Bible Difficulties (38 page)

166

1 Samuel

How could Bethshemesh have contained over 50,000 men in Samuel's day (1 Sam.

6:19)? Why was such an extreme judgment visited on them?

It is quite true that 50,000 men would seem to have been far in excess of the normal population of a community like Bethshemesh in the eleventh century B.C. But there is very strong evidence to indicate that the original text of 1 Samuel 6:19 read a much lower number. That is to say, nowhere else is a figure like 50,070 written in this fashion according to the grammar of biblical Hebrew. Normally the wording would have been either
sibìm 'is wahamissim 'elep 'is
(lit., "seventy man and fifty thousand man") or else in the descending order--which was far more usual--
hamissim 'elep 'is wasibìm 'is
("fifty thousand man and seventy man"). The fact that neither of these customary word orders was followed in the received Hebrew text of this passage gives rise to a very justified suspicion that the text was inadvertently garbled in the course of transmission.

(Textual errors are demonstrable for 1 Samuel more frequently than for almost any other book in the Old Testament.)

While it is true that the Septuagint already found this same reading in its Hebrew
Vorlage
(
hebdomekonta andras kai pentekonta chiliadas andron
, "seventy men and fifty thousands of men"), it is highly significant that even in the late first century A.D., Josephus (
Antiquities
6.1.4) refers to the loss of life at Bethshemesh as only seventy, with no mention whatever of the "fifty thousand." There are also a few Hebrew manuscripts that entirely omit "fifty thousand man." Hence it is not necessary to defend this huge number as part of the text of the original, inerrant manuscript of 1 Samuel. Nor is it likely that more than seventy men would have become involved in the sacrilege of removing the golden propitiatory (KJV, "mercy seat") from the ark of the covenant in order to see what was inside. It is hardly conceivable that fifty thousand persons would have filed by the opened ark in order to peer into its interior and satisfy themselves that it contained only the two tablets of the Decalogue (cf. 1 Kings 8:9). Therefore such an enormous loss of life is almost impossible to account for. Yet for the seventy who were involved in this sacrilege, they showed such an impious attitude toward the God who had invested this symbol of His presence with the most solemn of sanctions that it is hardly to be wondered at that they forfeited their lives in a sudden and catastrophic way--somewhat as Uzzah in the time of David, when he merely touched the exterior of the ark, to steady it in the lurching wagon (2 Sam. 6:6-8).

Why did God condemn the Israelites' request for a king (1 Sa 8:7-9) after He had
laid down rules for future kings of Israel to follow (Deut. 17:14-20)?

There can be no doubt that God's plan for Israel included a king, a specially chosen dynasty from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10), and that in anticipation of that event He laid down certain basic guidelines for such a theocratic king to follow (especially the avoidance of multiplying riches, horses, or wives), as recorded in Deuteronomy 17. But this furnishes no problem at all in regard to the establishment of a monarchic form of 167

government for Israel in the latter days of Samuel's career. After his own two sons, Joel and Abijah, had proved to be unworthy and incompetent for leadership, the Israelite people requested Samuel to choose out and anoint for office a ruler over them who should serve as a permanent king with full authority as a monarch (1 Sam. 8:5).

In view of the fluctuating fortunes of Israel under the long succession of "judges" who had followed after the death of Joshua, it was not altogether surprising for the people to look to such a solution for their ineffectiveness and disunity as a nation. But the reason why their request displeased the Lord was that it was based on the assumption that they should follow their pagan neighbors in their form of government. Their motive was to conform to the world about them rather than to abide by the holy and perfect constitution that God had given them under Moses in the form of the Pentateuchal code. There was a definite sense in which they were setting aside the laws of God as inadequate for their needs and falling in step with the idolatrous heathen. They expressed their desire to Samuel thus: "Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations" (NASB). They had forgotten that God had called them out of the world, not to conform to the world, but to walk in covenant fellowship with Yahweh as a testimony of godliness before all the pagan world.

Nevertheless, it is also clear that the Lord had in mind from the very beginning a monarchic form of government for His people. Even to Abraham He had promised, "I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you" (Gen. 17:6, NASB). He had also decreed that the chosen line of royalty should come from the tribe of Judah: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes" (Gen. 49:10, NASB) (i.e., until the coming of the Messiah, who would Himself be a descendant of the Judean royal line).

So it came about that when Samuel's contemporaries came clamoring for a king, God granted them their request, even though He rebuked them for their worldly motive in making it. He also warned them that the greater unity and efficiency of government they might achieve under a monarchy would be offset by the loss of their liberties under the oppressive and demanding rule of an autocratic king. Because of his supreme and concentrated power, he would not be as accountable to the personal and civic rights of his people in the same way the Judges had been; so the nation would have reason to regret their choice. Rather than being governed by the laws of God, they would fall under the autocratic rule of a single man and become subject to heavy taxation, corvee labor, military draft, confiscation of property, and all the rest (1 Sam. 8: 11-18).

In the sequel, God first chose out for them an able and gifted ruler in the person of King Saul, but one who was basically carnal, willfully disobedient, insanely jealous, and bloodthirsty in the later years of his reign. The purpose of Saul's reign was to prepare Israel to appreciate all the more the reign of a true man of God, David son of Jesse, who came from the tribe of Judah, and who was determined to serve as a faithful theocratic ruler and an obedient servant of Yahweh.

168

Do not the Scriptures give contradictory accounts of how Saul was anointed king
over Israel (cf. 1 Sam. 9;10;12)?

There is actually only one account to be found in the scriptural record concerning the anointing of Saul to be king over Israel. That is found in 10:1, where we read that at the border of Samuel's city (presumably Ramah in the territory of Zuph [9:5]) Samuel privately anointed Saul, saying, "Has not the LORD anointed you a ruler over His inheritance?" (NASB). Therefore we must recognize that since there was only one account of the actual anointing ceremony itself, there could not possibly be any contradictory accounts of it.

What we are told in 1 Samuel 10:17-24 is that at a national assembly summoned by Samuel to Mizpah, there was a solemn casting of lots conducted with a view to finding out which man of Israel the Lord Himself had chosen to be king. The lot finally fell on Saul, who was modestly hiding himself from sight by lurking behind the baggage near the place of assembly. When searchers discovered him there and brought him out before the entire congregation, Samuel publicly acknowledged him, saying, "Do you see him whom the LORD has chosen? Surely there is no one like him among all the people"

(v.24, NASB). Then all the multitude acclaimed him, saying, "Long live the king!" Yet there is not a word said here about a ceremonial anointing.

A still further confirmation by the military leadership of the nation came after Saul's successful lifting of the siege of Jabesh-gilead and his routing of the Ammonite besiegers themselves. 1 Samuel 11:15 tells us: "So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal. There they also offered sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly"

(NASB). But we are given no indication whatever that he was anointed at that time; there is no mention of a crowning ceremony either. It simply involved an enthusiastic reaffirmation of his royal authority and glory, in line with the previous appointment made at Mizpah. 1 Samuel 12 simply continues the narrative of the confirmation ceremony at Gilgal, with Samuel giving his farewell address before the people and solemnly warning all the nation as well as their new ruler that the favor and protection of the Lord Yahweh would be conditioned on their faithful adherence to His holy law and their maintenance of a consistent testimony of godliness before the idol-worshiping world (vv. 14-15). He closed with a stern warning in v.25: "But if you still do wickedly, both you and your king shall be swept away" (NASB).

This record of the initial anointing of Saul by God's prophet, his subsequent acknowledgment by the nation, and his later vindication as leader by his first victory in war against the heathen all form a perfectly consistent and believable line of development as the very first king of Israel comes into office and the old system of intermittent

"judges" (or charismatic rulers) comes to a close.

What is the correct number in 1 Samuel 13:1?

169

1 Samuel 13:1 as preserved in the Masoretic or Received Text has lost the number that must have been included in the original manuscript. The Masoretic text literally says,

"Saul was a son of...years when he became king, and he ruled for two years in Israel, when [lit., ànd'] Saul chose out for himself three thousand from Israel." All we can say for certain is that he must have been more than twenty years old, since the number nineteen or less would have required the word for "years" to be put in the plural (
sanim
).

Because the singular
sanah
is used here, we can tell that a numeral of twenty or more must have preceded it (cf. E. Kautzsch, ed.,
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar
[Oxford: Clarendon, 1910], #134.2 and Rem. 1). (This peculiar rule in the syntax of numerals is followed in Arabic also.)

"Saul reigned one year" (KJV) is not justifiable, for the Hebrew text does not say

"reigned" but "Saul was son of a year when he became king" (
bemolko
). The translation

"Saul was [
forty
] years when he began to reign" (ASV) is sheer conjecture, as its marginal note acknowledges.

The NASB follows the conjectural "forty" but then adds a second conjecture: "And he reigned THIRTY-two years over Israel." This is quite unnecessary if the connection between the end of v.1 and the beginning of v.2 is handled in the way suggested above.

RSV does no conjecturing at all but leaves the gaps where they are in the Masoretic text:

"Saul was... years old when he began to reign; and he reigned...and two years over Israel." Jerusalem Bible leaves out v.1 altogether but gives a baldly literal rendering of the Masoretic text in a marginal note.

The NIV has "[thirty]" for the first number and "[forty-]two" for the second. In a footnote it refers the reader to Acts 13:21, which reads: "Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish,...who ruled forty years." But if Saul ruled only forty years in all, as Acts 13:21 says, it is hard to see how he could be said in 1 Samuel 13:1 to have ruled forty-two years. Yet as indicated above, there is no need to amend the second number at all. Simply render it thus: "And he had ruled two years over Israel when he chose out for himself three thousand from Israel." This serves as an appropriate introduction to the episode of Jonathan's remarkable exploit at Michmash.

How could the Philistines have used 30,000 chariots in a place like Michmash (1

Sam. 13:5)?

Michmash overlooks a fairly extensive valley, and it is not inconceivable that 30,000

chariots could have been deployed in its vicinity. But the problem lies in the magnitude of the chariot force itself. Delitzsch (Keil and Delitzsch,
Samuel
, pp. 126-27) points out in his commentary on this verse that the listing of a mere 6000 horsemen in this Philistine army makes it almost conclusive that the actual number of chariots was considerably smaller. That is to say, everywhere else in the Old Testament where an army inclusive of both cavalry and chariotry comes on the scene, the number of the cavalry exceeds that of the chariots (cf. 2 Sam. 10:18; 1 Kings 10:26; 2 Chron. 12:3, etc.). Furthermore, such a large number of chariots in a single army has never been recorded in the annals of any ancient power, not even of the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, or the Persians. It 170

is most unlikely, therefore, that a third-rate little pentarchy like Philistia could have fielded the largest chariot force in all human history. Delitzsch suggests: "The number is therefore certainly corrupt, and we must either read 3000 [
selose-t 'ala-pim
] instead of

[
selssim'ele-p
] according to the Syriac [Peshitto] and the Arabic, or else simply 1000; and in the latter case the origin of the number thirty might be attributed to the fact, that through the oversight of a copyist the [
lamed
] of the word [
Yisra'el
] was written twice

[dittography!], and consequently the second [lamed] was taken for the numeral thirty

[since
lamed
with a dot over it was the cipher for `thirty']."

In response to Delitzsch's suggestion, it is open to question which system of numerical notation was used by the Hebrew scribes prior to the third century B.C. The Septuagint already had the same reading as the Masoretic text (
triakonta chiliades harmaton
), and it probably was translated in the latter part of that century. Much more likely, therefore, is the possibility that "3000" was the original number recorded in the earliest text of 1

Samuel 13:5 and that somehow in the course of later textual transmission the notation for