2011 LBC Single Life Car Rally

by Jonathan Eng

The 2012 LBC Single Life Car Rally was truly a memorable one…due to an emphasis on being “green” and a de-emphasis on the “car.” This year’s car rally was not so much of a car rally as much as it was a walk/run rally. Despite all of the healthy (and heavy) amounts of exercise everyone got, it was still fun (and more tiring than usual). This year, we had seven groups of singles participate. As usual, we also each had themes for each group for the members to dress up as. We had a sports group, a preppy group, tourists, superheroes, a 80s group, cowboys and cowgirls, and nerds.

We started off at church and we each got snack bags filled with goodies and our first clue that came in the form of part of a puzzle that we had to put together as a group utilizing teamwork, we found that we were to go to the trolley station in Old Town. From there, we were to go to the Santa Fe Depot via the trolley. Once we got off, we spent the day in the downtown area. Our journey took us from the USS Midway to a lunch break, a flash mobbing session, and a search for a lobster at Seaport Village. From there, we ran to the Chinese History Museum as well as the kids’ museum. After that, we ran to the convention center and literally had to run up flights of stairs. From there, we went to Petco Park for some pretend action with baseball poses. The plan after that was to take the trolley from Petco Park back to Old Town and drive back home to church.

Overall, the experience was a four and a half hour wild event where by the time we all finished, we were exhausted. It was a great time of fellowship getting to know those within our group and hearing the testimonies of how we came to know Christ. Encouraging one another through sharing our favorite bible passages as well as engaging each other through our common love of Disney movies and other forms of entertainment that we have a common bond over provided plenty of laughs and memories. While we await the results of the car rally to see which group one, we are ecstatic and looking forward to next year’s car rally.

BOB – 1 & 2 Kings

by Stephen Rodgers

1 & 2 KINGS IN 10 WORDS OR LESS

  • 1 Kings: “Israel divides into rival northern and southern nations.”
  • 2 Kings: “Both Jewish nations are destroyed for their disobedience to God.”

TITLE

In the early Hebrew manuscripts, 1 and 2 Kings were considered a single book. They were divided into separate books by the translators of the Greek version, the Septuagint (LXX), which was later copied by the Latin Vulgate (Vg.), English translations (where they are referred to as “1 Kings” and “2 Kings,” and modern Hebrew Bibles (where they are referred to as “Kings A” and “Kings B”). The LXX designated 1 and 2 Kings as “The Second Book of the Kingdoms” (with our 1 and 2 Samuel as “The First Book of the Kingdoms), whereas the Vg. labeled them “Third and Fourth Kings” (with our 1 and 2 Samuel as “First and Second  Kings”).

The division of 1 and 2 Kings has long been considered to be one of copyist convenience (allowing the work to fit on standard-sized scrolls) rather than content or theme, and so should be understood as a unified volume.

In any event, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts entitled the book “Kings” after the first word in 1 Kings 1:1.

AUTHOR & AUDIENCE

Jewish tradition ascribes the authorship of the book of Kings to Jeremiah, although this is doubtful for a number of reasons:

  • 2 Kings ends in Babylon in 561 BC (2 Ki 25:27-30)
  • Jeremiah never went to Babylon; he went to Egypt (Jer 43:1-7)
  • Finally, (although this is somewhat inconclusive), Jeremiah would have been at least 86 years old by 561 BC
A more likely explanation (given the emphasis that Kings places on the ministry of the prophets and Deuteronomy) is that an unnamed prophet who lived with Israel in Babylon is the author, who worked from a number of earlier pre-Exilic sources:
  • “the book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Ki 11:41)
  • “the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” (1 Ki 14:19; 15:31; 16:5,14,20,27; 22:39; 2 Ki 1:18; 10:34; 13:8,12; 14:15,28; 15:11,15,21,26,31)
  • “the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” (1 Ki 14:29; 15:7,23; 22:45; 2 Ki 8:23; 12:19; 14:18; 15:6,36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17,25; 23:28; 24:5)
  • Isaiah 36:1-39:8 (2 Ki 18:9-20:19)
  • Jeremiah 52:31-34 (2 Ki 25:27-29)

It is possible that other sources were used as well (some scholars postulate an “Ahab source,” an “Isaiah source,” and other various literary unit sources) but there is no consensus on this issue.

The original audience would have been Jews living in exile in Babylon.

DATE

Much like Samuel, the books of Kings contain no clear indication as to the date of composition. However, there are some indicators that can be noted in passing:

  • As previously mentioned, 2 Kings ends in Babylon in 561 BC (2 Ki 25:27-30)
  • As there is no mention of the end of Babylonian captivity (in 538 BC), the book of Kings was most likely written somewhere between those dates
  • It is generally accepted that the “to this day” statements (1 Ki 8:8; 9:13,20,21; 10:12; 12:19; 2 Ki 2:22; 8:22; 10:27; 14:7; 16:6; 17:23,34,41;21:15) reflect the view of the author/editor’s sources rather than the author/editor himself
  • It is possible that the “kings of the west” and “governors of the land” reference in 1 Kings 10:15 indicates that some editing took place later, during the Persian period (539-330 BC)

BACKGROUND & SETTING

Chronologically, the book of Kings begins with the accession of Solomon in 971 BC to the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians in 586 BC. In between, it traces two separate kingdoms and their respective monarchies: Israel and Judah.

It should also be noted briefly that the book of Kings is also interpreted history. The author adopts a viewpoint that is not only historical but also theological, as he relies heavily on the instructions and promises given to Israel by God in Deuteronomy to structure the narrative.

HISTORICAL & THEOLOGICAL THEMES

There are four significant themes that run through the book of Kings:

  • Covenant. The history of Israel’s kings is presented from a covenantal view.  Assessments of the reign of various kings is measured by their obedience to the Mosaic Covenant, and the constant use of David as an exemplar for future comparison underscores the historic significance of the Davidic Covenant.
  • The one true God. The existance of a single God provided the basis for a single place of worship. The “sin of the house of Jeroboam” (1 Ki 13:34; 15:34;16:2,19,26; 21:22; 22:52) involved creating alternate places of worship (1 Ki 12:25-33), which foreshadowed the fall of both kingdoms into idolatry and…
  • Judgment. As a result of their idolatry, both kingdoms were eventually brought under the judgment of God and His covenant curses (Lev 26:27-43; Deut 28:64-68). The northern kingdom of Israel was exiled to Assyria and the southern kingdom of Judah was exiled to Babylon.
  • Prophets. God used prophets to call his people back to a covenant relationship with Himself, but they would not listen. The two greatest prophets of this time were Elijah and Elisha, both of whom ministered to the northern kingdom of Israel.

INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES

There are two significant interpretive challenges to the book of Kings: one historical, and one theological.

From a historical perspective, it can be challenging to determine an accurate chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah due to alleged inconsistencies and contradictions. However, it is possible to demonstrate the general accuracy of the chronology of Kings. Very briefly:

  • The alleged contradiction regarding Omri’s reign can be resolved by understanding the different figures given to refer to single-regency and duel-regency separately.
  • The book of Kings can also be reconciled with extra-Biblical Greek, Assyrian, and Babylonian sources once co-regencies are taken into account (a period of time when two successive kings, usually father and son, jointly ruled).
  • In addition, one must also account for the fact that different rules for determining “years reigned” as well as different calendars were used in the various ANE kingdoms under discussion.

From a theological perspective, much has been made of the issue regarding Solomon’s relationship to the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. While some interpret 1 Kings 4:20-21 as the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham (and later, to David), this view is problematic:

  • While Solomon controlled vast amounts of land, he did not control the land all the way to the Mediterranean Sea (as described in Nu 34:6). Instead we see that Hiram the king of Tyre controlled that land, and dealt with Solomon as an equal (1 Ki 5:1).
  • Furthermore, while the conditions of the Davidic Covenant were reiterated to Solomon (1 Ki 6:12), it is clear that he did not meet the conditions (1 Ki 11:9-13). That would not be done by any of the historical kings of the house of David until the coming of the Messiah (Is 9:6-7).

LITERARY FEATURES

From the ESV Study Bible:

First and Second Kings are written in the form of historical narrative—specifically, a record of monarchical succession. The main rhetorical format of this court history is the summary of individual kings’ careers, consisting of the name of each king, what kingdom he ruled (Israel or Judah), the date of his accession to the throne, the length of his reign, his religious and other policies, the details of his death, and the name of his successor. Yet the authors are as much theologians as historians. It is not their intention to provide every historical detail, and on occasion they direct readers who want more information to consult other sources. The authors’ main intention is to interpret the history of Israel along theological lines, showing what happens when political and spiritual leaders foolishly choose to worship false gods instead of wisely choosing to worship the one true God.

In terms of structure, 1 Kings focuses on Solomon and Elijah, occasionally breaking away from them to give an account of a relatively minor king. On the other hand, 2 Kings tends to primarily concern itself with the encyclopedic listing of more than 30 kings, with no individual given prominence with the exception of a detailed portrait of the life of Elisha.

It is also noteworthy to consider the sheer consistancy of the monarchial record. Each king is introduced with 1) his name and relation to his predecessor, 2) his date of accession in relationship to the year of the contemporary ruler in the other kingdom, 3) his age upon accession (for Judah only), 4) his length of reign, 5) his place of reign, 6) his mother’s name (for Judah only), and 7) a spiritual appraisal of his reign. Then comes a narration regarding the details of the reign, which varies widely. However, each reign is then concluded with 1) a citation of sources, 2) additional historical notes, 3) notice of death, 4) notice of burial, 5) the name of the successor, and 6) a postscript (although this varies).

It is this attention to detail that prevents significant objections to the reliability of the book of Kings (see below).

OBJECTIONS

Apart from the INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES listed above, there are no significant OBJECTIONS to the book of Kings that I’m aware of.

NOTABLE QUOTABLES

  • 1 Kings 2:1-2
  • 1 Kings 3:9
  • 1 Kings 18:37
  • 2 Kings 2:11
  • 2 Kings 17:20
  • 2 Kings 25:21

DID YOU KNOW?

  • The “Palace of the Forest of Lebanon” was named for the trunks of cedar trees which served as pillars, giving the appearance of a forest (1 Ki 7:2)…or many Brian Songs
  • The “Sea of cast metal” was a enormous basin of water (holding about 11,500 gallons) that was used by the priests for ritual cleansing (1 Ki 7:23)
  • ANE deities were thought of in somewhat similar terms to local law enforcement: they could only be worshiped (or hold sway) while on the soil to which it (or he or she) was bound (2 Ki 5:17)
  • ANE makeup was rather sophisticated, and included eyeshadow, lipstick, and fingernail polish, as well as perfume (2 Ki 9:30)
  • Isaiah (yes, that Isaiah) makes a rather significant cameo in 2 Kings 19

Other Works Referenced

Should I Stay or Should I Go

by Elder Peter Lim

Recently, Jonathan Leeman authored an excellent article titled “What To Say To Church Members Leaving For Poor Reasons” on the 9Marks blog. To summarize briefly, he suggested some practical suggestions on how to respond to someone who is trying to make the decision whether to leave a church. I understand why he considers “moving to a different city” to be a “good” reason to leave. I agree with him. However, I think that if he had more time and space to elaborate, he would agree with me that more consideration needs to be given to the reasons why someone would want to move to a different city in the first place. For that matter, people should think more about why they are in the city that they are in now. I am about to reiterate a lot of what I already wrote in “No Better Place on Earth” (Part 1 and Part 2). Here in San Diego, it’s easy to want to be here: great beaches, great weather, friendly people, Phil’s BBQ, usually a good football team, laid-back atmosphere, and it’s not LA. However, when someone asks me why I like San Diego, is it really that the city has all these desirable qualities? Is it because San Diego is truly America’s Finest City? Is it because I have a good job here? Is it because I have family here? What makes a place a good place to be?

In the grand scheme of things, all these reasons are inadequate. Where in the Bible does it say that we should choose where to live based on any of these reasons? For Paul, making tents was something he did just to pay his way for expenses incurred in ministry. He worked in order to do ministry without burdening the churches he ministered to. He didn’t merely do ministry wherever he found a demand for tents and move around for the sake of his business. He wasn’t passionate about creating a tent-making empire nor about increasing business profits. In other words, his reason for moving around was to plant churches and minister to them. Making tents was just incidental to his main purpose, which was to plant churches and strengthen the believers. Too many Christians have been so influenced by the world’s values that they don’t think twice about pursuing a college education or following a particular career path that would take them away from a healthy church situation, not that those things are necessarily bad. In fact, they would elevate some of these goals so highly that they would look down on someone choosing to pursue the pastorate, missionary life, relocation for a church plant at the risk of their careers, or full-time stay-at-home motherhood.

I hope that my call to examine our heart’s motivation for being where we are is received as I am intending… as a loving reminder to live our lives purposefully to minister to the people around us as an effective witness for Christ to the world and not as with a “holier than thou” arrogant attitude if you aren’t thinking like I am. God has placed each one of us where He did in order to minister to the people around us. He has built His church to carry out the mission of bringing the gospel to them. Let’s accomplish our mission with a clear focus on that goal wherever He leads us. That by definition is a good place to be because our good God places us there.

Lead Us Not Into Temptation…

 

by Charles Haddon Spurgeon

From Luke 11:4

What we are taught to seek or shun in prayer, we should equally pursue or avoid in action. Very earnestly, therefore, should we avoid temptation, seeking to walk so guardedly in the path of obedience, that we may never tempt the devil to tempt us. We are not to enter the thicket in search of the lion. Dearly might we pay for such presumption. This lion may cross our path or leap upon us from the thicket, but we have nothing to do with hunting him. He that meeteth with him, even though he winneth the day, will find it a stern struggle. Let the Christian pray that he may be spared the encounter. Our Saviour, who had experience of what temptation meant, thus earnestly admonished His disciples-‘Pray that ye enter not into temptation.’

But let us do as we will, we shall be tempted; hence the prayer ‘deliver us from evil.’ God had one Son without sin; but He has no son without temptation. The natural man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards, and the Christian man is born to temptation just as certainly. We must be always on our watch against Satan, because, like a thief, he gives no intimation of his approach. Believers who have had experience of the ways of Satan, know that there are certain seasons when he will most probably make an attack, just as at certain seasons bleak winds may be expected; thus the Christian is put on a double guard by fear of danger, and the danger is averted by preparing to meet it. Prevention is better than cure: it is better to be so well armed that the devil will not attack you, than to endure the perils of the fight, even though you come off a conqueror. Pray this evening first that you may not be tempted, and next that if temptation be permitted, you may be delivered from the evil one.

2.9p

Weekly Links (12/16/2011)

Gratitude is not set forth in the Bible as a primary motive for Christian living. Gratitude is a beautiful thing. There is no Christianity without it. It is at the heart of worship. It should fill the heart of every believer. But when it comes to spelling out the spiritual dynamics of how practical Christian obedience happens, the Bible does not say that it comes from the backward gaze of gratitude, but that it comes from the forward gaze of faith. (John Piper, Future Grace)

by Richard Shin

We’re back with weekly links. Hope you enjoy!

  • Kevin DeYoung asks why we must do good even if we are saved.
  • Does the virgin birth matter? Does it make us less intellectual? Albert Mohler explores the importance of the virgin birth to the Gospel message as a response to an article published from The New York Times.
  • Ray Ortlund writes about advocacy for those who need it. We don’t think of advocacy as a medium for mercy, but Ortlund (with Matt Perman) explains how it truly is.
  • “Why do Christians die?… Why do some churches grow loveless and cold?…” These are a couple questions Kevin DeYoung answers in his blog post titled “Hell Bent.”
  • Russel Moore encourages women to stop submitting to men. Catch that? Well, go on.
  • Matt Perman from What’s Best Next blogs about the meaning of justice in the workplace.

That should keep you busy until next week. Have a great weekend, everyone!

Coram Deo

Don’t Be So Surprised

by Hansol An

If you want to see what is important in this country at any given point, a cursory examination of its college and universities can be a great place to start. Colleges and universities have always been avant-garde and are often a concentrated reflection of society’s ills, concerns, and aspirations. Historically they have been at the cusp of political and social change. They are also often associated with the latest trends and fads. It’s no secret that most colleges encourage the exploration of free thinking and exploration without the restrictions of their parents’ and the outside world’s imposed moral restrictions. This ‘freedom’ can sometimes lead to stereotypical sinful excesses and debauchery associated with collegians. To hear of sinful antics on a college campus is not uncommon, but is typically limited to the coed population. Most hold university leaders and administrators in high esteem because of the stature their positions afford. As children we are taught to respect and trust those who teach us. Such indoctrination stays with us into college even when most other convictions are tossed aside. Events of recent weeks have challenged such thinking and have once again brought the occurrences on a university campus into the living rooms of an entire country.

Pennsylvania State University’s flagship campus at University Park is highly regarded for its academics, but is better known for it’s athletic achievements, particularly those of the very visible football program. If you don’t follow college football, Penn State is well known for having a successful football program for decades, reaching it’s zenith in the 80’s when they won two National Championships. The team is synonymous with Joe Paterno, their head coach for a record 45+ years. He also holds the record for most victories by a coach in the highest level of collegiate football (409; no other coach has reached 400), most bowl game victories (24) and more. His team flourished during his tenure and for the most part he seemed to do it the right way, avoiding many of the scandals that plagued other major college programs. In the eyes of the Penn State faithful he was an icon. That all changed this year when one of his long time assistants, Jerry Sandusky, was arrested and charged with numerous sex crimes against young boys from 1994 though 2009. Some incidences reportedly occurred during his time as an assistant under Paterno. Allegedly, in 2002, Joe Paterno was told about an incident of abuse involving Sandusky and a 10-year-old boy in a school facility. According to a grand jury report, Paterno reported what he heard to his direct supervisor, fulfilling his legal obligation. However, he has been severely criticized for not following-up and reporting it directly to the police when it appeared that the school’s administration did not. Subsequently, he was fired.

Sandusky’s alleged deviance has been widely reported by the media due to its sensational nature and continued to gain interest when it became apparent that high ranking administrators tried to hide the allegations for the sake of the school’s reputation. As so often has been the case, events on a university campus have reverberated throughout America leaving many to question where the moral fiber of this country has gone. I don’t think that the most shocking part is that a pedophile abused so many innocent boys; pedophiles have been around for a long time. The most shocking part is that it happened, over such a long time period, at such a high profile university, while many well respected men in positions of authority did nothing to bring such evil to light.

Events like these cause people to wonder what is happening to our society. To some it seems as if society is getting worse and worse with each passing year but it wasn’t that long ago that the Catholic church went through a similar scandal involving its priests and young boys. People seem to forget too quickly and ignore the truth contained in the Bible. The Word tells us that we should not be so surprised. The truth of man’s condition is described throughout its pages. Jesus himself said, “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness…” (Mark 7:21-22). The early church needed only to look around them and see the Roman Empire to witness the depths of human depravity. Before that you could look to Sodom and Gomorrah who were so sinful that God had to smite them. When God has to smite whole towns due to their sinfulness you know that there had to be some serious corruption. The people of Noah’s time were so corrupt that God decided to wipe them all out, except Noah and his family, and start over new. Depravity in society is nothing new. A wise man once asserted, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

The world does not recognize it’s own degeneracy. But believers should not forget that they are also capable of the same level of immorality. Psalm 14:2-3 states, “The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.” The word for “all,” in the Hebrew means, ALL. When we loose sight of our dependence on God and become arrogant in our own righteousness, we are in danger of falling into sin. “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom,” (Proverbs 11:2). Even David, a man after God’s own heart, fell into serious sin when he became complacent in his walk and inattentive to his own potential for sinfulness. He committed adultery and murder. Are we “common Christians” any less capable of serious sin than King David? I’m not saying pedophilia is a common sin that people struggle with but I do believe that our hearts are wicked and capable of serious sin. God’s grace is all we can depend on and we must depend on it daily, hourly, moment-by-moment in order to persevere in our walks. We have to maintain our testimonies if we want to be light and salt to our campuses and in turn, the world.

BOB – 1 & 2 Samuel

by Stephen Rodgers

1 & 2 SAMUEL IN 10 WORDS OR LESS

  • 1 Samuel: “Israel’s twelve tribes unite under a king.”
  • 2 Samuel: “David becomes Israel’s greatest king – but with major flaws.”

TITLE

In the early Hebrew manuscripts, 1 and 2 Samuel were considered a single book. They were divided into separate books by the translators of the Greek version, the Septuagint (LXX), which was later copied by the Latin Vulgate (Vg.), English translations, and modern Hebrew Bibles. The LXX designated 1 and 2 Samuel as “The First Book of the Kingdoms” (with our 1 and 2 Kings as “The Second Book of the Kingdoms), whereas the Vg. labeled them “First and Second Kings” (with our 1 and 2 Kings as “Third and Fourth Kings”).

In any event, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts entitled the book “Samuel” after the prophet God used to establish the kingship in Israel.

AUTHOR & AUDIENCE

Jewish tradition ascribes the authorship of the book of Samuel to Samuel himself, or to some combination of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. Other scholars have also suggested Abiathar the priest.

While it is certainly possible (even likely) that the writing of 1 and 2 Samuel were based on manuscripts left by these prophets and priests, attributing authorship to them individually or collectively is problematic. Samuel was not alive during the events of David’s reign (2 Samuel), and Nathan/Gad were not alive during the events of 1 Samuel. Ultimately the author of these books is unknown.

In some form, the original audience would have been the Israelits who lived during the reigns of David and Solomon, as well as their successive generations.

DATE

The books of Samuel contain no clear indication as to the date of composition. However, there are some indicators that can be noted in passing:

  • The author/editor wrote after the division of the kingdoms is 931 BC (1 Sa 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sa 5:5; 11:11; 12:8; 19:42-43; 24:1,9).
  • The statement concerning Ziklag’s belonging “to the kings of Judah to this day” (1 Sa 27:6) clearly indicated post-Solomonic composition.
  • While this is helpful in marking an “earliest possible” date of composition, it is more difficult to locate a similar “latest possible” date. If the Former Prophets (see notes on the OT Canon) were composed as a unit, then Samuel would have been written during the Babylonian captivity,(ca. 560-540 BC) since 2 Kings concludes during the exile (2 Ki 25:27-30).
  • However, even this cannot be determined with certainty since Samuel has a different literary style than Kings, which could indicate i t was penned prior to the Exile sometime during the period of the divided kingdom (ca. 971-722 BC).

BACKGROUND & SETTING

In terms of geography, the book of Samuel is situated around the central highlands of Israel, an area that encompasses approximately 2,000 square miles. (That’s actually a relatively small area, about 90 miles long and 15-35 miles wide. For a Southern Californian reference, you can think of it as the area between I-15 and the coast (east to west) between Anaheim and San Diego (north to south).

In terms of chronology, the book of Samuel begins with the birth of Samuel (1 Sa 1:1-28) and ends with the last words of David (2 Sa 23:1-7), approximately a 135 year period.

In terms of focus, the book of Samuel follows the lives of Samuel, Saul, and David.

HISTORICAL & THEOLOGICAL THEMES

While there are a number of themes throughout Samuel, there are three in particular that stand out:

  • Kingship. A monarchy in Israel held both great hope and great danger. Ultimately, the contrasting kingships are not between Saul and David, but between the human and the divine. God is the sovereign King who makes no errors in judgment and retains His throne, unlike any earthly ruler.
  • The consequences of sin. Both Saul and David serve as profound illustrations of the terrible consequences of sin. In particular, David’s status as a “man after God’s own heart” was not enough to protect him from the consequences of his sin, which had irreversible consequences despite his genuine repentance and God’s immediate forgiveness.
  • The Davidic Covenant. The entire book of Samuel is bracketed by two references to the “anointed” king in the prayer of Hannah (1 Sa 2:10) and the song of David (2 Sa 22:51). These are references to the Messiah, who God promised would one day come through the line of David and establish David’s throne forever.

INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES

Quite apart from the textual issues of Samuel (see OBJECTIONS) there are a number of issues that are raised within the text itself.  A few that are often mentioned are:

  • Samuel’s attitude towards the establishment of human kingship. Some scholars have suggested that the author(s) of Samuel present an ambivalent or inconsistent view of the monarchy in Israel. For example, 1 Samuel 9-11 presents a positive view, while chapters 8 and 12 present a negative view. This is easily resolved by understanding that the author wished the reader to understand that the desire for a king was acceptable (Deut 17:15), the motivation was not.
  • The behavior of the prophets. It has been suggested that the portrayals of the prophets in 1 Samuel 10:5 and 19:23-24 are consistent with other ANE prophets who exhibited ecstatic behavior. To put it mildly, this is an overstatement.
  • The ministry of the Holy Spirit prior to Pentecost. The role of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is the subject of much discussion, but in general it can be understood as empowering for service rather than salvific in the New Testament sense.
  • The identity of the “distressing spirit.” Two major interpretations of 1 Samuel 16:14 exist: either the spirit is impersonal (a spirit of discontent, see Judges (9:23), or it is personal (a demon). Opinions among commentators are divided, but the majority view seems to hold to the latter interpretation.
  • The appearance of the “ghost” of Samuel. This passage in 1 Samuel 28 has sparked more heated debates among seminarians on internet messages boards than I can count. Suffice to say that two major interpretations exist: either the “ghost” is actually Samuel, or it is a demon impersonating Samuel. Despite the popularity of the subject matter, it ultimately is inconsequential, although the former interpretation is both simpler and would seem to present less difficulty.

LITERARY FEATURES

The genre of Samuel is first and foremost a hero story, focusing primarily on the three characters previously identified: Samuel, Saul, and David. Minor story arcs can be identified for Hannah, Eli, and Jonathan as well.

In particular, the stories of Saul and David are particularly set against each other, with the decline of Saul mirroring the ascension of David. In a similar way, the stories of Samuel and Eli foreshadow this greater construction, with the decline of Eli mirroring the ascension of Samuel.

Finally, while remaining within the genre of the hero story, the arc of Saul is the only fully developed and undisputed literary tragedy in the entire Bible. To a lesser extent, the arc of David reflects this.  While not a tragedy en toto, his arc does incorporate tragic elements in that his decline (although not his ultimate downfall, which would be a hallmark of a full-blown tragedy), can be traced to a single tragic decision.

OBJECTIONS

With the possible exception of Jeremiah, the book of Samuel has the dubious distinction of being the book of the Bible considered to have the most textual difficulties, variants, and possible transmission errors (in particular numerical discrepancies). There are numerous differences between the Masoretic text and the LXX, and it is likely that many of the spelling issues are a result of a scribe writing a name phonetically rather than in “standard” Hebrew.

The ESV Study Bible summarizes it this way:

The Hebrew Masoretic text (MT) of 1–2 Samuel is notorious for its difficulties. Furthermore, Samuel and Jeremiah are the two OT books where the ancient Greek translations and the Hebrew are notably different in many places. Many scholars and translations too readily reject the MT in favor of the Greek, saying that the Greek text makes more sense and reflects the more original Hebrew text. They hold that the MT must have been corrupted into its present form through a series of scribal errors, and they try to “correct” these “corrupted” texts on the basis of the Greek texts. In fact, the Hebrew texts of Samuel from about 50 to 25 b.c. found among the Dead Sea Scrolls give support for some readings in the Greek text tradition. But the alleged similarity between the Greek texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls has been overemphasized.

The book of Samuel can be summarized this way: when compared with other OT books, the issues related to textual transmission are numerous and surprisingly poor.  However, when compared with other ANE documents of the period, the issues related to textual transmission are surprisingly minimal. Serious students will note that while Samuel unquestionably has its issues, they cannot be said to be insurmountable. While the MT has been poorly preserved, and in some cases the exact reading of the original autograph cannot be determined, these issues are nonetheless identifiable.

NOTABLE QUOTABLES

  • 1 Samuel 8:7
  • I Samuel 15:22
  • 1 Samuel 16:7
  • 1 Samuel 17:45
  • 2 Samuel 1:25
  • 2 Samuel 7:18
  • 2 Samuel 18:33

DID YOU KNOW?

  • Opposing armies sometimes decided on a winner via a proxy battle between champions (as in David and Goliath). This was based on the belief that each champion represented their respective deity, who actually determined the outcome (1 Sa 17:4).
  • Grasping the hem of a garment symbolized loyalty, but cutting off a piece of it symbolized disloyalty (1 Sa 24:4-5).
  • New kings inherited the harem of the previous king (2 Sa 3:7)
  • Disability was viewed as a sign of sin or God’s disfavor (2 Sa 4:4). (Note: Christ Himself later explicitly repudiated this view in John 9:3).

Other Works Referenced

Seeing the Glory

by Pastor Patrick Cho

We were so excited this past weekend to enjoy our annual Christmas Concert! This has been one of our favorite traditions at LBC, especially because we get to see our members showcase all their various talents for the glory of God. It also affords us an opportunity to invite our friends and family to come and hear God-glorifying music and the gospel message. This year’s Christmas Concert certainly wasn’t a disappointment. Every year, I think, “That might have been the best one yet!”

The thought that I wanted to focus on from the Bible for this year’s Christmas Concert is the remarkable privilege we have as Christians to know the God of the universe. Every once in a while we might experience the excitement of meeting a celebrity. Whether it’s a movie star or professional athlete, it is interesting to find out what they are like. It is (even if in the slightest bit) just cool to be in the presence of such a well-known figure. With this in mind, as believers, we have the greatest reason to boast because we have intimate knowledge of the Creator of all that is. The God who spoke everything into being knows us and we can know Him!

Back in the Old Testament, God’s people understood how terrifying a thought it was to see the glory of God. In Exodus 20, after God communicates the Ten Commandments, the people are deathly frightened. They see the smoke and lightning and they hear the rumbling and trumpets, so they ask Moses to speak on God’s behalf. They said, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die” (v. 19). The people were terrified at the thought of encountering the holiness and glory of God.

Later in Exodus 33, it is revealed that Moses had a uniquely personal relationship with God. The account states that “the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (v. 11). It was clear that Moses’ interactions with God were particularly special. Even still, it was limited. In v. 18, Moses asks God to show him His glory, but God has to refuse. His reasoning? No man can see His face and live (v. 19-20). Moses had to settle for a compromise as God hid him in the cleft of a rock and passed by him allowing him to see His back.

It is important to have this context from the Old Testament to better appreciate the words of John 1:18. No one has seen God at any time, but in Christ we have the ability to see the face of God. This is why the Apostle John writes in v. 14 that in Christ we behold the glory of God. In Jesus, we can see the fullness of God in the way that only the Son could represent the Father.

It is only through Christ that we can know the Father and see exactly what He is like. If you want to know what God would do, you should study what Jesus does. If you want to know what God would say, you should know what Jesus says. But more than this, because of what Jesus did on the cross, we can be reconciled to the Father and come into right relationship with Him. Even though we are sinners and He is the righteous and holy God, we can be forgiven of our sins because the penalty for our guilt was paid for on the cross.

It is truly grace that we could be saved from the wrath of God. It is grace that we could be forgiven of our sins. It is grace that God would send a Savior to pay our debt in full on the cross. But this Christmas season, it is also worth meditating on and appreciating the truth that because of what Jesus did on the cross, we have access to the Father. Because of His grace, we look forward to one day seeing Him as He is (1 John 3:2). I’m sure it will still be terrifying (He is God after all!), but not to our despair. It will be our greatest joy to bask in His greatness and stand in awe of who He is for all eternity.

And David Enquired of the Lord

by Charles Haddon Spurgeon

From 2 Samuel 5:23

When David made this enquiry he had just fought the Philistines, and gained a signal victory. The Philistines came up in great hosts, but, by the help of God, David had easily put them to flight. Note, however, that when they came a second time, David did not go up to fight them without enquiring of the Lord. Once he had been victorious, and he might have said, as many have in other cases, ‘I shall be victorious again; I may rest quite sure that if I have conquered once I shall triumph yet again. Wherefore should I tarry to seek at the Lord’s hands?’ Not so, David. He had gained one battle by the strength of the Lord; he would not venture upon another until he had ensured the same. He enquired, ‘Shall I go up against them?’ He waited until God’s sign was given.Learn from David to take no step without God.

Christian, if thou wouldst know the path of duty, take God for thy compass; if thou wouldst steer thy ship through the dark billows, put the tiller into the hand of the Almighty. Many a rock might be escaped, if we would let our Father take the helm; many a shoal or quicksand we might well avoid, if we would leave to His sovereign will to choose and to command. The Puritan said, ‘As sure as ever a Christian carves for himself, he’ll cut his own fingers;’ this is a great truth. Said another old divine, ‘He that goes before the cloud of God’s providence goes on a fool’s errand;’ and so he does. We must mark God’s providence leading us; and if providence tarries, tarry till providence comes. He who goes before providence, will be very glad to run back again. ‘I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go,’ is God’s promise to His people. Let us, then, take all our perplexities to Him, and say, ‘Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’ Leave not thy chamber this morning without enquiring of the Lord.

2.9a

Weekly Links (12/9/2011)

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry ‘Mine!’ (Abraham Kuyper, 1837-1920)

by Stephen Rodgers

My apologies that this is going up late. I wanted to make you aware of a number of resources before they are no longer available (in some cases):

  • The new edition of Tabletalk is out, focusing on the theme of “Hope for Broken Homes.” I have also updated our Tabletalk index, which is a great resource if you need a place to start.
  • Also, for a limited time, RC Sproul’s The Holiness of God is available free on Kindle. You don’t actually have to have a Kindle device to download and enjoy Kindle resources…they have clients for phones, computers, and even browsers.
  • Speaking of free e-books, Monergism has a list of free resources that you should check out…there are some real gems in there.
  • And last but not least, christianaudio.com is giving away two free resources this month: From Pearl Harbor to Calvary by Mitsuo Fuchida and A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens.

Don’t forget that the LBC Christmas concert is tomorrow!  This is a great opportunity to invite your friends!

See you there!

Pro Rege