GOD: THE INEXPLICABLE ADVERSARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what did God accomplish by His actions here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

THE BURIAL OF CHRIST IN THE FOUR GOSPELS

Burial of Christ (Mark 15:42-46; Matthew 27:57-60; Luke 23:50-54; John 19:38-42)

 

It is always a question as to the best way to read or study the gospel accounts. Whichever way one chooses will have its advantages and disadvantages. Take, for example, the brief narratives of Jesus' burial found in all four gospels (Mark 15:42-46; Matthew 27:57-60; Luke 23:50-54; John 19:38-42):

Matthew: “When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and departed.”

Mark: “And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if he were already dead, and summoning the centurion he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead he granted the body to Joseph. And he brought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of rock, and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.”

Luke: “Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, who had not consented to their purpose and deed, and he was looking for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud, and laid him in a rock hewn tomb, where no one had ever been laid. It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning.”

John: “After this Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him leave. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.”

There is a great advantage in taking each version and reading it (in translation) just as that particular Evangelist composed it using his own chosen vocabulary and emphasis. After all, that is the way the various biblical accounts have come down to us. For example, it doesn't take a Bible expert to read Luke 23:53 and see the correspondence between that account and the start of the Gospel (Luke 2:7) where Mary “takes” the baby Jesus, “wraps it in cloth,” and “lays it in the manger,” even if the Greek verbs are not the same in each case. Similarly, the unique mention found only in John's version of Nicodemus who came to Jesus by night is obviously a reminder of the earlier episode recorded only in John 3.

But there are also times when one wants to compare one of the four gospels with the other three to see if any additional insights can be gleaned. In that case, merely having a Bible to consult may make it rather hard to do so. It may be easy to look back and forth between the four versions presented above to compare them, but that is certainly not the way a standard Bible is put together. And even though I have made it a little easier for you to compare them, one would have to do a lot of eye flipping between the four paragraphs to catch all the details.

So what are the alternatives available for such a study of parallel passages?

A. Standard harmonies of the Gospels, of which there are many versions available from book stores or on-line, would seem to present the best of all worlds. You are probably well aware of the general format they usually follow – three (or four if John's Gospel is included) columns at the top of each page, one for each separate account, and the text of each individual version running down the page with similar passages lining up with their parallels in the other versions. In that manner, one can follow the narrative of an individual gospel account by reading straight down the same column on each page. Or conversely, one can consider one small section at a time reading across to see how each gospel echoes or differs from the others.

In practice, it is not quite that easy. Let's take A.T. Robinson's popular book A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ as an example. In the first place, in order to read through any given Gospel, one would have to cover 250 pages. Secondly, the order of presenting material often varies widely between each Gospel account, and so it it always a hard judgment call for an editor as to how to represent that fact on the page. Are the varying accounts of the same event or teaching truly parallels or do they represent entirely different occasions?

This same sort of judgment call even occurs regarding individual details in the text. Robinson's Harmony indicates that Mark and Luke's description of Joseph as a person who was “looking for the Kingdom of God” is the same as Matthew and John's characterization of him as “a disciple of Jesus.” But that may not be the case at all. In the same manner, the linen cloths present in all four accounts are placed in a parallel arrangement although John uses a different Greek word causing some scholars to believe that it is a separate wrapping from the others.

Then consider the case where the day of Preparation appears at the beginning of Mark's account of the burial and at the end of Luke's and John's versions. One would have to leaf through two pages in A. T. Robinson's version to pick up on that fact. Similarly, at first glance it appears that Luke is the only Evangelist who does not mention that Joseph came from Arimathea; that fact only appears when one turns to the next page of the Harmony.

And finally, it is very hard for the reader to distinguish all those cases in which any two gospel accounts happen to coincide in the material they present and and the way in which it is presented.

B. Another method, which almost needs color coding, is to attempt to combine all of the material into one account without leaving out any valuable information or paraphrasing any of the original. And in addition, to do this while clearly indicating the particular gospel version(s) responsible for each individual word or phrase. This can get a little messy both to put together and to read, as the example below illustrates, especially if the various accounts differ considerably in wording. As a key to understanding the following, what I have done is:

        placed Matthew's words in bold;

        underlined Mark's version;

        given Luke's account in italics;

        (and put John's Gospel in parentheses.)

        In addition, alternative ways of expressing the same material are given in [brackets].

And when evening had come [(and after these things)] since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath [It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning.*] [(So because of the Jewish day of Preparation)*]

                        *placed at the end of Luke's and John's accounts, respectively.

Now there was a rich man from the Jewish town of Arimathea named Joseph [(Joseph of Arimathea)]

a respected member of the council, a good and righteous man who had not consented to their purpose and deed, who was also looking for the kingdom of God, (who was) also (a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews,)

This man [He] took courage and went to Pilate and asked for [(that he might take away)] the body of Jesus.]

And Pilate wondering if he were already dead, and summoning the centurion he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead

he granted the body to Joseph [(and Pilate gave him leave)] [Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him].

Then he took it down [and taking him down] [(So he came and took away his body)]

And he brought a linen shroud.

(Nicodemus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths [a clean linen shroud] with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.)

(Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a [his own] new) rock hewn (tomb where no one had ever been laid was close at hand)

they laid Jesus [him] there [in a tomb])

And he rolled a great stone against the door of the tomb and departed.

Despite the awkwardness of such an approach, look at some of the insights one can gain by utilizing it. In the first place, it is instructive to consider those portions of the account that are only found in one particular version.

For example, only Matthew mentions that Joseph was rich. That Evangelist's interest in such matters may stem from his profession as tax collector, and he may even have had some inside information concerning that fact to which the other evangelists had no access.

The fact that John is the only writer to mention Nicodemus stands out like a sore thumb and prompts the reader to look for other mentions of him in John's Gospel. The two allusions to him appear toward the beginning and end of this account, and so we are encouraged to compare the two episodes in which he is prominent and consider how Nicodemus has matured spiritually.

With the use of an analytical concordance, one can also look for individual words and phrases that appear only in one particular account. Again, this unique language can be seen rather readily from the varied typography utilized in this approach.

John uses the word “Jew/Jewish” twice in this account versus only one other appearance in the other three accounts. This should cause one to consider other places in John where the word appears in his Gospel. In fact, an analytical concordance will show that it occurs there almost 70 times, compared to only 16 times in the all the Synoptic accounts combined. And in many of those occasions, John uses it in a derogatory sense, which is strange considering that John himself was a Jew. As most scholars will point out, John often uses that term to denote a Jew who has rejected Jesus. And the specific phrase “fear of the Jews” even appears in John 7:13; 19:38; and 20:19.

Mark's sole mention of a “centurion” in the burial account (15:44,45) is matched by similar account of that same centurion a few verses earlier (15:39). An analytical concordance will also demonstrate that Mark is the only Evangelist to use the Greek word kenturion for “centurion.”

Only Matthew says that Pilate “commanded” the body to be given to Joseph. This is somewhat ironic since a few verses later (27:64) it is the Jews who tell Pilate that he has to “command” a watch be put on the tomb. Pilate tells them to do it themselves. The key Greek word keleuo appears seven times in Matthew and only once elsewhere in the other three gospels.

Language preferred by Luke appears in several places in the burial account. This includes “righteous man” (Luke 23:47,50), “good man” (Luke 6:45; 23:50), praxis (“deed”) (Luke 23:51; Acts 19:18), and “counsel” (Luke 7:30; 23:51; 6x in Acts).

There are three similar statements found in Luke's Gospel located near the start and conclusion of the narrative. All utilize the Greek verb prosdecho.

    “this man was righteous and devout looking forward to the consolation of Israel.” (2:25)

    “looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” (2:38)

    “waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God.” (23:51)

This indicates that Luke considers all three phrases to describe the same event.

Approach B is by no means foolproof, however. Take the fact that only Matthew says the “rock” was “great.” Those same two key words appear together in Matthew's account of Jesus' parable of the wise and foolish house builders (Matt. 7:24-27). One could therefore come up with some sort of theory that the two passages were related thematically. But if you were to read a little further in the four gospel accounts, one could see that Mark also mentions the size of the stone/rock as “great” (Mark 16:4) although he places that information outside of the burial account itself.

When source critics study the gospels, they are especially interested in those occasions when two (or more) accounts are identical or nearly so. They then speculate on which account came first, with the others following. This can be a useful endeavor on occasion, but it always relies on a number of unproved assumptions. However, we could note that only Mark and Luke state that Joseph was a member of the council. It would not be unlikely for those two writers to share such information between themselves since the two were close acquaintances. Similarly, Matthew and John, as fellow apostles, characterize Joseph as a follower of Jesus, a fact which they certainly should have known.

And finally, it is sometimes instructive to look at those occasions where all of the Evangelists but one mention a certain fact. The most prominent example in the burial account involves the mention of the day of Preparation by everyone but Matthew. That is not at all unusual, however, since he was writing to a mainly Jewish audience who would have already known what that day entailed without having it mentioned to them. Simply noting that evening had come was enough to stress the fact that the body had to be buried rather soon.

C. There have been a number of attempts to put together the material in the four accounts as a continuous narrative without including all of the variations as shown in B or always clearly indicating which of the gospels were the source of each piece of information. One is The Life of Christ in Stereo and another is The Chronological Bible. Below is an excerpt from the latter book, changing some of the NIV language there into the RSV so that it can be more easily compared with approach B. In parentheses I have placed language not found in any of the original accounts, but added by the author of The Chronological Bible to make the combined account read more smoothly.

“It was the day of Preparation (that is, the day before the sabbath). When evening came, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also waiting for the kingdom of God, took courage and and went to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate wondered if he were already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.

(With Pilate's permission,) he (came and) took the body away. (He was accompanied by) Nicodemus also who earlier had visited Jesus at night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it with the spices, in strips of linen as is the burial customs of the Jews. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and placed it in his own new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. He rolled a great stone against the door of the tomb and went away.”

This combined version does read smoothly except for one glaring problem. It seesaws back and forth between Joseph and Nicodemus (who only appears in John's account) acting together and only Joseph doing so. Thus, there is the awkward situation where it appears that both of them wrapped the body with strips of linen followed by only Joseph wrapping it in a shroud, followed by both of them laying the body in the tomb while only Joseph rolled the stone and left. And, in fact, what John calls “linen cloths” is probably what the Synoptic accounts call a “linen shroud,” and not a different form of cloth at all. This is one of the situations that a combined narrative has to face.

Another problem is that the combined version gives the impression that the whole episode is bounded at start and finish with mention of the day of Preparation, a literary device called an inclusio. But in fact, no one account reads that way. It is merely an artifact of combining Mark's mention of it at the start of his narrative with Luke and John's accounts where it appears at the end.

Another thing to note is that a very important piece of information found in Matthew's and especially John's Gospel is entirely left out – the fact that Joseph was actually a secret follower of Jesus.

The bottom line concerning such combined versions is that what they gain in terms of easy readability, they also lose in failing to show the unique contributions and differing points of emphasis of each Evangelist. Such a move might be justified if all one wanted was a straight historical record of exactly what happened. But although that is certainly important to our faith, it is by no means the only reason the gospel accounts were written. As one commentator said concerning another historical book in the Bible, “You believe it happened. Good! But what effect does it have on your life?”

 

I SAMUEL 20: DAVID AND JONATHAN

There are a couple of items that need straightening out first before making some comments on individual verses. Some commentators complain that the issues involved in this chapter could probably have been settled a lot more simply than described. But Murphy perceptively replies that “we start from the false premise that the episode is about Jonathan helping David to escape his father, whereas it is really about David helping Jonathan to escape his father...David wants to get his friend to do what most men avoid: to accept that some people, even beloved family members, are evil...” Baldwin agrees when he says, “Above all, Jonathan must be convinced that David's assessment of his father's intentions is justified.”

The other main issue concerns the unity of this chapter. McKenzie, McCarter, and others label verses 41-42a as a later addition to the text for two reasons: (1) there seems to be no reason for the prearranged signal with the arrow since David and Jonathan end up meeting right out in the open, and (2) these verses appear to repeat earlier material in the chapter. The second question is answered by considering the overall literary structure of the chapter which shows that these verses (Section C' below) are purposefully there to form a parallel with vv. 14-17 and thus obviously part of the original story.

The second objection is not a strong one to begin with. Although David and Jonathan did meet openly earlier in the story, that was before Saul's suspicions in regard to his son's loyalty came under serious scrutiny. Thus, David and Jonathan had every reason to believe that Saul would be spying on them from that point on. So the two decide on the ruse of archery to get away from the royal residence into the countryside. At that point, the only possible spy present is the servant boy. And so when he is dismissed, the two friends are able to converse openly without fear of discovery. Payne agrees with this basic scenario.

The Structure of I Samuel 20

A. David flees Saul by leaving Ramah (v. 1a)

    B. David's plan to gauge Saul's intent (vv. 1b-13)

        C. Covenant between David and Jonathan (vv. 14-17)

            D. Jonathan's plan to inform David (vv. 18-24a)

    B'. David's plan carried out (vv. 24b-34)

            D'. Jonathan's plan carried out (vv. 35-40)

        C'. Covenant between David and Jonathan (vv. 41-42a)

A'. David flees Saul by leaving Jerusalem (v. 42b)

The Anchor Bible translation of v. 1 reads, “He has sworn a pact between me and Death.” If this rendering is correct, then it forms an inclusion for the whole chapter with v. 42 in which David and Jonathan renew their pact with one another.

Section B begins with the suggestion that Jonathan would grieve if he knew that Saul was trying to kill David. Section B' ends with Jonathan indeed grieving. Similarly, B begins with David asking, “What did I do?” while B' concludes with Jonathan asking Saul, “What did he do?”

Verse 2: See I Samuel 19:6 where Saul had sworn to Jonathan that he was not after David's life. Jonathan practically repeats his father's words: “He shall not be put to death.” Jonathan here seems not so much incredulous that Saul will try again to kill David, but that he would keep his plans from himself.

Verse 3: David rather diplomatically and gently replies that Saul might not have wanted to grieve Jonathan. We will see in v. 30 that Saul's motive was more likely to conceal his plans suspecting that Jonathan might warn David.

Verse 5: The New Moon was a festival day in which all the family members ate together. Tsumura notes that it sometimes lasted two days or even three. In his excellent commentary on I Samuel, he discusses in detail the time and duration of the festival. Other references to this celebration are found in Numbers 10:10; 28:11-15; 29:6; Hosea 2:13; 5:7; and Amos 8:5.

Verse 8: For the second time (see v. 1) David brings up the question of his possible guilt. He also expresses some doubts regarding Jonathan's sincerity and fears that Jonathan will perhaps be leading him into a trap.

Verse 13: The same oath formula is found in 3:17 and 14:44. And actually, the whole of chapter 20 is filled with oaths, vows, covenants, etc.

    3. “as the LORD lives and as you live”

    8. a covenant of the LORD

    12. by the LORD, the God of Israel

    13. the LORD do so to Jonathan and more also

    16. Jonathan makes a covenant

    17. Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him

    23. the LORD is witness between you and me forever

    42. both of us have sworn in the name of the LORD

Verse 13b. ESV reads “May the Lord elevate you to the kingdom, as he raised my father.”

Verse 14: Hesed is translated as loyal love, loving constancy, faithful love, etc. Brockington notes: “Love and loyalty are the very essence of any relationship based on a personal covenant.”

Verses 14-15: Whether or not the above translation is correct, Tsumura states that most commentators agree that these subsequent verses indicate that Jonathan knew that David would become the next king.

Verses 14-16: David later keeps his promise when he protects Mephibosheth (II Samuel 9).

Verse 19: Baldwin gives as possible meanings: “the stone there” or “stone of departure.” The Jewish Targum calls it a “sign-stone.” In Hebrew, the stone is called ha'eben ha'azel. Compare this to ha'eben ha'ezer (“stone of help,” or Ebenezer) found in I Samuel 4:1; 5:1; and 7:12. (Tsumura)

Verse 26: Saul thinks David has accidentally rendered himself ritually unclean, but that impurity would have only lasted until sundown, so why wasn't he at the second day of the feast?

Verse 27: Note that Saul never pronounces David's name, but instead calls him “the son of Jesse” as “a disdainful reference.” (McKenzie)

Murphy makes an interesting comment here: “Some readers are perplexed that Saul can't imagine why David would not want to come to dinner with him. But we have to remember that, in Saul's paranoid imagination, David is a threat to him, not vice versa.”

Verse 29: Since it was a family feast, David could rightfully celebrate it either with his own family or with Saul's, since David was his son-in-law.

Verse 33: Many modern commentators make it clear that Saul did not actually throw his spear at Jonathan, just waved it about in a threatening manner.

 

ANSWERING ATHEISTS: THE BIBLE'S FLAWED ORIGIN

One category of criticism of the Bible concerns the way it came about the first place. One internet posting claims that the canon of the New Testament (list of divinely inspired books) was determined by the command of Emperor Constantine and his bishops. They are pictured as his official henchmen dressed in fancy robes and living in the Vatican. In actuality, they were closer to the equivalent of pastors or elders of local church bodies or over a geographical group of congregations. This site goes on to say that opponents of Christianity were persecuted, and that their “pre-christian books that disproved the new religion” were banned. In fact, there were laws restricting pagan religion beginning with Constantine's son, but enforcement of the laws was largely ignored. It wasn't until 391 AD that any pagan priests were actually persecuted. Also, the books that did give a different theological slant on things, the Gnostic writings, dated from well after the NT books were written. By no means were they “pre-christian.”

If you want to know more regarding this issue, I recommend F. F. Bruce's highly readable book on the subject, The Canon of Scripture. Basically, the decision reached by leaders of several prominent churches merely ratified the consensus most of them had reached much earlier.

The early lists of NT books show that there is substantial agreement on which books should be included and which ones excluded. The approximate dates for these various listings are as follows. Muratorian Canon 157-170; Origen 240-250; Eusebius 290-300; Council of Carthage 397. Note that first three lists predated the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where Constantine first became involved. And none of the dubious books on these lists was ever burned. The only early book burnings, aside from the Emperor Domitian trying to burn all Christian books in 303 AD, was of some letters of the heretics Arius and Nestorius. The NT scholar Elaine Pagels claimed that in 367, Athanasius ordered monks in Alexandria to destroy all “unacceptable writings,” with the rest constituting the NT. There is no historical confirmation of that statement, but it is widely quoted on the internet.

And then you get the opposite side of the coin where the Bible is criticized for including books in the Bible that are obvious forgeries and lies written falsely under famous apostles' names. Going back to the lists of early church canons, the following disputed books were excluded from the canon: The Revelation of Peter, The Wisdom of Solomon, Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), and the Letter of Barnabas. One of the prime reasons for excluding them was that they were obviously pseudonymous, written later than the life of the supposed authors with no strong church tradition to back them up.

Now considering the NT books that did end up in the canon, the authorship of only a few are actually in doubt even by liberal scholars. Pseudonymous works almost always go out of their way to first establish the credentials of the author. Just read through the Book of Mormon sometime to see that. By contrast, the only NT books to even bothering mentioning the name of the author are Paul's letters, James, Peter, Jude and Revelation. The book titles we have for the other books were added later on the basis of firm tradition. The author of Revelation merely identifies himself with the common name John, with no further designation so it is doubtful that the author is trying to pass off a forgery or he would have said “John the Apostle.” Now it is possible that another John such as an early church leader known as John the Elder wrote it, but in favor of the Apostle as author is strong church tradition. Two early 2^nd century church leaders, Iraeneus and Justin Martyr, state that the apostle was the author. Iraeneus' testimony is especially important since he was a student of Polycarp who was in turn a student of John the Apostle.

Secondly, the main reason actual Bible forgeries were written in the first place was to push some new theological point the author wanted to make. By contrast, the Letter of James strikes no new ground and firmly belongs within the background of 1^st century Christianity in Jerusalem with heavy borrowing from Jesus' (his brother's) own teachings. And it is doubtful that the Book of Jude was written under a false name since hardly anyone in ancient times bothered to pen a forgery under the name of an obscure person. That only leaves the letters of Paul and Peter in doubt.

As far as the Pauline epistles are concerned, opinions range all over the map and vary widely depending what criteria are used. As just one example, look at the results from so-called objective and scientific computer analyses of the language used.

Study                 Authentic Books

Morton                      5                      Rom, Cor, Gal, Phm

(1966)

Kenny                     12                      all but Titus

(1986)

Neumann               10                       all but the Pastorals

(1990)

Mealand                  8                       all but Pastorals, Col, and Eph

(1995)

Ledger                   6                        Rom, Cor, Gal, Phm, 2 Thess

(2011)

                                                    (Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the NT, p. 588)

But one fact alone can account for any so-called stylistic differences between these letters: namely, that Paul employed a series of co-authors and secretaries in writing them. Another problem with this sort of analysis is that it assumes that an author never changes his style with time or different circumstances or audiences. That assumption can be disproved just by looking at one modern novelist, James Joyce, who completely changed his writing style each time he wrote another of his four novels. And actually, within Ulysses, each chapter is written in a different style, and Finnegan's Wake is not even written in what would be called English.

A teaching that is widely found among liberal Christian sources is that just because the dubious Pauline letters found in the New Testament were written without any direct contribution from Paul himself, that didn't hinder the early Christian authorities from including them in the Canon. In fact, they state, pseudonymity (writing a book under the name of a more famous personality) was quite a widespread and perfectly acceptable practice in the ancient world of the time. D. A. Carson (Dictionary of NT Background, pp. 857-864) skewers that argument by marshaling a number of ancient citations proving that (a) the early Church Fathers took great pains to determine the actual authors and discard any spurious writings and (b) Greek, Roman and Hebrew sources agree that pseudonymity was a dishonest practice.

It is interesting that one of Paul's “disputed” epistles is II Thessalonians, which happens to contain a warning against those who produce and circulate letters purporting to be by him (II Thessalonians 2:1-2).

The Epistles of Peter

1 Peter: “The language, style, and content and theological developments seem unlikely for the Galilean fisherman and missionary...” (Boring)

Silvanus as co-author (I Pet. 5:12): The unusual literary structure of the letter is identical to that of I and II Thessalonians (co-authored by Silvanus).

2 Peter: “...the book does not seem to have any distinctive views that would require presentation under a false name.” (Blum)

There are stylistic similarities with both 1 Peter and the speeches of Peter in the Book of Act (Harvey & Towner)

One critical source points out that there are tens of thousands of differences between KJV and the earliest NT manuscript. I don't know whether that is meant to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Bible or just on the KJV. If it is the latter, I am not at all surprised at the number, although much depends on how you define and count the differences. The reason is that KJV is not based on the oldest manuscripts, but on the majority of the existing manuscripts available at the time (1600's). Modern translations rely on all the manuscripts. including many important earlier ones that weren't available to the translators of KJV.

Mormons relegate the Bible to a secondary status and will explain to you that it can't be trusted to tell the whole truth since it was in Roman Catholic hands for years and they introduced distortions in the Bible to justify their doctrines. You should be especially aware of one verse they like to quote, which contains wording not found in modern translations. “There are three witnesses [in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.]” Again, we have so many early manuscripts nowadays that the few later additions to the text such as this one are readily caught. While we are on the subject of Mormons, they treat the Bible as one of four holy texts and add the caveat that it is only trustworthy in a proper translation. Joseph Smith produced the official translation, which had an uncommon number of borrowings from Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible. Interestingly, you can see from comparison of these two translations of Genesis 1:1, both by Smith at different time periods, that his own “inerrant” translation of this verse appears to have undergone a drastic shift over the years.

    “Inspired” Version: “Yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standeth.”

    King Follett Discourse: “The head of one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.”

Then there are five biblical passages in which it supposedly states, according to an anonymous internet source, that the scribes introduced falsehoods into the Bible. Read each of them for yourself and see if you agree that statement is true. These passages are listed below with some explanatory comments.

Jeremiah 8:8-9

“Their confidence in the written page (Law of Yahweh) prevented them from accepting the word of Yahweh spoken through the prophets.” J. A. Thompson

“The delusion, or falsehood, which the scribes have created seems to be not so much the law itself, as the resultant conceit that possession of the law gives all necessary wisdom.” John Bright

“People or scribes (we are not told which) ...think that because they have the law...they are safe...They manipulate it to their own ends.” Douglas Jones

Job 13:4 refers to Job's three friends, who are “wise” men, not scribes.

Isaiah 43:27 may refer to false prophets (NRSV), priests (NIV), or kings (Anchor Bible).

Luke 11:52 refers to lawyers, not scribes (who are mentioned in the following verse).

In Jeremiah 16:19, the “inherited lies” refer to the worship of idols by Israel, as made clear in the following verse.

 

EUPHEMISMS IN THE BIBLE

We are all acquainted with the concept of a euphemism. It is a way to get around saying or writing a word that is considered too crude or vulgar to use in polite society. In the case of euphemisms in English, the impolite words are generally those four-letter words originally coming from the Germanic languages while the polite words are those multi-syllabic words that can be traced back to Latin roots. And if even those are not delicate enough, we will find indirect ways to express the same ideas. This post will not be R-rated since I will refrain from utilizing any four-letter words.

The most common types of euphemisms in any language are those referring to certain body parts or functions. Thus, Hubbard states, “As is well known, the term 'feet' could be used as a euphemism for sexual organs (male: Exod. 4:25; Judg. 3:24; I Sam. 24:3; female: Deut. 28:57; Ezek. 16:25, etc.).” But since the word can also just mean “feet” in our sense of the word, there is some ambiguity in the Bible in places such as Ruth 3:4 where Ruth is told by Naomi to uncover Boaz' feet as he is sleeping and lie down beside him. Thus, Hubbard feels in that particular passage it is not demonstrably used as a euphemism although “it may have been chosen to add to the scene's overtones.” Other commentators on this passage such as Campbell go further and point out additional words such as “know,” “lie with,” and “uncover” which usually occur in sexually charged connotations.

One of the phrases mentioned above “uncover,” is especially interesting since it appears over and over again in the regulations in Leviticus 18 and 20 in the context of prohibitions against “uncovering the nakedness” of close relatives. As Wenham and most other scholars agree, the phrase is in fact a euphemism referring to sexual intercourse. Thus, when we come to the drunken Noah and his son Ham in Genesis 9, there is a real possibility that Ham did more to Noah than merely see him without any clothes on. And, if so, that would (a) make Noah's subsequent curse on his son more understandable and (b) would provide an even closer parallel to Lot's daughters taking advantage of him while he was drunk.

Speaking of Lot, as I have mentioned in another post, those who feel that the men of Sodom merely wanted to “know,” i.e. “become better acquainted with” the visiting angels in Lot's house (as some commentators insist) are completely ignoring his subsequent offer to the men of his two daughters “who had not yet known a man” (same Hebrew word).

The Hebrew euphemism “to lie with” someone hardly needs explanation since we use the same phrase today to refer to the same activity. As just one example in the Bible, look at Ammon's request of his half-sister Tamar that she lie with him (II Samuel 11). From subsequent events, it becomes obvious that he has something more than just cuddling in mind.

Another ambiguous Hebrew word appears in Genesis. It is translated as “mock or play with” in Genesis 21:9 where Sarah sees her son Isaac with Ishmael and becomes irate. The cause of her anger perhaps becomes more obvious when one compares the use of the same word in Genesis 26:8 to describe what Isaac was doing to his wife Rebecca when King Abimelech happens to observe them and realizes that they must be more than just brother and sister. This whole later episode only makes sense if they were doing something more than just playing a harmless game together. In that passage, NRSV translates the word as “fondling.” But again we have some ambiguity involved in the case of Genesis 26:8.

A good way of closing this portion of the brief discussion on ambiguous meanings is to say, as Freud replied to a friend who had made fun of his cigar smoking habit, knowing that Freud tended to see sexual imagery everywhere: “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

I will only make a few additional references concerning body parts and bodily functions:

When it says in the early portion of Genesis that God formed Eve out of Adam's “rib,” that is no doubt exactly what the passage means to convey. But you may be surprised to learn that at least one Hebrew scholar writing in Biblical Archaeology Today proposes that in fact this is an etiological story (one told in order to explain the origin of a current fact) to show why men do not possess penis-bones as do some animals.

The Song of Songs is filled with elaborate imagery, especially those relating to the physical attributes of the hero and heroine. In 4:1-7 the woman is described beginning with her hair and moving downward. Each of the body parts is specifically named down to the breasts, but going south from there the identification is strictly in metaphors. And in 4:12, we read of her “locked garden and sealed fountain.” Similarly, in 7:2 her “navel” is mentioned, but some commentators note that this is probably a euphemism.

Lastly, there are the euphemisms for going to the bathroom, which is itself a euphemism. The regulations in Deuteronomy 23:12-13 for setting up camp latrines use the indirect statement “as you go outside” in the same manner as our euphemism for relieving oneself, yet another English euphemism. But the strangest euphemism of all for the same bodily function appears in Judges 3:24, the story of Ehud assassinating King Eglon while they were in the royal privy. The guards outside wonder why Eglon is so long in coming out but figure that he is just “burying his feet.”

But interestingly, the translators in King James' day were not so squeamish as we are today when it came to the language they employed. For example, in I Samuel 25:22, 34; I Kings 16:11; 21:21; and II Kings 4:8, threats, or actual cases of violence, were employed by one group on another against “all who pisseth against the wall.” I said that I wouldn't use any four-letter Anglo-Saxon words in this post, but “pisseth” has seven letters in it. In fact, the people uttering the threats were not angry because their city walls were being defaced, the phrase simply refers to “all males,” or “every mother's sons” (NEB).

So surprisingly, KJV is quite literal while modern translations are the ones resorting to euphemisms.

There is a final category of biblical euphemism, and this is one which we may not be quite as familiar. When we say “heaven knows” or “gosh darn,” “gee whiz,” or even “dear me” (dio mio = O my God), in fact we are utilizing religious euphemisms in order to avoid speaking the Holy Name in vain. The Jews did the same thing and even took it to further extremes:

To avoid using God's personal name YHWH, probably pronounced “Yahweh,” they wrote it using the vowels for adonay (“lord”) instead. In that way the reader would know to say “adonay” whenever YaHoWaH appeared in the Bible. In that manner we get the English word “Jehovah,” which really never existed at all. This proves to be a bit of an embarrassment for the Jehovah Witnesses, who make a big deal of us always needing to use God's real name. Thus, they usually don't buy the standard scholarly explanation that I have just related.

One spiritual euphemism that we have in common with the Jews is to use the circumlocution “heaven” in place of “God.” This euphemism explains why Matthew, writing mainly for his fellow Jews, uses the phrase “Kingdom of Heaven” in the same passages where Mark and Luke usually write “Kingdom of God.”

For a Jew to even contemplate the phrase “curse God” was beyond them, and so in passages such as Job 1:9 where we read Job's wife as saying “Curse God and die!,” the original Hebrew actually reads “Bless God and die,” another euphemism.

And finally, there is another possible extreme case of spiritual euphemism seen in comparing the parallel passages of II Samuel 24:1 and I Chronicles 21:1, involving David numbering the people. II Samuel says that it was God who tempted David to do it while I Chronicles says that it was Satan instead. Most scholars agree that the Books of Samuel were written before Chronicles, so there is every possibility that the later author could not abide the fact that God would tempt anyone. Thus, he changed the identity of the tempter to Satan to avoid any theological questions from arising. In fact, that is just what the editor of The Daily Bible did by simply ignoring the II Samuel account entirely in favor of I Chronicles.  There are other ways less drastic and more acceptable in dealing with difficult passages. For example, in this case I see nothing wrong with taking both accounts at face value since the “cooperation” of God and Satan can also be evidenced in Job 1-2.