The Deuteronomic History and Violence According to Fretheim

February 11, 2015 randymccracken 2 Comments

The Deuteronomic History and Violence According to Fretheim

Deuteronomic History is available at Amazon USA / UK

I realize to some of my readers the title for this article may be perplexing. What is the Deuteronomic History, who is Fretheim, and why should I care? Let me begin by answering the next to last question first. Terence E. Fretheim is the Elva B. Lovell Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Luther Seminary and he is the author of many books on the Old Testament. Now that you have a brief introduction to Fretheim’s identity, I’ll let him explain what the Deuteronomic History is. “The deuteronomic (or deuteronomistic) history is a shorthand designation of fairly recent vintage for the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, with Deuteronomy often recognized as the introduction to them” (Fretheim, Deuteronomic History, p. 15). In my last article in the “Violence in the Old Testament Series” entitled “Fire From Heaven: Is God’s Judgment Just?,” I took issue with Fretheim’s interpretation of Elijah’s slaughter of the priests of Baal. While doing some reading on 1&2 Kings for my next (long overdue!) article on Violence in the Old Testament, I pulled an old book off my shelf by Fretheim (the one you see to the right), and began to read a fuller explanation of his understanding of violence in the Old Testament, especially as it relates to the Deuteronomic History. I found some of Fretheim’s explanations very interesting and helpful. So to be fair to Fretheim, as well as to offer some helpful explanations about violence in the Old Testament, I wanted to share his insights with those who may not have read his book on the Deuteronomic History (thus my answer to the last question above).

Fretheim’s Views on Violence in the Deuteronomic History

At the end of his discussion on the destruction of Jericho in Joshua 6, Fretheim pauses to present his views on violence in the Deuteronomic History (his full discussion can be found on pp. 68-75). He begins by framing the issue, of which I will share one small quote that sums up the problem as he sees it: “A perceived theological sophistication leads us to object to the idea that this God, whom we define largely in terms of love and mercy, could be associated with (or even command!) such violence” (p. 69). Next, Fretheim enumerates 6 explanations sometimes given in defense of the violence found in the Old Testament. Due to space considerations, I will not list them here, but I am in agreement with Fretheim that the explanations are inadequate (see pp. 69-71 for more detail). Finally, Fretheim lists his 7 explanations for the violence recorded in the Deuteronomic History. The rest of this post will dwell on these 7 explanations.

1. His first statement is brief, so I will quote it in full. “God has chosen to be dependent on human beings in the achievement of goals in the world. Even where divine activity so fills the scene as it does in this text [meaning Joshua 6], the human element is not missing” (p. 71).

2. Fretheim’s second point builds on his first. He states, “God works in the world with what is available, i.e., with human beings as they are, with all their foibles and flaws, and within societal structures, however inadequate.” He continues, “God does not perfect these aspects of the world before working in and through them….Thus the results of such work will always be mixed, and less than what would have happened had God chosen to work alone. Hence, as an example, there will be violence associated with God’s work in the world because, to a greater or lesser degree, violence will be characteristic of those through whom the work is done” (p. 71).

These first two explanations are very similar to what I argued in a previous post in this series (The Pooh Principle: Violence in the Old Testament Part 8).

3. Next Fretheim argues that our perception of serving God is informed by the historical context we are in. Therefore he states, “It is very difficult to evaluate such perceptions because our context is not that of Israel’s” (p. 72). I believe this to be a very important point. Critics often argue against the violence in biblical stories from a 21st century perspective, often forgetting that had they lived in the context of ancient Israel their outlook would have been very different. We cannot expect God to work in 13th century Israel (or pick another century), the way he might choose to work in 21st century America or Western Europe.

4. Fretheim makes several significant points in this assertion. First he notes that, “Israel gave a twofold theological rationale for waging wars against the Canaanites the way they did” (p. 72). God did not want the false religious practices of the Canaanites to influence Israel (Deut. 7:1-5, 16) and second, Israel was to be God’s instruments of judgment because of the Canaanites wickedness (Deut. 9:4-5). Fretheim points out that, “Divine judgment in the OT was thought to be enacted within history, and not in some after-life. This made for a decisiveness of action that was not common in NT literature. Nevertheless, apocalyptic writing and the NT have an even more severe understanding of judgment; consigning the wicked to the eternal fires of hell. Thus, whether in the promised land or in heaven, utopia might be thought possible only by means of radical surgery” (pp. 72-73).

Fretheim’s insight about the Old Testament’s “this-worldly” viewpoint and thus the decisiveness of judgment is significant. But as he also points out, the New Testament is even more severe in describing judgment. This is important for all of those who argue that God, through Jesus, projects a less violent attitude. It seems to me that God’s character, whether we are speaking of mercy or judgment, is consistent in both testaments. Although it is true that the Old Testament emphasizes a physical judgment in this world, and the New focuses more on spiritual judgment (although not exclusively).

The other significant insight by Fretheim in this section is that, “Israel did not understand judgment in a narrow way” (p. 73). By this he means that the punishments visited on the Canaanites were also pronounced against Israel as well, and eventually carried out. He also notes that the Old Testament not only speaks of God giving Israel the land of Canaan and thus destroying, or driving out, the Canaanites, it also speaks of God doing the same thing for other nations (e.g., Deut. 2:5, 9, 12, 23). This is very significant, as it shows that God does not play favorites. God worked in other nations in similar ways to Israel, and if the Canaanites could be driven from the land because of their wickedness, so also could Israel.

5. Fretheim’s next point is that, “One simply has to recognize that with Israel’s world being the way it was, war (along with other trappings of government) was necessary for Israel’s survival” (p. 73). He does, however, argue that Israel may have been mistaken in respect to the severity of the wars against the Canaanites. Admittedly the conquest of Canaan was an offensive war, at least in the initial stages, whereas most of Israel’s wars were defensive. However, I am not convinced that Israel was “mistaken” regarding the severity of the wars with the Canaanites given that Israel was following God’s commands. In this aspect then, I am in disagreement with Fretheim.

6. The last two points that Fretheim makes I find particularly poignant. I quote him at length here. He writes, “That God would stoop to become involved in such realities as war is finally not a matter for despair, but of hope. For God to be absent from such aspects of the life of the world would be to give the world up to its own violence. But, God being involved in the evil of the world means that evil is not the last word. What a greater tragedy war would be if God were not involved, struggling in that human violence to bring about good ends….Moreover, because of the presence of evil in this world, for God to work toward redemptive goals inevitably involves conflict and violence; the forces of evil will not surrender voluntarily” (p. 74). Again, I argue a similar point (but with less elegance) in my post “The Pooh Principle.”

7. Fretheim’s final point relates to point number 6. He notes that by involving himself in the violence of war, “God takes the road of suffering and death. Through such involvement, God not only uses flawed human efforts, but also absorbs the effects of their sinfulness and thus suffers violence” (p. 74). To my way of thinking, this is similar to that much greater act of Jesus on the cross when God willingly absorbed the violence and hatred of this world in order to redeem it.

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

Saul and Eli: Similarities of Rejected Leaders

February 5, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

Saul and Eli: Similarities of Rejected Leaders

Looking Like a Leader

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

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

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

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

Leaders Who Corrupt the Worship of God

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

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

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

In Search of Better Leaders

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

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

Leaders Who Receive a Similar Judgment

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

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

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

Better Leaders and Better Days

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

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

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

Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

David and Bathsheba: Sending, Taking, Laying

January 26, 2015 randymccracken 1 Comment

David and Bathsheba: Sending, Taking, Laying

David and Bathsheba: The Sin

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

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

David and Bathsheba: The Judgment

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

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

David and Bathsheba: Forgiveness

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

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

Bible Backgrounds, Book Reviews, Commentaries

New Testament Bible Background Commentary

January 22, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

New Testament Bible Background Commentary

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

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

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

New Testament Bible Background Commentary: New Content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Character Studies, The Book of Samuel

Goliath’s Death Part 2

January 19, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

A Closer Look at Goliath’s Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goliath’s Death Brings Honor to God

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

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

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

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