8–12 Did God Want Israel to Have a King?

8–12 Did God Want Israel to Have a King?

Cows, sheep and goats “chew the cud.” They swallow their food without chewing it especially fine and store it in one of their stomach compartments. Later, at leisure, they bring it up and rechew it more thoroughly, again swallowing it. Clearly, the Hebrews were not working with this definition of “chewing the cud.” The camel, coney and rabbit are also said to “chew the cud,” but these animals only appear to chew their food as the true ruminants do. In the technical sense neither the hyrax syriacus (Hebrew sûaµp÷aµn) of Leviticus 11:5—which is called the “coney” in the KJV

[KJV King James Version] and NIV [NIV New International Version] and the “rock badger” in the NASB [NASB New American Standard Bible] —nor the rabbit in Leviticus 11:6 chews the cud.

The Hebrew expression for “chew the cud” is literally “raising up what has been swallowed.” But what does this raising up of what has been swallowed refer to? Surely there is the appearance of a cud-chewing process in these animals. In fact, so convincing was this appearance that Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), to whom we owe

the modern system of biological classification, at first classified the coney and the hare as ruminants.

We believe the rule in Leviticus should be understood not according to later scientific refinements of classification; instead, it was based on simple observation. The fact that the camel, the coney and the rabbit go through motions similar to those of cows, sheep and goats must take precedence over the fact that we later limited the cud-chewing category to just animals that have four stomachs. The modern definition of terms does not take away from Moses’ ability, or even his right, to use words as he sees fit to use them. To question his use of a term to which Linnaeus eventually gave a more restrictive meaning is anachronistic argumentation.

Interestingly, resting hares and rabbits do go through a process that is very similar to what we moderns call chewing the cud. The process is called refection. As the hare rests, it passes droppings of different composition, which it once again eats. Thus the hare is chewing without taking fresh greens into its mouth. During this second passage of the food through its stomach, that which had been indigestible can be better assimilated through the action of bacteria.

The case of the three animals that chewed the cud in Moses’ day but no longer do so can be solved. Moses’ classification had a solid observational basis that was accessible to all. In modern times, the phrase “chewing the cud” has been given a more restrictive meaning. Later generations, having forgotten which came first, have tended to freeze the meaning to the most recent definition and then accuse Moses of not using the term in this later sense.

16:7–10 What Was the Purpose of the Scapegoat?

What is the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16? Why do some scholars say that this goat was offered to Azazel, a desert demon that was capable of feeding on an animal laden with the sins of the entire nation of Israel? Does the Old Testament actually give aid and comfort to such views and teach that demons inhabit the desert?

And if the demon view is true, why does Leviticus 17:7 expressly forbid making offerings or sacrifices to demons? Also, what is the meaning of the Hebrew name used in connection with the scapegoat, azazel? Is this name to be connected with other demons named in Scripture, such as Lilith, “the night creature” (Is 34:14), or the Shedim, “demons” (Lev 17:7; 2 Chron 11:15; Is 13:21; 34:14), literally “the hairy ones,” “satyrs” or “goat idols”?

No day was, or is, as sacred to the Jewish community as Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. After the high priest had made atonement for his own sins and those of his household, he proceeded with the rites of atonement for the whole community. The community brought two male goats as a single sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering. Both goats were for atonement: one dealt with the fact of atonement and the other with the effect of atonement in removing sin. The first goat had to be slain in order to picture the atonement proffered; the other goat was presented alive and then released into the wilderness, symbolizing the removal of the forgiven sins (on the basis of the slain substitute).

Thus far all interpreters tend to agree, but after this point disagreement breaks out.

First of all, it has been pointed out that the name for the goats is not the standard term, but the expression that is used always in connection with the sin offering ( sÖƒéÆr > izzéÆm—Lev 4:23–24, 28; 5:6; 9:3; 23:19).

But the most difficult specification to deal with is that as the two goats are placed at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting—the tabernacle—and the lots are drawn, one goat is said to be “for the Lord,” and the other lot falls “for azazel” (Lev 16:8—

layhwaÆh; la >‡zaµ<zeµl).

The Greek translators did not regard azazel as a proper name, but connected it with

<aµzal, a verb that does not appear in the Old Testament. The meaning they gave it was “to send away.” Hence the full meaning of the Hebrew expression would be “in order to send away.” The Latin translation followed this same understanding. But, it is objected, this meaning will not easily fit the contexts of the last part of verse 10 and the first part of verse 26.

In later Jewish theology, the apocryphal book of Enoch uses Azazel as the name for one of the fallen angels. But there is no evidence for the existence of a demon by that name in Moses’ day. Enoch’s elaborate demonology is admittedly late (c. 200 b.c.) and often uses the late Aramaic forms for these names. It is clear that they are all of postbiblical invention.

The most adequate explanation is to view the term >‡zaµ<zeµl as being composed of two words: the first part, >eµz, meaning “goat,” and the second part, <aµzeµl, meaning “to go away.” With recent evidence from the Ugaritic (the language of ancient Canaan from which Hebrew is derived), compound names such as this one are turning up more frequently than what we had expected based on evidence from the Hebrew alone. This is how the rendering “scapegoat” came to be. Today, however, we would need to call it the “escape-goat,” for by “scapegoat” we mean the one who always gets blamed or gets stuck with a task that is distasteful. Originally, however, the King James translators meant “the goat that was led away.”

Since this ceremony is part of one sin offering, in no sense is the second goat an offering to the devil or his demons. The arguments that are brought in to support the view that the second goat is for the devil or his demons are unconvincing. One says that since the first clause of verse 8 indicates that the goat is designated for a person—

the Lord—the second clause also must refer to the goat’s being designated for a person—Azazel. While this is a grammatical possibility, it is not required by the text, and the specific prohibition of making such offerings to demons, found in Leviticus 17:7, is decisive in ruling out this possibility.

According to another argument, the words in 16:10 cannot mean that atonement is being made with azazel (that is, azazel as the scapegoat) to propitiate the Lord, but rather that atonement is being made to propitiate Azazel (that is, Azazel as a wilderness demon). The reply is that the same Hebrew expression for atonement is used throughout the chapter. Moreover, in Exodus 30:10 the same expression is translated “to atone over or upon.” Here the high priest was to make atonement “over”

the scapegoat by putting Israel’s guilt on it and then sending it away. If the expression appears strange, the answer is that the act described is itself unusual, and no other word could fit it better.

The high priest did not atone for sin by making an offering to Satan or to his demons.

There is evidence that the Old Testament teaches the existence of demons, for Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37 speak of such beings. But in no sense were the Israelites ever told to sacrifice to them; as we have seen, Leviticus 17:7 specifically warns against such sacrifices.

See also comment on jonah 1:4–5, 7.

18:5 The One Who Obeys My Laws Will Live?

This saying’s importance is assured by its appearance in such later contexts as Ezekiel 20:11, Luke 10:28, Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12. But it is also a hard saying. The text appears to offer an alternate method of gaining eternal life, even if only theoretically. Is it true, in either the Old Testament or the New, that a person could have eternal life by perfectly keeping the law of God? In other words, can we read this saying as “Do this and you will have [eternal] life”?

Unfortunately, all too many teachers of the Scriptures have uncritically assumed that the words live in them meant that “eternal life was to be had by observing the laws of God.” Accordingly, if a person were to keep these commandments perfectly, the very keeping would be eternal life.

But this claim misses a major amount of contrary evidence, foremost that the benefits of God’s promise-plan to the Old Testament believers were not conditioned on anything, much less on obedience. Such a position would reverse the unconditional word of blessing God gave to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David.

But what about the “if you obey me fully” statements of Exodus 19:5, Leviticus 26:3–

13 and Deuteronomy 11:13–15 and 28:1? Do not these texts flatly declare that without obedience salvation is impossible?

The if is admittedly conditional, but conditional to what? It was conditional only to enjoyment of the full benefits of a relationship begun by faith and given freely by God.

Israel must obey God’s voice and heed his covenant and commandments, not “in order to” establish their new life in God, but “so that” (Deut 5:33) they might experience completely this new life begun in faith.

The very context of this verse speaks against a works salvation. First, Leviticus 18

begins and ends with the theological assumption that the hearers have the Lord as their God. Thus, this instruction deals with sanctification rather than justification.

Second, “those things” which they were not to do were the customs and ordinances; in short, the pagan idolatries of the Egyptians and Canaanites. This is a whole world apart from the question of salvation.

Third, never in the Old or New Testaments has pleasing God constituted the external performance of acts; these acts carried with them the evidence of a prior attitude of the heart. For instance, circumcision of the flesh without the circumcision of the heart was wasted effort.

In fact, our Lord coupled the act and the heart when the people pledged, “All that the Lord says, we will do.” Imperiously, some call such a pledge rash, judging the people

foolish for falling for an offer they would never be able to live up to.

But our Lord did not see it that way. Rather, he said in so many words, “Oh that there were such a heart in them that they would always fear me and keep my commandments.” Our Lord connects their doing with the heart. He never reproved them by saying, “Oh, what deluded people! Given your previous track record, how on earth do you ever expect to enter my heaven by keeping any of my laws?” There is not a word about this. Therefore, this verse cannot be said to teach a hypothetical offer of salvation by works.

Some may argue that the words live by them, quoted in Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12, surely means in those contexts that salvation was “by means of” works (an instrumental use of the preposition). I respond that this expression should be translated live “in the sphere of them” (a locative use of the preposition).

Moses, therefore, was not describing the means of attaining salvation but only the horizon within which an earthly, godly life should be lived.

See also comment on genesis 26:3–5; micah 6:6–8; philippians 2:12–13; james 2:24.

18:18 Was Polygamy Permitted in the Old Testament?

See comment on 2 samuel 20:3.

18:22 Homosexuality Condemned?

See comment on romans 1:27.

20:1–27; 24:10–23 Is the Death Penalty Justified for All the Crimes Listed?

Are all the crimes listed in Leviticus 20 and 24 worthy of being punished by death?

Surely there is a difference between burning babies to honor the god Molech and marrying a close relative. What explanation can be given for what appears to be such harsh penalties?

Leviticus 20 is mainly a penal code. It can be divided into two main sections: the penalty for worshiping Molech with child sacrifices and going to mediums and spiritists (Lev 20:1–8, 27), and the penalties for sinning against the family (Lev 20:9–26). And whereas the laws in Leviticus 18–19 were apodictic in form (that is, similar to the form of the Ten Commandments: “you shall … ”), the laws of chapter 20 are casuistic (that is, in the form of case laws, with “If a person … then … ”).

The horror of taking healthy babies and placing them on the arms of the god Molech and letting the baby roll down the arms into the interior of the idol where a burning fire would consume the live baby is clear enough. To demand the death penalty for such a violation of the rights, dignity and image of God in those children ought to present its own rationale for all thinking persons who ought also to be outraged at such a violation of innocence and the destruction of the lives of these children.

Not so clear to us, but likewise just as deadly, was the habit of consulting mediums and spiritists in the hopes that they possessed supernatural powers. These practices involved consulting the dead and other dangerous forms of yielding one’s body to the realm of the demonic in order to obtain information or power over someone or something else. More than we moderns can appreciate, this too led to some very deadly practices.

What about such a severe penalty for sins against the family, especially since all the verses in this section (Lev 20:9–21) deal with sexual sins, except verse 9? At the very minimum this section shows that the family was extremely important. Violations of the family that called for the death penalty included cursing one’s parents (Lev 20:9), adultery (Lev 20:10), incest with one’s mother, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law or mother-in-law (Lev 20:11–12, 14), homosexual behavior or sodomy (Lev 20:13), bestiality (Lev 20:15–16), incest with one’s half sister or full sister (Lev 20:17), and relations with a woman in her monthly period (Lev 20:18).

Many of the penalties listed here prescribe a “cutting off,” in contrast to a judicial execution as in Leviticus 20:2–5. Could this signify something different from capital punishment? Some have rather convincingly argued that the expression to “cut off” in many of these lists of penalties meant to excommunicate that person from the community of God. The case, however, is not altogether clear, for in some of these situations, the threat of punishment from God in some form of premature death appears to fit the meaning best.

It must be noted that the death penalty might also indicate the seriousness of the crime without calling for the actual implementation of it in every case. In fact, there is little evidence that many of these sanctions were ever actually carried out in ancient Israel.

Only in the case of premeditated murder was there the added stricture of “Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die” (Num 35:31). The word “ransom” is the Hebrew koµp÷er, meaning a “deliverance or a ransom by means of a substitute.” Traditional wisdom, both in the Jewish and Christian communities, interpreted this verse in Numbers 35:31 to mean that out of the almost twenty cases calling for capital punishment in the Old Testament, every one of them could have the sanction commuted by an appropriate substitute of money or anything that showed the seriousness of the crime; but in the case of what we today call first-degree murder, there was never to be offered or accepted any substitute or bargaining of any kind: the offender had to pay with his or her life.

The case of the blasphemer in Leviticus 24:10–23 is similar. In one of the rare narrative passages in Leviticus, the blasphemer was incarcerated in jail until God revealed what should be done with him. The blasphemer had cursed “the Name” of God in the heat of passion. The penalty for blasphemy against God, or, as it will also be stated later in the New Testament, against the Holy Spirit, is death. This was an affront against the holiness of God and had to be dealt with by the whole community lest the guilt fall on all the community. This incident of blasphemy provides, then, further occasion for spelling out six more laws (Lev 24:16–22) that had previously had been announced in Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:12–14, 18–25, 35–36, and later in Deuteronomy 19:21. The reason for their repetition is to show that these laws apply equally to the resident aliens as to the Israelites. Of course, whenever the lose of life was the result of accidental manslaughter (Num 35:9–34), no capital punishment was required.

See also comment on genesis 9:6.

24:19–20 Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth?

See comment on exodus 21:23–25.

25:35–38 Is Charging Interest Permitted?

See comment on exodus 22:25.

25:39–55 Does God Approve of Slavery?

See comment on exodus 21:2–11.

Numbers

4:3; 8:24 Why the Discrepancy in Ages for Levitical Service?

Why does the Bible give varying ages as the qualification for the Levites to perform the work of the service of the tabernacle or temple? Was the minimum twenty, twenty-five or thirty years of age? And was there a maximum age of fifty, or was it left open?

A Levite must not be younger than thirty or older than fifty years old according to Numbers 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47. But in Numbers 8:24–25 the age limit was set at twenty-five and fifty. The Greek Septuagint text for Numbers 4 also reads “from twenty-five to fifty.”

But the author of Chronicles set an even lower age limit of twenty, but he does not give an upper age limit (1 Chron 23:24, 27; 2 Chron 31:17; Ezra 3:8). We can probably assume that it remained at fifty. But even the chronicler recognized some change, for in the same chapter he gave the qualifying age as thirty in 1 Chronicles 23:3 and twenty in 1 Chronicles 23:24.

What can account for this vacillation from twenty, twenty-five to thirty years old as the minimum age to work in the sanctuary? No doubt the qualifying age varied from era to era depending on the needs of the sanctuary and the availability of persons. The change, except for the textual variant in the Septuagint of Numbers 4:3 (which raises the question as to what was the best and original reading of this text), occurs in the days following David’s era. Apparently this reflects a change necessitated by the additional duties in the temple after it became a royal sanctuary.

11:31–34 Why the Punishment of God After This Complaint?

Why did God punish the children of Israel for grumbling about the food and asking for meat in the second year of wandering in the wilderness, recorded in Numbers 11, but not the previous year when they had made the same request (Ex 16:11–18)? What so distinguishes the two events that it would demand the judgment of God in the second

instance but not in the first?

When Israel complained, they were doing more than objecting to a monotonous diet; they were challenging the goodness of God and his ability to provide for them. The affair in Numbers 11:4 began when the “rabble” of the foreign element that had joined the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt (Ex 12:38) began wailing about the lack of meat and vegetables in their diet. The rest of the people of Israel joined in, and the pressure was on for Moses and the leadership of the nation.

In answer to the people’s request, God drove a quail migration, which regularly takes place each spring from the winter habitat in Africa, in from across the Red Sea by a strong wind. So the quails, exhausted from their long journey and from the force of the wind, flew as low as three feet above the ground over the Sinai peninsula, where Israel was now journeying.

So many were the quails that they covered an area about a day’s walk in either direction of the camp. The people greedily gathered no less than “ten homers” each, that is, about sixty bushels full! Given the hot climate and the lack of refrigeration, this was going to spell trouble for a selfish and ecologically insensitive people.

It appears that an epidemic of food poisoning broke out among the people as a result of their wanton craving and disobedience. Israel’s oft-expressed complaining came to a head here in a way it had not in the Exodus 16 passage, where God had patiently put up with the same thing as a mark of his grace. This time he gave the people what they wanted, but they did themselves in with their own greed and their unwillingness to listen. The number of people who died is not given, but the place was named “graves of craving,” Kibroth Hattaavah, as a result of the large number that perished.

12:3 Moses Was More Humble than Anyone Else?

Numbers 12:3 is the most difficult text in the whole book of Numbers. Critical scholars (and others) have correctly observed that it is rather unlikely that a truly humble person would write in such a manner about himself, even if he actually felt the statement was true. Many critical scholars are so convinced of the inappropriateness of recording such a note about oneself that they have used this as a strong mark against the Mosaic authorship of the whole book.

One scholar has suggested recently that the word translated “humble” or “meek”

should instead be translated “miserable.” The idea of “miserable” certainly would fit the context of this chapter very well. To be sure, Moses had a most unmanageable task. He had just said in Numbers 11:14, “The burden is too heavy for me.” With all the attacks on his family, he may have passed into a deep depression. Thus, a very good translation possibility is “Now Moses was exceedingly miserable, more than anyone on the face of the earth”!

Those who retain the meaning “humble” usually cite this passage, along with other passages such as the Deuteronomy 34 announcement of Moses’ death and burial site, as evidence for post- Mosaic additions authorized by the Spirit of God to the inspired text. Normally Joshua is credited with contributing these comments. Joshua 24:26

says, “And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God”—a clear reference to the five books of the Law, whose authorship is usually ascribed to Moses.

This is the view that I favor, though the idea of translating the word as “miserable” is also a possible solution.

Moses, of course, was not a naturally humble man. If he became so, he learned it through the trials he had to experience as the leader of a very stubborn group of people.

Some have argued for Moses’ authorship of the verse, reminding us that the apostle Paul was compelled by challenges to his apostleship to point out his own excellence of character in 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11–12. But it does not seem that Moses was facing exactly the same set of circumstances.

Biblical writers speak of themselves with an objectivity that is rarely matched in other pieces of literature. Their selfreferences usually lay bare their sins and failures. It is rare for them to praise themselves.

The translators of the NIV [NIV New International Version] were no doubt justified in placing this verse in parentheses. The note is a later parenthetical remark made under the direction of the Holy Spirit by Joshua.

See also comment on deuteronomy 34:5–8.

13:3 Where Did the Spies Start Out?

Why does Numbers 13:3 say that the spies left from the desert of Paran while Numbers 32:8 says it was from Kadesh Barnea? Were these two different sites or is there some way of explaining how both may be correct?

The desert of Paran is a poorly defined area in the east-central portion of the Sinai peninsula, bordered on the northwest by the wilderness of Shur, on the northeast by the wilderness of Zin and by the Sinai desert on the south. For most of the forty years of their wandering the Israelites were camped at Kadesh Barnea (Num 14:34; Deut 1:19–20).

Topographically, the site of Kadesh Barnea was a part of the wilderness of Paran. In fact, the Greek Septuagint of Numbers 33:36 had a gloss, that is, an explanatory appositional note, that read “in the desert of Paran, this is Kadesh.”

From Genesis 14:5–7 we learn that El-paran was located south of Kadesh, therefore one could properly describe Kadesh as being located on the border of the Paran wilderness.

14:18 Should Children Be Punished for Their Parents’ Sins?

See comment on deuteronomy 24:16.

20:24 Gathered to His People?

See comment on genesis 25:8.

20:28 Where Did Aaron Die?

Numbers 20:28, as well as Numbers 33:38–39, indicates that Aaron died on Mount Hor. Deuteronomy 10:6, however, seems to locate Aaron’s death at Moserah.

Furthermore, if we follow the sequence of places in Numbers 33:30–33, it does not fit the journey schedule listed just before the death of Aaron given in Deuteronomy 10:6

or Numbers 20:28 and 33:38–39. Which is correct, and how did the error, if that is what it is, creep into the text?

The sequence of the camping sites on the wilderness journey in Numbers 33:30–33 is different from the sequence of Deuteronomy 10:6–9. Numbers 33:31–33 has Moseroth and Bene Jaakan, Haggidgad and Jotbathah. But this was an earlier journey than the later journey back to Kadesh mentioned in Numbers 33:37. It would appear that Israel left Kadesh and traveled toward Edom and then returned to Kadesh before starting on their last trip around Edom up into the plains of Moab.

The best solution that can be posed to this problem so far is that Moserah is probably a larger area that included Mount Hor. Thus it would be quite correct to declare that Aaron’s death was either on Mount Hor (Num 20:22–29; 33:38–39; Deut 32:50) or Moserah (Deut 10:6).

22:20–22 God Said Go but Was Very Angry Because He Went

Was Balaam permitted to travel to the plains of Moab to curse Israel, courtesy of Balak, king of Moab, or was he not? At first this appears to be a case where God gave his permission and then turned back on what he had said.

This narrative has several surprising aspects. First of all, we are shocked to learn a prophet of Yahweh was living in Upper Mesopotamia, in the region where Abraham had stopped off at Haran on his way from Ur of the Chaldees to the land of promise.

In fact, it is so amazing and unexpected that God would have a non-Jewish prophet, it is widely supposed that Balaam was a baru, a priest-diviner, who used the usual tricks of the trade, such as dreams and omens, to forecast the future. But the Bible does not seem to support this, for Balaam used the name Yahweh, a name that implies a personal relationship (“He will be [there]”). Though Balak commissions him to curse the Israelites, it must be remembered that properly pronounced blessings and curses were also extremely effective in biblical teaching (Gen 48:14–20; Judg 17:1–2; Mt 21:18–22).

Was Balaam the embodiment of evil, or was he basically a good man? Perhaps as is true of many others, he was a mixture of good and evil. He really knew the true, personal God of Israel, and like so many other believing Gentiles who receive only a passing reference in Scripture (such as Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab), he too really believed to the saving of his soul. As a matter of fact, God not only used him to protect Israel from a curse, he was also the instrument of the great Messianic prophecies concerning the “Star out of Jacob,” a guiding light for the Eastern wise men who later searched out the new king of the Jews.

How, then, shall we deal with the apparent contradiction in this passage? The solution

lies in the text itself, not in suppositions or harmonizations.

Balaam had already received one royal delegation in Numbers 22:7–14. Balaam rightly replies that the Lord refused him permission to go with the princes of Moab to curse Israel. What Balaam had artfully neglected to mention was God’s reason for refusing:

“Because [Israel is] blessed” (Num 22:12). Mentioning this probably would have ended the Moabites’ attempts to curse a people God blessed. Balaam apparently was playing both sides of the street on this one; he deliberately left the door open, perhaps hoping that he could somehow benefit from such a highly visible ministry.

As if anticipated, a second delegation returned to Balaam with an offer that amounted to a blank check. Now some have attempted to relieve the tension observed here by distinguishing between God and Yahweh. Balaam’s pretensions of having Yahweh as his God (as in Num 22:18–19) are exposed as phony, for it is not Yahweh who comes to him, but Elohim (Num 22:20). This solution is artificial, for Numbers 22:22 reports that it was Elohim who got angry. Champions of this theory note that the Samaritan Pentateuch and several important manuscripts of the Septuagint read “Yahweh”

instead of “Elohim” here.

This may be true, but it still fails to see that the text itself does not make such a sharp distinction between God and Yahweh. Instead, the text stresses that the permission of Balaam was conditional. The KJV [KJV King James Version] phrases it, “If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do” (Num 22:20). Balaam, however, was all too anxious to go and did not wait for the men to call him; rather, he saddled his donkey and sought them out.

The KJV [KJV King James Version] rendering of verse 20 is to be preferred to both the NIV [NIV New International Version] ’s “Since these men have come” and the RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ’s “If the men have come” because the very next verse, Numbers 22:21, makes it clear that Balaam initiated the action and did not wait for the test that God proposed to take effect. It says, “Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the princes of Moab.” He “loved the wages of wickedness” (2 Pet 2:15).

Most commentators acknowledge that the proper force of the Hebrew ’im is “if”; however, they incorrectly reason that the men from Moab had already called and invited Balaam to go, thus there was no reason to suppose that any additional call was anticipated. Consequently, many treat the word if as a concessive particle with the meaning “since.” What these scholars fail to realize is that Balaam had asked these men to spend the night while he made further investigations from the Lord.

This brief respite gave Balaam one more opportunity to sense God’s will through his providential working—in this case, the disgust of the Moabite delegation, which would have packed up and left in the morning had not Balaam been so desirous of taking the job. Instead Balaam took the very initiative God had left in the hands of the Moabites (“If the men come”) and thus evidenced his own disobedient inclinations.

Despite Balaam’s strong declaration in verse 18 that “even if Balak gave me his palace filled with silver and gold, I could not do anything great or small to go beyond the command of the Lord my God,” his mentioning both money and going beyond the will of God raises the question that this is exactly what he not only did, but planned to do if possible.

This passage, like many others, teaches us to differentiate between the directive and permissive will of God. God’s directive will was clearly seen in the words “Do not go with them … because they are blessed.” This is so clear that it will admit no exceptions. But when Balaam continued to press God, God tested his willingness to obey (if it needed to be demonstrated that he had trouble knowing God’s will). The test was a condition that depended on the discouraged princes’ returning one last time before leaving for home. However, Balaam could not wait, perhaps fearing they would not return. Only then was the anger of God excited.

The love of God did not cease at this point but was demonstrated in three more warnings from God that he was headed into trouble. Even though this was enough to straighten out Balaam for the immediate mission, it did not insulate him from future difficulties that God must have wished to spare Balaam.

The end of Balaam’s ministry was tragic, for after he had served God by repeatedly blessing Israel, he became the instrument of both Israel’s downfall and his own (Num 31:7–8, 15–16). But for this he had only himself to blame and not God, for he had been sternly warned. Sometimes God gives us the desires of our hearts after we have begged and begged for a reversal of his will, but the result often is leanness for our spiritual lives.

23:19 God Does Not Change His Mind?

See comment on genesis 6:6; 1 samuel 15:29; jonah 4:1–2.

25:7–13 Why Was Phinehas Praised?

Several questions are generally raised in connection with this most unusual story of Phinehas. The first involves the action of Cozbi and Zimri. What were they doing that so stirred the holy indignation of Phinehas that he impaled both of them with one thrust of his spear?

We will need to understand what was involved in the worship of Baal of Peor (Num 25:1–5). And was Israel’s lapse into this sin in any way connected with the advice or at the instigation of Balaam, the son of Beor?

Finally, we wish to know how the death of the couple, Zimri and Cozbi, could effect an atonement and assuage the wrath of God. All of these questions arise from one of the most bizarre episodes in Israel’s long wilderness wanderings.

At this point, Israel was encamped at Shittim, or Acacia. It was a site east of the Jordan and six miles north of the Dead Sea, if this name is to be connected with modern Tel el-Kefrein.

It appears that the Israelite men began to have sexual relations with the Moabite and Midianite women (Num 25:1, 6). How such liaisons began we can only guess, but they seem to be connected with the bad advice given to the Moabites by the prophet Balaam, son of Beor. Prior to this event, the king of Moab had hired Balaam to curse the people of Israel; because of the strong hand of God on his life, however, Balaam had only been able to bless them. Apparently still bent on helping the Moabite king,

Balaam had stayed on in the land of Moab and Midian. Numbers 31:16 informs us that

“[the Midianite women] were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people.” (Apparently the Midianites were in Moab giving military advice to the Moabites at this time.)

The Moabites worshiped the war god Chemosh, but they must have also indulged in the fertility religion of Baal. This cult was marked by some of the most depraved religious practices in Canaan. In lurid and orgiastic rites, the worshipers would emulate the sacred prostitution of their gods and goddesses, often also participating in a ceremonial meal. In the case of Baal of Peor, we suspect that the cult also involved veneration for the dead. Peor may be the Hebrew and Phoenician spelling for the Luwian Pahura. This word in Hittite means “fire” and may derive from some form of the root that underlies the Greek pyr, “fire.”

Among the Israelites, then, the Midianite and Moabite women continued to prostrate themselves in Baal worship, imitating fertility rituals. And one day, as all the Israelites were gathered in front of the tabernacle confessing their sin, the son of one of the leaders in the tribe of Simeon paraded before them with a Moabite woman, headed for his tent.

Reading the situation clearly, Phinehas swung into action. By the time he reached them in the back (bedroom) part of the tent, the couple were already involved in sexual intercourse. With a single thrust, Phinehas speared both of them. His action stopped the plague that had broken out among the Israelites.

Israel’s wholesale embracing of the immorality and idolatry of pagan ritualistic sex had aroused the anger of God. While God had saved Israel from the curses of Balaam, the Israelites could not save themselves from sinning against God.

Phinehas was no vigilante. He was heir apparent to the priesthood; thus he, no doubt, was one of the appointed judges whom Moses had ordered to slay all known offenders. This story does not justify the actions of private persons who, under the guise of zeal for expediting God’s purposes, take matters into their own hands when they see wrongdoing rather than contacting the appropriate authorities.

Because of the Israelites’ apostasy and sin, atonement was required before divine forgiveness could be proffered. The atonement that Phinehas offered was that of two human offenders.

Normally in the Old Testament, atonement is mentioned in connection with sacrifices, such as the sin offering. But in twenty-two passages, atonement was effected by means other than ceremonial offerings (for example, Ex 32:30–32; Deut 21:1–9; 2 Sam 21:3–

9). Therefore, just as the life of the animal was a substitute, the means of ransoming the life of the guilty party, so the holiness of God was defended in this case through the substitution of the lives of the sinning couple. With atonement made, God could pardon his people and halt the spread of the plague.

The reward given to Phinehas was that his descendants would enjoy eternal possession of the priesthood. That priesthood continued, except for the interval of the priesthood of Eli, without interruption until the collapse of the nation in 586 b.c.

25:9 Twenty-three Thousand or Twenty-four Thousand?

See comment on 1 corinthians 10:8.

27:13; 31:2 Gathered to His People?

See comment on genesis 25:8.

32:8 Where Did the Spies Start Out?

See comment on numbers 13:3

33:30, 38–39 Where Did Aaron Die?

See comment on numbers 20:28

35:21 No Ransom for a Murderer?

Of the crimes punishable by death under Old Testament law, was it possible to obtain compensation for damages through some type of substitutionary restitution in every case except first-degree, premeditated murder? If so, why was this crime singled out for special treatment? Were not the other crimes as serious? If they were not, why did they carry such a stiff sanction—the death penalty?

The key text in this discussion must be Numbers 35:31, “Do not accept a ransom

[substitute] for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.”

There are sixteen crimes that called for the death penalty in the Old Testament: kidnapping, adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, incorrigible delinquency in a child, striking or cursing parents, offering a human sacrifice, false prophecy, blasphemy, profaning the sabbath, sacrificing to false gods, magic and divination, unchastity, the rape of a betrothed virgin, and premeditated murder. In each case, where the evidence was clear and beyond a reasonable doubt, the death penalty was demanded.

One major distinction was drawn, however, between the penalty for premeditated murder and penalties for the other fifteen crimes on this list. Only in the case where someone had lain in wait to kill with malice and forethought does Scripture specify that the officials were forbidden to take a ransom.

The word ransom comes from a root meaning “substitute.” The only fair inference from Numbers 35:31, then, is that perpetrators of any of the other fifteen capital crimes could escape death by offering a proper ransom or substitute. In those fifteen cases, the death penalty served to mark the seriousness of the crime. It is important, however, to note that only God could say which crimes might have their sanctions lessened.

Some have contended that this argument is an argument from silence, and therefore fallacious. But the alternative to this argument from silence (which has venerable precedent in rabbinic and Protestant commentary) would require upholding the death penalty for all sixteen crimes as valid to our present day. And if death is the only proper punishment for these crimes even in the present day, why did the apostle Paul not make any reference to it, especially when he had specific occasion to do so when he dealt with the case of incest in 1 Corinthians 5? Why did Paul recommend church discipline rather than capital punishment for the offending mother and son?

I am not arguing here that the penalties of the Old Testament are too severe or that the New Testament is more “urbane” and “cultured.” Some have properly noted that even Hebrews 2:2 says that “every violation and disobedience received its just [or appropriate] punishment.” In fact, too many people misunderstand the talion (“tooth-for-a-tooth”) principle (Ex 21:23–25). It is simply a “life-for-life” stereotype expression that worked out in actual practice to this: Make the punishment fit the crime; don’t try to profit from or trade on calamity.

Since the taking of life involved deep disregard for God and for the creatures made in his image, Genesis 9:6 makes it clear that the only way the state and society could preserve the rights, dignity and worth of all humanity was to offer the life of the proven first-degree murderer back to God. That is why this one capital offense remained when the others were allowed the option of a “ransom” or “substitute.”

See also comment on genesis 9:6; exodus 20:13; 21:23–25; leviticus 20:1–7; deuteronomy 21:18–21.

33:38–39 Where Did Aaron Die?

See comment on numbers 20:28.

Deuteronomy

2:30 God Made His Spirit Stubborn?

See comment on exodus 9:12.

2:34; 3:6 Completely Destroy Them!

See comment on 1 samuel 15:18.

5:12–15 Should We “Remember the Sabbath Day”?

See comment on exodus 20:8–11.

5:12–16, 21 A Different Ten Commandments?

Given the fact that the wording for the fourth and tenth commandments differs here in

Deuteronomy, how shall we explain this if these words were written directly by God while Moses was on the mount? One would expect the wording to agree perfectly with that of Exodus 20:8–12, 17.

The major differences between the two accounts of the Ten Commandments are these: (1) “Remember the Sabbath day” of Exodus 20:8 is replaced in Deuteronomy 5:12

with “Observe the Sabbath day”; (2) Deuteronomy twice adds to the fifth commandment “as the Lord your God has commanded you” in keeping with the exhortation characteristic of this book; (3) Deuteronomy 5:14 expands “nor your animals” with “so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do”; (4) the grounding of the sabbath command in creation in Exodus 20:11 is absent here, for Deuteronomy appeals to Israel’s deliverance from the bondage in Egypt; (5) “so that you may live long” has added to it in Deuteronomy “and that it may go well with you”; (6) the ninth commandment had “false” in the Deuteronomy law instead of the (literally) “mendacious testimony” of Exodus 20:16; (7) the tenth commandment of Deuteronomy places “your neighbor’s wife” first while Exodus 20:17 has “your neighbor’s house” first; (8) the word “covet,” which appears twice in Exodus 20:17, is replaced the second time with a different verb in Deuteronomy 5:21, “set your desire on”; and (9) Deuteronomy adds “or land” to the tenth commandment in keeping with its more elaborate style and anticipation of entering into the land of Canaan.

The fact that the two accounts differ is an indication that one of the two is not a verbatim presentation of the Decalogue as it was written by “the finger of God” on Mount Sinai. There is nothing in a high view of inspiration that would require that both accounts adhere to a verbatim report, but given the fact that the Decalogue is said to have come in some direct manner from the hand of God, one would assume that at least one of them was a faithful record of that transaction. The most reasonable assumption is that the text of Exodus is the original one and that Moses’ restatement in Deuteronomy is somewhat free. This allowed Moses to present the commandments with some modifications and updating of the situation in light of their pending entrance into the land of Canaan, while still adhering rather closely to the original form. In fact, these differences are very slight and of very little consequence except as viewed against the challenges that present themselves in entering into the land. Deuteronomy also had more of an exhortation character to it along with special attention given to women as taking priority over property.

7:1–2 Completely Destroy Them!

See comment on 1 samuel 15:18.

10:6 Where Did Aaron Die?

See comment on numbers 20:28.

10:12 How to Obtain Salvation?

See comment on micah 6:6–8.

10:22 How Many Went to Egypt?

See comment on acts 7:14–15.

15:4, 7, 11 Will the Poor Always Be Present?

At first glance there certainly does seem to be an outright conflict here. First we are told that the Lord will so richly bless Israel that there will be no poor people in the land. Then provisions are made for the eventuality that there should be some poor in the land. Finally we are advised that the poor will always be with us. Which statement is true? Or if they are all true, how do we reconcile the discrepancies?

If Deuteronomy 15:4 is taken in isolation, it certainly does look like a flat contradiction of Deuteronomy 15:11. But verse 4 begins with a “however.” This introduces a correction or a limitation on what has preceded it in Deuteronomy 15:1–3 about the cancellation of debts due to loans that have now been paid off. That is, it should not be necessary to cancel any debts if the people are fully experiencing the blessing of the Lord as he promised in verse 4. There was a stated condition, however, for the nonexistence of the poor in the land mentioned in Deuteronomy 15:5: Israel must

“fully obey” and be “careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today.”

But if Israel was to refuse to fully obey (which they did), then the eventuality of Deuteronomy 15:7 is provided for, and the general assessment of Deuteronomy 15:11

is that “there will always be poor people in the land.”

The situation in these verses is very much like that in 1 John 2:1, “I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin … ” Thus the ideal is set forth while an alternative is also graciously provided in the way that poor people must be dealt with in an open, generous and magnanimous way.

15:12–18 Does God Approve of Slavery?

See comment on exodus 21:2–11.

19:21 Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth?

See comment on exodus 21:23–25.

21:15–17 Was Polygamy Permitted in the Old Testament?

See comment on genesis 29:25–28; 2 samuel 20:3.

21:18–21 Stone a Stubborn and Rebellious Son?

At first glance this law seems pitiless in its demands both of a society with incorrigibly delinquent children and of the emotionally torn parents of such ruffians. But a second glance would question if our pity is well placed. Shall we pity the criminal or the community? Does Scripture side with the offender or the offended? The issue is not

abstract or antiquated. It haunts modern society as well as the Christian community.

The case represented here particularizes the fifth of the Ten Commandments. The sanctity of the family is at the heart of this command to honor one’s parents.

Accordingly, God’s plan for the family in its origin, function and perpetuity was not to be measured by humanistic or societal conventions but by the counsel of God.

Children were to honor their parents as God’s earthly representatives. To rebel against these representatives was equal to rebelling against God. In practice, obedience to parents (a command strictly qualified by “in the Lord”) could then be transferred as obedience to God, for the parents taught the children the law of God. Parents were to impress the commandments of God on their children’s hearts while sitting together at home, walking along the road or getting up (Deut 6:6–7).

What happened when a serious case of juvenile delinquency appeared in the community? Should the family strike out in wrath to rid themselves of this embarrassment?

Deuteronomy 21:19–21 limits the power of the family. Parents were restricted to chastening and disciplining their children. They were never given power to kill or to abort life. Only under Roman law, as R. J. Rushdoony points out, was the parent the source and lord of life. In Scripture God is the source and Lord over life.

Thus, when anyone in the extended family rebelled and refused to obey his or her parents ( son does not restrict this law to sons, for it also included daughters and, by extension, all relatives), the rest of the family was to align themselves with God’s law and not with the recalcitrant family member.

In fact, the family order was so sacred to the fabric of society and the plan of God that the accusing family members were not considered the complaining witnesses as in other cases. Ordinarily witnesses were required to participate in the execution by throwing the first stones (Deut 17:7). In this case, however, “all the men of his town”

were required to participate, for the complaint was a complaint by the community against one of its members.

What disrupted one family in the community attacked the whole community.

Moreover, if the parents had refused to bring the guilty and incorrigible individual to the elders, they would have been guilty of condoning and, in a sense, participating in the defiant son’s crimes.

Did the town actually kill one of its own members just for being rebellious? Such behavior came under the curse of God himself, so serious was the charge of parental abuse by children or their defiant refusal to listen to them (Deut 27:16).

However, for each crime demanding capital punishment (except premeditated murder) there was a substitution or ransom that could be offered (Num 35:31). Thus, while the penalty marked the seriousness of the crime, the offer of a ransom would mitigate some of the severity in the actual sentencing. Scripture suggests no proper ransom or substitute in this case, but it likely was similar to contemporary sentences that require community service for a specified time.

Could pity play any part in the sentencing of these crimes? Not if that pity were directed toward the violator rather than the violated or the word of God. Pity could

distract people from serving God and honoring his word. There was to be no pity, for example, for the idolatrous worshipers of Canaan (Deut 7:16), the subverter of the faith (Deut 13:6–9) or the coldblooded murderer (Deut 19:11–13). Instead, our affection ought to be toward the living God and what he has spoken. Any love, loyalty or pity which preempts that love is itself a lawless and faithless love.

See also comment on genesis 9:6; numbers 35:21.

23:19–20 Is Charging Interest Permitted?

See comment on exodus 22:25.

24:1–4 Is Divorce Permitted?

Does Deuteronomy 24:1–4 assert that a man must give a certificate of divorce to his wife if she displeases him? If not, why do the AV [AV Authorized Version] (the King James), the ASV [ASV American Standard Version] of 1901 and the ERV [ERV

English Revised Version] say, “He shall write a bill of divorcement”?

Was divorce an intrinsic “right” or prerogative that had divine approval and legitimation in Old Testament times? What becomes then of the teachings of Jesus in Mark 10:2–12 and the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10–16? All these questions continue to make Deuteronomy 24:1–4 a hard saying that demands some solid answers.

First of all, Deuteronomy 24:1–4 does not bestow any divine approval, or even an implied approval, on divorce as such. It sought, rather, to soften some of the hardships and injustices that divorce caused for women in a society that persisted in this practice.

Unfortunately, the translators of the three above-mentioned English versions of this text failed to notice that Deuteronomy 24:1–3 constitutes a protasis (or conditional clause) whose apodosis (or resolution) comes only in Deuteronomy 24:4. The significance of this syntax is that Moses did not make divorce mandatory. This passage does not authorize husbands to divorce their wives.

Rightly understood, the rule simply prohibits a husband from returning to a wife whom he had divorced after she has married a second time—even if her second husband has died in the interim.

The most difficult part of this Deuteronomy passage is the phrase “something indecent.” Literally it means “nakedness of a thing.”

The offensive act of the wife against her husband, which he is using as his grounds for a divorce, can hardly be adultery. The Mosaic law prescribed death for adultery (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). And when adultery was only suspected, but not proved, there were specified ways to handle such situations (Num 5:11–31). And this phrase cannot refer to a case where the wife was charged with previous sexual promiscuity, for that too had been anticipated (Deut 22:13–21). In none of these other cases does the phrase “something indecent” appear, nor is divorce set forth as the appropriate punishment for any of them.

The rabbis held vastly different opinions on the meaning of “something indecent.”

Rabbi Hillel taught that it referred to something repulsive—a physical defect, or even ruining a meal! Rabbi Akiba interpreted it even more liberally: divorce could be “for any and every reason” (Mt 19:3), such as a man’s finding another woman more attractive than his own wife. Others have believed that the phrase refers to some type of illness, for example, a skin disease.

Whatever the indecency was, it is clear that the common law allowed considerable latitude. The conclusion we are left with is that “something indecent” refers to some kind of improper behavior, short of illicit sexual intercourse.

But the precise definition actually matters little, since the law is not prescribing divorce as a punishment here, only assuming that some divorces were being carried out on the basis of common law. The reason for divorce is not the point that this legislation aims to address. Deuteronomy 24:4 is more concerned about protecting the woman from exposure to the whims of a fickle or vindictive husband, who, without putting his declaration of divorce in writing, could resume or drop his married state—depending on what his sexual needs, laundry pile or desires for a good meal were!

What is taught here is not God’s final word, even in the Old Testament, about divorce.

Malachi 2:16 condemns divorce in the strongest of terms. Many have tried to say that God didn’t actually “hate” divorce, but that is what the text says. The New Testament texts (Mt 5:31–32; 19:7–9; Mk 10:4–12; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10–11) make the same point, permitting divorce only in the cases of irreconcilable adultery and unalterable abandonment.

When Jesus was questioned about this passage (Mk 10:2–12; Mt 19:1–9), he explained to the Pharisees that Moses had recorded this word “because your hearts were hard,”

but that the principles of Genesis 2:24 were still normative for all marriages. The two were to become one flesh. What God had joined together, no person was to separate.

Deuteronomy 24:1–4, however, deals only with the situation in which a former partner wishes to return to a previous marriage partner after one or the other has been married to a different person in the meantime and then divorced. There are three reasons the first husband, then, could not take back his wife after she had married another: (1) “she has been defiled,” (2) remarriage “would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord,” and (3) it would “bring sin upon the land.” The logic here is the same as that found in the incest laws of Leviticus 18 and 20. Remarrying a woman one had divorced would be like marrying one’s closest relative, for that is what she had become by virtue of being of one flesh. Because the husband and wife are “one flesh” (Gen 2:24), to be physically intimate with one partner was equivalent to exposing the other half of that marriage team who was not present in the illicit sexual relationships (Lev 18:6–20).

In Hebrew thinking, marriage made the bride not just a daughter-in-law, but a daughter of her husband’s parents (see Ruth 1:11; 3:1). She became a sister to her husband’s brother.

The results of our investigation are the following. The main clause and actual prohibition are found in verse 4 of Deuteronomy 24. The certificate or bill of divorce was for the woman’s protection (against an on-again, off-again marriage) rather than the salving of the divorcing husband’s conscience. And what the “something indecent”

means matters little, since it was based not on Scripture and divine principle, but on

common law and the custom of the day. For example, the most recent attempt to define “something indecent” views it as a euphemism for menstrual irregularities that would render a woman perpetually unclean and thus prohibit her from intercourse (Lev 15:14). Such a condition created a convenient excuse for the first husband to get out of a marriage not to his liking.1 [1 See John Walton, Hebrew Studies 32 (1991): 7–17.]

See also comment on malachi 2:16; mark 10:11–12.

24:16 Should Children Be Punished for Their Parents’ Sins?

The principle governing Israelite courts was that human governments must not impute to children or grandchildren the guilt that their fathers or forebears accumulated. In Scripture each person stands before God as accountable for his or her own sin.

While this principle is acknowledged in Deuteronomy 24:16, there seem to be cases where it was not put in practice. For example, the child born to David and Bathsheba died because of their sin (2 Sam 12:14–18). And Saul’s seven grandchildren were put to death because of Saul’s sin (2 Sam 21:5–9). How are we to reconcile these contradictory sets of facts?

Some will also bring up the fact that the sins of the fathers have an ill effect on the children to the third and fourth generations (Ex 20:5; Deut 5:9). Surely this is a direct contradiction of the principle in Deuteronomy 24:16.

But Deuteronomy 24:16 is dealing with normal criminal law. It explicitly forbids blaming the children for the sin and guilt earned by the parent. If the son deserves the death penalty, the father must not be put to death in his place, or vice versa. This point is repeated in a number of texts, such as 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles 25:4, Jeremiah 31:30 and Ezekiel 18:20.

The legal principle of dealing with each individual according to individual guilt is one side of the equation. The other side is that God has reserved for himself the right to render all final decisions. Not all situations can, or are, resolved in human courts. Some must await the verdict that God will give.

There is a third element that must be accounted for as well. This notion is difficult for Westerners to appreciate, since we place such a high premium on the individual. But Scripture warns us that there is such a thing as corporate responsibility. None of us functions in complete isolation from the society and neighborhood to which we are attached. Lines of affinity reach beyond our home and church groups to whole communities and eventually to our nation and the world in which we live.

There are three factors involved in communal responsibility in the Old Testament. First is unity. Often the whole group is treated as a single unit. In 1 Samuel 5:10–11, for example, the ark of God came to Ekron of the Philistines. Because the bubonic plague had broken out in the previous Philistine cities where the ark had been taken, the Ekronites cried out, “They have brought the ark of the god of Israel around to us to kill us and our people.” The whole group sensed that they would share in the guilt of what their leaders had done in capturing the ark of God.

Second, sometimes a single figure represents the whole group. Rather than someone who embodies the psychology of the group, this is a case of one, such as the suffering

Servant of the Lord, standing in for many others.

The third factor is oscillation from the individual to the group, and vice versa. The classic example appears in Joshua 7:11, where the Lord affirms, “Israel has sinned,”

even though Achan confesses, “I have sinned” (Josh 7:20).

Each situation must be evaluated to see whether it is a principle of a human court that is involved, a divine prerogative of final judgment or a case of corporate solidarity. We in the West still understand that one traitor can imperil a whole army, but we do not always understand how individual actions carry over into the divine arena or have widespread implications. Scripture works with all three simultaneously.

In the case of David and Bathsheba, it is clear that the loss of the baby was linked to the fact that David committed adultery with Uriah’s wife, though Uriah remained determined to serve David faithfully in battle. This did not involve a human court but was a matter of divine prerogative.

The story about Saul’s seven grandchildren takes us into the area of national guilt. Saul violated a treaty made with the Gibeonites in the name of the Lord (Josh 9:3–15). The whole nation was bound by this treaty made in Joshua’s day. Thus when Saul, as head of the nation, committed this atrocity against the Gibeonites, it was an act against God and an act that involved the whole nation. A divinely initiated famine devastated the land until the demands of justice were met. When David inquired into the reason for the famine, God answered, “It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death” (2 Sam 21:1).

Saul and his sons had already fallen in the battle at Mount Gilboa, but his household shared in the stigma. Only God knew why the seven grandchildren shared in the guilt; it is not spelled out in the text. Apparently they had had some degree of complicity in the matter. Because only God knew, it was up to God, not a human court, to settle such cases.

As for the commandment that has the sins of the fathers visiting the children to the third and fourth generations, we can only observe that the text clearly teaches that this happens when the children repeat the motivating cause of their parents’ sin—that is, they too hate God. But when the children love God, the effect is lovingkindness for thousands of generations!

Both individual responsibility and group or communal responsibility are taught in Scripture. We must carefully define and distinguish these types of responsibility. But in no case should the principle of courts be to blame children for the wrongful deeds of their forebears. And if God demanded that principle as a basis for fairness in human governments, should we think he would do any less in the running of his own government?

No one will ever be denied eternal life because of what his or her forebears did or did not do. Each will live eternally or suffer everlasting judgment for his or her own actions (Ezek 18). Our standard of what constitutes fairness and justice, after all, is rooted in the character of God himself.

The graciousness of God and his swift move to forgive and to forget every sin that we call upon him to cleanse is seen in Exodus 34:6–7. The theme of these verses is essentially repeated in Numbers 14:18, 2 Chronicles 30:9, Nehemiah 9:17, Psalm

86:15, 103:8, 111:4, 116:5, 145:8, Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:2 and Nahum 1:3.

But God’s grace is balanced by the last part of Exodus 34:7, which warns that “[God]

does not leave the guilty unpunished.” The reverse side of the same coin that declares God’s mercy and his love speaks of his justice and righteousness. For the wicked persons who by their actions tend to second their father’s previous motions by continuing to sin boldly against God as their fathers did, with no repentance, this text again warns that the chastisement of God will be felt down to the “third and fourth generation.” However, note carefully that the full formula includes the important qualifier “of those who hate me.” But wherever there is love, the effect is extended to thousands of generations!

In this connection, it is important to note that 2 Samuel 12:14 likewise declares about David’s sin with Bathsheba, “But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die.” While it true that David was thoroughly forgiven of his sin of adultery and complicity in murder (see Psalms 32

and 51), there were consequences to his sin that could not be halted, for they followed as inexorably as day follows night. To put it in another way, just because God knows that a mugger will accept him as Savior a number of years after a mugging, God does not, thereby, turn the molecular structure of the bat used in the mugging, and which is now descending on the head of an innocent victim, into limp spaghetti; it leaves permanent damage on the skull of its poor unsuspecting target. The case of David and Bathsheba is similar: the consequences of sin are as real as the creation of a new life that comes out of a sexual affair. This in turn gave occasion for the enemies of God to vaunt themselves and demonstrate even further contempt for God, his people, and their alleged different style of life. It was for this reason that God brought immediate judgment on David: “the son born to [him would] die.”

See also comment on joshua 7:1, 10–11; 2 samuel 21:1–9; ezekiel 21:4; romans 5:12.

29:4 The Lord Is Responsible?

See comment on isaiah 63:17; 2 corinthians 3:14.

31:16 What Does “Rest with Your Fathers” Imply?

See comment on genesis 25:8.

32:50 Gathered to Your People?

See comment on genesis 25:8.

34:5–8 Prewritten Posthumous Writing?

If Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy, indeed even the Pentateuch itself, how could he have written of his own death? What is more, he would have needed to describe not only his own death, but also the general location of his burial plot, with the added knowledge that no one knew where it was “to this day,” whatever that would mean from the standpoint of Moses having written it, along with the mourning

process that took place after that. How was all of this possible?

Few will be willing to debate the thesis that Moses was not the author of this last chapter of Deuteronomy. There are just too many expressions that make little or no sense if placed in Moses’ mouth. For example, the phrases “to this day” (Deut 34:6),

“since then, no prophet has risen” (Deut 34:10) and “for no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut 34:12) just do not seem naturally attributed to Moses. On the contrary, such expressions must be put along with the other “post-Mosaica” such as Numbers 12:3 and treated as additions which were added by a later writer under the inspiration of the Spirit of God or as early glosses that were brought into the text under divine approval.

Ancient Jews held that Joshua was the one whom the Spirit of God authorized to add statements such as appear in Deuteronomy 34 to the book Moses had left. The evidence generally cited for this view, which is also shared by a number of evangelical believers, is found in Joshua 24:26: “And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God” (a reference that many of us take to be pointing to the Pentateuch).

If this is a correct assessment of the situation, then Moses did not write Deuteronomy 34 as a prognostication of his death and the events that would surround it. Instead, it was his understudy, Joshua, who undertook the task at the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

See also comment on numbers 12:3.

Joshua

2:4–6 Was Rahab Right to Lie?

Does God approve of dubious actions to accomplish his will in certain perilous situations? Can strong faith go hand in hand with the employment of methods which are alien to the integrity of God’s character and word? Are Rahab’s treason and lying in any way justifiable, perhaps as a “white lie”?

The Bible is unhesitating in its praise of Rahab. Hebrews 11:31 praises her faith in God, while James 2:25 praises her for lodging and then sending off the spies in a different direction from those seeking them. But approval of Rahab in these areas does not mean that she enjoyed God’s approval in every area of her life. The areas of Rahab’s faith must be strictly observed.

She won recognition by biblical writers because she trusted in the God of Israel more than she trusted her own king of Jericho. She had heard what God had done for Israel at the Red Sea and in defeating the two kings of the trans-Jordan (Josh 2:8–12). And she demonstrated her faith by receiving the spies and sending them out another way.

Even Joshua 6:25 notes her actions and contrasts her response with that of Achan.

No guilt should be assigned, therefore, to her treason in abandoning her people, who like herself had great reason for trusting the God of the Hebrews. When it comes to choosing between serving God or a local king, the answer must always be to serve the higher power, God (Acts 4:19).

Rahab’s lie, on the other hand, cannot be so easily dismissed. She said, “I don’t know which way they went.” That was palpably false. Romans 3:8 warns us not to say, “Let us do evil that good may result.” Neither should we argue, especially from a descriptive or a narrative passage, that a text validates deceit under certain conditions.

The so-called dutiful lie ignores how precious the truth is in God’s sight. Even lies told for very good purposes are not free from divine disapproval. Moreover, even if in the de facto providence of God, Rahab’s untruth allowed the two spies to escape harm, this does not therefore justify such a method. God is not reduced to unholy acts to fulfill his will. At most God allowed his purposes to be fulfilled in this most unusual manner, because his grace can operate in spite of the sinful maneuverings of men and women. Untruth cannot be vindicated simply because it is closely tied to the total result.

To argue for lying in this manner would be not only poor exegesis and theology but worse theodicy. Any other conclusion would eventually validate David’s adultery because the next heir in the Messianic line, Solomon, resulted from David’s union with Bathsheba. We are specifically told that David’s sin was abhorrent to God. It happens we are not told the same about Rahab’s sin. This is no reason to vote differently in the two cases; each violates a clear commandment of God.

We cannot say that protecting innocent lives is a greater good than the demand always to tell the truth. Scripture nowhere advocates or allows for such hierarchy. To do so would pit part of God’s nature against other parts of his nature. To say that lying is a lesser evil than being involuntarily implicated in murder is again an artificial and subjective construct. We need to follow all of God’s Word, and that Word involves respect for both life and truth, as difficult as that is in a world that often pits one moral absolute against another.

Truth-telling is not only a covenantal responsibility (that is, a responsibility to those who are part of the family of God), but a universal responsibility for all times, all peoples, in all places. We must not form our own subjective hierarchies or personal priorities in assigning what we believe is the greater good or lesser evil.

On the other hand, we may not surrender innocent lives just because an army or police force demands it. Rahab should have hidden the spies well and then refused to answer the question whether she was hiding them. She could, for instance, have volunteered,

“Come in and have a look around,” while simultaneously praying that God would make the searchers especially obtuse.

It is possible to maintain a position of nonconflicting absolutes. God will provide a way to avoid the conflicts (1 Cor 10:13).

See also comment on exodus 1:15–21; 3:18; 1 samuel 16:1–3; 1 kings 22:20–22.

6:20 Did Jericho’s Walls Really Collapse?

Is the description of the capture of Jericho a real event or does it belong to the literary genre of fiction or myth? Is there any corroboration from archaeological sources, or any other external data, that this event actually took place? As one academician recently quipped, “All the shouting and trumpet blowing in the world will not cause

fifteen-foot-thick walls to collapse. The whole Joshua/Jericho account is just a religious legend.” The archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon affirmed right up to her death in 1978 that the evidence for a conquest of this city during the days of Joshua was plain missing.

However, Kenyon based her conclusion on a very limited excavation area (two 26-foot squares), and her dating was based solely on the fact that she failed to find any expensive, imported pottery from Cyprus, which was common to the Late Bronze I period (that is, the days of Joshua). But she grounded this conclusion on a small excavation area in an impoverished part of the city, a city obviously situated far away from the major trade routes.

However, an evangelical archaeologist, Bryant G. Wood,1 [1 Bryant G. Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?” Biblical Archaeology Review 16 (1990): 44–59.] argues just the reverse. In his judgment the ceramic evidence does validate a date around 1450 to 1400 b.c. Furthermore, Jericho is one of the oldest cities in the world and one of the best fortified. The outer wall surrounded the city with stone about twelve feet high. In back of that there was an inner mud-brick wall about eighteen feet high. Behind that wall there was a sloping earthen embankment going around the inside of the entire city. At the top of the embankment was another mud-brick wall approximately fifteen feet high, below which the houses of Jericho’s outcasts were placed. This is where the harlot Rahab no doubt lived. Archaeologists found the base of the outer wall had collapsed into piles of bricks.

So how did the Israelites get over these walls? If an earthquake was responsible for stopping up the Jordan River as the Israelites crossed over in the days just prior to the siege of Jericho (Josh 3:16), it is reasonable to assume that the same earthquake left cracks and serious fissures in the walls of Jericho. Some think there is evidence for an earthquake of the magnitude of 8.0 on the Richter scale (a quake, if that estimate is correct, that would match the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco).

When a further quake at the time of the Israelites’ seventh circling of the city on the seventh day hit (or, alternatively, as a result of aftershocks on the already weakened walls from the previous earthquake), the mud-brick walls collapsed over the outer stone wall, forming a ramp for the Israelites to go up and enter the city and set it on fire.

All archaeologists attest that there were great quantities of grain found within the city, indicating both that it was a very short siege and that the normal looting and plundering of whatever grain remained was not carried out since the Israelites were under an interdict that nothing should be taken; it was dedicated to the Lord for destruction h\erem).

The earlier excavator of the city, John Garstang, at the beginning of this century, was confident that the city fell in the times of Joshua, around 1400 b.c. To demonstrate this, he produced a series of scarabs, small Egyptian amulets shaped like the scarab beetle, often with the name of a Pharaoh on the bottom of them. These scarabs represented the line of the Pharaohs right up to the time of the Pharaoh who died in 1349 b.c. Added evidence came from a recent carbon-14 sample from material from the Jericho site that dated to 1410 b.c., plus or minus forty years.

Accordingly, the evidence is mounting that Jericho was captured as Israel claimed

around 1400 b.c. The city, indeed, was heavily fortified (Josh 2:5, 7, 15; 6:5, 20). The attack did come just after the harvest time in the late spring (Josh 2:6; 3:15; 5:10). The siege was short (Josh 6:15) and the walls were breached, possibly by an earthquake (Josh 6:20).

5:13–6:5 Whom Did Joshua See?

See comment on judges 6:22–23.

7:1, 10–11 Was It Achan or All Israel That Sinned?

It is not clear from the first verse of Joshua 7 whether the whole nation was unfaithful or just one man, Achan. But if it was only one man who sinned, as the story later discloses, why was the transgression imputed to the whole nation? It would appear that Achan alone should have been punished on the principle that “the soul who sins is the one who will die” (Ezek 18:4).

Another troubling feature in this text is the identification of the “devoted things.” What were they, and why should their possession jeopardize the Israelites’ mission of attacking Ai?

The best way to begin is to start with the question of the “devoted things.” This is a very distinctive concept in the Old Testament. The word used, h\erem, means the

“curse” or, more accurately, the “thing dedicated for destruction.” This word comes from the verb “to separate”; hence the Arabic word harem, an enclosed living area set aside for women. In many ways, the act of dedicating h\erem is the reverse of the voluntary dedication spoken of in Romans 12:1–2. Both are acts of separating oneself or something unto God. But in the case of h\erem the placing of an item under “the ban,” or its dedication “to destruction,” is an involuntary act, whereas what is “holy”

to the Lord is separated unto him as a voluntary act.

Behind this concept lies the fact that all the earth and all that is in it belongs to the Lord. After mortals had tried the patience of God to the limit, he finally stepped in and required that what he owned should come back to him. The judgment of fire and death meant that all life and all gifts returned to the Lord, their owner. Items that could not burn, such as silver, gold and certain metals, were declared to belong to the Lord.

They were to be placed in the tabernacle or temple of God. They had been set apart for destruction and hence were sacred.

Under no circumstances could these items be sold, collected or redeemed by substituting something else for them. There was a compulsory dedication connected with them. Jericho was one of the few places to be placed under this curse or ban in the Old Testament (Josh 6:21). Other such cities included Ai (Josh 8:26), Makkedah (Josh 10:28) and Hazor (Josh 11:11).

Interestingly, the word h\erem is the last word in the Old Testament canon (in English order). Malachi 4:6 warns that God might come and take a “forced dedication” if men and women persist in refusing to give a voluntary one.

Perhaps it will be seen, now, why Achan’s sin was viewed with such severity. He had done more than take several battle mementos; he had robbed God of items that

specifically indicated that he was the Lord of the whole earth and should have received praise and honor from the Canaanites of Jericho.

Make no mistake: Achan was responsible for his own sin. Whether other members of his family were participants in the crime cannot be determined for certain, though it seems likely. Joshua 7:24 tells us that “his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had” were brought to the Valley of Achor (“trouble”), and there “all Israel stoned him” (Josh 7:25). While the text begins by focusing on Achan, saying they “stoned him,” it continues noting that “they stoned the rest” and

“they burned them.” Thus it would appear that the children were accomplices to the crime.

Since Achan had violated the ban and brought the goods from Jericho into his tent, he in essence made his tent, its contents and whatever was under the aegis of that tent part of the destruction and judgment that was on Jericho.

Finally, we must ask why the whole nation was viewed by God as an organic unity.

Can the sin of one member of the nation or group defile everyone?

That is exactly the point made by this text. It is not difficult to see how the goodness of one person can bring blessing on the whole group. God blessed the whole world through Abraham (Gen 12:3). And we rarely complain when we enjoy the blessing and accumulated goodness of God on our nation as a result of the godly lives of our ancestors.

In a real sense, our acts do have ramifications beyond our own fortunes and future.

The act of one traitor can imperil a battalion of soldiers, a nation or a multinational corporation. In the same way, one thoughtless act of a member of a community can have enormous consequences for the whole group.

This in no way bears on the ultimate destiny and salvation of any one of the persons in that group, but it can have enormous implications for the temporal and material well-being of each member.

When an individual Israelite violated a specific command of God, it brought sin on the whole group. In that case, the sin ignited the anger of God against the whole group.

Achan was not acting merely on his own behalf when he sinned. As a leader among the clans of the important tribe of Judah, he had committed sacrilege; he had stolen what God had declared to be both sacred and separated from ordinary objects. Such a crime was aimed directly at God and at his covenant. It impinged on his right to be Lord and infringed on his rights of ownership. It had to be dealt with immediately and severely, just as did the sin of Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament (Acts 5).

God holds each person individually responsible for his or her own sin; that is clear. But some, by virtue of their position or office, their offense against that which is sacred to God, or the implications that their acts have for their group, can also bring the wrath of God on their nation, community, institution or group. There are times where we are our nation’s keepers. When we deny or ignore this reality, Western individualism runs amuck and biblical truth is neglected.

See also comment on deuteronomy 24:16; 1 samuel 15:18; ezekiel 21:4; romans 5:12.

9:8–9, 16, 18–19 Why Did Joshua Spare the Gibeonites?

The story of the ruse pulled by the Gibeonites presents several moral and ethical dilemmas. Is a person required to keep his or her word when the means used to obtain that promise is obviously false? Can the end justify the means in cases such as the one before us? Do wartime conditions lessen the requirements for keeping one’s word?

Why did Joshua feel that he was obligated to maintain the terms of a treaty into which he had been tricked? Could he not have legitimately said that he was involved in a war and the enemy remained just that, regardless of the agreement they had reached? Why did Joshua act so faintheartedly for a military general?

The Gibeonites were worried after they had witnessed the sudden fall of Jericho and Ai. The citizens of Gibeon and its associated cities, seized with alarm, decided that they would approach the invading armies of Joshua and pretend that they had come from a distant country and wanted to make a treaty. The delegation dressed themselves in torn clothing and sandals and carried awkwardly mended wineskins. Even their bread was crumbly and dry. They played their parts to perfection; Joshua and the leadership of Israel were indeed completely deceived.

Three days after the treaty had been ratified by oath, it was learned that these were men from Gibeon and its environs. That city was only six miles northwest of Jerusalem. Humiliated by the deception, the Israelite people grumbled about the way the leadership had mishandled this matter.

Why the Gibeonites had chosen to risk so much on the Israelites’ commitment to honoring their promise is difficult to explain. Had they gotten an initial indication that the God of this people required truthfulness and integrity from his own? Or did the Gibeonites share a common Semitic concept of the effect of the word—that once a word had gone forth, there was no way to stop it, for it had a mission to fulfill? But that concept seems rather lofty for the Canaanites, given what we know about their ethics and morals.

Speculation will not help fill the gaps in our knowledge. What we do know is that for Joshua the matter was now a sacred trust, since the Israelite leaders had given their oath by the name of the God of Israel. To go back on that word would be to tarnish the high name of God. For the moment, the Gibeonites had succeeded. Eventually, they would be put under a perpetual servanthood as woodcutters and water carriers for the house of God. They would appear in this role as late as the postexilic times of Nehemiah.

It is true that the leaders should have sought God’s guidance in their uncertainty. But they did not.

This story is particularly difficult for moderns to understand, for we do not generally have the same concept of the effect of one’s words. In Old Testament times, giving one’s word was not taken lightly. Once a word was uttered, it could not be flippantly recalled or canceled. God saw to it that each word had the effect for which it was intended. This is not to say that a magical view of words is taught in the Old Testament, or that there is an independent power in words. The health-wealth-and-prosperity gospel that would urge us to simply “name it [our desire] and claim it” has been exploded as being nonbiblical.

There was, however, a sacredness to the word uttered in the Lord’s name. Integrity demanded that such a word be kept, for it had been sealed with an oath.

Truth-telling and integrity in keeping one’s word were serious matters for all who loved and obeyed the God of truth. And to make a covenant in God’s name was binding, for it meant that God’s reputation was involved. True, the grounds and means the Gibeonites used to obtain this treaty or covenant were less than honorable, but that in no way nullified the terms of the agreement, once it had been agreed to in the great name of the God of heaven and earth.

See also comment on exodus 3:18; 21:2–11; joshua 2:4–6; 1 kings 22:20–22.

10:12–14 The Sun Stood Still?

Among the many miracles recorded in the Bible, this one is perhaps the most notable.

Did the Lord actually halt the earth’s rotation for a period of approximately twenty-four hours so that the sun stood still in the sky and the moon failed to come up at its appointed time? And if God did halt the earth’s normal rotation for a full day, would this not have led to an inconceivable catastrophe for the entire planet and everything that is held on its surface by the force of gravity? The implications of some of these questions are, indeed, cosmic.

Or is there some other meaning to the natural force of the words used in this account?

For example, can the words in verse 13 (literally rendered, “The sun did not hasten to go down for about a whole day”) point to a retardation of the earth’s movement, so that it took forty-eight hours rather than twenty-four hours for the earth to make its circuit around the sun? Or could the Hebrew word doµm, “stand still” (much like our onomatopoeic word “be dumb”) signify that the sun was to remain hidden—hence

“silent”—during the violent thunderstorm that accompanied the troops as they fled before the Israelites down the Valley of Aijalon? These are some of the reasons this passage is listed among the hard sayings.

Of course, the God who made the universe can momentarily stop it without the catastrophes that most of us would envisage according to the laws known to us at this time. Surely he is capable of holding in abeyance those physical laws that might have countermanded his actions with regard to the sun and the moon. But the question is, Would he have done so? This is like saying that God is omnipotent, yet God will not do contradictory things like making ropes with only one end or squares in the form of circles; and he will never sin. There are some things that he will not do because they are contradictory to his very nature. The question then is, Would stopping the planet be such a contradiction? Most would say that it is.

Alleged stories about a long day in Egyptian, Chinese and Hindu sources are difficult to validate. Similarly, the reports that some astronomers, and more recently some space scientists, have uncovered evidence for a missing day are difficult to vouch for.

The claim by Edward Charles Pickering of the Harvard Observatory and Professor Totten of Yale that they had discovered a day missing from the annals of the heavens has never been substantiated, since no records exist to support it. It has been said in defense of this omission that the university officials preferred not to keep records of that sort in their archives. But that has not been demonstrated either. Some other

explanation is needed.

What happened on that day when Joshua was pursuing the Amorites after a long night’s forced march from Gilgal, a city near Jericho? That day the army covered more than thirty miles over some pretty rough terrain. The enemy fled westward to Beth Horon and then turned south into the Valley of Aijalon (“Deerfield”). At that point, the men, having made an all-night uphill climb from Gilgal, were exhausted. The heat of the July day was sapping what little energy they had left. But to their great relief, God sent a hailstorm that kept pace with the forward ranks of the fleeing Amorites. More were dying that day from the Lord’s hailstones than from the Israelites’ arrows and spears. The Lord had heard the prayer of his leader Joshua and answered in a most dramatic way.

Given the presence of a hailstorm (Josh 10:11), it is difficult to see how the sun could have been seen as stopped in the sky. There was light under the cloud cover, of course, but there would have been no actual view of the sun during a hailstorm so violent that it was killing the Amorites by the scores.

We can conclude that doµ>m in verse 13 should be translated “was dumb” or “silent.”

The sun did not “stop” in the middle of the sky, but its burning heat was “silenced.”

The presence of the hailstorm lends more than a little credence to this view. In a sense, then, this is not “Joshua’s long day” but rather “Joshua’s long night,” for the coolness brought by the storm relieved the men and permitted them to go on fighting and marching for a total of more than eighteen hours. This seems to be the preferable interpretation.

Some have suggested that there was a prolongation of the day merely in the sense that the men did in one day what should have taken them two. But this suggestion fails to account for some of the special vocabulary used in this text.

Others have argued that God produced an optical prolongation of the sunshine, continuing its effect far beyond the normal time of sunset. Perhaps there was an unusual refraction of the sun’s rays, or perhaps a comet or meteorite appeared in the heavens just about this time. Both of these ideas, however, do not account for enough time, for usually these types of astronomical events are of short duration.

The best solution is this. Joshua prayed early in the morning, while the moon was in the western sky and the sun was in the east, that God would intervene on their behalf.

God answered Joshua and sent a hailstorm. This had the effect of prolonging the darkness and shielding the men from the searing rays of the summer sun. The sun, therefore, was “silenced” in the middle of the sky, and the moon “did not hasten” to come.

What a day to remember, for on it God went out and personally fought for Israel—and more died from the hailstones than from the weapons of the army of Israel!

11:20 God Hardened Their Hearts?

See comment on exodus 9:12.

18:8 Casting Lots Encouraged?

See comment on jonah 1:4–5, 7.

Judges

5:24–27 A Murderer Praised?

Why is Jael praised for murdering Sisera, the commander of the army of Jabin, king of Canaan, especially when it was a gross violation of Middle Eastern customs of protecting one’s guest? Was she not being deceptive in the way she at first extended lavish hospitality and then tricked him into sleeping while she carried out her gruesome murder? And how, then, can she be praised and eulogized as being the “most blessed of women”?

Once again Israel had been sold into the hands of an oppressor—this time it was Jabin, the king of Canaan, who ruled from the city of Hazor (Judg 4:2). Deborah, the prophetess and judge that God had raised up at that time to deliver Israel, summoned Barak to rid the country of this new oppressor, but Barak insisted that he would go into battle only if Deborah went with him. Deborah’s prophecy was that God would therefore hand Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, over into the hands of a woman (Judg 4:9). Here may be one of the most important hints that the forthcoming action of Jael was divinely initiated.

In the meantime a Kenite (related to Moses through his wife Zipporah) named Heber had taken up residence among the people of Israel, apparently signaling something important about what his beliefs were, for residence in that day had more attached to it than mere location. After the battle on Mount Tabor in which Sisera and his troops were routed, Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot, while Barak finished off the entire chariot division of Sisera. Because Jabin and the clan of Heber had a history of friendly relations, Sisera entered the tent of Heber’s wife, Jael (Judg 4:17–18), a most unusual act in itself, for no one went into a woman’s quarters when her husband was not around. After she had refreshed him with a skin of milk and was instructed to stand watch while he slept, she took a tent peg and hammer and drove the peg through his temple while he slept.

Jael is usually charged with six faults: (1) disobedience to her husband, who had friendly relations with Jabin; (2) breaking a treaty (Judg 4:17); (3) deception in entertaining Sisera, giving no hint of her hostile intentions as she assuaged his thirst by giving him a kind of buttermilk or yogurt when all he asked for was water; (4) lying, saying, “Fear not,” when Sisera had much to fear; (5) violating the conventions of hospitality by murdering one that she had agreed to accept as a guest; (6) murder (Judg 4:21).

How many of these charges are true? Jael should not have lied, no matter how grave her circumstances. But, as for the other charges, remember that this was a time of war.

Some had already shirked their potential for assisting Israel during a desperate time of need, namely the city of Meroz (Judg 5:23). But here was Jael, related only through marriage to Moses and Israel, who had chosen to dwell in the midst of the people of God. When involuntarily thrust into the vicinity of the war by virtue of the location of her tent, she did not hesitate to act by killing the man who stood against the people of

God with whom she had come to identify herself. It is for this that she is so lavishly praised.

Some have argued that Sisera’s entering Jael’s tent also had sexual overtones. The first phrase in Judges 5:27 may be a graphic description of a rape: “At her feet he sank, he fell; there he lay.” Not only may the word “feet” be a euphemism for one’s sexual parts, as it is in other parts of Scripture at times, but especially significant are the verbs

“lay” (Hebrew sûaµk_ab_), meaning “to sleep” or “to have sexual intercourse” (for example, Gen 19:32; Deut 22:23, 25, 28; 2 Sam 13:14), and “to bow” (Hebrew kaµra> ), meaning “to bend the knee,” “kneel,” or in Job 31:10 to “crouch” over a woman. If this understanding of the delicately put poetry is correct, then Jael is more than justified in her actions of self-defense of her person as well. For years Canaanite men had been raping Hebrew women in just this fashion.

There is no clear evidence that Jael disobeyed her husband. Nor is there clear evidence that there actually was a treaty in force. But even if there were, it is doubtful that it could be legitimately enforced during wartime, which very act was a violation of the peace, since Heber had the same relations with Israel and Jabin.

Jael did violate the conventions of hospitality, but this is at the level of custom and social mores and not at the level of ethics. After all, this was a war zone, and a war was going on.

What is clear is that Jael lied to Sisera and she killed him. Is her lying justifiable? No!

To say, as one commentator did, that “deception and lying are authorized in Scripture any time God’s kingdom is under attack” is unsupported by the Bible. This same writer went on to affirm that “since Satan made his initial assault on the woman by means of a lie (Gen 3:1–5), it is fitting that the woman defeat him by means of a lie, … lie for lie.”

1 [1 James B. Jordan, Judges: God’s War Against Humanism (Tyler, Tex.: Geneva Ministries, 1985), p. 89. Jordan’s whole discussion of this problem (to which I am indebted at many points in this discussion) is, however, one of the most extensive and suggestive that I found anywhere.]

I would agree with the conclusions reached over a century ago by Edward L. Curtis: But from a moral standpoint, … at first glance it appears like the condemnation of a base assassination, especially when one reads Judges 4:18–21. [Shall we suppose] that in good faith she received Sisera and pledged him protection, but afterwards, while she saw him sleeping, God moved her to break her word and slay him? … The numerous manifestations of God, his frequent communications at that time to his agents, might suggest that Jael received [just such] a divine communication, but to consider her act otherwise morally wrong and to use this as a ground for its justification, is impossible.

Right and wrong are as fixed and eternal as God, for they are of God, and for him to make moral wrong right is to deny himself.2 [2 Edward L. Curtis, “The Blessing of Jael,” The Old Testament Student 4 (1884–1885): 12–14.]

Jael’s loyalty to Yahweh and his people is her justification. It was part of the old command to exterminate the Canaanite (Deut 20:16). Jael came to the assistance of the people of God, and for this she is declared blessed.

See also comment on numbers 25:7–13; joshua 2:4–6.

6:22–23 Who Is the Angel of the Lord?

If Gideon only saw an angel, why did he fear that he might die? Many interpreters believe that an angel takes God’s place and acts as his representative. However, others do not feel this explanation fits all the data. Who, then, is this “angel of the Lord”?

The angel of the Lord first appears in Genesis 16:7 and then intermittently throughout the early Old Testament books. In other passages an individual manifesting himself in human form is frequently called “the Lord” (Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1). If this angel actually were God, why is he called an angel? Since the root meaning of angel is

“messenger” or “one who is sent,” we must determine from context whether the word refers to the office of the sent one or to the nature of created angels as finite beings.

Initially, some contexts of the term “angel of the Lord” appear to refer to nothing more than any other angel (as in Judg 6:11). But as the narrative progresses, that angel soon transcends the angelic category and is described in terms suited only to a member of the Trinity. Thus in the Judges 6 episode, we are startled when verse 14 has the Lord speaking to Gideon, when previously only the angel of the Lord had been talking.

Many Old Testament passages state that this angel is God. Thus, after being told that Hagar had been speaking with the angel of the Lord (four times in Gen 16:7, 9–11), Genesis 16:13 informs us that Hagar “gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her:

‘You are the God who sees me.’” Jacob’s testimony in Genesis 48:15–16 is even more striking. He identifies the God in whose presence his fathers Abraham and Isaac had lived as “the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm.”

This angel spoke to Jacob earlier in a dream and identified himself by saying, “I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me” (Gen 31:11, 13).

Likewise in Exodus 3:2–6 the phrase “the angel of the Lord” is used interchangeably with “the Lord.” In fact the angel claims, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (Ex 3:6).

The passage, however, that really clinches this remarkable identification is Exodus 23:20–23. There God promises to send his angel ahead of the children of Israel as they go through the desert. The Israelites were warned that they must obey and not rebel against this angel. The reason was a stunning one: “Since my Name is in him.” God would never share his memorial name with anyone else, for Isaiah 42:8 advised that he would never share his glory with another. Thus the name of God stands for himself.

And when a person is said to have the name of God in him, that person is God!

This angel has divine qualities, prerogatives and authority. He has the power to give life (Gen 16:10) and to see and know all (Gen 16:13; Ex 3:7). Only God can forgive sin, yet this angel did the same in Exodus 23:21. The angel performed miracles such as keeping a burning bush from being consumed (Ex 3:2), smiting Egypt with plagues (Ex 3:20), calling forth fire on the rock to consume the meal set for him (Judg 6:21) and ascending the flame of the altar (Judg 13:20).

Finally, this angel commanded and received worship from Moses (Ex 3:5) and Joshua (Josh 5:14). Angels were not to receive worship. When John attempted to worship an angel in Revelation 19:10; 22:8–9, he was corrected quickly and told not to do it.

It is clear from this abundance of evidence that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was a preincarnate form of our Lord Jesus Christ, who would later permanently take on flesh when he came as a babe in Bethlehem. But mark it well: the one who came after John had already been before—he was that angel of the Lord. His full deity was always observed and yet he presented the same mystery of the Trinity that would later be observed in “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) and “my other witness is the Father, who sent me” (Jn 8:18). It is that word sent that ties together the angel, messenger or sent one into an Old Testament theology of christophanies, appearances of God in human form.

See also comment on genesis 32:23–32; exodus 24:9–11; 33:18–23.

6:36–40 Was Gideon Right to Test God?

Was Gideon wrong in asking God for reassurance by means of a wet or dry fleece?

Had not God made his will clear to Gideon already at the time of his call (Judg 6:14–

16)? While it is understandable that Gideon was apprehensive over his impending conflict with Midian, given the disparity in the number of weapons and men and the morale of the soldiers, he was still wrong in doubting God. Or, at least, that is what some contend.

Did Gideon use a proper type of test? Supposing a test is permissible, isn’t it wrong to ask God to accommodate our weakness, to assure us through physical signs or miracles of a word he has already spoken?

One further objection focuses on the fact that Gideon did not keep his word. Gideon promised that he would know God was going to use him to deliver Israel if God made the fleece wet and left the ground dry. Though God complied, Gideon insisted on running the same experiment in reverse fashion before he would believe. So what can we say, not only for Gideon but also for modern believers who wish to use similar tactics in order to validate the will of the Lord for them?

Some who object to Gideon’s method for discerning God’s will feel that he was not really desiring to know the will of God. Instead, they say, Gideon was angling to have that will changed!

This does not appear to be the case, based on what we are told in the text itself. Such an assertion tends to psychologize Gideon. How can we penetrate into his heart and mind and say what it was that Gideon was feeling or hoping?

Clearly, Gideon struggled. But he wanted God to provide his overwhelmed mind with more evidence for the words “as [God had] said” (Judg 6:37). He was responding to God’s call (Judg 6:14–16). Thus he was hesitant, but not unbelieving.

What about the matter of asking for signs? When we do so, are we acting like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, who always wanted a sign? And how specific is the will of God in our ordinary life? Granted, in revelation God often gave specific, detailed instructions for particular actions. But is Judges 6 an invitation for all believers to demand similar specificity? Must the will of God be a dot with a fixed point and nothing else?

Gideon’s boldness can be seen both in his asking for a sign and in his specifying what

that sign should be. The sign, though simple, involved a miracle. He would place the fleece on the leveled ground where the people threshed their grain (probably in the entrance to the city gate). If the dew was on the fleece alone while all the ground was dry, then he would know that God really would use him to deliver Israel from the hand of the Midianites.

The next night, using rather deferential language, he asked that the sign be reversed, with the fleece being dry and the ground soaked with the dew of the night. In both instances Gideon’s request was granted, confirming what God had promised—that his strength comes to peak performance and full throttle in our weakness (2 Cor 12:9).

Thus Gideon’s faith was supported. The phantom fears that had haunted his countrymen about the Midianites no longer afflicted him. Before setting out to overthrow the Midianites, he had approached God in prayer, and there he had found his courage renewed and fortified. His importunity was not wrong. And actually he provides a model for us: when we are beset by internal struggles and when challenges seem too great for us to handle, we must go to God in prayer.

Nevertheless, this passage does not give encouragement to those who assume they can expect God to attend each of his instructions with whatever signs we may request!

God could just as well have refused Gideon’s request. The fact that he didn’t does not set a precedent to which any and all believers may appeal in their moment of distress.

God may be pleased to repeat such an act of mercy, but he is not bound to satisfy our desire for visual, physical miracles to confirm his will. Whether he does so rests in his hand alone.

9:23 God Sent an Evil Spirit?

See comment on 1 samuel 16:14; 1 kings 22:20–22.

11:30–39 Jephthah Sacrificed His Daughter?

The story of Jephthah and his famous vow has caused heated debates among interpreters. The question dividing interpreters is simply, Did Jephthah sacrifice his own daughter or did he not? If he did, did God condone such an unspeakable act?

Almost all early writers portrayed Jephthah as actually offering up his own daughter. It was not until the Middle Ages that commentators began to look for ways to soften Jephthah’s act. Indeed, sane men and women would naturally be incensed and shocked by Jephthah’s autocratic and nonbiblical ways of thinking and acting.

But the reader must remember the theme of Judges: Everyone was doing what was right in his or her own eyes. Jephthah was no different. As a matter of fact, the people at first had hesitated to call him as judge over the tribes on the east bank because his mother was a prostitute and his own brothers had driven him from the family inheritance.

There are three main questions to answer here: (1) Exactly what did Jephthah mean by his vow? (2) How did he carry it out? (3) Did God condone his actions?

Before Jephthah marched out of Mizpah, he solemnly vowed to give God whoever

came out the door of his house if he returned victorious over the Ammonites. This raises the issue of vows and the problem of translating whoever.

Vows are not unbiblical, but there are some dangers to avoid in making them. First, it is best to avoid making vows that will afterward prove difficult for one’s conscience or for carrying out (Prov 20:25; Eccles 5:2–6). Second, vows should never be used to purchase favor with God—as if we could work for God’s grace or influence God to do for us what he would not otherwise do. Instead our vows should express gratitude to him for his unmerited favor.

When a vow has been made, the promise ought to be fulfilled (Num 36:2–13; Ps 15:4; 66:14; 76:11; Acts 5:1–4). Oaths or vows that violate a moral law of God, however, should not be kept. Therefore the rash promise of Herod, which resulted in the request for John the Baptist’s head, should never have been kept. Unfortunately it was (Mk 6:23–27). Herod should have retreated from his vow and sought pardon from all involved for making it at all. Only vows and oaths made in faith need never be regretted. Others will be the occasion of lament or shock.

What then did Jephthah vow? Some have tried to soften the vow by translating what was vowed as “whatever comes out.” However, if the Hebrew text intended this neuter idea (which would have allowed for anything, including Jephthah’s animals), it should have used a different gender here (neuter in the Hebrew would have been signaled by the feminine form of the word). Since the masculine form is used, and the verb is to come out, it must refer (as it does in every other context) only to persons and not to animals or anything else.

Jephthah promised that whoever first came out to meet him on his victorious return would belong to the Lord and be sacrificed to the Lord. Did he mean this literally? If he did not, then why did he use these words? And if he did, then how could a judge, with his unusual anointing of the Holy Spirit for the task of leadership in battle, be guilty of such a gross violation of an explicit law of God (Lev 18:21; Deut 12:31)—the injunction against human sacrifice?

Such irrational behavior can only be explained in this manner: God’s approval of a person in one area is no guarantee of approval in all areas of life. For example, David was also Spirit-led and a man after God’s own heart, but not everything David did should be imitated by believers.

Some interpreters have attempted to translate the word “and” between “will be the Lord’s” and “I will sacrifice” with a disjunctive meaning, “or.” Unfortunately for this ingenious solution, this translation of the Hebrew particle is never permitted anywhere else in the Old Testament. The only other case where it has been tried (2 Kings 18:27) also appears to be very questionable.

Jephthah was acquainted with the law of Moses that forbade human sacrifice. Judges 11:12–28 shows he knew the history of Israel and could recite it at will. But this, of course, is no proof that what he knew he always did, any more than our knowing what is right guarantees we will always do it.

That Jephthah actually sacrificed his daughter, tragic as that would be, seems the most natural reading of the text. If Jephthah’s “sacrifice” of his daughter meant relegating her to a life of perpetual virginity and service at the temple, not one word in the text says so. The only possible support is the comment that whoever comes out of the

house “will be the Lord’s” (Judg 11:31). But the statement immediately after this proves he had a whole burnt offering in mind—“sacrifice … as a burnt offering.”

There is one other problem with the dedication to the temple view. Why didn’t Jephthah pay the monetary substitute set forth in Leviticus 27:1–8 in order to gain the release of his daughter? After all, it bothered him that she would be childless and his line and name would fall out of the rosters of Israel. A woman could be redeemed for thirty shekels of silver (Lev 27:4).

Some, like James Jordan, attempt to answer this critically important question by quoting Leviticus 27:28–29, which demands that any person who has been “devoted”

to the Lord may not be ransomed. This is true, but the term used there for devoted is a very technical term. It is the opposite of a voluntary offering, which is the essence of a vow. In the conquest, Jericho was such a “devoted” place to the Lord, and therefore everything in that town belonged to God. What could not be burned, such as silver, gold or iron, had to be collected and placed in the tabernacle. Thus when Achan took some of the loot of Jericho for himself, he stole from God.

But that is not what we are talking about here. Jephthah was not forced to “devote”

his daughter for destruction in return for God’s victory over the Ammonites. He did it voluntarily, and thus these verses do not apply. Furthermore, persons devoted under that “ban” ( h\erem) were slain, not as a sacrifice or a burnt offering, but as required by the command of God (Num 21:2–3; Deut 13:12–18; 1 Sam 15:33). The irony of this whole situation is, as Micah warns us, that a person cannot offer the “fruit of [his or her] body [in exchange] for the sin of [his or her] soul” (Mic 6:7).

Why does Judges 11:39 note that “she was a virgin” if Jephthah actually sacrificed her?

The answer is that the Hebrew is best translated as a pluperfect, “She had never known a man.” This point is added to emphasize the tragedy and grief of the events described.

If Jephthah’s daughter was immolated, in contradiction to the Mosaic law, why would her decease be the occasion for an annual celebration or memorial in Holy Writ?

Would not the people in revulsion have silently tried to forget it as best they could?

The fact that the “young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite” (Judg 11:40) is not a biblical endorsement of this event. Nor does it say this event was observed throughout all Israel. But even if it were a national holiday, it came about by local or national custom and not by the word of God from his prophets or inspired leaders.

The tragedy of Jephthah’s foolish and autocratic vow stands as a reminder to the perverseness of human wisdom when we fail to depend on the living God. In no way should we make Jephthah’s action normative for believers who also have made foolish vows in the past and feel that now they must stick to their guns, as it were, because the Bible says Jephthah stuck to his vow. Just because something is described in Scripture does not mean God wants us to follow it. Only a direct word from God based in his character or authority can have that claim over our lives.

13:21–22 Who Is the Angel of the Lord?

See comment on judges 6:22–23.

13:21–22 Seeing God?

See comment on exodus 33:18–23.

14:2–4 Samson’s Marriage Was from the Lord?

God had clearly forbidden the Israelites to intermarry with the Canaanites (Ex 34:11–

16; Deut 7:1–4). The Philistines, not technically listed as Canaanites, were actually cousins to the Egyptians (Gen 10:14). Nevertheless, it would seem that the principle of avoiding intermarriage would apply to the Philistines as well as to the Canaanites, since the rule was based not on race but on religion. Believers were not to marry unbelievers.

Furthermore, there is an ambiguity in verse 4. Who sought the occasion against the Philistines: God or Samson? The Hebrew text simply says “he.” Some commentators, such as George Bush, J.K. F. Keil and Andrew Robert Fausset, take Samson as the intended reference; others, such as Dale Ralph Davis, Leon Wood and Luke Wiseman, make God the antecedent.

The story of Samson serves as the thematic climax to the book of Judges. The refrain of the book is “everyone did as he saw fit” or “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg 17:6; 21:25). The narrator of Judges uses the same refrain to describe Samson in chapter 14. A literal translation of verse 3 would render his demand as “Get her for me, for she is right in my eyes.” Again, Judges 14:7 comments, “She was right in Samson’s eyes” (NIV [NIV New International Version] “he liked her”). In this respect, Samson was typical of his period of Israelite history—it was the day for doing one’s own thing.

It is probably best to assume that the antecedent of who or he in Judges 14:4 is meant to be Yahweh, since to think otherwise would strain grammatical construction.

Samson appears to be governed more by his glands than by any secret purpose on behalf of his nation. He was doing his own thing. The purpose was not his but God’s.

But that will only seem to make the difficulty of this passage worse. How could the Lord go back on his own rules in order to accomplish some other goal, even a high purpose?

James Jordan argues that God was guiding Samson to move toward marriage, even though Samson was doing his own thing. The purpose of such a marriage, in Jordan’s view, was evangelism. Had the nation of Philistia accepted the olive branch symbolized by this marriage and recognized that they were occupying Israel’s land, the war would have ended. But instead, the riddle Samson put forth at the banquet (14:10–20) allowed the Philistines’ true colors to show. Most of the Israelites had failed to see the domination of the Philistines for what it was; they needed to be stirred up. Since the Philistines were cousins to the Egyptians, the captivity of Israel to the Philistines was equivalent to captivity in Egypt. The lionlike Sphinx is the guardian of Egypt, and it was a lion that attacked Samson as he went down to Philistia.

But Jordan’s argument seems obscure and depends too much on symbolism—

especially since a particularly difficult theological issue has been raised. His solution

seems contrived when judged from the standpoint of an outsider.

Better is the approach of Dale Ralph Davis. For him, the one who was seeking an occasion against the Philistines was Yahweh. But that does not mean God condoned everything Samson did or the way he did it. Says Davis, “Many Christian parents have stood in the sandals of Manoah and his wife. They have, though realizing their own sinful inadequacies, faithfully taught, prayed for, disciplined, and loved a son or a daughter only to see that child willfully turn from the way of the Lord. No one can deny it is anything but devastating. Yet one should not forget verse 4: ‘But his father and mother did not realize it was from Yahweh.’ What we don’t know may yet prove to be our deepest comfort.”3 [3 Dale Ralph Davis, Such a Great Salvation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1990), p.

172.]

The sin of Samson must not be attributed to the Lord, but the deliverance of the Israelites by Samson was from the Lord. Remember, scriptural language frequently attributes directly to God what he merely permits.

Samson surely was directed by God to seek an occasion against the Philistines and to lead the Israelites in breaking out from under their yoke. But Samson did not take the time to inquire of the Lord how, or in what legitimate ways, he might do this. We do not find him asking, as his successor Samuel did, “Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening.” Nor did he seek divine guidance when his parents questioned his seeking a bride among the Philistines. All that mattered was whether he was pleased—whether his choice was “right in his own eyes.” Little wonder, then, that he would only begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. Perhaps his potential for greatness was truncated by his vices, his partaking too deeply of the cultural appetites of his day.

My conclusion is that Samson was neither directed nor tempted by God to do what God had specifically prohibited in his Word. God wanted the defeat of the Philistines, but that did not give Samson carte blanche. Moreover, God’s blessing on one or more aspects of a person’s life is no indication that everything that person does is approved.

Samson was plain bullheaded about this decision, and he refused to listen to his parents or to God. But neither Samson’s foolishness nor his stubbornness would prevent the design of God from being fulfilled.

See also comment on genesis 50:19–21.

17:1–2 A Thief Cursed and Then Blessed?

Here is a story that seems so mixed up and crazy that it easily raises as much embarrassment as anything else. What is happening in this densely packed exchange between mother and son?

One wonders where the writer’s—or even God’s—evaluation of things appears in this bizarre narrative. How can a mother curse a thief and then turn around and bless him when she finds out the culprit was her own son? Isn’t thievery still wrong for all the Bible and its people? And how can God suddenly bless what was just cursed? What did the woman expect to happen? Why did she utter such a strange response upon learning that her money was in the hands of one of her own children?

The writer of the book of Judges wanted us to see that everything was out of control in Israel. Almost every aspect of this story discloses a violation of the will of God as he

had revealed it to Israel.

Clearly the narrative is compressed and in a tightly woven form. Micah’s mother, realizing that she had been swindled out of eleven hundred shekels of silver, responded with an oath. The effect of such an oath was not taken lightly in that culture, for once the word was uttered, it was as if it were an accomplished fact. It was not, as it often is in our culture, where someone might say something off the cuff and then quickly, or even later, retrieve it: “Aw, forget I said that; I didn’t mean anything by it.” The Israelites of Old Testament times believed that God monitored all speech and saw to it that vows, oaths and even idle words fulfilled their mission. Theirs was not a magical view of words, but they did know that talk is not cheap and words often carry consequences.

When Micah heard his mother cut loose with this oath, he immediately confessed that he was the thief. He obviously feared the consequences of the oath. It is doubtful that his mother had suspected her son and spoken her curse in his hearing deliberately.

Probably she had been unaware of her son’s presence. Curses were taken too seriously in those days for us to think otherwise.

Delighted to have the money back, the mother was not immediately concerned to ask Micah why he had stolen. On the contrary, she was now worried about reversing the effect of the curse she had invoked over her son’s head. That is why she said, “The Lord bless you, my son.” She hoped that this blessing would mitigate, if not nullify, the negative effect of the curse placed on Micah.

Now it must be made clear that the Bible only reports what happened here; it does not teach that any of this is normative or worth emulating. The narrative must be read in the context of the revelation of God up to this point.

At least six sins can be discovered in this story. First, the eighth commandment (Ex 20:15) is clear: “You shall not steal.” Micah stole from his mother, and later the tribe of Dan stole his religious articles from his private sanctuary.

In the second place, Micah and his mother, wishing to buy some insurance, as it were, against God’s carrying out her original oath, gave part of the money for the making of several images. This ran counter to the second commandment. But notice how dulled their theological senses were. How could they have expected God’s blessing when they had substituted graven and molten images for the sovereign Lord of the universe?

Third, Micah established a private sanctuary in his home. God had said there was to be only one sanctuary for all the people, and that was at the tabernacle in Shiloh (Deut 12:4–14). God had promised to dwell there and place his name in a central sanctuary, not in individual tents or homes throughout Israel.

Then Micah made one of his sons his private priest, though God had said that only members of the family of Aaron in the tribe of Levi were to represent the people before the altar. Apparently that arrangement did not work out, and Micah then hired a Levite who had been wandering the countryside looking for work. Here again, Micah (and later the tribe of Dan) was still in violation of God’s directive, for Aaron and his family were the sole legitimate priests.

When the tribe of Dan decided to leave the coastal plain, they committed the fifth sin in this narrative by moving from their allotted inheritance. They should have conquered

the territory assigned to them rather than capitulating to the Philistines and moving north to the exposed city of Laish.

Finally, the movement of the Levite from his assigned city to work for Micah and then for the tribe of Dan shows that he was an opportunist. As a Levite, he would have had an assigned place to work. Instead of remaining there, he determined to make his own way in the world; as a result a number of people were impacted by his sin.

Neither the story nor the times are pretty; but this account is entirely realistic, and its implied warning is instructive. We should not doubt in the darkness what God has already told us in the light.

Ruth

3:7–9 What Happened on the Threshing Floor?

Some commentators on this text have suggested that Ruth’s bold move that night on the threshing floor went beyond the normal boundaries of propriety and included sexual relations with Boaz. Their argument is that harvest time the world over is a time of celebration of the rites of fertility. At these times the ancients allowed themselves more license than usual. During this harvest celebration, then, after Boaz had imbibed enough wine to make himself drunk, Ruth approached him in order to force him into marriage.

Others have interpreted Boaz’s “feet” as a sexual euphemism for the male reproductive organ. If this were the meaning, then the story would be making a discreet reference to fleshly indulgence.

But these suggestions are unnecessary; it seems that the author chose his words carefully so as to avoid any possible innuendo.

To begin with, it is extremely unlikely that Boaz was drunk after the good meal he had eaten. The text simply says that he “was in good spirits.” His mood was mellow, and his demeanor was upbeat. And why not? He had the results of all his hard labor right there on the threshing floor with him. But his feasting brought on drowsiness, so he retired to one side of the pile of grain that had been threshed. It is doubtful that he would have guarded this pile of grain by himself, that there would have been no other workers present who would awaken at the crack of dawn to get back to work alongside him.

Later, after Boaz had fallen asleep, Ruth went and carefully uncovered his feet and apparently crawled under his cover, lying perpendicular to his feet. There are no sexual overtones in the reference to his feet, for Boaz was startled at midnight when his feet suddenly touched the woman’s body.

Ruth immediately made her objective clear when she requested, “Spread the corner of your garment over me.” She was using the accepted idiom meaning “Marry me”—

other passages in which the same expression is used are Ezekiel 16:8, Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20, and Malachi 2:16. No doubt the idiom reflected the custom, still practiced by some Arabs, of a man’s throwing a garment over the woman he has decided to take as his wife. The gesture is a symbol of protection as well as a

declaration that the man is willing to enter into sexual consummation with his chosen partner.

Boaz had prayed in Ruth 2:12 that Ruth might be rewarded by the Lord under whose wings she had taken refuge. Ruth now essentially asked Boaz to answer his own prayer, for “garmentcover” and “wing” are from a similar root in Hebrew.

Ruth’s reason for this action is expressed in her appeal to Boaz as a “kinsman-redeemer.” That is a legal status. Under Jewish law, then, her request was not particularly unusual.

That Boaz handled himself honorably can be seen in his revelation that there was someone who actually had prior claim over Ruth and her inheritance, since he was a closer relative. However, if he should prove unwilling to take responsibility in the matter (and he was), then Boaz would marry Ruth.

Remarkably, Ruth seems willing to marry even this other relative sight unseen, again subordinating her own happiness to her duty of raising up an heir to her deceased husband and to Naomi. In doing so she demonstrates again why this book singles her out as a most worthy example of what Proverbs 31 refers to as a “virtuous woman” or a person “of noble character.”

The charges against Ruth and Boaz are false and without foundation. While the couple’s encounter did occur in the context of darkness and sleep, the text does not present their behavior as morally questionable or even particularly abnormal within the social and moral conventions of the godly remnant of those days.

1 Samuel

1:1 Was Samuel a Levite or an Ephraimite?

See comment on 1 chronicles 6:16.

1:11 Was Hannah Right to Bargain with God?

Is the desperate prayer of Hannah for a son a legitimate way to approach God, or is it a bad example of trying to bargain with God?

Hannah’s prayer has no more the ill sense of bargaining with God than many of our prayers. While it is true that we can abuse the privilege that we have of direct access to the throne of God to make our requests known, it is God who will judge the propriety and motivation of each prayer, not any mortal.

What is surprising is to notice the same directness of access and the simplicity with which this woman, who is part of the fellowship of the many barren women in the Bible, makes her request known to God. There is no demanding or threatening here.

Her prayer is not formal, contrived or ritualistic. It is as direct as any might wish it to be. If only God would look, if only he would remember her and if only he would give her a son, she vowed that she would not grow proud, forgetful or ungrateful; on the contrary, she would give this son (she never considered that it might be a girl) back to

God.

God was not obligated to answer her. But the fact that he did indicates that he judged her motives to be right and her request appropriate.

2:25 Did God Prevent Eli’s Sons from Repenting?

In what way was it God’s will to put Eli’s sons to death? Does this mean that God actually intervened in some way to make sure that Hophni and Phinehas never repented and were therefore condemned to die? How free were the wills of these two priestly sons of the high priest, Eli, in this regard?

↑ Back to top