The Book of Joshua, Violence in the Old Testament

Cosmic Warfare in the Book of Joshua

July 20, 2020 randymccracken Leave a comment

Cosmic Warfare in the Book of Joshua

Ancient Jericho and Cosmic Warfare — Ancient Jericho or Tel es-Sultan, illustrates the aspect of Cosmic Warfare in Joshua. Courtesy of pininterest.

The book of Joshua has suffered a damaged reputation in recent years. Many archaeologists consider the account of the Conquest as fantasy. Kathleen Kenyon’s dating of the fall of Jericho to 1550 BC has led them to conclude that there was no city to conquer in the time of Joshua (1400, or 1250 BC, depending on the date accepted for the Exodus). This has been ably challenged by Bryant Wood and the team at ABR (Associates of Biblical Research), but conservative voices are easily overlooked these days, even if they offer persuasive evidence (see the article here, and the video here). The Book of Joshua has also come under fire for its language of “utterly destroying” the inhabitants of Canaan (e.g., Josh. 6:17, 21). I have written elsewhere on the problem of violence in the OT (see my series, Violence in the Old Testament). Here I would like to focus on a point that is far too often overlooked. This involves the Book of Joshua’s outlook on the Conquest as Cosmic Warfare.

What is Cosmic Warfare?

It is sometimes stated (and I have probably done so myself), that warfare in the OT is physical, whereas warfare in the NT is spiritual. However, a more accurate picture of what Scripture teaches would be to affirm that both testaments teach that warfare is physical AND spiritual. Cosmic warfare involves understanding the Bible’s teaching that spiritual forces battling it out in the heavenly realm often manifest that conflict in the physical realm. Daniel 10 gives us a glimpse into this dynamic. Daniel is given a vision and waits 21 days until a heavenly messenger is able to come and reveal to him its meaning. This heavenly being states that he was opposed in arriving sooner because of opposition from the prince of Persia (Dan. 10:13). The vision, however, reveals what will happen “to your people in the latter days” (Dan. 10:14). Daniel’s visions involve the revelation of real historic events. Thus there is a combination of spiritual and physical realities. While this is widely recognized as a feature of the Book of Daniel, a similar dynamic is at work in the Book of Joshua. This outlook is pervasive throughout the book, but I will limit my observations to 5 (groups of) passages.

Meditate on the Word and Follow It (Joshua 1:7-8)

⁷Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. ⁸This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

The theme of Cosmic Warfare is inaugurated from the outset of the Book of Joshua. When God appears to Joshua promising to give Israel the land (Josh. 1:2-3), He does not do what we would expect. Certainly a general who is being sent on a military expedition, especially one as vast as the conquest of Canaan, needs some sage military advice. A clever plan outlining successful military tactics is what most commanders would hope for. Instead, Joshua is told to know and keep the Law of Moses! The Lord specifically says that if Joshua knows the Word, then he will prosper and have good success. Such a statement clearly implies that Canaan will not be won because of brute military strategy and force. The battle is more than a physical battle; it is first and foremost, a spiritual one! Although Joshua will battle a physical enemy, he needs to know that the physical resistance is a symptom of a greater spiritual reality.

The Preparation for Cosmic Warfare (Joshua 3-5)

Cosmic warfare-Crossing the Jordan — Israel prepares for cosmic warfare by following the ark across the Jordan.

The emphasis on spiritual preparation for battle continues in chapters 3-5. In chapter 3, the people are called upon to consecrate themselves as they prepare to follow the ark of God across the Jordan River (Josh. 3:2-4). Following the ark reinforces the idea that God is leading the way and fighting for Israel. The parting of the Jordan emphasizes God’s presence and recalls the similar miracle at the Red Sea when Israel left Egypt (Exod. 14-15). Just as the Lord had done battle with Pharaoh and the gods of Egypt and had triumphed (Exod. 15:4-12), so now He was leading Israel in the conquest of Canaan and its gods. After Israel crosses the Jordan, they do something counter-intuitive–they circumcise all the males (Josh. 5:2-9). Since the generation born in the wilderness had not been circumcised, this meant that every male of the nation needed to be circumcised except for Joshua and Caleb (the only two remaining from the previous generation). Such an action left the entire nation vulnerable to attack! All one need do is recall the story of Simeon and Levi attacking and wiping out the town of Shechem after all the males were circumcised (Gen. 34:24-29). For Israel, however, keeping the covenant (Gen. 17:9-14) was more important than physical vulnerability to the enemy. Following the recovery from being circumcised, Israel observes the Passover (Josh. 5:10-11). Once again, Israel is not following proper or even logical military protocol. The text is teaching us that being spiritually fit in order to maintain the Lord’s presence in the camp is far more important.

The Commander of the Lord’s Army (Joshua 5:13-15) and the Battle Plan for Jericho (Joshua 6:1-5)

Joshua and the Commander of the Lord's army — Joshua and the Commander of the Lord’s army by James Tissot. The Commander’s appearance is a clear announcement of Cosmic Warfare.

On the eve before the conquest of Jericho, Joshua has a strange and surprising encounter. He sees a man with a sword and inquires “Are you for us, or for our adversaries” (Josh. 5:13)? The man reveals that he is under allegiance to no one but the Lord by his response of “No.” He then proceeds to identify himself as “the commander of the army of the Lord” (Josh. 5:14). His deity is emphasized by the fact that Joshua falls down before him and the commander tells him to remove his sandals as he is on holy ground (Josh. 5:14-15). This statement is, of course, a direct allusion to God’s revelation to Moses at Sinai in the burning bush (Exod. 3:1-6). The continued references to the Exodus story remind us that just as the Lord conquered Egypt, so the Lord will conquer Canaan. The appearance of the commander of the Lord’s army could not be a more explicit reference to the nature of the coming conflict. What faced Joshua and Israel was not only a conflict with the people of Canaan, but a cosmic conflict.

The Fall of Jericho — The destruction of Jericho emphasizes that Israel was engaged in Cosmic Warfare.

The battle plan against Jericho (Josh. 6:1-5), as well as the subsequent account of the battle, continues to emphasize the spiritual nature of the battle. From a human point of view, Israel could not have had a worse strategy. March around the wall everyday with the ark and the priests leading the way and on day 7 march around 7 times, blow the trumpets and shout, and the walls will fall down. The skeptical would surely say…”Right, now there’s a sure-fire plan!” Yet the text states that this is what Israel did, and as the song says, “the walls came a tumblin’ down.” Even archaeologists who are skeptical of the biblical account will admit two things that the Bible makes clear. 1) The walls fell outward (a very unusual thing–usually they fall inward); and 2) Jericho was well fortified. This initial story of the conquest not only emphasizes that the Lord fought for Israel, but that the battle could not be won by flesh and blood alone. Again, cosmic warfare is being waged.

Cosmic War and the Sun and Moon Standing Still (Joshua 10:12-14)

One of the most famous stories of the Book of Joshua is the battle to save Gibeon in which Joshua calls on the Lord to have the sun and moon stand still (Josh. 10:12-14). While there is no consensus on what Joshua was asking the Lord to do, our point here is to notice how the theme of Cosmic Warfare is once again being emphasized. The mere fact that the sun and moon are involved in this story suggests that the focus is cosmic. It is not uncommon in the Bible to see the Lord use the elements of nature (or the cosmos) to fight against the enemy. In Exodus 14-15, God uses the sea. In Judges 5:20-21, Deborah and Barak celebrate by singing that the stars and the Kishon River fought against their enemy Sisera. 2 Samuel 18:8 declares that, “the forest devoured more people that day than the sword.” In Joshua 10, we are told that the Lord sent great hailstones upon the enemy and that more died from the hailstones than by the sword (Josh. 10:11). Once again, the Book of Joshua could not be more explicit about the nature of the conflict. This is not merely a physical war between two nations, this is cosmic warfare.

The Destruction of the Anakim (Joshua 11:21-22)

To this point it is evident that the Book of Joshua depicts cosmic warfare. But the emphasis on the destruction of the Anakim clinches it beyond all doubt. Militarily speaking, the Israelites would have had little chance against the population of Canaan on their own. This is emphasized by the strength of the Canaanites and their fortified cities (Num. 13:28; Deut. 3:4-5). However, while Israel would have needed God’s help to defeat the Canaanites, the Scripture reveals that there was an enemy even more fearsome whose roots were in both the physical and spiritual realms. This enemy was the Anakim, the descendants of the Nephilim (Num. 13:32-33). No one has done more to demonstrate the cosmic view of Joshua than Michael Heiser by his investigation of the significance of this people group for the Conquest (see Heiser’s The Unseen Realm, especially Part 5 Conquest and Failure, pp. 181-217). Heiser writes, “Since the Nephilim were part of Israel’s supernatural worldview and their descendants turn out to be Israel’s primary obstacle for conquering the promised land, the conquest itself must also be understood in supernatural terms” (Unseen Realm, p. 185).

We first learn about the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-4. The union of “the sons of God” (spiritual beings) with “the daughters of men” (human women) results in the birth of these hybrid beings. It is specifically the presence of the Anakim that terrify 10 of the 12 spies. They report, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them” (Num. 13:32-33). A number of passages in the OT demonstrate that the Nephilim and their descendants were spread throughout Canaan, Transjordan (Bashan), Edom and Moab (Gen. 14:5-6; Deut. 2:10-12, 20-23; 3:8-11; Amos 2:9-10). These passages show that they were called by various names including Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, Emim, Zamzumim (Zuzim), Horites, and Amorites. Heiser contends that the spiritual powers of darkness purposely planted their progeny in and around the Promised Land in order to prevent God from giving it to His people Israel. The main task of the Conquest was to rid Canaan and Transjordan of these people groups, as well as those who were intermixed with them such as the Canaanites, so that Israel could take up possession of the land. If Heiser is correct, and I think he is, this makes the Conquest more than just a clash between nations. It makes it cosmic warfare. This point is driven home in Joshua 11:21-22 which purposely focuses on the destruction of the descendants of the Nephilim. There we read, “And Joshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua devoted them to destruction with their cities. There was none of the Anakim left in the land of the people of Israel. Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some remain.” (For more on this aspect of the Conquest, see my article Giants or Canaanites? The Conquest.)

Joshua and Cosmic Warfare

More could be said, but the above discussion is sufficient to establish that the Book of Joshua pictures a cosmic conflict. When interpreting and teaching the Book of Joshua, as well as any discussion about the violence in Joshua, it is important to keep this ancient context in mind. In fact, the biblical worldview would teach us that with any conflict we need to see beyond the mere physical manifestation of that conflict. Scripture is clear, in both testaments, that there are spiritual enemies attempting to thwart God’s plan for this world. It is this worldview that prompts the apostle Paul to use the language of cosmic warfare as he reminds believers, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).

Apologetics, Bible Backgrounds

Revolutionary Revelation in a Cultural Package

July 13, 2020 randymccracken Leave a comment

Revolutionary Revelation in a Cultural Package

OT scholar John Walton refers to divine revelation as “revolutionary revelation” in his OT Theology

The Old Testament (OT) is a strange and foreign world to many, including many Christians. The reason for this is simple: The writings which compose the OT ( or Hebrew Bible) were written in a cultural milieu much different from ours. Yet in spite of its many similarities with the culture of the ancient Near East (ANE), the OT has many unique features and beliefs not found in any other neighboring country or region of that era. OT scholar John Walton refers to this phenomenon as, “revolutionary revelation in a cultural package” (Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief, p. 12–see link below).

This post is about some of the unique features of the OT. Such uniqueness causes one to ask, “How did writers in ancient Israel, come up with beliefs and ideas that were so counter-cultural?” Were they a race of geniuses? Or could it be that their claim of Divine Revelation is actually true? The context in which Walton uses the expression, “revolutionary revelation in a cultural package,” explains his answer to this question and is worth quoting at length. (The bold type and italics in the quote below are Walton’s and serve as one of the subheadings in his introductory chapter):

revolutionary revelation--John Walton — OT scholar and author John Walton

“Theology is to be understood within the framework of the ancient world, yet as the result of revelation that draws the people out of those ways of thinking. The Israelites were thoroughly immersed in the world and cultural framework of the ancient Near East, just as all of us are immersed in our own native cultures. However, God’s revelation of himself, though grounded in a specific culture, is capable of transcending culture. As a result, we can be transformed by that revelation, regardless of the time and space that separate us from the original revelation. The situation with ancient Israel was no different—God’s revelation called them away from the ways in which their culture inclined them to think and to be transformed in their minds. We have, then, a revolutionary revelation in a cultural package. But it is important to note that the Old Testament’s theology is situated against the backdrop of the ancient world’s customary ways of thinking.” (Walton, OT Theology, p. 12).

John Walton is not only an OT scholar, but is a scholar of the ancient Near East. As such, he is eminently qualified to address this topic. His writings include other works on the ancient Near East such as, “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament,” and “Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context.” The rest of this article will focus on 9 aspects of this “revolutionary revelation” in the OT as revealed in Walton’s Old Testament Theology. These are not the only unique features of Israel’s religion, there are others. These are enough, however, to substantiate that Israel’s outlook and practices were qualitatively different in many aspects, in spite of sharing a common culture with its ancient Near Eastern neighbors.

Revolutionary Revelation in the Old Testament

One Supreme God–this is probably the most obvious difference between Israel and its neighbors. It’s difficult to underscore just how revolutionary this belief is. All the nations of the ANE believed in a pantheon of gods. While one god might be considered the head of the pantheon, this could change. For example, the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish recounts how the god Marduk is elevated to the head of the pantheon. The OT reveals that God has a council of divine beings (e.g., Ps. 82:1, 1 Kgs 22:19-22). However, none of these beings are equal to God. In fact, all were created by God. God allows these beings to participate with Him, just as God allows humans to participate in His plans. Walton explains how foreign this concept was to the other peoples of the ANE. He points out that people functioned and found their identity within community. They believed the gods did likewise. Walton then states, “With this brief discussion as a backdrop, we can understand the challenge of the theology revealed to the Israelites. How could one God do it all? Why would one God do it all? It would have been difficult for them to think of Yahweh as a cosmic deity, a phenomenon deity, a national deity, and a clan deity all at the same time. It just would not have made sense” (OT Theology, p. 38). The fact is, many Israelites had a hard time accepting this belief themselves. The OT is full of examples of Israel worshipping other gods. Given the mindset of the ANE, the idea of one supreme God overall only makes sense if it was received by divine revelation. No one in that culture would come up with such an idea!
Revolutionary revelation: A God who reveals Himself! Courtesy of pininterest
A God who communicates and reveals Himself–I was honestly shocked to learn this one. In the ANE although gods did, at times, reveal answers to oracular questions through divination (Should we go to war?, Will this famine end soon?), they didn’t offer an account of their plans or their attributes the way we are accustomed to seeing the God of Israel do in the OT. Walton states, “In the ancient Near East it was more common for the gods to manifest themselves rather than to reveal themselves. Gods “manifested” themselves in objects, images, names, celestial bodies, or other things that comprised the divine constellation” (OT Theology, pp. 43-44). Revelation of the kind we are used to speaking of, simply was not a thought that occurred to an ancient person. The gods were about having their needs met (see below), not about revealing themselves.
A God of relationship–Of course, one of the reasons for self-revelation is for the purpose of relationship. It appears the gods of the ANE were little concerned with developing a relationship with their worshippers. One of the aspects of the God of Israel is his desire to dwell in their midst (e.g., the tabernacle and temple). Walton states, “Other gods dwelled among people, but they were not prone to claim a people group as their own” (OT Theology, p. 65). No other ANE deity ever said anything like, “I will be your God and you will be My people” (Exod. 6:7; Lev. 26:12; Jer. 7:23; etc.). While the OT is full of expressions of God’s love for His people, and people’s love for God (Deut. 6:4; 7:7-8; 23:5; etc.), such an expression from the ANE gods is rare. Walton writes, “The gods in general are considered to love (e.g., in Akkadian râmu) people, and people likewise love the gods, though it has been demonstrated that terms such as these in the ancient world are sometimes used to express the presence of political relationships rather than emotions. But such expressions from the gods are rare and are more often directed to the king than to the people at large. Even considering the myriads of royal inscriptions wherein the kings speak at length about the relationship between themselves and a god, clear expressions of emotion in either direction are little attested” (OT Theology, p. 57).
Exclusive worship–If God is the one true God then it makes sense that He would require exclusive worship. While other nations had patron deities, for example, the Moabites’ god Chemosh, or the Babylonians’ god Marduk, no one expected them to be worshipped exclusively. After all, exclusive worship would offend the other gods! When one ancient Pharaoh by the name of Akhenaten attempted to force the worship of only one god (the sun god Aten), he was considered a heretic (see wikipedia article here). Walton says that Israel’s practice was, “an idea unmatched in its particularity in the rest of the ancient world” (OT Theology, p. 66). Even today the insistence on worshipping only one God as the true God causes offense to many. Why would Israel go against the grain of ancient society, unless, as they claim, such action had been revealed to them?
The Atrahasis epic contains one version of the Babylonian creation story.
The reason for creation–Perhaps the most revolutionary revelation (besides one supreme God), is in regards to creation. In the accounts of the creation of the world and humanity, there is a significant difference between Israel and the nations of the ANE. Most people who read this blog are probably aware that other nations of the ANE had creation stories (as well as Flood stories!). Scholars have noted some similarities between these accounts with the account in Genesis 1-3. One similarity relates to the creation of humanity. Genesis states that Adam was created from the dust of the ground. The Atrahasis epic states that 7 male and 7 female embryos were fashioned from clay. However, the major difference between the ancient creation accounts and Genesis is why God/the gods created human beings. Walton refers to the ANE ideas contained in the various creation accounts as “The Great Symbiosis.” Several quotes from Walton flesh out what is meant by the Great Symbiosis, and how this contrasts with the biblical account. “According to the theology of the Old Testament, God created the world for humans. This theology, however, stands in contrast to the ancient Near Eastern idea that the gods created the cosmos for themselves. In this view, humans, as afterthoughts, were to function as slaves of the gods to ensure the cosmos would continue to serve the deities’ needs” (OT Theology, p. 71). A few pages later, Walton writes, “The other gods order the cosmos to function for themselves, and people merely function as cogs in the machinery…. But in the Old Testament, Yahweh orders the cosmos to serve people, not himself, and it is ordered to be sacred space (by virtue of his presence there) (OT Theology, pp. 83-84). One final quote from Walton emphasizes the ANE perspective on the creation of humanity: “Conventional wisdom was that the gods wanted to be pampered, and if the people succeeded in meeting their every whim, the gods might just treat them well. After all, if the gods desired all of this pampering, they had to protect and provide for those who were diligent and conscientious in their ministrations. Experience, as the people interpreted it, had taught them that the gods were fickle, demanding, capricious, and disinterested in the cares of humans; the gods were interested only in their own comforts and were concerned primarily with their own needs” (OT Theology, p. 112). I have spent extra space on this point and provided extra quotes from Walton because it is such a significant difference. The idea that humans were created as the slaves for the gods to do the work they didn’t want to do was ubiquitous throughout the ANE. The biblical depiction is clearly superior and certainly more attractive. The question once again arises, “How did Israel come up with such a radically different concept?” As a side note, I find it interesting that many people today have a more ANE view of God than they do a biblical view. The picture of a god who only wants to use people for his own purposes aligns perfectly with the ANE, but is diametrically opposed to the God of the Hebrew Bible.
The Babylonian tablets containing Enuma Elish, one of the ANE accounts of creation.
Cosmic Conflict vs. No Conflict in Creation–We can keep this one short. The Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish speaks of conflict between the gods resulting in the creation of the world. Genesis evidences no such conflict. The Creator God is in complete control and all of the cosmos is created by his sovereign word.
The image of God–The biblical creation story states that all human beings (male and female) are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28). The image is not a characteristic or quality; it is a status. Humans are to rule the earth as God’s representatives. We have already noted that, in the ANE, humans were created to be slaves to the gods. The only one mentioned as being in the gods’ image is the king. Only the king is granted the status of rulership. Walton states, “…in the Old Testament, the image of God provides the primary description of human purpose and meaning. Human dignity in the Old Testament is found in the status and function people have as God’s image” (OT Theology, p. 97). Because humanity is created in God’s image, this also means that Israel was not to permit any other likeness or image of God. This, of course, is stated clearly in the 10 commandments (Exod. 20:4). Walton writes, “Aniconism is observable in various ways in other times and places in the ancient Near East….However, total aniconism in the ancient Near East outside Israel is unknown. The significance of this is far-reaching and cannot be overstated” (OT Theology, p. 150).
Sin and separation from God’s presence–Walton writes, “There is nothing like the fall in ancient Near Eastern literature because there is no idealized primeval scenario (OT Theology, p. 102). Furthermore, “Even the discussion of sin is problematic in an ancient Near Eastern context” (OT Theology, p. 102). People in the ANE certainly knew what it was like to offend a deity and to suffer for it, but the concept of sacrificing for atonement to restore a relationship was foreign to them (Remember, the gods were not interested in a relationship as such. Their interest was in how they could benefit from human existence). In the biblical understanding, sin separates a person from God. An unrepentant sinner can be driven from the presence of God (Gen. 4:14), or God can remove his presence from a sinful nation (Ezek. 11:22-23). The gods of the ANE would be considered foolish for removing humanity from their presence–they needed them! Humans were created to do the work and to offer the sacrifices that fed the gods. To remove humanity would be devastating! In the Atrahasis epic the gods actually find this out when they attempt to destroy humanity with a flood. They soon realize their mistake as there is no one left to offer them sacrifices to feed them or to do their work. Fortunately, one of the gods, Enki, has saved Atrahasis in a boat (sound familiar?). When Atrahasis leaves the boat, he offers sacrifices to the gods. The story humorously states that the gods gathered around the sacrifice like flies! Although one can see a few similarities with the Genesis story of the Flood, the qualitative differences in the biblical story are undeniable.
The God of the OT (and NT) is a covenant-making God.
A God who makes covenants with people–We have already noted that one of the distinctive features of the Bible is that God is a God of relationship, while the gods of the ANE are not much interested in partnering with people. One of the ways this is expressed in Scripture is the making of covenants between God and people. Once again we have a unique feature that is not found in the ANE. Walton states, “In the ancient Near East, the idea of a god who made a covenant with a group of people was unique to Israel—a circumstance for which we have little precedent. Gods did, however, make covenants with kings… (OT Theology, p. 105). We noted above that the image of God can apply to kings in the ANE, but not with the general public. The same is true of making covenants. But we have no record of gods making a covenant with a group of people. In the OT we read of God making a covenant with Noah and the whole earth, promising not to flood it again (Gen. 9:8-17). Beginning with Abram, God makes a covenant with an individual who will grow into a family, which will, in turn, grow into a nation. Along these lines Walton writes, “The transition from an agreement with a family to an agreement with an ethnic group/nation is paralleled by the transition of Yahweh from a family God (“personal god”) to a national God. No other examples exist in the ancient world of such a relational transition by a god” (OT Theology, p. 120). In other words, once a family god, always a family god. Once a national deity, always a national deity, etc. In the ANE, there was no need for one god to fill many roles, after all, there were plenty of gods to go around. Not so in biblical teaching. Only one God was supreme (see #1 above), and he fulfilled all necessary roles.

Conclusions Regarding Revolutionary Revelation

Very few people go against the values and beliefs that are prevalent in their culture. To do so leads to ridicule, rejection, and in severe cases, persecution and death. In fact, most of us assimilate our cultural values and beliefs without giving it much thought. Throughout this post we have noticed that Ancient Israel, while having many similarities with its neighbors, differed in significant ways. These beliefs and practices were enough to make them “stand out in the crowd.” According to Scripture, this was the purpose. Israel was to be a nation of priests to draw others to the true God (Gen. 12:3; Exod. 19:5-6; 1 Kgs. 8:43, 60). These differences, however, did come with a price (e.g., Daniel 3:8-18).

revolutionary revelation--3 men in the fiery furnace — Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refused to bend to the cultural practices and beliefs of Babylon.

The OT testifies to the fact that not all Israelites were willing to swim against the current of ANE culture. We read of much compromise in its pages. This leads to the question of why a group within Israel proclaimed and clung to these radically different beliefs and practices–a question I have noted a few times above. Again, we must ask, “Where did these beliefs and practices come from?” Why Israel and no other nation? How is it that every other nation of the ANE had similar beliefs and practices, but Israel was unique? Not only that, but Israel also produced a unique literature we call the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. This characteristic is not only true of Israel in the Old Testament era, the same can be said for a group of Jewish believers in the New Testament era. Many of the beliefs and practices of early Christianity were also counter-cultural. I have noted some of these counter-cultural beliefs in an article entitled, “Evidences for the Cross and Resurrection.” Did Israelites just have a thing about being counter-cultural? Did they enjoy the ridicule and persecution of others? Why not another nation or group of people? Why always Israel? I believe Walton’s explanation is the best and most logical. Israel was gifted by God with a revolutionary revelation.

Walton’s Old Testament Theology is available at Amazon USA / UK. A digital version is also available at Logos/Faithlife.

Motifs in Samuel, The Book of Samuel

Sword and Spear Part 2: Motifs in Samuel

July 6, 2020 randymccracken 8 Comments

Sword and Spear Part 2: Motifs in Samuel

In my previous post I introduced the sword and spear motif in Samuel (see here for Part 1). There I noted that this motif “…ranges from a proclamation of trust in God’s power to deliver, to a rejection of that trust.” In 2 places where the words “sword and spear” appear together, the motif is a neutral one, speaking of powerlessness (1 Sam. 13:19, 22). It is the stories that follow which define whether these verses are interpreted positively or negatively (see below). In two other occurrences the motif is positive suggesting trust in the Lord (1 Sam. 17:45, 47). In the fifth occurrence, the motif is negative, suggesting David’s lack of faith (1 Sam. 21:8). In Part 1 we noticed that when the word “sword” appears by itself, the motif has a mixture of positive and negative associations. As we examine the usages of the spear motif, we will see a similar mixture, but the negative aspects are more prevalent. Including the 5 passages that mention both sword and spear, the spear motif occurs a total of 29 times in the books of Samuel (20 in 1 Samuel and 9 in 2 Samuel). Perhaps the best, and most insightful way to examine the spear motif is to notice who it is associated with. The breakdown is as follows:

Goliath (5 occurrences–1 Sam. 17:7 [2x], 45, 47; 2 Sam. 21:19)
Saul (16 occurrences–1 Sam. 13:19, 22; 18:10, 11; 19:9, 10 [2x}; 20:33; 22:6; 26:7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 22; 2 Sam. 1:6)
David (1 occurrence–1 Sam. 21:8–this passage was considered in Part 1 and so will not be covered here)
Abner (2 occurrences, both in 2 Sam. 2:23)
David’s mighty men (4 occurrences)
- Abishai (2 Sam. 23:18)
- Benaiah (2 Sam. 23:21 [3x])
Unrighteous ruler(s) (1 occurrence–2 Sam. 23:7)

This breakdown demonstrates that the overwhelming number of occurrences of the spear motif (16 out of 29) are related to Saul. Below we will examine the significance of this, as well as its occurrence with other individuals.

Goliath’s Spear

One of the intimidating features of Goliath’s description in 1 Samuel 17:4-7 is his spear. The writer spends time describing its shaft (like a weaver’s beam), and the weight of its head (600 shekels = 15 lbs. or 6.8 kg.). As noted in the previous post, one of the points of the story is Goliath’s trust in his weaponry, while David’s trust is in the Lord. This point is driven home when Goliath’s spear is mentioned two more times in the account (1 Sam. 17:45, 47). Goliath’s spear is mentioned one final time in the perplexing passage which speaks of Elhanan killing him (2 Sam. 21:19). Its size, noted again in this passage, was clearly one of its distinguishing and well-remembered features. Yet it did Goliath no good, proving the truth of Hannah’s words in 1 Samuel 2:9 when she stated, “not by might shall a man prevail.”

Saul’s Spear

As noted above, the overwhelming number of occurrences of the spear motif in Samuel are associated with Saul. This association is sometimes seen as a symbol of his kingship (David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT, p. 479). If this means to communicate that Saul is a king like the nations (1 Sam. 8:5), then this observation is correct. The point is that Saul, like any worldly king, trusts in his spear more than he does in the Lord. This is emphasized in at least two ways. First, in the narrative immediately following the Goliath story, Saul hurls his spear twice at David (1 Sam. 18:10-11). Not only has the previous story declared that “the Lord does not save with sword and spear” (1 Sam. 17:47), but it is Saul’s jealousy concerning David’s victory over Goliath that prompts him to use it! Therefore, Saul shows himself to be cut out of the same cloth as Goliath. A second way in which this is demonstrated is that following the story of Goliath, Saul is never seen without his spear in hand or nearby. In fact, the next 5 verses that mention the spear involve Saul throwing it either at David (1 Sam. 18:10-11, 19:9-10) or his own son Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:33)!

Saul’s use of such weaponry also contrasts him with his son Jonathan. Recalling 1 Samuel 13:19, and 22 which introduces this motif, we are told there that only Jonathan and Saul had sword and spear. In our previous post, however, we have noted that Jonathan uses his sword in the context of trust in the Lord (1 Sam. 14:6-14). Furthermore, following the Goliath episode, Jonathan presents his sword to David as a gift (1 Sam. 18:4), whereas Saul presents his spear to David in a less supportive and friendly way (1 Sam. 18:10-11)! When Saul complains to his men that they are more loyal to David than to him, he does it with his spear in his hand (1 Sam. 22:6). This incident leads to the slaughter of Ahimelech and the priests of Nob. On one of the occasions when David has the opportunity to kill Saul, he chooses instead to take his water jug and spear (1 Sam. 26). With a sort of poetic justice, Abishai insists on using it to “pin” Saul to the ground (1 Sam. 26:8), the way Saul had attempted earlier to “pin” David to the wall (1 Sam. 18:11; 19:10). David refuses and insists only on taking it as evidence that they had been in the midst of the Saul’s camp. Saul’s spear is a major motif in this chapter, occurring six times (1 Sam. 26:7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 22). It reminds us that, given the chance, he would have used it against David, although David refuses to use it against him. It also demonstrates that, in spite of its presence by his head, it brings no protection for Saul, for the Lord is with David (1 Sam. 26:12). Once again we are reminded that “the Lord does not save with sword or spear.”

Given the prevalence of this motif in Saul’s story, one would almost expect Saul to die by the spear. If this were merely an imaginary story, this is surely what would have happened. But this is not what happened historically and so the inspired author records how he fell on his own sword (1 Sam. 31:4). This does not mean, however, that Saul’s spear is absent from the account of his death. In the retelling of Saul’s death by the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1, he states that when he came upon Saul, Saul was “leaning on his spear” (2 Sam. 1:6). It can be demonstrated that the Amalekite’s account of Saul’s death is fabricated as it conflicts with the author’s version recorded in 1 Samuel 31:1-5. Nevertheless, the mention of both sword and spear in the accounts of Saul’s death are an ironic reminder to the reader that the man who trusted in his weapons, ultimately died by one of them. When we consider the negative connotations of Saul’s spear in the narrative, it is no wonder that in David’s eulogy of Saul and Jonathan, it is Saul’s sword which is mentioned in a favorable light (2 Sam. 1:22). After all, how could David praise the spear of Saul that had been lifted against him on so many occasions?!

The Motif’s Mixed Reviews in 2 Samuel

Having already commented on 2 Samuel 1:6 and 2 Samuel 21:19, we will consider the other 7 references to the spear in 2 Samuel. Two of these references occur in the story of Asahel’s pursuit of Abner. In fact, they are both found in the same verse (2 Sam. 2:23). During the battle between Judah and Israel, Asahel pursues Abner in an attempt to kill him (2 Sam. 2:18-23). Although the spear motif has been largely negative up to this point, and Abner himself is an unsavory character, the motif is more tragic than evil here. It is clear from the story that Abner does not wish to kill Asahel. He warns him several times. However, as the hot breath of Asahel breathes down Abner’s neck, he is forced to defend himself. But rather than use the tip of his spear, as would be customary, with a backward thrust, using the butt end of his spear, Abner brings Asahel’s pursuit to a deadly halt. Abner’s persistent warnings, and the use of the backend of his spear, protest his desire to use it against Asahel. Nonetheless, whether back end or front end, the spear proves just as deadly. Unfortunately for Abner, his reluctant use of the spear results in his death by the sword at the hands of Asahel’s brothers, Joab and Abishai (2 Sam. 3:27, 30). For more on this incident see my post, “Asahel Running Into Trouble” (see also my book Family Portraits for this story and an evaluation of Abner’s character–see link below).

There are other ambiguous uses of the spear in 2 Samuel. These concern David’s mighty men. In 2 Samuel 23:18, the aforementioned Abishai is praised for wielding his spear against three hundred men and killing them. Although the context is definitely positive, we should recall that this is the same Abishai who wanted to “pin” Saul to the ground with his own spear (1 Sam. 26:8). Furthermore, this is the same man who contributed to the death of Abner and was ready and willing to kill whenever he thought the occasion called for it (e.g., 2 Sam. 16:9). Therefore, although we have a positive reference to the spear, it is wielded by yet another unsavory character (see Abner above). Another one of David’s mighty men, Benaiah, fights an Egyptian with a spear (2 Sam. 23:21). In the Egyptian’s hand, the spear is clearly a negative motif, but Benaiah is able to wrest it from the Egyptian and kill him. This heroic deed turns a negative situation into a positive one.

We conclude our examination of this motif by looking at David’s last words recorded in 2 Samuel 23:1-7. This poem is a bit obscure and hard to translate in places. However, one thing that is clear is that David is contrasting the just ruler (himself), with an unjust ruler/rulers. In the concluding line (v. 7) he says of such a one that he “arms himself with iron and the shaft of a spear.” One can’t help but think that within the larger context of Samuel this contrast recalls Saul.

Concluding Summary

An examination of the spear motif leads to the conclusion that it is largely a negative commentary of the use and abuse of human power. This negative picture is largely associated with Goliath and Saul, who are the primary personages of this motif. While this negative picture is tempered somewhat in 2 Samuel, its association with unsavory characters still casts a shadow over it.

When we step back and sum up the overall motif of sword and spear in Samuel, we must conclude that the main function of the motif is to warn people about trusting in their own strength and the severe consequences that oftentimes follow. Trusting in weaponry and military might is a mistake made throughout the ages including down to the present time. There are many examples throughout history that show the undermanned and the under-equipped sometimes come out on top. This motif is not about the underdog coming out on top, however. It is a declaration that trust in God is superior to any human power or weapon. However, using sword and spear is the way that nations always have and always will conduct business. That is until the words of the prophet Isaiah are finally realized: “He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore (Isa. 4:2).

Until that day, the question for God’s people is to ask what this motif in Samuel teaches us. How should we respond to our enemies based on the teaching of Scripture? Jesus’s answer was to “turn the other cheek,” and to “do good to those who persecute you.” Sadly, the first reaction of some Christians today is to physically arm themselves against their foes. We forget that the weapons of our warfare are spiritual (Eph. 6:10-18; 2 Cor. 10:4). We don’t give God the chance to defeat whatever Goliaths may come our way because we are too busy arming ourselves with “sword and spear.” This is a tough message to hear and the conclusion is not always a popular one even with believers. Shouldn’t the innocent be protected? We should certainly do everything in our power, short of violence, to protect the innocent. The fact remains that the New Testament nowhere sanctions a believer taking up the sword and spear for personal protection, and certainly never for revenge. The government is the one who bears the sword (Rom. 13:4). A Christian serving in the military, or serving in a local police force is a different matter, since they are serving the government whose job it is to protect its citizens and administer justice. As individual believers, it is easy to overlook this teaching in the books of Samuel, not to mention the clear teaching of Jesus and the apostles. Jesus may well have been referencing this motif in Samuel when he rebuked Peter in the garden and said, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). Christians do their best fighting on their knees, by returning good for evil, and by remembering that the real enemy is not flesh and blood.

For a more in depth study of the books of Samuel, purchase a copy of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Motifs in Samuel, The Book of Samuel

Sword and Spear Part 1: Motifs in Samuel

June 29, 2020 randymccracken Leave a comment

Sword and Spear: Motifs in Samuel

The sword and spear motif in Samuel emphasizes a key theological teaching of this book. The use of this motif in Samuel ranges from a proclamation of trust in God’s power to deliver, to a rejection of that trust. Since Samuel is about the establishment of the monarchy in Israel, this idea is at the heart of the book. Will people trust in God’s ability or in their own? What is the source of true power? Is it found in human strength and ingenuity, or in trusting in a power (i.e., God) greater than one’s own?

Occurrences of Sword or Spear in Samuel

The use of both words together, as in the expression, “sword and spear,” occurs only 5 times in Samuel (1 Sam. 13:19, 22; 17:45, 47; 21:8). However, by themselves, these words are prevalent throughout the book. Including the five passages where they occur together, the word “sword” occurs 38 times (24 in 1 Samuel and 14 in 2 Samuel), while the word “spear” occurs 29 times (20 in 1 Samuel and 9 in 2 Samuel). Because of the significance of this motif, and the number of occurrences, I will divide my treatment into two posts. In this post we will look at those passages in 1&2 Samuel that speak of the sword. In the next post, we will look at the motif of the spear.

Sword and Spear: David’s Confrontation with Goliath

The theological significance of these weapons is highlighted in David’s battle with Goliath. The story emphasizes how well Goliath is prepared for battle, at least humanly speaking, by giving an inventory of his armor and weaponry (1 Sam. 17:4-7–see my posts here and here). Saul attempts to clothe David similarly by giving him his armor and his “sword” (1 Sam. 17:38-39). David rejects these items and chooses instead a sling and 5 smooth stones. When Goliath sees David, he disdains him as an unworthy competitor. David’s response, which is now classic, highlights our motif. He replies to Goliath, “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel whom you have defied” (1 Sam. 17:45). In this first statement, David highlights the weaponry of Goliath. As he concludes his speech, David again uses our key words: “…the Lord saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hand” (1 Sam. 17:47).

David’s victory demonstrates the truth of his words. The point is unmistakeable. No amount of human technology or strength can overcome one who allows the Lord to do his/her fighting for him/her. This same theology is announced in Psalm 20:7 when the psalmist (David) says, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” This is an important theme in the warfare of the Old Testament. It is emphasized in such stories as the parting of the Reed (or Red) Sea and the tumbling down of the walls of Jericho. David’s statement in 1 Samuel 17:47 sets the standard by which every other occurrence of the words sword and spear should be measured in 1&2 Samuel.

Use of “Sword”: The Big Picture in Samuel

When surveying the overall usage of these words in Samuel, there are several ways in which they could be categorized (the same is true of other motifs in this series). I have broken the use of the sword into 6 categories below. The number of occurrences are in parentheses. There is, of necessity, some overlap of categories.

People’s relationship to the sword–Samuel (1), Jonathan (2), Saul (4), Saul’s armor-bearer (2), Doeg (2), David (15), Joab (1), and Absalom (1).
Israelites killing enemies–Philistines, and Amalekites (5 occurrences)
Enemies killing Israelites–Philistines, Doeg, David/Ammonites, Absalom (5 occurrences–the last 3 would, also fit category 1 as well).
Israelites killing Israelites–(8 occurrences–more overlap here).
Being powerless, trusting in the Lord, or a lack of trusting in the Lord (5 occurrences).
A reference to the military (1 occurrence–“men who draw the sword”).

I will take up each of these categories below. Group 1 involves the most lengthy treatment. I will then group together categories 2-4. Since there is only 1 occurrence of category 6 and since it has an obvious meaning, I will not discuss it. That leaves category 5 as the final category I will examine.

People’s Relationship to the Sword

David

By viewing the occurrences in this way, one thing which is immediately clear is that David is associated with the sword more than any other person in Samuel–a total of 15 times! Not all of these occurrences, however, are negative. For example, when David says, “the Lord doesn’t save by sword or spear,” or when the text says, “there was not a sword in David’s hand” (1 Sam. 17:50), these are obviously positive statements about David’s relationship to the sword. Of the 15 times David is associated with the sword, however, only 4 are in a positive context (all are in 1 Sam. 17–see vv. 45, 47, 50, 51). When David fled from Saul, he went to the high priest Ahimelech and asked, “Then have you not here a spear or a sword at hand?” (1 Sam. 21:8). Ironically he is given the sword of Goliath (1 Sam. 21:9)! This request for a “spear or sword,” along with the slaughter of the priests in the next chapter (1 Sam. 22), demonstrates that David has allowed his fear, rather than his faith to guide him. Later when David is insulted by the no-good Nabal, it is revenge that associates him with the sword. In fact, we find this association 3 times in one verse: “And David said to his men, ‘Every man strap on his sword!’ And every man of them strapped on his sword. David also strapped on his sword” (1 Sam. 25:13). Although the wise Abigail prevents him from shedding innocent blood on this occasion, the opposite is true in his murder of Uriah the Hittite. When the prophet Nathan unveils David’s sin, he states, “You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house” (2 Sam. 12:9-10). This is a sad ending for the man who declared, “The Lord saves not with sword and spear.”

Saul

Sometimes the sword has a positive association in spite of the fact that people are killed. For example, Saul is commanded to destroy the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:3). Therefore, when we are informed that he “devoted to destruction all of the people with the edge of the sword” (1 Sam. 15:8), this is in fulfillment to the Lord’s command. Of course, Saul wasn’t totally obedient, so in the same story we have Samuel hacking king Agag to pieces with the sword (1 Sam. 15:33). As chilling as this scene is to us, not only is it in fulfillment of God’s command (although perhaps excessive on Samuel’s part!), Samuel’s words demonstrate that Agag had been guilty of using his sword in a similar manner. David also eulogizes Saul and his sword when he sings, “From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty” (2 Sam. 1:22). This too is presented in the positive light of Saul killing the enemies of Israel. Unfortunately, Saul didn’t trust that the Lord could use him to defeat Goliath. His trust in weaponry rather than in God is made clear when he attempts to clothe David in his armor and give him his sword (1 Sam. 17:39). The final appearance of Saul’s sword is ironically in his death scene. With the Philistines following hard after him, Saul meets his ultimate demise at his own hand by falling on his sword (1 Sam. 31:4). This is fitting for one who trusted in sword and spear more than in the Lord. It is also a fitting end for one who used his servant Doeg the Edomite to slaughter the priests of the Lord with the sword (1 Sam. 22:19). In one sense, Saul’s sin is similar to David’s who used the sword of the Ammonites to kill Uriah. The difference–and it’s a major one–is that Saul slaughters a whole town of faithful followers who were holy to the Lord!

Joab and Absalom

It is surprising that the motif of sword and spear is not connected more frequently with Joab and Absalom, the worst villains in 2 Samuel (see my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel for an evaluation of their character. See links below.). Only in the murder of Amasa, is Joab’s sword mentioned (2 Sam. 20:8). It is clear that Joab uses the same method on the unsuspecting Abner (2 Sam. 3:27), but his sword is not mentioned. David’s reaction, however, involves a curse on the house of Joab that includes those who “fall by the sword” (2 Sam. 3:29). As for Absalom, the only mention of a sword is connected to David’s fear that if he stays in Jerusalem, Absalom will strike the city with the edge of the sword (2 Sam. 15:14). Perhaps the lack of connection between Absalom and the sword is because he is all show and no substance.

Saul’s Armor-Bearer and Jonathan

Sword and spear--Jonathan — Jonathan and his armor-bearer defeat the Philistines.

There are two more individuals connected with the sword. Both are in 1 Samuel and both are, for the most part, positive associations. I will mention the last first. Saul’s armor-bearer is commanded by Saul to draw his sword and kill him. To the armor-bearer’s credit, he is afraid to lift his hand against the Lord’s anointed. As a result, Saul falls on his own sword (1 Sam. 31:4). Once the amor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell on his own sword. We might view this action negatively, as a suicide, but I believe the intent of the text is to demonstrate the loyalty of Saul’s armor-bearer. He was afraid to lift his sword and kill his master, but he was not afraid of death itself. Finally, there are two passages that associate Jonathan with the sword. The first is 1 Samuel 13:22. After noting that none of the people of Israel had sword or spear (1 Sam. 13:19), the text tells us that both Saul and Jonathan did. In light of the later text in 1 Samuel 17:45, 47, this could be viewed as a negative statement. Indeed, regarding Saul’s sword, 1 Samuel 17:39, does imply that Saul trusts his weapon more than God. The same, however, is not true of Jonathan. After noting that Jonathan had both sword and spear, the story continues by showing that Jonathan demonstrated great faith in God by going against the enemy even though he was greatly outnumbered (1 Sam. 14:6-14). Therefore, although Jonathan possessed sword and spear, his faith was in the Lord. The other occurrence of the sword in connection with Jonathan is when he surrenders his sword as a gift to David (1 Sam. 18:4). Jonathan’s surrender of his sword, as well as other royal items, is a sign of his friendship and covenant with David. Within the larger context of Samuel, it is also a sign of Jonathan’s acknowledgement of David’s future kingship (see 1 Sam. 23:17).

Israel and Its Enemies

An obvious usage of the sword motif involves Israel and its enemies. There are 5 occurrences of Israel’s enemies being struck with the sword. Some of these instances involve individuals we have already looked at above. These include Samuel striking Agag (1 Sam. 15:33), and David eulogizing the sword of Saul which did not return empty against his enemies (2 Sam. 1:22). A third occurrence involves one of David’s mighty men, Eleazar, striking the Philistines. The text says he fought so long and so hard that his hand clung to the sword (2 Sam. 23:10)! When Saul is commanded to utterly destroy the Amalekites, we are told that he (and the people) utterly destroyed Amalek with the edge of the sword (1 Sam. 15:8). In an unusual twist (although this phenomenon is seen elsewhere in Scripture), the Philistines turn their swords upon themselves in the panic and confusion of battle (1 Sam. 14:20). Although other battles and wars against other enemies are recorded in Samuel (e.g., 2 Sam. 8), the sword, as a weapon that defeats Israel’s enemies, is only mentioned in battles against the Philistines and Amalekites.

Of course the books of Samuel also mention enemies slaying Israelites with the sword. Twice we are told that Doeg the Edomite slaughtered the priests of the Lord and the town of Nob with the edge of the sword (1 Sam. 22:19). 2 Samuel 1:12 reports the mourning of David and his men because Saul, his sons, and Israel had fallen by the sword at the hands of the Philistines. A fourth occurrence is a bit obscure. This involves David’s curse on the house of Joab that there would be those who would fall by the sword (2 Sam. 3:29). Presumably David means by an enemy’s sword, although this is not specified. Finally, David’s killing of Uriah by the sword, can also be put into this category. Nathan points out that he did it with “the sword of the Ammonites” (2 Sam. 12:9).

The saddest use of this motif are those passages which speak of fellow Israelites killing one another by the sword. The most prevalent occurrences of this motif (4 out of 8) are found in the stories of the two civil wars recorded in 2 Samuel. In 2 Samuel 2:16 we have the infamous contest in which 12 from Israel are pitted against 12 from Judah and all fall dead as each stabs the other with their sword. This precipitates a battle which leads to Abner’s pleas to Joab at the end of the day, “Shall the sword devour forever?” (2 Sam. 2:26). In the battle triggered by Absalom’s rebellion, the narrator tells us that “the forest devoured more people that day than the sword” (2 Sam. 18:8). It is also within the context of Absalom’s rebellion that David flees Jerusalem because he fears Absalom will strike it with the edge of the sword (2 Sam. 15:14–see comments above). A particular expression used in 3 instances where Israelites kill Israelites is “the sword devours.” We have already looked at 2 of these (2 Sam. 2:26; 18:8). The third instance is, perhaps, the most disturbing of all. After David is informed of Uriah’s death, he callously replies, “The sword devours one as well as another” (2 Sam. 11:25).

When we look back over this survey of the sword motif of Israel versus its enemies, it seems that Israel comes out the worst. There are only 5 passages which speak of Israelites striking their enemy with the sword, whereas there are 13 passages which speak of Israel’s enemies striking them (5 times), or fellow-Israelites striking each other with the sword (8 times). Israel actually uses the sword against itself more (8 times), than against its enemies (5 times). A sad commentary indeed!

Sword and Spear: Powerlessness and Trusting in the Lord

Our final category of the sword motif involves all of the passages that mention sword and spear. As noted above, there are 5 verses that use both words. These passages communicate one of two themes. 1) The theme of powerlessness; or 2) the theme of trusting/not trusting in the Lord. These two themes are not necessarily at odds with each other, although they can be.

The first occurrence of the sword and spear motif occurs in 1 Samuel 13:19, 22. The purpose in this passage is to emphasize the powerlessness of Israel. Humanly speaking, they are outmatched by their foes the Philistines who have a monopoly on blacksmiths and weapons. Only Saul and Jonathan are said to have sword and spear. The people have only farming implements, and they must even go to the Philistines to have them sharpened! Although the verses emphasize the powerlessness of Israel militarily (also emphasized by the fact that they are outnumbered and surrounded), the verses set us up for the Israelite victory that occurs in 1 Samuel 14. This victory is achieved by the Lord acting through the faith of Jonathan and his armor-bearer. The point of the story then, is to emphasize that Israel (and the reader) should not trust in physical weapons, or fear the technological and numerical advantages of the enemy. Rather, trust in the Lord can overcome any disadvantage. This is a common theme in Scripture and a very common theme in the battles recorded in the Old Testament (see comments above).

The next occurrence of the sword and spear motif is found in 1 Samuel 17:45, 47, in the story of David’s defeat of Goliath. We have already looked at these verses above. Here, I will simply note again that these verses establish the meaning of the motif. David’s words teach that the bottom line is trust in the Lord. This brings us to the final passage that uses both of these words. In 1 Samuel 21:8, David is fleeing from Saul. He comes to the High Priest, Ahimelech, at Nob, requesting food and weapons. I have already noted above that David’s request for a “spear or a sword,” and his taking of the sword of Goliath demonstrate a lack of faith in this context. The man who boldly faced Goliath without a sword or spear, now feels the need to take the sword of Goliath to protect himself in his flight from Saul. In one sense, no one can condemn David for his desire to have a sword for protection. If any of us were in a similar circumstance, we would probably want the same. The point, however, is that the inspired author is clearly making the point that David’s faith has wavered and he is headed in a precarious direction. This is further confirmed by his flight to Achish King of Gath, where David’s life is endangered (1 Sam. 21:10-15).

In our next post, we will continue our look at the sword and spear motif in Samuel by focusing on the use of the spear. Until then, try not to cross swords with anyone!

For a more in depth study of the books of Samuel, purchase a copy of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Book Reviews

Demons: What the Bible Really Says

June 22, 2020 randymccracken Leave a comment

Demons: What the Bible Really Says

Are all demonic beings the same? How many spiritual rebellions does the Bible speak of? Is there an evil being named Satan in the Old Testament? Did Satan rebel before the creation of human beings and take a third of the angels with him? Are demons fallen angels? These are just a few of the many questions answered in Michael Heiser’s new book Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness. How many of the foregoing questions do you think you know the answer to? Are you sure you’re right? If you’d like to test your knowledge on demons take the quiz Demons: Biblical or Myth? A word of warning, however–the quiz is designed to be tricky. Michael Heiser himself confesses that he missed two of the questions! You can see him and Rabbi Eric Walker talk about it here. I took the quiz and did well, but that’s because I had already read Heiser’s book! Had I taken the quiz first, I would probably have gotten half or less correct. In other words, there’s a lot to learn from this book. Not only will the average person learn new things about what the Bible really teaches on this subject, some misconceptions will also be corrected.

Demons is Heiser’s companion volume to Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host (see my review here). Both books are based upon his foundational study entitled: The Unseen Realm (see my review of the movie version recently released by Logos/Faithlife). No one has done more to reveal the Bible’s teaching on the spiritual realm to the average person than Michael Heiser. This most recent book continues that tradition.

Content of Demons

Heiser’s book is divided into four main sections. Section I is entitled, “Biblical Vocabulary for the Powers of Darkness.” These opening chapters are not for the faint of heart. After a brief introductory chapter, he dives right in to the Hebrew (chapter 1) and Greek (chapter 2) words that describe the demonic realm. According to Heiser, “We simply cannot depend on English translations for an Old Testament study of demons or the infernal powers” (p. 1). His point is that both Hebrew and Greek use a wide variety of terms to describe these powers of darkness and English translations do not fully reflect the significance of the various words and their meaning.

Chapter 1–Heiser groups Hebrew words describing evil spirits into three broad categories: 1) Terms associated with the realm of the dead and its inhabitants; 2) Terms that denote geographical dominion of supernatural powers in rebellion against Yahweh; and 3) Preternatural creatures associated with idolatry and unholy ground (p. 8). Heiser examines more than 15 words that describe evil supernatural powers in the OT. Most readers will be unfamiliar with many of these terms. If you don’t know Hebrew but remain patient, you’ll learn a lot!

Chapter 2–In this chapter, Heiser turns to the Greek terms used in the Septuagint (LXX–Greek translation of the OT). Heiser’s main goal is to establish that the LXX has faithfully transmitted the outlook of the Hebrew OT regarding the spiritual realm of evil beings. This is important as some OT scholars advocate the view that the OT contains vestiges of polytheism that are “cleaned up” in the LXX. Heiser demonstrates conclusively that this is not the case. The OT does not have any vestiges of polytheism, and the LXX is faithful in communicating the same view of the spiritual realm as the Hebrew Bible. What Heiser has to say on this subject is important, but I’ll leave the details of this argument for the interested reader to find out.

Section II is entitled, “The Powers of Darkness in the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism,” and is comprised of chapters 3 through 8. Heiser, convincingly in my opinion, maintains that the OT teaches that there were three spiritual rebellions. The first was by the serpent in Eden (Gen. 3). The second by the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4, and the third at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-8; Deut. 32:8-9). In the succeeding chapters, Heiser looks at each spiritual rebellion. He begins by investigating what the OT teaches, and then follows that up with what the literature of Second Temple Judaism (these are the writings from what is also known as the “intertestament period”) teaches on the same subject. Below are the topics of each chapter.

Chapter 3 tackles what the OT teaches about the rebellion in the garden.

Chapter 4 looks at what the writings of Second Temple Judaism (hereafter, STJ) have to say about this event.

Chapter 5 investigates the OT teaching on the rebellion by the sons of God in Genesis 6.

Chapter 6 follows with the STJ viewpoint on this rebellion.

Chapter 7 looks at the OT rebellion at Babel, recorded in Genesis 11:1-8 and commented on in Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

Chapter 8 concludes this section with the STJ viewpoint and commentary.

Demons author Michael Heiser — Author Michael Heiser

These chapters are full of informative discussions about the meaning of the spiritual rebellions in the OT and how STJ furthers that discussion. One example of this that will surprise many readers is Heiser’s contention that the OT uses the word satan (note the small “s”) in its original meaning of “adversary,” but it does not use it as a proper name referring to the prince of demons (no, not even in 1 Chron. 21 or Job 1). Heiser traces how the use of satan in the OT develops into the proper name Satan during the Second Temple period. Thus, by the time of the NT period Satan has become the proper name of the leader of spiritual wickedness. If this sounds shocking, get the book and make up your own mind. This discussion alone is worth the price of the book.

Section III is entitled, “The Devil and His Angels: The Powers of Darkness in the New Testament.” This section consists of three chapters (9-11). In these chapters, Heiser examines what the NT teaches about these powers and demonstrates how the teachings of both the OT and STJ contribute to the NT worldview. Once again, the chapters are divided according to the three spiritual rebellions mentioned in the OT.

Chapter 9: “The Devil–His Dominion and Destiny,” looks at the original rebel from Genesis 3 and what the NT teaches concerning him.

Chapter 10: “Evil Spirits–Demons and their Destiny,” is an extremely insightful chapter. This chapter shows the connection of the demons of the NT with the rebellion of Genesis 6:1-4. Following what the OT and STJ teaches, the demons are understood to be the dead spirits of the Nephilim. Again, read the book to understand this one!

Chapter 11: “The Ruling Powers: Their Delegitimization and Destiny,” examines the NT language regarding the spiritual rebels from the Tower of Babel. These territorial spirits mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the Book of Daniel, are “the rulers, the authorities, the cosmic powers and spiritual forces of evil” that Paul refers to in Ephesians 6:12, as well as other places.

Section IV is a very helpful concluding section entitled, “Questions and Misconceptions.” Here are a few samples of the kinds of questions and misconceptions addressed. Demons are fallen angels. Can Satan and demons read our minds? Can a Christian be demon possessed? What is spiritual warfare?, and many more.

Evaluation

Heiser’s writings have been a theological game-changer for me personally. Passages I used to ignore, not only make more sense, but I understand how they fit into the overall story of Scripture. Demons adds yet another layer which contributes to that understanding. As I noted in my evaluation of Angels, this book is probably not for the novice. It is full of copious footnotes and references to Hebrew and Greek words. It is most suited for a pastor, Bible college student, or teacher. But anyone who has a desire to understand what the Bible says on this subject will benefit. It never hurts to stretch ourselves theologically, so I wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from reading this book who wants to grow in their knowledge of Scripture in this area. The practical questions in the last section of the book are an example of how much there is to learn. Just be aware that you’re diving into the deep end of the pool, but it’s well worth the swim!

Interested readers may also want to check out the review of Demons and Heiser’s other related books in Christianity Today.