CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN PROVERBS AND OTHER SCRIPTURES

Two of Jim Goad's “30 Contradictions in the Bible” concern the book of Proverbs. The first pair of passages is shown below.

    Proverbs 12:22 – “Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”

    I Kings 22:23 – “So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these your prophets; the LORD has decreed disaster for you.”

To begin with, Waltke helps to define some of the phrases in the Proverbs passage: “An abomination to the LORD...signifies that liars so repulse his nature that he casts them aside. The synecdoche lying lips...refers to fools, whose unreliable character cause them to distort facts either unintentionally (12:17) and/or intentionally (vv. 19b, 20a).”

As to the apparent contradiction itself, Kaiser has dealt with it in some length, but only a few of his comments will be quoted here: “It is a known characteristic of popular conceptions to express in an imperatival and active form things which we understand only to be permitted...So here in I Kings 22:22, 'Go and do it' (i.e., deceive Ahab's false prophets) signifies only permission, not a command or sponsorship. What really took place then was that God allowed a lying spirit to speak through the false prophets to deceive Ahab, for that is what he has made up his mind he wanted to hear. The efficient cause of the deception was not God, but the lying spirit....Since Ahab had abandoned Yahweh his God, hardened his own heart, and determined to use prophecy for his own purposes, God allowed him to be ruined by the very instrument he sought to prostitute. Instead of using the heathen nations as his rod of chastisement (Isa. 10:5), he uses Ahab's false prophets.” In other words, this situation is no different that the times God “hardens” someone's heart. He is not creating the hardening but just accelerating the hardness which is already present.

Kaiser next critiques other approaches to remove the charge of lying from God which he believes are inadequate. These include the following:

    1. People and God Himself do not need to always adhere to the absolute truth, but can lie in unusual cases. (Rushdoony)

    2. Lying by God is not just a case of permission but is a purposeful act of God to bring punishment on a person through the evil that person does. (Bahr and Sumner)

    3. God does in fact work evil directly, but without willing it or bringing forth sin. (Keil)

The second pair of contradictory passages is:

    Proverbs 24:17 – “Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble.”

    Psalm 58:10-11 – “The righteous will rejoice when they see vengeance done; they will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”

One would think that these two passages could easily be compared against one another since they both belong to the same general class of the Poetry and Wisdom Books in the Bible. But that is not entirely true. One characteristic of the Psalms is that most of them primarily express the honest, unedited feelings and raw emotions of the Psalmist as he turns to God in joy, anger, frustration, thanks, etc.

In contrast, the proverbs are cast in the form of dispassionate school lessons given by a loving father to his young son which attempt to instill in him the general principles of wisdom which should guide his future actions in life.

Next, some comments regarding Proverbs 24 are in order:

“To be glad at the discomfiture of an enemy is to express hatred of him, and to provoke God by assuming prematurely that God is on one's side. Cf. xxv 21-22; Exod xxiii 4-5; Matt v 43-45).” (Scott)

Waltke adds, “In truth the proverb teaches that the LORD will not promote further moral ugliness by maintaining the situation that exacerbates it. His righteousness demands justice, but his holiness demands that he desist. The two wrongs of the wicked person's actions and the son's reaction offset one another. However, the proverb does not address the wrongs done to God. Other texts teach that those sins will be punished (11:21; 16:5)...One may legitimately hope for God to right wrongs (2 Tim. 4:14) and should celebrate when God's righteousness prevails, but one must not nurse malignant revenge (cf. 2 Sam. 1:10; Job 31:29; Ps. 35:11-15; Luke 19:41-44).”

I think all would be in agreement with the above sentiments. But the problem seems to come in with the bloodthirsty comments in Psalms 58. Besides keeping in mind the fact that it well expresses the Psalmist's honest feeling toward the wicked, here are some other things to keep in mind:

Anderson: “We need not whitewash sentiments which are obviously pre-Christian in more than one sense, but it would be equally wrong to misunderstand these Psalms. The wicked could well be described as breakers of the Covenant oath, and therefore the Psalmist simply asks God to take the evil-doers at their word; this is hardly different from taking action against a perjurer in modern courts. In the blood of the wicked: this is clearly a hyperbolic expression which affirms, in its own way, that the righteous will see the total defeat of wrong and evil.”

Tanner: “The words are harsh, and it is here that we get some idea of the depth of the suffering by the one praying...The injustice is so pervasive that other options have ceased to be possible. But the true resolution lies in v. 11, not in v. 10 and its gruesome imagery...The bloodbath signals the end of the old regime (as it does in Ezekiel 37 and the book of Revelation) in v. 10 and the beginning of a new age of God's justice in v. 11. This psalm could be labeled by some as un-Christian because of its harsh wishes (vv. 7-9) and its gloating literally in the blood of the wicked (v. 10). Its words are hard to hear, and its wishes certainly do not reflect an attitude of 'love your enemies.' Instead, it reflects the reality of human systems that are so polluted that there is nowhere to turn for justice...In this psalm, the audience, if it can release its judgmental reading, can look for a moment through the eyes of persons forced to reside in such systems...From this perspective, the audience can hear anew the call to God to end oppression and bring forth a kingdom of justice.”

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery has this to say in general concerning this sort of psalm: “The imprecatory psalms that call down curses on the poet's enemies present a variation on the revenge motif. The very fact that the speaker involves God to perform the vengeance reflects the omnipresent biblical premise that vengeance belongs to God (Prov 20:22; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30), yet the vividness with which the poet prays for vengeance shows that the wished-for revenge has a human component as well.”

We will again conclude with comments from Kaiser, who starts out by summarizing various unsatisfactory ways of downplaying the comments of the Psalmist:

    1. These Old Testament ideas are no longer applicable in an age of grace.

    2. These are not actual desires for someone's doom, but just a prediction of it happening.

    3. Only spiritual, not human, enemies are in view here.

    4. These are only the misguided feelings of uninspired authors.

He strikes down these approaches systematically and then turns to Chalmers Martin for a description of valid principles which should be kept in mind when we are reading the imprecatory psalms:

    1. These are expressions of the OT saint for the vindication of God's righteousness.

    2. These are utterances of great zeal for the coming of God and his kingdom.

    3. These are ways in which the authors indicate their absolute abhorrence of sin.

    4. They are humble requests to God that he do to the ungodly what he had already vowed to do if they persisted in their sin.

Somewhat unspoken but behind all of the above comments is the fact that Proverbs 24 appears to be directed to those who are seeking personal vengeance on personal enemies they have. But in Psalms 58, the speaker views these wicked people as primarily the enemy of God, not themselves, and wishes Him to be vindicated.

 

MUTILATION IN THE BIBLE

Danielle Candelora has a clever title to her article in BAR magazine concerning the practice of severing hands in the Ancient Near East: “Hands Off!” Archeologists have uncovered a dozen severed right hands buried in pits in the courtyard of the palace dating from the time the Hyksos were in control of Egypt (ca. 1650-1550 BC). And following that time in Egypt, one can see illustrated inscriptions in which great piles of hands are being counted in order to tally up the enemies killed in battle. There are also Egyptian accounts of the practice of soldiers presenting their ruler with such hands in order to receive appropriate rewards.

Then there are the prescribed punishments for crimes recorded in the Code of Hammurabi. According to that legislation there were three felonies which were to result in the loss of a hand: helping an escaped slave, medical malpractice, and striking one's father. Similar penalties of mutilation are found in the Assyrian Code. (Thompson) But what about such punishments being recorded in the Bible?

Of course there is the famous lex talionis (“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” – Deuteronomy 19:21). Whether or not that law was meant to always be taken literally, the intent was certainly that the punishment should match the crime, no more and no less. Only in that way could the community avoid the inevitable escalating blood feuds between tribes which could threaten to destroy the unity of Israel.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

But then we come up against this strangely specific piece of legislation involving a fight between two men in which the wife of one of them intervenes to save her husband by grabbing the genitals of his opponent. The punishment for such an action is for the woman to have that hand cut off.

Craigie points out that “for obvious reasons, given the different sexes of the persons involved in the incident, the lex talionis could not be applied literally. It may be that the very particular piece of casuistic law is intended as a example of how lex talionis was able to be interpreted when it could not be applied literally.”

DeSilva notes that “Deuteronomy 25:1-12 strings together three case laws in which the shaming of the offender is a prominent element of the punishment for specific infractions, making the treatment of the offender a deterrent to future infractions.”

And within this section, Ames states, “Structural and thematic affinities link vv. 5-10 and vv. 11-12, which together warn that neither man nor woman should endanger the production of an heir.” As a reminder, the earlier regulation in verses 5-10 makes a provision for a childless widow to have a child by her brother-in-law.

But why such a harsh sentence? Levinson points out, “Physical mutilation (characteristic in the Middle Assyrian Laws) is nowhere else prescribed in the general formula for talion (19:21; Ex 21.23-24; Lev 24.19-20). And Tomasino says, “While the penalty of maiming or disfigurement was common in ANE [i.e. Ancient Near East] law codes, this is the only case in biblical law (apart from the lex talionis, Deut 19:21) prescribing such a penalty.”

The reason for such harshness appears to be obvious to most commentators. Thus, Sprinkle says: “Not only a breach of modesty and an unfair 'blow below the belt,' this act threatened the man's ability to father children.” But he adds, without proof, “She could probably ransom her hand [i.e. by paying an appropriate fine].”

Similarly, Tomasino says, “It should also be noted that this severe penalty was not inspired primarily by excessive Israelite modesty; in a society where offspring were valued as highly as they were in ancient Israel, damaging a man's reproductive potential was one of the most heinous crimes.”

Albright and Mann remark, “Deut xxv 11-12 explicitly allows for the punishment of cutting off the hand, significantly in connection with an obscene act by a woman. Rabbinic literature [from a much later date] contains expressions denoting that certain acts by the hand deserve the punishment of mutilation.”

Judges 1:6-7

The tribes of Judah and Simeon enter into battle with the Canaanites at Bezek. The enemy leader Adoni-bezek is captured, and the Israelites cut off his thumbs and big toes. He admits that it is only appropriate treatment since had done the same thing to 70 kings he had conquered.

Webb: The enemy general is condemned out of his own mouth as a sadistic tyrant who has been treated exactly as he deserved (strict retributive justice), and his punishment is attributed directly to God...In terms of its function in the narrative, this brief speech offers us an apology (in the technical sense) for what is an undeniably gruesome punishment.”

Boling feels this was done “to prevent his ever taking up arms again, and in anticipation of his dispatch to Jerusalem for the purpose of instilling fear at Jerusalem.”

II Samuel 4:12

After Saul's death, two Israelites take it on their own to kill one of his remaining sons, cutting off his head and presenting it to David in expectation of a reward. But instead, David has them executed for such an act, cuts off their hands and feet, and hangs the body up for all to see. McKenzie notes that this sort of ritual execution was reserved for traitors. McCarter feels that David was performing this public act in order to dispel any feelings that he may have ordered the original murder himself.

Matthew 5:29; 18:8-9 and parallels

Jesus' command to cut off any member of your body which offends you or causes you to sin has been interpreted in several different ways by commentators who are rightly concerned at the apparent harshness of this teaching. First are those who take a “corporate” view of His words:

Hill feels that perhaps “the position of these sayings in this context reflects the early application of them to the excommunication of unworthy members (or false teachers) from the Christian body.”

And Horsley expresses the opinion that this is part of “A series of warnings addressed not to the individual but to the movement and its communities about internal discipline. Whoever causes a member to stumble in whatever way must be disciplined (perhaps expelled).”

Secondly are a number of scholars who feel that Jesus' teachings here, as often elsewhere, are to be taken as examples of hyperbole.

One such scholar is William Hendricksen, who states that “he exaggerates to make his point, this time by the use of a shocking but well-recognized metaphor of self-mutilation...(which is forbidden in Deut 14:1)...H.D. Betz provides ample evidence that in both Hellenistic and rabbinic literature 'exaggerated demands to cut off limbs from the body as a sign of seriousness about morality were commonplace.'”

And as to the metaphorical and corporate interpretation, Hendricksen has this to say in debunking that view:

“The whole warning is expressed in the second-person singular: it is for individual disciples to work out for themselves...This fact stands against the interpretation, suggested by the corporate concern of the discourse as a whole, that these two verses are speaking metaphorically of the need for the community to cut out from its membership those individuals who are causes of stumbling to others. Such a reading (which goes back to Origen) would follow well from vv. 6-7 [of chapter 18], but could hardly have been expressed in the singular and would be quite inappropriate to the parallel saying of 5:59-30.”

The bottom line is that Christians are certainly not left with any clear biblical teachings that would indicate God's approval of bodily mutilation of others or ourselves today.

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN MATTHEW AND THE OTHER GOSPELS

One favorite ploy used by atheists is to point out tiny differences in wording and minor contradictions between the four Gospel in order to discredit their historicity. Thus, below are two examples provided by Jim Goad in his “30 Contradictions in the Bible.”

Matthew 17:1 vs. Luke 9:28

These two parallel verses are part of the description of the Transfiguration. Matthew's version reads, “Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain by themselves.” By the way, Mark's wording is identical here.

By contrast, we read in Luke 9:28, “Now about eight days after these sayings, Jesus took...etc., etc.”

The apparent two-day discrepancy between these accounts is hardly enough basis to throw away your Bibles in disgust, but apparently Goad feels it provides powerful evidence against the historical accuracy of the Gospels. Here is how various scholars respond to this contradiction, beginning with various commentators on Matthew and Mark.

“'After six days' stands out as a more precise temporal connection than Matthew provides elsewhere. In view of the themes of mountain, glory, and cloud which will follow, it is possible that it is intended to reflect the 'six days' during which the cloud of God's glory covered Mount Sinai in Exod 4:16...Several features of this pericope recall Moses' ascent of Mount Sinai.” (France) This explanation would fit in well with the known theme of Matthew picturing Jesus as the new Moses.

Alternatively, France notes, “It is more likely that this period of roughly a week (Luke says 'about eight days') is mentioned to show that the experience on the mountain followed closely after Jesus' prediction about seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingship...”

And as Blomberg simply notes: “'After six days' and 'about eight days' (Luke 9:28) both refer to a week later.” Similarly, D. Hill says that 'after six days' is the same as saying 'on the seventh day.'” Hill also cites Bonnard as claiming “that the allusion is to the six days which separated the Day of Atonement from the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles...There is another allusion to Tabernacles in verse 4.”

“The expression 'six days later' is not in conflict with Luke 9:28, 'about eight days after these sayings.' Luke may have included both the day of Peter's confession and that of Christ's transfiguration when he wrote as he did; besides, he does not intend to be precise, for he says 'about eight days.' Matthew and Mark may have used the exclusive method of time computation, referring only to the six intervening days.”

Then, Marcus in commenting on Mark 9:2 states: “Origen links our phrase with the Genesis account of the creation of the world in six days, culminating with the Sabbath on the seventh.” If that is so, then perhaps Peter's comment (“It is good for us to be here”) in Mark 9:5 is an echo of God's comment on the sixth day as recorded in Gen. 1:31 (“God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good”).

Turning to Luke's account, we have the following comments:

“About 8 days may merely indicate the passage of a week, but in the early church 'the eighth day' became a designation for both the Lord's day and the day of Jesus' resurrection, the first day of a new creation.” (Soards)

“The 'eight days' may be nothing more than a rounded-off way of saying,'about a week later.' It is scarcely likely that Luke 2:21 has anything to do with this dating. On the other hand, we cannot exclude an allusion to Lev 23:36, the passage that tells how the Feast of Booths should be celebrated and its indication of time; for an allusion to this feast see v. 33.” (Fitzmyer)

Matthew 27:13-14 vs. John 18:33-34

Our critic Jim Goad next turns to the supposed contradiction between these two accounts of Jesus' trial. The apparent problem is that Matthew states that Jesus didn't defend himself against the charges brought against him while John records a rather lengthy exchange between Him and Pilate on the subject. This sort of accusation against the veracity of the biblical narratives pops up all the time in pitting one Gospel account against another. But often, as in this case, the solution can be easily seen with the use of a Harmony of the Gospels which lists in parallel columns the four narratives so that they can be compared against one another more easily.

Of course, a certain amount of judgment goes into the compiling such harmonies, and they do not all agree with one another 100%. Nevertheless, they can be quite valuable in providing a stereoscopic view of the narrative's flow in order to answer such uninformed comments as Goad's regarding the order of events. Below is a reconstructed chronological view of the pertinent events taking place during Jesus' trial, based on Robertson's popular Harmony of the Gospels.

    Pilate asks Jesus whether he is the King of the Jews.

        (Matt. 27:11a; Mark 15:2a; Luke 23:3a; John 18:33)

    Jesus replies to Pilate.

        (Matt. 27:11b; Mark 15:2b; Luke 23:3b; John 18:34-37)

    Pilate announces that he finds no fault with Jesus.

        (Luke 23:4; John 18:38)

    The Jewish leaders then accuse Jesus of many things.

        (Matt 27:12a; Mark 15:3)

    Jesus makes no reply to such charges.

        (Matt 27:12b-14; Mark 15:4-5)

You will note that although not all of the information is provided in all four accounts, when the information is present it is given in the same chronological order with absolutely no contradiction. Goad's problem was in mistakenly stating that Jesus could not have been unresponsive to all the charges (as in Matthew 27:12b-14 and Mark 15:4-5) when that statement only referred to the later accusations made by the Jewish leaders, and not at all to Pilate's earlier questioning of Him.

Actually, if Goad had only cited Mark 15:4-5 instead of Matthew 27:12b-14, that “contradiction” could have been cleared up before it was even presented since that former passage clearly reads, “But Jesus made no further answer.” I somehow doubt that this omission was accidental on Goad's part.

WHAT GOD HATES

We are so used to characterizing God as a loving God that it may come as a shock to some that He is also said to hate or despise something or someone in a surprising number of places in the Bible. Below is a more or less complete listing of those hated things in the order they appear in Scripture. Most of these require no further explanation, but a few do. In those latter instances, I have attached some comments, mainly from the scholarly literature.

    Deuteronomy 12:31 – every abhorrent thing people do for their gods, including human sacrifices

“Both Ahaz (2 Chr. 28:3) and Manasseh (2 k. 21:6) were guilty of child sacrifice. Just as here in Deuteronomy, the crime is described as one that could lead to expulsion from the land (see v. 30), as in fact it happened with the northern kingdom (2 K. 17:17-18). To assume the right to sacrifice a child was to assume a prerogative that was God's alone, the prerogative over human life. In the fullness of time, God exercised that prerogative in the offering of his only Son as a complete sacrifice for the sins of men.” (Craigie)

    Deuteronomy 16:21-22 – planting a tree as a sacred pole beside God's altar or setting up a stone pillar

These were in fact Canaanite cultic objects (see Deuteronomy 7:5; 12:3; Exodus 34:13) and therefore what God is objecting to is the introduction of synchretism into pure Israelite worship of Yahweh.

These first two examples seem to illustrate the commonplace statement that “God hates the sin but loves the sinner.” But that facile motto scarcely gives the whole story, as demonstrated by the following people from the Psalms whom God is said to hate:

    Psalm 5:5 – all evildoers

    Psalm 11:5 – the lover of violence

    Psalm 31:6 – those who pay regard to worthless idols

Getting back to hated behavior, we come upon the following:

    Psalm 45:7 – wickedness

    Proverbs 6:16-19 provides us with a whole poetic litany of things that God feels are an abomination to Him. The first five on the list are expressed poetically in terms of human anatomy. These despised things include:

        haughty eyes

        a lying tongue

        hands that shed innocent blood

        a heart that devises wicked plans

        feet that hurry to run to evil

They are followed by two types of people whom God hates:

        a false witness

        one who sows discord in a family.

    Isaiah 1:13-14 – the Israelites' new moons and festivals

    Isaiah 61:8 – robbery and wrongdoings

Alternatively, NRSV suggests the translation “robbery with a burnt offering.” Thus, as in Isaiah 1:13-14, it was not the very religious practices which God had instituted that were the objects of His hatred, but the fact that they were carried out by people who were continuing to sin egregiously at the same time.

    Jeremiah 12:8 – “my heritage, my house”

D.R. Jones explains that “'heritage' in the Deuteronomic writings is a regular description of Canaan, the promised land, and of Israel as the subject of the promise. This makes it marginally more likely that 'house' here refers to Israel rather than to the Temple.” “Yahweh's heritage has acted like a lion in the forest 'roaring defiance' at her Lord...Such a reaction is hateful to Yahweh, and such lions have to be destroyed.” (Thompson)

    Jeremiah 44:4 – serving other gods

    Hosea 9:15 – those at Gilgal because of their wicked deeds

What is God talking about here? Gilgal was condemned as being “the site of illicit worship (4:15; 12:11; Am 4:4; 5:5). Also, at Gilgal the LORD reluctantly acceded to the people's request for a king (1 Sam 10:14-11.25).” (Mobley)

Andersen and Freedman add, “The verb [hate] describes the hostility of a broken covenant relationship.” And Dearman states that “a number of interpreters have seen in 9:15 an allusion to his [Saul's] failed leadership and an institutional criticism of the monarchy.”

    Amos 5:21 – Jewish festivals and solemn assemblies

This denunciation of the people is quite similar to that in Isaiah 1:13-14. In this particular case it is the combination of paying attention to the required religious observances while coupling it with lack of justice and righteousness in the land, as clearly expressed in Amos 5:24.

    Amos 6:8 – the pride of Jacob and his strongholds

“God's response to their pride is stated in strong terms filled with the agony of pathos. God loathes, detests, abhors, and hates this kind of attitude...God detests the palace-fortresses because the people trust in them and center their life around the luxury and violence within them (Amos 2:6-8; 3:9-10; 4:1; 5:10-13; 6:1-7). God is no longer the sovereign power that controls their personal or national life. The mighty fortress is their god.” (Gary Smith)

    Zechariah 8:17 – devising evil and uttering false oaths

    Malachi 1:3 – Esau

This is the only case in which a particular person is singled out for hatred. However, it is widely believed that the statement occurs as part of a Hebrew idiom in which phrases such as “hate X and love Y” really means to love Y more than X. We see Jesus using the same sort of phraseology in Matthew 6:24 when he states that no man can serve two masters for he will hate the one and love the other.

That we cannot take Malachi 1:3 as strictly literal is seen in the fact that God did, in fact, bless Esau abundantly in earthly wealth even though he did not inherit God's spiritual blessing.

    Malachi 2:16 – divorce and covering one's garments with violence

    Romans 9:13 – Paul quotes from Malachi 1:3 above, using it as an example of God's sovereign choice.

    Hebrews 1:9 – wickedness

    Jude 23 – “the tunic defiled by their body”

Michael Green explains that “Jude's readers are invited to 'show mercy, mixed with fear...hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.' That is to say, they are to have pity upon even the most abandoned heretic, but to exercise great care while getting alongside him lest they themselves become defiled...The idea seems to be that they are so corrupt that their very clothes are defiled. This is, of course, a hyperbole, but one with plenty of scriptural background.” See Leviticus 13:47-52; Isaiah 61:10; 64:6; Zechariah 3:34; and Revelation 3:4; 7:14.

    Revelation 2:6 – the works of the Nicolaitans

We are somewhat at an disadvantage in not knowing exactly the details of all the heretical ideas circulating at that time and place in history, but Beale says, “The Nicolaitans taught that some degree of participation in the idolatrous culture of Ephesus was permissible” since the “city's prosperous economy was partly dependent on trade associated with that [city's pagan] temple (Acts 19:23-24).” If he is correct in this assertion, then this is another example of synchretism as seen in Amos 5.

Finally, to balance this list out, even more consistently given in the Bible (all in the Psalms) are those people and things which God does not despise:

    Psalms 22:24 – the affliction of the afflicted

    Psalms 51:17 – a broken and contrite heart

    Psalms 69:33 – his own who are in bondage

    Psalm 102:17 – the prayer of the destitute

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

 After the return from exile, there was a great deal of conflict between those resettling in the area around Jerusalem and the more heterogeneous peoples inhabiting what was formerly the Northern Kingdom. The latter, known as Samaritans, developed their own brand of Judaism which was considered heretical by the Israelites of Judea.

“The Samaritan creed has six articles: Belief in one God, in Moses the prophet, in the Law, in Mt. Gerizim as the place appointed by God for sacrifice (cf. Samaritan reading on Dt. xxxvii. 4), in the day of judgment and recompense, and in the return of Moses as Taheb, or restorer (something akin to the Messiah.) Their belief in the resurrection is problematical...The Samaritan Pentateuch, despite theological modification, is a very important witness to the original text.” (Gelston) Note that the Pentateuch (in their version) was the only part of the Hebrew Bible they accepted as authoritative.

Since most of this short article involves issues of textual criticism, I will shorten it somewhat by using the standard abbreviations for the various major OT types: the standard Hebrew text (MT), the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Dead Sea scrolls (Q for Qumran), and Samaritan Pentateuch (SP).

The major differences between SP and MT have been summarized by P.J. Williams: “The extant manuscripts of the SP date from around the twelfth century A.D. and later, though like the MT, the SP has in general been faithfully transmitted.” [If that relatively late date concerns anyone, it is believed that 'the final revision of the SP probably dates to the latter part of the second century B.C.' according to R.T. Anderson and others.]

“In comparison with the MT, the SP contains...a number of features that seem to be updatings of linguistically archaic forms. The text is also often expansionistic. In particular, formulas from parallel passages are inserted to make the text in a given instance include information included elsewhere...The main sectarian variants in the SP are as follows. Twenty-one times when Deuteronomy refers to the place which God 'will choose' (ybhr) the SP reads 'chose' (bhr), indicating that Gerizim is the place already chosen by God, not Jerusalem, which would be chosen in the future from the point of view of the Pentateuch (see also SP's 'in the place where I have caused my name to be remembered' in Ex 20:24, where the MT has 'in every place where I shall cause my name to be remembered').” Also, the listings of the Ten Commandments are altered so that the last commandment becomes one to build an altar on Mt. Gerizim.

As Brotzman and Tully summarize: “Having adopted a distinct Hebrew text of the Pentateuch, scribes of the Samaritan religious sect revised it according to their own theological position.”

Wurthwein enumerates the differences between SP and MT as follows, stating that the latter “was established with the aid of early manuscripts that were then available, and in contrast to the widely used popular texts of the period, of which the Samaritan Pentateuch survives as an example, it gives the impression of greater age and value...At Qumran three groups of text may be distinguished; these are related to the SP, the LXX, and the MT, respectively.”

“The problem of the SP is that it differs from MT in some six thousand instances,” although most difference are trivial and others can be easily discarded because they obviously were changes made to justify Samaritan practices, mainly emphasizing Mt. Gerazin as the official place to worship God, “yet it is significant that in about 1,900 instances SP agrees with LXX against MT.”

And there are other differences between SP and MT. As one example, SP uses a singular verb form with elohim in Genesis 20:13 rather than the Hebrew plural. The intent, no doubt is to remove any hint of polytheism in the text. Also, concerning OT chronology, the ages of the early patriarchs match up roughly when comparing SP, LXX, and MT.

But Merrill points out one definite difference in chronology – the length of Israel's sojourn in Egypt, as mentioned in Exodus 12:40-41. “Both traditions agree that the exodus occurred after a period of 430 years, but the LXX and SP include within this time frame the Egyptian period and the preceding years of the patriarchs in Canaan...This example provides prime facie evidence for the priority of the MT and the tendency of the LXX (and SP as well) to resolve real or imagined chronological difficulties in the MT.”

Besides providing scholars with another ancient manuscript tradition surrounding the OT text, the SP may also figure into our understanding of several NT passages:

Anderson notes that SP may lie behind Stephen's speech in Acts 7, especially in verses 4, 5, 32, and 37. This speech “has other indications of sensitivity to Samaritans. He emphasized Samaritan heroes and modified the Hebrew text in favor of Samaritan concerns. Many scholars deduce that he is either of Samaritan background or targeting an audience of Samaritan background.”

Chavalas says, “It is possible that Luke was using the LXX or SP [in Acts 7:4], where Terah is stated to have died at the age of 145.” Note that it is equally possible that Stephen was simply quoting from the Septuagint. Also, Wurthwein expresses the opinion that “Presumably the New Testament depends upon a Greek Pentateuch which was similar to SP at these points.” However, I find it of interest that the very next chapter of Acts describes the Gospel being spread to the Samaritans.

R.E. Brown explains how John 4, the conversation of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well, fits into the Samaritan beliefs outlined above: “ Samaritans did not expect a Messiah in the sense of an anointed king of the Davidic house...the conversation in John iv 19-25 fits the Samaritan concept of the Taheb as a teacher of the Law, even though the more familiar Jewish designation of Messiah is planted on the woman's lips...the contrast between worship in Jerusalem or on Gerizim and worship in Spirit and truth is part of the familiar Johannine dualism between earthly and heavenly...Jesus is speaking of the eschatological replacement of temporal institutions like the Temple...In ii 21 it was Jesus himself who was to take the place of the Temple, and here it is the Spirit given by Jesus that is to animate the worship that replaces worship at the Temple.”

Merrill points out that in Galatians 3:16-17, the apostle Paul appears to support the understanding of the 430 years of the Egyptian sojourn as including the preceding years of the patriarchs in Canaan. But here again, that concept appears in LXX as well as SP, so it is impossible to tell which of these two sources Paul was utilizing.

Lastly, there is the case of Hebrews 9:3-4 involving a rather technical issue as to exactly where the incense-altar was to be placed. The author of Hebrews apparently “used a text of LXX [of Exodus 30] which had the same order as the SP, and that this explains his assigning the incense-altar to the holy of holies.” (Bruce)

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN II KINGS AND II CHRONICLES

Jim Goad must feel that the following two “contradictions” are important enough to be listed in his top 30 contradictions in the Bible even though they both concern differences in numbers that have no effect on the meaning of the passage. Since this issue involves textual criticism, I will remind the reader that the abbreviation MT indicates the Masoretic Text (the standard form of the Hebrew Bible) and LXX stands for the Septuagint (the early Greek translation). Also, since the problems involve numbers, it is probably appropriate for me to reiterate here two points I have stressed in other posts:

    1. In general, words and sentences have a certain amount of redundancy built into them. This means that a careless scribe may make any number of accidental mistakes in copying a biblical text, but most of them can be easily cleared up by subsequent scribes to restore the original wording. As a simple made-up example, what does the following highly corrupted text mean?

                I GDSLVE

With a little thought, one can probably figure out that it should read: “I am God's slave.” The missing verb must agree with the singular first-person “I.” And since there is no word in English which contains all the letters “gdslve,” it should be divided into two different words. If the context is a religious one, then it is natural to assume that “gd” stands for God or god. If gdslve did not have “I” preceding it, then it could possibly stand for “God's love” instead, but “God's slave” makes more sense in this case.

Now consider this hypothetical case instead:

                I BEGAN MY SCHOOLING WHEN I WAS 16 YEARS OLD.

This sentence appears to be complete, but it brings up the logical question as to whether the person speaking was severely retarded or perhaps a very bright student who entered college at that age. In either case, we would need much more information before knowing if “16” was correct or not. In lieu of that extra information, we would be rightly suspicious that a mistake in copying had occurred.

    2. The second principle we must always keep in mind comes into play when two parallel passages in the Bible are present, such as occurs between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, or between the four Gospel accounts. When one reads two versions of the same event and comes across minor discrepancies (such as we will discuss below) between the two, there are two reactions we can have toward that problem. The skeptical reader, Jim Goad in this case, will latch on to the difference and make the blanket statement that it just goes to show that we can't trust anything in the Bible to be factual. But interestingly, that is not at all how real Bible scholars view the situation.

These scholars rightly point out that the important thing is whether the event actually took place or whether it was simply created by the author to make some theological point he had in mind. And when you get two different authors relating the same event but using somewhat different wording or even including minor details which are in conflict with one another, that is a powerful piece of evidence indicating that actually two entirely different ancient traditions have captured the same historical event, not just one. So such minor differences should actually strengthen our confidence in the text as a witness to real, not created, events.

With that background in mind, here are two sets of parallel passages to examine:

II Kings 8:26 vs. II Chronicles 22:2

    The II Kings passage reads, “Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign.”

    II Chronicles reads instead, “Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.”

Although there is no doubt that Azahiah became king, we are left in some confusion as to how old he was when he began to reign. Obviously, there as been a mistake made by a scribe somewhere early in the process of the ancient texts being copied. But which version is correct and how did the other one arise in the first place?

The first of these questions is by far the easiest to answer due to the additional information we have in the Bible. As most commentators will point out, we know that Ahaziah inherited the throne when his father died at age 40 (see II Chronicles 21:20). So if II Chronicles 22:2 were correct, that would make Ahaziah two years older than his own father.

Early scholars such as Keil and Rudolph treat the II Chronicles version as “a simple case of scribal error, for which various explanations are possible, depending on what system of recording numerals is presupposed.” (Williamson)

But there is a more generally accepted explanation for how the error arose. Myers presents the most complete likely scenario: “II Kings viii 26 has '22 years.' The chief LXX witnesses have '20,' while there is some minor support for '22,' which may be due to the influence of MT of II Kings viii 26. The MT of Chronicles may represent the conflation of two traditions and exhibits a striking example of the effort to preserve two divergent traditions. Originally the numbers were kept separate, e.g. 22 or 20, and only later added together [i.e. accidentally].” Thus, we may have an interesting case in which the extreme care the scribes took to preserve all available traditions actually boomeranged, resulting in a clear contradiction between the two parallel accounts.

II Kings 24:8 vs. II Chronicles 36:9

Here is a somewhat similar question involving the correct age at which a certain Israelite man became king.

    II Kings reads, “Jehoiachin was eight and ten years old when he began to reign. He reigned three months in Jerusalem”

    II Chronicles has, “Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign. He reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem.”

There are good reasons for supposing that II Kings has again preserved the most likely text. As Hulst points out, II Kings 24:15 informs us additionally that Jehoiachin was married at the time, highly unlikely if he was only eight years old!

And to answer the question as to how the error in II Chronicles might have crept in accidentally, Williamson says, “The present text has arisen by a simple scribal error....It has probably arisen by mistake from a marginal correction of the error earlier in the verse.” Thus, scribe #1 began with a faulty text like that in II Kings but accidentally leaving out “and ten.” So he amended it by placing those missing words in the margin. Then scribe #2 saw those words in the margin of the text he was working from and proceeded to insert it into his own copy. But he didn't know where “and ten” properly belonged and wrongly inserted it after “three months,” adding “days” to make sense of it. Then that error was perpetuated by subsequent generations of scribes.

In both of the examples above, you can see how the scholars called textual critics use all of the information at hand in preparing the most accurate translations from the original languages when there appears to be a discrepancy. And those resources include: (a) comparison of all ancient manuscripts, (b) using common sense to eliminate patent impossibilities in the text, (c) employing pertinent information found elsewhere in the Bible, and (d) figuring out what the most likely scenario was for errors to have arisen in the first place.

MILK AND HONEY IN THE BIBLE

This ubiquitous combination in the Old Testament refers, of course, to the Promised Land of Canaan. Although we commonly think of honey as coming from bees, in the OT setting it was more likely to refer to a thick syrup prepared from grapes, pomegranates or figs. As to “milk,” that usually referred to goat milk.

Olivier says the following regarding the combination of the two terms: “The expression reflects the wealth and natural fertility of Canaan. Both milk and honey are the best products of a land rich in natural vegetation. Since debas also refers to sweet syrup, i.e., the epitomy of the agricultural yield, and milk that of animal husbandry, it has been argued that the expression represents the different ways in which people subsisted in the Promised Land in contrast to peoples in Egypt and Babylonia. The expression 'a land flowing with milk and honey' forms an integral part of Israel's credo and constitutes the symbol of God's favor.”

As to the complete phrase, we first encounter it in Exodus 3:8 where God also promises Moses that he will deliver his people from bondage and take them to “a good and broad land.” The offer of this land of milk and honey is to be communicated to the elders of the people (Exodus 3:17).

The next time the description is utilized is in the context of the institution of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 13:5). But there are additional occasions in which it pops up when God institutes various commemorations of special events: the First Fruits celebration (Deuteronomy 26:9), when the words of the law are inscribed on a stone monument after the Jews first cross over the Jordan River into the Holy Land (Deuteronomy 27:3), and when all the males are circumcised upon entering the land (Joshua 5:6).

Then there are those occasions when some of the Israelites rebel against Moses' leadership. After judgment falls on the offenders, God takes the opportunity to reassure the remainder of the people that His promise still holds. This happens in Exodus 33:3 where God adds the proviso that from that point on, He will not be leading them personally.

And when they actually are on the border of Canaan but get cold feet, Joshua and Caleb plead unsuccessfully with the people not to turn back (Numbers 14:8) This defection on the part of the Israelites was due to the mixed report from the spies, who not only brought back examples of the abundant fruit of the land (source of “honey”), but also scared them with exaggerated stories of the strength of the inhabitants.

Later, Dathan and Abiram lead a rebellion against the constituted leadership, presenting an interesting slant on the “milk and honey” theme by telling Moses that he had not only taken them from Egypt, “a land of milk and honey,” but had not kept is promise to lead them to such a land. (Numbers 16:12-14)

We should also remember that, despite what some theologians claim, the promise of this land was not really a unilateral one, but contained stipulations for the Israelites which some commentators tend to downplay. Thus, this gift of a land of milk and honey was contingent upon the Israelites obeying God's statutes “so that the land will not vomit you out.” (Leviticus 20:24)

And in Deuteronomy 6:3, Moses repeats that adherence to God's rules is necessary in order that “it may go well with you and you may multiply greatly. Similarly, these are the conditions “so that you may live long in the land.” (Deuteronomy 11:9)

And toward the end of the Pentateuch, in Deuteronomy 31:20, God instructs Moses to write the song recorded in Chapter 32 and recite it to the people. It contains the prediction that the Israelites will turn to foreign gods after they have occupied this land of milk and honey and will suffer the inevitable consequences.

But the prophets continue to use the phrase “land flowing with milk and honey” to remind the Israelites of their past and present failings. For example, Jeremiah (11:5) is told by God to repeat to the people of Jerusalem that He had told them to obey the provisions of the covenant when they began to live in the land, but they refused to listen. Therefore they should not be surprised at their future fate at the hands of their enemies. Similarly, God recaps for Ezekiel (20:6, 5) the checkered history of the Israelites in the wilderness and warns against future rebellious behavior.

Other Occurrences

But this does not exhaust all those cases in the Old Testament in which the combination of milk and honey (or similar wording) appears. And these may or may not be subtle reminders of the Promised Land.

In Samuel 17:29 we learn that King David and his troops beat a hasty retreat, crossing the Jordan River to the eastern side in order to elude Absalom's advancing army. In a way, this is a reversal of the time when the Israelites first entered the Promised Land by crossing the Jordan in the opposite direction. And just as the phrase “milk and honey” was mentioned prominently on that earlier occasion, as David arrives on the other side, he and his followers are greeted by sympathetic landowners who shower them with “honey and curds, sheep, and cheese.” The only difference is that instead of milk, the related dairy products of curds and cheese are waiting for them.

Turning to the Poetic Books of the OT, we come across Zophar's somewhat exaggerated notion that God always brings an earthly punishment to the wicked: “They will not look on the rivers, the streams flowing with honey and curds.” (Job 20:17) Pope notes, “Oil, butter, milk, and honey were for the symbols and substance of plenty.”

And going even further afield, the lover in Song of Songs 4:11 describes the heroine using the following words: “Your lips distil nectar, my bride, honey and milk are under your tongue.” Commentators have had a field-day with this statement, as they have with practically every verse of this difficult book. And, somewhat surprisingly, several scholars seriously connect the comment with the “land flowing with milk and honey.”

“Canaan was a land of milk and honey (cf. Exod. 3:8). It was a land of joy, blessing, and satisfaction that God graciously provided for the nation of Israel. It was a land of sweetness to a people who had been enslaved for over four hundred years. Solomon found immeasurable joy in the deep, long, and intimate kisses of his bride.” (Akin)

Snaith feels that it “is however, is possible that sweetness of speech is intended.”

“The reference to her lips dripping sweetness and the milk and honey under her tongue could be alluding to her speech. Her words are sweet, gentle, mellifluous and even seductive...But it is more likely that the reference is to the lovers' deep kissing...Of course, 'milk and honey' are standard symbols of the land of Palestine. The land to be possessed was a 'land flowing with milk and honey.' Perhaps this theme of anticipation can be traced in their kissing together.” (Gledhill)

Pope: “'Honey and milk' is perhaps a reverse echo of the characterization of the Land of Promise as flowing milk and honey.”

“These two liquids seem to indicate luxury, wealth, and abundance...It is doubtful in the extreme that the reader is to think of Israel as they read this description of the woman's mouth.” (Longman)

I have left the two most difficult passages for the last. In Isaiah 7:15 is the famous prediction of a coming son named Immanuel: “He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.” This is followed in Isaiah 7:22 in which a time is described where everyone left in the land shall eat curds and honey. All this was predicted at a time when the land was under attack by Israel's enemies.

Besides the controversy regarding the exact identity of the child and the historical and theological significance of these statements, is the question as to whether it is a positive or negative oracle. Oswalt concludes: “To be sure, curds and honey are not the bread and wine of a cultivated land, but they are still a desirable food. Although Ahaz, through his policies dictated by human wisdom, will have plunged the land to disaster, nonetheless God is still with his people, and the survivors of Ahaz's act, few though they be, will be provided for.”

And Blenkinsopp says that curds and honey are “choice fare, difficult to obtain during a siege; by the time the child is weaned (two or three years) the northern allies will have been totally defeated and the land (of milk and honey) will return to the prosperity it enjoyed under David and Solomon.”

IS THERE A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN MATTHEW 5:16 AND MATTHEW 6:1?

One of Jim Goad's “30 Pairs of Bible Verses that Contradict One Another” involves the above two verses from Matthew's Gospel. You should be especially suspicious of anyone who claims that the same author would contradict his own words. And that holds doubly true for the above pair since it concerns the words of Jesus Christ delivered within the same Sermon on the Mount.

Here is how each of these passages reads in the NRSV:

    “In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

    “Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 6:1)

One could probably find a distinction between “good works” and “piety” in order to make the seeming contradiction disappear, but that would be nitpicking. And it is not all necessary since there is a much easier explanation ready at hand.

Calling this a contradiction is only possible when one blindly refuses to consider all of the words in each passage. Thus, it is easy to argue that “shine your light (i.e., good works) before others” and “beware of practicing your piety before others” presents a clear quandary. But that is not at all what Jesus is teaching since it totally leaves out the motives behind each action.

    In Matthew 5:16, Jesus instructs people to do so in order that God will get the glory.

    However, in Matthew 6:1, He warns them against doing the exact same thing so that others will see and praise them.

The distinction lies entirely between the contrasting reasons motivating the same action. We see the same emphasis on motive elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount:

    Almsgiving is to be done in private, not in the streets so that others will praise you. (Matt. 6:2)

    Do not pray like the hypocrites at the street corners to be seen by others. (Matt. 6:5)

    Do not pray with empty phrases so that others will hear you. (Matthew 6:7)

    Do not fast in such a way that others can see you are fasting. (Matthew 6:16)

None of the above teachings indicates that we should abandon the practices of giving, prayer or fasting, just that these signs of piety and good works must be done for the proper motives.

The above is my personal take on the question, but I turned to the commentators to make sure I wasn't totally off-base in my understanding. Such reality checks are constantly necessary for us in order to avoid relying exclusively on whatever ideas first pop into our heads regarding spiritual matters. Here is what others have to say on the subject:

    Blomberg: “This verse [Matt. 5:16] does not contradict 6:1 because there the motive for good behavior in public is self-glorification rather than bringing glory to God...That which is done solely or primarily for personal honor or gain may accomplish its objective (v. 26), but God will grant no further reward...In striking contrast stands the common approach to fund raising in many churches and Christian organization in which lists of benefactors are published, often as an incentive for people to give. This kind of motive for giving or soliciting reflects hypocrisy (v. 2), pretending to honor God when in fact one is distracting attention from him.”

    Hill: “The word 'piety' (lit. 'righteousness') denotes the totality of religious duties, summed up under alms, prayer and fasting...the reward of unostentatious piety remains in the hands of God, and he himself will give it. It is probable that the idea of 'merit' is involved here, for the chief means of acquiring merit was, in the eyes of Jews, the practice of almsgiving, prayer and fasting.”

    Nixon: “V. 1 links up the idea of reward with the previous passage. It shows that the motive is what counts in religious observances as well as in morals.”

    Barbieri: “righteousness is not primarily a matter between a person and others, but between a person and God...One cannot be rewarded, as the Pharisees expected, by both man and God.”

    Hendricksen: “It is a fine thing that these good works are seen by men. That is exactly what Jesus wants. Rightly considered, it is even what those who perform them want, but not in order to gain honor for themselves in the sense of 6:1,5,16...But is not this exhortation [6:1] in conflict with 5:16?...It is not, for the purpose commended in 5:16 was to secure praise for the Father...On the other hand, the purpose of the hypocrites, referred to in 6:1ff., is to obtain praise for themselves.”

DOES A CHRISTIAN EVER HAVE TO ASK GOD FOR FORGIVENESS? (I JOHN 1:9)

                                                     Repent (assemblage, 2010)

I once attended an adult Sunday school class in which one young man in our group was planning to become a minister. Unfortunately, his theology included all the worst excesses of extreme dispensationalism, cheap grace, “name it – claim it” beliefs, and Pentecostal spiritual superiority. At one point, he declared to the class that a believer never has to ask God's forgiveness for any sins he or she has committed. Someone in the class asked him, “What about the Lord's prayer in which we are specifically told to ask for it?” His ready reply was to dismiss most of Jesus' sayings since they were only meant to apply to the dispensation while he was alive on earth.

Then I asked him, “What about I John 1:9 in which believers are taught to confess their sins to God and he will be faithful and just to forgive?” He had an easy rejoinder to that one also: “Sure, we can admit that we did something wrong, and at that point God has to forgive us; He has no choice in the matter. But that doesn't mean that we have to show any repentance.”

It appears to me that he got his theology more from the famous and inane comment in the movie “Love Story” than the Bible (“Love means never having to say you're sorry”). Needless to say, he didn't last long as a teacher in our group. But it does bring up the question of “confession” and what the word really entails. One context in which it appears is in the process of a person becoming a Christian in the first place by confessing one's faith in Jesus Christ. But the other situation in which it occurs is when a Christian sins after that point. I will have to admit that I am a very poor theologian, so I will rely entirely on the comments of some known NT theologians and exegetes to explain it much better than I ever could.

Furst says that “homologeo in 1 Jn. 1:9 means the confessing and acknowledgment of sins...Confession is a sign of repentance and thus a mark of the new life of faith.”

“In Acts 8:22 we find the possibility of repentance and forgiveness of postbaptismal sin being open to Simon Magus.” (Maynard-Reid)

“The paralleling of dikaios ['just'] with pistos ['faithful'] points to God's activity in forgiving sins and echoes his long-standing commitment to honor repentance and sacrifice (e.g. Ex 34:6-7).” (C.C. Newman)

Vine: “homologeo...denotes...to confess by way of admitting oneself guilty of what one is accused of, the result of inward conviction.”

“The word 'confess'...means to acknowledge sin and guilt in the light of God's revelation, and is thus generally an outward sign of repentance and faith.” (Torrance)

Kistemaker states, “We confront the sins we have committed, without defending or justifying ourselves. We confess our sins to show repentance and renewal of life...John actually writes, 'If we keep confessing our sins.'”

Grayston expresses it this way: “Forgiveness belongs to that view of offenses which supposes they can be covered, removed or put from the mind by repentance on our part and by generosity on the part of God who is 'faithful and just.'”

“To confess sins is not merely to admit that we are sinners, but to lay them before God and seek forgiveness.” (Marshall)

Zane Hodges has the most to say directly concerning the attitude of my church acquaintance: “In modern times some have occasionally denied that a Christian needs to confess his sins and ask forgiveness. It is claimed that a believer already has forgiveness in Christ (Eph. 1:7). But this point of view confuses the perfect position which a Christian has in God's Son...with his needs as a failing individual on earth...A Christian who never asks his heavenly Father for forgiveness for his sins can hardly have much sensitivity to the ways in which he grieves his Father. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Himself taught His followers to seek forgiveness of their sins in a prayer that was obviously intended for daily use (cf...Matt. 6:11-12).”

Andrew Wilson uses Nehemiah 1:4-9 as pattern linking together several of the biblical words related to the same theological concept: grief (lupeo), confession (homologeo or exomologeo), and repentance (metanoeo). “Grief, confession and repentance are distinct entities. Yet when we see the reality and horror of our sin and the grace of God who offers forgiveness, we find ourselves practicing all three. Following the example of Nehemiah, we grieve and mourn (Neh. 1:4). Then we confess and admit (vv. 6-7). Then we return and obey (vv. 8-9)...And we end by appealing to God's mercy trusting that he who has called and redeemed us will hear our prayers (vv. 10-11).”

DID MICHAL HAVE ANY CHILDREN? (II SAMUEL 6:23; II SAMUEL 21:8)

Jim Goad in his “30 Pairs of Bible Verses that Contradict One Another” pits these two verses against one another. II Samuel 6:23 clearly states that after King David abandoned his wife Michal, she remained childless until the day of her death. Hamilton comments: “The reference in 2 Sam 6:23 that Michal had no yeled to the day of her death, following her run-in with husband David suggests two interpretations. Either she and David were never sexually intimate from this point on, as all forms of communication in their marriage expired, or Yahweh made her barren because of her criticism of her husband's behavior (which was unlikely). In either case, Michal's barrenness removed the possibility of any Saulide blood from the Davidic line.”

McKenzie even feels that “Michal's childlessness would then have been a strategy on David's part to ensure that she produced no heirs to Saul.” Salvesen agrees that “this was to David's advantage.”

But then Goad quotes II Samuel 21:8 as saying that Michal had five boys, all of whom were executed as a part of a bargain that David made. I am very curious what English translation Goad was using to make that statement, since every version I have consulted states instead that it was the five boys of Michal's sister Merab [also transliterated as Mereb or Merob] who were killed instead. Below is a summary of some of those translations:

    Merab is given without any explanatory notes in The Message, TEV, and NEB.

    Merab is given with footnotes given as to why that name is used rather than Michal: NIV, RSV, NRSV, JB and AB.

    Michal is given with an appended explanation in the text stating that she had adopted (or was raising) her sister's boys as her own: King James and The Living Bible.

So where does the confusion come in? In the first place, there is absolutely no doubt in the biblical account that Michal had no children right up to the time of her death (as II Samuel 6:23 states). The problem arises with the name of the woman who appears in II Samuel 21:8. And here we are faced with a situation in which the various available ancient manuscripts disagree with one another. As the footnotes to this verse indicate, most of the Hebrew (MT) and Greek (LXX) manuscripts list “Michal” while two early Hebrew texts and several Greek and Syriac versions give Merab's name instead. So which one do translators chose when the manuscript evidence is a bit uncertain?

There are two powerful reasons for feeling that Merab's name should appear in II Samuel 21:8. The first is the obvious fact that II Samuel 6:23 tells us Michal had no children and therefore couldn't have had five boys to be executed. Secondly, the father of these boys is said to be a man named Adriel. However, we know from I Samuel 18:19 that Adriel was not the husband of Michal, but of her sister Merab instead.

The translator Hulst says, “In place of the MT 'Michal' two mss and the LXX read correctly 'Mereb.' Also the Pesh [Syriac Peshita] seems to suggest the reading 'Mereb.' It is true that Michal was one of David's wives, yet the connection of the wife named here [i.e. II Sam. 21:8] with Adriel the Meholathite shows definitely that Mereb, sister of Michal, is meant.”

This brings up the rather obvious question as to why Michal's name would appear at all in 21:8. There have been two explanations given. One is that it was a simple scribal error made very early in the process of the text being copied. The copyist saw a name beginning with M and assumed that it referred to the more well-known sister Michal in place of the rather obscure Merab. This is the reasoning given by Payne: The name 'Michal', read by most of the Hebrew MSS, is clearly wrong (cf. 6:23); probably an early scribe inserted the better-known name by error.” Tsumura and others commentators offer the same explanation.

The second possibility is that expressed in the KJV and The Living Bible, namely, that the childless Michal had adopted or raised her sister's boys as her own. Thus, we have Beeching stating: “Five sons are mentioned..., but tradition holds that they were Merab's (so LXX and two Heb. mss), and that Michal 'reared them'...but the idea that she had one son Ithream, her name being corrupted to Eglah (2 Sa. iii.5), is without foundation.”

We could summarize the textual situation simply in these terms. When one has two copies of the same document and one contains a rather obvious purposeful or accidental error (call them 'typos' if you wish), then it is absurd to keep the flawed copy and throw away the more accurate one.

The only modern attempt to defend the name Michal in II Samuel 21:8 that I have seen is by the Jewish scholar Semcha Shalom Brooks, who feels that the five boys were from Michal's “marriage to Paltiel (not Adriel as mentioned in 2 Samuel 21:8. Adriel is the Aramaic version of the Hebrew Paltiel.)” That explanation appears to cause more problems than it solves.

In conclusion, here are some perceptive comments from Evans, who also assumes that Merab was the mother of the five children: “Merab and Michal might be seen as much more significant than the anonymous servant girls [of I Samuel 9:11-13]. They were, after all, the daughters of the king, women of consequence and status. However, within the text both are presented primarily as pawns in the power games played by their father and his rivals. Merab does not have a speaking part; however, we learn that she was offered as a marriage partner to David as a spur to encourage him to fight against the Philistines and hence be killed but that actually she was given to someone else (I Sam 18:17-19)...Many years later Merab again suffered when five of her sons were executed as part of another bargain made between men (2 Sam 21:8)...”

WAS PAUL BORN INTO SLAVERY?

There is a very intriguing article in the May/June Issue of CT magazine authored by Mark Fairchild and Jordan Monson titled “Paul Unchained.” Since it is rather lengthy, I will just summarize their arguments briefly below.

Thesis

It is their contention that Paul was born to parents living in the tiny region of Gischala in Judea. But due to rebellions against Rome centered in that area, his parents were captured and sold into slavery. Paul was either born in Gischala or afterward when his parents were taken to Tarsus, and thus he was also a slave. But when eventually freed as a young man, he received his Roman citizenship and took the name of his Roman master, Paulus, as was the usual custom.

The authors note that the liberal scholar von Harnack and the conservative Zahn both agreed with this scenario regarding Paul's upbringing when “They did not even agree on the Resurrection.”

It should be pointed out here that slavery at this time should not be thought of as slavery was in America since most of those enslaved were set free before they reached old age. Bond-servant is perhaps a more accurate term.

Historical Evidence Outside the Bible

Josephus: This early Jewish historian records that Israelite cities who were rebellious against Roman authority were punished by the inhabitants being sold into slavery. One of these villages was Gischala, located in the far north of Galilee. This persecution occurred especially in 4 BC under Varus, governor of Syria.

Jerome: In his commentary on Philemon, he states that Paul's parents were “taken” (i.e. against their will) to Tarsus. Although Jerome was writing this around AD 387, it is highly suspected that much of this commentary was borrowed from an earlier, but now lost, commentary by Origen (AD 185-253). And Origen lived in Caesarea adjacent to Galilee and where Paul had spent two years of his life earlier on.

Pholios I, bishop of Constantinople, records that he found an historical manuscript in the extensive library there (since vanished) which stated: “Paul, the divine apostle...had also as his portion the fatherland of his ancient ancestors and physical race, namely Gischala...But because his parents, together with many others of his race, were taken captive by the Roman spear and Tarsus fell to his lot where he was also born, he gives it as his fatherland.”

New Testament Evidence

Acts 22:28 – Paul tells the Roman commander in Acts 22:28 that he was 'born' (gennao) a Roman citizen. But gennao can refer to either natural birth or adoption, and it was the common procedure for freed Roman slaves to be adopted into their former master's family. Paul is a Roman name, and not one that a Pharisee would have given to a boy. (See Paul's statement in Acts 23:6 – “I am a Pharisee born of a Pharisee.”)

Acts 22:2 – If Paul were a Hellenized Jew born in Tarsus, he would not have been fluent in Aramaic.

Acts 5:34; 22:3 – These passages make it clear that Paul studied under the famous teacher Gamaliel, an honor seldom given to Hellenistic Jews. But it would have been plausible if Paul's parents had been zealots when they lived in Galilee.

Thus, Paul would have been in the rare position of being fully accepted in both Roman and Jewish circles. But when he became a Christian, he ended up being distrusted by both groups as well as, at first, by Christians also.

In Acts 6:9, we find Paul closely associated with members of the Freedmen Synagogue, which would be quite natural if Paul were a freedman himself.

Galatians 1:14 – Paul identifies himself as a zealot, which fits the proposed scenario regarding the feelings of Paul's parents.

Paul's most common ways of opening his letters is to identify himself as either “an apostle of Christ” or “a slave of Christ.”

Paul employs language associated with slavery and freedom more than any other NT author. As one example, of the 43 times in the NT that words derived from the verb eleutheroo (“to free”) appear, 33 concern Paul or are written by him.

Galatians 6:17 – Paul's comment “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” predates, according to many scholars, the physical persecutions which he would run into later in his ministry. The Greek word stigmata originally meant “a permanent mark or scar on the body, especially the type of brand used to mark ownership of slaves.” (Louw and Nida) Fairchild and Monson deduce that “Paul's identity is still that of a bond-servant. Only now, he knows who his true master is.”

Book of Philemon – The authors speculate that perhaps it was no accident that Onesimus, the bond-servant of a Christian master, traveled over 1,000 miles to seek out a former bond-servant, Paul, for help. Perhaps Onesimus knew Paul's early history. Also, it was unheard of for a person to welcome a runaway slave as Paul did and go to bat for him by writing to his master.

All of the above certainly gives us much food for thought and shines a whole new light on Paul's varied career and writings.

ARE THERE ANY HEDGEHOGS IN THE BIBLE?

An illustration in the Summer 2024 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine shows a beautiful ancient statue of a hedgehog. The body of the statue reminded me very much of a fanciful hollow ceramic animal I picked up in an art colony in Southern California soon after I was married and still have today. The only difference was that the nose of my animal flares out like a horn, a convenient feature since we used it for years as a piggy bank.

Some cultures employ hedgehogs as a source of food, and in America they are even adopted as household pets. But they had an entirely different connotation in biblical times, appearing in conjunction with such assorted beasts as owls, ostriches, hyenas, jackals, and even demonic creatures like satyrs and night-hags. And the context of their appearances is always that of a deserted city which has suffered or will suffer God's judgment on it: Babylon in Isaiah 14:23, Idumea in Isaiah 34:11,15 and Assyria in Zephaniah 2:14.

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery notes that these are “particularly sinister elements of the animal kingdom. These could be identified by their habits. Any creatures that could see at night (and so must be in league with darkness), hissed (giving off evil spirits), were poisonous (and hence allied with the anti-Creation forces) or inhabited desolate regions (where demons were known to cavort) were linked with the Prince of Darkness.”

The two related Hebrew words in question here are, in order of appearance, qippod, qippod, qippoz, and qippod. Unfortunately, the passages above are the only four times these related words appear in the Bible, and so their proper meaning is hard to pin down. In that sense, they are typical of many biblical words of a somewhat technical nature that describe animals, plants, or minerals. Below is a sampling of the various ways these Hebrew words have been rendered in modern translations and paraphrases of the four passages in Isaiah and Zephaniah:

RSV                      hedgehog         porcupine         owl                      hedgehog

NRSV                   hedgehog         hedgehop          owl                      desert owl

NIV                      owl                   owl                   owl                       owl

NEB                     bustard             bustard              sand partridge      owl

TEV                     owl                   owl                    owl                       owl

The Message        hedgehog         owl                    carrion birds        raccoons or coyotes

Living Bible        porcupine         porcupine          owl                       hedgehog

JB                        hedgehog          hedgehog          viper                     pelican

AB                       bittern               hedgehog          owl                       owl

ESV                     hedgehog          porcupine         owl                       hedgehog

As you can see, even within the same translation, there is often little consistency as to how these words are rendered in English. And Young's Analytical Concordance defines qippod as either hedgehog, bittern, or porcupine; and quippoz as bittern, owl, or arrow-snake.

At this point, you might rightly wonder what criteria scholars use in order to determine the meaning of a technical word that only appears briefly in the Bible. On occasion, one can find related words in other Ancient Near-Eastern languages, but that is apparently not very helpful on this occasion. Then there is the etymology (origin) of the word to use as a guide. Thirdly, one can rely on ancient translations of the word into other languages. And lastly, the context in which the word appears can often help to narrow down the possibilities. You will see all of these tools being employed in the citations from scholars below:

The editors of BAR express the opinion that the animal in Zephaniah 2:14 cannot possibly be a hedgehog since (a) the context is a swamp rather than the desert and (b) the animal is said to be characterized by its loud cries. Replying to the first comment, Blenkinsopp says that “hedgehogs do not haunt watery wastelands if they can help it.” And the second argument is just as iffy since the same BAR article admits that “these solitary nocturnal mammals can be surprisingly loud, stomping and giving out a pig-like grunt – hence their name in English.”

Commenting on Isaiah 34:15, Oswalt admits that “'owl' is somewhat conjectural, but is preferable to the alternative, 'arrow-snake'...Along with the tentativeness of the identification, neither the hatching not the keeping of the young under the mother's shadow applies to this snake.”

Concerning Zephaniah 2:14, Berlin has the following to say: “The Versions translate 'hedgehog, porcupine' (cf. Isa 14:23, 34:11. Note that the two different terms q't and qpd both occur in Isa 34:11). Modern scholars prefer to see here a type of wild bird, given that the term is found in the context of other birds nesting in the tops of the columns. But Roberts responds that the columns would be lying on the ground and therefore any animal could make a home in their capitals...However, the point is not that the buildings lie in ruins, but that they are harboring animals.” And one could no doubt continue this back-and-forth argument by asserting that the city no doubt has suffered destruction as well as desertion.

Kuichi: “It is not certain if this is an animal [sic] or a short-eared owl. The meaning hedgehog can be traced to the LXX [Septuagint] (echinos), whereas the medieval commentator Rashi understood the term in Isa 34:11 and Zeph 2:14...as a kind of bird. HALAT [The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament] favors the meaning hedgehog in Isa 14:23 and 34:11, and short-eared owl in Zeph 2:14 and possibly Isa 34:11. In all three passages the nom. symbolizes desolation.”

DBI: “The focus shifts almost immediately [in Zephaniah 2:13] to the destruction of Nineveh, Assyria's capital city, which fell in 612 BC. Animals, both domestic (flocks, beasts in herds) and wild (pelican, hedgehog, birds) will inhabit this once bustling city, reflective of its utter destruction and desertion.”

Robertson: “Kapelrud...regards...the qippod as probably an owl. Other suggestions include... porcupine (Driver) and...hedgehog (Keil). BDB [Brown, Driver, and Briggs] suggests that qippod is porcupine, in light of the possible derivation of the word from the verb qapad, 'roll together.'” But note that this last derivation applies equally well to a hedgehog.

The bottom line is that this is an area of which we will never be entirely sure. However, it is comforting to realize that most of these types of translation issues involving technical descriptions in the Bible have no effect on any doctrinal issue of importance.