While recently re-watching the third "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie, I was struck by the role that deceit played in the film. Every character moved about with secret motives and was constantly trying to manipulate others around them to accomplish those hidden goals. Yet, deceit is not simply something that pirates take part in, but it also plays a significant role in the Old Testament. From Jacob to Tamar, Simeon to Absalom, many of Israel's ancestors rely on trickery from time to time.
Most of us have heard the story about David and Bathsheba. David sees her bathing one day and his lust leads him to kill her husband and take Bathsheba as his own wife. However, David does not get away. Instead, the prophet Nathan tells David a parable and then points out that David is the villain in the story whom David had condemned himself.
While popular interpretations of this story argue that David believed Nathan's story was an actual legal case and that David foolishly missed the point or was tricked, Jeremy Schipper offers a different interpretation. Schipper argues that David recognized the story as a parable, but misinterpreted (either accidentally or intentionally) the different parts of the parable. Nathan's intention and David's interpretations according to Schipper are given below:
NATHAN DAVID
Lamb- Bathsheba Lamb- Uriah
Poor man- Uriah Poor man- Bathsheba
Traveler- n/a (perhaps David's lust) Traveler- David
Rich man- David Rich man- Joab
This misinterpretation by David seems plausible because Nathan does not address the identity of the traveler and because both Uriah and the lamb are the ones killed. According to Schipper, David attempted to use Nathan's parable as a means of shifting the blame for Uriah's murder to someone else. In particular, David used the story to denounce Joab, his general, as a "son of death" who kills on behalf of another (the traveler/David). Thus, David condemns this action in an attempt to prove that his reign is not built upon assassination plots. However, as Nathan quickly corrects, the point goes beyond the murder to the adultery with Bathsheba.
Whether we accept Schipper's proposal or not remains a matter of debate. However, it does cast David in a new light. Instead of a fool who gets tricked, David is a continued schemer in the likeness of ancestors like Jacob. Unfortunately, his scheming here is an attempt to continue covering his sins.
Monday, November 29, 2010
An OT Mary
Most Christians are familiar with the story of Mary the mother of Jesus. She was a virgin who was approached by an angel and ended up having a baby despite her virginity. However, as one reads the Old Testament, one quickly sees and hears bits and pieces of Mary's story in the lives of women who preceded her. Or perhaps more accurately, Mary's story contains echoes of the stories of these earlier women.
One such instance is the story of Hannah in 1 Samuel 1-2. Here is a woman who cannot have a child (her womb is closed). After being approached by a messenger of God (the priest Eli), she ends up having a son named Samuel. The son ends up being dedicated to the Lord's service.
Even more fascinating is that both Hannah and Mary sing a song of praise to God after the birth of their sons. In fact, both songs start off the same way: "My heart/soul exalt the LORD." As both songs progress, both praise God for His humbling of the rich and powerful and for His raising up of the lowly. For example:
1 Sam. 2:4-"The bows of the mighty are shattered,
But the feeble gird on strength."
Luke 1:52- "He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble." (NASB)
Yet, the comparisons do not end there. Compare these passages in 1 Samuel to the description about Jesus found in Luke 2:40 that says he "continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.":
1 Sam. 2:21- "And the boy Samuel grew before the LORD."
1 Sam. 3:19- "Thus Samuel grew and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fail."
All of these parallels are hard to ignore. However, it reminds us of a basic fact about the mindset of the Biblical writers. For them, history was somewhat circular. History does repeat itself. The stories of the past are also the stories of the present and of the future. That's also why eschatology at times looks so much like protology. So, as we see these elements show up in Hannah's life, and then in Mary's, we may also wonder how these same elements are being played out in out lives today.
One such instance is the story of Hannah in 1 Samuel 1-2. Here is a woman who cannot have a child (her womb is closed). After being approached by a messenger of God (the priest Eli), she ends up having a son named Samuel. The son ends up being dedicated to the Lord's service.
Even more fascinating is that both Hannah and Mary sing a song of praise to God after the birth of their sons. In fact, both songs start off the same way: "My heart/soul exalt the LORD." As both songs progress, both praise God for His humbling of the rich and powerful and for His raising up of the lowly. For example:
1 Sam. 2:4-"The bows of the mighty are shattered,
But the feeble gird on strength."
Luke 1:52- "He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble." (NASB)
Yet, the comparisons do not end there. Compare these passages in 1 Samuel to the description about Jesus found in Luke 2:40 that says he "continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.":
1 Sam. 2:21- "And the boy Samuel grew before the LORD."
1 Sam. 3:19- "Thus Samuel grew and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fail."
All of these parallels are hard to ignore. However, it reminds us of a basic fact about the mindset of the Biblical writers. For them, history was somewhat circular. History does repeat itself. The stories of the past are also the stories of the present and of the future. That's also why eschatology at times looks so much like protology. So, as we see these elements show up in Hannah's life, and then in Mary's, we may also wonder how these same elements are being played out in out lives today.
Monday, November 15, 2010
That's a Nice Shirt: Clothes and the story of David
"Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt. So David went out wherever Saul sent him, and prospered..." (1 Sam. 18:3-5a, NASB)
"Then David arose and cut off the edge of Saul's robe secretly. It came about afterward that David's conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul's robe." (1 Sam. 24:4b-5, NASB)
As 21st century, Westerners, we miss a lot of the significance of stories about robes and clothes in the Bible. For many of us, there is nothing super special about our clothes. They're something that we put on and off, but are also something that we can just as easily put in a give-away box. However, in the ancient near east, your clothes were also you're identity. They symbolized status in a way much more poignant than today. Oh sure our clothes signify role or wealth somewhat today. A person walking down the street in an Armani suit is likely making more than minimum wage. However, just because you manage to try on an Armani suit does not give you the privileges or wealth that a powerful businessperson might have.
Yet, for the ancients, clothes were part of your identity. If you are stripped of you clothes, you lose the identity that those clothes symbolized. Thus, it is extremely significant when Jonathon (a prince) strips off his royal robes and gives them a shepherd boy. It was essentially an abdication of the throne. Likewise, David feels guilt over cutting part of Saul robe because it was like making a premature grab at the royal throne. David was not just cutting a robe, he was attacking Saul's identity as king.
Passages like this serve as a poignant reminder that we cannot simply overlook details in Biblical narrative. Even things like the clothes that people wear (or don't wear) can have a major affect on interpretation.
"Then David arose and cut off the edge of Saul's robe secretly. It came about afterward that David's conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul's robe." (1 Sam. 24:4b-5, NASB)
As 21st century, Westerners, we miss a lot of the significance of stories about robes and clothes in the Bible. For many of us, there is nothing super special about our clothes. They're something that we put on and off, but are also something that we can just as easily put in a give-away box. However, in the ancient near east, your clothes were also you're identity. They symbolized status in a way much more poignant than today. Oh sure our clothes signify role or wealth somewhat today. A person walking down the street in an Armani suit is likely making more than minimum wage. However, just because you manage to try on an Armani suit does not give you the privileges or wealth that a powerful businessperson might have.
Yet, for the ancients, clothes were part of your identity. If you are stripped of you clothes, you lose the identity that those clothes symbolized. Thus, it is extremely significant when Jonathon (a prince) strips off his royal robes and gives them a shepherd boy. It was essentially an abdication of the throne. Likewise, David feels guilt over cutting part of Saul robe because it was like making a premature grab at the royal throne. David was not just cutting a robe, he was attacking Saul's identity as king.
Passages like this serve as a poignant reminder that we cannot simply overlook details in Biblical narrative. Even things like the clothes that people wear (or don't wear) can have a major affect on interpretation.
Saul the Judge
A foolish vow, a child is threatened by that vow, and people advocate doing whatever seems best in their own eyes. Although these events take place in 1 Sam. 14, it seems like we have heard them before. In fact, if one reads straight through from Genesis to 1 Samuel, they will realize that they have heard this before. While this story in 1 Sam. 14 is about the foolishness of King Saul, there are many elements that seem reminiscent of the book of Judges.
For example, several times throughout the narrative, Saul's men advise him to "do whatever seems good to you" (NASB). One cannot help but think of the ending of Judges which states how everyone "did what was right in their own eyes." Instead of seeking God's advice, people simply acted on their own feelings, just as Saul makes a number of rash orders here.
Likewise, Saul seems like a newer version of the Judge Jephthah. Both characters make a foolish oath after military victories that end up affecting one of their children. In the case of Jephthah, he offers to sacrifice the first thing that greets him at his home, which results in his having to sacrifice/dedicate his daughter to God. In the case of Saul, he makes an oath that forbids any of his men from eating any honey, even though as Jonathon points out, the honey would help strengthen the troops. In the end, Saul is faced with the decision to kill his own son for violating the oath by eating honey. However, unlike Jephthah, Saul does not keep his oath but bends to the wishes of his people.
If these similarities between Saul and the book of Judges are intentional, then the effect is comparing the end of Saul's reign to the period of the judges. Although Saul is king and should be bringing more prosperity and unity to Israel, he reign is just as foolish and chaotic as the period of the judges. In fact, in some ways it is worse because he is even weaker than some of the leaders of old as he can't even keep his own oaths. Instead of remaining faithful to the tasks God gave him, he allows himself to be easily pushed around by his own feelings and by the wishes of his people.
For example, several times throughout the narrative, Saul's men advise him to "do whatever seems good to you" (NASB). One cannot help but think of the ending of Judges which states how everyone "did what was right in their own eyes." Instead of seeking God's advice, people simply acted on their own feelings, just as Saul makes a number of rash orders here.
Likewise, Saul seems like a newer version of the Judge Jephthah. Both characters make a foolish oath after military victories that end up affecting one of their children. In the case of Jephthah, he offers to sacrifice the first thing that greets him at his home, which results in his having to sacrifice/dedicate his daughter to God. In the case of Saul, he makes an oath that forbids any of his men from eating any honey, even though as Jonathon points out, the honey would help strengthen the troops. In the end, Saul is faced with the decision to kill his own son for violating the oath by eating honey. However, unlike Jephthah, Saul does not keep his oath but bends to the wishes of his people.
If these similarities between Saul and the book of Judges are intentional, then the effect is comparing the end of Saul's reign to the period of the judges. Although Saul is king and should be bringing more prosperity and unity to Israel, he reign is just as foolish and chaotic as the period of the judges. In fact, in some ways it is worse because he is even weaker than some of the leaders of old as he can't even keep his own oaths. Instead of remaining faithful to the tasks God gave him, he allows himself to be easily pushed around by his own feelings and by the wishes of his people.
The End in the Middle
"Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years."- 1 Samuel 13:1 (TNIV)
This summary of the reign of king Saul comes at the beginning of chapter 13 in 1 Samuel. However, it's placement in the story is odd. One expects to find such a summary either at the end of a story or perhaps at the beginning. Indeed, both David and Solomon have similar summaries of their reigns, but in both of their cases the summary comes after the death of the king. However, in the case of Saul, this statement appears in the middle of Saul's story. A similar thing occurs with Ish-bosheth and David in 2 Sam. 2:10-11 and 4:4-5. Here, Saul was crowned king 3 chapters earlier and had led a successful campaign against Israel's enemies. However, there is still plenty of Saul's story to go. In fact, Saul does not die until the very end of 1 Samuel.
In thinking about the placement of this statement, perhaps it is significant that, unlike David or Solomon, there is no summary statement at the end of Saul's life. Furthermore, it appears just before Saul's first major mistake as king. While waiting at Gilgal for Samuel, Saul becomes impatient and ends up disobeying God's command. Instead off waiting for Samuel to come and offer a sacrifice, Saul chooses to offer the sacrifice himself. Samuel then rebukes Saul with the harrowing claim that Saul's "kingdom will not endure" (13:14 TNIV). Indeed, things continue to go downhill for Saul as he slowly loses touch with God and slowly loses his kingdom to David.
In some ways this narrative device works lie an extended flashback in movies. There are many movies that provide you with a scene and then go back to explain how that scene came about. For example, a bomb goes off in the opening scene and then the movies flashes back to the events leading up to that bombing. We already know the ending, the question is just how did we get there. Thus, whether it is Saul or David, we get a peak at the end and must await the details that are to come. However, in Saul's case, the author is signaling that this is the beginning of the end for Saul. With no second summary at the end of his reign (unlike David and Solomon), Saul's life is a steady downhill event. After chapter 13, Saul's reign is a good as done, so one might as well only summarize the totality of Saul reign here. Thus, in chapter 13, we know that the end of Saul is coming, but the reader soon discovers that the 42 years of Saul's reign were not all good years..
This summary of the reign of king Saul comes at the beginning of chapter 13 in 1 Samuel. However, it's placement in the story is odd. One expects to find such a summary either at the end of a story or perhaps at the beginning. Indeed, both David and Solomon have similar summaries of their reigns, but in both of their cases the summary comes after the death of the king. However, in the case of Saul, this statement appears in the middle of Saul's story. A similar thing occurs with Ish-bosheth and David in 2 Sam. 2:10-11 and 4:4-5. Here, Saul was crowned king 3 chapters earlier and had led a successful campaign against Israel's enemies. However, there is still plenty of Saul's story to go. In fact, Saul does not die until the very end of 1 Samuel.
In thinking about the placement of this statement, perhaps it is significant that, unlike David or Solomon, there is no summary statement at the end of Saul's life. Furthermore, it appears just before Saul's first major mistake as king. While waiting at Gilgal for Samuel, Saul becomes impatient and ends up disobeying God's command. Instead off waiting for Samuel to come and offer a sacrifice, Saul chooses to offer the sacrifice himself. Samuel then rebukes Saul with the harrowing claim that Saul's "kingdom will not endure" (13:14 TNIV). Indeed, things continue to go downhill for Saul as he slowly loses touch with God and slowly loses his kingdom to David.
In some ways this narrative device works lie an extended flashback in movies. There are many movies that provide you with a scene and then go back to explain how that scene came about. For example, a bomb goes off in the opening scene and then the movies flashes back to the events leading up to that bombing. We already know the ending, the question is just how did we get there. Thus, whether it is Saul or David, we get a peak at the end and must await the details that are to come. However, in Saul's case, the author is signaling that this is the beginning of the end for Saul. With no second summary at the end of his reign (unlike David and Solomon), Saul's life is a steady downhill event. After chapter 13, Saul's reign is a good as done, so one might as well only summarize the totality of Saul reign here. Thus, in chapter 13, we know that the end of Saul is coming, but the reader soon discovers that the 42 years of Saul's reign were not all good years..
Monday, November 8, 2010
The 300
A few years ago the movie "300" released in theaters. The film celebrated the might and courage of 300 Spartans who stood up against their Persian foes who were many times more numerous. This film resonated with Americans who value similar things that the movie glorified: strength, power, courage, ability to stand up against all odds.
In Judges 7 we read the account of another 300 warriors. However, the values espoused here in the story of Gideon seem a little different. Although courage still appears to be valued (God and Gideon allow those who are afraid to go home), the second qualification of Gideon's troops stands out as unique. God tells Gideon to only take with him the men who "lap" water like a "dog." While there is some debate as to the exact meaning and significance of this phrase, one theory argues that this was a sign of lack of military training. While those who knelt would have demonstrated military readiness, the actions of these 300 may have shown a lack of such readiness.
If this is the case, then it is significant that these are the 300 whom God chose. God did not choose those who were strong in battle or great warriors like the 300 Spartans. Instead, he chose those who did not belong in battle. Instead of relying on their military strength, they were to be courageous and rely on God's strength and faithfulness. This is a theme that will continue throughout the Bible, even into the NT. Two stories of 300 soldiers; two very different approaches to victory.
In Judges 7 we read the account of another 300 warriors. However, the values espoused here in the story of Gideon seem a little different. Although courage still appears to be valued (God and Gideon allow those who are afraid to go home), the second qualification of Gideon's troops stands out as unique. God tells Gideon to only take with him the men who "lap" water like a "dog." While there is some debate as to the exact meaning and significance of this phrase, one theory argues that this was a sign of lack of military training. While those who knelt would have demonstrated military readiness, the actions of these 300 may have shown a lack of such readiness.
If this is the case, then it is significant that these are the 300 whom God chose. God did not choose those who were strong in battle or great warriors like the 300 Spartans. Instead, he chose those who did not belong in battle. Instead of relying on their military strength, they were to be courageous and rely on God's strength and faithfulness. This is a theme that will continue throughout the Bible, even into the NT. Two stories of 300 soldiers; two very different approaches to victory.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Sampson: Hero or Tragedy?
We often think of the story of Sampson as a story of a hero. Children books and bibles celebrate his heroic feats against the Philistines and especially praise his final hour. In looking at his faith, we are pointed to Judges 16:30 which states that "he killed many more when he died than while he lived" (TNIV).
But, what if this is actually a tragic statement instead of a triumphant one. Indeed, Sampson had many issues during his life, particularly with pagan women. As one reads the story of Sampson, it seems that the only times he ever kills the Philistines is when he needs personal revenge. Never does he act on behalf of his people. Instead, he even seems to befriend the enemy (Judges 14:20-15:2). In this light, perhaps 16:30 can be seen as a tragic commentary on a life wasted. Although he was blessed with strength from God, he wasted that strength and ended up doing more for Israel when he was blind and a captive than in all the years he was healthy and free.
Furthermore, even though Sampson finally recognizes that it is god who gives him strength in the end, even here Sampson's desire is selfishly motivated. He does not act in order to free Israel or to show people that YHWH is greater than Dagon. Rather, he acts to "get revenge on the Philistines" for his "two eyes" (16:28). Given that this is the final judge mentioned, perhaps it is a sad commentary on the state of Israel and its leaders prior to the Kingdom period. Indeed, the life of Sampson seems to fit quite nicely with the final verse of Judges: "In those days...everyone did as they saw fit" (21:25, TNIV).
But, what if this is actually a tragic statement instead of a triumphant one. Indeed, Sampson had many issues during his life, particularly with pagan women. As one reads the story of Sampson, it seems that the only times he ever kills the Philistines is when he needs personal revenge. Never does he act on behalf of his people. Instead, he even seems to befriend the enemy (Judges 14:20-15:2). In this light, perhaps 16:30 can be seen as a tragic commentary on a life wasted. Although he was blessed with strength from God, he wasted that strength and ended up doing more for Israel when he was blind and a captive than in all the years he was healthy and free.
Furthermore, even though Sampson finally recognizes that it is god who gives him strength in the end, even here Sampson's desire is selfishly motivated. He does not act in order to free Israel or to show people that YHWH is greater than Dagon. Rather, he acts to "get revenge on the Philistines" for his "two eyes" (16:28). Given that this is the final judge mentioned, perhaps it is a sad commentary on the state of Israel and its leaders prior to the Kingdom period. Indeed, the life of Sampson seems to fit quite nicely with the final verse of Judges: "In those days...everyone did as they saw fit" (21:25, TNIV).
Monday, November 1, 2010
Regression of the Judges
"Then Israel did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals." (Judges 2:11)
Many of us have heard many of the stories from Judges. In fact, some of the most intriguing Old Testament stories come from this book. Sampson, Gideon, and Deborah all have amazing stories here. Additionally, for many years, readers have observed a recurring cycle of sin, oppression, call to God, and salvation. This cycle occurs over and over as Israel serves other Gods, is oppressed by her neighbors, calls to God, and receives salvation from a judge whom God sends.
Yet, it is also interesting that this cycle does not seem to be merely a circle. Rather, to me it seems like a spiral staircase. We've covered this ground before, and yet, it is not quite the same. In particular, there is a sense that, as Israel continues to serve their gods and Ba'als, the quality of their judges seems to worsen. Among the first few judges whom God sends are Ehud and Deborah. Both judges are moved by a strong conviction of commitment to God and boldly go to face the enemy. They live up to the charge to "be strong and courageous." These are people you want leading Israel.
However, then we come to Gideon. While Gideon demonstrates a good heart to serve God, he is also fearful. He doubts whether God will truly be with him and is a far cry from the leadership of Ehud and Deborah. After Gideon, the regression continues with the godless rule of Abimelek and the foolish oath of Jephthah. Finally, we come to Sampson. Although often regarded as a hero, the life of Sampson is really a tragedy. Although he was set up for greatness, Sampson chased after pagan women and prostitutes and only attacked the enemy when he needed personal revenge. In Sampson, the regression of the judges seems compete. Yet, as if this was not enough, the author ends the book with several stories (apparently out of order chronologically) about how everyone just did as they pleased without leadership and the horrific consequences that followed those actions.
So, why is there this regression? Perhaps the answer lies in the nature of idolatry. Idolatry is not a sin that ends with the worshiping of other gods. Idolatry leads to immorality, as Paul points out in Romans. Thus, the continuation of idolatry in Israel eventually consumed the whole community, including even the judges themselves. If uncleanness is a contagion within the community, then it was only a matter of time before the leaders of Israel fell to the same idolatry and immorality as the people. Perhaps there is also a sense in which this regression among the judges was a judgment from God. If the people continued to put in only half an effort in repenting, then God would being only putting in half an effort in saving. Or, one final possibility is that this literary feature is like Mark's gospel where the disciples seem to regress. Perhaps it is emphasizing the fallen-ness of humanity and our inability to fully follow God. In this sense, it emphasizes human sin and ensures that the focus remains on the faithfulness of God.
Many of us have heard many of the stories from Judges. In fact, some of the most intriguing Old Testament stories come from this book. Sampson, Gideon, and Deborah all have amazing stories here. Additionally, for many years, readers have observed a recurring cycle of sin, oppression, call to God, and salvation. This cycle occurs over and over as Israel serves other Gods, is oppressed by her neighbors, calls to God, and receives salvation from a judge whom God sends.
Yet, it is also interesting that this cycle does not seem to be merely a circle. Rather, to me it seems like a spiral staircase. We've covered this ground before, and yet, it is not quite the same. In particular, there is a sense that, as Israel continues to serve their gods and Ba'als, the quality of their judges seems to worsen. Among the first few judges whom God sends are Ehud and Deborah. Both judges are moved by a strong conviction of commitment to God and boldly go to face the enemy. They live up to the charge to "be strong and courageous." These are people you want leading Israel.
However, then we come to Gideon. While Gideon demonstrates a good heart to serve God, he is also fearful. He doubts whether God will truly be with him and is a far cry from the leadership of Ehud and Deborah. After Gideon, the regression continues with the godless rule of Abimelek and the foolish oath of Jephthah. Finally, we come to Sampson. Although often regarded as a hero, the life of Sampson is really a tragedy. Although he was set up for greatness, Sampson chased after pagan women and prostitutes and only attacked the enemy when he needed personal revenge. In Sampson, the regression of the judges seems compete. Yet, as if this was not enough, the author ends the book with several stories (apparently out of order chronologically) about how everyone just did as they pleased without leadership and the horrific consequences that followed those actions.
So, why is there this regression? Perhaps the answer lies in the nature of idolatry. Idolatry is not a sin that ends with the worshiping of other gods. Idolatry leads to immorality, as Paul points out in Romans. Thus, the continuation of idolatry in Israel eventually consumed the whole community, including even the judges themselves. If uncleanness is a contagion within the community, then it was only a matter of time before the leaders of Israel fell to the same idolatry and immorality as the people. Perhaps there is also a sense in which this regression among the judges was a judgment from God. If the people continued to put in only half an effort in repenting, then God would being only putting in half an effort in saving. Or, one final possibility is that this literary feature is like Mark's gospel where the disciples seem to regress. Perhaps it is emphasizing the fallen-ness of humanity and our inability to fully follow God. In this sense, it emphasizes human sin and ensures that the focus remains on the faithfulness of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)