Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

HOW MANY SONS DID ABSALOM HAVE?: INTENTIONAL AMBIGUITY AS LITERARY ART

July 8, 2015 randymccracken 5 Comments

The following article of mine was recently published in the July-Sept 2015 issue of Bibliotheca Sacra. It is a more academic treatment of my post: “Important or Impotent: How Many Sons Did Absalom Have?” posted last year on this blog. Both articles are based on the research from my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. This article is reprinted with the kind permission of Bibliotheca Sacra and Dallas Theological Seminary (© 2015 by Dallas Theological Seminary). Footnotes can be found following the article.

HOW MANY SONS DID ABSALOM HAVE?: INTENTIONAL AMBIGUITY AS LITERARY ART

Abstract

The apparent contradictory statements about Absalom’s sons, or lack thereof, in 2 Samuel 14:27 and 18:18 have puzzled readers and scholars. This article seeks a new solution by proposing that the author of these texts deliberately created this ambiguity in order to communicate an important message about Absalom. Through the use of apparent contradiction, inclusion, and point of view, the author skillfully linked these two passages. The message communicated is a surprising reversal of Absalom’s image who is pictured before his rebellion as someone important, but by the rebellion’s end is portrayed as impotent.

Anyone reading the account of Absalom’s rebellion found in 2 Samuel 13–20 is struck by the apparent contradiction between 2 Samuel 14:27, which states that Absalom had 3 sons and 1 daughter, and 2 Samuel 18:18, which states that he had no sons.[1] This article seeks a new solution to this problem by proposing that the author[2] of these texts deliberately created this ambiguity in order to communicate an important message about Absalom. The message conveyed is a surprising reversal of Absalom’s portrayal. He is pictured before his rebellion as someone important, but by the rebellion’s end is portrayed as impotent. The conflict in these two passages is really not about how many sons Absalom had (although it is this apparent contradiction that invites the reader to compare the texts), but the contrast between the image that Absalom projected and the reality of who he was.

THE INADEQUACY OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

In recent history, two solutions for the apparent contradiction of 2 Samuel 14:27 and 18:18 have been proposed. Furthermore, scholars who propose one or the other of these solutions sometimes take different paths in arriving at their conclusions. The first solution, proposed by some literary critics, is that the two passages are from different sources (i.e., different authorial hands) and are therefore contradictory. For example, speaking of 2 Samuel 18:18, McCarter writes, “This parenthesis is evidently a late redactional notice introduced to identify a monument well known in the time of the redactor who added it.”[3] Thus, McCarter follows the reasoning of some before him who see 2 Samuel 18:18 as an etiology about Absalom’s monument.[4] According to this explanation, it would appear the redactor was more concerned with explaining the continued existence of Absalom’s monument in his own day, than he was with contradicting the earlier passage in 2 Samuel 14:27. Such a proposal, although theoretically possible, makes this supposed redactor very clumsy and myopic indeed.

Not all scholars sharing this viewpoint, however, agree that 14:27 has priority. Smith, for example, speaking of 18:18 states, “Of the two, this seems more likely to be original, as it is quite in place to explain why Absalom had a monument in the king’s dale” (italics his).[5] Mauchline seems to be of the same opinion when he states, “There is no doubt that this section 25–27 has no relevance where it stands and interrupts the course of the narrative. This and the fact that 27 in its statement concerning Absalom’s family is in contradiction to 18.18 has convinced many scholars that these verses belong to a source other than that to which the bulk of chs. 9–20 belong.”[6] This highlights an important problem with this hypothetical solution. Because the passages appear to contradict one another, these scholars assume that two different authorial hands must be at work.

However, the fact that it is impossible to be sure that the texts were added by two different hands (evidenced by the confusion over which text has priority) leaves open the possibility that both passages come from the same hand. If there is a plausible explanation for considering both passages to be from the same authorial hand, then such an explanation should be considered superior to the “two hands” theory. A second problem with this solution is that it may prevent the interpreter from seeking an alternate explanation and wrestling with the two apparently contradictory texts. They can be chalked up to a redactor (or even two redactors) with conflicting data or a conflicting viewpoint. A third problem is that it proposes an irreconcilable contradiction in Scripture. Robert Alter states, “The two reports can be harmonized only with considerable strain, and it is best to view them as contradictory traditions incorporated in the final text.”[7] This is a surprising concession from Alter who helped pioneer the contemporary literary approach to the Bible with its emphasis on viewing the text as a whole and discovering the art of the biblical authors.[8]

The second proposed solution is that Absalom’s sons must have died in childhood. This solution is suggested by many recent commentators including Auld, Bergen, Chisholm, and Firth, to name only a few.[9] Some merely deduce this from the silence of the text and offer no corroborating evidence. Bergen, however, suggests that Absalom’s childless state is a result of a curse that is placed upon children of the disobedient (Deut. 28:18). Leithart, on the other hand, proposes that Absalom’s loss of sons “shows a similarity to David, who also lost a series of sons.”[10] The suggestions of Bergen and Leithart at least take a more productive approach founded on factors in the wider context; nevertheless, an argument based on silence is at the very least precarious, and oftentimes mistakenly leads one in the wrong direction. The fact is that some are uncomfortable with ambiguity, and especially with texts that seem to contradict one another. The temptation is to find a quick answer to the problem and move on. However, it is possible that an apparent contradiction is an invitation to examine the text in greater detail. Could it be that by attempting to solve an ambiguity in the text too quickly or superficially, readers fail to see its intended function and, thereby, miss the intended meaning?[11] What follows will attempt to demonstrate that 2 Samuel 14:27 and 18:18 are deliberately ambiguous in order to communicate a particular message. However, before looking at these texts, it is necessary to take a brief look at the meaning and function of ambiguity and whether it can be discerned as a device used in the books of Samuel.

AMBIGUITY AS AN INTENTIONAL LITERARY DEVICE

Recently Firth has examined the concept of biblical ambiguity.[12] He utilizes a definition of ambiguity as “any verbal nuance, however slight, which gives room for alternative reactions to the same piece of language.”[13] Firth also notes three different types of ambiguity. First, ambiguities may be the result of an author’s intention. Second, ambiguities may occur in a text unintentionally (e.g., does Saul or Samuel tear Samuel’s robe in 1 Sam. 15:27?). Third, ambiguities occur due to a reader’s misunderstanding or lack of knowledge.[14] Firth’s focus, and the focus of this article are on the first type of ambiguity––that which is intentionally created by the author.

Next, it is important to recognize the different types of ambiguity that an author may intentionally utilize. Firth proposes five different types. These include: 1) Details effective in multiple ways; 2) Multiple possibilities with a single resolution; 3) Simultaneous use of unconnected meanings; 4) Alternative meanings combine to clarify author’s intention; and 5) Apparent contradictions.[15] The fifth type of ambiguity “apparent contradictions” preoccupies the present discussion of 2 Samuel 14:27 and 18:18. Firth lays down what may be called “the ground rules” for this type of ambiguity.

The final type of ambiguity occurs when an author deliberately places together statements or concepts that appear to contradict one another so as to invite readers to see the ways in which they mutually interpret one another and cohere so as to create a single meaning. It is important to note that the contradictions employed in this type of ambiguity are apparent, not actual. . . . Where this type of ambiguity occurs, it is common for the apparent contradictions to be placed close to one another in order to highlight the paradox seemingly created by the contradiction, though it is not necessarily the case that this will happen.[16]

It is evident that 2 Samuel 14:27 and 18:18 fall into the latter category of verses that are not deliberately placed together. However, because they share the theme of sons born or not born to Absalom, the apparent contradiction ties them together. They also share other connections.

Before proceeding with an examination of 2 Samuel 14:27 and 18:18 as an example of ambiguity through apparent contradiction, it is fair to ask if an authorial use of ambiguity can be found elsewhere in the books of Samuel. Firth maintains that one can not only find ambiguity in verbs (see the definition above), but that “it is also possible to create ambiguity through narrative techniques.”[17] As a test case for this idea, Firth turns to the books of Samuel admitting, “Such a studied use of ambiguity has not normally been attributed to [them].”[18] Examining three narratives involving Saul (1 Sam. 18:6–9; 20:24–34; 22–11-17), Firth demonstrates how category 1 (details effective in multiple ways) explains Saul’s actions, noting that “He is consistently portrayed as misunderstanding potentially ambiguous statements.” Furthermore Firth maintains that, “…through the ways in which Saul misunderstands, readers are brought to understand more clearly where his faults lie….”[19] Other examples supplement Firth’s finding and illustrate how common the literary technique of ambiguity is in 1 and 2 Samuel. Here are two examples, focusing on the use of apparent contradictions (category 5).

Yahweh’s command for Saul to “utterly destroy” the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15, followed by the appearance of Amalekites in the chapters surrounding Saul’s death (1 Sam. 28–2 Sam. 1), provides evidence of the author’s use of ambiguity. Following Yahweh’s command for Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:1-3), readers are informed that Saul utterly destroyed “all of the people with the edge of the sword” but “spared Agag” the king (vv. 8–9). Subsequently, Agag is put to death by Samuel (15:33), which seemingly puts an end to all of the Amalekites. However, in the chapters surrounding the death of Saul, readers are reminded that Saul was disobedient by not wiping out the Amalekites (1 Sam. 28:18), and Amalekites appear frequently (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:1-18; 2 Sam. 1:8, 13). The reappearance of Amalekites, long after it is assumed they have been “utterly destroyed,” often puzzles readers and appears contradictory. In fact, it is a masterful way of surprising readers and driving home the message that Saul was far more disobedient than it seemed at first.

Another excellent example of the use of ambiguity through apparent contradiction can be found in the accounts of Mephibosheth and his servant Ziba in 2 Samuel. In this case, the contradiction is placed in the mouths of the characters. Both men are introduced in 2 Samuel 9 where David is said to give Mephibosheth all the land that belonged to Saul (vv. 7, 9), while Ziba is commissioned to be his servant (vv. 9–11). Later, David is met by Ziba when the king is fleeing from his son Absalom. When David inquires about Mephibosheth’s whereabouts, Ziba tells him that he stayed behind to claim the kingdom (2 Sam. 16:1-4). This revelation comes as a shock to the reader who, at this point, has no reason to doubt Ziba’s assertion. After Absalom’s defeat, and upon David’s return to Jerusalem, Mephibosheth appears before the king. His appearance, and his words, contradict the words of Ziba whom he accuses of slander (2 Sam. 19:25–28). David’s decision of dividing Saul’s inheritance between Mephibosheth and Ziba (v. 29) emphasizes the ambiguity in the situation. On the surface, it can be hard to determine who the “good guy” is, or if either man can be classified as such. Indeed, scholars have come to different conclusions on this matter. If the ambiguity causes the reader to go back over the story and search the text more carefully, then the author’s technique has been successful. As Firth states, “…carefully constructed texts are able to draw readers in through various forms of ambiguity and in so doing enable them to engage more fully with the text.”[20] Among the insights that can be gained from a more careful investigation of the story of Mephibosheth and Ziba is the nature of servanthood. The recurring theme of servanthood, and the actions of Mephibosheth and Ziba, prompt the question, “What makes someone a real servant?” [21]

Other illustrations of ambiguity could be cited from 1 and 2 Samuel,[22] but the above examples may be sufficient to establish that the books of Samuel use this technique. Now a close examination of 2 Samuel 14:27 and 18:18 can demonstrate that the supposed contradiction between these two verses is only apparent, while also proposing a reason for the author’s use of ambiguity in the narrative of Absalom’s rebellion.

LITERARY CONNECTIONS BETWEEN 14:27 AND 18:18 AND THEIR STRATEGIC PLACEMENT

As noted above, 2 Samuel 14:27 and 18:18 immediately come together in the mind of the reader through the apparent contradictory information they offer. When one reads 2 Samuel 18:18 a “wait a minute” pause occurs as mental dissonance prompts the question, “But didn’t I read a few chapters earlier that Absalom had 3 sons?” Upon turning back and rereading 2 Samuel 14:27, dissonance turns to perplexity. At this point the interested reader (not to mention the sincere believer) is forced to grapple with these texts at a deeper level. While the apparent contradiction between these two verses might initially suggest a connection between them, further investigation reveals two other important links. First, the placement of these two verses is conspicuous. 2 Samuel 14:27 occurs immediately before the story of Absalom’s introduction to David’s court (2 Sam. 14:28–33), which preludes Absalom’s rebellion.[23] Correspondingly, 2 Samuel 18:18 occurs at the end of the story of Absalom’s rebellion, immediately following the notice of his burial in verse 17. Therefore, these verses form an inclusio around Absalom’s rebellion. Recognition of the position these verses occupy in the narrative also suggests there is more to their significance than simply an apparent contradiction. It is the ambiguity, however, that draws attention to the significant placement of these two verses in the story of Absalom’s rebellion.

A second link between these verses concerns their function and viewpoint, in that both verses interrupt the flow of the narrative by using a flashback technique. In 14:27 this interruption in narrative flow is an effective way of creating suspense. After David’s harsh words that Absalom is not allowed to see his face, the reader wonders, “Will Absalom ever be allowed back into the court of David?” Then comes 14:25-27, interrupting the narrative with a description of Absalom’s physical beauty and his procreative ability. These verses serve the dual function of: 1) causing the reader to wait and wonder what David will do, just as Absalom had to wait and wonder;[24] and 2) introducing themes (vanity, sons) that will reappear in 18:18. In one sense, 14:25-27 and 18:18 could be omitted from the story and the reader would never miss them. They are an intrusion and this is why many scholars have viewed them as redactionary comments inserted into the story. On the other hand, their omission would dilute the powerful message of which they are an integral part. Rather than intrusions by a clumsy redactor, they are deliberate insertions by the author. They function together as part of the literary artistry of the narrative and contain an important message that the author wants the reader to understand about Absalom, as more detailed examination of both passages demonstrates.

ABSALOM: IMPORTANT OR IMPOTENT? (2 SAM. 14:25-27; 18:18)

“Among all the various descriptions of beauty mentioned in the books of Samuel, none excels the description of Absalom who is beautiful ‘from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.’ Indeed, there is ‘no blemish in him'”[25] (2 Sam. 14:25). Verse 26 continues with a description of Absalom’s luxuriant head of hair. Physical descriptions are rare in biblical narrative. What should be made of Absalom’s beauty and the author’s focus on Absalom’s hair? Niditch has written about the significance of hair in ancient Israel. Her comments regarding Absalom are insightful: “It seems clear that Absalom is portrayed as trying to project a certain image with his hair. The long-haired man is special. It is no coincidence that this description is followed by the mention of offspring . . . the long hair is clearly associated with fertility and manly fecundity. . . . He looks as if he is meant to lead and as if God’s blessing is on his head. He will be an excellent warrior. . . . He is adept at projecting an image of power, an image to which the hair contributes.”[26] Similarly, Brueggemann states, “He is handsome, and his hair bespeaks his power and virility.”[27] Thus, Absalom’s beautiful appearance, luxuriant hair, and ability to father children (especially sons), indicate his eligibility for kingship. As noted above, it is not accidental that this description of Absalom is placed immediately before his reacceptance to the court of David which facilitates the rebellion.

The description of Absalom’s beauty and power can work at several different levels. On the one hand, it might suggest that Absalom is the natural successor to David. Upon reading further, these verses could be read as an ominous warning that Absalom will usurp his father’s throne (2 Sam. 15:10–14). This concern is eventually alleviated by the statement in 2 Samuel 17:14b: “For the Lord had ordained to thwart the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the Lord might bring calamity on Absalom,” and by the report of Absalom’s death in 2 Samuel 18:9–17. On the other hand, a discerning reader might also be mindful of the recurring theme that “looks can be deceiving,” which is reiterated throughout 1 and 2 Samuel (e.g., Eli, Saul, Eliab, etc.). In this case, the reader might anticipate Absalom’s demise, or be concerned that the kingdom is falling into the hands of an unsuitable candidate. Whatever the reader’s reaction might be, the statement that Absalom fathered three sons projects an image of power and future kingship, which is an important key to understanding the author’s purpose. Just as David had fathered many sons, demonstrating his ability to establish a dynasty (2 Sam. 3:2–5; 5:13–16), so Absalom also possessed the same trait.

Once the author’s purpose is discerned regarding the insertion of 2 Samuel 14:25–27, the purpose for the insertion at 18:18 becomes clearer. Absalom’s death and burial related in 2 Samuel 18:9–17 reveals that he is not the strong virile man he appeared to be in 2 Samuel 14:27. 2 Samuel 18:18 drives this point home in several ways. First, the contrast between the heap of stones that make up Absalom’s hasty, dishonorable burial (v. 17),[28] stand in contrast to the monument he had earlier created for himself (v. 18). Although Absalom had created the monument so that his name would be remembered honorably, the heap of stones in the forest testified to his dishonorable memory by the nation. This contrast is further emphasized by the use of the words “took” and “erect/set” which are used in verse 17 to describe Absalom’s burial, and again in verse 18 to describe his monument.[29] Bar-Efrat captures the significance of this when he states, “The item of information concerning the erection of the monument is inserted here and not in its chronological place in order to create a sharp contrast between the imposing monument in the Valley of the King and the ignoble pit in the forest, signifying the contrast between Absalom’s aspirations, pride and self-love, on the one hand, and the calamitous results to which these aspirations gave rise, on the other. The antithesis is given additional emphasis by the repetition of the same (Hebrew) roots.”[30]

The irony that Absalom set up his monument in the “King’s Valley” also should not be overlooked. By this comment the author shows the reader that the monument set up long ago hinted at Absalom’s kingly aspirations. Now (in the author’s day) it had become a hollow memory. The books of Samuel only record one other individual erecting a monument to himself. In commemoration of his victory over the Amalekites, the act that would cost him his kingship due to disobedience, Saul had also erected a monument (1 Sam. 15:12). Thus, twice in the books of Samuel monument building (for one’s self) is connected with the loss of kingship. It turns out that Absalom shares a number of similarities with Saul besides monument building. Saul and Absalom were both “kingly” in their appearance (1 Sam. 9:2; 10:24), and both pursued David and tried to destroy him. Saul clung to a throne that had been given to David, while Absalom tried to take a throne that belonged to David. In the end, the Lord disposed of them both, while David lived on.

Against this background the comment that Absalom had no son is very poignant. It is one more way that the author demonstrates Absalom’s failure. The man who looked so important in 2 Samuel 14:25-27, turns out to be impotent. Absalom’s celebrated virility turns to sterility in 18:17–18 as one stares at the heap of stones in the forest which have become his grave and hears him confess, “I have no son”! Far from a clumsy contradiction inserted by a later editor, the statements about Absalom’s sons, or lack thereof, become a powerful statement about one who appears to be something that he is not. The literary art of the author has unmasked Absalom’s true insignificance.

SOLUTION FOR A REMAINING PROBLEM

Although the explanation above lauds the literary art of the author, there is still a problem. Did Absalom have sons or didn’t he? Even with allowances for literary art, it still seems as though there is a contradiction. Either the statement in 2 Samuel 14:27 must be true, or the statement in 18:18 must be true, but not both. Actually, this is where scholarly conclusions have gone astray, and where our previous discussion on apparent contradictions that create ambiguity becomes important. In fact, both statements are true, and a careful examination of both passages reveals that the contradiction is more apparent than real.

It is important to notice who is speaking in each passage. In 2 Samuel 14:27 it is the biblical narrator who says that Absalom had three sons. This information should be taken as factual and reliable. As Meir Sternberg has stated, “The Bible always tells the truth in that its narrator is absolutely and straightforwardly reliable.”[31] If this assertion is accepted, then there can be no doubt that Absalom did indeed have three sons. In 2 Samuel 18:18, the declaration “I have no son” is the narrator’s quote of a statement made by Absalom. Normally, if a character’s statement contradicts an assertion by the biblical narrator, then the character is either lying, deceived, or misinformed. But none of these can be the case with Absalom. Certainly Absalom would know whether he had any sons or not, so his statement should not be doubted. But could Absalom have been lying when he made this statement? The answer must be “No.” The monument that Absalom constructed was in a public place, and therefore, he gave a public explanation for its erection: “I have no son.” If Absalom said he had no sons, when in fact he had three sons, this would have been evident to others who knew him and, therefore, this statement would have exposed Absalom as a liar and a fraud.

The solution to the dilemma is not who is speaking, but the timeframe in which these assertions occur. As noted, both passages are flashbacks. They do not take place at the time that other events in the narrative are happening. Both 2 Samuel 14:27 and 18:18 interrupt the flow of the narrative and take the reader back to a previous point of time in Absalom’s life. There is little doubt that Absalom’s three sons must have been born to him before the revolt. The revolt does not seem to have lasted very long, and in any case, it is unlikely that he could have given birth to three sons and a daughter during that time. Therefore Absalom’s children appear to have been born at some unspecified time in the past prior to his rebellion.

So far, so good. Few, if any, would disagree with the explanation up to this point. The critical difference in interpretation is considering the time factor of Absalom’s statement in 18:18. Because the statement in 18:18 appears after the assertion in 14:27, many commentators assume that Absalom made the statement “I have no son” after his three sons were born, and therefore conclude that his sons must have died, or that there must be a contradiction. But such an assumption fails to take into account what is known about ancient historical writing, not to mention biblical narrative. Why must it be assumed that these statements stand in chronological order?[32] In fact, the biblical author is very vague regarding the time of Absalom’s statement about having no son. The text simply states, “Now Absalom in his lifetime.” This could well mean that Absalom made this statement before he had any sons, especially since lifting an event from its chronological context is a common technique in the books of Samuel (e.g., 2 Sam. 4:4; 21:1–14). The author has simply pulled a statement from Absalom’s past that precedes the assertion of 14:27. The positioning of this statement here reveals that having no son was just a convenient reason for Absalom to erect a monument to himself in the King’s Valley. After all, he could not state the real reason (arrogance, self-indulgence, “I want to overthrow my father,” etc.). Therefore, the apparent contradiction (made possible by dischronologizing the statement) reveals Absalom’s hypocrisy in building a monument for himself and exposes him as the megalomaniac that he was.

SUMMARY

Readers have long noted the apparent contradiction between 2 Samuel 14:27 and 18:18. The discussion above has sought to demonstrate that the two usual solutions suggested to resolve this contradiction, (clumsy editor, Absalom’s sons must have died) are both inadequate explanations. Recognizing the art of intentional authorial ambiguity provides the best explanation for the apparent contradiction. The books of Samuel provide ample evidence of this technique. In attempting to solve this ambiguity, scholars have asked the wrong question. The question is not, “How many sons did Absalom have?,” but “At what point in time were these two assertions made?” Once modern presuppositions concerning chronological order are dispensed with, the solution becomes obvious. The writer’s imprecise language in 18:18 provides a further hint via the vague expression “in his lifetime.” The purpose of the ambiguity is to contrast what appears to be a strong, virile Absalom before the rebellion (14:27) with a true picture of the man evidenced by his weakness and impotency. Absalom’s monument is shown for what it really was: a testament to his vanity and pride. Through this contrast, the author highlights one of the key messages of the books of Samuel contained in the statement: “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7).

[1] The following article is a more in-depth treatment of a conclusion reached in my recent book, Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel, (Bloomington: WestBow, 2013), 364–365, 379–380.

[2] I am interested in looking at the final form of the text. Therefore by author I mean the person or people responsible for putting 1&2 Samuel in its final form, which most likely took place during the exile. Among recent commentators who take a similar view see, Robert B. Chisholm Jr., 1&2 Samuel, Teach the Text Commentary Series, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 6.

[3] P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, The Anchor Bible, vol. 9, (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1984), 407.

[4] For example, Peter R. Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel, The Cambridge Bible Commentary, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 169, and Charles Conroy, Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13–20, Analecta Biblica 81, (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978), 65.

[5] H. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, International Critical Commentary, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1899), 359.

[6] John Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel, New Century Bible, (London: Oliphants, 1971), 268.

[7] Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), 281.

[8] J. P. Fokkelman, King David: Narrative art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. I, (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981), 150, n. 35, makes the same admission.

[9] A. Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel, The Old Testament Library, (Louisville: John Knox, 2011), 544; Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 394; Chisholm, 1&2 Samuel, 321; David G. Firth, 1&2 Samuel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 447.

[10] Peter J. Leithart, A Son to Me: An Exposition of 1&2 Samuel, (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2003), 280, n. 27.

[11] I am aware that some (e.g., post-structuralists) would argue that we cannot discern an author’s meaning of a given text. However, Grant R. Osborne, “Literary Theory and Biblical Interpretation,” in, Words and the Word: Explorations in Biblical Interpretation and Literary Theory, eds. David G. Firth and Jamie A. Grant, (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 17–50, has effectively challenged this position. See also David G. Firth, “Ambiguity,” in, Words and the Word: Explorations in Biblical Interpretation and Literary Theory, 156, who states, “Provided one works only by criteria established by the text itself, then there is no problem with seeking the author’s intention, if it is recognized that it is only the intention as this can be reconstructed on the basis of the evidence of the text itself.”

[12] Firth, ibid. 151-186. Firth bases his insights on the work of William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity, 3rd ed. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960). Empson’s work examines ambiguity as it is found in literature in general. Firth refines some of Empson’s categories and applies the insights to the biblical text. This article focuses on Firth’s contribution, while acknowledging the prior work of Empson.

[13] Ibid., 157.

[14] Ibid., 155.

[15] Ibid., 159.

[16] Ibid., 169.

[17] Ibid., 172.

[18] Ibid., 173.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid., 172.

[21] For my assessment of Mephibosheth and Ziba see Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel, 165–182.

[22] For example, the contradictory accounts of Saul’s death as told by the biblical narrator in 1 Samuel 31 and the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1.

[23] Similarly, R. N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative, (London: SCM Press, 1968), 27, notes the link between 14:25-27 and 15:1–6 (especially v. 6).

[24] Conroy, Absalom Absalom!, 110, states, “the presence of the non-temporal material of vv. 25–27 between v. 24 and v. 28 serves to fill out this interval of time, to suggest its length, and so to make Absalom’s subsequent actions (vv. 28–32) more understandable.”

[25] McCracken, Family Portraits, 363. The comments which follow are adapted from my book.

[26] Susan Niditch, ‘My Brother Esau is a Hairy Man’: Hair and Identity in Ancient Israel, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 79-80.

[27] Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation Bible Commentary, (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 296.

[28] The dishonorable nature of Absalom’s death and burial is seen in the way it parallels the death and burial of the Canaanite kings that Joshua conquered . Like Absalom, the kings were hanged on a tree, thrown into a grave and covered with “a great heap of stones” (Josh. 8:29; 10:26–27).

[29] This repetition is obscured by the NASB which uses the word “erected” in v. 17 and “set” in v. 18.

[30] Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 178–179.

[31] Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 51.

[32] John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 222, states, “Important elements to the ancient understanding of time and history were recurrence and endurance. This perspective is not without linear aspects, but the linear element is not the default mode.”

Book Reviews

Reconciling Violence and Kingship

June 30, 2015 randymccracken 3 Comments

Reconciling Violence and Kingship

Reconciling Violence and Kingship is a study of the beginnings of the Israelite monarchy based on an examination of Judges 9, 17-21, and 1 Samuel 9-11. In this book author, Marty Alan Michelson, proposes that a new understanding of the establishment of Israel’s monarchy is possible when the above texts are viewed through the lens of Renee Girard’s philosophical theory of institutionalized violence. This theory involves the “textual interplay of desire, mimesis, rivalry, and scapegoating” (p. 2–more on this below). Along with Girard, Mickelson contends that institutionalized violence leads to social stability (p. 8). To put it in Mickelson’s words, “In this study we will demonstrate that in the storied movement toward monarchy, the chaotic violence becomes controlled violence that prevents its further escalation. Through the monarch, violence is transformed into an event that, while violent, reconciles conflict that might otherwise lead to chaos, dissolution, or anarchy” (p. 2).

For those of us not familiar with Girard’s theory, Michelson offers a summary. Michelson does not dwell on a definition of desire perhaps because it seems self-explanatory. We have all experienced that inner want that drives us in seeking to obtain an object, goal, status, or even another person. Desire, however, can result in conflict when people seek the same object, goal, or agenda. Girard further argues that people imitate one another in their desires and actions (this is referred to as mimesis). “This imitative rivalry, compounded by a sense of lost self to the other’s goals, creates an irresolvable conflict. One or the other rival must be removed. Girard hypothesizes…that it is at the point of irresolvable conflict that an alternative emerges” (p. 9). This alternative involves redirecting the violence toward a separate victim, the scapegoat. In other words, better that one dies for all, than for all to die.

Saul cuts up his oxen to summon Israel. This account vividly recalls Judges 19.

What does all of this have to do with the chapters in Judges and 1 Samuel that Michelson focuses on? Michelson is more than a philosopher, he is a biblical scholar, and a major portion of his book is focused on looking at each passage in its context. He notes that each of the texts, are not only connected by containing the theme of kingship, they also speak of desire, and rivalry that leads to uncontrolled violence. For example, Abimelech kills his brothers and destroys several cities (Judg. 9). Members of the tribe of Dan threaten Micah, steal his priest and destroy the town of Laish (Judg. 17-18). A Levite’s concubine is violently raped which leads to her dismemberment and all out war between Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, nearly wiping out the entire tribe (Judg. 19-21). The uncontrolled violence witnessed in the Book of Judges finally finds its solution in Saul’s action in 1 Samuel 11 when Saul cuts up his oxen into 12 pieces, mimicking the action of the Levite with his concubine in Judges 19. This act rallies all Israel to his side bringing unity and resulting in Saul’s coronation as king.

Why All the Fuss About Girard?

When I began reading Reconciling Violence and Kingship I must admit that I was concerned about a method which seemed to approach the Bible (or at least these texts) through a certain pair of colored glasses. Michelson addresses this concern. He states, “…it is not our intent here, after having read the narratives, to lay over them a sort of ‘Girardian Grid’ that says, ‘This text is Girardian because we can connect these dots’…these stories share coherence and literary tradition regardless whether Girard helps us read them” (p. 155). Michelson believes that reading these passages with a “Girardian hermeneutic” “helps us read the cultural issues of kingship emerging in Israel’s history” (p. 155). However, he also emphasizes that this approach does not prove how kingship emerged.

Overview of Reconciling Violence and Kingship

The contents of Reconciling Violence and Kingship are as follows:

Chapter 1 Thesis and Scope of the Study–Michelson lays out his purpose and methodology, outlines the basics of Girard’s theory, and presents an overview of each forthcoming chapter.

Chapter 2 Composition and Kingship in the Deuteronomistic History–Michelson presents a brief history of source critical study on Deuteronomy – Kings with attention to the treatment of the claims that these books include both pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical sources. Michelson’s rationale for this chapter is “…to set the groundwork for viewing the strengths of a literary and anthropologically informed Girardian reading of these texts.

The meat of Michelson’s book is contained in chapters 3-5 where he examines each text of his study using the new literary approach popularized by such scholars as Robert Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative).

Chapter 3 Abimelech: Judges 8:29-9:56

Chapter 4 Micah, the Levite, and the Concubine: Judges 17-21

Chapter 5 Saul and Kingship: 1 Samuel 9-11

Chapter 6 Assessing a Girardian Hermeneutic within this Study–In this chapter, after a further explanation of Girardian theory, Michelson reviews each text through that lens. In his own words he states, “I will demonstrate that Girard helps us look at and understand the formation of kingship in Israel’s history, without necessarily telling us that this is definitively ‘the way’ that kingship emerged in Israel’s history” (p. 13).

Chapter 7 Summary and Conclusions

Strengths and Weaknesses of Reconciling Violence and Kingship

Marty Alan Michelson, author of Reconciling Violence and Kingship

In my opinion the true strength of Michelson’s book is found in his close reading of the biblical texts he has chosen. As noted above, this discussion occurs in chapters 3-5. The insight that impacted me the most was the positive spin that Michelson puts on the beginning of Saul’s story in 1 Samuel 9-11. Although I was familiar with a number of the parallels between Judges 19-21 and 1 Samuel 11 (e.g., both texts speak of Gibeah, the Benjamites, and the town of Jabesh Gilead, and in both texts a former living entity is carved into 12 pieces). I had always looked at the similarity in these chapters as ominous signs of what was to come in Saul’s kingship. Michelson, however, effectively demonstrates that these common motifs are there to emphasize the positive difference that Saul makes. The horrific dissection of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19 only leads to further bloodshed in Israel. Conversely Saul’s dissection of his oxen rallies all of Israel who “come out as one man” (1 Sam. 11:7)–another expression shared by these stories (cf. Judg. 20:1)– resulting in victory.

Michelson, like Girard, also makes much of the idea of “sacral kingship.” This expression carries both priestly and sacrificial connotations. I was impressed by Michelson’s careful reading of 1 Samuel 9 and 10 and all of the priestly allusions that can be found in Saul’s initial encounter with Samuel. The Bible certainly reflects a close connection between priesthood and kingship beginning with Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20), David and Solomon’s offering of sacrifices (2 Sam. 6:17; 1 Kgs. 8:64), and finally Jesus Himself who is both High Priest and King (Heb. 7). Along these lines, allow me to chase a brief rabbit trail that has nothing to do with the book under review. I believe it is incorrect to interpret Saul’s offering of sacrifice in 1 Samuel 13:9 as the sin for which he is rebuked. It’s not Saul’s offering of the sacrifice per say, but his disobedience to God’s word by not waiting for Samuel to come and offer the sacrifice (1 Sam. 10:8; 13:13).

As regards Michelson’s use of Girard’s theory, the big story of the Bible certainly substantiates this viewpoint. As humans we run after various desires, which lead to conflict. That conflict often escalates into a violence that threatens to consume us. But God has provided a scapegoat, Jesus, the King. And through His sacrifice it is possible to find at-one-ment and peace. Whether the same theory can be applied to Saul’s kingship or not, I’m not sure. I wasn’t completely convinced by Michelson’s argument. I do find it ironic, however, that though Saul brought a measure of peace and unity through the scapegoat process, his later reign reflects once again the violence and chaos of the Judges period as he slaughters the priests of Nob (1 Sam. 22) and relentlessly pursues David.

Most of what I would term “weaknesses” relate to matters of interpretation. This is probably a poor term to use, since my interpretation is also far from infallible. But having noted my reservation of that term, I will point to two examples where I differ with Michelson. In the introduction, Michelson justifies narrowing his study to 1 Samuel 9-11 for the following reason: “…chapters 9-11 exclusively and uniquely treat the introduction and acclamation and inauguration of Saul as king principally apart from the activity of Samuel” (p. 6). I believe this point not only gives too little credit to the part Samuel plays in the overall account, but also, and most importantly, leaves out the important part that God plays in the inauguration of kingship in Israel. Since Michelson is looking at the narrative to ascertain the history behind the story and the philosophical and anthropological elements involved in kingship, perhaps his lack of focus on God in this story is understandable. But it is hard to understand his downplaying of the important part that Samuel plays in the story. After all, it is Samuel who announces to him “And on whom is all the desire of Israel? Is it not on you and on all your father’s house?” (1 Sam. 9:20). It is also Samuel who invites him to the feast (1 Sam. 9:22-24), the kind of feast noted elsewhere when kings were anointed (1 Sam. 16; 1 Kgs. 1). It is Samuel who anoints Saul, and Samuel who gives him 3 signs of confirmation (1 Sam. 10:1-10). Furthermore, it is Samuel who instigates the public casting of lots in choosing Saul (1 Sam. 10:17ff.) and Samuel who calls the people together at Gilgal to publicly acclaim Saul as king (1 Sam. 11:14-15). To be fair to Michelson, his point is that Saul is only acclaimed king in 1 Samuel 11:15 and that prior to that, the narrator uses the term nagid (“prince” is one translation of this significant term). However, it seems difficult to overlook the important part that Samuel plays in 1 Samuel 9-11.

Secondly, I was surprised by Michelson’s understanding of Judges 18:30. This is the concluding comments of the story concerning Micah, the Levite, and the tribe of Dan. The tribe of Dan steals Micah’s idols and his Levite (who has been acting as a priest for Micah’s household). The Danites destroy the inhabitants of Laish (which becomes the city of Dan), and set up their own idolatrous worship. At this point, Michelson states, “…we are introduced to a new priest, Jonathan, son of Gershom of the tribe of Manasseh” (p. 80). My understanding, and that of other commentators (e.g., Daniel Block and Barry Webb in their Judges commentaries), is that Jonathan is none other than the Levite of the story. His name has been withheld to this point because the writer desires to shock the reader with who this unnamed Levite actually is. According to the text Jonathan is the son of Gershom, the son of (not from the tribe of as Michelson translates) Manasseh. But scholars are aware that the name “Manasseh” has been tampered with and should probably read “Moses.” In Hebrew, an extra “n” has been partially inserted into the name. The scandal of the story is that this unnamed Levite who participated over an idolatrous shrine in the house of Micah and who became priest for the Danites, was none other than a descendant of Moses! To interpret the mention of Jonathan in Judges 18:30 as a “new priest” who is being introduced, is not only very anticlimactic, it fails to account for why at this late stage the narrator would introduce a new character. Especially a character with a name, when throughout the narrative most characters (except for Micah) are nameless.

One can judge for oneself whether the above examples are true weaknesses or not, but one definite weakness in Reconciling Violence and Kingship is the editing. It is unfortunate that this wonderful book is so riddled with grammatical and spelling errors. The errors also extend to wrong Scripture notations (e.g., 1 Samuel 7 on p. 127 should read 1 Samuel 8) and the mixing up of names (twice on p. 79 the name Micah is used when it is the Levite who is being referred to, and on p. 103, “all the men of Jabesh-Gilead,” should read “all the men of Gibeah.”). One has the impression that this book was quickly rushed to press rather than given the editorial attention it deserved.

Conclusion

If you’ve stayed with me this far, you probably recognize that this book is most suited for the scholar and the serious student. It engages with philosophical concepts and is conversant with what is going on within the realm of scholarly studies on the Deuteronomistic History. However, a serious layperson could certainly benefit from the insights found in chapters 3-5. On a final note, I’d like to mention that Marty Alan Michelson has become a cyber-buddy of mine. I deeply appreciate his enthusiasm for the study of Scripture and his warm personal demeanor in all of our correspondence. Marty please feel free to comment on this review. If I have misunderstood or not represented some of your views properly, I would welcome the opportunity to hear from you and set the record straight. Meanwhile for those of you who would be interested in some of Marty’s teachings on the Books of Samuel please click on the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN47b_SfQZE

Reconciling Violence and Kingship is available at Amazon USA / UK

You can also check out some of Marty’s other materials here at Amazon.com

Archaeology, Biblical Artifacts

The Ishbaal Inscription At Khirbet Qeiyafa

June 10, 2015 randymccracken 2 Comments

The Ishbaal Inscription At Khirbet Qeiyafa

Ishbaal inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa. Photo by Tal Rogovski, borrowed from http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2015/06/second-inscription-from-qeiyafa.html

After Saul was killed in battle against the Philistines (1 Sam. 31), his army captain Abner took Saul’s son, Ish-bosheth (Ishbaal) and made him king (2 Sam. 2:8-10). As I discuss in my book Family Portraits, Ish-bosheth is also known by the names Ishbaal and Eshbaal in the Bible (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39). It has recently been announced that in the summer excavations of 2012 at Khirbet Qeiyafa (see my article on Khirbet Qeiyafa), a large stone storage jar (pithos) was discovered with the name Ishbaal / Eshbaal inscribed on it.

One of the latest finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa is an inscription with the name Ishbaal. (map taken from holylandphotos.org)

This discovery has several interesting features. For starters, this is the first time that the name Ishbaal has been found outside of the Bible. Second, the layer in which the Ishbaal inscription was found dates to the period of 1020-980 B.C., according to radiometric dating. This is precisely the time period in which Saul’s son, Ishbaal would have been active. This Ishbaal, however, is not the son of Saul. We know that because the inscription goes on to read, “son of Bedaʿ.” The name Bedaʿ is unique, not being found in the Bible or in an archaeological context before. According to the authors of a recent article in BASOR (Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research) announcing this discovery, “The letters of the inscription are large and clear, similar in size and evenly spaced, and were written by a skilled hand in Canaanite script” (see the full article here). The inscription is the result of a skilled scribe and thus suggests the presence of a developed society. The fact that this inscription is Canaanite is of special interest to paleographers (those who study ancient scripts). Originally it was thought that the Canaanite script was replaced by the so-called Phoenician script at the end of the second millennium B.C. Now we have evidence of the Canaanite script being in use during the monarchy of David thanks to this discovery, along with four other inscriptions (2 more from Khirbet Qeiyafa, 1 from Beth Shemesh, and 1 from Jerusalem).

A bronze statue of Baal discovered at Ugarit from the 14th-12th centuries B.C.

Baʿal is the name of the Canaanite storm god and was often attached to names just as God (el) orYahweh (yahu, usually spelled with “iah” in English) was. This practice is called using a “theophoric” element, which simply means that the name of the god is embedded in a person’s name. What is interesting about the use of “baal” as a theophoric element in names is that the Bible shows no evidence of its use after the early monarchic period (10th century B.C.). Previous to, and including the early monarchic period, it is found in names like Jerubaal (Gideon’s other name), Meribbaal (Jonathan’s son, also called Mephibosheth), and, of course, Ishbaal. Archaeology reflects the same practice. No inscription has ever been found in Judah from the 9th – 6th centuries with “baal” used as a theophoric element. While Baʿal means “lord” or “master,” its association with the Canaanite god seems to have made it an unpopular name in Judah during those centuries.

There is still one more inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa yet to be translated. It will be interesting to see what further light it might shed on this period of history.

Uncategorized

Saeed Abedini: More Than a News Story

June 4, 2015 randymccracken 2 Comments

Saeed Abedini: More Than a News Story

Saeed’s mother Bebe is a wonderful cook and over the 6 days we spent with her and Zizi we were treated to an array of fabulous Persian cuisine.

One of the greatest bonds between people is the love of a mother for her son. I was vividly reminded of this recently when my wife and I had the opportunity of visiting with Saeed’s mother and sister. Zizi, Saeed’s sister, was a former student of mine, so Gloria and I have known her for nearly 6 years. But our recent visit with Zizi gave us the opportunity to meet Bebe, Saeed’s mother, for the first time. That first night with Bebe was very impactful. As a loving mother is want to do, she showed us past photos of Saeed. She also showed us videos he had made. One of the videos was of Saeed giving his testimony. If you have never heard Saeed’s testimony from his own mouth, it is worth watching (you can click here to view it).

Prison Life for Saeed

I had often wondered what prison conditions were like for Saeed. What does the prison look like? What does his day consist of? It hadn’t been that long since Bebe had been in Iran and was able to visit her son so I asked her about her experience of visiting Saeed in prison. At this point she broke down in tears and was unable to speak about it. As you can imagine, I felt terrible for even asking the question. It was at this moment that I realized we weren’t just talking about any person who was in prison. To her this was more than someone who is reported about in the news, more than even a Christian brother to be concerned about and pray for; this was her son! Of course I realized this before asking the question, but the emotional impact of her response brought home to me the personal pain Saeed’s family experiences with each passing day of his imprisonment. Once Bebe recovered, she not only shared the photos and videos that I mentioned above, she also showed me pictures of what it looks like inside of Rajai Shahr prison where Saeed is currently incarcerated. She showed me pictures of the kinds of cells that prisoners are held in and the deplorable sleeping conditions they face. She showed me a filthy latrine and shower, the kind that Saeed is made to clean each day. She also showed me pictures of the courtyard where most prisoners are able to go and get some sunshine and daily exercise. But Zizi told us that due to the dangers of mixing with other prisoners, Saeed is not able to get this daily dose of sunshine and exercise. I wanted to post several of the pictures that Bebe had showed me so I googled images of Rajai Shahr prison. I couldn’t find those particular photos, but I was horrified at the brutality of the pictures that I did find. Out of sensitivity for the family, and readers here, I will not post any.

The Closeness of Saeed’s Family

11100970_10204615786570079_1548006871_n — Me and Gloria with our beloved Zizi

We spent 6 days with Bebe and Zizi. During that time I became impressed with just how close this family is to each other. Every day each family member skypes or calls each other. During the time we were with them, we were able to speak to each member of Saeed’s family. Zizi often speaks about the closeness of her family and how they have always loved and supported one another. Although I would never minimize the significance of family for those of us from the West, there is a difference between Western and Middle Eastern culture when it comes to family. In the West we are usually close to our parents and siblings. Fewer of us stay in close touch with cousins, nephews, nieces, etc. Many families in the USA are scattered across the country and only see each other once a year or less. Zizi explained to me that in Iran families stay very connected to one another. They usually live in the immediate vicinity of each other and they are in constant communication not only with immediate family members, but with aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Important decisions such as marriage, and business are not just personal concerns, but the concern of the entire family (or clan). When someone in the West confronts an important life event or decision they will hope for the family’s blessing and support, but whether they get it or not they will usually go ahead with their own decision. Middle Eastern culture is very different. If the family does not support a marriage or some other decision, the individual will usually relent and do what is best for the family. What is best for the family comes before an individual’s desire. To put it succinctly: in Western culture it tends to be me first and then family; whereas in Middle Eastern culture it is family first and then me.

Your Family is Cursed

This realization about cultural differences heightens the personal tragedy for Saeed’s family. Although we can sympathize with Saeed’s family, and our loss of a family member is no less painful, yet we can not fully appreciate the effect of Saeed’s imprisonment on his family because of the difference in cultural dynamics. Let me give one example that Zizi shared with us. As mentioned above, in Iran not only are families close, they live close to one another and are involved with each other’s lives on a daily basis. When a family is scattered, it is considered to be a curse from God. Many of Saeed’s relatives have told Saeed’s father that the reason his family is scattered and experiencing so much turmoil is because he and his family converted to Christianity. Saeed’s family is considered cursed and unclean. As a result, the extended family has very little to do with Saeed’s family. Saeed’s father remains in Iran so that he can visit and maintain contact with his son. Although he has a lot of family still in Iran, Saeed’s father is virtually alone because he has been ostracized from the larger family unit. There is no support, no encouragement, only disdain and contempt.

Saeed’s family who once had a beautiful home in Iran and experienced the daily love and support of each other, has now been scattered to various places around the world. Imagine losing your home, being separated from your family, being forced to leave the country you love and becoming refugees in a foreign country. I say, “imagine,” but for those of us in the West, this is beyond anything we have ever experienced and therefore it is difficult to truly imagine it. Saeed has two sisters and a brother. Not only is he separated from them, but they are separated from each other. Zizi lives in the states, her other brother and sister are currently refugees in another country. Even Saeed’s parents are separated by the circumstances. Bebe, Saeed’s mother, has been warned not to come back to Iran or she will be arrested (We were told this was because she boldly witnessed to the guards about her faith in Christ!). This means she can no longer even visit her son in prison. Saeed’s father is the only remaining immediate family member who can stay in Iran. In spite of being separated from his dear wife and other children, and in spite of being ostracized by other family members, he stays. He stays because he is the only link between Saeed and the family and between Saeed and the outside world.

Saeed’s Family Reunion: Living in Hope

saeed-abedini — Saeed, Nagmeh, and the children

For those of us who have followed the story of Saeed’s imprisonment, we are aware of the loving and courageous efforts of his wife Nagmeh to obtain his release. While we were visiting with Bebe and Zizi, Nagmeh was in Germany speaking with government officials there about Saeed’s release. This past week, she, Bebe, and Zizi have traveled to Washington D.C. to appear before Congress and appeal that no deal be made for Iran’s nuclear program without an agreement to release the 4 Americans currently held in Iranian prisons. Nagmeh has eloquently spoken before governments, churches, and other organizations about her desire to see her family reunited and the toll it has taken on her children not to have their father at home. Here is yet one more family separation that I have not yet mentioned. Not only are Saeed’s children growing up without him, they are frequently without their mother as she answers the call to testify of her faith and to secure the release of her husband. Nagmeh herself related this difficulty as she spoke before Congress this week (click here to read). The article I am referencing begins: “The wife of a prominent Christian pastor imprisoned in Iran has described how her family has been ‘torn apart’ by their ordeal. But they have kept their faith, she explained adding: ‘Jesus hasn’t abadoned us.'”

While many continue to pray for Saeed’s release, I thought it important to be reminded, as I was through my visit with Saeed’s mom and sister, that it is more than a news event we are praying about. It is a real family who has not only experienced the pain of separation from Saeed, but also from each other. Our prayers are about a real man who is a husband, father, son, and brother. Without a change in regime, it is sad to think that Saeed’s family can never be reunited again in the their own beloved country. But I do pray and long for the day when they are all reunited again in the country of God’s choosing.

Dear Jesus, thank you for sustaining Saeed and his family, thank you for protecting him and for keeping his faith and that of his family strong. Thank you for the example that Saeed and his family are to many of us–love for You, love for each other, and love for their enemies. Thank you for what you have accomplished through Saeed’s imprisonment. Thank you for those who have been converted through Saeed’s witness, and his family’s witness. Dear Lord, pleae reunite Saeed and his entire family and please bring him home soon!

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve

May 19, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

The Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve

The Book of the Twelve is the modern designation for the Minor Prophets. This title suggests that there is a purposeful unified message and structure to these books. In chapter 7 of “A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit,” Martin Clay examines the Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve, or perhaps more accurately, the meaning and usage of ruach in these books. As we have seen in previous posts in this series, ruach has other meanings besides “S/spirit.” Within the Book of the Twelve, Clay notes that this term may have other usages such as, “spirit of prostitution” (Hos. 4:12; 5:4), or “impurity” (Hos. 4:19; 8:7; Zech. 13:2). He also notes that it can be used as a technical term for the prophetic office as in “the man of the spirit” (Hos. 9:7). Besides these usages, Clay focuses on 4 specific meanings of ruach found in the Book of the Twelve. These 4 usages include the relationship of ruach with vitality, divine judgment, empowerment, and salvation or soteriology.

Ruach and Vitality

This usage of ruach has similarities with Ezekiel’s usage as noted in our last post (The Holy Spirit in Ezekiel). Ruach as vitality occurs within two different contexts in the Book of the Twelve. The first is its use in contexts of creation with reference to the human spirit or breath ( Zech. 12:1). Clay sees the usage in Malachi 2:15-16 as a “wordplay implying that human vitality and life is ultimately derived from the ruach of the creator” (p. 73). The second usage of this concept occurs in statements that refer to idols as being lifeless (e.g., Hab. 2:18-20). In contrast to the life-giving breath of God, idols are breathless (spiritless).

Ruach and Divine Judgment

This usage also recalls Ezekiel’s imagery of the storm wind that brings judgment. It is found in such passages as Hosea 4:19; 8:7; 12:1; Hab. 1:11. Clay concludes, “The ruach in the Twelve is linked to divine agency in punishing disobedience and realigning human actions and expectations with those of Yahweh” (p. 75).

Ruach and Empowerment

There are two ways in which ruach empowers in the Book of the Twelve. One way is to empower prophets for confronting the community with its failure to keep God’s covenant and the other is to empower for the task of rebuilding the Temple. “Both these tasks are essentially concerned with the restoration of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel” (p. 75). Once again, we saw a similar usage in Ezekiel regardomg prophetic empowerment. An example of prophetic empowerment by the Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve comes from Micah 3:1-8. In verse 8 Micah states, “But truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord…. Clay discusses some of the difficulties with translating verse 8, but it is clear that the ruach belongs to the Lord and is the instrument that empowers Micah. The Spirit of the Lord also empowers Zerubbabel for the rebuilding of the Temple in the well-known passage from Zechariah 4:6 (see above). Clay states, “Yahweh strongly contrasts the efficacy of his own ruach to human ability….The ‘ruach of Yahweh’ is thus shown to be an empowering force which enables humans to fulfil divine purposes that would otherwise be impossible to achieve” (pp. 77-78). This last statement by Clay highlights an important biblical aspect of God’s Spirit. To my mind, it is reminiscent of Jesus’ command to his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they receive power from the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8).

Ruach and Soteriology (salvation)

In Acts 2 the disciples receive the fulfilment of the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32.

Perhaps when Christians think of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, it is a passage like Joel 2:28-32 (3:1-5 in the Hebrew text) that comes to mind. A prophetic passage which speaks of the Spirit’s activity in the “latter days” which results in dreams, visions, and the salvation of many. Joel uses the language of the Spirit being “poured out,” which, as Clay points out, only occurs in 6 passages in the prophets (Isa. 29:10; 32:15; 44:3; Joel 2:28-29; Ezek. 39:29; and Zech. 12:10). Notice that once again there is a connection with Ezekiel. In fact, Clay notes that the ruach being poured out by Yahweh is “a verbal parallel shared uniquely with Joel 3:1-5 (Joel 2:28-32 in English translations, p. 79). Clay also suggests that the language of “pouring out” the Spirit may be an intentional twist on words of judgment where God often speaks of “pouring out” his wrath or judgment. This pouring out of the Spirit takes place in relation to Israel’s restoration, but also includes Gentiles as well (“all flesh,” “whoever calls on my name”). Clay also suggests that it “may be viewed as a direct fulfilment of Moses’ desire for the Israelites that they would all have the spirit (Num. 11:29) and, by inference, would experience dreams and visions from Yahweh (Num. 12:6)” (p. 81). This observation has the effect of linking the Spirit’s activity in the Pentateuch (where we began) with the Prophets, which in turn, finds its fulfilment in the Book of Acts.

The Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve: Conclusion

Although ruach has other usages in the Book of the Twelve, Clay’s focus on the 4 particular usages examined above, show a marked similarity with the Book of Ezekiel. This concluding chapter on how the Old Testament uses the word ruach, re-emphasizes, and in some ways, expands upon the meaning of ruach noted in our other posts. Ruach as the life-giving breath, not only reminds us of Ezekiel but takes us all the way back to the beginning of Creation in Genesis 2:7 (even though this passage uses a different word). Ruach as a means of empowerment reminds us of the leadership demonstrated by Moses and the Judges, but extends beyond leadership as it is also related to the empowerment given by God to his prophets to proclaim his word. The purpose of this empowerment is so that God might restore his people to himself. This empowerment is also a gift of grace, as it empowers human beings to do things that they would not otherwise be able to do. For those who continue in rebellion, the ruach can also denote judgment in the imagery of a storm-wind. But God not only pours out divine judgment, he also pours out his ruach in order to bring deliverance and salvation to Israel and the nations.