GOD: THE INEXPLICABLE ADVERSARY

God's wrath against those who disobey him is evidenced throughout the Old and New Testaments. However, four of the most difficult passages in the Bible have one thing in common: they concern God opposing men for no apparent reason. In each case, commentators have attempted to explain the situation by taking an easy way out when the truth is a little more complex.

The Book of Job: This example is a good one to start with because in it we are at least given a little window in which to actually view the goings-on of events in heaven. It is amazing that you will still run into sincere Christians who try to explain the whole story by stating that Job wasn't really blameless (not the same as being perfect) despite the fact that it is the opinion of both the narrator and God Himself (see Job 1:1,8). Therefore, these people side with the three friends who felt that Job was obviously being punished or chastised for some hidden sin.

Since it is doubtful that Job's whole ordeal is just due to the fact that God wanted to win a bet with Satan, there has to be more to the reason for Job's sufferings. In fact, we can easily glean several things out of the text that were accomplished by the events in Job's life. For one thing, the whole test was predicated on whether Job would continue to worship and obey God if he had nothing apparently to gain by it. In that sense, Job's actions proved to Satan and us readers that it was indeed possible to follow God simply for who He is rather than for what He can do for us.

Then there was the lesson taught to Job's friends, and to their followers today, that their simple-minded theology was gravely flawed. God does not operate on a one-to-one system of sin and punishment, especially in this life. And Job himself confesses at the end of the book his amazement that he now no longer possesses a second-hand belief in God but has personally experienced Him. Another not-so-minor result of Job's ordeal is that whereas at the start of the book, he regularly prayed for his immediate family, he now prays for his “enemies” as well.

Balaam (Numbers 22-24): This complex character is the subject of a recent blog post. The unexpected nature of God's attack on him happens after he has been told by God he can go to King Balak. But then God's angel stands in the middle of the road with a sword to prevent him from going after all. The easy solution to this apparent contradiction is to state, as do most source critics, that the particular incident on the road to Balak came from an entirely different tradition having nothing to do with the rest of the text. Therefore there is no need to try to reconcile the two since they can't be reconciled.

Several approaches to this apparent conundrum have been proposed, but the most likely ones take the tack that Balaam deep down has not been convinced by God's words up to this point in the story, and is hoping that he can bend God to his own will somehow and still collect a fee for his services from King Balak. Thus, God needs to send him a stronger message by reminding him in no uncertain terms who is in charge and to watch out since he is playing a dangerous and futile game.But God allows Balaam to continue on his journey anyway since it will be a witness to both Balak and Balaam.

A couple of parallels with the story of Job come to mind. In both cases, after a divine personage appears to the protagonist, the latter repents and confesses his error. The difference is that whereas Job was sincere, subsequent events in Balaam's life reveal that his “conversion” was not. Parenthetically, another close parallel that has been pointed out is the story of Saul on the road to Damascus to persecute the Christians. And Stubbs notes that the verb “take his stand” in Numbers 22:22 is the same one that appears in Job 2:1 where Satan (“the adversary”) appears before God. The angel in Numbers 22:32 is given the same Hebrew identification – adversary.

Moses (Exodus 4:24-26): This is an even more enigmatic story than that of Balaam in that the protagonist is not only allowed, but actually urged by God to go somewhere. However, while on his way, God plans on actually killing him. The narrative tells of an event in Moses' life after God had appeared to him in the burning bush and told him to return to Egypt to let his people go. God addresses Moses' various concerns and so Moses heads out with his son. But God strikes him down, and he is only saved from death when his Midianite wife circumcises their son and touches Moses with the bloody foreskin. Childs states: “Few texts contain more problems for the interpreter than these few verses which have continued to baffle throughout the centuries.”

Kaiser takes what I would consider the easy way out of this problem. He believes that Moses just happened to fall ill of some unspecified cause. But since the Jews believed that God was ultimately behind all events on earth, the author simply stated that God intended to kill Moses. Other unsatisfactory solutions include:

    Wellhausen's idea that this was an etiological tale fabricated to explain why an original puberty rite became a childhood practice instead.

    Kosmala's explanation that Zipporah was performing a Midianite rite to protect her first-born from attack by a Midianite deity.

    The Septuagint changed the text to read that an angel, not God, was the attacker.

    Ramm mentions that some commentators feel this is an ancient story in which a desert-demon's attempt to kill Moses is thwarted by a magic ritual.

There are at least two complicating factors here. In the first place, it is not clear to whom the repeated pronoun “him” in v. 24 refers – Moses or his son. Secondly, Zipporah's comment to Moses after she touches him with the foreskin (“a bridegroom of blood”) needs explanation. There are several possible scenarios here, and it is not really clear which is intended by the text:

    1. Moses has not been circumcised, and so Zipporah circumcises her son and uses it as a vicarious way of circumcising her husband. Moses is not circumcised since that would incapacitate him for his task ahead.

    2. Moses had not circumcised his son in spite of the Jewish laws requiring it. He probably had refrained out of concern for his Midianite wife's objection to the practice. But Zipporah realized that Moses' life was at stake and so she reluctantly did it herself (Moses being too sick to do it himself) and then in disgust touched him with the bloody foreskin.

    3. Or “him” refers to Moses' son, and that was the main target of God's wrath. Zipporah rushes to rescue her son. But in horror with what she has done, she touches Moses with it and utters her words in disgust.

So what did God accomplish by His actions here?

H.R. Jones says: “Deeply ingrained now in Moses' heart is the truth that it is the wrath of God (not of Pharaoh) from which man needs protection.”

P.E. Hughes feels that Moses “became fully and ritually prepared for Passover through circumcision...the blood of the circumcision that prepared Moses the deliverer for Passover also anticipated the blood of the Passover lamb that would save the Israelites from the destroyer, thus functioning for them as a sign of life rather than death.” Propp takes the same basic approach.

Gordon: God brings the omission of his son's circumcision to his attention “in a most compelling manner.”

Knight: Desperate situations require desperate measures...He had an uncircumcised heart in the matter of doing the will of God in obedience.”

This story is somewhat similar to that of Balaam in that both were hindered while on a journey commanded or approved by God. And Victor Hamilton discusses in some detail the relationship between this story and the next to be discussed – the encounter of Jacob.

Jacob (Genesis 32:24-25): God has told Jacob to return to Canaan (31:13) and Jacob obeys. But on his way to meet his estranged brother Esau, he becomes worried and begins to take appropriate measures to protect himself in case Esau is still angry with him. Right before crossing the river to go into the Promised Land, Jacob has a mysterious nighttime encounter with a supernatural character who may be (according to which scholars you read) an angel, the pre-incarnate Christ, or God Himself. This personage starts wrestling with Jacob, and the match lasts all night. This personage blesses Jacob, changes his name to Israel, and lames him with a single touch.

Interestingly, most commentators seem fixated on exactly who the divine wrestler is rather than the inexplicable fact that God (in one form or another) seems to be preventing Jacob from carrying out the very journey that He commanded in the first place. This story thus seems to have a close parallel to God preventing Balaam from continuing his journey.

There are at least two easy ways used in attempts to remove any seeming contradictions in this story. Perhaps the midnight wrestler was just a man that Jacob confused for God, and the detail about Jacob being lamed came from a naturally-caused injury during the bout. Or a more common approach is to treat the whole episode as a fabricated etiological story to explain three things: (1) how the River Jabbok got its name (jabboq = “flowing” sounds like ya'aboq = “wrestling”), (2) why Jacob (“the supplanter”) had his name changed to Israel (“one striving with God”), and (3) why the Jews don't eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve.

But God accomplishes much more than this by his actions, as explained by commentators:

    Kline: “The encounter reveals the fundamental character of the quest for God's kingdom as a struggle by fallen man for justification..The justification was achieved through suffering.”

    Motyer: “God has been 'wrestling' with him throughout the story (Gen. 27-32), ever since he obtained the 'blessing' by trickery. Now, at last, he is seeking it in the right way, as a gift from God.”

    Several commentators state that Jacob now realizes that it is not Esau whom he should fear, but God Himself.

    Ross: “His prayer for deliverance [Gen. 32:10-13] was answered. Meeting God face to face meant that he could now look Esau directly in the face.” Also, Jacob “had to identify his true nature [Jacob] before he could be blessed [Israel].”

David's Census (II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21): God incites David to take a census of the people and then gets so angry when he does that He kills off many of the Israelites. The first problem in understanding this story comes from the apparent contradiction between the two parallel accounts as to who was actually inciting David to take a census: God (II Samuel) or Satan (I Chronicles). So the easy way out of the question of God's anger is just to say that it was actually Satan doing the tempting, not God. This is the approach taken by the editor of The Daily Bible, but there are two problems here: (1) it leaves up in the air why II Samuel would have stated that the tempter was God and (2) since I-II Samuel was written before Chronicles, one should chose the earliest account assuming one felt that one of the two accounts was in error.

My own interpretation of the discrepancy in accounts is to see the situation as parallel to the Book of Job where God permits Satan to do something in order to accomplish what He wants done. McCarter agrees with that assessment of the situation. But that still gets us back to the original question as to why God was so angry with David. In fact, if you read the whole account, it begins in II Samuel 24:1 by stating that God was again angry with the Israelites, not David. We are not given the reason behind God's wrath, but many feel that the word “again” refers back to II Samuel 21 where God caused a three-year famine for the Israelites' disobedience. Interestingly, that will also be one of David's choices of punishment listed in 24:13.

Thus, the driving force behind the events in Chapter 24 is to punish the people for some sort of disobedience. But God decides to involve King David in the process in order to teach him a lesson at the same time. So He tests him to expose David's sinful attitude. What that attitude is, is revealed in the primary reasons for taking a census in those times. It could be utilized for purposes of future taxation on the people (appealing to the king's greed for money), a military draft (indicating David's warlike plans for future expansion of this kingdom even though it had not been authorized by God), or just to see how large the kingdom had grown (appealing to David's pride).

I personally feel, as does Kaiser for one, that it was the last motive that was the driving force behind David failing the test. Maybe because I, as David's namesake, recognize the same fault in myself. When I was a research manager, our company seemed to have constant reorganizations and new acquisitions. Each time we would issue a new organizational chart, I would count the number of employees reporting to me as a way of keeping score of my relative prestige and worth to the company.I was doing exactly what King David was doing, on a much smaller scale.

David at last realized his error and repented, but he was forced to take part in the people's punishment by having to chose which of three fates would await them. It was perhaps a way of God showing him that he could not divorce himself from the sin or punishment of his people.