couple could show such self-restraint. This is an important point that Matthew wants to make. Self-control was considered one of the great virtues of the first-century Roman world. A person who could control their desires and passions was considered honourable. The rest of the New Testament has a lot to say about the power of evil desires and passions (e.g., Rom. 1:24-32; 6:13; 7:5), and Paul extolls self-control as one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23). Therefore, far from being immoral, Matthew shows that Joseph and Mary are an example of exceptional self-control. Second, by waiting until after the birth of Jesus to have intercourse, neither Joseph nor Mary could produce evidence of her virginity on their wedding night (see Deut. 22:15). I will explore the significance of this later.

The Josephs of Genesis and Matthew share several similarities.
The Josephs of Genesis and Matthew share several similarities.

Joseph’s ability to resist temptation and practice self-control suggests a characteristic he shares with his namesake from the Book of Genesis. Genesis 39:7-10 highlights the virtue of this other Joseph who refuses to have sexual relations with his master’s wife. Upon closer examination, we also note that the Joseph in the Book of Matthew shares other similarities with the Joseph of Genesis: 1) the fathers of both Josephs are named Jacob (Gen. 37:2-3; Matt. 1:16); 2) both Josephs receive dreams through which God communicates to them (Gen. 37:6-10; Matt. 1:20; 2:13, 19, 22); 3) both are righteous men (Joseph in Genesis forgives his brothers and seeks their welfare; Matt. 1:19); and both bring their families down to Egypt (Gen. 45:9-13; Matt. 2:13-15). All of these parallels between the two Josephs are another way in which Matthew demonstrates the uprightness of Joseph, the husband of Mary.

If Joseph Wanted to Maintain His Honor, He was Obligated to Divorce Mary

Matthew tells us that before the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, Joseph was contemplating how he should divorce Mary (Matt. 1:19). It is important to remember that since a betrothal was legally binding, a divorce was necessary to break it. It should also be noted that Joseph was not contemplating if he should divorce Mary, but how. “Jewish, Greek, and Roman law all demanded that a man divorce his wife if she were guilty of adultery” (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 91). Even Jesus allows for divorce in the case of adultery (Matt. 5:32). If Joseph does not divorce Mary, he faces one of two possible dilemmas. Keener states, “Mediterranean society viewed with contempt the weakness of a man who let his love for his wife outweigh his appropriate honor in repudiating her” (Keener, p. 91). The other possibility is that, if Joseph followed through with the wedding, then it would be an admission that he had slept with her. Either way, Joseph would experience the shame and contempt of his society. For Joseph to be considered a “just” man (Matt. 1:19), he must divorce Mary, and this is what he would have done had God not revealed himself in a dream.

Joseph Tempers Justice with Mercy

Available at Amazon USA / UK
Available at Amazon USA / UK

Although still contemplating divorce, Matthew tells us that Joseph desired to put Mary away “secretly” or “privately” (Matt. 1:19). The fact that Joseph is willing to put Mary away privately suggests that he is a man who puts compassion above his own hurt and shame. It is also important that the modern reader understands that the primary foundation for ancient marriages was not love but financial considerations. Parents usually contracted the marriage of their children and this was done with a view of what would mutually benefit each family. Inheritance was an important issue and no family wanted to make a poor financial arrangement through marriage that would harm them. Part of the betrothal included the prospective groom giving the bride’s family a bride price. This consisted of gifts given to the bride and her family. It was a way of showing the value of the bride and that she would be provided for. An example of this can be found in Genesis 24:53 when Abraham’s servant contracts a marriage for Isaac. We are told, “Then the servant brought out jewelry of silver, jewelry of gold and clothing, and gave them to Rebekah. He also gave precious things to her brother and to her mother.” The family of the bride would reciprocate by giving the bride a dowry. This would be her portion of the family inheritance meant to help her in the start of her new life with her husband. Dowrys and bride prices varied depending on the wealth of a family. They might consist of animals (sheep and goats), jewelry, household items, servants, and even land (For further information on bride prices and dowrys, see K.C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts, p. 37ff. Pictured in the box to the right.).

The point of all this is that there would have been a financial investment of some kind on Joseph’s part. By means of a public divorce he could have recouped the bride price, and possibly been justified in keeping Mary’s dowry as well. The fact that Joseph is willing to divorce Mary privately demonstrates that he is not concerned with financial gain or loss, or in exacting revenge on her. Rather, his concern is for her reputation (and possibly her family’s as well). This kind of compassion reflects the very attitude that Jesus will later say is pleasing to God. When questioned about eating with sinners, Jesus says that it is the sick who need a physician. He then challenges the Pharisees to “Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice‘” (Matt. 9:12-13). My colleague, Richard Tamburro, has suggested to me that Joseph’s compassion shows him to be a man with a heart like God’s, and that this is precisely why God chose Joseph to be an earthly father for Jesus. Indeed, Joseph’s ability to temper righteousness with compassion is truly a characteristic of God.

Joseph is an Obedient Man

Joseph flees to Egypt with Mary and Jesus.
Joseph flees to Egypt with Mary and Jesus.

Matthew goes to great lengths to emphasize the obedience of Joseph.  Each time God commands Joseph to do something (take Mary as his wife, flee to Egypt, return from Egypt, don’t go back to Judea), Joseph faithfully obeys (Matt. 1:24; 2:13-14, 19-21, 22). The same “command and obedience” language that is found here in Matthew is reminiscent of many of the saints of the Old Testament. Noah, Moses, Elijah, and others receive commands from God and faithfully carry them out. This obedience is described in two ways: 1) A command is given and then we read in identical language how the command is obeyed. For example, Elijah is told “Get away from here and turn eastward, and hide by the Brook Cherith, which flows into the Jordan” (1 Kgs. 17:3). We are then informed, “So he went and did according to the word of the Lord, for he went and stayed by the Brook Cherith, which flows into the Jordan” (1 Kgs. 17:5). 2) After receiving a command, the statement is frequently made that that person “did all that the Lord commanded.” An example of this is found in Genesis 6:22 which states, “Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.” Joseph, therefore, like the saints of old, is faithful and obedient.

Recalling a point made earlier, Joseph’s obedience to God was costly. First, as noted earlier, to not have intercourse until after the birth of Jesus meant giving up the opportunity to prove that Mary was indeed a virgin. Furthermore, for Joseph to move ahead and take Mary as his wife was tantamount to an admission that he had slept with her. Speaking of the dream that reveals Mary’s innocence, Keener writes, “Because Joseph alone received this revelation, outsiders in the story world would still think that he had gotten Mary pregnant before the wedding. He would remain an object of shame in a society dominated by the value of honor. Joseph’s obedience to God cost him the right to value his own reputation” (Keener, pp. 94-95).

When one summarizes the portrait of Joseph according to the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph is seen as a righteous man, who tempers that righteousness with mercy. He is also a man who willingly lays his own reputation on the line for the sake of being obedient to God. Like the Joseph of Genesis, the Joseph of Matthew provides a pattern of life worthy of imitating. Perhaps, most importantly, he foreshadows his greater adopted son Jesus, the ultimate picture of One who made Himself of no reputation and who was the perfect depiction of righteousness, mercy, and obedience.

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

2 Samuel 2–Asahel:Running into Trouble

Leave a comment

2 Samuel 2–Asahel:Running into Trouble

Purchase at Amazon USA / UK, or get the ebook from westbow press.com
Purchase at Amazon USA / UK, or get the ebook from westbow press.com

Many people are unfamiliar with Asahel. He was the youngest brother of the more famous Joab, David’s army commander. Asahel only appears in one narrative, found in 2 Samuel 2. The story is about his vain pursuit of Abner, commander of Saul’s army, during the civil war between David and the house of Saul, resulting in his premature death. Asahel’s death is told in gruesome detail in 2 Samuel 2 and often leaves readers wondering why this story was related by the writer in the first place. The following post is an excerpt from chapter 20 of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. In this chapter, I look at 3 men who shared several similarities: 1) they were all nephews of David and thus cousins; 2) they were all warriors; and 3) they all appear in limited roles in 2 Samuel. Although a first reading of Asahel’s death may leave the reader puzzled, a more careful examination reveals some important truths for all of us. I hope you enjoy this excerpt and consider purchasing a copy of Family Portraits for yourself or a friend. (For another excerpt from Family Portraits click here to read about Peninnah).

Asahel: Running into Trouble (2 Samuel 2:18–23, 30–32)

When the initial contest between 12 soldiers from Israel and Judah resulted in the death of all, a full-scale battle erupted resulting in a great victory for David's men, but at the expense of Asahel
In 2 Samuel 2:14-17, when an initial contest between 12 soldiers from Israel and Judah resulted in the death of all, a full-scale battle erupted resulting in a great victory for David’s men, but at the expense of Asahel (painting by James J. Tissot, 1896-1902).

“Brave, impetuous, and ready to kill,” are the words we used to describe Abishai’s introduction in 1 Samuel. These same words are perhaps even truer of Asahel, proving him to be Abishai’s brother and a genuine son of Zeruiah. Together with Joab, all three brothers appear in 2 Samuel 2:18 in the midst of a conflict between Israel and Judah. The conflict was precipitated by Abner, who had marched his troops to Gibeon where he was met by Joab and “the servants of David” (2 Samuel 2:12–13). When an initial competition, also proposed by Abner, failed to produce a victor, the confrontation erupted into a full-scale battle, with Abner’s troops experiencing a sound defeat at the hands of David’s men (2 Samuel 2:14–17).
The victory, however, was not without great cost to the men of Judah. In a flashback of the battle, the author follows Asahel as he pursues Abner. The outcome of this altercation not only results in the death of Asahel one of Judah’s valiant warriors, it also sets the stage for a blood feud between Abner and the two remaining brothers (Joab and Abishai), culminating in the murder of Abner (2 Samuel 3:27, 30).

gazelle
Asahel is described “as fleet of foot as a wild gazelle.”

Asahel is described as one who is “as fleet of foot as a wild gazelle” (2 Samuel 2:18). It is Asahel’s running ability that provides the setting for the chase scene described in verses 19–23. However, Asahel’s greatest asset will prove to be his greatest liability––a liability perhaps hinted at in his description as a “gazelle.” While gazelles are fast and nimble, they are not known for their strength or predatory nature. Gazelles are not usually “pursuers” (v. 19): they use their speed to flee from danger, not to run towards it! What chance does a gazelle have if it pursues a battle-hardened warrior like Abner?

Furthermore, the word “gazelle” sounds a note of familiarity with a statement found in the previous chapter: “The beauty (gazelle) of Israel is slain on your high places! How the mighty have fallen!” (2 Samuel 1:19). The gazelle that David laments is probably Jonathan (see 2 Samuel 1:25) but could also include Saul. While Asahel’s equation with Jonathan may seem complimentary, it has an ominous ring to it. The previous gazelle (Jonathan) had been slain and had fallen in battle; likewise, Asahel the gazelle will soon be slain and “fall” in battle (2 Samuel 2:23).

The chase begins in earnest in verse 19. Two expressions characterize the dogged determination of Asahel. The first expression, “he did not turn to the right hand or to the left (vv. 19, 21), is language frequently used in Deuteronomy–2 Kings in reference to not deviating from the path of the Lord (Deut. 5:32; 17:11, 20; 28:14; Josh. 1:7; 23:6; 2 Kings 22:2). The second term is ʾaḥarē, occurring seven times in verses 19–23 and variously translated as “after,” “behind,” or “back.” It is also used frequently to express following “after” the Lord, or not following “after” other gods (Deut. 4:3; 6:14; 13:4; 1 Kings 14:8; 18:21; 2 Kings 23:3). Thus, Asahel’s pursuit of Abner uses language that articulates the resolve Israel should have in following the Lord. While pursuing the Lord leads to life (Deut. 5:32–33), Asahel’s single-minded pursuit of Abner ironically leads to his death (v. 23). An outline of 2 Samuel 2:19–23 demonstrates Asahel’s determination as it alternates between his pursuit and Abner’s warnings: Asahel pursues (v. 19); Abner turns and speaks (20–21d); Asahel continues his pursuit (21e); Abner speaks and cautions (22); Asahel continues (23a); Abner finally strikes (23b–d).

 

Asahel pursues Abner. Painting by James Tissot

Still at some distance, Abner turns “behind him” to see Asahel hot on his trail (2 Samuel 2:20). Wishing to confirm the pursuer’s identity Abner calls out, “Are you Asahel?” to which Asahel responds with one breathless word, “I.” It is the only word he speaks in the entire narrative, highlighting his resolute focus on pursuing his prey. He is not interested in conversation; he is interested in catching Abner. As his name implies, Asahel is all about “doing” (“God has done,” or “made”) rather than talking. The doing, however, seems to have little to do with God and more to do with Asahel himself. Hence, Asahel’s answer, “I,” takes on a deeper significance.
Although the language is reminiscent of one pursuing God, the fact is that Asahel is in pursuit of his own glory. What could bring greater honor to a soldier than to kill the commander of the enemy’s army? This quest not only makes Asahel mute, but also deaf to the sound advice Abner tries to dispense. Using language that parallels the narrator’s, Abner says, “Turn aside to your right hand or to your left, and lay hold on one of the young men and take his armor for yourself ” (2 Samuel 2:21). This is Abner’s way of telling Asahel to pick on someone his own size, or, in other words, to take on someone of his own skill level and not to tangle with a more experienced soldier like himself. Asahel is undeterred.

Next, Abner is more direct and makes Asahel aware of the deadly consequences he will face if he does not cease his pursuit: “Why should I strike you to the ground? How then could I face your brother Joab?” (2 Samuel 2:22). Abner interjects an emotional element into his plea (“your brother Joab”), hoping it will slow down the fleet-footed Asahel. The advice, threats, and emotional pleas are all to no avail, however, as the narrator reports, “He refused to turn aside” (2 Samuel 2:23a). It is the last decision he will ever make, and it is a deadly one.

Winding Up on the Wrong End of the Stick!

Abner kills Asahel
When Asahel refuses to stop, Abner stops him with the back end of his spear (2 Samuel 2:23–painting by Johann Christoph Weigel, 1695).

Asahel will not stop himself, so Abner must stop him. So far, Abner’s rhetoric has not caused his thick-headed opponent to “get the point.” Ironically, he will also not get the point of Abner’s weapon. Instead, with a thrust of the back end of his spear, Abner brings Asahel’s pursuit to an abrupt halt as the spear travels through his abdomen and proceeds out of his back (2 Samuel 2:23). It is ironic that with one blow of his spear, Abner did to Abishai’s brother what Abishai had wanted to do to Saul (1 Sam. 26:8). Asahel’s pursuit of glory causes him to “wind up on the wrong end of the stick.” Abner’s military prowess is so superior that it is not even necessary for him to assume the normal fighting posture of facing his adversary. This accords Asahel no respect. His death appears foolish and needless. Indeed, David’s lament over Abner in the next chapter (2 Samuel 3:33) could well have been sung over Asahel: “Should [Asahel] die as a fool dies?”
Asahel is the first of four characters to be stabbed in the abdomen in 2 Samuel. The first and the last (Amasa) to experience this fate are of the house of David, while the middle two (Abner and Ish-bosheth) are of the house of Saul, forming a deadly chiasm within 2 Samuel. Later in this chapter we will notice that the wording of Amasa’s death evokes images of Asahel’s, adding irony to the gruesome inclusio formed by their demise.

The conclusion of the battle underscores an important difference between Asahel and his brother Joab. After Abner pleads with Joab to, “return from following after his brothers” (2 Samuel 2:26—my translation), verse 30 informs the reader, “Then Joab returned from following after Abner.” The use of “after” reminds us of Asahel’s pursuit of Abner, and highlights Joab’s wisdom. Joab knows when to stop pursuing; he will wait for a more convenient opportunity. The contrast between the two brothers is stark. The body count for Judah says it all: nineteen men plus Asahel—the man who did not know when to quit. Asahel’s pursuit leads to a tomb in Bethlehem, while the wiser Joab lives to fight another day (2 Samuel 2:32).

Conclusion: Stop and Listen

The honor paid to Asahel by listing him first among David’s Thirty mighty men (2 Sam. 23:24) does not diminish the unnecessary tragedy of his death. Asahel proves himself to be much like his brothers: impetuous, hard, stubborn, and preferring violence to diplomacy. The one valuable quality of his brothers that he desperately lacks is discernment. McCarter rightly observes of Asahel that, “[He] appears in the present story as one so headstrong that he will not listen to reason even to save his own life.”
Stop-And-ListenThe Hebrew Scriptures frequently associate the act of listening with following the Lord. They are full of exhortations to listen, hear, heed, etc.; and the Scriptures record the consequences of those who do not (e.g., Exod. 15:26; Lev. 26:14–39; Judg. 2:17; 1 Sam. 15:22). Although Asahel’s story is not directly about listening to the Lord, the formulaic language used in the story recalls the frequent exhortation in Scripture to follow the Lord. Asahel’s wrong-headed pursuit took him down the enemy’s path and far from the safety of his comrades. Likewise, our pursuit of our own selfish goals can take us down the wrong path and lead us far from the safety of God’s people.

In one sense Asahel’s real-life tragedy becomes an analogy and warning to the nation of Israel, who often stubbornly chose to follow their own way (2 Kings 17:13–14) and closed their ears to God’s word and the way of wisdom (Isa. 6:10; Jer. 5:21). The same attitude is vividly portrayed in the New Testament, when members of the Sanhedrin refused to listen any longer to Stephen’s words. Luke reports: “Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord” (Acts 7:57).

Of course the story of Asahel is not just a warning to Israel, but to anyone who stubbornly pursues their own agenda while ignoring the wisdom of God and others. The grisly account of his death demonstrates how vain the all-out pursuit of glory is. If Asahel had stopped to consider Abner’s warnings, then he would not have been stopped by Abner’s spear. The message is clear: a stubborn refusal to stop and listen to good advice may have deadly consequences.