Lectio divinae

Leaving Blogger Due to Poor Service

2007-02-07T14:38:00.000-04:00

The new blog is at Wordpress

It is a terrible disappointment that Blogger has chosen to coerce its existing users into using a new service. Since it was so deficient at enforcing and fulfilling the terms of its previous service, I have no hope that it will change its behavior now.

Mark 7, layer 2

2007-01-22T01:40:00.000-04:00

(to be completed)

Mark 7, layer 1

2007-01-22T01:39:00.000-04:00

This chapter begins with some discussion of ritual cleanliness. Jesus makes the radical assertion that all pollution arises from the heart. The implication is that the dietary laws, which place a heavy burden especially on the homemaker, are irrelevant.But rather than engage in that frontal assault, He harshly criticizes the Pharisees over their observance of the ritual washing of hands, a tradition but not a part of Mosaic Law.

Jesus points out that the Pharisees hold it acceptable for a man to devote his charity to the Temple and withhold it from his parents. Indeed, they prevent him from aiding his parents if he tells them that he is devoting his help to them as a gift to God. But in placing sacrifices to the Temple above caring for his parents, he has violated the more important parts of the Law.

The parable of the Syrophoenician woman is one of the oddest of the gospels. She comes to Jesus, prostrates herself before Him, and begs Him to cast a demon out of her daughter. He gives her a contemptuous response, to the effect that the Jews are God's children, and she is a dog. She captures the sense of God's grandeur by presenting the miracle of exorcism as merely a crumb that falls from the table. Jesus does not go to her house, but tells her that the demon is gone.

In the second miracle of the chapter, Jesus spits, touches the tongue of a deaf mute and, looking to heaven, sighs and commands "Be opened." The deaf mute can now hear and speak. Trying to do the miracle in reverse, Jesus tells the crowd to keep silence, but this He cannot achieve. They spread word of this miracle everywhere.

1. The practical consequences of denying the importance of cleanliness were not good. Western Europe lagged in sanitation, and even today many Christians are careless about passing illnesses around in the mistaken notion that bacteria and viruses are trumped by pleasant thoughts. This is an example of a teaching that illustrates Jesus's humanness and its inherent limitation.

2. In scolding the Pharisees for not understanding the scriptures, Jesus quotes an excellent chapter of Isaiah, chapter 29.

3. The place where Jesus speaks to the Pharisees and teachers of the law is not specified. However, the site for the first of the two miracles is specified as Tyre and the second as Decapolis (though manuscripts vary).

Mark 6, Layer 2

2007-01-01T02:20:00.000-04:00

To be completed.

Mark 6, Layer 1

2007-01-01T02:13:00.000-04:00

The centerpiece of this chapter is an explanation of how and why Herod Antipas (not the Herod featured in Matthew 2) murdered John the Baptist. But it also includes two major miracles, and opens with a story illustrating the tendency of people to ignore miracles before their eyes.

Jesus returns to (probably) Nazareth, and heals a few sick people. But the populace is offended by Him, because they know Him all too well. Jesus is amazed by their lack of faith. Jesus sends out the disciples in pairs, equipped with a staff, sandals, and a single tunic, ordering them to stay in one house only during their sojourn in a village, and telling them to testify against any town that does not welcome them. One wonders whether he shook the dust off his feet as he left Nazareth. We are told that He gave the disciples authority over evil spirits, so it would seem that only those who have been specifically granted the power can practice exorcism.

The execution of John the Baptist has many intriguing elements. First, it must be understood that Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and a Samaritan woman; Herod the Great was accused (Matt. 2) of a massacre of infants in an attempt to eliminate Jesus. Both father and son were famed builders. Following his father's death in 4BCE, Antipas ruled Galillee and the Peraea, Philip ruled Gaulanitis area, while Archelaus got the big urban centers (HH Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People).

The family was far too cosmopolitan and hellenistic for Jewish tastes. Herod had arrested John because John had claimed that it was not lawful for Herod to have married his sister-in-law Herodias. Herod's brother was still alive, so Jewish law did not sanction re-marriage. But, further, Herodias was Herod Antipas's niece through a half-brother. So, it is difficult to believe that any Jewish authority would sanction the marriage.

And yet, Herod liked John, feared him, and respected him. He had to be tricked into ordering his execution by Herodias's daughter, whose name is not given in the gospels, but is traditionally said to be Salome. Herodias got John's head, and John's disciples got his body.

The identification of Jesus with John was, in one sense, not very surprising. They were cousins and presumably resembled one another. Yet, Jesus was seen to be one of the ancient prophets, or Elijah, or a resurrected form of John. Herod believed the latter, perhaps because that interpretation would have absolved him of John's murder.

There are two miracles of feeding in Mark. In the first, five loaves and two fish feed five thousand men and leave twelve baskets of food. In the second (Mark 8), seven loaves and a few small fish feed four thousand men and leave seven baskets of leftovers.

The next miracle is of an outstanding kind. The disciples go ahead of Jesus by rowboat to Bethsaida. But the wind is against them, so they have to row very hard. Jesus completes His prayer, and walks out on the water. They land at Gennesaret and Jesus heals all the sick that are brought to Him.

1. What is Jesus's home town? Bethlehem (Matt. 2: 1) or Nazareth (Matt. 2: 23). Why doesn't Mark state the name of the town?
2. We learn the names of Jesus's brothers: James, Joses, Judah, and Simon.
3. Why does Jesus send the disciples out in pairs?
4. Is there a symbolism or a reason for the mutilation of John, by separating head and body?
5. The miracle of the loaves and fishes represents the breaking of the oldest curse on man, the curse of the soil in Genesis 3, by which man is obliged to earn his bread by labor. Yet the disciples's hearts have been so hardened that they don't recognize what Jesus has offered them.
6. See Bill Loader for numerological references.

Mark 5, Layer 2

2006-11-26T01:33:00.000-04:00

(To be completed)

Mark 5, Layer 1

2006-11-26T01:25:00.000-04:00

In the first section, Jesus performs an outstanding miracle, rescuing a man from a multitude of demons that had taken hold of him and left him living naked among the tombs, perhaps eating the dead. The demons ask to be banished to pigs, which then rush over a cliff and die.

Jesus performs two other miracles. The second of these is the raising of the 12-year old daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue from what her relatives believe is her death. In this miracle, Jairus thinks that his daughter can be saved only if Jesus touches her. Jesus asks of Jairus only that he believe.

The first miracle is different in type. A woman who has suffered bleeding for twelve years believes that if she touches Jesus, she will be healed. For His part, Jesus feels power leave Him, but cannot identify who took it.

This leaves the following observations and questions
1. The miracles of this chapter have to do with pollution: a man who lives with the dead, a woman who is bleeding, and an apparently dead child.
2. The first miracle occurs in the territory of the Gerasenes (or, variously, Gadarenes or Gergesenes). Jesus saves a man who has been hopelessly polluted by contact with the dead (and possibly by cannibalism).The man begs not to let the spirits leave the area. The injurious spirits that have made him inhumanly strong and made him cry out and cut himself on stones ask to go into ritually unclean animals, pigs. Does the fact that the pigs die in this precinct confine the evil spirits to the area? Did the man ingest the evil spirits with human flesh? What, precisely, does the word "Legion" mean, and does it have some connection with the Romans.
3. The evil spirits infesting the Gerasene resist Jesus, refusing to leave at His command until He asks the man his name. The man replies "My name is Legion, for we are many." Is Jesus speaking to the demons or to the man? Have the demons become part of the identity of the man? Why do the demons beg to be released into pigs?
4. Just as the man in the Gerasene region asks that the spirits not be allowed to leave the area, the Gerasenes beg Jesus to leave the area. They "exorcise" the son of God from their midst. The man wants to stay with Jesus, but Jesus denies him that request, instructing him instead to preach in his home town, the area known as the Ten Cities. All but one of these cities are on the east bank of the Jordan. The largest nowadays are Damascus and Amman. The Decapolis represented a region of cultural interaction between the Greek and Semitic way of life. Why does the man wait until Jesus is about to get into the boat before asking to go with Him?
5. Note that Jairus's daughter is 12 years old and the woman has been bleeding for 12 years. This might be coincidence, or it might point to a connection between the woman and the girl.
6. Why did Jesus choose Peter, James, and John to witness the miracle of raining the child? Why did he speak in Aramaic in raising the child? What, precisely, was the "ruler" of a synagogue?

Mark 4, Layer 2

2006-11-15T01:44:00.000-04:00

(To be completed)

Mark 4, Layer 1

2006-11-15T01:43:00.000-04:00

This chapter purports to be instruction on how to understand Jesus's parables. But this creates an awkward situation. Is there "secret knowledge" that only the enlightened attain? That was the basis of the gnostic heresy. Alternatively, is Mark illustrating how dense the disciples are, that even though they have the knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven that permits them to understand the parables, they don't? Neither explanation is completely satisfactory, but we are later told that Jesus had to explain His parables to the disciples.

Even stranger, Jesus tells His disciples that He speaks in parables to prevent those who don't already have insight into the Kingdom of Heaven from repenting and being saved. So, in Mark's telling, Jesus is no longer preaching John's gospel of repentance, but a gospel of winnowing.

At any rate, Jesus tells of the farmer (the preacher, inspired by God) who sows the seed (the Word of God) to people, some of whom are unlucky and so the bird (Satan) eats the Word, some of whom are unfaithful (shallow-soiled) and fall away, some of whom are beleagured with worries (amid thorns), and a few of whom are fruitful, and return so much that the planting is successful.

Next is the parable of the lamp, in which Jesus says everything is meant to be known.

In a wisdom saying, He also tells us that we are given more of whatever we give. And if we consider what have to be too little to give to others, that little will be taken away. In a related parable, He compares the Kingdom of Heaven to the spontaneous creation of crops from sowing. So the farmer "gives away" his seed grain, but gets back more than he gave. Or perhaps, He says, the Kingdom is like a mustard seed, very small, but capable of growing to be a large weed.

The chapter closes with a miracle. A small flotilla, including Jesus and the disciples, sets off for the other side of the lake. Jesus falls asleep. His disciples have to wake Him when a storm sets in, and He commands the storm to cease. He asks the disciples why they are afraid and if they lack faith. We are told the answer: they are terrified because they have no faith at all, not even recognizing God sitting before them.

One last matter. The chapter says that Jesus preached from a boat. There's no obvious practical reason for this. Even if the shoreline bends, one wouldn't get a larger audience than could be obtained on land, and the noise of the water would be likely to make it harder to hear. Perhaps Jesus was trying to prevent His audience from touching Him.

So, this chapter leaves us with more questions than answers:
1. Is Jesus trying to conceal saving knowledge by using parables?
2. Is there a secret knowledge in the rest of Mark, to which this chapter alerts us?
3. How does Jesus's use of parables square with the parable of the lamp?
4. Why, really, did Jesus preach from a boat?

Mark 3, Layer 2

2006-10-28T02:38:00.000-03:00

(To be completed at a later date)

Mark 3, Layer 1

2006-10-28T02:36:00.000-03:00

Mark 3 begins with an outstanding miracle. While casting demons out of people might be dismissed as psychological rather than divine, Jesus evidently (for we are not explicitly told) cures a man's crippled hand.

Much more interesting than the miracle is the context. People (we are later told they are Pharisees) who want to accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath watch him closely. So He
performs the miracle of healing without any ceremony at all. He just tells the crippled man to
stand up and stretch out his hand (imagine the Pharisee's difficulty in turning that into a charge that would stick).

Also interesting is how He phrases His question to the spies: How should we observe the Sabbath-- by doing good or by doing evil? By killing or by preserving life? The spies answer
Him not in words, but by going from the synagogue directly to Herod's clique, whose hands will later be stained red with the blood of John the Baptist. There they will plot to kill. Jesus responds with anger to their stubborness.

Mark 3 then describes Jesus's withdrawal from people and their energy in pursuing Him, and Jesus's decision to appoint apostles to handle the increased traffic. The appointing of the apostles is a small point of interest: Jesus went onto a mountainside and called to those He wished to appoint. He didn't ask them to accompany Him or have a public apostleship ceremony. He called and they came.

The final section of the chapter is one of the most powerful chapters of the gospels. It contains three lessons. The first is that Jesus's family, learning that He is teaching so intently that He is not eating, declares Him to be insane. When they show up and send someone to call Him out from the house where He is teaching, He claims the people sitting around Him as his mother and his brothers. There are several ways to take this. The usual interpretation is that He is disowning His family allegiances in favor of the community of believers. But perhaps He is making a metaphysical statement, that human beings are all one, that whoever we stand before have as much claim to kinship with us as our biological kin.

The second lesson of this chapter (a house divided against itself cannot stand) was made famous by Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln used it to explain why he could not allow the South to secede. For Jews, the meaning of "a house divided" would be especially poignant, since the decline of Israel and the roots of its enslavement by the Romans began with the civil war between the northern and southern kingdoms.

But Jesus is using it both to justify His own works as divine and also to describe evil as a unity. The teachers of the law accuse Him of being possessed by Beelzebub and so having the power to drive out demons. He makes a small joke by shifting the name of the evil one, "Beelzebub" (the lord of the flies) to "Satan". Since the meaning of "Satan" is obstacle, He is asking how can the obstacle drive out the obstacle.

But He is deadly serious. The teachers of the law have committed the one sin for which there is no forgiveness, namely inverting the meaning of good and evil. To grasp the full meaning of this, one must understand that the ancients had a simpler understanding of "good" and "evil" than moderns do. Moderns conceive of "good" and "evil" as states of mind, reflecting the intention made manifest in deeds. But the ancients saw "good" to be identical to "helping" and "evil" to be identical to "harming."

Healing someone was, by definition, doing good. By saying that Jesus was healing by means of an evil (injurious) spirit, he teachers of the law were calling "aid" "injury." And there is no mystery as to why this sin, as opposed to all others, cannot be forgiven. A person who calls "light" "darkness" and "darkness" "light" cannot be guided to the light. Instead, the more that they are offered light, the farther into darkness they will flee. God would have to overrule free will to save such people and, by so doing, would destroy their humanity.

By Jesus's words, we understand what the Holy Spirit is. Just as gravity is the tendency by which one mass falls toward another, the Holy Spirit is the tendency by which Truth emerges from falsehood. And so calling "darkness" "light" or calling "healing" "injury" denies the Holy Spirit.

Jesus reinforces the meaning of the parable with what would seem to be a weak simile. He says that to rob the house of a strong man, one must first tie up the strong man up. It has been noted by other commentators that He is referring to the work of salvation as stealing from the devil, that by doing evil to evil, one does good.

And so we are left with a number of questions:
1. How exactly does God call us?
2. How does Jesus's anger square with His warning about anger?
3. Is the one unforgivable sin described elsewhere in the Bible or is this original to Jesus?
4. How does this description of the Holy Spirit square with other descriptions of it?
5. Why is the simile of the strong man thrown in? It seems unnecessary and distracting.
6. How is Mark's telling of this event different from the telling of Matthew 12 and Luke 11?

Mark 2, layer 2

2006-10-09T01:07:00.000-03:00

(To be completed at a later date)

Mark 2

2006-10-09T01:03:00.000-03:00

This chapter describes Jesus's first miracle and several key teachings.

The miracle involves the healing of a paralytic. The paralytic’s friends are so certain that Jesus can heal the man that they climb up on the roof of the house in Capernaum where Jesus is staying and break in through the roof. This would certainly have resulted in severe punishment under any other circumstances, so Jesus rewards their faith by healing the paralytic. But He does so in a very odd way: He forgives the man’s sins. We are told that He then reads the minds of teachers of the law, who think that He is blaspheming by claiming to forgive sins. He therefore converts the spiritual miracle of forgiving sin into the physical miracle of mobility.

Jesus calls Levi, the taxpayer, to His service. Taxpayers were resented, not only because they fed the luxury of the Romans and their Jewish collaborators, but because they were corrupt. He goes to Levi’s house to eat with tax collectors, sinners and, of course, Levi. This time, Pharisees join the teachers of the law in criticizing Jesus’s mingling with the impure. In reply, Jesus gives a very important teaching, that He calls those who are ill from sin; note again the parallelism of physical illness and sin.

Next, Mark presents three teachings. His first lesson is that the disciples do not follow an ascetic life because their Savior is with them in the flesh, as a bridegroom. Afterwards, they will fast. The second appears to be a disconnected teaching presented as a dyad: unshrunk patches are not sewed on clothes that have already shrunk from washing and yeasty wine must be placed in flexible wineskins so that it doesn’t burst the skin.

The third teaching is that Love rules the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made to benefit mankind and not as an arbitrary rule into which mankind must fit itself. On these grounds, he rebukes the Pharisees for trying to forbid Jesus’s disciples from plucking grain. But the biblical example He gives is very odd. He says that David entered the temple to get ceremonial bread in the days of Abiathar the high priest.

In reality, Ahimelech was high priest (1 Sam. 21) and Abiathar was his son. But even more peculiar, Jesus says that David ate the consecrated bread inside the temple and took some to his men to eat. But in 1 Samuel 21, we are not told that David ate the bread inside the temple, but we are also pretty sure he has no men with him.

Points that are raised by this chapter:

1. The action takes place in Capernaum.
2. Note that the paralytic does not get up and walk until Jesus tells him to do so. Does forgiving sin produce physical health?
3. Why did the teachers of the law and the Pharisees criticize Jesus for associating with tax collectors? This would not seem to be a religious or purity issue, but rather an issue of nationalism.
4. Christians have a tendency to feel superior over having seen the truth. But Jesus seems to say that the church is a hospital to heal sin.
5. Why is Jesus’s description of David’s consumption of the show bread seemingly so divergent from the one we know from the 1 Samuel? Is the present canon of the Old Testament wrong? Is Jesus wrong? Did Jesus know a version of the story as told in 1 Samuel that differs from what was enrolled in the canon? Or has translation from Hebrew and Greek into English created seams in the story that do not exist in the original.

Mark 1, layer 2

2006-10-07T02:29:00.000-03:00

(To be completed at another time)

Mark 1, layer 1

2006-10-04T02:15:00.000-03:00

Mark begins with the story of John the Baptist, designating him as the messenger of God prophesied in Isaiah. This is not quite right, since the quote he provides begins with Malachi 3:1 and segues into Isaiah 40:3. This has an unfortunate literary effect, since Malachi 3:1 refers to The Day of Judgment, and the messenger is therefore a harbinger of distress, whereas Isaiah 40:3 is a chapter of comfort, promising that Jerusalem’s sin has been paid for.

At any rate, John the Baptist is out in the desert regions by the Jordan (traditionally believed to be near Bethany), wearing a camel hair coat and a leather belt, preaching repentance. He lives on locusts and wild honey. John defines two separate baptisms, one by water, and one by the Holy Spirit to be administered by one greater than him.

Jesus is baptized by John and has an enlightenment experience in which he sees Heaven opened to release the Spirit in the form of a dove, and he hears the voice of God naming him as His Son and expressing high satisfaction with Jesus. As phrased, it’s unlikely that anyone else, even John, knew that this experience was going on.

The Spirit directs Jesus into the wilderness to live among the wild animals and be tempted by Satan, while having His needs tended to by angels.

At some indefinite future time, John is imprisoned. So, Jesus takes up preaching John’s message of repentance, but with a new twist: he tells people to rejoice because the Kingdom of God is near. Beginning ca. 60 miles north of the site of His baptism, He recruits Simon, Andrew, and James and John Zebedee from the fishing trade in Galilee.

In Capernaum, He preaches with a confidence and familiarity of material that amazes people, who are used to having the scriptures delivered as rote recitation. A man possessed by an evil spirit identifies Jesus as the Holy One of God. Jesus silences the spirit, and commands it to leave a possessed man. The spirit convulses the man and emerges from him with a shriek.

Jesus then heals Simon’s mother-in-law of a fever and then heals all of the sick and demon-possessed in the town. He repeats this throughout Galilee. His most outstanding miracle is the curing of a case of a skin ailment, generally rendered as “leprosy.” .

He commands the man to speak to no one, but to go to the priests to make the sacrifices prescribed by Moses. This is presumably what is commanded in Leviticus 14: one bird is killed and exsanguinated, and a second bird is dipped into the blood along with cedar, hyssop, and a scarlet thread, then released. Eight days later, he must bring three lambs, flour, and oil, to provide a wave offering, a sin offering, and a guilt offering.

There are many elements of interest. First is the question of why Mark does not tell us that John is Jesus’s cousin. Also, there’s the question of John’s habiliment and diet. A camel’s hair coat would seem to be unpleasant attire for the desert. John has chosen a purely vegetarian diet despite the proximity of the Jordan and its fish. Why does Jesus begin preaching so far from Judea and the site of His baptism? Why does He recruit among fishermen? What is the symbolism of the elements of the cleansing from skin disease?

Throughout the Old Testament, the Spirit has been portrayed as a wind, formless. In this gospel, it takes on a concrete form. Also, interestingly, Jesus repeatedly commands that all who recognize Him as the Son of God to be silent. All of these are worthwhile exploring in layer 2 of analysis.

Intermission

2006-09-17T22:45:00.000-03:00

Walking through the Old Testament is an arduous job. That Testament is filled with faithlessness, conflict, betrayal, war, and murder... all too much like the present age.

I was called to Christ by receiving, not from human lips or paper, a promise that I was loved. This world is so harsh and antihuman that we must believe that our home is in a place of love. Only in this way can we avoid despairing, and so being tempted to join this world's destructiveness and bottomless lust for more and always more.

In this way, one can tell the true Christian from the false: for the true Christian, doing good is not entirely optional. It is as if one is caught in a blizzard. In the very center of it is a warm spot, but elsewhere, it is painfully cold. And the spot keeps moving. So, either one stays up with it, or the chill reminds one of one's dereliction.

Just so, let us not linger in the chill of the Old Testament, but take a holiday into the warmer gospels.

Now, the New Testament is a difficult teaching as well. The cross is our body, and we are nailed to it. Those who heal a society, its peacemakers and its teachers, are routinely mocked and persecuted. The official church is filled with self-righteous Pharisees and conniving Sadducees. Outside the church are righteous people, like the Centurion who felt compassion and the Syrophoenicean woman who taught Jesus true humility. Many of these don't call themselves Christians, but since they have accepted Love as their teacher, no army of angels could keep them away from His mansions.

And so I hesitated where to go for this holiday.

Paul is too complicated for a weary traveler.

Revelation? Fahgeddaboutit.

Matthew and Luke make for a difficult entry, of researching dozens of obscure names for the basically unimportant issue of Joseph's lineage.

John is beautiful, very poetic, but outside of the basic tradition. One is always wondering whether John is talking about the same Jesus as the Synoptic gospels.

And so, I chose Mark for my repose.

1 Samuel 31

2006-09-09T20:05:00.000-03:00

This chapter states that Saul (Hebrew: "desired") fell on his own sword and his armor bearer saw that he was dead.

Saul's sons Jonathan (Hebrew: "Jehovah has given"), Abinadab ("my father is noble" or "my father is willing"), and Malki-Shah ("my king is wealth" or "king of aid") fall before Saul does. The archers wound Saul on Mt. Gilboa ("swollen heap" or "bubbling fountain"), so that he is afraid of being run through and also abused.

The Israelites are forced by the rout of the army to abandon their homes along the valley. Saul's body was abused, with the head being cut off and presumably displayed in Philistine towns, his armor becoming a trophy of the goddess Ashtoreth, and his body being fastened to a wall in Beth Shan ("house of ease"; a traditionally Philistine valley town). Ultimately, the bodies of Saul and his sons were burned in Jabesh ("dry") Gilead ("rocky region") and buried under a tamarisk tree, and the people fasted for a week.

Jabesh Gilead is the town that Saul rescued from Nahash the Ammonite in 1 Sam. 11. The term for tamarisk tree ("eshel") occurs only three times in the Old Testament. It is the tree in Gen 21:33 which Abraham plants in Beersheba and calls on the name of God. It is also the tree under which Saul abode in 1 Sam. 22:6 just prior to his mad attempt to track down David.

The final chapter, 1 Samuel 31 (see also 1 Chron. 10), should be compared against 2 Samuel 1 (see also 2. Sam. 4). In the latter, the son of an Amalekite claims to have slain Saul at his request, while in the former, Saul killed himself. The two accounts can't be reconciled. Perhaps the son of the Amalekite is lying. Certainly it would seem to be a good way to ingratiate himself with David. But the scripture cannot, absolutely cannot be read as literally true and internally consistent. 1 Chron. 10 also states that Saul died because he failed to consult God and consulted a medium instead.

It's doubly lucky that David had been forbidden to join this fight, or he might have killed his friend, Jonathan, and thereby broken his oath.

The abuse of the body that Saul feared may have included sexual abuse. Although the word is, as it is in English, vague, in Judges 19: 25, it is used to mean sexual abuse.

1 Samuel 30

2006-08-29T23:53:00.000-03:00

While David has been away, the Amalekites have swooped in and raided Ziklag, burning it to ashes and carrying off all of the possessions, wives, and children of David and his men. The men blame David. David seeks refuge in God, asking through priestly ritual whether he should pursue the kidnappers. His acolyte in this is the very son of Ahimelech, Abiathar, who joined him after the destruction of Nob.

The answer being in the affirmative, David and his men (who are 600) set off in pursuit. They find an Egyptian slave of the Amalekites who has been abandoned and revive him. Being promised his life, he leads David to the Amalekites. David's band sets on the Amalekites and wipes them out, with the minor exception of 400 young men who escape on camels.

Miraculously, nothing that the Amalekites had taken was missing. Indeed, they capture enough booty that David is able to reward people everywhere he had roamed while eluding Saul. He also does something surprising: he shares the booty among two hundred of his men who had been too exhausted to fight. Also, he sends gifts to neighboring towns of his kinsman from Judah, an action that doubtless will help to strengthen him gain his hold on the kingship.

This chapter is about overcoming despair when one's life seems destroyed. The thematic hinge seems to be the river Besor, which literally means "cheerful." One-third of David's men are so exhausted from anger and sorrow that they are unable to enter cheerfulness to cross over and join the battle to reclaim their families.

________________________
Additional notes

There are many place names:
* Ziklag (winding or outflowing), in southern Judah
* Besor (cheerful)
* Bethel (house of God), southern Judah (or in Ephraim near Benjamin)
* Ramoth-Negev (heights), in Judah
* Jattir (plenty), in the mountains of Judah
* Aroer (ruins, in southrn Judah
* Siphmoth (fruitful), in southern Judah
* Eshtemoa (I will make myself heard, I shall cause my own ruin, fire of astonishment, I shall soar aloft), in Judah
* Racal (trade), in southern Judah
* Hormah (devotion), in southern Judah
* Bor Ashan (furnace of smoke), in Judah
* Athach (lodging place), in Judah
* Hebron (association), 20 miles south of Jerusalem

Nothing is said about whether the women had been raped, surprising considering the questions it would raise about the royal bloodline. In 1 Chron. 3, we learn that Amnon and Daniel are the sons of Ahinoam and Abigail, though we are assured that these were born in Hebron (see 2 Sam. 2 for David's move to Hebron).

There's a bit of numerological coincidence in the chapter. David started with 600 men and left 200 of them, so his troop strength was 400 men; 400 Amalekites escape. Another bit of numerological coincidence occurs with the Egyptian, who receives three cakes (one of figs and two of raisins) after not having had food or water for three days and three nights. The three threes are capped by his serving as a guide.

Within the Old Testament tradition, the escape of the Amalekites is unfortunate, because the Amalekites were the implacable enemies of Israel:

"The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." --Exodus 19

Haman, the ruthless would-be executioner of the Jews in the book of Esther, is said to be an Agagite, and Agag was a descendant of Amalek.

1 Samuel 29

2006-08-28T23:47:00.000-03:00

This is a short transitional chapter, but it still contains some meaning.

The Philistine commanders (Heb. "ceren," also called "rulers", Heb. "sar"; the latter term has more military overtones) are, fortunately, suspicious of David and force Achish to order him back to Ziklag. It would have been awkward had David fought against Saul, then stepped forward to claim the kingship of Israel.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the Philistine prince, Achish, is clearly a believer in God, since he says that David is as pleasing to him as an angel of God.

The sense of Philistine strength is made plain not only by the size of their military units (the hundreds and the thousands), but though the name of where they gather, Aphek or "the citadel." Saul's armies gather by a fountain in Jezreel ("God sows"). Jezreel repeatedly appears as a site of disaster. The dogs ate the flesh of Jezebel in Jezreel (2 Kgs 9:37) and the heads of the 70 sons of Ahab were brought to Jezu in Jexreel (2 Kgs 10). Jezreel is where the northern Kingdom was destroyed (Hosea 1). Thus the doom of the Israelites is foreshadowed in many ways: the Philistines are strong, they are led by a man of God, while Saul is in disgrace, and the Philistines are in their citadel, while Saul's men are in a town of doom.

1 Samuel 28

2006-07-28T14:49:00.000-03:00

The chapter opens with Prince Achish conscripting David to fight against Israel. David agrees, and Achish makes him a "bodyguard for life." In other words, he promotes him into his innermost circle of trust. In the next chapter, we will learn that Achish also believes in God, calling David as pleasing as one of God's angels. The implication is clear: Saul has behaved so badly that despite his genetic membership in the "Chosen People," God has found at least one believer among the Philistines to do His work.

Fortunately for David, the Philistine commanders will reject his service. Had they not, it would have been awkward to him to ascend to the throne of Israel.

In the meantime, Saul begins to tremble at the gathering Philistine armies. Samuel is dead. God won't talk to Saul--not through dreams nor through the Urim nor through prophecy. Having driven the mediums and spirits from Judah, Saul seeks out a medium (or a "witch" as she is called by those who provide the chapter captions) in the town of Endor. He bids her to call up the spirit of Samuel. Overcoming her dread, she does so, but Samuel merely tells Saul that he has lost the kingdom into David's hands, that Saul and his sons will die and the army of Israel will be destroyed. He ascribes this fate to Saul's failure to rub out the Amalekites as ordered by God. Indeed, as the subsequent chapter informs us, the Amalekites are at about this time laying waste to David's adopted town of Ziklag and seizing his wives and those of his followers (no word on David's children).

Saul has not eaten all day, so he is enervated and in fear of his fate. The medium, backed by Saul's men, persuades the king to eat a good meal of matzoh and veal. In the end, trapped by the Philistines, he will see three of his sons fall in battle, be badly wounded himself, and be driven to suicide to escape capture.

This chapter raises a question that troubles and divides Christians, namely the role of the occult. It also gives us what I think is the first and perhaps only glimpse of the afterworld in the Old Testament. There are five methods of foretelling the future mentioned: dreams (Hebrew: chalowm ), prophecy (Hebrew: nabiy'; mostly a favorable term, referring to people like Aaron and Samuel, but also potentially false prophets), the Urim (literally "lights", these were divining stones carried by the priests), mediums (Hebrew: 'owb; a necromancer or someone who traffics with spirits of the dead) and spiritists (Hebrew: yiddoniy, "wise knower").

Now, it is Saul the godless one who has driven the mediums and spirits from the land. Samuel, the chief priest, apparently tolerated them, because the chapter makes a point of mentioning that he had died beforehand. This is perplexing, because
Leviticus 20:27 says that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch ("medium") to live and Deuteronomy 18:10-11 casts imprecations against those who "practice divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, casts spells" or "is a medium or spiritist who consults the dead." (Deut 18:10-11).

So, how should Christians understand the prohibitions against the occult? Applying the letter of the law apparently did not save Saul, because he was a hypocrite at heart, nor did bending the law damn Samuel, because he was faithful to God (strangely, Samuel told Saul they would be together; more on this later.) In the New Testament, we are told in Acts that the disciples cast lots to select Judas's replacement. And all through the books of the Bible, we are warned of false prophets. But how to tell a true prophet? Wait to see what happens-- not a very helpful injunction when one is faced with a need to make a decision.

What follows is my own interpretation. To paraphrase Paul, all things are permitted, but we should choose to do only those things that are of God: things that arise from spontaneous, organic, living processes. Dreams, for example, or spontaneous visions meet those criteria. Certain kinds of divination, such as the Tarot, could be acceptable, depending on how one approaches them. Astrology is too mechanical and deterministic to qualify, though perhaps a rare person could do it in a manner that is inspired. Communing with a deceased relative through prayer is probably OK. Necromancy is not. Whenever the focus of understanding the future is on God, many avenues are possible. When the focus is on a being other than God or when the seeker imagines that s/he is in control of the process, it infringes on the Commandment to hold God as supreme.

And best of all? Feeling confident that the future, whatever it brings, will be the best possible life one could hope for.

That is faith. With faith, there is no need to consider dreams or prophets or devices of divination or anything else.

Finally, there is the interesting point of the view of the afterlife. It should astonish most Christians, with their simple-minded views of Heaven and Hell, that Samuel told Saul they would end up in the same place in the afterlife. I have a view that reconciles most scripture but, like everyone else's ideas, it's speculation.

Here it is: until time actually ends, no one knows the true outcome of their actions. The person who fed the starving artist might have thought s/he was doing a good deed, but if the artist was Hitler, maybe it wasn't. So the world exists in an unresolved quantum probability state. There is a very low, but non-zero probability that the earth could catch fire and burn to a cinder. There is a very high, but not unitary probability that we human beings will accomplish much the same end by our reckless environmental policies. So, since it's unclear what we have done until time ends, heaven and hell are also unpopulated until time ends. Until the very end of time, Jesus will seek to transform the blind and deaf.

Now, the Catholic catechism sees this differently. The historical roots are deep, into the Apostle's Creed itself.

But this towering doctrinal edifice rests on a slender reed:
* 1 Peter 4: 6, John 5:25 (Christ preached to the dead)
* Rom 10:5-8 (Christ does not need to be raised; He is alive)
* Eph. 4:10 (Christ descended; but the scripture is translated by the NIV that Christ descended to earth from heaven, not that he descended "to the depths of the earth.").
* Heb 2:14-15 (Christ destroys the devil and frees those who were held in slavery by fear of death)
* Acts 3:15 (God raised Jesus from death
* Rev 1:18 (Jesus is alive)
* Phil 2:10 (All shall worship Jesus)

Now, if Hell is in the depths of the earth, then one can say Christ descended to Hell. Since there is no reason to think that the Earth's core contains anything except lava, it's very difficult to say that. Many Christians do not accept the "earth's depths" = "Hell" interpretation. Some do.

The point is, there isn't a passage that says in just so many words that Jesus went to Hell and liberated the captives. The Bible is largely silent about the afterlife. In 1 Samuel 28, we are told that just and unjust mingle together. A reasonable interpretation is that until Christ, with His infinite compassion, judges them, they remain uncondemned.

1 Samuel 27

2006-07-02T16:43:00.000-03:00

Despite having been repeatedly saved by the Lord, and (as pointed out by Jamieson) contrary to the directive of Gad to remain in Judah, David fears for his life. And so begins one of the more improbable chapters of the Old Testament. David goes not just to Philistine territory, but to the very town where Goliath came from-- and where, one may imagine, relatives with long memories might reside. Furthermore, he fled here in an earlier episode (Chapter 21), and escaped being killed by pretending to be insane. The local Philistine ruler, Prince Achish, is apparently not too bright, because he remembers none of this.

There David apparently pledges allegiance to Achish, son of Maoch, and receives a village in return for his betrayal of Israel. He goes out on vicious rampages against the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites, killing everyone and taking their livestock and clothes. When questioned by Achish, he says he has been raiding against the Israelites and their allies to the south (negev), an outrageous lie. Achish doesn't notice the vanishing Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites, nor the fact that the clothing captured by David isn't Israelite.

The etymology of placenames has some clues. Gath means "wine press." Achish means "I will blacken" or "I will terrify" or "only a man". Maoch means "oppression." So, David enters the wine press and serves the son of oppression, the terrifier. All of these convey the sense of pressure.

By contrast, Ziklag might mean "unwinding" or "outflowing," suggesting relief from pressure. Jehrameel means "may God have pity," and Jerahmeel (note different spelling) was a greatgrandson of Judah. So, the people David is pretending to attack include those requesting pity. The word "negev" may have an overtone of "parched," perhaps emphasizing the distressed nature of Israel.

David did not attack Judah or its allies, the Kenites, who were probably those Midianites affiliated with Jethro who followed Moses. The Amalekites were descendants of Esau, related to the Edomites. The Girzites and Geshurites are more obscure groups. but were presumably allied with the Amalekites.

In short, this chapter describes what happens when, through fear, one drifts away from God: one leaves the holy land and mingles with enemies, enduring oppression and forced to make one's livelihood through lies and rapine. Yet even far from God, there is refuge. Even the deadliest of enemies gives one shelter.

1 Samuel 26

2006-06-18T22:37:00.000-03:00

Once again the Tar People (Ziphites) betray David's location on the hill of Hakilah to Saul. Saul takes 3000 men. But the Lord puts Saul and his army into a deep sleep, enabling David and Abishai (Heb: father of gift) to slip in. Abishai wants to kill Saul, but David stays his hand, ordering him instead to take Saul's water jug and spear. David climbs a nearby hill and calls out to Saul's general, Abner (Heb: father of light), to reprove him for not guarding the king as evidenced by the stolen water jug and spear. Saul and David have a dialogue in which David again pleads his innocence and places a curse on any man who may have incited Saul against him.He complains about being driven from the presence of the Lord, encouraged to worship foreign gods. Saul promises not to pursue David and gives him a blessing. But again, David is too wise to return to Israel.

This chapter is mainly a reprise of 1 Sam. 24. The main point of interest in this chapter is that David asks his nephew Abishai and Ahimelech the Hittite which of them will go with him. Ahimelech (Heb: God is my brother) is the name of the priest at Nob, but this is a different Ahimelech. Ahimelech apparently declines. The Hittites were a Canaanite tribe, so there seems to be a lesson that foreigners are not trustworthy. Later, David will come to grief because of his lust for Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

It's also interesting that David apparently does not actually take the jug and the spear, but orders Abishai to do it. One imagines him hanging back, just outside Saul's encampment, letting his nephew do the dangerous work. This makes it even more ironic that David will later despise the sons of Zeruiah as men of blood. We never learn how Abishai died, but since David ordered Solomon to kill his brother Joab for the murder of Abner in which Abishai shared responsibility, one imagines it was not peacefully or in battle with the enemy.

1 Samuel 25

2006-05-21T18:07:00.000-03:00

In this chapter, David is tempted to murder, but the Lord, acting through a woman, saves him.

The basic story is that, while hiding out, he and his men have fortuitously served as a shield against wolves and rustlers for the shepherds and flocks of a Calebite named Nabal. So, when shearing day arrives, David expects Nabal to provision him, as hospitality customs might advise. Nabal, being greedier than clever, instead insults the emissaries David dispatches.

This sends David into a killing rage, and he marches on the house of Nabal, with the intent of exterminating it. Nabal's wife Abigail, being noticeably smarter than her husband, sends a party with a feast to meet the army marching toward Nabal's house. Abigail's speech to David is a remarkable polemic, effectively cursing Nabal, promising David that God will save him and destroy his enemies, and predicting a lasting dynasty for David.

Note that although she has never met David, she says that God has promised him "every good thing." From this we may infer that Abigail's speech is a prophetic utterance. The last line, indeed, contains deep wisdom: by trusting God to settle
scores, David will free himself of the "staggering burden of needless bloodshed."

Returning home to find Nabal drunk, Abigail waits until he awakens (presumably with a nasty hangover) to tell him that his arrogant dismissal of David's men nearly led to the elimination of his entire gene pool, starting with his gene puddle. He has
some form of seizure, perhaps a stroke or heart attack. He dies 10 days later. While the body was yet cooling, David made Abigail his third wife after Michal and Ahinoam. In the meantime, however, Saul had apparently repossessed Michal and married her to Paltiel.

There are many interesting angles to this chapter. It is set immediately after the death of Samuel. "All Israel [presumably including David and his men, under truce] assembled and mourned." Only after Samuel's death does David move from En Gedi, with its beautiful waterfall and oasis, to the Desert of Maon ("habitation"). According to the Zondervan NIV, some Septuagint manuscripts say Desert of Paran ("place of caverns").

The Desert of Paran covers much of the Sinai Peninsula. According to Jewish History Maon (now called Maun) is 5 miles south of Hebron (hence roughly 20 miles south and west of Jerusalem and in the mountainous region between the Dead Sea
and the Mediterranean). References to "the Desert of Maon" simply mean the unpopulated region around the village. in 2 Sam. 2, David was publicly anointed king of Israel in Hebron and ruled there for 7 1/2 years.

Nabal is a Calebite. Caleb was a specially honored descendant of Judah, being one of the two spies (the other was Joshua) who urged the Israelites to occupy Canaan according to God's command. Yet "Caleb" is also Hebrew for "dog," and can't have been a desirable clan name.

The home of Abigail ("my father is joy") and Nabal is in Carmel (Hebrew: garden-land). According to Abigail, the name of Nabal means "fool," but she makes a point of explaining this to David, suggesting perhaps either that the word was not in common use or that an editor was making a didactic point. In any event, this passage underlines how neglect to act generously amounts to injustice. Even if those who are so treated do nothing on their behalf, the Lord will not spare their oppressor. Rather, His will be the hand that strikes them down.

The marriage to Abigail foreshadows the Bathsheba story in a manner that would have troubled any editor but would explain a great deal about later events. The Lord later forbids David to bring the Ark to Jerusalem and build the Temple, because David had shed blood (1 Chron 28). This is puzzling: In 1 Samuel, David repeatedly refrained from violence, even when seriously provoked by Saul, by Shimei, and eventually by his own son, Absalom. Whatever blood David has spilled, according to the account of 1 and 2 Samuel, has been God's enemies... with the minor exception of Uriah the Hittite. We are told in 2 Sam. 12 that that sin has been washed clean by the death of the child conceived of the adulterous union.

Yet there are reasons to see David as less restrained in shedding blood than his scrupulous behavior with Abigail in 1 Sam. 25 would have us believe. On his death bed, David's last charge to his son Solomon is to clear the family name of the shedding of innocent blood by punishing Joab for the murders of Abner and Amasa--by killing them. Joab is ultimately killed while clinging to the altar, probably not the way God would have preferred.

David also orders Solomon to kill Shimei for having cursed David (1 Kgs 2), an act of political expedience and vanity, not justice. As David himself said (2 Sam 16), Shimei's cursing perhaps led to David's salvation after Absalom's coup. Solomon goes on to kill his own brother Adonijah simply because Adonijah covets the throne, thereby beginning the dynastic wars. David on his deathbed seems consumed with vengeance.

This is not the only episode. David swore to Jonathan eternal friendship with the house of Saul. Yet in 2 Sam. 2, a war inexplicably breaks out over what seems to start off as roughhousing, but ends with 12 men on each side dead, killed by mutual dagger thrusts. This war was politically convenient for David, as his general Joab doubtless knew.

In 2 Sam. 2, there is an amazing comment that may illuminate so much. The editor identifies Saul's house as "Israel." In 1 Kgs 12, Jeroboam (who is identified with "Israel") revolts against Solomon's son Rehoboam, fissioning the Davidic kingdom into two weaker halves. Jeroboam's father Nebat was an Ephraimite, not a Benjamite like Saul. Is it possible that he traced his ancestry through his mother Zeruah to Saul, and that the war between Joab and Abner foreshadowed the later war between Israel and Judah?

But the story of Bathsheba is the crux of discerning whether David was a peaceful man who was a soldier by necessity or a violent man who found restraint useful. The Bathsheba story is not a simple story of adultery. When David's adultery is about to be discovered, because her husband Uriah the Hittite is too committed a soldier to put sexual recreations ahead of destroying Israel's enemies, David orders that he be abandoned in the clutches of the enemy.

The story of Bathsheba is the story of murder and pride-- as we see, God (and presumably the Israelites) forgive David when he confesses his sin. Further, the Bathsheba story shows David's greed for women.

And this brings us back to Abigail and Nabal.

Did the Lord strike down Nabal?

Or did David, acting through Abigail?

1 Samuel 24

2006-05-01T20:42:00.000-03:00

In this chapter, Saul sets out with a massive force of 3,000 men to search for David in the En Gedi Desert. By chance, he pauses for a pit stop in the very cave in which David and his men are hiding.

Although this is a perfect chance to assassinate Saul and assume the kingship, David chooses instead to snip a bit of cloth from Saul's robe. Even so, his conscience is deeply troubled for having made even this symbolic attack on the leader chosen by God. So, he confronts Saul outside the cave-- Saul's men are mysteriously nowhere to be seen-- and shows him the snippet from the robe as proof that he could have killed Saul and therefore as evidence that he means no harm to Saul.

Saul weeps, though evidently not in sorrowful repentance, since in the next chapter he will again be hunting down David. Yet he acknowledges that David will be king and makes him swear an oath to spare Saul's descendants, confirming the covenant David made with Jonathan in 1 Sam. 20. David, not being persuaded of Saul's sincerity, returns to his stronghold.

Engedi is apparently the place called Hazezon Tamar in Genesis 14:7 and was Amorite territory; cf 2 Chron.20:2. Bibleistrue.com associates the name with date palms.

There are some odd things in this chapter. First, the cave in which David and his men are hiding must be immense, since they are able to carry on a conversation without alerting Saul. We don't know how many men are present, but it could range from two up to 600. So the "cave" would seem to be the natural hollow at the base of the En Gedi waterfall rather than a fully enclosed area.

Also, Saul must have taken a very long time to relieve himself, since David has the time to discuss his plan, crawl forward in the dark, and snip off his prize before Saul can (metaphorically) get zipped. And there is the peculiar absence of Saul's men. They are off in wild country, searching for a man Saul considers his deadly enemy, but his own guard is conspicuously absent.

There is a passage in the chapter of David's men speaking to him that is variously translated as "This is the day the Lord promised you, when your enemy is in your power" or "Today the Lord is saying that He has delivered your enemy into your power." The former carries an implication of a prophecy, nowhere explicitly recorded, while the latter seems blasphemous. David rebukes his men, and behaves with utmost honor, refusing to assassinate the man the Lord made king while also calling on the Lord to judge Saul for his wickedness. Alas, this will lead to a protracted struggle for power that foreshadows David's hesitation to kill his rebellious son, Absalom.

Considering how painfully respectful David is of the Lord, it is difficult to understand why Jehovah doesn't intervene a bit earlier to remove Saul from the throne. It's unclear what David gains from his time in the wilderness, and very clear what he loses. God's delay will lead David into a serious of actions which will gravely complicate assuming the throne. The worst of these may have been the taking of more than one wife, creating competing factions among his own children, as happened with Jacob. The unlimited multiplicity of wives, which also led Solomon astray, may have been a factor in David's temptation with Bathsheba.

And then there is the bitterness that grew up between David's relatives and Saul's, which ultimately ends in the extermination of Saul's family. Would David's kin have been so bitter if they had not had to spend so much time in exile, watching Saul wreck the kingdom and lead it into heresy? Of course, David could have prevented all this by not being respectful of authority past the bounds where it is deserving of respect.

1 Samuel 23

2006-03-24T02:42:00.000-04:00

David's fortunes are improving, such that by the end of this chapter he will have 600 followers, up from 400 in the previous chapter. However, it's unclear whether these 600 are from the disaffected that have gathered around him or whether he picks up followers from the town of Keilah.

Hearing that the Philistines have laid siege to the walled town of Keilah (Hebrew "citadel"), he consults God and determines that victory is assured. However, Saul hears about David's success, and determines to trap him inside Keilah. David in turn hears of Saul's plan, consults God, and learns that the people of Keilah will repay his kindness to them by betraying him to Saul. So, he departs for the desert and hills southeast of Jerusalem.

This area is rugged and desolate, but also beautiful. It is a perfect defensive position, with views of the surrounding countryside that give plenty of warning of pursuers and caves for shelter. Here are descriptions of some of the places:

Ziph was located four miles southeast of Hebron on one of the routes into the Hill Country from the Wilderness of Judea. It is probably to be identified with Tell Zif, a hill 2,890 feet above sea level. From this location, the city had a commanding view of the surrounding territory. See map and photo

Engedi is situated eleven miles north of Masada and approximately thirty-five miles southeast of Jerusalem on the eastern edge of the Judean Desert, midway along the western shore of the Dead Sea. A severely-gorged mountain range six hundred feet above the Dead Sea acts as an aqueduct to bring an abundance of water to Engedi, producing the largest oasis on the western shore of the Dead Sea.... The warm climate, diverse vegetation, predominantly of date palms, and the supply of water attract many animals including the ibex, hyrax, leopard, and a variety of bird species, including vultures, eagles, and falcons. See map and photo

Other names suggest the wild beauty of the region: Hareth ("thicket"), Jeshimon ("the waste"), Ziph (Ziyph; Strong's 2128), "liquefy", with a possible connection to Zepheth ("asphalt", Strong's 2203), and Maon ("habitation").

The one thing the region is not is at an adequate remove from Saul. The Ziphites, whose name might be rendered the "tar people", go to Saul and tell Saul that David is on the hill of Hakilah, which would seem to be a very definite place. They volunteer to deliver David into his hands.

Saul has an odd answer for them. Although David is his son-in-law, he says, "They tell me he is very crafty," and asks the Ziphites for "definite" information as to David's whereabouts, as though the hill of Hakilah were some vast, undefined region.

Eventually Saul gets to the hunt, but just as he is closing the net, the Philistines attack elsewhere and Saul departs to confront them.

The text presents the unconvincing claim that Sela Hammahlekoth ("the rock of parting") is called that because of Saul's hasty change of plans. But perhaps that's as good a tale as any.

1 Samuel 22

2006-03-01T21:22:00.000-04:00

David's family probably lived in fear of Saul's madness and rage. Having been rejected by both Saul and the Philistines, David flees to the cave of Adullam. Adullam means "refuge" (http://www.ancientsandals.com/overviews/adullam.htm) and is on a hill 12 miles southwest of Bethlehem.

A small army, comprised of his brothers and of malcontents gathers around him. They move to Mizpah in Moab, but the prophet Gad tells David to return to leave "the stronghold" and return to Israelite territory. So David and his men hide out in a forest which is simply known as "The Forest" (Hereth).

Meanwhile, Saul exacts his revenge not against David but against the priesthood of Israel. But Saul is so isolated that he must lean on family loyalties and beg assistance from a servant who isn't even an Israelite. He tells his own tribe of
Benjamin that David, who is of Judah, will not reward them. A foreigner from the land of Esau (Edom), Doeg, tells us that the priests inquired of the Lord on David's behalf and that the Lord apparently answered. So the murder of the priests ordered by Saul and committed by Doeg is plainly contemptuous of God.

Three questions remain unanswered:
1. What servant is lying in wait for Saul (1 Sam. 22:8)? If this refers to David, the statement seems rampantly paranoid.
2. Why did Ahimelech give Goliath's sword to David? The sword is not described in detail, and we know that David was able to handle it even as a boy (to cut off Goliath's head). Still, it seems odd to arm David with a national trophy.
3. How did Doeg succeed in killing 85 priests? Why did only Abiathar, son of Ahimelech escape? Didn't anyone else run? Or did Doeg have help?

There is an interesting difference of translation between the NIV and the KJV. The KJV says that Saul issued his orders to the tribe of Benjamin from "under a tamarisk tree on the hill at Gibeah," while the KJV says that Saul "abode in Gibeah
under a tree in Ramah." Ramah means "to be high," and there were several Ramahs. One is between Schechem and Hebron, well to the north of Jerusalem, but this is clearly not it. As shown on this map, one is southeast of Gibeon (probably the village of "Djib" or "Gib"), but there is also a Gibeah
(or Geba; Hebrew "hill") a few miles to the east of Gibeon. Gibeah was known for its wickedness (Judges 19-21, Hosea 9-10). For a full discussion, consult Jewish-History.com, which says:

Both Kirjath-Jearim and Geba formed but one continuous town. Kirjath-Jearim was at the south, and Geba at the north, and the boundary line ran through both; so that it is still visible at this day, namely, because the boundary line ran along the road which leads to Jaffa. Geba was thus a city of Benjamin, whilst Kirjath-Jearim is assigned to both Benjamin and Judah.

Ramah had been Samuel's home and he may well have been living at the time of this incident. Certainly David had fled to him not long earlier (1 Sam. 19:18). It was also the town in which Saul had been secretly anointed king. Ramah was a virtuous place. Gibeah was a place of evil. Therefore, while there is ambiguity, the NIV translation makes slightly more sense.

According to Strong's the root for the word Hereth is "engrave," and occurs only once, in Exodus 32:19. There, it refers to the engraving of the Ten Commandments). So, David can be thought of as returning to the Commandments, and this is probably the key insight of the chapter.

The image of the evil shepherd, recurs throughout the scriptures. Jesus, of course, is The Good Shepherd. Doeg, The Bad Shepherd, slaughters God's representatives.

1 Samuel 21

2005-12-03T02:38:00.000-04:00

This chapter begins at what is believed to be Mt. Scopus

near Jerusalem.

1 Samuel 21 is alluded to in the gospels in a way that suggests that the account Jesus knew may have been subtly different than what we have in our Bibles. In Matthew 12:3-4 (also Mark 2:25-6), Jesus says that David and his companions entered "the house of God" and unlawfully ate the consecrated bread. In 1 Samuel 21, the story is substantively different. First, David enters alone. Any companions conspicuously missing. The absence of companions for a high general and member of the royal house is such an ominous sign that Ahimelech (Heb.: Brother of the king) the priest trembles. Second, Ahimelech specifically says that the men can eat the consecrated bread if they are ritually pure.In lectio divinae, the divergence between the description in 1 Sam. 21 and Matthew 12 is a flare signaling either:

(a) editorial tinkering bythe early Christian church or by Jewish editors of the Old Testament,
(b) a divergent oral tradition by which Jesus might have heard the story and the formal tradition, or
(c) an important lesson.

To exclude the first two possibilities, we would need to know when the canon for the Old Testament was finalized. Unfortunately, we don't. As a diagram of the situation by Professor Tyler Williams shows, there was a wide variation in texts during Jesus's lifetime. It's possible that the differences between the tale as told by Jesus and that told here in 1 Sam. 21 reflects different traditions.

Note also that David is probably ritually pure, since he spent at least two nights away from Michal or any other woman. Therefore, assuming Ahimelech is presenting the Law accurately, David doesn't seem to be doing anything actually unlawful by eating the bread. So, our attention should be even more tightly drawn to what Jesus is trying to convey. Finally, Jesus seems to indicate that Abiathar rather than Ahimelech was high priest. For various reasons, this is less definitive than it might seem, but it is yet one more element in which Jesus's account doesn't mesh smoothly with 1 Sam. 21. So, it might be a further sign that we are to pay attention to the discrepancies.

At any rate, David tells Ahimelech a series of lies:

* He's on a secret mission from the king
* He has a retinue, presumably of 4 men (hence he asks for five loaves)
* The men are ritually pure.

Also, note the numerology. Five is a number we associate with power (viz. the Pentagon), and one is the number of God. David asks for 5 loaves of bread, but accepts the bread of the One. This has a parallel with the battle with Goliath, in which David takes 5 stones but uses one. The connection to that battle is intensified when Ahimelech offers Goliath's sword to David and David escapes to... Gath, Goliath's home town!

Goliath's sword was in the Tabernacle, surely a strange place to keep a trophy of war which had last been seen in David's tent(1 Sam. 17:54). It was hidden behind an ephod (priestly apron), such that only priests would have known it was there.

In this chapter, we learn that Saul's head shepherd, an Edomite called Doeg, is present. He will later personally execute eighty five priests, the entire town of Nob, as well as its farm animals. Saul, who refused to commit against the Philistines, is only too quick to order the same against the priesthood of Israel. What is notable is that no Israelite would follow the command to kill the priests and Saul had to rely on a foreigner. Edom was the land of Esau, the hunter, a country that had barred the Israelites passage to Canaan (Judges 11:17), indeed a nation that Saul had had to subdue (1 Sam. 14:47).

David now heads directly into enemy territory in Gath. There, despite his legend as a killer of tens of thousands of Philistines, he plays the madman and is ignored. So, we see a complete inversion, as the head of Israel becomes its enemy and the enemy of Israel receives Israel's anointed one, if not with honor, at least with indifference. One wonders what Goliath's kinsmen thought when they saw his so very distinctive sword in the hand of the one who slew him.

1 Samuel 20

2005-11-15T14:32:00.000-04:00

David clearly perceives that Saul understands that Jonathan's loyalty is not to his father but to David. Jonathan, still blind to his father's dark nature after Saul's last assassination attempt against David, refuses to believe David until David swears an oath. David asks Jonathan to test Saul by telling him a lie, namely that David has returned to Bethlehem for a clan sacrifice on the New Moon Festival. He appeals to a holy covenant he has made with Jonathan and asks Jonathan to judge David. If Jonathan finds David guilty, then rather than hand him over to Saul, David asks that Jonathan kill him personally.

Jonathan recognizes that he is betraying his father and that David will replace Saul. He asks that David promise eternal kindness to Jonathan's family.

Saul lets one day of the festival pass without comment, thinking David needed time to ritually cleanse himself. At this point, Jonathan might have signaled David that he was safe... which would have been fatal. Instead, he waits a day. Then Saul's inquires again about David, and on hearing the lie, his temper explodes.

He warns Jonathan--accurately--that David will displace Jonathan's claim to the throne. Jonathan answers by asking Saul to give any reason by which David can lawfully be removed. Saul, of course, cannot answer. He has plotted cold-blooded murder in order to preserve his line.

The drama ultimately plays out by the stone of Ezel. Jonathan has said that he will shoot arrows either short of or beyond the stone. If the arrows fall beyond, David must flee. And so it comes to pass. David bows face down before Jonathan three times and weeps heavily. Jonathan reminds him of the covenant David has made, to preserve the house of Jonathan.

Matthew Henry thinks that the appearance of the new moon was uncertain, which might have explained Saul's thought that David may have been ritually impure. This sounds strained to me.

One element of interest is that by calling Jonathan the "son of a perverse, rebellious woman", Saul in effect denying his own paternity, publicly disinheriting Jonathan.

The great unknown in this chapter is the significance of the stone of Ezel, which appears nowhere else, but is apparently between Ramah (hill) and Nob (high place). Matthew Henry says that Ezel means "'the stone of the way'; a sort of milestone which directed travellers." The Blue Letter Bible quotes Strong's concordance to say that this means a stone of departure.

One possible connection to consider is Jesus calling himself "the way" and the Christian self-designation as "people of the way." In one gospel passage whose meaning is obscure, Jesus mentioned David at this very juncture, a topic to be explored in the next entry.

1 Samuel 19

2005-10-11T03:02:00.000-03:00

The editing of this chapter is clumsy, appearing to recapitulate portions of the preceding chapter and of Chapter 10, and openly contradicting Chapter 15, but it also contains a wonderful scene that gives us insight into the Spirit of God.

The Philistines failing to accomplish the task for him, Saul again plots to kill David, but Jonathan talks him out of it. Saul takes an oath not to kill David. Again David is sent out and again strikes the Philistines. Again Saul tries to pin David to the wall with his spear as David is playing the harp, but David escapes with the help of Michal.

Notably, Michal has an idol which she uses to fool the guards into thinking David is still abed. Clearly, Saul's house had ceased to follow Jehovah... but wasn't it David's obligation to keep his own house clean of idolatry?

At any rate, David went to Samuel in Ramah, Samuel went with David from Ramah to Naioth. Saul sends three separate contingents to capture David, but the Spirit of God seizes them and they prophesy. Saul then leaves his home in Gibeah and goes to the great cistern at Secu, where he inquires about the precise location of Samuel and David. But the Spirit of God seized him, he stripped off his robes, and prophesied before Samuel. The similarity to Pentecost, with the powerful upwelling of God's Spirit is unmistakable.

So, Saul's attempt to murder David from 1 Samuel 18 is reprised, as is Saul's prophesying as in 1 Samuel 10. Since it says that "Saul...prophesied in Samuel's presence," there's a contradiction of 1 Samuel 15:35 "Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again...." One can try to weasel around it by saying that Saul went to see Samuel and not Samuel to see Saul, but it's much more likely that there is an editorial error either in 1 Samuel 15 or in 1 Samuel 19. An editorial error in this chapter is also consistent with the claim of this chapter that Saul's prophecy in this Chapter is the reason that people asked, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" which contradicts the claim in 1 Samuel 10 that the saying arose at the beginning of his reign when he prophesied at Gibeah.

But these editorial quibbles are of far less importance than what this chapter reveals about the Spirit of God. Rather than the active seeking of the Spirit of God described previously, this chapter presents the Spirit as overflowing, tempestuously overwhelming even rebellious Saul's will. This is particularly notable because the Lord had earlier rejected Saul and refused to speak to him, and also because Saul had brought idols into his house. Yet the Spirit of God did not entirely leave him.

There are many features of this chapter. True to the impression that the editing was uninspired, the names of the participants give us little sense of what the action means. According to BlueLetterBible.org and/or AncientSandals.com and/or "Who's Who in the Bible(Comay and Brownrigg), Naioth means "habitations," Ramah means "to be high" and is near Gibeah, Secu or Sechu means "watchtower," David means "commander" or "hero" or "beloved," Michal means "who is like God?" Gibeah means "hill," and "Saul" means "loaned." Naioth and Sechu appear only in this and the subsequent chapter. Here is the description of Secu provided by W. Ewing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

It evidently lay between the residence of Saul at Gibeah and Ramah. It is impossible to come to any sure conclusion regarding it. Conder suggested its identification with Khirbet Suweikeh, which lies to the South of Bireh. This is possible, but perhaps we should read with the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus, "He came to the cistern of the threshing-floor that is on the bare hill" (en to Sephei). The threshing-floors in the East are naturally on high exposed ground where this is possible, and often form part of the area whence water in the rainy season is conducted to cisterns. This might have been a place actually within the city of Ramah.

However, once one begins to study the geography more closely, it may start to make sense. David flees from a city made notorious in Judges 19-21 for the gangrape and murder of a concubine and the dissemination of pieces of her dismembered body to the tribes of Israel. We know that we are meant to recall this incident because (a) Saul repeats the dismemberment using an ox instead of a concubine in 1 Sam. 11 and (b) because David, like the concubine, is from Bethlehem.

David is also leaving the king who God never wanted and had disowned as well as his wife and the earthliness the marital relationship represents to go to Ramah and the priesthood as represented by Samuel. David could have killed the king, but he did not, because even Saul had once been touched by God. In the divine landscape, David has made the choice to leave the seat of power and material content to choose faithfulness to God.

Next, Saul leaves Gibeah, but does not head straight to Naioth. Instead, he went to the great cistern at Secu and was seized by the Spirit of God. Although the precise locations of Secu, Naioth, and Ramah are not clear (at least to me), this seems like a conscious decision on the part of Saul to seek God.

And, as God is wont to do when invited in, the wind of the Spirit (Ruach) blows away reason and leaves us as naked as Adam in the Garden of Eden. Our pretensions to be king or prophet disappear into the simple song of praise that Ruach plays upon us.

1 Samuel 18

2005-10-09T03:37:00.000-03:00

Having won a great victory, David also wins the loyalty of Saul's son, Jonathan. Jonathan symbolically makes David Saul's son, by clothing David in his robe, tunic, sword, bow, and belt, leaving himself nothing. Saul took David into his house, and promoted him to high military rank. But David's successes did not please Saul, as they would have if Saul had accepted David as his son. He saw David's body count, ten times higher than his own, as a source of shame, and David as a threat to his kingdom. He became angry and jealous.

One of the most peculiar scenes in the Bible follows: God send an evil spirit down the next day, while Saul was prophesying and David was playing the harp. Saul tries to kill David not once but twice. This failing, Saul tries two more tactics to control or eliminate David. In a tactic which David will repeat in his great sin against Uriah, Saul sends David into battle saying to himself that the Philistines will kill David. Saul also attempts to betroth David to his eldest daughter Merab.

But David declines to accept marriage into the royal household. It is unclear what his motives are. He says he does not merit this honor, but as later action shows, when he knows he can pay the bride price, he accepts. So, the humility seems to be a show. He may also have had some reason to decline marriage with the elder daughter, though in an era when people did not live long and therefore tended to reproduce as soon as they were able, it would have been unusual.

At any rate, Saul sees Michal as a "snare" to David and-- again an odd phrase-- so that the hand of the Philistines would be against him. In this latter plan, Saul is wildly off-mark. When David has to go into hiding off Israelite territory, he heads straight to the Philistines (1 Sam. 27), who take him in and allow him to raid from their territory. But Michal does indeed become a major headache for David.

The brideprice is Philistine foreskins. Saul demands 100-- a small number for a man who has killed tens of thousands, at least in popular legend-- and David delivers 200. One final point. The text says that David went out "before the allotted time elapsed," suggesting that payment of the bride price was on a schedule.

One note. Prophecy, as used in the book of Samuel does not refer to foretelling the future. It seems that this was a general means of religious seeking, whose nature we do not entirely understand. Clearly it involved music. A fascinating article describes the Nevel and the Kinnor, their relationships to the alphabet and the Torah, and how they were played. In prophecy, the harpist abandoned himself to the music and might so attract the hand of God. The harp also might be played by hanging it in the trees for the wind to play.

1 Samuel 18 is a difficult passage, since God sends an evil (or injurious) spirit against Saul. Many commentators have attempted to evade the difficult theological issue this raises: is God good? Or is God capable of malice?

Clarke and Henry say that Saul was only pretending to prophesy
Wesley thinks that God permitted the evil spirit to posess Saul because Saul was, in effect, blaspheming by his methods of prophecy

Indeed, Christians can't avoid the issue, since the Lord's Prayer raises it directly: "Lead us not into temptation." Why does God need to be petitioned not to deceive His followers?

The only way through this morass is to understand the limitations of human understanding of evil and good. In Hebrew, the words mean more like "injury" and "benefit," respectively. Christians have created a Manichean mental construct, in which good and evil contend (the same appears in later Jewish literature as well. A more realistic view is that injury and benefit work together. The surgeon injures the limb to heal the body, for example.

In the context of 1 Samuel 18, the evil spirit is the surgeon's saw, which separates the rebellious and idolatrous Saul from the body of Israel. The only real injury is to Saul's relationship to David, not to mention to his own son, Jonathan. Had Saul been allowed to become attached to David, he might well have corrupted him, too. By attacking David in this unprovoked way, he ensured that no one would contest the passing of the kingdom to David.

It is terrible to think of Saul, who kept saying he wanted to be on the right side of God ending up completely destroyed, cut off from God. Why was he unable to repent? And yet we see so many people pretending to piety as they make war on women and children and grind the poor into the dust that it is not so difficult to believe that some people have placed themselves beyond the reach of God.

A minor issue has to do with the relationship between Jonathan and David. There is no hint that this was anything out of the ordinary. Women were property, necessary for reproduction and childcare, and regarded as otherwise irrelevant. The rare exceptions, Deborah and Esther, were noted and praised, but the typical woman was a nonentity. By contrast, David was a military hero, the sort of soldier Jonathan aspired to be, and soon to be Jonathan's brother-in-law. It's not surprising that Jonathan loved David. So did most of Israel.

1 Samuel 17, the lectio

2005-09-11T21:31:00.000-03:00

So, here's how to do lectio. Let go of everything except the text before you begin. Forget about what you think the text ought to say and read it, word for word. Look at the original Hebrew or Greek for clues. Geography is especially suggestive. Here are the key elements of the story:

1. Overview
It's the Philistines vs. the Israelites

2. Geography
The confrontation is in Judea
The Philistine camp is at Ephes Dammim (boundary of bleeding), but they assembled at Socoh (fence)
Ephes Dammim is betwee Socoh and Azekah (where Joshua defeated the Amorite kings

The confrontation is in the valley of Elah

(photograph is from Ancient Sandals)

Both armies were encamped on hills
Goliath is from Gath (wine press
David's father Jesse is an Ephrathite (i.e., a Bethlehemite)
Jesse lives in Bethlehem, in Judea
The pursuit of the Philistines after victory was up the Shaaraim ("two gates") road to Gath and Ekron (full rooted; the last town where the Philistines kept the ark they had captured from Eli's son's

3. Numerology
Goliath is 13 spans (6 cubits and a span) tall. His armor weighed 100 minae (5000 shekels) and the iron point of his spear weighed 600 shekels.
Goliath challenges the Israelites to single combat
Goliath's challenges went on for 40 days, morning and evening
David brought 5 stones to attack Goliath but needed only 1
Jesse is elderly, and has eight sons
David is the youngest son
David is carrying 10 cheeses and 10 loaves of bread plus 10 omers (1 ephah) of roasted grain.
Jesse's three eldest sons are Eliab ( (Hebrew: "to whom God is father") , Abinadab (Hebrew: "father of nobleness") , and Shammah (Hebrew: "desert") ) were soldiers under Saul (Hebrew: "asked for".)
Eliab is the one who scolds David.

So, the Philistines move from a polluted place of blood to a fence and are defeated at the very same place Joshua defeated Amorites. The Philistines are driven back to the wine press and to their very root, the last place the Ark was hidden before they were defeated by the plague it unleashed.

I discount detailed numerological studies of the kind used in Gematria or other attempts to discover a hidden truth. Truth does not hide. But what ancient Jewish listeners would understand on hearing particular numbers is not hidden. Forty is a number of liberation, for example. And so, in this chapter, the Israelites were tested for 40 days and nights.

Similarly, I suspect that five was a number suggesting military strength (hence our five-sided Pentagon), but David needs only one of his five stones to kill Goliath. One is the number of God. I don't know if the ancient Jews were triskadecaphobics, but it's interesting that Goliath was 13 spans high.

And some numbers seem to be, well, just numbers. Eight sons, for example.

This is a story of trial and liberation through depending on the one true God. It is part of a confrontation that dates back in time to the original conquest of Canaan and still shapes the political perceptions of some Israelis today.

Now, I think that the way it shapes that perception is wrong, but that's not at issue. When you enter the Bible fully, you enter a timeless, eternal place. The landscape is the soul and every syllable is formed of spirit. In the room located at 1 Samuel 17, God is always at war with evil, and a boy of pure heart gains an extraordinary victory against impossible odds because of his simple faith. This same battle is repeated, again and again, first Joshua, then David, and today... us.

We are all that child, facing overwhelming, impossible odds. And, on a good day, overcoming.

1 Samuel 17, the apologia

2005-08-27T16:17:00.000-03:00

The previous post explained that it is impossible for David to have simultaneously slain Goliath as a boy and have been called to Saul's house many years later as a man, without Saul and his advisors having some recollection of the previous matter. Such things force genuine fundamentalists to abandon their commitment to truth because they are even more frightened by the tendency of some scriptural liberals to assert that the Bible says whatever they want it to say.

The Bible says what it says. It is not the Disney movie that some scriptural liberals want to turn it into. It is not inerrant truth.

And so most people are left in a quandary. "If it's not absolute truth," the fundamentalists say, "why should we believe anything it says?" "If God is as described as in parts of the Bible, then I can't believe in God," certain scriptural liberals say. All this gives much amusement to atheists, who-- making the same error in reverse as fundamentalists-- treat any error in the Bible or any mention of God's harshness as proof of God's non-existence.

They're all wrong. It is possible for the Bible to contain errors or even falsehoods and yet also to describe reasonably accurately God and His relationship with humankind. It is possible to read the Bible literally and yet not believe it is inerrant. These propositions are obvious to anyone who loves literature, but also to scientists and engineers. What engineer has picked up a computer manual believing that it is absolutely, literally true? What scientist thinks that since quantum mechanics proved that classical mechanics is "wrong" tries to apply quantum mechanics to playing horseshoes? What lover of literature reads Melville looking for factual errors-- or finishes Moby Dick without seeing larger truths in a book that is purely fiction? People who think they possess the truth are often the farthest from it. It is those who love truth and pursue it wholeheartedly who are permitted glimpses.

So, here is how to read 1 Samuel 17: Temporarily forget about the rest of the Bible. Let this chapter be absolutely, literally true while you are reading it. If you can't accept parts of it later, that's fine. One of the few things we really know about God is that he loves truth, making it rise again and again when human beings try to suppress. deny, or destroy it. He would never ask us to suppress our beliefs for the sake of scriptural literalism. But while you are reading a piece of scripture, fulfill your side of the deal by listening with your whole heart and mind and soul.

In fact, I see scriptural inconsistencies as a pop quiz whose main object is to ask the reader: "Do you love the truth, or do you love a book?"

I strongly suspect the Bible's editors saw them that way. The first books of both the Old and New Testament begin with the best examples of internal contradictions in scripture, far better than the minor inconsistencies of 1 Samuel. The editors could have wiped away the inconsistencies. Modern fundamentalists probably would, reasoning that they are just helping God make a better case for Himself. But thought of as a pop quiz to divide the Truth-loving sheep from the Book-loving goats, it makes an awful lot of sense.

Fundamentalists remind me of students who try to pin a professor down to exactly what is going to be on the test. If the test involves a topic that the professor talked about at length but was not in the book, they moan that this is unfair. Scriptural liberals remind me of kids who take a class on physics but expect the test to be about their pet topic, say, why concealed carry ought to be legal everywhere. And genuine atheists (as opposed to people who love truth, mercy, and justice, but can't say the J-words) are the kids who cut class and wonder why they aren't learning anything.

The real mystery is why or Divine Professor has so much patience. As St. Paul says, we have no excuse. God is manifest everywhere. Just open your eyes and your heart.

And so to proceed to the actual study.

1 Sam. 17, the editorial

2005-08-14T18:31:00.000-03:00

Chapter 17 is perhaps one of the most widely known books of the Bible. In it, a very young David slays the nine foot tall giant Goliath-- so strong that the giant's armor alone weighs 125 pounds-- by knocking him out with a stone cast from a sling. Then, while Goliath is stunned, David takes the giant's sword and decapitates him. The Philistines flee in terror from Ephes Dammim back to Gath. By his heroic act, David qualifies himself for great wealth, exemption from taxation, and marriage to the king's daughter.

As explained below, this chapter plainly contradicts the preceding and the following chapter, as well as other Biblical text. On the lectio divinae website, I describe the Bible as a kaleidoscope, a holy toy by which we see truth. Therefore, there is no defect with passages that are plainly not true. These serve to distinguish those who love the truth and are willing to humble themselves to see it from those who blindly give their allegiance to a book.

I have discovered that many Christians who call themselves "fundamentalists" actually do not hold scripture to the standard of 100% literal accuracy and are therefore not really fundamentalists. They are, instead, people who revere scripture and listen to it attentively, as do I. They call themselves "fundamentalists" because that comes closest to describing their feelings, but if confronted with scriptural inconsistencies, they love the truth more than they do the idea of book containing nothing but truth. I don't call myself a fundamentalist, because fundamentalism-- Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and others-- is a political movement, a heresy that has nothing to do with God.

But it's important to read and understand the arguments of the fundamentalists. These are ably presented by Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press. Half of the piece is devoted to claiming that those who say this chapter is inconsistent assert that biblical text occur in strict chronological order. This is a strawman argument. No serious scriptural commentator would make such an assertion. What Lyons is not crediting is the point that no chronological sequence makes sense.

Next are Lyons's proposals that "enough time could have lapsed so that David’s appearance changed significantly since the last time he appeared before king Saul." , that "Saul ... may have lapsed into another unreliable mental state", "because of jealousy ...Saul simply wanted to act like he did not know David" or that " Saul .. simply could have been inquiring about David’s family."

Or maybe there was an eclipse and Saul couldn't see, or maybe a wizard had temporarily turned David into a giant lizard or....

Ya know?

The only perfection here is in Lyons's perfect shamelessness in saying "Until skeptics logically negate the above possible solutions to the questions surrounding 1 Samuel 16-17, and are able to prove beyond doubt that the Bible writer made a genuine mistake, one does not have to doubt the integrity of the biblical text."

Sorry, pal. People who love the truth show it through a little thing called humility. They don't rhetorically stick their fingers in their ears.

Indeed, Lyons has the effrontery to use a quote from a legal book on municipal law giving deference to ancient texts. Well, of course established texts receive deference over newer ones: that's one reason that it took so long for Galileo to get it through the Vatican's thick skull that Aristotelian astronomy was wrong. But I suggest Lyons try as an object lesson showing up with a deed saying he owns lot 11 in Kokomo to take title to lot 11 in Cedar Falls, which is analogous to what he is doing with 1 Samuel. If there are obvious contradictions in any document, any person who cares about the truth will acknowledge them and-- like Solomon with the two women claiming as their own a child (1 Kgs. 3)-- work toward a just resolution.

There's enormous hypocrisy in this claim that the age of texts should overrule the human mind and conscience. By the criterion of revering ancient texts, Christians should unquestioningly accept just about any elderly book, even the Bhagavad Gita or Zoroastrianism.

But of course, that's the problem with fundamentalism. They all demand that you swear allegiance to their book, whether it's the Torah or the New Testament or the Koran. In so doing, they turn the Bible or the Koran into an idol.

Here's the problem a genuine scholar faces. David is by Saul's own word a boy or, if one wishes to ignore all other translators, as a servant (Hebrew na'ar) when he kills Goliath. He was presumably a big boy, since it wasn't entirely ridiculous for Saul to dress him in armor, a helmet, and Saul's own tunic. But David was a boy, who boasted about fighting with bears and lions, never mentioning military service.

When Saul hired David the harpist in the preceding chapter, he is described in the words of the KJV as "a mighty valiant man, and a man of war" (Hebrew gabowr chayil 'iysh milchamah). The combination of these words makes it no doubt that David is a man when Saul hires him as a harpist. Definitely not a boy or even a servant.

So, the text of chapters 16 and 17 is in reverse chronological order, which is fine. That happens routinely through the Bible.

Unless men turn into boys, the hiring of David as a harpist occurred after the encounter with Goliath. David would have been the king's son-in-law to be, exempted from taxes, and made wealthy, according to the king's promise. Surely Saul would have known something about David when he hired him as a harpist! Surely he would not have had to ask Jesse's permission to keep the man his daughter was to marry at the royal household.

Fatally for the fundamentalist cause, we are told in chapter 18 that Saul never let the boy David return to Jesse after the battle with Goliath (the word has overtones of a "ban" or a "repentance"); in chapter 16, the mighty man David is summoned from Jesse's house. Given the strength of the word that ends up translated as "never," it is not reasonable to propose that David commuted between Saul and his sheep nor is there any episode which can be cited to support the notion that David ever returned to his father's house.

Another problem with the Goliath story is that it is repeated in suspiciously similar circumstances in 2 Sam. 21. 2 Sam. 21: 19 has Elhanan, like David also from Bethlehem, killing "Goliath the Gittite" who also has a "spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." But 1 Chron. 20:5 says this is Goliath's brother, not Goliath. That would introduce another problem. If David has gone from being a boy to middle aged in 2 Sam. 21, surely Goliath's brother would be no spring chicken. So, perhaps 2 Sam. 21 represents a double scribal error

I'd vote for wizards and giant lizards ahead of accepting this particular text as infallibly correct.

Even more likely than lizards and wizards is that war stories grow in the telling. After all, even if we accept that the Bible is 100% truthful, it is not God quoted as saying that Saul had promised as a reward for slaying Goliath his daughter's hand in marriage plus a bushel of cash. It was guys in the barracks, so to speak. Maybe they were wrong. Maybe they lied, just to rile the kid. We don't know.

But this is dangerous territory for fundamentalists. Once one concedes that what some soldiers said may not be reliable, what about Moses? What about the Apostle Paul? If one relies for authority purely on what Jehovah and Jesus say, lots of politically important passages are downgraded, leaving lots of politically embarrassing passages, like the imperative to feed the poor, purge one's heart of anger and violence, and so many other things that undercut the political message of fundamentalism. Indeed, people might even start reading the Epistles and discovering that Paul said a little bit more than the Chick Comics version of the Bible would have it.

For me, of course, the literal truth of text is not important. Like the Apostle Paul, I see God manifest in this world, His perfection highlighted by the deficits of us human beings, His Son flowing through every act of genuine love, no matter how small and done by no matter whom. We have no excuse not to see God. The book, like the Law is good, but we do not absolutely need it to know God. Indeed, those who love the book the most seem to love God and the truth the least.

With that, let's leave the editorializing and proceed to addressing the text as it deserves: with reverence, but with even greater reverence for the truth. For the moment, let's make 1 Sam. 17 our little world, ignoring all the larger textual problems and, like little children, let this bit of scripture be perfectly true just for the brief moment of our study.

1 Samuel 16

2005-07-30T18:47:00.000-03:00

Once Saul has been rejected as king, all eyes are on Samuel to see who he will anoint as a replacement. So Samuel is forced to sneak out from Ramah under cover of a religious mission to Bethlehem. This being a ridiculously transparent pretext, the elders of Bethlehem are afraid that Samuel is bringing disaster onto their town. Instead, Samuel anoints David and we are told that the Spirit of the Lord "came upon David in power," suggesting an intimacy even Samuel had not received.

The Lord having set upon Saul by means of an "injurious spirit," Saul listens to the counsel of his servants to seek out a harpist for relief. What closes the sale in favor of David is the assertion that the Lord is with him. This confirms that Saul sincerely wants the Lord's favor. Indeed, Saul likes David so much he makes him a personal attendant. One point of interest to Christians is that David arrives in Saul's service riding a donkey, and carrying bread and wine, as well as a young goat, just as Jesus arrived in Jerusalem on a donkey and bringing the Holy Communion.

David was the youngest son, but of the tribe of Judah, who was Isaac's eldest son, while Saul was evidently the only son.

Matthew Henry notes that Saul was anointed with a vial of oil but David with a horn of oil, suggesting that the Lord's favor for David was far greater than for Saul. Henry thinks that the sons of Jesse had been notified that one would become a king, so they were on their best behavior. Henry also notes that David means "beloved."

Matthew Henry points out that Saul had in effect driven away the Spirit of God through his own hypocrisy and deviousness. What filled the emptiness was an evil spirit. God, however, sent David to dispel the evil spirit (and presumably attract the Spirit of God), giving Saul a second chance. So Saul drove David away.

And yet clearly Saul was seeking to establish some sort of relationship with God. But what were his motives? Just as Saul later schemed to control David by marrying David to one of the royal daughters, perhaps he hoped to bring God under control by bringing David into his household.

It seems that there is a very important lesson in this chapter on establishing a right relationship with God, but it is obscure. We are given no clue why God loved David but selected Saul as Israel's first king. We also see in Saul a successful general, who did kill or drive away Israel's enemies. Saul's acts of disobedience seem minor and yet he has one of the worst possible endings a human being can have: defeated, about to fall into the hands of his enemies, rejected by God and even the spirit of Samuel, and forced to commit suicide to avoid even worse. On the other hand, David has accomplished nothing at the time of his anointing. Later on, he will send an innocent man to his death so he can steal his wife. And if God loved him so much, why did he visit so much sorrow on David? David endured years of fleeing from Saul, and as he approached old age, he suffered a rebellion by his son, Absalom, leading to Absalom's death and great demoralization throughout Israel.

These are questions to ask as we proceed to other chapters.

1 Samuel 15

2005-07-03T19:10:00.000-03:00

Samuel and Saul, by He Qi (by way of one of the best religious sites on the web, byRabbi Moshe Reiss).

At last things come to a head, and the Lord again (see Chapter 13) rejects Saul. The occasion is that the Lord orders Saul to exterminate the Amalekites and all of their property, specifying women, children, and animals. Saul is careful to spare the Kenites, with whom Israel has had an intimate alliance since Moses's marriage to Jethro's daughter. But Saul also fails to kill the best sheep and cattle, as well as the Amalekite king, Agag. Samuel goes to confront Saul with his disobedience and before he can speak, Saul greets him with the claim that he has obeyed the Lord's instructions. Samuel dryly replies with one of the world all-time great comebacks:

"What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?"

After a little more browbeating, Saul admits that he allowed the soldiers to take sheep and cattle from the plunder to be sacrificed before the Lord. He doesn't have a good answer for allowing Agag to live, and Samuel kills Agag "before the Lord at Gilgal." Gilgal is where Joshua circumcised the Israelites after they had entered Canaan. Saul at last accepts his rejection, but asks Samuel to honor him publicly.

There are a number of important points in this chapter.

First, the descendants of Agag next reappear in Esther 3, in the person of Haman, who attempts to destroy the Jews. So Saul did not, as he claimed destroy all of the Amalekites save Agag. He left at least one of his progeny alive. Just as the Israelite failure to complete the genocide of the Canaanites resulted in subjugation to and endless war with the Philistines, Saul's failure to complete the genocide of the Amalekites places Israel in great danger. (Note: this is not an endorsement of genocide. I am unable to reconcile these elements of the Old Testament with my understanding of God.)

Second, even though God forgave David of terrible sin, Saul was denied forgiveness, even though he worshiped the Lord and asked for forgiveness. The point seems to be that Saul was insincere in seeking forgiveness. In this chapter, he tried to deflect blame for failing to carry out instructions onto the soldiers (See also Rackman). But consider that he also hid among the baggage rather than be anointed (chapter 10) and that he performed the ritual sacrifices against Samuel's orders (chapter 13).

Third, a point is made that Saul destroyed what was despised, weak, and helpless, but spared what was "good." (towb). The implication is that Saul acted for his own benefit, showing no mercy only to that which was of no use to him. Furthermore, there may have been ritual reasons why the Amalekite sheep and cattle would not have served as proper sacrifices. Although the explicit requirements for ritual animals ("without blemish") seem to have been reasonably general, but its possible there was an informal prohibition against using foreign livestock.

Fourth, as Matthew Henry points out, Samuel has a hard time finding Saul because Saul has gone to set up a monument for himself, to commemorate his victory. A Joshua would never have done such a thing, but merely said, "Victory belongs to the Lord."

One point that remains unclear is why Samuel cries out to the Lord all night when God tells him that He is grieved. Perhaps Samuel is fearful of what will happen to Israel, perhaps he is simply grieving with the Lord. We do not know. However, what is clear is that Samuel is not rejoicing that Saul is at last getting his just desserts.

Moshe Reiss has a much more critical view of Samuel, criticizing him as a "blind seer", and noting the discrepancies between what God instructs Samuel to do and what Samuel actually does (for example, rather than anointing Saul "king" in chapter 10, he anoints him "ruler.") Reiss points to the parallel between Samuel's corrupt sons and Eli's, and notes that according to midrashic tradition, Samuel died much younger than Eli, suggesting the Lord liked him even less than He liked Eli. And after this chapter, Samuel vanishes until chapter 25.

I think this is a little harsh. After all, God picked Saul over Samuel's protestations, and He was grieved because the one He had chosen failed. Rabbi Reiss may be correct that Saul failed in the Amalekite mission thanks to a little help from confusing instruction by Samuel, but naqah, charam, muwth (smite, ritually sacrifice, kill) seem sufficiently explicit. Saul heard what he wanted to hear. The Lord also does what Samuel asks of Him in terms of miracles (e.g. 1 Samuel 7), something that He reserves for a very few.

But there is an important lesson to be seen here. What are relatively small and forgivable flaws in ordinary humans are magnified by the centralization of power into the hands of a few. Perhaps Samuel did fail in providing spiritual guidance to Saul. He saw what was flawed in Saul, and what eventually emerged as arrogance and rebellion. But God evidently saw something better, something that if properly cultivated might have grown differently.

1 Samuel 14

2005-06-12T20:17:00.000-03:00

This chapter is three vignettes followed by an epilogue on Saul's family. The central theme seems to be what it means to be faithful to God.

The first vignette describes how Saul's son Jonathan, in an act requiring absolute faith, strikes a powerful blow against a small contingent of Philistines. Then, the army (whether Israelite or Philistine is not entirely clear) suffers panic as an earthquake strikes. The Philistines attack one another. Israel's courage rallies. Finally, the roused Israelite army devastates that of the Philistines over a broad front. However, when Saul discovers that Jonathan has broken a fast ordered by Saul, he orders Jonathan killed. The men save Jonathan. So, the arc of the story is that Jonathan's faith leads to initial victory, a miracle of some sort occurs, and Israel is saved.

Sorting out the details is more complicated. It is certain that the Lord is no longer on speaking terms with Saul. It is also certain that Saul has not exactly been pursuing the Lord, since after the battle we learn that he builds the first altar he has ever built. Also, the priest has to remind Saul to inquire of the Lord over the issue of plundering the enemy. So, perhaps Saul had a reason to be hiding among the baggage when the time came to anoint him king.

Another point that seems clear is that Saul's order to the men to fast is personal and self-serving, a matter of his own pride, and not a holy inspiration from God. This order has led the army into sin. After the battle, they are so hungry, they began eating raw meat. In Leviticus 17:10-14 says that anyone who eats meat with blood in it must be cast out from the tribe.

There also seems to be a lesson on pride in the story of Jonathan's initial assault. The Philistines are so contemptuous of the Israelites that they tell Jonathan that if he wants to fight, he has to climb up to them. Boasting, they promise to teach him a lesson. Jonathan understands that their hubris is a sign that the Lord will help him destroy the Philistines. He places himself at their complete mercy by climbing a slope so steep he needs his hands and feet.

The geography has the battle proceeding from Micmash ("something hidden"), where Jonathan's first strike occurred, to Beth Aven ("house of nothing" or "valley of the idols"), where Saul's army routed the Philistines to Aijalon ( Joshua fought here as the sun stood still) where the Israelites ate raw meat. Aijalon is 12 miles from Jerusalem.

But a number of matters are murkier.

* Where is Samuel at this moment of crisis?
* There is some ambiguity in the NIV as to whether Jonathan initially confronts the Philistines from below or whether he is also at a high point of the pass.
* The panic seems to have preceded the earthquake. Which army-- or both-- suffered the panic?
* Why did Saul command the ark to be broughtm and why did he tell the priest Ahijah to withdraw his hand?
* What is the significance of the fact that Saul was under the pomegranate tree at Migron?
* Why are we told that Jonathan's armor bearer "followed and killed behind him"?
* How could Saul have continued to serve as king after the army rose up against Saul to protect his son?

1 Samuel 13

2005-06-12T15:16:00.000-03:00

In this chapter, we learn of Saul's lack of patience and foresight. The Philistines had successfully disarmed the Israelites by denying them blacksmithing services. Nevertheless, Saul gathers three thousand men, and a thousand of them under Jonathan attack the Philistine outpost at Geba. Having started the conflagration, Saul announces the news throughout Israel. Six thousand Philistine charioteers, two to a chariot, and many infantry gather. The Israelite army is forced to hide, and some even fled from Canaan to east of the Jordan.

But none of these are critical problems. What is a critical problem is Saul's impatience. Faced with a disintegrating army dropping toward 600 men, and with Samuel overdue, Saul takes over the priestly offices and offers a sacrifice to the Lord. This ends the Lord's favor over his kingship before it has really begun.

And yet, it is difficult to see why he is so greatly at fault. Samuel agreed to be at Gilgal at the appropriate time to make the sacrifices, and he didn't show up. Should Saul have marched out without consulting God? Should he have allowed the army to disintegrate, leaving him scarred as a failed leader? Nor are we given any insight into why Samuel felt he had to wait until the situation was so dire before showing up.

As usual, the geography is important. The Philistines assemble east of Beth Aven ("the valley of the idols" or "the house of nothing") at Micmash ("something hidden"). Gilgal is the Israelite base after crossing the Jordan, where Joshua had the Israelites circumcised. Could there be an implication that Israelites had allowed the circumcision ritual to lapse, such that men needed to circumcised? If so, a week might well be a proper healing time.

There are some astonishing differences between the KJV and NIV on this chapter. The KJV renders the first line as "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel..." (specifying a time for the uprising against the Philistines) while the NIV says, "Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel 43 years." (specifying no time for the uprising, but defining the length of Saul's reign). Line 21 is translated "Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads." (meaining the Israelites had some small tools), while the NIV says, "The price was two thirds of a shekel for sharpening plowshares and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads." (meaning the Israelites had no tools at all).

Another point is how badly wrong Matthew Henry's commentary goes on this chapter (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1118601002-2407.html) Determined to blame everything on Saul, he fails to recognize that the Philistines exercise absolute power over the Israelites, forbidding them even to have blacksmiths. The chapter does not say why Saul dismissed all but 3000 men, but Henry goes down wild tracks of supposing that those who were dismissed were affronted. Perhaps Saul simply couldn't feed so many. Henry also regards Jonathan's attack on the Philistine outpost at Geba as treachery. But there's no indication of any compact between the Philistines and the Israelites except the bond of fear between every oppressor and oppressed. And most astonishingly, Henry fails to recognize that this plan must have been set in motion with the agreement of Samuel, since it has been pre-arranged for him to make the ritual sacrifices at Gilgal.

1 Samuel 12

2005-05-28T01:00:00.000-03:00

Samuel begins this chapter with a terrific example of restorative justice. He doesn't claim to have injured no one, but instead asks who he has injured and offers to make whole any injured party. While the list of potential wrongs he offers is brief, it covers most of the sins that the powerful visit on the powerless. Samuel gets the people and Saul to swear that Samuel is innocent of having wronged them. By their own admission, they had no cause to displace him as the leader of Israel in favor of Saul.

Then Samuel convicts Israel of the sin of idolatry in choosing a king.

Astonishingly, Western civilization survived three millenia without absorbing this teaching: if a people trusts in God, then there is no need for a strongman. They can work things out on their own. It's only when they abandon God that they need a strongman.

And then Samuel calls on God to ruin the crops of the Israelites to show them what the source of real power is. Seeing the miracle, they repent, but too late. They are stuck with their king.

But Samuel proves that he is a decent man. Cast off, convinced Israel has descended into idolatry, he still says it would be a sin if he were to fail to pray for Israel.

1 Samuel 11

2005-05-15T02:45:00.000-03:00

Back in Judges (21:10), Jabesh-Gilead had been put to the sword for failing to answer the call to avenge the murder/rape of a Levite's concubine, and the virgin girls given to the Benjamites to help them rebuild their tribe, which had been all but wiped out in the vengeance. What triggered the assembly of Israel for war had been the cutting of the body of the concubine into pieces and their distribution throughout Israel.

This time, Jabesh-Gilead is in danger of being put to the sword by Ammon. The Ammonites, under Nahash, offer to lift the siege only if the townspeople allow the Ammonites to gouge out their right eyes as a means of disgracing Israel. Apparently puffed up with arrogance, he allows a messenger to leave and later to return with good news that help is on the way. Saul, newly crowned but still plowing his fields with his own oxen, rallies the Israelites by cutting up two oxen and sending the pieces around, threatening the oxen of any who don't appear with a like fate. Three hundred thousand Israelite troops show up at Bezek (12 miles northeast of Schechem), eventually marching 60 miles to Jabesh-Gilead and smash the besieging Ammonites. Given that Saul promises relief to the Jabesh-Gileadites to arrive about 24 hours after arriving at Bezek, the army must have had a hard march to Jabesh-Gilead.

At this point, Saul does one of the few statesmanlike acts of his career. Some suggest that those who did not support Saul earlier should be killed. But Saul demurs, saying "Israel has been saved today." At any rate, Saul is re-coronated at Gilgal, the town on the east bank of the Jordan where the Israelites entered Canaan originally. So Saul is the new Joshua.

1 Samuel 10

2005-05-12T02:35:00.000-03:00

Miraculous signs! After Saul is anointed with oil, Samuel tells him, two men will tell him not to worry about the lost donkeys. Then three men will offer him two loaves of bread. Then musical prophets will come down from a high place in Philistine territory. And then Saul will be anointed with the Spirit.

Even in ancient times, this must have seemed a bit absurd. But underneath the oddity of it all seems to be possible numerological significance. The geography also probably has meaning.

The numerology is simplest. Anointing at Ramah is from God; God, as the Shema says, is One. At Rachel's tomb, now in Bethlehem, he meets two men. Then at the tree of Tabor he meets three men (who are going to Bethel) with three goats, three loaves of bread, and a skin of wine, and they give him two loaves. So 1 becomes 2 becomes 3. The three is actually 3 x 3 + 1 and from that Saul gets 2.

Next is the symbolism of location. Samuel is associated with Ramah, the high point, so Saul is making a descent from his anointing. The tomb of Rachel

is an ancestral shrine for the tribe of Benjamin, since Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin there. Tabor is a mountain. Finally, Gibeah (meaning "a hill") is Saul's home. Here Saul prophesies. While moderns think of prophesy as predicting the future, these prophets seem almost bacchanalian, drunk on the Spirit of God and playing lyres, tambourines, flutes, and harps. They are clearly not from Gibeah, because a man asks who their father is. Finally, Saul goes to the high place, completing the cycle.

The latter part of the chapter again returns to a mild farce. Saul has been anointed king of Israel by the most famous man of the day, Samuel, but when his uncle asks "What did Samuel say?" Saul says that Samuel told him the donkeys had been found. To demonstrate that the choice of Saul is God's, Samuel assembles all Israel and divines (presumably with the urim and thummim) who the new king is. The new king is found hiding among the baggage. His sole physical qualification is that he is tall. That feature did not work out well for Goliath.

The reign of the first king begins inauspiciously, with some people convinced Saul can do nothing for Israel. But Saul has the good sense and perhaps the humility to stay quiet.

Note added 7/3: As always seems to be the case, I find the keenest insights from a Jewish commentator. Moshe Reiss notes that Samuel actually does not anoint Saul "king" (melech), but "ruler" (nagid). He also points out that because Samuel is the senior prophet, by directing Saul to prophesy with the prophets he meets, Saul becomes Samuel's subordinate.

1 Samuel 9

2005-04-19T01:22:00.000-03:00

This chapter is long and complex. Saul is stated to be tall and impressive, the son of a man of standing. Yet Saul will later presume to know better than God and will be stripped of his kingship. This begins a motif, repeated in the story of David and of Jesus, in which social standing and impressive looks are almost always absent from God's champion.

Saul ends up at Samuel's home in a peculiar and not especially dignified manner. He is sent to chase down stray donkeys, can't find them, and runs out of food. His servant is the one who knows to go to the man of God. But Saul has no money and has to borrow a quarter of a shekel (a tenth of an ounce of silver) from his servant to make a miserable gift to Samuel.

Samuel, being in direct contact with God knows all about Saul's arrival and the location of the donkeys. Saul is sent to the high place where the sacrifical altar was, placed at the head of the table of 30 men and given a leg of lamb from the sacrifices. This must have been a huge meal, even for a hungry man. Then they go down to Samuel's house and talk on the roof. Saul, at least, apparently sleeps there, since Samuel calls to him while he is on the roof. Samuel has Saul send the servant ahead of them so that he can secretly anoint Saul.

Saul references the fact that he is from Benjamin, the smallest of tribes. Benjamin got to be small because they raped and killed a concubine and, rather than surrender the guilty, fought all of Israel, killing many (Judges 19-20). Not the best parentage. Saul knows it, and asks why Samuel thinks God favors him. In the next chapter, this sense of deficiency is carried to a laughable extreme as Saul hides among the baggage rather than be made king.

Saul's route is from Gibeah 24 miles northeast to Shalisha (Kefr Thilth) and a bit farther. Zuph may be the present day Bethlehem (http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/dictionaries/0PISBE.htm), although Mathew Henry (and others) identifies it with Ramah.

This chapter contains a discussion of prophets (nabiy') and how they were called seers (ra'ah) in the days of 1 Samuel. The term nabiy' is elsewhere applied to Abraham and to Aaron, whereas ra'ah simply refers to sight.

1 Samuel 8

2005-04-08T17:49:00.000-03:00

In this chapter, we have a reprise of Eli and his corrupt sons, Hophni and Phinehas. Samuel's sons Joel and Abijah, too, turn out to be rotten and unworthy of their appointments to judge Israel. Not quite as bad as Eli's sons, they simply take bribes. There seems to be no blot on Samuel's record to justify this. The problem may be that he sent them to Beersheba, far from the heights of Ramah and much too close to the pagan lowlands of Gaza.

At any rate, the consequence is that the people demand Samuel appoint a king. Why they should turn to him when his previous appointments have been such a failure is a mystery. God tells Samuel that the demand for a king represents a turning away from God, and indeed in 1 Sam. 12:18, Samuel explicitly calls the desire for a king "an evil thing." (elsewhere, though, the appointment of a king is lauded). And Samuel gives them excellent advice about the connection between kings and militarism and luxurious excess. The king will take sons for war and daughters for his comfort. Servants will be used for his own comfort and herd animals for his own meals. The people will be made slaves.

Worst, when the people cry out to God for relief, He will not hear them, because they have chosen slavery.

A parable for our time.

1 Samuel 7

2005-04-07T01:11:00.000-03:00

So now the ark comes to Kiriath Jearim, a defensible and non-pagan town, where it stays for 20 years in the house of Aminadab, tended by his sone Eleazar. The repentance of Israel begins by an eviction of the idols of Baal and Ashtoreth and is capped with an assembly at Mizpah to declare national guilt. Israel routs the Philistines, Samuel erects the Stone of Help (Ebenezer), and Israel goes on to a string of victories against the Philistines. The ark will stay another 40 years in Kiriath Jearim, until David moved it.

Samuel, dwelling in Ramah (where he built an altar), performs as a circuit judge by traveling from Bethel to Gilgal to Mizpah.

Ramah means height and it is argued that the Ramah of Samuel was in either in the territory of tribe of Benjamin or of Ephraim about 4-8 miles north of Jerusalem. The circuit he walked was on Deborah's former turf (Judges 4:5). Samuel was also a neighbor of Saul, living in Gibeah (1 Sam. 10:26).

There are a few interesting things in this chapter. First, Aminadab's house is on a hill, and Samuel's home is in Ramah ("height"). So the ark is being elevated from the low areas, occupied by the Philistines, to the high areas. Also note that the ark is entrusted to a man called Eleazar. Eleazar is the name of Aaron's son, mentioned frequently throughout the Pentateuch. The gathering at Mizpah draws the Philistines, who evidently seek to disrupt the national repentance, but instead end up giving God an opportunity to demonstrate his acceptance of the Israelites.

1 Samuel 6

2005-03-26T01:20:00.000-04:00

After seven months, the Philistines send the ark back to the Israelis with a guilt offering of one gold rat and one gold tumor (or bubo) per Philistine ruler or city. The Philistine diviners liken the captive ark to the Israelites captive in Egypt and the Philistines to Pharaoh and urge the people to send the ark on its way. Using freshly calved cows whose calves have been separated from them, the cart (which is specified to be new) is drawn straight to Israelite territory in the Amorite city of Beth Shemesh, where the cows are used as a sacrificial offering of thanks. The stone on which the ark was placed, in Joshua's field, was made a witness stone.

But all is not well. Because seventy Israelites looked into the ark, they were struck dead. The bereaved people of Beth Shemesh call on the people of the more easily-defensible Kiriath Jearim (south and a little west of Jerusalem) to take possession of the ark. There the ark will sit until David has it brought up to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 1:4)

The image of the ark as a representation of the Israelites captive in Egypt is quaint, reducing the grand tale of the Exodus to a much smaller scale. Cows were, indeed, a symbol of Egypt.

Beth Shemesh was a pagan place. It was a site for worship of the sun. It could not be fully conquered by the tribe of Dan, although they reduced the inhabitants to servitude (Judges 1:33). It was reconquered by the Philistines (2 Chron 28:18). This lack of belief in the Lord led the men of Beth Shemesh to examine the ark.

1 Samuel 5

2005-03-17T02:40:00.000-04:00

In this passage, the capture of the Ark of God only brings disaster on the Philistines. Everywhere it is taken, the people are smitten with "taechor." The word "taechor" occurs only in 1 Samuel 5-6 and in Deuteronomy 28:27, and is conventionally translated as "emerods" (i.e., hemorrhoids) or "tumors."

However, there is a very strong clue in the subsequent chapter that it refers to buboes, the mark of plague, namely the association of the tumors with rats.

According to Clarke, Dagon was part human, part fish. If so, as Matthew Henry points out, the smashing of the idol's head and hands would have left the fish. In any event, it was Dagon's temple that Samson brought down in Judges 16:23-30.

The city of Gath was where Goliath originated. Therefore, this passage resonates of two victories over the Philistines, one prior and one to come.

1 Samuel 4

2005-01-06T21:59:00.000-04:00

When a nation does evil, God deserts it. But primarily because that nation's hubris leads it into optional wars, possessed by an arrogant belief that God can be confined in a box and pressed into military duty. People intoxicated with the notion that they own God forget that one can lose wars as well as win them. This is exactly what happens in this chapter of Samuel.

The chapter begins as a continuation of the preceding chapter, followed by an abrupt shift after one line. We are told that Samuel's word came to all Israel. Then the scene moves to battle.

We are told that the Israelites went out to fight against the Philistines, not that the Philistines attacked Israel, so this was a war of choice. The Israelites camp by "Ebenezer", the "stone of help," (http://www.ancientsandals.com/overviews/mizpah.htm) near Mizpah. This echoes the stone that Jacob set as a witness between himself and Laban (Gen. 31:45ff). "Aphek", where the Philistines camped means "fortress" or "strength." In the first skirmish, the Philistines kill 4,000 Israelites, a stunning victory on Israel's home court. But rather than ask the Lord for aid, the Israelites decide to bring the ark. Hophni and Phinehas were the bearers.

The appearance of the ark heartens the Israelites, so much so that they cheer and make the ground shake. The Philistines are shaken but resolve to "be men." They defeat the Israelites, killing 30,000 including Hophni and Phinehas. More importantly, they capture the ark, cutting Israel completely off from worship of God.

The news arrives to Eli by means of a Benjamite. The tribe of Benjamin, the smallest, was the one from which Saul would come. The cascade of disaster proceeds out. Eli is so concerned about the ark of God (but not about his sons) that he falls out of his chair and breaks his neck. The wife of Phinehas goes into premature labor and dies, but not before naming her son "The glory has departed from Israel," to commemorate the capture of the ark.

Consider how many times this theme, of optional wars leading to disaster, recurs throughout the Bible. Examples: The Israelites invade Canaan without God's command (Num 14:39ff), Amaziah's attack on Jehoash (2 Kings 8ff), Zedekiah's defensive war against the Babylonians (Jeremiah 21:1ff). The latter very much parallels 1 Sam. 4, since Israel loses control of the Temple, where the ark rested.

1 Samuel 3

2004-12-24T01:54:00.000-04:00

This chapter tells us about prophecy and prophets, about how God impales those who do wrong, and also presents an very human tale about the relationship of Eli and his young student.

Although the previous chapter featured a prophet admonishing Eli, we're told that the word (Heb. dabar) of the Lord was rare and that visions (Heb. chazown) were few. The implication is that the two are connected. Later, the Lord speaks to Samuel, and at the end we are told that this is Samuel's vision. The word of the Lord is also presented as a kind of manna, which Samuel does not allow to "fall to the ground."

The word dabar is enormously complex, translated in Genesis as "all of these things", "because of" and "my errand". In 1 Sam 2:23, it is translated as "such things." In 1 Sam. 3:11, it is translated "a thing." So, when we speak of "the word of the Lord," and imagine it to be a spoken word, this is a drastically circumscribed interpretation of dabar.

Vision appears on a second level, since Eli's physical vision was almost gone, making him all but totally blind both spiritually and optically.

Samuel's first conversation with the Lord is peculiar. God does not introduce Himself, does not discuss His Law or give Samuel guidance. Instead, he tells Samuel how He will destroy Samuel's mentor and protector. This places Samuel in the awkward position of being the one to convey this news to Eli. Eli uses his position as mentor to force an answer from Samuel. Indeed, he uses the name of God to threaten to curse Samuel and Samuel, fearing the Lord but probably not Eli, tells him his vision. Eli thereby has the prophecy of the previous chapter confirmed: he and his family are to be expunged.

So, God's manner of delivering the message through Samuel has the effect of having Eli humiliate and shock himself. Yet Eli's only response is to accept God's will as inevitable. He does not repent or express remorse or call on his sons to change their ways. This may be the defining characteristic of the spiritually blind: they cannot believe that God will forgive sin. Eli is impaled on his own weakness.

Some final points. The phrase that all Israel "from Dan to Beersheba" defines the effective north-south extent of the Kingdom under Saul, so this phrase is used to mean that literally all of Israel learned that Samuel was a prophet. Matthew Henry also points out that Samuel was the one who opened the door to the house of the Lord, meaning that he was up earlier than anyone else in the household (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1103866516-1649.html).

1 Samuel 2

2004-12-14T22:48:00.000-04:00

Chapter 2 has two segments. The first is Hannah's prayer, which is often compared to Mary's Magnificat of Luke 1:46-55. Yet the Magnificat is far more centered on God, while Hannah's prayer is centered on the material advantages of serving Him. Yet though its sentiments are more earthy than the Magnificat, it is also more fervent.

The key element of Hannah's prayer is that it foreshadows the life of David. She says that the Lord is the source of life and death, of poverty and wealth, lifting up the poor (as He lifted David), guarding the feet of His saints (as He guarded David from Saul), and exalting the horn of His anointed (as He did first for Saul, and then when Saul proved unworthy, for David).

The second segment of 1 Sam. 2 provides the perfect contrast to the coming king in the corrupt sons (Phinehas and Hophni) of Eli. They are called "sons of Belial" or Satan (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408a.htm). It is difficult to convey the full sense of the sacrilege they committed. They appropriated sacrificed meat for themselves and, like animals, demanded even raw meat. Indeed, as the sons have appropriated the sacrifices of the Lord and rejected substitutionary sacrifice, the Lord blinds them to their danger to turn them into living sacrifices.

They sleep with "the women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting," possibly a reference to shrine prostitutes, although Jamieson thinks they were ascetics (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1103078418-7310.html). It seems likely that the women were indeed prostitutes, forbidden by Yahweh but common among the Canaanite religions. This would emphasize how corrupt worship at Shiloh had become.

Eli serves to illustrate that being good is not enough. Eli blesses Hannah and reproves his sons for their wrongdoing. Evidently he trained Samuel appropriately. But because he was unwilling to stand up against the wrongs of Phinehas and Hophni. And so a "man of God" comes to Eli-- who should have been a man of God but was not-- and foretells his fate and the fate of his sons and all his descendants. But he also accuses Eli of participating in the wrongdoing of Hophni and Phinehas, saying that both father and sons are fattening themselves on the sacrifices and the text confirms this in 1 Sam. 4:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1103075710-3301.html)

The punishment is very harsh. All descendants are to be "cut off from the altar," and those that are not will beg to be appointed as priests just to be able to eat.

In the midst of this iniquity is young Samuel, who manages to remain completely unsullied. Like a lotus, he blooms from filth.

1 Samuel 1

2004-11-29T01:16:00.000-04:00

Chapter 1 deals with the birth of Samuel and his dedication to the priesthood. There are a number of interesting aspects: the competition between the wives Hannah and Penninah over childbearing, the spiritual blindness of the priest Eli, the introduction of Eli's worthless sons Phinehas and Hophni, the narcissism of Hannah's husband Elkanah, and the power of prayer when uttered in the spirit of sacrifice. But the most interesting is the parallel of Hannah to Mary, wife of Joseph and mother of Jesus, which emerges in the next chapter.

First to Elkanah. We know he was a man of some stature because he had a well-established genealogy, was able to support two wives, and he was able to afford portions of meat for his entire family. Accordinng to Mathew Henry, he was from the Kohathites (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1101706897-1840.html) and had ties to Bethlehem, connecting Elkanah's home Ramathaim to Joseph's Arimathea.

Yet he was narcissistic, imaging that he could serve as a substitute for a child to Hannah. Since being childless was the equivalent of self-extinction, this was an astonishing piece of arrogance on the part of Elkanah. Furthermore, he was clearly a poor peacemaker in the home, allowing Peninnah to taunt Hannah. Still, he was apparently compassionate and devout.

Next to Hannah. She serves as an example of prayer. She prayed "in bitterness of soul," so intent on he object that she "prayed in her heart," with her lips moving but no sound emerging, offering (as was proper for a first-born son) to yield him to the Lord.

Next is Eli. As Henry points out, Eli accuses Hannah of the sin which the disciples of Christ were accused at Pentecost-- of drunkenness. For a priest, he is remarkably disconnected from the Spirit. Still, he is not a wicked man and he joins her in praying that God may grant her wish.

And last is Samuel, whose name means "heard of God." Henry points out that Hannah cherished Samuel, that she fed him from her own breast rather than from that of another woman. After weaning, she delivers to the priesthood Samuel with his own larder, consisting of 3/5 bushel of flour and a bull, not to mention some wine. And so, Samuel is made a living sacrifice to God, handed over freely and irrevocably by his mother.

Introduction to the books of Samuel

2004-11-26T02:34:00.000-04:00

1 Samuel and 2 Samuel follow Judges, a book illustrating the faithlessness of the Israelites and how that faithlessness led them into bondage. Perhaps most well-known in Judges is the story of Samson, whose miscegenation with Philistines leads to his blinding and death. Also notable in Judges is the story of Deborah, which illustrates the potential of women to achieve high status before the establishment of the kingdom. Under the Old Testament kings, no similar stories are told of women. The only women of exalted status are the Queen of Sheba and Jezebel, the latter being evil.

1 Samuel and 2 Samuel are some of the richest books in the Bible. Built around the elevation of first Saul and then David to the kingship of Israel, they speak to many themes central to human life.
Among those themes are:

The means by which temporal power corrupts the spiritual life
How to pray
The vulnerability of leaders to the headstrong actions of their supporters
The vital role of genuine humility in the success of a leader
The danger of being too find of one's children

There is also the very important foreshadowing of Paul's persecution of Jesus in Saul's persecution of David, as well as the foreshadowing of the aassumption of sin by Jesus in David's assumption of sin.

And yet 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel are perplexing. Did God make a mistake in making Saul king? Once God discovered the mistake, why did He allow Saul to persecute David? Why does David allow his generals, and Joab in particular, to push him around? Why was taking a census of the troops a sin against the Lord meriting a cost of thousands of innocent lives?

These topics and others will be the questions we explore in subsequent study.

Joshua 24

2004-11-08T01:40:00.000-04:00

This final chapter reprises in part the previous chapter. Joshua and Israel renew the covenant with God. Joshua and Eleazar, the senior leaders of the nation, die.

Matthew Henry points out that the meeting occurs at Shechem, rather than at the Shiloh shrine ten miles south (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1099891310-2865.html).

Joshua reviews the history of Israel back to Abraham and establishes the historical land claim to Canaan. He recounts the escape from Egypt and the battle for Canaan. He tells the Israelites that their sword did not win battles, but that God sent the hornet to drive out the Canaanites. He exhorts Israel to choose between the gods of the Amorites and the serving Yahweh, making the majestic statement that expresses the best in the Judeo-Christian tradition of religious freedom: "As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord."

Interestingly, the people promise to serve the Lord, but do not promise to throw away their gods. Notice also that here that again four classes of seniors are mentioned: elders, leaders, judges, and officials present themselves before God.

Joshua also set up a stone at an oak tree. Matthew Henry connects this to the oak at which Jacob buried the family gods and earrings (Gen. 35: 4). After disposing of the gods, the foreigners surrounding Jacob became terrified of him.

Another key claim to the land is reiterated here. The bones of Joseph are buried on land which had been purchased by Jacob. Had the Israelites fulfilled Joseph's wish when he died, they could have avoided the bondage of Egypt.

Joshua 23

2004-10-27T23:38:00.000-03:00

In this chapter, Joshua announces his retirement to Israel's leaders, including elders, judges, and officials (Matthew Henry says that the address is to all Israel; see http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1098928203-4374.html; I would suggest this address is to the leadership). He recapitulates the key points:
God, not Israel, has conquered Canaan
The promised land includes everything between the Jordan and Mediterranean
Be strong (or rigid) in obeying everything in the book of Mosaic Law
Do not associate with, especially by intermarriage, the Canaanites
Do not serve any Canaanite gods
If you do associate with the Canaanites, they will destroy you

Most of the chapter is straightforward. However, we do get a small insight into the slow evolution of Israeli civic society from the structure of Exodus. Following Joshua, there is no single great leader. Instead, elders (zaqen), judges (shaphat), officials (shoter), and leaders (ro'sh) control the tribes.

Zaqen seems to have no implication other than persons of great age. Ro'sh ties back to Exodus 18:25, in which Moses at the suggestion of his father-in-law, chooses chiefs. Shaphat is the function of judging described for leaders in Ex. 18:26.

The elders (zaqen) were the cloud of witnesses at Mount Sinai who saw God (Ex. 24:9). Elders are not mentioned in Exodus 18 in the context of leadership. But the only officials (shoter) mentioned in Exodus are Egyptian overseers. The word used in Exodus 18 is sar, a generic word which applies to higher levels as well. Interestingly, Hebrew officials (shoter) are mentioned in Deuteronomy, and appear there to be somewhat inferior to captains of 10.

Another interesting point is that that the existence of an oral law of divine origin (Talmud) is inferred because Joshua orally addresses the leadership of Israel. However, it is persuasively argued that this is incorrect, that the oldest branch of the Talmud, the Mishna, emerged at the time of the Babylonian captivity much later (http://www.seedofabraham.net/talmud.html).

Joshua 22

2004-10-25T01:35:00.000-03:00

The theme of this chapter is maintaining loyalty to God even when separated from daily contact with the shrine. The tribes from the east of the Jordan return home, being admonished by Joshua remain faithful to all of the commandments of the Lord. But, arriving there, they build a shrine. The tribes from the west conclude that the eastern tribes are planning to secede, accuse them of plotting the "sin of Peor" (sexual immorality, miscegenation, and the worship of Baal; Numbers 25:1-3), and threaten war. The eastern tribes deny any intent to rebel, claim that the altar is a replica not intended for actual sacrifices, and swear loyalty to the Lord. War is averted.

This chapter casts light on contemporary religious attitudes in regard to collective punishment. Do the consequences of sin affect the sinner alone, or can the entire nation be held guilty? The former is the view presented predominantly in the New Testament, while the latter is found primarily in the Old Testament. The line of demarcation is not absolute, of course.

Phinehas, son of high priest Eleazar is sent to head the western delegation that threatens war. Phinehas is the man who ended the plague against the Israelites by murdering an Israelite and Moabite woman in the act of (or at least in preparation for the act of) intercourse (Numbers 25:7).

So Baal worship is connected to sexuality in a variety of forms, including fertility, ritual temple prostitition, and the metaphor of adultery used in the Prophets (http://www.cresourcei.org/baal.html). The over-emphasis on sexual morality, as opposed to charity and seeking to do justice that one finds in some Christian congregations probably correlates to an over-emphasis of the Old vs. New Testament.

Joshua 21

2004-10-18T01:21:00.000-03:00

So at last the Levites obtain their inheritance, distributed as towns within the land controlled by other tribes. This takes place in Shiloh, supervised by the high priest Eleazar, Joshua, and the tribal elders. At the end of the chapter, we are told that there is peace, although as will become evident in Judges, this does not last long.

The distribution of land is peculiar. The descendants of Aaron alone receive 13 towns, while all of the other descendants of Kohath, the second of Jacob's grandsons through Levi receive 10. This would include progeny of Moses' son Gershon. Descendants of Gershon (or Gershom), the first of Jacob's grandsons through Levi received 13 towns toward the north. Descendants of Merari, one of Jacob's grandsons through Levi received 12 towns. These were not territorially integral (http://www.blueletterbible.org/images/maps/Otest/boundaries.html).

Aaron's descendants, who became the official priesthood, are situated in the lands of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, leaving much of Israel without these official priests (http://www.elca.org/jle/articles/biblical_theological/article.lazareth_william_part3.html). This division laid the groundwork for the later heresy of the northern kingdom.

Hebron the town is taken back from Caleb (Joshua 14:13-14) to be given to the descendants of Aaron, while Caleb retains the environs.

Five cities of refuge are again named: Hebron, Schechem, Golan, Kedesh in Galilee, and Ramoth in Gilead. Bezer is named, but not noted as a city of refuge, raising the question of whether it ceased to serve as such.

Joshua 20

2004-10-16T02:11:00.000-03:00

This chapter proposes an innovation that must have been a leading edge development for tribal societies. In cases of accidental death, the killer could seek and obtain refuge in defined cities, staying there until the death of the high priest. By seeking refuge, the interminable blood feuds that still plague the Middle East could be avoided. Of course, escape presumes that the killer manages to elude his pursuers for a day or two. The city of refuge was also required to inquire into the matter through a trial.

There appears to be a contradiction between the number of cities designated for refuge in Deuteronomy 19:2 and the number designated in Numbers 35:14.

As Matthew Henry notes, the cities of refuge were Levite cities, assigned in the following chapter (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1097902285-1517.html). They were also hill cities, making them especially easy to defend should pursuers be loth to let slip their prey. To quote Henry, "Kedesh was in Naphtali, the most northern tribe, Hebron in Judah, the most southern, and Shechem in Ephraim, which lay in the middle, about equally distant from the other two. " Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan were the cities of refuge east of the Jordan.

Henry finds a Christian significance in the names, saying "Kedesh signifies holy, and our refuge is the holy Jesus. Shechem, a shoulder, and the government is upon his shoulder. Hebron, fellowship, and believers are called into the fellowship of Christ Jesus our Lord. Bezer, a fortification, for he is a strong-hold to all those that trust in him. Ramoth, high or exalted, for him hath God exalted with his own right hand. Golan, joy or exultation, for in him all the saints are justified, and shall glory."

Joshua 19

2004-10-11T02:20:00.000-03:00

This final chapter on the allotment of lands contains the unsettling news that the lot, as obtained from seeking the counsel of God, is sometimes wrong. For example, the allotment of Judah must be revised to now include the tribe of Simeon. Dan is not up to holding the territory it has been assigned.

Matthew Henry claims that not one person of note came from the tribe of Simeon. <http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1097470769-2747.html> He relates this to the disgrace that Simeon brought on the family through his anger (Gen 49:5-7). Jacob had promised to disperse Levi and Simeon in Israel. Levi's descendants became priests, without any ancestral lands, and Simeon was placed here in Judah, presumably to be absorbed by the larger tribe.

Asher, Naphtali, Zebulon and Issachar will form the tribes in the general region of Galilee <http://www.blueletterbible.org/images/maps/Otest/boundaries.gif>

Joshua himself ends up in the region that will become Samaria. Notably, the site of his retirement, Timnath Serah (or Timnath Heres) was commanded by the Lord.

Joshua 18

2004-10-04T03:02:00.000-03:00

Four things are accomplished in this chapter.

The Tent of Meeting is set up at Shiloh, in the territory of Ephraim, which is Joshua's tribe and just north of Jerusalem.
Lots are thrown for the seven tribes that have not been allotted land.
The boundaries of the tribe of Benjamin are established. It is given Jerusalem, which remains unconquered.
The remaining six tribes are told not to be lazy but to take their allotments. Since many of those areas were occupied by hostile Canaanites, and since these six tribes helped their brother Israelites conquer their portions of Canaan, this seems a bit high-handed.

Jamieson points out that the location of Benjamin was prophesied by Moses in Deut. 33: 12 (www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1096869389-5011.html)

Another interesting point is the identity of the 6 tribes that are forced to fight for their land without the aid of the rest of the Israelites. Three are tribes descended from the handmaidens, Zilpah and Bilhah, and three of Leah's children, Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun. The ones who got off easy were the children of Rachel, Benjamin and Joseph, Leah's eldest son Reuben and her fourth son Judah, and Zilpah's son Gad. Dan's inheritance is so contested that the tribe is unable to occupy it and ends up moving far to the north.

Joshua 16-17

2004-10-02T02:35:00.000-03:00

The theme of the 12 becoming 11 and then 12 again is seen in the disciples of Jesus in the New Testament. Here it plays out in the tribe of Levi being dispersed among the nations as the children of Joseph receive a double inheritance. In Genesis 48: 16-19, Jacob blessed the younger grandchild Ephraim above Manasseh.

Manasseh's land lay north of Judah's, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. Ephraim's was just south of that, but not reaching to the sea. Note that Manasseh also received a portion west of the Jordan and further north (Joshua 1:12-15). (http://www.blueletterbible.org/images/maps/Otest/boundaries.html)

It is noted that Ephraim failed to dislodge the Canaanites. Later on, we are told, the Ephraimites subjected the Canaanites to corvee labor, but did not wipe them out.

Both the Ephraimites and the tribe of Manasseh complain that their allotments are too small for their populations, but that they aren't strong enough to challenge the chariots of the Canaanites on the plains. Joshua advises them to clear the forests of the hill country.

There are some interesting points here:

The firstborn of Manasseh is said to have sired a clan of great soldiers
Five daughters claim a right, through Mosaic decree, to receive inheritance
The city of Megiddo, where the battle of Armageddon is to be fought, belongs to Manasseh
Manasseh possessed cities inside other tribal areas
Endor, where Saul consulted a medium, is one of these isolated cities, as is Megiddo

Joshua 15

2004-09-30T01:09:00.000-03:00

Next we are presented with the distribution of land to Israel's largest tribe. One problem is immediately obvious. The western boundary of their territory is given as the coastline, which would be held by the Philistines for many years to come.

The story of Caleb's claim to Hebron is repeated, and we learn that Debir was taken by Othniel. There is a vignette by which Caleb's daughter Acsah gains not merely a field but springs to water it. In rabbinical literature, Caleb is thought to have married Miriam (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=41&letter=C). We also learn that Caleb indicates "dog," so this may have been the clan symbol. In rabbinical literature, Caleb's son Hur was martyred for reproving the Israelites (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=974&letter=H)

Matthew Henry points out that the catalog of villages and towns in Jos. 15:21-32 is agley (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1096512847-6183.html). Thirty eight locations are named, but said to be 29 towns and villages. Nine are transferred to Simeon in Jos. 19:2.

Joshua 14

2004-09-26T01:25:00.000-03:00

As the previous chapter established the inheritance east of the Jordan as laid down by Moses, this chapter establishes the inheritance west of the Jordan as laid down by Joshua, Eleazar the priest and the heads of the tribes.
In this chapter, we learn that the conquest of Canaan to this point has taken five years, since Caleb says he was 40 when he first scouted out the land and now, after 40 years in the desert, he is 85.

As reward, Caleb is granted the Anakite hill town of Hebron and he promises to drive out other Anakite groups. Hebron is associated with Mamre, the site of Abraham's grave (www.ancientsandals.com/overviews/hebron.htm).

We are told that Caleb is a Kennizite, apparently descended from Kenaz (www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.vi.xxix.htm, www.yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/guest/?page=caleb_the_goy), making him a descendant of Esau and not an Israelite. Thus it would seem that the original promise of God to Abraham in Gen. 15:18 has been somewhat modified.

We are told the land then had rest from war, but this appears not to be the case. Rather, it seems the Israelites have sown themselves into a field of brambles and will spend many years subjugating the other peoples yet undefeated.

Joshua 13

2004-09-26T01:08:00.000-03:00

This chapter reconfirms the inheritance granted on the east of the Jordan by Moses and excludes Levi from ownership of any land.

We are told that Joshua is old and that huge areas remain unconquered. Indeed, even by the time of Saul, the coastal region from Gaza to Tyre and north, Moab, Edom, Aram, and Ammon would remain contested.

Joshua 12

2004-09-24T02:55:00.000-03:00

This chapter reviews the conquered territory. Under Moses' command, the Israelites conquered the lands east of the Jordan, while under Joshua, they conquered lands west of the Jordan, ultimately providing a portion to each tribe (www.blueletterbible.org/images/maps/Otest/boundaries.gif).

For Joshua's victories, the text enumeratesthe kings slain, and adds what would seem to be the gratuitous notation "one" after each king. Yet, this has the several effects. First, the list is sequential, so it leads the reader along the path of the victory. And, by enumerating each king slain, it has the effect of making each victory as glorious as every other victory. Finally, it makes the point that victories are won, one by one, with failure possible at every step.

There are some interesting internal discrepancies to the tale of the conquest. (www.cresourcei.org/conquest.html). For example, Debir was reported as being taken in Jos. 10:38, with no survivors left. Yet in Jos. 15: 16-17, it is Othniel under the command of Caleb who takes the city. And in Joshua 11:21, it is apparently destroyed yet again.

Joshua 11

2004-09-15T01:07:00.000-03:00

This chapter introduces an interesting military issue that will recur: the use of chariots in fighting in the level places, a skill which the Israelites lacked and suffered sorely from that lack. But, thanks to God's assistance, Joshua surprises the cavalry while it is resting by the Waters of Merom and routs them. The Israelites capture the horses, but rather than using them or eating them, they hamstring them.

The battles of this chapter occur in the far north of Israel, in areas near the Syrian and Lebanese borders and including the important port city of Tyre. This part of Israel will be occupied by the clans of Asher and Naphthali.

Finally, Joshua completes the conquest of the south, not however managing to take the coastal cities of Gaza and Ashdod, or Gath, cities that will later prove to be thorns in the side of the Israelites. Jerusalem remains unconquered. Indeed, it will gradually develop that rather than subduing Canaan, the Israelites have grasped a tiger by the tail and will be harried from all sides, with occasional victories under the judges, until they unify under David (http://www.cresourcei.org/conquest.html)

In this chapter, we are told that God Himself hardened the hearts of the Canaanites, inciting them to attack Israel. This is as close an answer as we will get to the genocide.

Joshua 10

2004-09-14T02:11:00.000-03:00

Alarmed by the alliance between the Gibeonites and the Israelites, five Amorite kings, those of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon form an alliance. With God's assurance of victory, the Israelites march all night (26 miles, according to Jamieson, uphill and over hilly terrain; typically a three-day journey) from Gilgal to Gibeon and rout the Amorites. God rains down deadly hailstones to assist the Israelites.

The slaughter is going so well that Joshua prays that both sun and moon stand still so that the victory can be complete. God hears the prayer, and holds the sun and moon in place for a full day. The Israelites pursue the Amorites first toward the northwest toward Beth Horon and then southwest to Azekah. The five kings, who have been held trapped in a cave at Makkedah (near Azekah and far to the south and west of Jerusalem) are executed and left hanging on trees during the day. Joshua takes Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish (where they kill Gezer's king), Eglon, Hebron, and Debir. He kills everyone in these cities and crucifies the kings.

Matthew Henry points out that the name of the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-zadek means "lord of righteousness" and suggests he might have been a descendant of Melchizedek, who blessed Abraham (Gen. 14). Jerusalem is the same as Salem. with Jerusalem meaning "vision of peace" or "peaceful possession" according to Jamieson.

Joshua's prayer is not phrased as a request, but as an order to the sun and moon, using the same Hebrew word, amar, as God uses in Genesis at the creation of the world. Henry ascribes this command the weight of a prophetic utterance.

Note that an extrabiblical source, the book of Jashar is mentioned. Jasher may mean "upright." Extant works called "Book of Jashar" are believed to be recent inventions.

Note also that if the text is followed literally, Joshua marches back to Gilgal and then returns to Makkedah before executing the kings. Since the army had marched for a night and fought continuously for perhaps 24 hours, it seems implausible that they should have marched another 12 hours and then taken the even longer trip to Makkedah. Indeed, Joshua seals the kings in the cave specifically to continue the pursuit and prevent the Amorite fighters from reaching their cities.

One interesting point is that as the army returns to Makkedah to execute the kings, the text says that "no one uttered a word against the Israelites." It's unclear who might do so, except perhaps the Gibeonites.

Joshua 9

2004-08-28T02:14:00.000-03:00

At this point, the wheels come off the plan to drive all non-Israelite tribes from Canaan, and all because Joshua fails to consult with the Lord. The Gibeonites (Hivites; given as descendants of the sixth son of Canaan in Gen 10:15), dressed in worn out clothes and carrying moldy bread pretend to have traveled from afar. The Israelite leaders swear an oath of peace, so when they later discover the Hivite cities of Gibeon, Kephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath Jearim, they are prevented from killing the Gibeonites. So, they turn them into forced labor, making the Gibeonites' introduction of themselves as "your servants" prophetic.

The split of the Gibeonites from the rest of Canaan is, however, fortunate for the Israelites, since the the rest of the Canaanites are united in the desire to eradicate the invaders. Commentator Matthew Henry points out that no king of Gibeon is mentioned (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1093669443-4715.html), suggesting perhaps that the Gibeonites were not subject to one.

Joshua 8B: Renewal of the Covenant

2004-08-27T02:36:00.000-03:00

This section of Joshua 8 fulfills Deuteronomy 27:2-8, in which the Israelites are commanded to coat stones with plaster and record the law. No plaster is mentioned here. At any rate, Joshua built an altar of uncut stones on Mount Ebal, offered burnt offerings to the Lord, and sacrificed fellowship offerings. This clearly follows the text of Deuteronomy, since it emphasizes the blessings and cursings. If the chronology of the event is as given in the text, this is deep in enemy territory. The Israelites have barely conquered two towns near Jerusalem, and this would have them marching many miles to the north (http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/gifs/ebal.html) Strikingly, the text says that people stood there, both Israelite and alien. Since Israel has just returned to Israel, where have these aliens come from? These are suggestions that the events at Gerizim/Ebal occurred somewhat later.

The text says that half of the assembled company stood in front of Mt. Gerizim and half in front of Mt. Ebal. This is certainly not specified in Deuteronomy. One source says,

"Mount Ebal is the taller of the twins. Its barren slopes are strewn with gray rocks. This desolate mountain represents the curses that, G-d forbid, could befall the Bnai Yisroel if they do not keep the mitzvos of the Torah. Mount Gerizim, on the other side, has beautiful tree covered slopes and represents the blessings that would come to the Jewish People for following in the ways of the Torah....Mount Gerizim is closely associated with a sect called the Cussim (Cutheans), also called Shomronim (Samaritans)." (http://www.campsci.com/iguide/har_gerizim_and_har_ayval.htm)

A review of "The Lost Temple of Israel" presents some archaeological observations and suggests that the name Ebal came from the name Baal, and that this altar replaced an altar for Baal worship (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0345LostTemple.html#A ). It has been suggested that the two mountains represent two different cultic traditions.

Joshua 8A: The conquest of Ai

2004-08-26T01:10:00.000-03:00

This time, Joshua returns with overwhelming force, at least 35,000 men against at most 6,000 men from Ai. He sends 5,000 of them to attack the unguarded city after the soldiers of Ai and-- note Bethel also--have been drawn off in pursuit of the Israelites. This would also ensure the men of Bethel, the larger city, could not reinforce Ai before it was burned. Joshua camps with to the north of the city. In the night he goes into the valley in which his soldiers were trapped the previous time, one presumes with a number of troops. When the men of both Bethel and Ai pursue Joshua, they will encounter this larger force and be trapped, with 5,000 raiders above them burning their homes and killing their families.

In a scene reminiscent of Moses fighting against the Amalekites in Exodus 17, Joshua extends his javelin against Ai. The Israelites are allowed to keep the plunder this time. In a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Jesus, Joshua hangs the king of Ai on a tree, but has the corpse taken down before evening in accord with Deuteronomy 21:22-3 "If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance." So in the end, Bethel's defensive army is destroyed, and Ai massacred and extinguished.

Maps of Ei-Tell, generally associated with Ai are found at: http://www.seminary.georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/KMcFall/aiaerial.jpg http://www.seminary.georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/KMcFall/aichart.jpg

Bethel is often associated with Beit-el, but the identification is not certain (http://www.seminary.georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/KMcFall/ai.html). Although Genesis 12:8 speaks of a mountain between Bethel and Ai, the traditional identification of Beitin with Bethelis inconsistent. An alternate site for Ai is el Bireh, with Khirbet Nisya the alternate location for Bethel. (http://www.seminary.georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/KMcFall/aimap.jpg)
The argument for the alternate location of Ai is given here: http://www.ancientdays.net/battleai.htm
and here:
http://www.ancientdays.net/ai15.htm#shevarim

Joshua 7

2004-08-25T04:00:00.000-03:00

The story is simple. Achan of the tribe of Judah has, against express orders, reserved plunder for himself. God is angry at all Israel. Spies report that the city of Ai is weak, and that only a fraction of the men will be required to take it. Doing so, the invading force is routed, with 36 dead. As Joshua inquires into the matter, God lays out a lengthy catalogue of complaints: Israel has broken the covenant, lied, sinned, and stolen. Early the next morning, indicating zeal, Joshua has the people consecrate themselves. Through some kind of divination, Joshua determines that a Judean, Achan, is guilty. Matthew Henry also notes that Joshua deals with Achan respectfully, tenderly, calling him "my son" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1093417075-8494.html). Achan confesses to stealing 5 pounds of silver, 1 1/4 pounds of gold, and a beautiful Babylonian robe. Israel stones him (and his children and livestock) to death in what becomes known as the Valley of Trouble (Achan). His property, including the precious metals, are burned.

There are many ways to view this story. Louis Ginzberg's "The Legends of the Jews" proposes that Achan was a hardened sinner, who had frequently misappropriated holy things (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj402.htm). Yair Zakobitz, writing for The Jewish Agency for Israel says that it makes clear that faith in God is supreme (http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehardeah/shlach.html). Battlefield prowess and especially espionage are no substitute for faith. Some commentators frame this as God bringing down collective punishment on the nation for the sin of one man, although it is difficult to think of any other instance in the Bible when this occurs. God is always seeking to preserve the righteous, not to destroy them.

These analyses miss some important points. First of all, God is angry at more than one man. He is angry at a transgression of the whole people, yet is satisfied when a scapegoat is killed. He is angry at lying, which it is not evident that Achan has done. It's not clear that God has much to do directly with the defeat at Ai. Even when the city is taken, it requires the full army and a clever plot. Rather, Joshua seems to have reneged on performing his role as general, accepting without consulting God a battle plan drawn up by spies. Finally, God seems genuinely contemptuous of Joshua's prayer. In the mouth of Moses, such an abject prayer brought divine reconciliation, but God tells Joshua, "Stand up! What are you doing down on your face?"

A coherent interpretation of the story would be that hubris has afflicted the whole people as a result of the easy victory at Jericho. Many have broken the covenant by imagining that they and not God are responsible. Some have lied, perhaps by boasting. Others have sinned in other ways. Perhaps they failed to cut down the Asherah poles. One has committed the act that God finds unforgivable, largely holding back precious metals from the collective treasury, and this one is sacrificed.

But the sin is spread more widely than Achan and it manifests itself in several militarily disastrous ways: Joshua fails to consult the Lord in planning a battle; he allows a small force to be sent up when there is no good reason not to send the full forces; he apparently decides to take his rest rather than leading the troops; and when things go badly, the Israelites-- lacking confidence in God-- break ranks and run. This is how pride is manifested, and we can see it operating even today, if we will open our eyes.

Joshua 6

2004-08-24T03:10:00.000-03:00

Joshua performs a ritual to bring down the walls of Jericho. For six days, the armed men walk once around the city with seven priests blowing shofar in front of the Ark. On the seventh, they walk around seven times with seven priests blowing shofar. At the conclusion of the circuit, the priests blow a long blast and the people shout. The walls collapse, and everything in the city except Rahab and her kin and the gold, silver, and bronze are to be destroyed. If anything at all is spared, Joshua warns, the camp of Israel will be liable to destruction and trouble.

After all this is accomplished, Joshua curses the city of Jericho, stating that a man will lose his firstborn son if he rebuilds the foundation and his youngest son will die when he sets up the gate.

The symbolism of seven is of interest, as is the question of how Joshua accomplished the conquest of Jericho without breaking the Sabbath.

A great deal about the shofar can be learned at www.shofars.org/theshofararticle.htm

Joshua 5

2004-08-22T23:54:00.000-03:00

Standing on unfamiliar ground and in hostile territory directly before the enemy, Joshua orders his men, on the command of the Lord... to be circumcised. A full discussion of circumcision is to be found at the Jewish encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=514&letter=C)

Militarily, Joshua's action is seeming madness. The men of Schechem (Gen 34.) were slaughtered three days after circumcision because they could not defend themselves. Yet the residents of Canaan are so paralyzed with fear after seeing the Israelites pass through the Jordan at flood stage that they do not attack.

What is particularly striking is that the Israelite men have, according to most interpreters, not been previously circumcised; in any event, their circumcisions are inadequate (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1093229017-5902.html). Clearly Moses was remiss as a religious leader, having allowed the practice to lapse or having done it in an ineffectual manner.

The hypothesis that Moses allowed the practice of circumcision to lapse could help to illuminate several passages. First, it may explain why God refused to let Moses enter into the Promised Land. While Moses had been personally faithful to God, he had not done what a religious leader should do in preserving the Covenant. Second, consider what light it casts on the story of Zipporah and the circumcision of their son. Zipporah says, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me." Moses had been unfaithful to the Covenant by failing to circumcise their son. So, perhaps Zipporah was saying something like, "Until now we haven't been properly married, but now you are a husband whose son is of the Covenant." In any event, Moses' failure to circumcise his own son does seem to be repeated in the need to circumcise the Israelites.

At this point, the Israelites leave the unreal existence of wandering the desert. They have Passover and manna ceases to fall from heaven. Life, in its fullness, begins again.

And an extraordinary miracle occurs. The commander of the army of the Lord appears to Joshua and gives him a message: the place Joshua is standing near Jericho is holy. This message, identical to God's message to Moses at the burning bush implies that the commander of the army of the Lord is God Himself. However, traditionally, the commander is associated with the archangel Michael (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj402.htm). According to Jewish legend, this angel reproached Joshua for neglect of the study of the Torah (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_jewslegends4a.htm)

The commander of the army of the Lord has another interesting message. He tells Joshua that he is neither for the Israelites nor for their enemies. God, of course, is not for one group of people or another, but for His purposes: truth, love, peace, mercy, and so on. It's a message the warring factions of today would be wise to heed.

Joshua 4

2004-08-22T02:56:00.000-03:00

The crossing of the Jordan takes place on the tenth day of the first month, Nissan. Since the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar, this does not correspond to a specific day of the Western calendar, but would be in the range of March-April (http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm). Passover begins on the fifteenth day of Nissan (http://www.jewfaq.org/holidaya.htm), so this will be the first Passover celebrated in the Promised Land.

The miracle occurs in a perfectly unmistakable manner. Once the priest's feet enter the Jordan, the water stops flowing. As soon as they cross to the other side, the full flood of the Jordan recommences. Thus God's power, concentrated in the Ark, controls nature. Joshua gets the credit for the miracle, and the people revere him, as God has promised. Joshua again points to the benefits of the miracle to the Israelites, notably the salutary effect it has on their enemies and on the Israelites themselves.

The tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh lead the way across the Jordan, with a total of 40,000 armed men.

Twelve stones, each carried by one man from each tribe, are set up at their camp, which was in Gilgal, at the eastern border of Jericho. The name Gilgal sounds like the Hebrew for to roll, according to the NIV. The stones, which we can presume were heavy since they had to be carried on the shoulder, are erected in a permanent shrine at Gilgal.

Commentator Matthew Henry (and others) believes that the twelve additional stones were set up in the middle of the Jordan as a monument (Joshua 4:9, http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1093153250-3494.html). However, the preceding sentence says that that the tribal representatives carried the twelve stones to the camp, so verse 9 would seem to be a textual imperfection, signaling Joshua's role in a slightly later event.

Joshua 3

2004-08-21T02:51:00.000-03:00

Joshua arises early to the task and leadsthe Israelites from Shittim to an encampment on the west side of the Jordan, directly opposite Jericho. There he waits three days. So, his early rising did not indicate haste.

The Israelites are commanded to stay 1000 yards from the Ark and are commanded to consecrate themselves. The Lord promises to perform a miracle, parting the Jordan, specifically to exalt Joshua. Commentator Matthew Henry (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1093068134-9438.html) points to Rahab's statement that the Jerichoites are in fear because of the parting of the Red Sea as evidence that the parting of the Jordan, especially in its flood stage, made them more fearful. Joshua 5:1 does indicate a cumulative panic on the part of the Canaanites. Joshua, however, tells the Israelites that the function of the miracle is to serve as a sign of God's presence and power rather than simply as a device for terrorizing Canaan.

The enemies of the Israelites are named: the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Perizzites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, and the Jebusites. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com), the Canaanites lived between the Mediterranean coast and the Jordan. In some contexts, it applies specifically to the coastal dwellers and in that case is identical with Phoenicians. The Hittite territory was vague. Hebron was a Hittite city in Abraham's day, and Hittites are mentioned in south central Palestine. However, the territory is also stated to extend from Lebanon to the Euphrates. The Perizzites lived in southern Palestine. Hivites occupied central Palestine. The Amorites were dispersed throughout the area, and were accused of engaging in witchcraft. Little is known about the Girgashites. The Jebusites were headquartered in Jerusalem.

The "priests, who are Levites" carry the Ark to the Jordan. Twelve men are chosen, one from each tribe. These may be the same twelve that we are told in the following chapter are chosen to select stones from the dry river bottom to build a memorial but, if so, the text is contradictory.

Joshua 2

2004-08-18T03:06:00.000-03:00

This chapter centers on Rahab (Hebrew Rachav, meaning wide), variously called a prostitute or an innkeeper (Hebrew zonah). Two spies are sent about eight miles across the Jordan into the walled city of Jericho. They go to Rahab's home. Louis Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews says that the two spies were Caleb and Phinehas. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj402.htm) but there is no biblical support for this.

The king of Jericho, made aware of the spies' presence, demands Rahab render them to him, but she instead hides them. Her house was on the city wall, so she let them down from a rope through her window and advised them to hide for three days until the pursuit died down. In return, they agree to spare the lives of anyone in her household if she displays a scarlet cord through the same window. One anomaly in the story is that the walls of Jericho are later brought down, including presumably the wall from which the cord hangs.
Rahab is central to the story. A strong and independent woman whose heart apparently is not "melting with fear" as she describes her countrymen, she makes a shrewd, highly self-interested calculation and a sound bargain in throwing in with the Lord. Notice that she, not a male relative, makes the bargain, meaning that she was the ruler of her family. Unlike her countrymen, she recognizes God as supreme. A good question is why other residents of Jericho, who evidently also understand that God is supreme, do not surrender to the Israelites and convert to Judaism. Evidently they prefer fear to action.

There are a number of other questions one might ask. The spies presumably had to enter the city through the gate. Why were they not challenged there? How did Rahab (and the king) know they were spies? Why did the spies need to spy out the land-- and especially to enter Jericho-- if the battle plan was to raze the city walls? Wouldn't the intelligence from Joshua's early foray sufficed? If Rahab had betrayed the spies, would it have in any way affected Joshua's mission?

Rahab appears as the husband of Salmon and the mother of Boaz in the genealogy of Jesus presented in Matt. 1: 5

Leithart points out the parallel between the scarlet cord that Rahab hangs from her window to signal to the Israelites to spare her house and the blood daubed on the lintel at Passover to signal to the Angel of Death to spare the household. (http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh099.htm).

Jamieson (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1092808166-8639.html) says that the reason the king's messengers did not enter Rahab's house was that Oriental men had "an almost superstitious regard for a woman's apartment." More likely, Rahab was a force to be reckoned with.

Matthew Henry (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1092808516-9392.html) points out that Rahab is celebrated in the New Testament for proving her faith with deeds (James 2:25) and for being a strong believer (Heb. 11:31).

A number of commentators discuss the issue of Rahab's lie to the king's messenger. Some attempt to justify it (Matthew Henry is especially ingenious in this regard). Others dismiss it as not sinful since Rahab had not converted. Others say the law of the Old Testament does not absolutely forbid lying, particularly when it comes to saving life. But a simpler answer would be that the lie led as it must to another wrong, the destruction of Jericho and the murder of many innocents. It is a wrong that God in His complex works will eventually turn to good, but for the people of Jericho, it was bloody betrayal.

Joshua 1

2004-08-17T02:25:00.000-03:00

With Moses dead, Joshua becomes the military leader of the Israelites. The men of those tribes that have been given land east of the Jordan (Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh of the tribe of Joseph) are to be required to leave their wives and children and lead the communal expedition to seize Canaan. Then "they," presumably the officers of the Israelites swear absolute fealty and impose the death penalty on any who defy Joshua. Their only requirement of him is to be strong and resolute.

God's commands and promises are somewhat different.

He promises:

to give Joshua every place on which he sets foot
a territory extending north-south over the general area of Israel, but to the east as far as the Euphrates over much of modern-day Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia
that no one can stand against Joshua
that God will never leave Joshua
provisional on obeying the law, that Israel will be prosperous and successful.

These appear to be personal promises, more specific to Joshua than to Israel.

He commands Joshua to:

be strong and (very) courageous, the same demand as the people make on Joshua
meditate night and day on the Law and do not deviate from it
not be discouraged or terrified

In understanding the conquest of Canaan, it is worth remembering that in Genesis 9: 25, Noah curses his grandsom Canaan, the son of Ham, for having seen his father's nakedness (possibly a euphemism for some sexual mischief), saying "The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

Jamieson says that Joshua's original name was Osher (Num 13:8) and changes into Jehoshua, meaning "God's salvation", in this book (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1092719465-7276.html)

Matthew Henry notes that Joshua is the prototype of Jesus, and that the Septuagint actually translates "Yehoshuah" as "Jesus" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1092718889-5323.html)

The conquest of Canaan as recorded in the book of Joshua is through bloody conquest. Yet in Exodus 23, God promises an essentially bloodless conquest, with confusion, terror, and the hornet doing battle for the Israelites. One might ask whether the original Israelite rebellion against the invasion, recorded in Numbers 13-14, was punished by imposing on their descendants who engaged in the invasion the penalty of blood.

Intermission

2004-08-16T00:59:00.000-03:00

There are many ways to proceed in Bible study from Exodus. One could go back into Genesis, to discover the roots of the Israelites relationship to God and the nature of the conflicts between them and their neighbors. One could go sideways into the priestly law of Leviticus. One could enter the parallel track of Deuteronomy, the recapitulation of the giving of the law and the story of Moses' death. I choose to plunge into Canaan through Joshua (see http://www.bible-history.com/geography/maps/map_palestine_territory.html or http://www.blueletterbible.org/images/maps/Otest/battles2.jpg).

Before proceeding, it must be said that the simple narrative of the book of Joshua, which presents the conquest of Israel as a simple military campaign, is neither consistent with the archaeological evidence nor with other passages of the Bible. H.H. Ben Sasson (A History of the Jewish People) says that two time frames are consistent with two separate biblical traditions. Between the 19th and 13th centuries BCE, the area later occupied by Edom, Moab and Ammon was depopulated. By the time of the Iron Age (somewhat before 1000 BCE), a system of fortifications had been constructed around Ammon, consistent with Numbers 21:24.

Ben Sasson notes that a great deal of archaeology does support the notion of a violent conquest (See http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&r9410a.htm). Many Canaanite cities were destroyed in the later half of the 13th century BCE, However, it is unlikely that the conquest of Ai (modern day Et-Tell, near Bethel) was as recorded, since it was unoccupied for 1,000 years prior to the Israelite invasion. Also, the walls of Jericho existed prior to 1500 BCE, not at the time of the Israelite invasion.

Ben Sasson proposes that there were waves of penetration into Canaan, originating from Kadesh-barnea, an oasis. First was the intrusion of Joshua of the tribe of Ephraim into Edom and Moab, across the Jordan to capture Jericho and the region near Gibeon, defeating the Amorites. The Rachel tribes then occupied Mount Ephraim and north into Galilee. The Leah tribes defeated the Amorite kingdom of Sihon at Jahaz and proceeded north to confront Og, the king of Bashan, with the tribes of Reuben and Gad seizing south-central Transjordan.

While noting these extrabiblical interpretations, for the purpose of this study, let us proceed as if the book of Joshua is literally true, and seek to understand what it says and how that compares with other biblical material. From the standpoint of faith, after all, the historical accuracy is irrelevant. What matters is the scriptural message. The scriptural message of Joshua is very difficult for Christians to accept, since it is a message of brutal conquest, torture, and genocide. This is part of our tradition, but what does it mean?

Exodus 40

2004-08-12T03:03:00.000-03:00

This chapter completes the construction of the Tabernacle and the story of Exodus, sealing God's Covenant with the Chosen people.

The construction of the Tabernacle is presented as two recapitulations, one reminding us of God's instructions on the construction and the second confirming that Moses fulfilled the instructions precisely as presented. Notice that the construction and then the sacramental anointing proceed from the inside out. And notice the seven repetitions of "just as the Lord commanded him." (http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5764_printer/vayakhelpekudei64_printer.htm)

Interestingly, once Moses had finished the work, he could not enter the Tent of Meeting because the cloud covered it and the glory of God (kavod) filled the Tabernacle. This scene recurs in 1 Kings 8:10-12, as Solomon completes his temple (http://www.temple-emanuel.org/dvrahtorah/vol6no22.htm). So, what exactly prevented Moses from entering? If we recall that the kavod is connected with weight, one possible supposition is that God was present as a physical being, with the cloud (which we might regard, perhaps, as the angel of the Lord)stood guard outside.

The chapter closes with the clear reminder that God's Covenant was evident to everyone, even from a distance, with His fire dispelling the darkness and desert cold by night, and His cloud providing shade and guidance by day.

Exodus 39

2004-08-11T01:54:00.000-03:00

This chapter confirms the Israelites obedience to God's commands. The sole novel point is that Moses sees that the Israelites have been obedient, and so he blesses them. This blessing, like many elements of the construction of the Tabernacle, has parallels to the creation of earth (http://urj.net/torah/issue/980222.shtml).

Hebrews 9 uses the image of the Tabernacle to show how the New Covenant has changed mankind's relationship to God. In the Tabernacle, only the high priest could enter the inner sanctum, and then only through blood sacrifice. When Jesus laid down His life, His blood served as the sacrifice to open the Most Holy Place to all, Heaven.

Revelation also reveals parallels between the Tabernacle and Heaven. For example, the New Jerusalem is described as having twelve jeweled foundations (Rev. 21: 19) representing the apostles. While the stones are somewhat different, the parallel to the stones of the breastplate is perhaps noteworthy.

Exodus 38

2004-08-10T00:06:00.000-03:00

In addition to confirming that God's instructions had been carried out in the construction of the altar for burnt offerings, an accounting of the materials is provided by Ithamar, son of Aaron.

One ton of gold
3 3/4 tons of silver in half ounce donations from 603,550 men
2 1/2 tons of bronze

So, the gold was brought by both men and women, but the silver by the men alone.

Exodus 37

2004-08-09T01:27:00.000-03:00

Again, this chapter contains little new material but confirms that the Israelites obeyed the command of God in the design of the Tabernacle. However, we discover some of the craftsmanship of the implements of the Tabernacle.
Bezalel made the Ark and the atonement cover with its two cherubim. Following this point, the Hebrew is unclear as to whether Bezalel made the other implements or whether it was done by more than one person. Since the incense was the work of a perfumer, it seems likely that Bezalel was assisted.

Some interesting midrash (http://www.aish.com/torahportion/moray/The_Architect.asp) suggests the reason Bezalel was selected for the task. He was the grandson of one of the men who held up Moses' arms when the Israelites were battling the Amalekites. So, he would seem to be an important figure. But he vanishes entirely. So, midrash suggests that at the time of the making of the Golden Calf, he stood in opposition and was killed for it.

Another interesting point is the question of why the cherubim are face to face. One commentator, citing rabbinic sources, suggests that there is an erotic overtone, representing the love between God and humankind (http://www.heartfelt.com/vayakhel-pekudai.htm). In this view, the Law (in the Ark below) is the foundation of that love.

Exodus 36

2004-08-08T01:41:00.000-03:00

This chapter contains very little new material and represents a confirmation of the fulfillment of God's commands to Moses.

The only genuinely new item is that we learn that the free will gift offerings are so abundant that Moses must command that they stop... a situation many pastors would be grateful to find themselves in.

Exodus 35

2004-08-07T03:35:00.000-03:00

This chapter reprises earlier chapters, with few additions.

The lighting of fire on the Sabbath is forbidden.

The section on materials for the Tabernacle is copied verbatim from Exodus 25:1-7.

Men and women are treated equally as donors. This diverges from the usual view that women were treated as property.

The gold is presented as a wave offering.

Bezalel and Oholiab return to the narrative. Bezalel is filled with the Spirit of God which is associated with skill, ability, and knowledge. This is an important point in understanding the Spirit and its work. In the New Testament, the Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, the revealer. But the term Spirit of God, used so vaguely in most congregations, is used consistently in New Testament and Old in contexts relating to knowledge. Oholiab, by contrast, is not mentioned as being filled with the Spirit, although he is said to have skill. So, perhaps Bezalel is an inventor or architect, while Oholiab is a workman. However, God has made both of them teachers.

Exodus 34

2004-08-06T02:33:00.000-03:00

This chapter compares to Chapter 24 in that Moses go up to the mountain, this time clearly alone, and stays for 40 days and nights. It also contains a reprise of the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20:22- 23:19).

As mentioned before, the second set of tablets was not made entirely by the Lord, as the first set seems to have been. Moses chisels the tablets and the Lord writes the Commandments.

God reveals Himself as compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin, yet also punishing sin to the third and fourth generation. This is a milder Jehovah than earlier passages would suggest. Jehovah, however, also gives His name as Jealous.

Yet there is a price to the covernant that God offers. The Israelites are to commit genocide against the polytheists residing in Canaan. They are forbidden to intermarry.

Finally, Moses' face becomes radiant, such that for the calm of the people, he must wear a veil.

A comparison of the injunctions of Exodus 34 with other injunctions

From the Ten Commandments

Do not worship other gods
Do not make cast idols
Rest on the Sabbath, even in harvest

From the Book of the Covenant

The firstborn belongs to the Lord (cf. Ex. 22:29)
Appear before the Lord three times per year (cf. Ex. 23:14)
Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Ingathering (cf. Ex. 23:15)
Do not appear before the Lord empty-handed (cf. Ex. 23:15)
Separate sacrifices containing blood from those containing yeast (cf. Ex. 23:18)
Do not cook a goat in its mother's milk. (cf. Ex. 23:19)

Other injunctions

Redeem a donkey with a lamb
Redeem the firstborn son
Do not let the Passover feast remain until morning

Exodus 33

2004-08-05T00:44:00.000-03:00

This chapter begins with a puzzling duplication. In the first statement, God tells Moses to go to Canaan, that an angel will lead them, but that God will not go because He might destroy them because they are stiff-necked (Hebrew qasheh, also meaning hard, severe, fierce, or vehement). The people begin to mourn and don't put on ornaments. In the reprise, God adds that He might destroy them if He were with them for even a moment and commands them to remove their ornaments.

And the Tent of Meeting appears in a new form. In preceding chapters, the specifications for the Tent of Meeting are described to Moses as part of the construction of the Tabernacle. In Ex. 33, it becomes a tent that Moses habitually erects outside the encampment for meeting with God. Moses and the Lord would confer face to face (Hebrew paniym, meaning face or countenance) in the presence of Joshua, while the pillar of cloud stood guard outside the Tent.

Finally, we learn the precise relationship between Moses and the Lord. God knows Moses by name, with the implication that the rest of humanity is merely an amorphous herd. The Lord promises that His Presence (paniym) will go with the Israelites. And, although God has just said that He would not accompany the Israelites, He agrees that the Presence will do precisely that. Finally, since Moses begs to see God's glory (Hebrew kabowd in the Strong concordance or kavod, as described below), God tells Moses to enter a crack in the rocks, which God will cover with His hand as he passes by. Then, when His face is no longer visible, he will let Moses see His back. For none may see the Lord's face and live, God explains.

David J. A. Clines sees this latter dialogue as a daring act of demanding from the Lord (http://www.shef.ac.uk/~biblst/Department/Staff/BibsResearch/DJACcurrres/Dancing.html). But of course God does not grant much of Moses' requests, beyond accompanying the Israelites. He agrees only to show His goodness and proclaim His name. So, we see Moses' childlike sincerity in wanting to know God, but also his incapacity.

Rabbi Josh Zeibach (http://www.kavod.org/Kavodhonor.htm) connects the glory (Kavod) to Kaved (the liver as an organ), and to the adjective heavy.

Exodus 32

2004-08-04T01:06:00.000-03:00

While the Lord has been busy over 40 days instructing Moses in how the Israelites are to worship, the Israelites have been busy shaping, with the help of Aaron, an idol in the form of a golden calf. The Lord plans to destroy the Israelites and take His people from Moses. The Lord is turned away from this plan only by Moses' entreaty that the Egyptians would take this as a sign that the Lord led the Israelites out of Egypt with malign intent. As an added point, Moses asks the Lord to remember the promises made to the patriarchs.

Joshua and Moses descend from the mountain. Moses is so furious at the Israelites's inconstancy that he flings the tablets of the Law to the ground, breaking them. He burns the golden calf, grinds it to powder, and makes the Israelites drink water into which he has cast the powder. Aaron minimizes his role in the fiasco, saying that he merely threw the gold in the fire and out came the Calf. Moses rallies the clan of Levi, and they kill three thousand. Moses declares these Levites to be blessed. Then Moses offers himself up to the Lord in place of Israel. God promises punishment for the Israelites and, indeed, strikes them with a plague.

This chapter is jam-packed with interesting material.
First, the tablets described here are created entirely by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18). The replacement tablets are chiseled from stone by Moses, though written on by God (Ex. 34:1). Moses did not drop the tablets in surprise. God told him what to expect when he returned to camp. Perhaps he smashed them so that the people would be ignorant of their sin and therefore, technically not guilty.
(http://tiwestport.org/torah/5759/kitissa.html). In any event, Moses' anger destroys the one tangible connection between God and the Israelites.

The calf, of course, would represent Egyptian gods. Telushkin (Biblical Literacy) suggests that the reference to the people dancing was an implication that they engaged in an orgy. A number of Egyptian gods were associated with cattle. The most famous is Isis, shown with horns. However, a more likely candidate for this golden calf would be Hathor, " associated with love, fertility, naughtiness, moon, music and cavorting" (http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/Egyptian-mythology.php?deity=HATHOR). Other candidates are Bat, Hesa, Mehturt, and Shenty.

There is an interesting transformation of the Levites in this chapter. Jacob cursed Levi, and by extension all of his descendants, for his violence (Gen. 49:5-7). Now the violence has found a socially-acceptable outlet in religious cleansing.

Exodus 31

2004-08-02T23:13:00.000-03:00

In this chapter, after additional comments about who is to do the work on the holy artifacts, we emerge from the long description of the accouterments of the Tabernacle, additional prescriptions are applied to the Sabbath, and Moses is given the two Tablets of Testimony containing the Ten Commandments, preparatory to returning from the mountaintop.

Individuals of two tribes are given the tasks of creating the holy artifacts. Bezalel of the tribe of Judah, the largest tribe, is made master jeweler and craftsman, while Oholiab of the tribe of Dan, the smallest tribe, is chosen as his assistant. The name Bezalel can be read to mean "In the shadow of God" (http://tiwestport.org/torah/5760/pekudei.html)

As to the observance of the Sabbaths, anyone who works on the Sabbath is to be cut off from his people and put to death (it not being entirely clear how the latter could be accomplished without also accomplishing the former.) The rationale given is that the Israelites are to emulate God in His creation of the earth. In Deuteronomy 5:15, the reason given is that the Israelites are to observe the Sabbath because they are indebted to God for their release from captivity (http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/bonchek/archives/kisisa59.htm).

This is a very hard teaching. It is difficult to see how a loving God could want the farmer to abandon his crops to rot to honor the Sabbath, or how He could want the doctor to withhold life-saving treatment. It is especially difficult to understand why people would be put to death or expelled from the community for failing to uphold the Sabbath.

The New Testament reinterprets the meaning of the Sabbath. Jesus challenges the Jews as to why He should not heal on the Sabbath, and says that the Sabbath was made to serve Man, not Man to serve the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). And Paul gives what should be the ultimate refutation. In essence, he asks, why should six days should be made less holy than the seventh? (Rom. 14:5) For a believer, trying to make every day a Sabbath, a day of holiness and rest from worldliness, is a goal worth striving toward.

Exodus 30

2004-08-02T01:12:00.000-03:00

This chapter completes the provisioning of the tabernacle:

An 1'6" x 1'6" acacia wood altar, overlaid with gold, for the burning of incenseA bronze basin in which Aaron and his sons will wash hands and feet before entering the Tent of Meeting and the sacrificial altar
Anointing oil composed of 4 liters of olive oil, 12 1/2 pounds of liquid myrrh and cassia, and 6 1/4 pounds of fragrant cane and of cinammon. This is used for anointing the Tent of Meeting, the Ark, both altars, the table, the lampstand, and the assorted accessories, as well as Aaron and his sons.
Incense made of equal parts gum resin, onycha, galbanum (a bitter gum resin) and frankincense.

Exodus 29

2004-08-01T02:15:00.000-03:00

This lengthy chapter describes the consecration of the priests, a process that requires seven days.

Aaron is washed, dressed, and anointed with oil. Aaron's sons are dressed.
A bull is slaughtered and the horns of the altar wet with its blood. This is repeated each day of the seven day ceremony.
The fat around the organs, the covering of the liver and the kidneys of the bull are burned on the altar.
The flesh, the hide, and the offal are burned outside the camp as a sin offering
One ram is slaughtered, the blood sprinkled on the altar, and the legs and organs are washed. The entire ram is then burned on the altar.
A second ram, used for ordination, is slaughtered, and its blood sprinkled along with oil on Aaron and his sons, and smeared on their thumbs and big toes. The fat, the kidneys, the covering of the liver, and the right thigh,as well as three kinds of bread, are waved before the Lord as a "wave offering." These are then burned on the altar.
The breast of the ram, used for ordination, is waved before the Lord as a wave offering. Aaron and his sons receive both the breast and the right thigh, as well as unleavened bread, as atonement for ordination, and consecration.
The rest of the meat of the ram is burned up.
A lamb is sacrificed at the Tent of Meeting in the morning and at twilight over seven days. The morning lamb is sacrificed with 2 quarts of flour and a liter of wine.

Exodus 28

2004-07-31T02:44:00.000-03:00

Aaron was equipped with:

An ephod (apron), with shoulder suspenders of gold, twisted linen and colored yarn
Two stones in gold filigree, each engraved with the names of six sons of Jacob, to be worn on the shoulder, attached by braided gold rope
A 9" x 9" breastpiece, folded double and mounted with twelve precious stones, each engraved with the name of a tribe of Israel. This is to be hung from the shoulderpiece and the waistband of the ephod by gold rope. The breastpiece is to be used in making decisions
Urim and Thummin, evidently for divination, to be carried in the breastpiece
A collared blue robe, adorned with gold bells and colored yarn pomegranates. The bells protect Aaron on entering or leaving the presence of the Lord
A linen turban, to which is attached over the forehead a gold plate labeled HOLY TO THE LORD

Aaron and his sons also receive linen tunics, sashes and headbands, as well as undergarments to protect them from guilt

To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, "Urim is derived from the Hebrew for 'light', or 'to give light", and Thummim from 'completeness', 'perfection', or 'innocence'. In view of these derivations it is surmised by some scholars that the sacred lot may have had a twofold purpose in trial ordeals, viz. Urim served to bring to light the guilt of the accused person, and Thummim to establish his innocence." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15224a.htm) The Urim and Thummim vanished with the destruction of the First Temple

Exodus 27

2004-07-30T03:05:00.000-03:00

A 7'6" x 7'6" acacia wood table, overlaid with bronze and with horns at each corner, is used at the altar. It is equipped with bronze ashpots, shovels, sprinkling bowls, meat forks and firepans. A grating, halfway up the altar, is placed underneath the altar's ledge.

A courtyard 150' x 75' is formed from twisted linen curtains suspended on posts with bronze bases and held up by silver hooks. There are 20 posts each on the north and south side, and 10 on the west side. Six posts are used on the east side to support curtains totaling 45' wide, leaving an aperture of 5' for entry.

Clear olive oil is to be used in the lampstand for illumination at night.

Exodus 26

2004-07-29T02:09:00.000-03:00

This chapter describes the tent, or tabernacle, in which worship is to take place. The construction is:

Ten twisted linen and colored yarn curtains, each 42' x 6', each with cherubim designs. Two pairs of five curtains are joined to form the tabernacle, then clamped with 50 gold clasps. The tabernacle forms The Holy Place.
Eleven goathair curtains, 45' x 6' form the tent over the tabernacle, with the eleveth curtain at the front of the tent. These are fastened with bronze clasps. Another curtain of twisted linen and colored yarn, hung on five posts of gold-overlaid acacia with bronze bases, forms the door of the tent.
The tent is covered with red-dyed ram skins and the hides of sea cows (or, perhaps, badger skins).
Twenty frames of acacia wood, each with 2 silver bases, are made for the north and south sides. The frames are overlaid with gold.
Eight frames of acacia wood, of which two are for the corners and for each of which two silver bases are prepared, are made for the west side. The frames are overlaid with gold.
Fifteen gold-overlaid crossbars are made for the frames.
An inner sanctum, called The Most Holy Place, is curtained off with twisted linen and colored yarn. The curtain is hung on gold-overlaid acacia wood. Inside The Most Holy Place goes the Arc.

Just outside The Most Holy Place, the table for the Bread of the Presence and the lampstand are placed at opposite ends.

Exodus 25

2004-07-28T03:02:00.000-03:00

Exodus 24 has already been covered as an extension of Exodus 19. In the version of Exodus 24, Moses stays on the mountain for 40 days and receives detailed instructions on preparing the holy artifacts. God stresses that goods must be given only according to how men are moved in their heart. Nothing is to be extorted. The holy artifacts, for which 75 pounds of gold are required, are:

The ark, to contain the Testimony

A wooden chest, overlaid inside and out with gold, about 3'8" x 2'3" x 2'3"
A solid gold cover for the chest
Poles, overlaid with gold, with which to carry the chest
Cherubim of hammered gold

A table, overlaid with gold, about 3' x 1'6", for the bread of the Presence

Solid gold dishes, plates, pitchers, and bowls
Poles, overlaid with gold, to carry the table

A gold lampstand (menorah), including

Six branches, decorated with cups shaped like almond buds and blossoms
Seven lamps to cap each branch and the central shaft

Pictures of these artifacts are available online
(http://www.tfdixie.com/parshat/terumah/021.htm)

Exodus 23

2004-07-27T02:32:00.000-03:00

This chapter accomplishes four goals. It foreshadows the entry into Canaan. It specifies ritual behavior for the feasts of Unleavened Bread, Harvest, and Ingathering. It creates a "sabbath of years," a tradition that will later be further extended to Jubilee, in which the land is also to be allowed to rest, and the poor to profit from its gleaning. And most interestingly, it extends the directives of the Ninth Commandment and intensifies the obligation to justice.
As discussed previously, Joseph Teluskin (Biblical Literacy) characterizes the Ninth Commandment as focused narrowly on court testimony. But notice how the implications of the Ninth Commandment are worked out this chapter. We are commanded to avoid spreading false reports, which can easily lead to court cases, and are told to have nothing to do with false charges. We are commanded to avoid malice in reporting what we have witnessed which, again, could help to avoid court cases. Indeed, to keep malice from our hearts, we are instructed to assist our enemy should we find him in distress with an exhausted donkey or if his donkey wanders.

Once in court, we are advised not to side with the rich, the poor, or he crowd, but merely report the truth. To that end, we are enjoined against accepting bribes, since they distort our words. Worst of all, should we sentence an innocent man to death, we become guilty of murder. So, if we are earnest in obeying the Ninth Commandment against bearing false witness, we must avoid those things which could bring us to that point. Therefore, Telushkin's interpretation of the Ninth Commandment as a purely judicial issue is questionable. Any deviation from the truth that can lead to harm is a violation.

The description of the angel that will lead the Israelites into Canaan is interesting. The angel carries the Lord's name within. It will not forgive rebellion. It will guard and guide the Israelites and terrorize God's enemies. Ultimately, God acting through it and through the Israelites, will commit genocide against the Canaanites.

Exodus 22

2004-07-26T02:18:00.000-03:00

This chapter contains two sections. The first, on protection of property, requires that punishment be proportional to the crime and that justice be restorative, i.e., that the victim be made whole. It also provides for multiple damages in the case of the theft of animals critical to the farm economy, oxen and sheep. It is difficult to be enthusiastic of the provision that impoverished thieves must be sold into slavery, while wealthy ones may buy their way out.

The second part of the chapter, while more fragmented, contains some important and new material. It states that God hears the cries of the helpless and oppressed, and will respond by stripping the offender's family of power. The alien must be treated with kindness. Widows and orphans must not be taken advantage of. The poor must not be forced to sleep without their cloak to keep them warm. Indeed, if money is loaned to them, it must be at no interest. The bride price must be paid for a virgin who has been seduced, even if the father refuses to marry her to her seducer.

Three capital offenses are defined: sexual relations with animals, sacrificing to foreign gods, and witchcraft (or, perhaps, poisoning; see http://www.exoblivion.com/essays/In_Defense.pdf). Also forbidden are blashemy, cursing the ruler, eating meat torn by wild animals, and holding back offerings. Finally, firstborn sons are to be given to the Lord on the eighth day after birth.

Exodus 21

2004-07-25T02:17:00.000-03:00

Even though the Hebrews have just escaped slavery with the Egyptians, Exodus 21 allows ... the enslavement of Jews by Jews! Intergenerational slavery of non-Hebrews is not forbidden, and can be applied to Hebrews by the simple expedient of providing a wife to a male slave and appropriating the woman's children. Women are treated as property. Even as concubines, they only have rights to food, clothing, and sex. All in all, the laws on slavery represent an extremely modest gain from the situation in Egypt.

Exodus 21 differentiates homicide from manslaughter, and assigns responsibility in certain cases of negligence, such as leaving a pit unprotected or letting a bull known to gore people walk free. It prescribes death for homicide, parricide/matricide, kidnapping, or the cursing of mother or father.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (Biblical Literacy) makes the interesting point that American slavery was clearly not based on biblical law, since the kidnapping that was intrinsic to slavery was a capital crime. And, of course, American slavemasters were free to kill and mutilate slaves without fear of retribution.

Exodus 21 also prescribes "a life for a life, an eye for an eye" justice, which has become a byword for penal harshness. However, as is pointed out by Telushkin, these represented maximum punishments, and therefore a milder justice than was commonly dispensed at the time.

Exodus 20. The Ten Commandments.

2004-07-24T03:24:00.000-03:00

No mere blog entry could do credit to the Ten Commandments. However the reader should consult Rabbi Joseph Telushkin's "Biblical Literacy," which brings out the meaning of the Commandments more clearly than other source of my ken. (Note: Catholics parse the Commandments differently than Protestants, dividing the coveting of the neighbor's wife from the coveting of his goods and combining the two first commandments. Telushkin follows the Protestant formula).

1. I am the Lord your God... who brought you out of Egypt. Telushkin points out that this is not a commandment in the sense of being a directive. Maimonides sees it as the first Commandment, with the implicit directive to the Israelites to believe in Jehovah. The philosophers Hasdai ibn Crescas and Don Isaac Abravanel, however, point out that in Hebrew, these are the Aseret ha-Dibrot, meaning the Ten Statements: one statement and 9 commandments.
2. You shall have no other gods before me. Telushkin points to nationalism as a particularly dangerous idol. Money is the idol Jesus pointed to as the most dangerous one.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.... Telushkin emphasizes that this is not simply using the Lord's name as a curse. Rather, when the name of God is used to promote injustice or wrongdoing, this alienates others from God. This commandment therefore carries the threat of punishment.

4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.... For people who had been slaves, this represented a clear break from their past and-- because it also protected foreigners and slaves they held-- a promise not to become oppressors like Pharaoh.

5. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long.... This commandment carries with it a reward, rather than a punishment.

6. You shall not murder. Telushkin points out that this is not a universal proscription against killing. It is a prohibition against the unlawful taking of life. However, Telushkin misses a vital point in failing to recognize that in most situations of the lawful taking of life, there is some uncertainty. While this has emerged as a powerful issue in challenging the death penalty, similar uncertainties apply to other cases in which we take life, particularly war.

7. You shall not commit adultery. In the original context, Telushkin says, this applied only to married women and their lovers. A married man was free to play the field.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Telushkin focuses narrowly on the issue of testimony in court, saying that other verses of the Torah advise against dishonesty and pointing to the fact that God ordered Samuel to lie (1 Sam. 16:1-3). But for the Christian, this cannot be acceptable. Not only is the example (1 Sam. 16:1-3) pathetically weak as a defense of lying, the gospels instruct us that Satan is the father of lies. From a Christian standpoint, uttering any falsehood, or even an accusation which one is not certain is true-- even if done for what one believes to be God's purposes-- amounts to treason.

10. You shall not covet.... "The greed of the eye," as it has been termed, is one of the most widespread of sins. For example, as we age, we covet youth. The happy man or woman covets nothing and accepts what s/he has as everything that is desirable.

Exodus 19 and Exodus 24

2004-07-23T01:45:00.000-03:00

This chapter sets the stage for the establishment of a covenant between Israel and Jehovah, a covenant grounded in Israel's obedience to the commandments. The tale is retold in Exodus 24, but with significant variations.

A few points. The image of the Lord helping the children of Israel escape by mounting up on eagles wings appears here. Also, the sounding of the trumpet blast as the sign of the nearness of the Lord appears. Also, the image of transfiguration of Matthew 17 appears. Finally, the expression for "break forth" of Ex. 19:22 has a wide variety of meanings. It is, for example, the same word as "growing numerous," as in Ex. 1. The same image appears again, as in 2 Sam 5.

The Israelites have been free from Egypt for just three months. God tells Moses to offer the covenant to the people, a covenant which will make of them a priestly people. Moses assembles only the elders. Also missing from the swearing of the covenant are the children yet to be born. How are they bound? Not only that, God has not told them yet what the laws are to be, yet they agree to obey. At this point, the story becomes confused. God admonishes the Israelites not to touch the mountain on pain of death until the ram's horn blows. Then he has Moses come up and tells him that the people, even "priests who approach the Lord" must not force their way through, suggesting that if they came meekly, that might be acceptable. Since the ram's horn has not sounded, Moses points out that no one is going to come up and, indeed, in Exodus 20, the people refuse to approach. It is only then that God gives the commandments and the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20:22- 23:19).

In Exodus 24, Moses tells the people (not merely the elders) the Lord's words and laws, and they agree. Then, following a ritual of animal sacrifice, he reads to them the Book of the Covenant and they agree to that. Then, 70 elders, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu ascend the mountain and see God, who offers to write the commandments in stone.

Exodus 18

2004-07-21T12:36:00.000-03:00

Jethro recognizes Jehovah as supreme at this point, after the defeat of the Egyptians. Some commentary suggests that the phrase "Jethro was delighted" in Ex. 18:9 means that he was circumcised. While this would seem to be a logical development for a convert, this is far from evident from the text. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=258&letter=J)

In this chapter, some fairly delicate family material is discussed indirectly. Jethro had received Zipporah and her sons "after Moses had sent [them] away." Since Jethro knows nothing of what transpired in Egypt, evidently Moses sent away his wife and recently-circumcised son at sometime after the lodging place of Exodus 4:24 and before Moses was established in Egypt.
Presumably, Zipporah had to transport her sons back through the desert alone. One hopes Moses let them use the donkey!

At any rate, it appears that Zipporah and the sons stay with Moses, since the text says that Jethro returned to his own country. Then Jethro provides advice which, while simple, is radical. Moses has centralized all power in himself, making him a new Pharaoh (Jethro delicately suggests this in Ex. 18:10 by saying that God freed Moses from the Egyptians and Pharaoh, while the Israelites were freed only from the Egyptians). Jethro suggests a system that is, at least by contrast, radically democratic, with judges appointed at four levels, ranging from what might be a typical extended family to judges of a full tribe. His suggestion further helps to create a system of "laws and not men." By having Moses formalize God's statutes and teach the principles, the people become less dependent on Moses the man. The theme of decentralization of power (and its centralization by the later kings) is an important one in Israel's history.

Exodus 17

2004-07-21T03:34:00.000-03:00

This chapter reprises the faithlessness of the Israelites, they repeating at Rephidim the grumbling of Marah (Ex. 15). They cannot even agree on the name of the place, calling it Massah (testing of God) and Meribah (contention). This time, the Lord quenches their thirst with a notable miracle, in which Moses strikes the rock with his staff. In the New Testament, Jesus becomes the living rock, from which believers drink (John 7:37).

Yet before criticizing the Israelites too severely for their faithlessness, consider that they did not accuse God. They accused Moses. He was the one who turned that criticism into an attack on God.

The Israelites are immediately thereafter attacked by the Amalekites. Matthew Henry says the Amalekites are the descendants of Esau, and that, like predators, they attacked the rear of the Israelite column. The latter is not evident from the text. The Israelites are saved only because Moses raises his hands to heaven. Joshua may be a great general, but only because Aaron and Hur are able to support the arms of the elderly Moses until sunset do the Israelites win. Moses erects an altar, calling it Jehovanissi (The Lord is my Banner). God promises to annihilate the Amalekites and tells Moses to write this down and make sure that Joshua hears it. So, evidently, Joshua is not literate.

Commentary apparently states that the winning of the battle is not miraculous(http://www.chiefrabbi.org/thoughts/beshallach5764.htm). The Israelites won when Moses' hands were raised because it set their minds on God. This is not entirely persuasive, since one would imagine that the warriors would have their eyes elsewhere than on Moses. What is certain is that the Israelites fight as free men fighting for their own families, not as the slaves of others.

So, is there a connection between the faithlessness of the Israelites and the attack of the Amalekites? It's not clear. What is clear is that God is systematically testing the Israelites with danger and discomfort, just as they are systematically testing Him with their doubt.

Exodus 16

2004-07-20T03:50:00.000-03:00

This chapter is primarily devoted to the bounty of God and the sanctity of the Sabbath.

In this version, when the Israelites grumble, God provides quail. In Numbers 11, by contrast, God becomes angry and brings a plague against the Israelites.
God also brings the Israelites their daily bread, the manna from Heaven. He uses this to teach them two simple lessons: (1) whatever one gathers, whether little or great, will be enough and (2) one day of the week, one must cease from any labor, even cooking or traveling (to search for manna).

The manna can be preserved, but only by bringing it before the "Testimony." Matthew Henry's commentary equates the Testimony with the ark, but this contradicts other usage in Exodus. Others say that the Testimony is comprised of Aaron's staff, the two tablets of Commandments, and the omer of manna. This is a puzzling construction, particularly since the tablets have not been introduced.

One other peculiar point is that the Israelites complain of having no meat. Yet we are told they emerged from Egypt with flocks. What happened to those flocks?

Exodus 15

2004-07-18T15:29:00.000-03:00

This chapter describes the song of Miriam and of Moses. The text is written in a stylistically different graphic pattern, one that may suggest the bricks of slavery or the stepping stones for passing through the Red Sea (http://www.beth-elsa.org/dll020604.htm).

The song of Miriam (the name is derived from the word for bitter) may have been a complete song in itself, sung in counterpoint. http://www.upj.org.au/Parashatbeshalach2003.htm What is clear is that it was sung accompanied by tambourines and dancing.

The section continues with the Israelites thirsting after three days in the desert without water and only a bitter spring, Marah, to quench that thirst. One might wonder whether the bitterness of the spring is related to Miriam. Commentary connects the bitterness of Marah to the mountain on which the Torah was delivered, Moriah (http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5763/beshalach63.htm)

In any event, the bitterness is sweetened by a piece of wood. Then there is an odd discontinuity, as God "tests" the Israelites-- how, exactly, we are not told here-- and promises to spare them the diseases of the Egyptians if they will obey His decrees. He asserts Himself as the One who heals Apparently, he also provides law to them here, but what law is not specified. Perhaps it was the Sabbath law (http://www.geocities.com/m_yericho/ravkook/BSHALA64.htm). If so, it could connect to Jesus' healing on the Sabbath.

Finally, after this long drought, the Israelites arrive at Elim, meaning strength, where there is a spring for each tribe of Israel and a palm tree, symbolically, for every nation on earth (http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5763/beshalach63.htm)