"WHAT MUST I DO?" -- ONE QUESTION, FOUR ANSWERS

Several times in the NT, either Jesus or his apostles are asked the same question, or its equivalent: “What must I do to be saved?” And yet the answers are not at all identical. That fact alone should make us a little cautious about employing a one-size-fits-all approach to evangelism.

A Cautious Seeker (John 3:1-15)

In this familiar story, the prominent Pharisee Nicodemus visits Jesus by night and makes a statement indicating his belief that Jesus is a teacher sent from God. Without further ado, Jesus then proclaims that one must be born again to see the kingdom of God. At this point, we should realize two things regarding this encounter: (1) Nicodemus is obviously afraid to come in the daytime for fear that he will lose his standing with his fellow spiritual leaders and (2) Jesus has read his mind and knows why he has come.

In reply to Jesus' rather cryptic statement, Nicodemus asks for further clarification since a literal meaning to those words would be absurd. But all Jesus does is confuse him further by talking next about being born of water and Spirit. Nicodemus leaves and we hear no more from him until the end of John's Gospel where he re-appears to help Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus.

It seems as if Jesus is treating Nicodemus as he does the crowds who follow him later to listen to his teachings and see his miracles. They are given spiritual truths in the form of parables and figurative sayings since most are not yet ready to hear the plain truth. Instead, in this way Jesus has planted seeds in their minds that will continue to grow until the appropriate time to bloom. And apparently this technique worked in the life of Nicodemus, as evidenced by his rather public way of proclaiming his faith at the end.

An Insincere Seeker (Luke 10:25-37)

This second encounter is between Jesus and a lawyer who wants to test Jesus. This could mean that the man wanted to trap Jesus or just that he wanted to determine if Jesus' teachings were in keeping with the OT law. The trick question he asks is “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus turns the question right back at the lawyer since it was obvious that the man should have known the answer himself. The lawyer cites the Ten Commandments in their most basic form by quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, the latter passage commanding the love of neighbor. But the lawyer needed to justify himself at this point. That may mean that he wanted to save face after asking a question for obviously insincere motives, or it may indicate that he wanted to justify his own lack of love for those outside his immediate surroundings. In either case, Jesus tells him the Story of the Good Samaritan and tells the man to do likewise.

A Sincere Seeker (Luke 18:18-25)

In this case, the man who comes to Jesus is a ruler who asks the exact same question as the lawyer did. But this time, Jesus doesn't beat around the bush at all, but goes straight to the heart of the man's one barrier to obtaining eternal life: his money. When he tells the man to sell all he has and give the money to the poor, the man goes away sad “for he was very rich.”

A Convinced Crowd (Acts 2:1-42)

The final example takes place on the Day of Pentecost when Peter and the apostles are filled with the Holy Spirit and preach to the crowd. Peter explains to them that the man they have helped to get crucified is actually the promised Messiah. They are “cut to the heart” and ask the apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” The answer given them is echoed to one extent or another through the rest of the Book of Acts: repent and be baptized.”

One of our problems is that although we may have the Holy Spirit in us, we are certainly no mind readers as Jesus was. Therefore, it is usually necessary to cultivate friendships to the point where we are aware of other peoples' mindsets and needs before launching right into a canned presentation of the five spiritual laws, etc. Otherwise, we run the risk of boring or even antagonizing those to whom we are witnessing.

 

ZECHARIAH 5

Zechariah here is writing after the Exile when the land of Israel still needs further purification from the people's sins. This particular chapter contains two of the most mysterious visions in the whole Bible. These two related visions are part of a whole series which can be outlined as shown below:

Figure 1: The Six Visions

Vision A: Four Horses (1:7-17)

Vision B: Four Horns and Four Smiths (1:18-21)

Vision C: Man with a Measuring Line (2:1-13)

                                                    -------------------------------------------

                                                Vision C': The Flying Scroll (5:1-4)

Vision B': The Ephah (5:5-11)

Vision A': Four Chariots (6:1-8)

Ellis sets the stage by explaining that these two visions “deal with three evils which stand to be dealt with in the wake of spiritual renewal: theft and false witness [in 5:1-4] and unrighteousness in the next vision.” The first two sins are mentioned in the “Flying Scroll” vision. Ellis notes that “theft” might include “the theft of a man's good name or his reputation, and this would provide a firm link with false witness. Worse still is the invoking of the divine name in the bearing of false accusation.”

Zechariah 5:1-4

In the first vision, the prophet is shown a large scroll (about 30 ft. high and 20 ft. wide) which can fly. Perhaps related to that picture is Hadley's interpretation of some of the clay seal images found on jar handles dating from the time of King Hezekiah which appear to show a flying scroll. Ellis notes that these dimensions are approximately the same size as the entrance to Solomon's temple (see I Kings 6:3). Thus, it could represent the words of the Law that decide who can and cannot enter into that holy space. If so, then there is a possible correspondence here with Revelation 21:22-27 where those who practice falsehood are banned from the heavenly temple. A variation on that theme is expressed by Tiemeyer, who says that the scroll represents law and justice that emerge from the temple.

As to the writing on the scroll, Redditt's opinion is: “The writing on one side condemned thieves, and on the other those who bore false witness. These were the two sins most often associated with taking an oath.” Rata says that the two sides may refer to the two tablets of the law and that “the curse of Zechariah's vision could be synonymous with the curse of the law.” Whatever the exact interpretation is, there is an obvious correspondence between that vision and the one in Revelation 5 in which the opening of the seals on another two-sided scroll ushers in a series of judgments on the earth.

Contrary to those opinions is that of R.L. Smith who feels that no significance should be attached to the similarity in sizes. And Redditt merely feels that the “size of the scroll suggested a vast number of transgressions and of God's punishment upon thieves and liars.”

The first major translation hurdle in Zechariah appears in v. 3b. Wolters calls it “enigmatic” and paraphrases it as: “For everyone who steals has escaped punishment for this – just like that! And everyone who swears (falsely) has escaped punishment for this – just like that!” Compare the various translations for other renderings.

Zechariah 5:5-8

“The setting appears to be the same as that of the previous vision, the temple courtyard which has cosmological overtones.” (Smith) And both of these visions deal with a cleansing of the land from sin and sinners. The previous vision took care of this pollution while it was within the land while this subsequent vision deals with it by removing it elsewhere.

In this second vision, we first see an ephah with a leaden lid on top and a (very small) woman inside. We know that she is tiny from the fact that an ephah typically held only about 6-9 gallons. Some translations render the container as a basket and others as a barrel. A top made out of lead would be drastic overkill for any real ephah, but the symbolic implication is that it is so heavy that there is no danger that the woman will escape.

Verse 6 presents us with the second major translation quandary. In the Hebrew it reads literally as “This is their eye in all the earth,” a phrase which Redditt says “yields little sense.” However, versions such as the NIV render it as an idiom meaning “This is their appearance.” And R.L. Smith comes up with “This is what one sees through the whole land.”

But others, such as RSV translate it as “This is their [the people's] iniquity” in line with the ancient Greek and Aramaic manuscripts. But to come up with this rendering, they must emend the Hebrew word 'eynam as 'awon, since the two words are somewhat similar in appearance and could have been mistaken for one another during the process of copying the text. One other rather weak piece of evidence in favor of this approach is found in Amos 8:5 where the words ephah and shekel are symbols of injustice. (Ellis)

That brings us to the identity of the woman. Here the suggestions range all over the chart, from a pagan goddess such as Asherah or Ishtar, Eve, foreign women, or the Samaritans (Dille) Redditt adds the name of Queen Athaliah to the list since she is called “that wicked woman'” in II Chronicles 24:7.

From this vision, Ellis derives the lesson that “this vision is concerned with the truth that wickedness often hidden from men in so far as its real identification is concerned, is a power which must be reckoned with and never underestimated, but removed by the aid of God's immediate authority.”

Zechariah 5:9-11

The word translated as “stork”in v. 9 could equally refer to a bird such as a heron. It is hard to know what to make of the two women with wings. On the one hand, they are said to have the wind in their wings. Since the Hebrew word for “wind” can also be translated as “spirit,” that might indicate that they were ambassadors sent from God, perhaps angels. But the mention of “stork” sends us in another direction in that Leviticus 11:19 and Deuteronomy 14:18 list storks among the unclean birds. Thus, the two woman can be viewed as some sort of angels since they remove iniquity from the land. But on the other hand, they then set the ephah up elsewhere where it can be worshiped.

I am afraid that whenever I think of this passage, all I can see is the image of a stork delivering a baby. But that really isn't very helpful in understanding what is being said except for the fact that it points to the wide wingspan of those birds and their probable ability to carry a load.

Milgrom points to another passage in Leviticus (14:1-9) as a possible parallel to these verses. Thus, he notes that in the purification ritual for removing “leprosy” from a person or object, a live bird who has been dipped in a symbolic mixture of wood, yarn, hyssop and blood is released. He explains that “birds are chosen...because they transport the assumed freight of impurity upward and outward, to far-off distances whence the impurity cannot return.”

Duguid derives a spiritual lesson from v. 9, namely, “The exiles found themselves, like the ephah of 5:9, caught up between two worlds, between the promises of heaven and the realities of earth. They were living in the 'now' but longing for the 'not yet.” The same can well be said of Christians today.

The final destination of the basket, the site of the Tower of Babel, is important symbolically, as Jacques Ellul explains:

    “The land of Shinar is the opposite of the world of peace. It is the land of piracy and destruction...Throughout the adventure of the people of Israel, the presence of Shinar is clearly the presence of a spiritual power, of a temptation to evil...this country is typically the countries of idols and sin...Daniel [Dan. 1:2] purposely calls the country Shinar instead of Babylonia, for he wanted to emphasize that this was a land of thievery and plunder...Shinar [is] the land of sin.”

Thus, Redditt concludes: “The original readers were faced with a decision: should they stay in Babylon where people worshipped wickedness, or return to Jerusalem where people worshipped God?” To some extent, we are faced with the same choice today.

 

PSALM 151

When I was a teenager, it was common for youth speakers at our church to ask us to turn to Acts 29. Of course, we would be embarrassed to realize that there are only 28 chapters to it. The point usually made was that we were in fact living out Acts in our own lives. So when I first heard of Psalm 151, I figured that it must refer to something along those same lines. But it turns out that there is indeed a 151^st Psalm, at least sort of.

The standard Old Testament text in Hebrew is referred to as the Masoretic Text (MT), and it certainly does not contain any material in the Psalter past Psalm 150. However, the Greek Septuagint translated from the Hebrew roughly around 250 BC-100 AD does include one more short Psalm. The two most important early witnesses to the Septuagint are the Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus manuscripts, dating from the 4^th and 5^th centuries AD, respectively.

At the conclusion of the Alexandrinus Septuagint, it reads “The 151 Psalms of David.” But in the Sinaiticus, Psalm 151 is given as an appendix preceded by the words: “This psalm is ascribed to David as his own composition (though it is outside the number) after he had fought in single combat with Goliath.” This final psalm also appears in a manuscript of a Syriac version dating from the 12^th century AD.

Since there was no Hebrew manuscript of the psalm in evidence, it was widely assumed that it was an original composition in Greek. That was the situation up to the last half of the twentieth century when the Dead Sea scrolls began to be found and published. In Cave 11 at Qumran, a first-century AD Psalms Scroll (known among scholars as 11QPs) was uncovered in 1956 and published in 1963. It was a unique compilation of 39 canonical psalms; II Samuel 23:17; Sirach 51:13-30; Psalms 151, 154, and 155; and additional material not previously known. (Sweeney)

So all of the above brings up the important question: Should we consider Psalm 151 part of the official canon of the Bible? There are a number of key factors to consider in the determining the canonicity of a book, chapter, or verse in the Bible. For those more interested in this subject, I highly recommend The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce as an excellent source of information. Basically, there are external factors such as the manuscript evidence and acceptance by the early church, as well as internal considerations such as theology, historicity, and style. Let's deal with the manuscript evidence first.

Williamson cites the Sinaiticus manuscript in order to state, “the fact that this additional psalm is described as being 'outside the number' (i.e., the canonical Psalter) makes it less likely, despite the Qumran evidence, that the Psalter was still in a state of canonical flux in the second century BC. Rather, a collection comprising 150 psalms...clearly was recognized prior to its Greek translation for the LXX [i.e. Septuagint].” A.A. Anderson agrees with that assessment and states that “this figure must have been fixed before the Greek translation of the Psalter.” Holladay adds, “In spite of the strong conviction, then, that the Psalms numbered 150, there was a contrary tendency to add 'just one more' or 'just a few more'!”

But what about the evidence of the Dead Sea scrolls? We first must consider what the purpose was for the collection known as 11QPs as used for among the Qumran community. Holladay lays out two possibilities: “One is that such a scroll might simply offer a given collection of psalms that were used in the community and that the notion of 'only 150 psalms' and 'only these psalms' had not taken over...The other possibility is that what we have here...could simply be an arrangement of psalms for liturgical recitation. Given the paucity of our data, it is impossible to decide for sure what we have before us.”

By contrast, Flint first reviews the scholarly opinions on the subject including the possibilities that 11QPs was material supplementary to Scripture or an instruction book for new Levite choristers. He reaches the conclusion that it was a true Psalter, thus demonstrating that the Hebrew Psalter had not been finalized by the second century BC. Holladay's more cautious view is to be preferred on this subject.

Another important caveat to keep in mind before using the 11QPs as definitive proof that Psalm 151 was considered to be canonical at an early date is the fact that Psalm 151 does not actually exist in the Dead Sea manuscript. Instead, what he have are two different psalms, known as 151A and 151B. Flint points out that these two psalms had already been known from later Greek, Syriac and Latin translations. Here is how 151A reads:

I was the smallest among my brothers

the youngest of my father's sons.

He made me shepherd over his flock,

ruler over their young. (1)

My hands made a harp,

My fingers fashioned a lyre.

Let me give glory to the LORD

I thought to myself. (2)

The mountains cannot witness unto God,

The hills cannot proclaim Him,

But the trees have cherished my words,

the flocks my deeds. (3)

Who can proclaim,

who can announce,

who can declare His deeds?

God has seen everything,

God has heard everything,

God has listened. (4)

God sent his prophet to anoint me;

Samuel to make me great.

My brothers went out to meet him,

Handsome in form and appearance. (5)

Their stature tall,

Their hair beautiful,

but the LORD God did not chose them. (6)

Instead he sent and took me

from following the flock;

God anointed me with Holy oil;

God made me leader for his people,

ruler over the children of His covenant. (7)

By now, you may be curious how Psalm 151 actually reads. Here is one possible translation:

I was small among my brothers

and the youngest in my father's house.

I tended my father's sheep (v. 1)

My hands made a harp,

My fingers fashioned a lyre. (v. 2)

And who will tell my Lord?

The Lord himself; it is he who hears. (v. 3)

It was He who sent this messenger

and took me from my father's sheep

and anointed me with His anointing oil. (v. 4)

My brothers were handsome and tall

but the LORD was not pleased with them. (v. 5)

-------------

I went out to meet the Philistines

and he cursed me by his idols. (v. 6)

But I drew his own sword

I beheaded him,

and took away disgrace from the people of Israel. (v. 7)

The last two verses are almost word-for-word what is known as 151B in 11QPs. Psalm 151:1-5 are obviously derived from 151A although the latter is written in much better poetic style and is more understandable than the somewhat cryptic v. 3 above. Thus, it appears obvious that what is known as Psalm 151 is really a cobbled-together, “truncated amalgamation of the two Hebrew psalms.” (Sanders)

Regarding the acceptance of this new psalm in the church, it was never considered canonical by the Roman Catholic church or any Protestant churches. However, the Orthodox tradition, which accepts the whole Septuagint as canonical, has always included it in their Scripture as well as within their liturgy.

There is little more we can say concerning internal factors such theology and historical content. However, it is worth considering its place within the Psalter as to to whether it is a good fit or not. The first thing to note is that it is located right after the collection of stirring praises to God in 145-150, especially Ps. 150 which most commentators treat as an apt conclusion to the whole Psalter. Thus, the rather pedestrian Ps. 151 constitutes a colossal anti-climax in that position that practically ruins the whole impact of the Psalter.

In addition, from a structural point of view, Psalm 151 not only adds nothing to the overall literary arrangement the Psalter, but actually disrupts it entirely. Read my post “The Psalms: Introduction to the Literary Structure” and see if you don't agree with that assessment.

And despite attempts by John Breck to show that it possesses a chiastic structure, it is really 151A that has that distinction:

    A. David compared to his brothers (v. 1a)

        B. David tended his father's sheep (v. 1b)

            C. David makes praise music to God (v. 2)

            C'. Will God hear it? (v. 3)

        B'. David taken away from his father's sheep (v. 4)

A'. David compared to his brothers (v. 5)

By piecing together 151A and 151B, the author of Psalm 151 not only took away some of the sense of 151A but also disrupted its mirror-image organization.

In conclusion, the best we can say regarding Psalm 151 is that it is neither heretical in teaching nor unhistorical in content. In that respect, it can be classed alongside many of the other OT and NT apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings.

MATTHEW 13:52

Jesus has just finished telling a whole series of short “Kingdom parables” to the disciples, and then he asks them in this verse:

    “Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked. “Yes,” they replied. He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law [scribe] who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” (Matthew 13:52, NIV)

I am afraid that if I had been there at the time, I would have said, “I understood all the parables, but what in the world are you talking about now?” So let us see what people wiser than myself have to say regarding Jesus' words. And in doing this, I was comforted to read that others had a little trouble with this verse as well, calling it “enigmatic” (Beale and Gladd) and “a puzzling little epigram” (France)

The first issue to deal with is the identity of the “scribe” about whom Jesus is talking. We need to know what that word meant in the Judaism of Christ's time:

    Haarbeck: “The scribe was not simply the copyist of the scriptures in post-exilic Judaism; he was the authorized teacher and theologian who interpreted the law.”

    Tilden: “an expert in the Mosaic law”

Hendricksen explains some of the limitations of the Jewish scribes' teachings:

“...the trouble...was that he was forever repeating the opinions, fancies, and vagaries of the ancient rabbis. He specialized in that which was 'old,' and was unable to stir man's soul and to meet his deepest needs. Others there are who are constantly interested in whatever is 'new' (Acts 17:21). It has to be the latest. The true scribe is thoroughly acquainted with the old, and builds on it.”

With that background we can now get back to the identity of the “scribe.” There appear to be at least three options:

    1. A surprisingly large number of commentators take this to be a hidden reference to the evangelist Matthew himself. Thus, according to them, it functions as a reflection of the Evangelist's background (Overman), “the evangelist's self-portrait” (Nixon), a “potentially autobiographical reference” (Blomberg), a reflection of “the evangelist's practice of finding new meaning in the old tradition” (Evans), “an element of Matthew's Jewishness” (Haarbeck), and “a discreet signature of the Gospel-writer” (Hill).

Adding to the possibility that Evangelist is referring to himself here is the possible pun between his name (Mattaios) and the words “who has been trained” (matheteutheis). Was Matthew in fact trained in this manner?

Blomberg: “Because of his profession, Levi [i.e. Matthew] most likely featured among the minority of the populace that was literate...His elementary school education and subsequent synagogue attendance...would have steeped him in the contents and interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.”

R.E. Brown: “He was a scribe well versed in the Law and the Prophets and the subtleties of translating them.”

France gives two more options for Jesus' definition of “scribe”:

    2. It refers to Jesus' chosen disciples as a new “alternative” scribal school, trained by his own instruction.

    3. It is used in the secular sense of a “writer” who is “sufficiently educated to undertake writing and reading commissions for others and to compile records.”

Explanation #3 would fit in well with a self-description of Matthew role within the circle of Apostles, as Blomberg points out, but France feels that #2 makes more sense.

In that regard, Haarbeck says, "Here the scribe is seen as a steward who knows both the old, the message of the Old Testament scriptures, and also their fulfilment in the radically new, the message and person of Jesus...At any rate, the disciple in Matthew does what the scribe should be doing, i.e. expound the scriptures as they are fulfilled by Jesus.”

Tilden states that “a disciple of Jesus is able to preserve past insights and enlarge them.” In doing so, he or she will be following in the footsteps of Jesus himself. In that regard, the words of Beale and Gladd form a fitting conclusion to this short discussion:

    “Whatever the precise identification of all the details may be, the main thrust is that Jesus' teaching concerning the kingdom involves both 'new' and 'old' insights. In other words, his teaching stands in both continuity and discontinuity with the Old Testament.”

 

II SAMUEL: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

II Samuel 12:22-23 David mourns the death of his child by Bathsheba, but when he learns of the child’s death he says “Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” I have often heard this passage used to support the notion of “the age of accountability,” the idea that all children who die young go to heaven until they have reached a certain age where they can be held accountable for their sins. Is this a commonly held position? Are there other passages that support this position?

There are hints throughout the Old Testament regarding separate places of eternal bliss or punishment. But the most clear-cut references in the Bible are only found in later writings such as Daniel 12:2 and the New Testament. Heaven is thus a concept that was only slowly revealed to mankind, and many practicing Jews today deny the possibility of an eternal existence after death because they feel it is not taught in the Old Testament at all. Thus, my own personal feeling is that David is merely stating that his child cannot come back from Sheol, the universal abode of the dead, but David will himself eventually meet him there. I am probably in the minority in this particular opinion.

However, the idea that there is an “age of accountability” before which one will not be held responsible for sins can be deduced elsewhere in Scripture:

1. In Deuteronomy 1:39, Moses explains that children who were too young to know right from wrong would be allowed to enter the Promised Land and not be held guilty of the sins of their parents.

2. Isaiah 7:15-16 is a prophecy concerning what would happen to the nation before a certain child became old enough to refuse evil and chose good.

3. The Book of Jonah ends with God trying to explain to Jonah why He is extending grace to the Ninevites. They are so much in the dark spiritually that they are like little children who do not yet know the difference between their left and right hand (i.e. evil and good).

4. On the cross, Jesus asks God to forgive those responsible for his crucifixion “because they don't know what they are doing.”

5. In Leviticus 4-5, Numbers 15, Acts 3:17 and Acts 17:30 it is taught that sins committed inadvertently in ignorance must be dealt with once those sins are brought to our attention.

6. In I Timothy 1:13 Paul says that he received God's mercy because he had acted in ignorance when he persecuted the Christians.

7 John MacArthur also points to the numerous times in the Old Testament that children (including those who die) are referred to as innocent. “The Hebrew word for 'innocent' is used numerous times in the Old Testament to refer to 'not being guilty' -- literally, 'being taken to court and found not guilty.' It doesn't mean that they are not fallen; it doesn't mean that they are not sinful -- it does mean that God mercifully treats them as 'innocent' in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe.” (Safe in the Arms of God)

This subject is somewhat related to the controversial subject of infant baptism (see ch. 6 of G. R. Beasley-Murray's excellent book Baptism in the New Testament). He concludes, after much discussion that Jesus' saying in Mark 10:13-16 and parallels does not teach the practice of infant baptism, but does teach that children already possess the characteristics of those who will inhabit heaven.

From the above, one could argue that God will certainly welcome into his arms someone who dies before they are mature enough to recognize the sinfulness of their actions. Only God can judge when that occurs in an individual's life. And ultimately, all possibility of salvation still depends on God's grace and Christ's sacrifice.

More on the fate of OT “saints” While clear Old Testament references to the hope of resurrection for pious Jews are sparse, the New Testament has more to say about the subject. But first we need to reiterate the important point: Hope of eternal life for anyone is only possible through the atoning death of Christ (Acts 4:12). The question remains as to how a person can appropriate that gift.

Today, we look backward to the death and resurrection of Christ and through faith claim that victory for ourselves. But what about the Old Testament “saints” who died before the time of Christ? There are several possibilities, depending on which theologians and biblical exegetes one listens to.

    1. There are a few very difficult texts (Ephesians 4:7-10; I Peter 3:18-20, 4:5-6) that might be interpreted to say that Jesus visited Hades after his death and preached the good news to the spirits of the dead so that they could have the opportunity to accept him.

    2. Another possibility is that the Old Testament saints appropriated Christ's sacrifice in advance of the event, which they knew about beforehand through the Holy Spirit's enlightenment (I Peter 1:10-12).

    3. A third, remote possibility arises from a tantalizing statement of Paul in Romans 2:15-16 that some people who did not have the opportunity to accept Christ while on earth will perhaps be exonerated according to whether they followed the dictates of their conscience.

    4. And then there are those who separate the biblical dispensations so completely that they feel some of the Old Testament saints could attain heaven through adherence to the law alone.

By whatever means those of Old Testament times might be offered the possibility of eternal life, the New Testament witness is clear that this not a fact in doubt.

    1. In arguing with the Sadducees regarding the resurrection, Jesus replied that God, in talking to Moses, refers to himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Since God is the God of the living, not the dead, the implication is that those patriarchs are still alive.

    2. In Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:23), one can go too far in interpreting the details as describing actual conditions in the afterlife. However, it certainly reflects a general picture of a two-fold separation of the physically dead into a blessed place where Abraham dwells (for those destined for eventual salvation) and a place of torment for those who are destined for eternal damnation at the Day of Judgment.

The clearest indications we have in the Bible concerning the fate of the OT saints is found in litany of faith in Hebrews 11:

    We are reminded that Enoch did not die but went straight to God's presence, where he is today. (v. 5)

    Noah became an heir to the righteousness that is in accordance with faith. (v. 7)

    Abraham looked forward to the eternal city of God. (v. 10)

    The patriarchs have a city prepared for them. (vV. 13-16)

    Moses suffered for Christ to come and looked forward to his reward. (v. 26)

    None of the listed Old Testament “saints” received their reward yet “since God had provided something better so that they would not, apart from us, be made perfect.” (vv. 39-40)

This last reference is the most telling, and has been explained as follows:

“The age of the new covenant has dawned; the Christ to whose day they looked forward has come and by His self-offering and His high-priestly ministry in the presence of God He has procured perfection them – and for us. With us in mind, God had made a better plan, that only in company with us should they reach their perfection. They and we together now enjoy unrestricted access to God through Christ, as fellow-citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem.” F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 343-4.

II Samuel 20:4-13 Joab killed Abner, Absalom, and Amasa. It appears he suffered no real consequences for these murders. In fact, he continued as David's military commander and trusted advisor. Why?

Joab is a treacherous and ambitious character who could, however, on occasion act generously (II Samuel 12:26-31) and give sound theological advice to David (II Samuel 24:2-4). David's relationship to Joab is thus also a complicated one. On the one hand, the two were blood relations (Joab was David's nephew), and Joab was a valued advisor and army commander. In addition, Joab was the one David used to carry out his plot against Uriah; so they were co-conspirators. One could even surmise that Joab's action in killing Absalom (and even Abner) was not punished more harshly by David because David realized its necessity even though he could not bring himself to actually order it done. All of these are contributing factors helping to explain why David kept Joab in power, partially to do his dirty work for him.

On the other hand, Joab's actions did not get David's wholehearted approval. In II Samuel 3:31-39, David pronounces a curse on Abner's murderer, and David replaces Joab as commander after Absalom's murder (but reinstates him later). David eventually turns decisively away from Joab on his death bed when he instructs Solomon to requite Joab and several others for their treachery (I Kings 2:5-9). This has been viewed by some as yet another example of David utilizing others to do unpleasant deeds with which he did not want to be directly associated.

Solomon carries out David's request soon afterward (I Kings 3:28-33) and Joab finally receives his well-deserved fate. Thus, we can see that the timing of God's perfect justice is not ours, and we may not even see it fulfilled until the Last Judgment.

II Samuel 24:1 // I Chronicles 21:1 The passage states David was incited by Satan to take a census. Joab seems to recognize immediately this is wrong and questions David as to why he would do such a thing. The commentary in The Daily Bible acknowledges the sinfulness of this act is less than clear. He suggests that perhaps it is because David is depending upon the strength of his numbers instead of the strength of God. Are there other plausible suggestions?

The explanation you mention is the most common one offered. “The strength of the nation's population was a kind of barometer of the Lord's favor. As such, it was not to be 'read' so as to justify human pride in human achievements, or to boost royal ambitions.” (Joyce Baldwin, 1&2 Samuel, p. 295) However, other possibilities as to David's sin have been proposed. You can judge for yourself how plausible they are:

    1. A census was used as the basis for introduction of a military draft or taxation of the people, both being unacceptable changes in Israelite society. (NRSV Study Bible)

    2. “If the taking of a military census almost always preceded a battle, then it is possible that David was either planning an inappropriate military operation or taking steps towards forming a standing army.” (Robin Wakely, Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Vol. 3, p. 659)

    3. David sinned by including males under 20 in the census, (or possibly even women, children and Levites). (Hard Sayings of the Bible, p.240)

    4. The census was carried out in such a casual manner that the ritual purity law outlined in Exodus 30:12 was violated. (Kyle McCarter, II Samuel, p. 512-4) In favor of that explanation is the fact that the Exodus passage promised a plague among the people if the proper procedure was not carried out, and in fact that is exactly what happened to the Israelites.

An additional problem with this passage that is not evident in The Daily Bible is that these parallel accounts actually read quite differently from one another, and The Daily Bible has chosen to give the I Chronicles version only and omit the II Samuel account. The difference between the two is simple – II Samuel relates that God incited David to carry out the census whereas I Chronicles states that Satan did the inciting.

When one runs across apparent inconsistencies in parallel biblical accounts, there are two general approaches one can take. The first, taken by The Daily Bible in this case, is to choose one of the versions over the other. And from a theological viewpoint, it is certainly easier to understand why God would be more upset over an action of David initiated by Satan than over one initiated by Himself. However, it is this very difficulty with the Samuel account that is actually the strongest argument in favor of it being the preferred version. It is much easier to believe that the Chronicler was offended by the idea that God would incite David to sin (and therefore substituted the word “Satan” instead) than the reverse scenario whereby “God” was for some unknown reason substituted for an original reading of “Satan.”

Two other examples of such “theological euphemisms” found throughout the Hebrew Bible are (1) spelling Yahweh with the vowels for “Lord” instead so that the divine name would not be inadvertently pronounced by one reading it, and (2) proclaiming a curse on anyone who “blesses” God (in fact meaning one who “curses” God).

Tsumura (The Second Book of Samuel) suggests two other possibilities: (1) Satan is not a proper name but refers to any adversary or (2) the Samuel account actually ascribes the prompting to “the anger of God,” which is not exactly the same as God Himself. Neither approach is especially convincing.

The favored approach one can take in regard to apparent discrepancies is to attempt to harmonize them – in other words, assume that both versions are correct. In this case, it would mean that somehow both God and Satan were involved in inciting David. And here we have a clear parallel in Job 1-2. God first brings the subject of Job to Satan's attention, Satan proposes a test, and God agrees but sets limits on what Satan is allowed to do. God allows the test because he knows the positive outcome in advance, whereas Satan is approaching the test as a chance to show up both God and Job. It is a similar alignment of opposite motives that one sees later when Satan's inciting of Judas leads to Christ's crucifixion, but also to salvation for mankind.

 

THE USE OF DEUTERONOMY IN THE BOOK OF ROMANS

We often fail to realize that the New Testament authors were thoroughly steeped in the words of the Old Testament. As one example, the ex-Pharisee Paul utilizes OT quotations and allusions constantly in his Letter to the Romans, mainly taken from Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and the Psalms. Thus, he drew equally from the three parts of the Jewish Scripture: the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. Below are some of the ways in which he utilized the Book of Deuteronomy, gathered from the writings of Morris, Murray, Seifrid, and Schnittjer:

Romans 1:1 // Deut. 34:5

By calling himself a “servant” at the start of this letter, Paul expresses his humble position in serving Jesus Christ and at the same time places himself in the exalted company of those like Moses who were servants of Yahweh.

Romans 2:17-18 // Deut. 24:8; 33:10

In this climax to a rather sarcastic put-down of the Jews' self-righteous attitude, Paul mentions the instructions they had been given in the law. Murray says, “The instruction doubtlessly refers to the public instruction received by the hearing of the law and from teaching on the part of parents, priests and Levites” such as in Deuteronomy 24:8 and 33:10.

Romans 2:21-23 // Deut. 7:25-26

Paul echoes Moses' words regarding theft of the precious metals from temples.

Romans 2:25-29 // Deut. 10:16; 30:6

The striking command to “circumcise your heart” in Deuteronomy is repeated by Paul here.

Romans 3:3 // Deut. 7:9; 32:4

“God's faithfulness (3:3; cf. Deut. 7:9; 32:4; Lam. 3:23) – that is, his being true...is not undermined by the unbelief of 'some' Jews. One the contrary, Paul says, 'Let God be found true, and every human being a liar' (3:4).” (Seifrid)

Romans 3:12 // Deut. 29:18

Although in this verse Paul is quoting from Psalm 14, the warning against “turning away from the LORD” was earlier expressed by Moses in Deut. 29:18.

Romans 3:29-30 // Deut. 6:4

When Paul says that “God is one,” he is alluding to the great confession of Israel, the Shema.

Romans 4:5 // Deut. 22:22

Paul says that only God can forgive the sins of the ungodly. Seifrid points to the contrast between Hosea 2:14-3:5 and Deuteronomy 22:22 and between Hosea 11:8-9 with Deuteronomy 21:18-21 as a demonstration of that fact. Thus, in this case, the Book of Deuteronomy acts as a sort of counterpoint to the message of grace taught in Romans.

Romans 4:17 // Deut. 32:39

The God who calls Abraham is 'father of many nations' is “the one who gives life to the dead, and calls those things which are not as things which do exist' (4:17c). The confession of God as the one who 'gives life to the dead'...has its roots in biblical confessions of God as the one who 'puts to death and raises to life.'” (Seifrid) This phrase appears in Deuteronomy 32:29.

Romans 7:7-10 // Deut. 30:19

The relationship between God's commandments and the issue of life vs. death is explored in these two passages.

Romans 7:10 // Deut. 6:24

Paul comments on Moses' words saying that the commandments were given so that we might live.

Romans 7:12 // Deut. 4:5-8

Moses extols the “righteousness” of God's law, and in a similar manner, Paul states that “the law is holy and the commandment is holy.”

Romans 9:3 // Deut. 7:26

Moses warns the people not to bring any detestable thing (i.e. idol) into the house but to abhor it. Paul takes that same general concept and applies it to himself when he states his willingness to be considered accursed and cut off from Christ if it would save his fellow Jews.” The idea of “anathema” appears in both passages.

Romans 9:10-13 // Deut. 4:37; 7:7-8; 10:15; 14:2; 21:15

The principle of God's sovereign election of Israel over the other nations to “love” is reiterated by Paul, with an added definition of those whom “Israel” really consists.

Romans 10:5-8 // Deut. 6:24; 9:4; 30:11-14

These verses contain the most extended quotation from and comment on Deuteronomy found in Romans. They deserve a more detailed discussion, which I am going to save for another post.

Romans 10:19 // Deut. 32:21

Paul quotes directly from Deuteronomy in order to demonstrate that “Israel's disobedience does not indicate God's failure; to the contrary, God's purpose is to make Israel jealous.” (Elliott)

Romans 11:8 // Deut. 29:4

Elliott attributes this quotation in Romans dealing with “eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear” as coming from Isaiah 29:10, but it also appears earlier in Deuteronomy.

Romans 11:11-16 // Deut. 32:21

Murray says of v. 11 that, “Provoking to jealousy is not an unworthy incentive to repentance and faith...Later (vs. 14) the apostle says that he conducts his ministry to the Gentiles with the same end in view.” The word “jealousy” clearly refers back to Deuteronomy 32:21.

Romans 11:26 // Deut. 1:1

Murray points out that Paul is not stating that each and every individual Jew will be saved since the phrase “all Israel” in the OT refers to the nation as a whole, as in Deuteronomy 1:1, for example.

Romans 12:6-8 // Deut. 18:15-19

“In the Old Testament [see Deut. 18:15-19 for example] the prophets occupied a position of priority that is not accorded to those of the New Testament...But the important place occupied by the gift of prophecy in the apostolic church is indicated by...the fact that prophets are next in rank to apostles, and that the church is built upon 'the foundation of the apostles and prophets' (Eph. 2:20).” (Murray)

Romans 12:19 // Deut. 32:21, 35

Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 32:35, “Vengeance is mine, says the LORD.”

Romans 13:9 // Deut. 5:17-21

The order in which Paul cites these four commandments differs from that found in both the standard Hebrew and Greek texts of Deuteronomy 5:17-21 but agrees with that found in Luke 18:20 and James 2:11. “He omits the commandments that refer to God, presumably because he is dealing with the duty to one's neighbor, and he omits the commandment not to bear false witness, but he is not giving a complete list and this is surely to be included in 'whatever other commandments there may be.' He is citing some typical requirements of the law simply to show that love fulfils all that they lay down.” (Morris)

Romans 14:10-12 // Deut. 32:40

The Deuteronomy passage with God swearing with the oath: “As I live forever” is cited by Paul in Romans 14:10.

Romans 15:10 // Deut. 32:32, 43

Paul puts together in vv. 9-12 a chain of OT quotations in which v. 9 comes from II Samuel 22:20 and Psalm 18:49; v. 10 from Deut. 32:43 (in the Hebrew this time, rather than the Septuagint); v. 11 from Psalm 117:1; and v. 12 from Isaiah 11:10. All of these foretell the eventual turning of the Gentiles to God. This passage is another demonstration of Paul's mastery of the whole OT canon.

 

EXCUSES OF NON-DISCIPLES (LUKE 9:57-62; 14:15-26)

As our pastor pointed out recently in a sermon, it is one thing to be attracted to the teachings and life of Jesus and quite another to follow him as a disciple. So the natural question arises, “Why do some people stop short of committing their life to Him?” The two passages above in Luke's Gospel lay out some of those reasons. The respective contexts differ drastically, but similar teachings result from each one.

Luke 9:57-62

The setting here is a series of historical encounters that Jesus has with some of those who have followed him to hear his teachings and are apparently impressed by them. We are briefly introduced to three different anonymous hangers-on. The first person actually expresses his great interest in becoming one of Jesus' disciples. Jesus first warns this man that “the Son of Man has no place to lay his head,” and we hear no more from him. In other words, that would-be disciple doesn't mind hanging out with Jesus as long as it can be done in comfort with no personal sacrifice involved.

Of course, today that same man would have no trouble at all in joining a “prosperity gospel” church. I have seen the same mentality in other churches I have attended in which certain people didn't mind being the ones in charge as long as others could be delegated to do the actual work. And if that congregation doesn't cater to their preferences, there is always another one down the block that will.

With the second man, it is actually Jesus who extends the offer of discipleship. Obviously, that man had also expressed interest in Jesus' teachings, but he has a ready excuse: “First allow me to bury my father.” Jesus replies in a rather unexpected and harsh way by saying, “Let the dead bury their own dead.”

Commentators point out rightly that it is highly unlikely that the man's father had just died. Otherwise the man would certainly not be out at the time listening to Jesus' teachings since burials almost always occurred on the day of death itself. The man is probably saying in essence, “I would love to follow you, but my father is rather old and he might die at any time now.” In fact, the underlying reason behind the excuse may be that the man didn't want to jeopardize his eventual inheritance in any way. In addition, Jesus' reply has been explained as referring to the spiritually dead rather than the physically dead since obviously the physically dead are in no position to bury anyone.

The third man that Jesus encounters in this passage agrees to go with Jesus, but he first wants to say goodbye to his family. Despite that reasonable request, Jesus says, “He who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom of God.”

Jesus recaps these three conversations with the words, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” Since a literal reading of this statement would contradict Jesus' stated adherence to the Ten Commandments with its teaching on honoring your parents, commentators explain Jesus' words in one of two ways:

    1. Jesus is engaging in hyperbolic (i.e. purposely exaggerated) speech in order to make his point in a highly memorable way.

    2. The Hebrew language had no clear way of expressing comparatives and superlatives except through indirect means. Thus, “King of kings” or “Song of Songs” is used to convey the idea of “the greatest king” and “the greatest song,” respectively. By this reasoning, Jesus' intended meaning is that disciples need to love him more than their biological family. And that is precisely what the first explanation is driving at.

Luke 14:15-24

The setting to this story is quite different from the previous account in Luke. Jesus has been invited to a meal at the house of a prominent Pharisee along with other spiritual leaders, and he is under careful observation by them to see what he will do and say. First, he shocks them by performing a healing on the sabbath day. At one point, a guest who proclaims, “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God.” Jesus takes this as the jumping-off point to telling a parable concerning a prominent man who planned a big banquet and invited various friends and acquaintances. But each one comes up with an excuse for not attending. As in the previous passage, we are briefly told about three of these people.

    1. The first man said that he had just bought a parcel of land and needed to inspect it.

    2. The second man had just bought five yoke of oxen and needed to try them out.

The transparent nature of these excuses is easy to see since in each case there was obviously no such pressing need to do either of these two activities that very day. And in addition, it would be amazing if these two men had not already carefully examined their prospective purchases before buying them. But it all points to the main concerns in these people's lives: “Business comes first.” Thus, we see early examples of workaholics who let everything and everyone else in their lives take a backseat to the desire for more and more possessions.

    3. And if that example was not enough to get his audience's attention, Jesus throws in the hypothetical example of a newlywed who somewhat understandably begged off of attending since he had just gotten married. It is doubtful that he had gotten married that very day, but obviously he was still on his “honeymoon.” So actually, there would have been nothing out of line with him and his bride spending a few hours attending a good banquet as part of their own celebration. But the man refuses nonetheless.

I am somehow reminded of what a fellow chemist told me years ago when someone asked him if he attended church. He replied that his philosophy was that a man was preoccupied with sex as a teenager and into his twenties; sports until the end of his middle-age years, and religion in his declining time of life. In other words, there will be time later for me to think about my death and ultimate truths; for now I just want to enjoy myself while I can. I recall Jesus' words at the end of another parable: “Fool, this night your soul is required of you!”

Going on with the parable: Faced with this noted lack of response to his offer, the house owner dragged in the poor and maimed of the village to attend, followed by combing the countryside for others who would welcome a good meal. This parable has often been explained by identifying those who refused to come as the “spiritual” and wealthy Jews; the next group of invited guests as the poor and disadvantaged Jews; and the last group as the Gentiles. If so, then it represents one of Jesus' prophetic parables foretelling the historical order in which the Gospel message was given and received.

I was especially struck by the similar closing words given by Jesus in each of these two passages:

    “Nobody who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

(Luke 9:62)

    “Whoever comes to me and doesn't hate [his family], even life itself, cannot be my disciple.”

(Luke 14:26)

There is also one little intriguing similarity between the two passages in that both refer directly or indirectly to the activity of plowing (Luke 9:62; 14:19). This leads to the observation made by most commentators on the first passage in Luke, namely, the close similarity between Jesus' words and Elijah's call of Elisha to be his disciple (I Kings 19:19-21). Interestingly, Elisha is plowing his field at the time and requests that Elijah give him time to first say goodbye to his family. Here the two accounts diverge completely; Elijah actually agrees to Elisha's request whereas Jesus does not. Why the difference?

Pao and Schnabel explain: “The contrast between Jesus and Elijah not only highlights the unique authority of Jesus but also points to the eschatological urgency present in Jesus' ministry.”

However Provan points out that “the mention of the plough reminds us of Elisha's decisiveness in leaving his home (he burned the ploughing equipment, his previous means of sustenance), which in a sense demonstrates greater commitment than that of Jesus' first disciples (they 'left' only their nets, Mark 1:16-20, and were later to return to them, John 21:1-4).”

The bottom line is that whenever and wherever God's call comes to us, it must be followed decisively without wavering.

 

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY: AN INTRODUCTION

Why are historical facts important to a Christian or a Jew in a way that doesn't apply to a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Scientologist? They are historical religions describing the actions of God in human history. C.S. Lewis noted that there are many stories in Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Norse mythology describing the death and resurrection of a deity. Lewis felt that these early myths were placed there by God to prepare humanity for the real thing. But the biblical account differs in that it occurred at a particular time and place in history. See Luke 2:1-4.

Because of that reason, people over the years have used the results of archeology in the Holy Land to “prove” or “disprove” stories that are in the Bible. Both sides are sadly misled in thinking that archeology can do either one. That is because of the inherent limitations of that field. Let me explain by comparing archeology with the area of “hard science” in which I spent my career as a research chemist.

Misguided Research

Twice in my research career I wasted almost one year of meticulous experimentation in a very specific area only to find out later that I was looking in the wrong place for answers. Both times I was misled from the start into thinking that I knew how to approach the subject because my mind was filled with preconceptions as to where the answer lay. In one case, I looked into the area of chemistry in which I had prior knowledge and training rather than keeping an open mind as to the possibility of a completely different solution. In the other case, I was misled due to other researchers' “findings” in the area, which turned out to be totally wrong.

And if that sort of thing can happen in a “hard” science, it certainly can occur in a field such as archeology which uses the tools and findings of science and then applies them to much “softer” fields such as sociology and history. As one example, Kathleen Kenyon explored part of the rather extensive site of ancient Jericho and concluded that it had been deserted well before the Jews entered Canaan. Her conclusion was based, as are many others in the field of archeology, not on what she found, but on what she didn't find. She didn't come across any examples of bichrome pottery common to the time period in question.

But decades later, the archeologist Bryant Wood dug in a completely different part of that site and came up with many examples of such pottery as well as Egyptian scarabs dating from that critical time period. Despite that finding, there are now two completely different schools of archeology in Israel divided over the results, and much of the division stems from the presuppositions they have regarding the worth of the Bible as a valid historical source.

Interpretation of Data

The above brings up another area of uncertainty regarding the proper treatment of results. Early in the research for my doctorate I synthesized a particular chemical that had never been reported before in the chemical literature except in one Russian journal. But the characteristics of that chemical were nothing like those possessed by the one I had synthesized. I realized that the Russian scientist had instead synthesized a different product without realizing it. But in order to prove to my research professor that I was right and the Russian was mistaken, I had to spend several more months of laborious work proving my point unambiguously. I confirmed that the Russian had gone wrong in his interpretation of the data.

Some of you may remember the raging controversies over the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and the James Ossuary. Almost all the archeologists involved in the dispute had access to the same scientific data for these objects, but there was a world of difference regarding the way in which they interpreted this data.

Control of All the Parameters

Another experimental endeavor I was involved in years ago gave me a great deal of trouble. You must realize that a synthetic organic chemist such as myself always carries his or her experiments out under extreme control of all the parameters that might affect the results obtained. The chemicals brought into contact with one another have to be reagent-grade pure without a trace of impurity. The amounts of each chemical are carefully weighed to the accuracy of several decimal points, and the time and temperature of reaction precisely measured. But even with this sort of control, the results I obtained, even under “identical” conditions, were quite erratic. One time the reaction would take place as expected, and the next time it would utterly fail. At last, I was able to show that there was a hidden parameter that caused the variations – the presence of trace quantities (parts per million) of water in one of the reagents.

Now compare this sort of exercise with the case of field archeology which is at the mercy of prior excavations at the same site, historical destruction of earlier strata, the skill or lack of skill of the archeological workers involved, theft of valuable finds, and other chance accidents affecting which data survived the years and which did not.

Lack of Evidence

Both of the above categories lead to the obvious fact that archeologists never have complete data on which to base their conclusions. It even happens in the hard sciences. For example, late in my doctoral studies I came across a tantalizing direct-line correlation between the amount of a particular element in the catalyst I was using and the amount of product yield I obtained. I included the results in my PhD thesis, and managed to pursue this result in a few months of post-doctoral work at the university to obtain more data. To my horror, the more data I collected, the more random the so-called correlation appeared to be. I was misled by basing my earlier conclusion on woefully inadequate data points.

The above phenomenon is common and has given rise to the popular saying applicable to many fields of endeavor, especially archeology: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

One example in the field of biblical archeology will suffice. It was an accepted conclusion among educated Bible scholars and theologians of roughly 100 years ago that the books of the Old Testament were written many decades, or even centuries, after the actual events. The reason was that there was no evidence of early Hebrew writing. Based on that lack of evidence, the various liberal schools of Source Criticism and Form Criticism arose with their wealth of complicated theories regarding the long and convoluted process that each book went through before it reached its present form.

The problem for that approach is that time and time again, earlier and earlier examples of Hebrew writing have been uncovered by archeologists since then. But Frankenstein's monster had taken on a life of its own by then, and these earlier critical appraisals of the Bible have never been appropriately revised in many scholars minds.

Conclusion

All of the above deals with only one facet of our human knowledge: What we do or do not know. But there is another aspect to it as well, as a theologian pointed out in a recent Christianity Today article: What we can or can't know.

Let me explain with the example of the prophet Jeremiah. Can archeology prove or disprove the existence of Jeremiah and confirm or deny the various interactions with the king at the time that are described in the book of Jeremiah? To a certain extent, that is possible. Thus, hordes of clay seals have been uncovered dating from that time period, and some of them include the names of Jeremiah's scribe Baruch, the king, and some of his officials said by the biblical account to be serving at the time. That is what we do know, and additional evidence may turn up in the future to confirm yet more, but at the present time there is much yet that we do not know.

But even if a royal archive were discovered in which the king recorded in detail every fact that is in the biblical account, there would remain important facts which we cannot know such as whether Jeremiah really got his words from God or whether he made them up out of his own imagination. Thus, both the biblical apologist and the biblical critic can take the results of archeology only so far.

So, of what use is archeology to the Bible scholar? There are at least five ways in which it can help:

    It recovers a broad spectrum of ancient Near Eastern peoples and places, allowing for cross-cultural comparisons.

    It provides a specific context (historical, religious, cultural, economic, and geographical) for biblical events.

    It provides an alternative perspective from which to view biblical narratives and events from the view of the Jews' enemies.

    It provides corroborative details for particular biblical texts and their interpretations.

All of this confirms what the most famous archeologist of all, Indiana Jones, said:

    “Archeology is the search for FACT, not TRUTH.”

 

APPLYING BIBLICAL HISTORY

A great deal of the Bible truths are presented to us in the form of ancient history, whether it is the Pentateuch, the OT History Books, or the Book of Acts. So the question is, How do we apply the examples given there to our present situation? Paul R. House, in the introduction to his commentary on I-II Kings, enumerates some important principles to keep in mind as we and pastors attempt to do it. Below is my summary of his main points to which I have appended some typical examples to consider.

1. One must recognize first that there is an historical gap between the biblical text and today's situation. But that gap can be bridged by looking for commonalities between the two. And the closer the parallels, the more applicable the example is to us today. These commonalities can exist either in the historical situations or in the way in which human beings attempted to address those situations, for good or for bad.

There are many places where this good piece of advice can be applied. But just consider the books of I-II Kings. A number of times in the history of the Divided Kingdom, the king over one or the other of these countries found it threatened by powerful outside forces. In desperation, they turned to pagan powers as potential allies. Inevitably, it always turned out to be the wrong thing to do from God's viewpoint, as the author often points out directly. The so-called allies either refused to help Israel when things got rough or even turned against Israel themselves.

This lesson can directly transfer to the Christian church today, which feels under attack from an antagonistic culture which denies God's word. Unfortunately, in desperation, we sometimes turn to completely atheistic or heretical entities as allies in this culture battle. This happened with the Moral Majority movement, and it continues to be a temptation for the church today.

2. Analyze, through consideration of the story's plot, the external and internal factors at play that influenced the characters' behavior.

In Esther 3:2, for example, we learn how Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman in Esther 3:2. One could deduce that Mordecai was exhibiting his personal pride, which led directly to the danger the Jews faced in the rest of the book. So the lesson for us is not to be prideful, but show appropriate deference to those in authority, whether they personally deserve it or not. But all of this reasoning is misguided since the key facts being overlooked are that (1) Haman is an Agagite and (2) Mordecai is a relative of King Saul. Thus, we need to go way back in Israelite history to the story of Saul refusing to honor God's command to destroy all the Agagites to truly understand the enmity between the two groups. With that in mind, Mordecai's attitude is now seen to be entirely in keeping with God's will.

3. Look at how these historical events were viewed and interpreted elsewhere in the Bible. For example, the writings and proclamations of the prophets as well as the letters of Paul often refer back to earlier events and comment on them. And often, the author of the historical account will make his own definitive comments. This is an extremely important principle to keep in mind since “description is not prescription.” In other words, many of the things that characters throughout biblical history do are not at all practices that we should follow just because “it is in the Bible.”

There is at least one other inherent danger in following this principle in that one must first make sure that there is truly a reference to a particular event in a later pronouncement. One cannot just take any two passages and couple them together with the idea that there might be a connection. As one example, I have read an interpretation of the practice of “Christian communism” in Acts 4 in which the person connected this with the later collection for the poor in Jerusalem taken up by Paul. The erroneous deduction drawn from these two facts was that the early Jerusalem church was only poor because they mistakenly practiced communism. Left out of the equation is the well known fact that practically all of the region of Judea was suffering from drought and famine during Paul's time, not just the Christians in Jerusalem.

4. Are there any large, overall themes that can be derived from the story? Remember that the history books are not only useful for giving us practical lessons for our lives, but also in instructing us in matters of doctrine that should inform us regarding our general view of reality.

The whole history of the Israelites is filled with stories of the people as a whole being blessed when they obeyed God's directives and suffering the consequences when they went in another direction. Each of these narratives re-emphasizes that God is loving and patient, but also a righteous God who judges disobedience. Eliminating either one of those aspects is fashioning a god of our own making, which will in turn determine how we live out our own lives.

5. Keep in mind the general tone of the passage, whether strictly factual, ironic, woeful or joyful. Without consideration of these factors it is very easy to be misled as to its meaning.

Thus, the oracle against the prince of Tyre in the Ezekiel 28 is simply dripping with tongue-in-cheek irony when it describes him as living in Eden as a blameless entity. But many commentators feel it is a straight-forward historical account of the fall of Satan (rather than an example of poetic imagery and prophetic hyperbole addressed to an earthly king of the time), which they believe took place in the early part of Genesis. In that manner, they then need to re-interpret Jesus' later pronouncements in the Gospels regarding His disarming of Satan beginning with His early ministry. And this, in turn affects how one looks at the cryptic passage in Revelation 20 regarding the “millennium” when Satan's power will be limited. All of the above generally leads to one particular view of eschatology, which can have a profound effect on the way one views not only the future, but also how we live in the present.

The above example doesn't even come from an historical book. But even within the Historical Books are many songs, parables, rhetorical questions, sermons, prayers, etc. which cannot be interpreted in the same manner as the predominantly historical material found there. It is not necessary to do as one young man I met did when he stated that the narratives in Jesus' parables must have literally happened. Otherwise, that would make Jesus a liar.

I could add that just as it is easy to confuse figurative language with literal language in the Bible, the opposite is just as common. Many liberal churches will totally deny the historical truth of an event such as Jesus' resurrection by dismissing it as only a figurative way of saying that Jesus still lives within our hearts even though he is dead and gone. And then there is the example of the animal-rights group who explained that during the healing of the demoniac, Jesus didn't really kill all those pigs when they were inhabited by the legion of evil spirits. Instead, the story is merely a sly allusion to the Gentile army (“legion”) which inhabited the Holy Land.

 

I SAMUEL: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

I Samuel 13:1 The passage says Saul reigned over Israel “forty” years. The word forty is bracketed with a footnote which says “Hebrew does not have 'forty'.” What does that mean exactly?

“One can do little with this verse. Some have supposed that it contains two numbers, the first giving Saul's age when he became king, and the second, the length of his reign. This is what one would expect the verse to say. Both numbers, however, appear to be missing, and, although in 1b there is the number 'two', yet, it fits neither his age nor the length of his reign.” (Old Testament Translation Problems, United Bible Societies)

Apparently, at an early stage of the manuscript being copied, a scribe accidentally left out some needed information. This happens inevitably when any document is copied by hand, but the problem is usually easily remedied in subsequent copying due to the redundancy that is built into all written languages. In other words, accidentally missing letters or words can be restored because language contains more information than is really needed for us to understand it. A current example is the shorthand used in texting; we can understand it even if all the vowels are removed.

The problem in this case is that the missing information consists of numbers, not words; and numbers possess virtually no redundancy. Once they are gone, they cannot be easily restored.

So what have translators done with this verse? One can often go to an early translation of the Hebrew text into another language to see if that helps, but in this case the Greek Septuagint actually omits the whole verse. The King James Version (followed by The Living Bible) reads, “Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel...” but it breaks several rules of Hebrew grammar even to come up with this reading. The New English Bible gives Saul's age as 50 and length of reign as 22 years while NIV guesses at 30 and 42 years, respectively, partially based on information in Acts13:21.

Fortunately, as with other textual problems encountered in the Bible, there are no key doctrinal issues thrown into doubt by any uncertainties in the original text.

I Samuel 17:4-11 Goliath was over nine feet tall? Really? Is this a translation issue?

The first thing to point out is that this height is not beyond the realm of possibility since the tallest authenticated man in recent history was Robert Pershing Wadlow, who was 8'11'' and still growing at the time of his death. Also, David Tsumura (The First Book of Samuel) points to an Englishman named John Middleton (ca. 1600 AD) who was reportedly 9'9'' tall. Such unusual heights are generally due to abnormal pituitary gland activity. But the question remains as to whether this is an accurate translation.

The Hebrew text gives Goliath's height as six cubits and a span. Again, there is the possibility that a number was incorrectly copied in the Hebrew text since both the Septuagint and Dead Sea scroll versions of this passage read “four cubits and a span,” which would equal about 6 ½ feet. This number appears in the NAB translation. Although this seems like a more likely height, Tsumura points out that the recorded weight of Goliath's armor is more consistent with a 9'+ height man.

So you have your choice of either an abnormally tall man or a fairly tall man with extra heavy armor.

I Sam 17:12 “David was the son of an Ephrathite named Jesse.” What is an Ephrathite? I thought David (and by extension Jesus) came from the tribe of Judah.

The NRSV Study Bible explains that the Ephrathites were “a subgroup within the Calebite clan, which was part of the tribe of Judah.” It has no relationship, for example, to the tribe of Ephraim.

Ephrath was an ancient name for Bethlehem and figures prominently in Micah's messianic prophecy: “But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days.” (Micah 5:2)

I Samuel 19:19-24 What might have been the nature of the prophesying by Saul and his men? Are there similar scriptural examples that might give us hints?

Peter Ackroyd (The First Book of Samuel, p. 160) begins his comments on these verses by saying, “It is a curious story.”  It is also a difficult story to comprehend and is included in the useful book Hard Sayings of the Bible.  The main difficulty is to understand the nature of the ecstatic “prophesying” and its relationship to the more normal prophecies found elsewhere in the Bible. David Tsumura (The First Book of Samuel, p. 497-9) concludes that “the question of prophecy and ecstasy is far more complex than earlier scholars had supposed.” In the vast majority of prophetic utterances, the prophets appear to simply transmit to the people what God has relayed to them.  
However, in II Kings 3:15, Elisha does this only after he is put into some sort of receptive mood or through the use of music. The presence of the Spirit in the prophets evidenced through ecstatic behavior (dancing, falling into a trance, etc.) is, as far as I know, only found in two other passages in the Old Testament (I Samuel 10:5-10; 19:19-24).  Since both of these involve Saul, these incidents should be considered together.  
In I Samuel 10, Saul is overcome with God's Spirit when he meets a group of roving prophets playing musical instruments. The exact nature of the “frenzy” that is induced in him is not well understood, and no mention is made of any particular words of prophecy that may have been spoken by him or the prophets on that occasion. However, Verhoef speculates that some short utterances concerning Saul's recent choice by God as king may have been made. (Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Vol. 4, p. 1072-3)
All of the sources I consulted regarding this incident and I Samuel 19 are in agreement that the exact nature of the “prophesying” in each is not nearly as important as what these manifestations of the Spirit tell us concerning the changing relationship between Saul and God. Two typical quotes will suffice to make this point: 
	“The spirit of prophecy, which had originally confirmed his call, would now block his way.” (Joyce Baldwin, 1&2 Samuel, p. 133)
	“19:18ff is a reversal of what 10:1-9 says of Saul's endowment with the Spirit. In both cases the Spirit is a divine manifestation. In 10:1-9 it gives Saul strength to carry out his feat of bravery. In 19:18ff it works in the reverse: it makes Saul helpless.” (David Tsumura)
Several commentators have noted that the prophetic “frenzy” shown during these two incidents may not have involved any bizarre behavior at all from an outsider's point of view. These passages should certainly not be used as proof texts to justify the modern practice of being “slain in the Spirit,” which may involve activities such as writhing on the ground, barking like a dog, etc. as proof of possession by the Holy Spirit.
I Samuel 28:6  I can understand how God refused to give Saul advice through dreams or prophets, but what about Urim?  Wasn't it just a casting of lots?
We are not 100% sure what the Urim and Thummin were, but the best educated guess is that it consisted of two flat stones, each having a head and a tail, which were located in the priest's breastplate. By casting these stones, two heads might mean “yes” while two tails would indicate a “no” to any question asked. The important thing to note is that half the time one would get “one tail-one head,” indicating that God refused to give guidance on the issue. So possibly that is what happened whenever Saul attempted to get an answer from God. The lesson is that you can't force God into a box by some arbitrary test. This is what distinguishes this biblical form of an oracle from Gideon's casting of a fleece (and its modern equivalents practiced by some Christian groups today).

In the New Testament we have similar examples of seeking God's will by all three acceptable means

that Saul consulted:

    Prophecy – This is listed among the spiritual gifts, and several prophets in Acts were used by God to predict future events (not new theological truths). The major question is whether this gift is still in existence in the church today. However, taking prophecy in its broadest definition of telling forth the Word (rather than foretelling), many feel that today's ministers and preachers fill that role.

    Dreams – God gives oracles in dreams four times in Matthew 1-2 and on the day of Pentacost (Acts 2:17). It is again an open question as to whether that happens today.

    Casting Lots – see Acts 1:21-25. Note that before doing so, the apostles prayed to God over the matter and had already used logical criteria to eliminate candidates that were not appropriate. Only then did they cast lots as a sort of “tie-breaker” between the two remaining choices. Some would say that ever since the Bible was completed, God did away with all other forms of oracles because they were no longer needed. In any case, the Bible is the only sure Word of God, and therefore all other forms of supposed revelation must be subservient to it and tested by it.

I Samuel 28:6-25  The story involving the Witch of Endor brings up a number of interesting questions.

At this point in the story, Samuel had been dead for some time (see 25:1). God had refused to give Saul guidance through the Urim and Thummin. And now, he was totally estranged from the priests who had possession of it.

Three theories:

(a) Satan gave the woman power to conjure up Samuel (unlikely that he has that power over believers' spirits), (b) it was a false spirit sent from Satan or (c) it really was Samuel's spirit, but brought to earth by God's power.

Two main questions to answer (see below). Look for evidence one way or another in the text to see if you get any hints.

v. 7 Witch or medium, neocromancer (literally, “a woman of spirits, or a knowing one”). AB translates as “ghostwife.”

v. 8a To get to Endor, Saul needed to go around the Philistine army. His disguise serves a double purpose and shows his desperation

v. 8b consult a spirit (i.e. a familiar spirit)

v. 10 There is the irony of Saul swearing “as the LORD lives” in order to consult the dead.

v. 12 It is not clear how woman recognized Saul. Perhaps it should read, (as LXX) “when the woman heard the name Saul” as spoken by Samuel. Or, she could have been tipped off by Saul's assurances in verse 10.

v. 13 god = a supernatural being, spirit, ghost, etc.

earth, ground = underworld

vv. 13-14 It is obvious that only the woman could see the spirit. Isaiah 14:9-11 gives another picture of the spirits of Sheol being roused.

v. 15 Sheol is pictured as a place of rest. (Job 3:16-19) (See Psalm 88 for other OT beliefs regarding the state of the dead.)

Was it really Samuel's spirit rather than a counterfeit? 

Samuel uses the divine name Yahweh seven times in his speech. This is unlikely for a false spirit or apparition. New Bible Commentary feels that this really was Samuel due to his foreknowledge (v. 14).

The parallel passage in I Chronicles 10:13-14. LXX adds the following: “Saul asked counsel of her that had a familiar spirit to inquire of her, and Samuel made answer to him.” This indicates a belief that it truly was Samuel speaking.

Who called up Samuel's spirit—God or the witch (through demonic means)?

Notice that Samuel blames Saul, not the woman, for disturbing him. Note that the witch did not actually invoke the spirit. He seems to have come up by himself.

The terror of the woman could be in seeing a ghost for the first time.

It is unlikely that Satan has the power over the righteous dead.

Even if she did call up the spirit, we can't generalize that mediums are really able to conjure up the dead since this a unique occurrence.

The Transfiguration story may also indicate that God can call up the spirits of the righteous dead if He wishes.

I Samuel 31:1-10  Why did the messenger lie about killing Saul. The commentary I have states the

Amalekite was lying to ingratiate himself with David. I thought the Amalekites were enemies. Why 

would  David listen to one, especially since II Samuel 1:1-11 states "...David returned from defeating the 

Amalekites..."?

Since the messenger's version of Saul's death in 2 Samuel 1 contradicts the accounts found in both I
Samuel 31 and I Chronicles 10, we can assume that he is lying in order to gain favor with the now
powerful David. He has every reason to think that David will believe his story and reward him since he
has possession of Saul's crown and armlet as evidence. And, in fact, David does believe him
completely, and has him executed for his supposed part in the killing. 

Although the messenger had an Amelekite background, he was a second-generation resident-alien
 whose family had earlier allied their fate with the Jews (II Samuel 1:13) unlike the raiding Amelekite
tribes that David was pursuing. Kyle McCarter (II Samuel, p. 60) explains that such a resident-alien, or 
sojourner, “was neither a native nor a foreigner in legal status, but he had some of the privileges and 
responsibilities of each.  He was...accepted and protected by the community among whom he lived
more or less permanently...Pertinent here is the fact that a sojourner...was not exempt from the laws of
the community or to the penalties prescribed by them.” 

Because of the above reasons, David had even more reason to trust the messenger than he did the
servant of a raiding Amelekite he had earlier encountered in 1 Samuel 30:11-16, and David trusted that
servant with his life and the lives of all his men.