Category Archives: The Book of Samuel

The Book of Samuel, Violence in the Old Testament

How David Killed Goliath: Are You Sure?

51 Comments

How David Killed Goliath: Are You Sure?

In this picture by James Tissot, Goliath is pictured as falling backward when he is hit by David's stone.
In this picture by James Tissot, Goliath is pictured as falling backward when he is hit by David’s stone.

One of the most popular biblical subjects for artists is the story of David and Goliath. In fact, many paintings (or drawings) focus in on the moment of how David killed Goliath. These renderings of this popular event either zoom in on the moment that David slings the stone in Goliath’s direction, or the moment when David stands over Goliath to remove his head. While we have to allow art to be art and recognize that not every artist is going for a literal representation of the actual story, I am often struck by how many artistic renderings get the basic facts wrong. Based on your recollection of the David and Goliath story, can you tell what is wrong with the paintings on the right?

What's wrong with this picture?
What’s wrong with this picture?

I would argue that these paintings get at least 3 things wrong. First, they either portray Goliath carrying his own shield and omit his armor-bearer (picture 1) who is said to be carrying his shield (1 Sam. 17:41) or they show no shield and armor-bearer at all (picture 2). Second, they show Goliath falling backwards, when the biblical narrator tells us that Goliath fell face down (1 Sam. 17:49). It’s actually surprising how many pictures show Goliath falling backwards when the story clearly says he fell face down! (Check it out on google.) I’ll talk more about this in a moment. Third, and here is where I expect to lose you…the pictures show Goliath being hit in the forehead instead of where David’s stone probably hit him. At this point you’re probably doing one of three things: You are either rereading my last statement to make sure you read it correctly; scrambling for your Bible to look up the verse that says Goliath was struck in the forehead (I’ll save you the trouble, it’s 1 Sam. 17:49–in fact, it says it twice!); or simply thinking that I’m crazy because you KNOW that the Bible says he was struck in the FOREHEAD. My real interest here is not simply to be controversial or to pose as an art critic, for which I am ill qualified, but to use these artistic renderings as a way of raising the important question of how David killed Goliath. Everyone who’s heard this story thinks they know. It’s quite simple right? David’s stone hit Goliath in the forehead which knocked him unconscious. David proceeded to hurry over and finish the task by cutting off Goliath’s head with his own sword (we know the stone didn’t kill him because 1 Sam. 17:51 says David killed Goliath by cutting off his head).

Although this most popular of Bible stories is always told this way, and even reads this way in our English translations, I want to introduce you to a position advocated by several biblical scholars that diverts from the norm. My interest in doing this is not simply to put forward some wild theory by a few “eccentric” scholars, but because I think this version of how David killed Goliath more accurately reflects the original text, and has a very significant theological point to make. So, if I haven’t lost you yet, please read the following arguments and then judge for yourself how you think David killed Goliath.

A Description of Goliath and His Armor ( 1 Sam. 17:4-7)

Me and friends at the Ashdod museum mixing it up with some Philistines. The figurines give an idea of Philistine armor, however, Goliath's armor was more extensive.
Me and friends at the Ashdod museum mixing it up with some Philistines. The figurines give an idea of Philistine armor, however, Goliath’s armor was more extensive.

The story of David and Goliath begins in a somewhat unusual way. The biblical narrator spends a great deal of time describing Goliath’s appearance. This is rare in biblical narrative. Just think about it. How many indepth descriptions do we have of Abraham, David, Hannah, Mary, Jesus, or Paul (to name only a few)? In spite of the fact that Goliath only appears in one chapter in 1&2 Samuel, 4 verses are dedicated to describing his appearance. One reason for this is to impress the reader with how intimidating Goliath looked. This description helps us to understand why Saul and the rest of the Israelite army responded in fear (1 Sam. 17:11). Besides Goliath’s height (9’9″ according to the Hebrew text; 6’9″ according to the Septuagint), the writer describes 3 pieces of his armor. Goliath wore a helmet of bronze, a coat of mail weighing 126 pounds (57.15 kg.), and bronze greaves on his legs. Two of the weapons he carried are also mentioned. These weapons included a bronze javelin (some would say that “scimitar” is a better translation), and a large spear with a shaft the size of a “weaver’s beam,” that included an iron tipped head weighing 15.1 pounds (6.85 kg.)!

Although Goliath’s height is impressive, as is the weight of his armor and spear tip, most people read over these verses and don’t think much more about them. However, the list of Goliath’s armor and weaponry plays a very significant part in the story that follows. In fact, 4 of the 5 items in 1 Samuel 17:5-7 are mentioned later and shown to be ineffective. For example, once Saul agreed to allow David to fight Goliath, we are told that he clothed him in his armor and gave him a bronze helmet (1 Sam. 17:38). These are the same items found in the description of Goliath’s armor (same Hebrew words). David rejected the armor and helmet because “he was not used to them” (NIV–1 Sam. 17:39). David’s rejection of Saul’s armor is significant for a number of reasons. First, it suggests that Saul, like Goliath, trusts in his weaponry and armor rather than in the Lord. Second, the brief glimpse of David in the king’s armor prefigures his royal destiny. Third, David’s rejection of Saul’s armor is evidence that his trust lies elsewhere. As far as the spear and javelin (scimitar) go, David also dismisses these items of Goliath’s arsenal as inconsequential (1 Sam. 17:45-47).

Goliath’s Greaves

A replica of greaves worn by Greek warriors.
A replica of greaves worn by Greek warriors.

In a very insightful study entitled: “A Farewell to Arms: Goliath’s Death as Rhetoric Against Faith in Arms (Bulletin for Biblical Research 23.1 (2013) 43-55), Gregory T. K. Wong points out that since 4 of the 5 items mentioned as part of Goliath’s arms are mentioned later in the story, one would expect that the fifth item might also be mentioned. The fifth item are the greaves (leg protectors). Can we find a passage in 1 Samuel 17 that also demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the greaves? Many years ago the daugther of an American Rabbi named Ariella Deem wrote an article entitled: “… And the Stone Sank into His Forehead”: A Note on 1 SAMUEL XVII 49 (Vetus testamentum, 28 no 3 Jl 1978, p 349-351). In this article Deem argues that the Hebrew word for “greaves” in 1 Samuel 17:6 is the same as the word for “forehead” in 1 Samuel 17:49. I can confirm that, except for a feminine ending in 1 Samuel 17:6, the words do look identical. This interpretation, then, suggests that David’s stone did not hit Goliath in the forehead, but in the greave, or knee area!

A carving from Medinet Habu in Egypt, showing a Philistine warrior in a helmut. Notice the helmet goes to the bridge of the nose.
It is doubtful that David killed Goliath by hitting him in the forehead. A carving from Medinet Habu in Egypt, shows a Philistine warrior in a helmet. Notice the helmet goes to the bridge of the nose.

While some would argue that the word (greave) in verse 6 comes from a different Hebrew root that doesn’t occur anywhere else in the Old Testament, there are a number of reasons why Deem’s argument is persuasive. First, as she points out, the story specifically states that Goliath wore a bronze helmet. We have pictures from antiquity of what Philistine helmets looked like and they cover the forehead (see the photo to the right). Some would argue that since the story says Goliath wore a bronze helmet that this would have been different from the typical Philistine headgear. Since the Philistines were a Greek people, it’s possible that Goliath’s helmet had a construction similar to that worn by ancient Greek peoples. If you google “greek helmets” as I have, you will be even more impressed with the protection offered to the wearer of one of these! Most of them, not only cover the forehead, but the nose as well. While a stone to this area might still knock a warrior unconscious, I don’t see anyway that the stone could become embedded in the forehead as v. 49 states. Second, recalling our pictures above, why is Goliath frequently shown falling backwards in artistic renditions of this story? It’s quite simple: if you got hit in the forehead with a stone travelling with great velocity, which direction would you fall? There are various estimates at the speed a stone will travel when released from a sling. Googling articles on using a sling suggested anywhere from 60 mph (97 km/h) to 100 mph (160 km.h) for the speed of a stone (click here for one example). If we take the low estimate one would still expect that being hit in the forehead by a stone at 60 mph would send a person reeling backwards. It’s difficult to believe they would fall “face down” as the biblical text states (v. 49). This observation has caused scholar J. P. Fokkelman to write, “We have all been brought up on the idea that Goliath was hit in the forehead. This, however, is unlikely. In the first place it is strange that he does not collapse, or fall backwards as a result of the impact of the projectile” (Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, p. 32). Fokkelman continues by citing his agreement with Deem’s article.

A stpne slung from a sling travels at a velocity that can kill or incapacitate a victim.
A stone slung from a sling travels at a velocity that can kill or incapacitate a victim. David killed Goliath with the help of one of these.

But how can a “greave” be a “forehead”? Deem argues that the ancient Israelites had no word for “greave.” She reasons that since the curved shape of a greave had a similar shape to the helmet, that the Israelites simply adopted the word used for forehead. Fokkelman argues that “This Hebrew word means ‘front’ and thus is less specific than ‘forehead'” (p. 32). The point is that the biblical author carefully chose each word to describe Goliath’s armor and weapons, in order to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of each later in the story. What was perceived to be Goliath’s greatest strengths turned out to be his greatest weaknesses. The very armor that should have protected him, made him vulnerable! This contributes to the theological theme of the story so eloquently expressed by David when he states, “Then all this assembly shall know that the Lord does not save with sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s, and He will give you into our hands” (NKJV–1 Sam. 17:47).

The Valley of Elah. Photo taken from http://nw-connection.com/blog1/2014/09/06/the-eternal-war-between-israel-and-the-palestinians-part-i-in-series/
The Valley of Elah where David killed Goliath. Photo taken from http://nw-connection.com/blog1/2014/09/06/the-eternal-war-between-israel-and-the-palestinians-part-i-in-series

How David Killed Goliath

So how exactly did David kill Goliath? As Goliath approached wearing his heavy armor, David recognized a vulnerable place in the big man’s attire. Greaves must leave a space for the knee to bend in order for the wearer to walk. David carefully aimed his stone at the knee of Goliath. Here is the rest of what happened in Deem’s own words: “Thus the stone would hit the upper shin or knee and fall into the space which must be left to allow the knee to bend and enable the warrior to walk. It is exactly at this vulnerable space that David deliberately aims, thereby causing the stone to ‘sink’ into the greave, that is between the greave and the knee, so that the Philistine—who at the moment is awkwardly making his way towards David—will stumble forward and fall, ‘on his face'” (p. 350). While some scholars do not think that hitting Goliath in the knee would incapacitate him, I must disagree for two reasons. First, consider the weight of Goliath’s armor. Once on the ground, it would be very difficult to get back up with 126 pounds of armor weighing you down. Second, and most important, imagine a stone flying at your knee at 60 mph and embedding itself in your knee. I don’t think anyone is going anywhere if that happens! Goliath would be totally helpless, as the biblical narrative depicts him to be. This allows David the time to come over, pick up Goliath’s sword and cut his head off.

There is one more piece of evidence that further backs this interpretation. Deem’s and Wong have both written about an incident recorded in the ancient Jewish writing “The Testament of Judah.” The Testament of Judah is part of a book called “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and is among what is known as the Pseudepigraphal writings (see link for definition). In this (fictional) story, Judah the son of Jacob kills a heavily armored Canaanite king by striking him in the greave (chopping off his feet is another translation). The point, as Wong shows (“Goliath’s Death and the Testament of Judah,” Biblica, 91 no 3 2010, p 425-432), is that this story has many similarities and clearly alludes to David’s killing of Goliath. Therefore, this suggests that there was an ancient Jewish tradition that David had struck Goliath in the greave. If this is so, it is further evidence that David killed Goliath by striking him in the knee with a stone and finished the job by cutting off his head. (click here for Goliath’s Death Part 2)

Note: Unfortunately, I was unable to find a copy of Deem’s or Wong’s articles available on the internet. Anyone who has access to professional journals through a library can look these articles up.

Book Reviews, Commentaries, Logos Products Reviewed, The Book of Samuel

Teach the Text Samuel Commentary in Logos

Leave a comment

Teach the Text Samuel Commentary in Logos

Available at Logos.com
Available at Logos.com

1&2 Samuel Commentary Teach the Text from Logos Bible Software.

I have enjoyed the 1&2 Samuel commentary in the Teach the Text series so much that I decided to request a copy from Logos Bible Software. Logos offers many additional benefits that are not possible with a hardcopy. Because I have previously reviewed the contents of this commentary, I will focus on the benefits offered by the Logos edition. If, however, you have not yet read my review of the commentary itself, I have included it as well.

The Benefits of the Logos Edition of the 1&2 Samuel Commentary in the Teach the Text Series

The first thing that Logos allows me to do is show you the beautiful layout of this commentary. In my first review I noted that the Teach the Text series is attractively presented. In the photos that follow, you will have an opportunity to see what I mean.

This sample page shows the colorful maps and photos that adorn the pages of the 1&2 Samuel commentary
This sample page shows the colorful maps and photos that adorn the pages of the 1&2 Samuel commentary

Every author of the Teach the Text series follows a five-point outline. I have detailed these in the review below, but here I offer a photo of the introductory pages showing the five-point layout.

This photo shows the 5-point layout of the commentary. I have highlighted the heading. Logos allows you to use a highlighter pen just as you might in a hardcopy.
This photo shows the 5-point layout of the commentary. I have highlighted the heading. Logos allows you to use a highlighter pen just as you might in a hardcopy. The folder to the left of the highlighting also allows you to make comments on the portion you have highlighted.

The great benefit of Logos is that it allows you to interact with the text in various ways. Logos users will be familiar with some of the advantages that I list here. First, the ability to hover your mouse over something in the text and receive immediate information is extremely helpful. For example, how many times have you seen a textual reference in parenthesis and meant to look it up but never got around to it? With Logos you can simply hover over the textual reference and see it immediately without leaving the page. The photo below not only shows this feature, (the mouse is hovered over Matt. 12:34–see the lower righthand corner), it also shows an example of the layout of Chisholm’s 1&2 Samuel commentary. The photo shows the “Theological Insights” and “Teaching the Text” sections on 1 Samuel 16 (top of columns 1&3), while also showing another interesting feature of Chisholm’s commentary–a dialogue box that focuses on special issues (this one intriguingly entitled, “Divine Deception?”).

Logos allows you to see a Scripture reference immediately simply by hovering your mouse over it.
Logos allows you to see a Scripture reference immediately simply by hovering your mouse over it.

The hovering feature is also helpful when there are abbreviations in the text that you’re not sure of. Furthermore, when an author references a certain source, if you have that source in your Logos library, you can hover your mouse over it and pull up the reference to that source. This is especially helpful if the author is referring to a Hebrew word and quotes BDB (Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon) as his source, or is referring to an ancient text that you may have available in your Logos library (such as Hallo and Youngers’ The Context of Scripture, which contains translations of ancient Near Eastern texts). Since the internet has become such a great source of information, modern authors will sometimes give website addresses in the footnotes. If you’re reading a hardcopy you have to jot down the reference and then open your computer to check it out. Again, it’s probably one of those things you’d like to do, but may never get around to. In Logos, it’s just a button click away! All you need to do is click on the web address and Logos immediately takes you there!

There is a dropdown menu in Logos that provides a number of advantages including a special “reading view,” which is the view I have been using for these photos. A really nice feature I have recently discovered is the “read aloud” option (see the menu on the left and go halfway down). If you’re tired of reading, or prefer someone else to read to you, you can click on this function and Logos will read the text to you! You can also click on “show table of contents” in this panel and immediately go to any part of the book. The following photo shows the drop down panel with these and other options. I have also chosen this page from Chisholm’s Samuel commentary because it illustrates the verse by verse commentary section, it shows an example of a chart (partially blocked by the drop down panel), and it shows an example of the “Key themes” box which summarizes in a few words the important ideas of the text under consideration.

Note the drop down panel in the left column which gives the Logos reader many options.
Note the drop down panel in the left column which gives the Logos reader many options.

Besides highlighting text (mentioned above), Logos also allows you to copy text. So if you are making notes for a sermon or Bible study, or you are writing an article, all you have to do is use your cursor to highlight the text, right click, and click copy. Logos even supplies the footnote so you don’t have to remember where you got the information from. This is especially convenient if you’re writing a paper because you don’t have to go to the trouble to compose the footnote! These are just a few of the wonderful features of reading in Logos. I’m sure as time goes on, I will discover others. As I promised, below is a review of Chisholm’s Samuel commentary. If you haven’t previously read it, please continue in order to gain a fuller appreciation of this book.

General Observations on the Teach the Text Commentary Series

The “Teach the Text Commentary Series” was commissioned to help the busy pastor and to fill a void in commentaries that are both scholarly, and yet practical. The aim is to present the “big picture” of a biblical book by dividing it “into carefully selected preaching units, each covered in six pages” (p. ix). There are 5 main areas of focus within these 6 pages: 1) Big Idea; 2) Key Themes; 3) Understanding the Text (this is the longest section including such subjects as context, outline, historical and cultural background, interpretive insights, and theology); 4) Teaching the Text; and 5) Illustrating the Text (pp. xi-xii). It is important to keep this structure and the necessary restrictions in mind when evaluating each commentary in this series.

Such an approach is clearly not intended to be exhaustive. So is there room for a commentary series with this more generalized approach? I believe there is. My own classroom teaching experience has demonstrated to me the need for students to gain the “big picture” of a biblical book. It is important to be able to summarize the main themes and key ideas of a book. Oftentimes people read or study a biblical book and have no idea of how to summarize its main message(s). The “Big Idea” and “Key Themes” features of this series go a long way in aiding the reader to achieve this goal. Therefore, the structure of the Teach the Text Commentary series is not only helpful to the pastor, who may be consulting it for his weekly sermon, it is also beneficial for the beginning student.

Before making specific remarks on Chisholm’s 1&2 Samuel commentary, I would also like to add that the “Teach the Text Commentary Series” is attractively presented. Each hardback volume is printed on heavy-duty paper which is ideal for the many helpful maps, photos, and illustrations contained in each commentary.

Comments on 1&2 Samuel Commentary

Chisholm begins his 1&2 Samuel commentary with a brief 7-page introduction. He summarizes these books by noting the three main characters (Samuel, Saul, and David) and by stating, “David is the focal point of the story” (p.1). Saul acts as a foil to David, while “Samuel’s support of David becomes foundational to the narrator’s defense of David” (pp. 1-2). The high point of the book is the Lord’s covenant with David, securing his dynasty and proving faithful even in the midst of David’s sin. Chisholm divides 1&2 Samuel into 7 sections based on “its major plot movements, revolving around the theme of kingship” (p. 4). His outline is as follows: 1) Prelude to Kingship (1 Sam. 1-7); 2) Kingship inaugurated (1 Sam. 8-12); 3) Kingship Fails (1 Sam. 13-15); 4) Kingship in Limbo (1 Sam. 16-31); 5) Kingship Revived (2 Sam. 1-10); 6) Kingship Threatened and Preserved (2 Sam. 11-20); and 7) Epilogue (2 Sam. 21-24). One potential weakness is that this outline is not clearly delineated in the commentary that follows. Perhaps Chisholm’s reason for ignoring this is because he does not find “clear-cut structural markers” in the text (p. 4), but sees the divisions above as related to plot development.

Chisholm packs a lot of information and insight into each 6-page unit of commentary. The information provided on historical and cultural background, though not found in every section, is very helpful for the beginning reader and student. Topics include foreign gods such as Baal or Dagon, divination, the Amalekites, or documents of the ancient Near East that have parallels with biblical material. This information enriches the presentation, as do the color photos that frequently accompany them. At times Chisholm includes side boxes that deal with special issues such as “The Problem of Genocide” or “The Legal Background of Tamar’s Request.”

Two characteristics of Chisholm’s exegesis that I found particularly helpful include his attention to certain words, and parallels and/or contrasts between biblical characters. Chisholm does an excellent job of paying attention to words or phrases found in 1&2 Samuel and demonstrating their connection with another incident in 1&2 Samuel (or the Former Prophets, meaning Joshua-2 Kings). For example, he notes that the expression “terror filled his heart” in 1 Samuel 28:5, in reference to Saul, only occurs one other time in 1-2 Samuel. It is found in the story of Eli’s demise as his “heart trembled over the fate of the ark of God” (p. 184). This kind of verbal connection suggests the author is comparing the circumstances of Saul and Eli. Similarly, Chisholm frequently points out similarities between incidents or characters in 1&2 Samuel with other biblical characters or incidents. One example is the similarities between the actions of Absalom in 2 Samuel 13-14 with Abimelech in Judges 9 (p. 252). This attention to biblical typology is extremely helpful when interpreting a narrative text (see my discussion in Family Portraits, p. 11).

Considering the constraints placed upon him by the commentary’s design (6 pages per literary unit), Chisholm’s overall treatment of the text of 1&2 Samuel is excellent. There is, however, one exception. Although 2 Samuel 2:1-5:5 can legitimately be viewed as a structural unit, treating it in the 6-page format does it a great injustice. This material is too important and too theologically rich to be skimmed over so briefly. Dividing this section by episodes, or even by chapters, would have been a better approach. This imbalance is all the more noticeable when the following section (2 Sam. 5:6-25), arguably less “meaty” than 2 Samuel 2-4, is given the full 6-page treatment. (For Chisholm’s reasoning on this see my interview with him which was conducted after this review.)

Perhaps the greatest challenge in writing a commentary of this kind is providing illustrations for the text. This is certainly a subjective task. Certain illustrations will ring true with some, while others will find them unhelpful. In an interview I conducted with Chisholm (click on link above), I discovered that this section was added by the editors, not by Chisholm himself. While I would not endorse the use of every illustration suggested in this commentary, I do believe a sufficient job has been done. The editors themselves point out that this section of the commentary is intended to provide “general ideas” and to “serve as a catalyst for effectively illustrating the text” (p. xii).

In conclusion, Chisholm’s 1&2 Samuel commentary achieves the aims of this series admirably. He is a scholar of high caliber and is a well-established expert on the entire corpus of the Former Prophets. Pastors, students, and others wanting to become grounded in the message of 1&2 Samuel will benefit greatly from this commentary. I used it for my own 1&2 Samuel class this past semester and will continue to do so in the future. I heartily recommend it to others.

Purchase Robert Chisholm’s 1&2 Samuel Commentary from Logos Bible Software by clicking on this link.

(Many thanks to Logos Bible Software for supplying this review copy of Robert Chisholm Jr.’s 1&2 Samuel Commentary in the Teach the Text Commentary series in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.)

Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

Sovereignty and Free Will in 1&2 Samuel

2 Comments

Sovereignty and Free Will

Calvin and Arminius disagreed over the Bible's teaching of Sovereignty and Free Will
Calvin and Arminius disagreed over the Bible’s teaching of Sovereignty and Free Will

The debate between sovereignty and freewill will probably continue until the Lord returns. This is part of the classic controversy between what is known as Calvinism and Arminianism (for a comparison of these two belief systems click here). Simply put, the issue is, does God’s sovereignty overrule people’s ultimate freedom to choose, or can there be freedom of choice while maintaining that God is sovereign? The traditional Calvinistic position maintains that complete freedom to choose negates God’s sovereignty. Therefore within reformed theological circles (i.e., those who espouse a Calvinistic theology) it is affirmed that people have choice, but that choice is ultimately controlled by God’s sovereignty (For a fuller explanation click here for Wikipedia on Calvinism or click on the link above). The classic Arminian position advocates that it is possible for human beings to have complete freedom of choice without impinging on God’s sovereignty (for a defense of this position click here to read Jack Cottrell’s article entitled, “Sovereignty and Free Will”).

Piper's "FIve Points" is a contemporary look at the 5 points of Calvinism including sovereignty and free will.
Piper’s “FIve Points” is a contemporary look at the 5 points of Calvinism including sovereignty and free will.

Sovereignty and free will has been a hotly contested issue for many centuries and continues to be passionately debated within the church today (the popularity of books by John Piper, among others, has created renewed interest in this topic). It has been my experience that the topic of sovereignty and free will is often discussed in an atmosphere where each side pulls out their favorite scriptures supporting their viewpoint. It becomes a “prooftext” debate. I think a more productive approach is to look at this topic through the lens of a biblical book. Understanding the overall message(s) of a biblical book helps to fit the topic of sovereignty and free will within its biblical context. This post is not an attempt to solve the debate “once and for all,” but to look at how these ideas are addressed within the canonical context of 1&2 Samuel.

Sovereignty and Free Will in 1&2 Samuel

Hannah's prayer/song celebrates God's sovereignty
Hannah’s prayer/song celebrates God’s sovereignty

The Books of Samuel begin with a very strong statement regarding God’s sovereignty. Hannah’s prayer/song in 1 Samuel 2:1-10 repeatedly emphasizes God’s power over His Creation and creatures. In the heart of this passage Hannah utters the following words: “The Lord kills and makes alive’ He brings down to the grave and brings up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and lifts up (1 Sam. 2:6-7). Chapter 2 continues by contrasting the wickedness of Eli’s sons (Hophni & Phinehas) with the godly growth of Samuel. After Hopni & Phinehas reject their father’s rebuke, we are told, “Nevertheless they did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to kill them” (1 Sam. 2:25). This statement reaffirms the words of Hannah’s prayer, “The Lord kills and makes alive.” Such strong statements at the beginning of 1 Samuel may lead the reader to conclude that the sovereignty of God determines a person’s destiny without any regard to their free will. However, this understanding is immediately balanced in the text by the words of an unknown prophet who comes to Eli and rebukes him and his sons for their disobedience (1 Sam. 2:27-36). In the midst of this prophetic utterance, the man of God enunciates a principle which holds sway over all of the characters mentioned in 1&2 Samuel. Speaking as the Lord’s mouthpiece he proclaims, “‘I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever,’ But now the Lord says, ‘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–my emphasis). This significant statement demonstrates that the Lord’s decisions to “kill and make alive,” or “bring low and lift up,” are not arbitrary decisions, but are based on people’s response to Him. This pattern of lifting up or bringing low is evidenced throughout 1&2 Samuel (e.g., Eli and Samuel, Saul and David, David and Absalom), and is consistently based on the actions of people who either honor or despise the Lord. What follows is an excerpt from my book “Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel.” Sovereignty and free will are significant issues in the discussion of Absalom’s revolt. This excerpt (with a small amount of editing) is taken from the introduction to chapter 24 entitled, “Absalom: The Rebel.”

Absalom’s Rebellion in the Context of 1 and 2 Samuel (2 Sam. 13-20)

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

In 2 Samuel chapters 13–20 the “strong” house of David (2 Sam. 3:1–5) unravels in fulfillment of the prophetic word announced in 2 Samuel 12:10–11. There the prophet Nathan, who formerly had announced to David an enduring house (2 Sam. 7:11–16), proclaims that the sword will never depart from his house, and that God will also raise up “evil” from his own house.
Within this framework, the sinful actions of Absalom and others recounted in these chapters become viewed as the repercussions of David’s own sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Sam. 11). Viewed from this perspective, the events are a divine judgment. David recognizes this in his flight from Absalom, when he rebukes Abishai over Shimei’s cursing and says, “Let him alone, and let him curse; for so the LORD has ordered him” (2 Sam. 16:11b). One writer has even entitled these chapters: “David Under the Curse” (Carlson, David the Chosen King)

Although David suffers greatly in these chapters, he is ultimately vindicated. While one might be hard-pressed to describe this as a “happy ending,” nonetheless it is a positive ending for David. Paradoxically then, David’s road becomes one of blessing and curse in these chapters. How is this to be explained? Furthermore, does David’s sin provide an excuse for Absalom? Can Absalom say in defense, “It’s not my fault; daddy made me do it”? Can he blame his rebellion on divine determinism which had decreed problems in David’s house? The story will clearly show that Absalom is responsible for his own decisions and bears the weight of his own guilt, but how does the text perceive this interlocking of divine sovereignty and free will?

David flees Absalom while Shimei curses and throws stones at him.
David flees Absalom while Shimei curses and throws stones at him.

I suggest the answer to all of the questions above is found in the introductory chapters of 1 Samuel (here I explore in more depth comments I have made when introducing this post). In a key statement made to Eli in 1 Samuel 2:30 God declares, “Those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed” (cursed). In Nathan’s rebuke of David he asks, “Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight?” (2 Sam. 12:9). We have already noted that David accepts Shimei’s “cursing” because he believes it comes from the Lord (2 Sam. 16:11). The word used for “curse” in this passage is the same word translated “lightly esteem” in 1 Samuel 2:30. Thus, following the logic of 1 Samuel 2:30, the reason for David’s divine punishment (curse) in these chapters is because he has despised the Lord. Likewise, the sin of Absalom dishonors both David (the Lord’s anointed) and the Lord Himself, as we shall see (this is examined later in the chapter). As a result, Absalom experiences divine punishment too (2 Sam. 17:14b).

Judgment, however, is only part of the story. As we have noted, David also receives blessing from the Lord. This is explained by David’s humble submission to the Lord throughout the ordeal of Absalom’s revolt (e.g., 2 Sam. 15:30–31; 16:11). In fact, 2 Samuel chapters 15–18 alternate between David and Absalom, contrasting their actions and words just as 1 Samuel 2:11–36 shifts the focus between Samuel and Eli and his sons, comparing them. This contrast highlights David’s humility which results in his vindication, and Absalom’s ungodliness which results in his defeat.

Although the biblical text says that Absalom caught his head in the tree, it is probably a reference to Absalom's hair.
Absalom’s defeat is decreed by the Lord (2 Sam. 17:14)

In conjunction with 1 Samuel 2:30, Hannah’s prayer (1 Sam. 2:1–10) also provides the proper background for understanding Absalom’s revolt and its outcome. 2 Samuel 17:14b: “For the LORD had purposed to defeat the good advice of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring disaster on Absalom,” is a direct reflection of Hannah’s words, “The LORD kills and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and brings up” (1 Sam. 2:6). Absalom’s self-exaltation resulted in the Lord bringing him down. Similarly, David’s low point was the result of his sin, but his final vindication was based on his humble response to the Lord’s discipline which, in turn, resulted in the Lord lifting him up (1 Sam. 2:7). Putting these two passages together from 1 Samuel 2 (vv. 1–10 and v. 30) helps us to understand the themes of divine sovereignty and free will and how these two seemingly contradictory principles work together. It also explains how David walks the road of cursing and blessing in these chapters. God is sovereign. It is he who “brings low and lifts up” but God’s actions are not arbitrary. They are based on the decisions of people who either choose to honor or despise him. (End of excerpt).

Hopefully this brief treatment of the David and Absalom story in 2 Samuel 13-20 provides an example of how sovereignty and free will work together to accomplish God’s purposes. For a further treatment of this subject see the rest of the chapter on Absalom in “Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel.”

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.

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

Peninnah: The Other Woman

Leave a comment

Family-Portraits-CoverThe following article is an excerpt from my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. It is taken from chapter 2 which is a character study on Peninnah, one of the wives of Elkanah, the father of Samuel. I chose this excerpt because the study on Peninnah is the shortest in the book. The article is essentially the same as the book with a few editorial comments added to help the reader who doesn’t have access to the book (the photos are not original to the book but are also added). If you enjoy this excerpt please consider purchasing a copy of Family Portraits. Clicking on the book icon (on the right or in the left margin below) or on the links at the end of the article will connect you to sites where the book can be purchased.

Peninnah: The Other Woman (Samuel’s Stepmother)

And her rival also provoked her severely, to make her miserable (1 Sam. 1:6) 

How Would You Want to Be Remembered?

thoughtfulPeninnah only appears in four verses in 1 Samuel chapter 1. It is hardly enough to gain a true portrait of the woman herself, but is enough to give us a negative impression of her. The writer of 1 and 2 Samuel cannot possibly develop fully the story of every person he mentions, but the question comes to mind, “If you were going to be remembered for only one thing, what would you want that to be?” Unfortunately for Peninnah, our only memory of her is that of a bitter and spiteful person. She is described as Hannah’s “rival” (1 Sam. 1:6). Birch notes that this is “a term seldom used in describing family relationships and often translated as ‘enemy’ or ‘adversary’ in describing relationships between peoples or nations.” (Bruce Birch, The First and Second Books of Samuel, The New Intepreter’s Bible, p. 975) In a book where family rivalries will sometimes turn into deadly national conflicts, perhaps this word intentionally suggests a “preview of coming attractions.” If it had been possible to take a photograph of Peninnah, like any good rival, she would have had a frown on her face and a scowl on her lips.

“Facing” the Facts: Peninnah’s Name (1 Sam. 1:2)

faceThe meaning of Peninnah’s name is obscure. It may be related to the word “ruby” or “pearl.” Fokkelman (Vow and Desire, p. 17) writes it “is a name which suggests a beautiful exterior,” which in the present context would be ironic (that is, beautiful on the outside but jealous and spiteful on the inside). It has also been suggested that her name means “prolific” which would correspond to her role as the childbearing wife in this story (Ralph Kline, 1 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary, p. 6). However, I would suggest the significance of Peninnah’s name lies more in its sound than in its meaning. Several of the names mentioned in chapters 1 and 2 have the letters “peni ” (or, “pheni ”) in them. In addition to Peninnah, these letters are also found in the names Hophni and Phinehas. While this easily goes unnoticed in English, it is more obvious in the original language. The word peni (or, pheni — the same consonant can be pronounced as a hard or soft “p”) in Hebrew means “face,” or “before” (ESV “in the presence of”); and is used frequently throughout the first and second chapters (1 Sam. 1:12, 15, 18, 19, 22; 2:11, 17, 18, 21).

This puts a spotlight on the word “face,” or “before.” It is important to note that this word is always connected with the Lord in this story. Perhaps the story is highlighting the importance of seeking the Lord’s “face” (or “presence”), or perhaps we are being reminded that all we do is done “before” the “face” of the Lord.

Seeking the Lord’s face is certainly important in understanding the change in Hannah’s countenance (1:12, 15, and 18). But the sin of Hophni and Phinehas is also done “before the LORD” (2:17), and so we may be justified in saying that this story is reminding us that all we do, whether good or evil, is done “before the LORD.” We have all experienced that the presence of certain people can be an encouragement to do what is right. This is one of the important aspects of Christian fellowship. If we are constantly aware of God’s presence in our life, setting our minds on heavenly things (Col. 3:2), and having fellowship with him (1 John 1:3), then we will act and think in a Christ-like way. An awareness that we are always “before the face” of the Lord is a great deterrent to sin.

Family Worship or “War”ship? (1 Sam. 1:4–7)

Peninnah hassled Hannah each year they went to the feast at Shiloh
Peninnah hassled Hannah each year they went to the feast at Shiloh

Would Peninnah’s actions have been different if she had been conscious of the fact that all she did was “before the LORD”? The only thing we know about Peninnah, besides the fact that she had several sons and daughters, is that she continually rubbed Hannah’s nose in this fact. Peninnah’s timing makes her actions even more reprehensible. She chooses the time of the yearly pilgrimage to Shiloh to hound Hannah about being barren. What should be a joyous time of celebrating and worshipping the Lord becomes a miserable family fiasco. It is interesting how everything can be alright until it is time to go to church. All of a sudden, husbands and wives have a fight, or the kids start fighting with one another, or mom and dad are yelling at the kids to behave. In the car, on the way to church, an otherwise godly family can become screaming lunatics!

Each year the pilgrimage to Shiloh for Elkanah’s family was the holiday from hell. Our admiration for Elkanah grows (Elkanah faces a number of challenges that I elaborate on in his character study in chapter 1). The easy thing to do would be to cancel the trip and save everyone the pain and misery. But Elkanah, this “God-bought” man (one of the possible meanings of Elkanah’s name, also discussed in chapter 1), knows the importance of worshipping the Lord together as a family.

When one considers the family obstacle, along with going to a sanctuary presided over by a corrupt priesthood, Elkanah’s commitment is quite extraordinary. Satan still uses the same methods of discouragement today.  He whispers, “If it is this much hassle for your family, you are better off not going to church.” Or he says, “Look at the mess your family is in. Who do you think you are, to be going to church!” If he can’t persuade us this way, he will turn our eyes to the leaders or other members of the church and say, “You are better off staying at home, look at those hypocrites. Do you really want to worship with them!” Elkanah’s response needs to be our response as well.

Worshipping God naturally leads to loving others! (This photos is from a worship service at Calvary Chapel York)
Worshipping God naturally leads to loving others! (This photos is from a worship service at Calvary Chapel York)

This painful scene portrays an important truth. 1 Samuel 1:7 states, “So it was, year by year, when she went up to the house of the LORD, that she provoked her.” Peninnah fails to make the connection between worshipping the Lord and her treatment of others. It is while she is on her way to worship that she treats Hannah so spitefully! How is it that we can sit in a worship service and praise the Lord, yet immediately think or speak so cruelly of others made in God’s image? Speaking of the tongue, James writes, “With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so” (James 3:9-10).  Or as John writes,  “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?” (1 John 4:20).

Conclusion: Should We Pity Peninnah?

helenIt is tempting to feel sorry for Peninnah. After all, she is Elkanah’s second choice and she knows it. The reason for her bitterness and spite is because she is not loved with the same measure as Hannah, if at all (1 Sam. 1:5). Elkanah was doubtless guilty of open favoritism, which in a family can be devastating—just ask Isaac, Rebekah, and Jacob, who were guilty of the same thing (Gen. 27 and 37). There are two lessons here. First, Elkanah is ultimately responsible for the pain he and his family experienced. If he had trusted God in the first place, he would never have married Peninnah and thus they all would have been spared the grief caused by this less-than-ideal situation (This is further discussed in Elkanah’s character study in chapter 1). Despite the mistake of bigamy, if he had treated his wives more equitably there would have been less room for jealousy.

Second, Peninnah also bears responsibility for her actions. She was clearly seeking her security in the love of her husband rather than in the Lord she was supposedly worshipping. This is not to ignore her very real pain of being loved less; it is only to say that she still had a responsibility for the way she responded. We will not always be loved by others the way we would like to be. Sometimes the circumstances are of our own making, but sometimes they are not. Circumstances may influence attitudes, but they are not the only determining factor. God has given us an ability to choose. We choose to grow bitter or we choose to grow in grace. Circumstances may help or hinder, but the choice is still ours. Today’s society is quick to absolve people of responsibility. “It is my parents’ fault” or “my spouse’s fault” that I am the way I am. This kind of reasoning is foreign to the Bible. It is right to have empathy for people who are in difficult situations with much pain and suffering, but it is wrong for the person in that situation to allow those circumstances to mold their character in a negative way. God is the Potter and he can take any circumstance and use it for good, but we must yield our lives to his gracious, omnipotent hands.

 Family Portraits is available in various formats at the following sites:

Amazon USA / UK (hardback or softcover)

WestBow Press (hardback, softcover, or ebook)