David, Tyranny, Democracy

Was David a Tyrant Like Sudam Husein?

David was a warrior. He was kept from building the Temple because of the bloodshed he was involved in. In order to unify the people, was it necessary to have this kind of warrior-king? Was it necessary for a leader to come along and strong-arm the people? David used Joab as his hit-man, supposedly, for the "dirty work."

I ask if it was necessary because of who the people were. Clan based were the people of Israel, as are the people throughout the world we now refer to as Arab. They have never known democracy. It was only the likes of Nebachadnezzar, Senacherub, and, dare I say, Sudam Husein, that they can come under control. What do these people have in common? They were warrior-kings who strong-armed the people. The question is, was David any different? I think not.

This post is going to examine two things. First, was David tyrannical or was he the pleasant leader that fundamentalism portrays? Second, what does David's rule tell us about the people in that area in comparison with other leaders in that location, and what does that tell us about America's attempt to spread democracy to that region? To David's reign we now turn.

David was actually not a very nice king. He was more of a tyrant than we usually think. He killed or had killed disobedient people--people who threatened the well-being of his rule. The first person he killed as king (arguably) was the messenger who reported Saul's death. The messenger lied, saying, "I killed him." David had him killed but not for lying. He was killed for killing the king of Israel. Now that the king was dead, David had a situation to deal with. This messenger had apparently killed the king of Israel; if he has done it once, he can and may do it again. To keep that from happening, he has him killed. Although the text doesn't actually say that, I know some would want to see it and argue that this was the actual motive behind the messenger's death.

When David was made king, he had to face some opposition from Saul's descendants. His descendants were struggling to keep the throne. When there was a stand-off, David's men practically decapitated all of Saul's warriors to help secure the throne for David.

After those warriors were suppressed and it was clear that David was now in power, the commander of Saul's army joined David's side. All seemed to be well for the commander. But then, Joab, David's commander, took Saul's commander, Abner, out back and killed him. It seems as though David was further securing his position as ruler. If Abner once served Saul and opposed David, he can and may do it again. To keep this from happening, he had him killed. Again, the text doesn't say that, but I know some would argue that this is the real motive.

Then, the last few leaders of Saul's son's army became traitors and killed Saul's son. They took his head to David and tried to entreat David. But David had them killed. It seems as though they were traitors, so what was to keep them from betraying David too? So he had them killed to help secure his position as ruler. As before, the text doesn't say that, but some would argue this to be the real motive.

It seems that it wasn't until David had firmly secured his position as a proven warrior-king that Israel did not turn their allegiance over to him. When they did, he developed his own stronghold, Jerusalem, in the city of the Jebusites, which he took from them by force.

David also secured the boundaries by going to war with surrounding countries. But through those events David was responsible for the destruction and annihilation of those people. He used force to establish his position, both his kingly reign and his "capitol." It was also by force that he secured the nation. The Philistines he attacked and subdued. He killed thousands of Arameans at the Damascus border. Likewise, he killed thousands of Edomites. Others he destroyed in battle, such as the Ammonites.

But then came his famous mistake. He committed adultery (or was it rape, which is a forceful act?), lied, and then committed murder. He was likely securing his role as king by not allowing news that would corrupt his reign to be released to the public. He was keeping a hush on the matter. Not only that, but again, he seemed to have used Joab to do the "dirty work." He had Joab place the husband of Bathsheba, whom he had adulterous relations with, at the front lines and had him killed. But his relations with Bathsheba resulted in conception. The Lord, as a punishment, took the child from David. He seemed to mourn over it for a short period of time, but then suddenly dropped his weeping as if nothing happened. It seemed like the concealment was secure. With the baby dead, it could be that there was no illegitimate child to consider for bringing charge against the king, and therefore there was no reason to be alarmed. I realize this is conjecture, for the text does not say it, but I know some might say this was what was going on psychologically with David at this time.

Then he started to have to deal with some internal family issues. His eldest son raped one of his daughters. The brother of that daughter got upset with David for not making it an issue. Was David not making it an issue because he didn't want to draw attention to his poor family leadership, which could bring negative light on his kingly reign? So, Absolom, the brother of the daughter, Tamar, killed his half-brother, Amnon. David mourned over Amnon's death, but only for a short time, and then he moved on and mourned for Absolom. He seemed to have Joab do the "dirty work" yet again, for when in pursuit of Absolom, he speared him. This not only avenged the death of Amnon but also squashed Absolom's insurrection, thus securing David's position as king further still.

David also handed people over to others for appeasement. To the Gibeonites he handed over the remaining descendants of Saul, except for Jonathan's son, to be killed. In so doing, he won the favor of the Gibeonites and also removed more potential threats to the throne.

I would say that I do not agree with all of these points. David does talk about what Joab did to him when charging Solomon with the kingdom. He wanted Solomon to deal justly with Joab. It seems as though in David's mind Joab was not really his henchman. I would say that there are tyrannical elements in David's life, which is not clearly expressed in fundamental depictions of David as king.

So how much was David like a tyrant, and how similar was he to Sudam Hussein? I doubt he was torturous like Sudam, but he did allow for murder. He was a good king, but in what sense? He did allow for certain corrupt behavior. It seems like David did function as a warrior-king and did strong-arm the people at times in order start and maintain his reign.

If this sort of leadership was necessary for the people to be united then as it is now, what does that tell us about America's efforts to spread democracy to that region? I think it tells us that it won't work. That area has not known democracy in the last 5,000+ years. It is a region of clan-based cultures that are only "unified"--kept under control--through tyrannical leaders. David may have been a mild tyrannical king, but he was or exhibited tyrannical behavior. Sudam Hussein was similar. He used his tyrannical strong-arm to keep the Muslims under control. Yes, he was an extreme tyrant. Was what he did wrong? In our American idealism and ethnocentric minds, yes. But, when understood in light of that region, his tyranny was necessary. Now that he has been removed, the control is gone. Democracy has been substituted for Hussein and it is failing. Democracy is a foreign concept to them and it will not easily nor quickly have an effect. The clan-based system needs a tyrannical leader. I would say that someone more like David would be better than one like Sudam Hussein. But we are incorrect to think that democracy will work for that culture. Clearly it has not. Their way of life and their way of thinking is vastly different than ours.

What do you think? Was David a tyrannical king? Do you think as others do that David was an extremist and used Joab as a henchman, or are you more like me and you see David as being a warrior-king with some tyrannical behavior? Do you think democracy will work in that region? If so, why? Or do you think as I do, that democracy is not a compatible concept for their way of life and thought?

Biblical Studies Carnival XXVIII

Chris Weimer was in charge of The Biblical Studies Carnival XXVIII, and it was released yesterday. There are a lot of links to translation topics, one of which, belongs to a blog called En Epheso (ἐν ἐφεσῷ). I think I will be taking some extra time to read through that blog and see how it might inform my Ephesians translations.

Bible Blog Carnival?

When I first heard of a blog carnival, I instantly thought of a digital setting of popcorn, soda, cotton-candy, and unsafe but thrilling rides. Blog carnivals are not such. They are a collection of a specific genre of blogs for a specified amount of time. There are Bible blog carnivals, which collect into a post a reference to various Bible blogs and their activities over, say, a month's time.

Over at Blue Cord, the most recent Bible blog carnival is up (click here).

I just now discovered this Bible blog carnival today, and I expect to do some reading after lunch. Perhaps you will find it helpful yourself.

The Biblical View of Satan

The following is a short paper that I submitted for a class on the New Testament Gospels:

We do not know as much as we sometimes think about Satan. Although Satan figures as a key player throughout the Old and New Testaments, the Bible does not give a detailed theology regarding this evil being. It is important to come to terms with what the Bible does offer us, and understand Satan in the biblical view. We must determine what the Bible calls Satan, how the Old Testament views him, and what the New Testament has to say as well, so that we can gain a biblical view of Satan.

The Bible uses several names for Satan. It has a small collection of proper names that it attributes to him. The Bible calls him Satan-- Adversary or Accuser--in 1 Chronicles 21:1; Job 1:6; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; and Romans 16:20. It calls him Abaddon in Revelation 9:11. Abaddon in Hebrew is identified as Apollyon in Greek, meaning Destroyer . He is called Beelzebub, which probably comes from the Philistine deity known as the Lord of the flies (Matthew 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15). He is called Belial, which may mean Worthlessness (2 Corinthians 6:15). The Bible also has a wide variety of titles for Satan. Revelation 12:10 calls him the accuser of our brothers. He is called the adversary (1 Peter 5:8). Revelation 9:11 calls him the angel of the bottomless pit. He is called the devil (Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:2, 6; Revelation 20:2). He is called the enemy in Matthew 13:39. He is called the evil spirit in 1 Samuel 16:14. He is called the lying spirit in 1 Kings 22:22. The Bible calls him the liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). He is called a murderer in John 8:44. He is called the great red dragon in Revelation 12:3. He is called the old serpent in Revelation 12:9; 29:2. He is called the serpent (Genesis 3:4, 14; 2 Corinthians 11:3). He is called the power of darkness in Colossians 1:13. He is called the prince of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). He is called the prince of demons in Matthew 12:24. He is called the prince of the power of the air in Ephesians 2:2. He is called the ruler of the darkness of this world in Ephesians 6:12. He is called the spirit that works in the children of disobedience in Ephesians 2:2. He is called the tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5). He is called the god of this world in 2 Corinthians 4:4. He is called the unclean spirit (Matthew 12:43). He is called the wicked one in (Matthew 13:19, 38). The Bible has a large collection of names or titles to refer to Satan, but it favors the name Satan when referring to him. The name Satan occurs 18 times in the Old Testament, and 35 times in the New Testament. 

The Old Testament has a lesser view of Satan in terms of his role or function as an evil being. Satan is understood to be the serpent in Genesis 3, in which he is abruptly introduced. The book of Job adds some important details. Satan is identified as one of the sons of God (Job 1:6-9, 12; 2:1-7). It appears that Satan is part of the heavenly council--the sons of God or heavenly beings (Psalm 89). Job identifies that Satan roams the earth (1:7; 2:2). He is able to be in heaven even though he is able to roam the earth. Satan means adversary when used in reference to a military or political opposition, but when in reference to legal matters it means accuser. The Old Testament image bound up in the name of Satan is a heavenly prosecutor accusing people of breaking the law. In Genesis 3, Satan is depicted as a serpent who does not accuse Eve but twists the perception of the tree from which she was not able to eat. In 1 Chronicles 21, Satan provokes David to sin. In Job 1 and 2, Satan does not accuse Job of sin but accuses him of being obedient only because God caused him to prosper. In Zechariah 3, Satan is present and he is accusing Joshua the High Priest, but he is rebuked by the Lord. For the Old Testament, Satan is identified as a heavenly being who stirs up trouble. 

The New Testament has a higher view of Satan as an evil being. Satan is not seen simply as troublesome in the New Testament. He has gone beyond the accusing idea from the Old Testament and has become much more proactive. The gospels reveal several proactive actions. Satan tempts Jesus in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. He seeks to take away the word of the kingdom planted in the hearts of the hearers (Matthew 13:19). Furthermore, he grows his own children ("tares") to choke out the good seed (Matthew 13:38-9). Satan is able to bind or possess (Luke 13:16; John 13:27). Jesus identifies Satan as a murderer (John 8:44). In the rest of the New Testament, Satan is understood to be at war with Christians. He seeks to fill Christians' hearts to lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3). He seeks to pervert the righteous ways of the Lord (Acts 13:10). Satan has power over those who do not belong to God (Acts 26:18). He blinds the minds of those who do not believe (2 Corinthians 4:4). He corrupts the minds that belong to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3). Satan works to create disobedience (Ephesians 2:2). He hinders the work of God's human agents (1 Thessalonians 2:18). He condemns and snares believers (1 Timothy 3:6). He is a roaring lion seeking to devour those who believe (1 Peter 5:8). In the book of Revelation, Satan throws people into prison so that they will stand trial (2:9). Satan has progressed in function from the Old Testament to the New. While before he was present and mettlesome, he is now in the New Testament the key opponent of Jesus and his disciples.

The biblical view of Satan reveals that he is certainly not good. But the biblical view is not very detailed. There is not a lot in the Bible concerning Satan. It seems as though he is not a subject or a topic that it is severely concerned about. What we do see are the names and titles regarding Satan. The names and titles given to him throughout the Bible--mostly from the New Testament--portray Satan to be a troublesome enemy who seeks to do physical and spiritual harm. The Old Testament portrays Satan to be a heavenly being who is able to be in heaven and on earth, but he accuses people, twists information around, and provokes people to sin. He is understood to be evil, but he does not play a prominent role throughout the entire Old Testament except for a few key instances like in Genesis 3, Job 1 and 2, and Zechariah 3. When the New Testament comes around, Satan is much more prominent. He is not one to be taken lightly. He proactively seeks to fight against Jesus and his followers by tempting people to sin, to inflict pain on people, to cloud the minds of those who follow Jesus, to bind the minds of those who do not believe, and pervert the ways of the Lord. Where he comes from we do not know other than he is one among the sons of God that form his heavenly council, but he has been cast out from heaven and currently awaits punishment while he roams the earth (Revelation 12:9-12; 20:1-10).

In the Beginning

How do you go about understanding the world's origins? Evolution? Theistic evolution? Creationism? Intelligent design? If you are a Christian, then how do you support your cosmogony, no matter what it is, with the biblical text? If you are not, then why do you hold to your cosmogony and for how long?

If you are a Christian, then do you think that it is possible to believe in evolution and be a Christian at the same time? Why or why not?

Here is a hint to the direction that I lean, and since I am a Christian, it deals with the creation account in Genesis of the Old Testament.

The first words in many english translations of the first verse of Genesis read "In the beginning God created." However, the Hebrew does not have the article, and because the vocabulary does not support the use of the article in the text, it is not an accurate translation. It is better to translate it "When God began creating" or "At first when God created." The truth is we simply don't know exactly how to translate it into english.

This is just the first of several issues I have in the creation account that tell me that this text is not inclined towards an accurate chronological linear account, and therefore the account does not specify anything about cosmogony other than the fact that God did create everything in the world and that it was all very good. Other than that the Bible is open regarding the world's origins.

Christians and Creationism

As I grew up, I was taught that because God created the earth and the Bible is strictly chronological and traces all of humanity's existence the world has only been around for a short period of time of about five to six thousand years.  In retrospect I find this to be an ignorant undermining of evolutionary theories.  It seems to me that these claims ignore scientific evidence for the sake of preserving a false biblical concept.  The idea that the world is young is not really identifiable in the bible; it appears that young-earth Christians look this concept into the bible however possible.  I have several issues with this practice and methodology for making important claims such as how old the earth is.  Here is why.

First, it places your interpretations ahead of the Scriptures.  By Scripture twisting to support your own views you are making the Word of God bend to your mind's thoughts and ideas rather than your mind bending to the Word.  Scripture contains the authority of God alone, and all men's interpretations must be subject to it.  This methodology takes away meaning and value from Scripture.

Second, it allows for the Scriptures to be widely misunderstood and misapplied in ways that it was never intended.  Anyone can read the Scriptures and come up with their own understanding of it and then apply it to their lives, but this can be very dangerous, for when literary, cultural, and historical contexts are not taken into consideration, the point of the passage will be missed and in turn wrongly applied.  This methodology does not do the Scriptures justice.

Finally, it is simply an ignorant and irresponsible practice.  It does more harm than good and it gives Christianity a bad wrap.  This methodology best shows the tendency of many Christians sticking their heads in the sand in the face of theological-scientific adversity.  It causes many people to lose respect for the intellect of Christians, thinking that we check our brains at the door when we become faith-based believers, and are unable to think in a coherent manner.  This methodology gives Scripture a false identity.

Therefore, I would like to briefly explore the understanding of the old earth interpretation of the creation of this world by God, the creator of the universe, after having shown the lack of biblical -historical, cultural, and literary--support of a young earth.

Young Earth Creationism

Biblical historical evidence leads us all the way back to Adam, the first man.  However, Genesis, the book of the Old Testament that contains the creation account, does not give any time stamps to the different days of creation.  The hebrew word for day is quite ambiguous, and it does not necessarily have to mean a literal 24-hour period of time.  It could mean any of the following: age; year; or day.  So, although it could mean a day--a 24-hour period--it could very well also mean age or year, and the literary context allows for any of them to be used.  There is no concrete historical or literary evidence to support a young earth.  In fact, more support can be found for a certain timelessness to the creation account, which would imply that the creation account was not intended to yield any sort of time construct, but rather that it was intended to make a point by use of a skillful literary device called parallelism.  This parallelism exists in the six days of creation of the world.

The first day, the day that God made light, is parallel to the fourth day, when God made the sun, the moon, and the stars, all of which are sources of light and rule over darkness.  The second day, when God created the sky, parallels the fifth day, the day that God created flying animals--those creatures that rule the sky.  The oceans and dry land were created on the third day, along with vegetation for the land, which parallels next to the sixth day when God created all animals to rule the land, as well as Adam--humans--to rule over all of creation.  We know that humans are not only the highest creation of God, but also the ruler over all of God's creation, being subject only to God (Gen. 1:26). 

The whole purpose of this literary masterpiece is to show that man is God's entire focus in creation.  All things were created for humans who were created for God by God.  This masterpiece, however, despite what many have taught and preached, is not concerned with any sort of chronology.  You might be saying, "Then why does it have it in the text as day one, day two, day three, etc.?"  Well, I am glad you asked!  Let me tell you!

Note that, for example, on the third day vegetation was created.  However, it was on the fourth day that the sun was created.  How could plant-life survive without sunlight to create the photosynthesis process of feeding the vegetation?  This is not possible; this would break the laws of science--laws that God designed and instituted, not man.  This example shows that the creation account is not worried about scientific rules, nor is it concerned with correct chronology.  The events or the days that are contained in the text serve a function to point the reader to a most difficult question: why are we here?  The events are obviously not in correct sequence, and therefore there must be a reason for why the sequential order is wrong.  The reason must be to use literary devices to make a point.  The creation account poignantly describes man's purpose--to rule the creation of the Creator who made them in order to relate with them--not to give a sequential, chronological account of the world's beginnings.

This idea is greatly supported by the Bible's cultural context of the Ancient Near East or the Fertile Crescent.  Mesopotamian, Akkadian, and Egyptian texts regarding the creation of the world are all concerned with answering why humans are here and not how they got here.  In other words, they all answer why we are here and denote the whole purpose of man, in different ways of course, and they have nothing to do with sequential, chronological accounts of the beginning of the world.  Since Genesis is a nAncient Near Eastern (Fertile Crescent) book, it is culturally placed in the same mind-set as the Mesopotamian, Akkadian, and Egyptian texts.  Therefore, in the same way that these Ancient Near Eastern texts were concerned with purpose rather than sequential history, the creation account of Genesis follows the same intentions--to highlight the purpose of humans, God's highest creation--not the chronological history of man from the dawn of time.

The historical evidence for a young earth in the Genesis creation account is very weak.  The literary evidence stands against any possible interpretation of young or old considering the text on its own.  The cultural context completely takes the Genesis account out of age interpretations altogether.  It is not possible to determine from the creation account as found in Genesis whether this earth is young or old because it was not written for that purpose.  As a result, we cannot make claims that the Bible argues for a young earth or an old one for that matter.  So where do we go from here?  Science or astronomy, to be more specific.

Astronomical Evidence of an Old Earth

Since the Bible does not make any claims in the creation account as to the age of the earth, we can only turn to science to determine how old this earth is.  These results stand apart from the Bible and should be considered outside of the Bible's authority.  It is entirely possible to believe in the Bible and still hold to the old-earth theory because the Bible never identifies that the earth is actually young.  So what evidence does science have?  Plenty.  Here is one bit of evidence from the field of astronomy: the speed of light.

We know that this universe is large and vast.  The stars that we look at in the night sky are very far away.  In fact, using light's speed as a measurement of distance, we can calculate that some of the nearest stars are about 25 million light-years away.  This means that if a star is 25 million light-years away, then it would take 25 million years for light to travel from that star to reach your eye when you gaze at it at night.  In other words, if you are looking at a star right now, and that star happened to be 25 million light-years away, then that star had to send out that light 25 million years ago in order for it to reach you right at this instant.  Since light has been constantly shed upon this earth by the stars of the night sky for centuries upon centuries, scientists conclude that these stars had to have been around several million years ago in order to produce the light that reaches us today.

Another example is the fact that this universe is constantly expanding in all directions.  Scientists can actually note the trajectories of stars and galaxies by use of high-powered telescopes orbiting the earth and figure out the path that they took.  In other words, they can trace the stars and galaxies to a common point in time--a point of origin--that would have existed approsimately 15 billion years ago.  Talk about retracing steps!

Conclusion

The creation account of the Bible serves a literary purpose to show the high order of mankind in relation to the Creator of the universe.  It does not concern itself with the age of the earth or with the chronology of the worlds beginnings.  Therefore, scientific evidence do not necessarily need to be denied in order to hold to one's faith.  Besides, can you really blame scientists for what they find?  They are only making observations of this world and all that is in it.  If this world is young and God created it already in a mature state, then it would still appear that creation is very old in the same way that God could have created this world so that it would "grow up" and get old with time.  The result, then, would be the appearance of an old universe no matter which way you go.  So can you really blame scientists?  Not only that, but the book of Job is quite clear: since we were not there when God created the world, we have no right to claim exactly how he did it.  This means that we cannot claim specifically that God created the world within a period of seven days.  This means that we cannot deny the possibility that God created the world and set it in motion by use of evolution.  This means that we simply do not know how this world was created and anyone's guess is as good as another's. 

Therefore, Christians can hold to scientific evidence and still be a Christian.  Christians shouldn't just stick their heads in the sand or check their brains at the door.  It is entirely possible to be a Christian and still hold to the old earth evidence.  No matter how you take it, faith is still required--faith in the Creator of the universe.  But know that the Bible is not concerned with time in regards to creation as much as it is in purpose, for it functions to show that the One who created the stars in the sky not only created you and I but also wants to know us intimately, that we might serve him and honor him by ruling over the earth that he created.  Now that is true creationism.

Song of Solomon: God's guide to love, sex, and relationships

Honestly, until this last weekend, the Old Testament book of Song of Solomon was unfamiliar territory for me. Although I am still no expert on the book, I now have a better grasp of the text after having gone through a commentary on it, called, Solomon on Sex, by Joseph C. Dillow. This book goes through each verse of Song of Solomon and explains the poetic imagery involved, unveiling the meanings behind the highly figurative language, but then applying the text in a meaningful and practical way for both men and women, whether married or in the beginning stages of a relationship.

Song of Solomon is God's perspective on love, sex, and relationships through the poetic wisdom of Solomon. This commentary helps to unpack all that there is to this guide on healthy marriages, thus making this highly neglected portion of Scripture immensely invaluable to all who are involved with another person. This book shows the beauty of marriage and sex within its proper place, as is to be expected, but it also shows that there are problems within marriage, yet there are ways to overcome them. Dealing with love, sex, problems, and solutions, whether it be while dating, engaged, or married, Song of Solomon has everything necessary for all couples.

Truthfully, this book is far better than the marriage counseling workbook I recently went through. It has far more value to me because it is straight-talk from the Bible, but very practical. The commentary helps to not only break down the text verse by verse, but also shows the literary development, works through translation difficulties, and brings it all home in a practical fashion so that it becomes relevant to the modern-day reader. This book was quite humorous as well, thus drawing me in all the more, and it was quite entertaining and fulfilling to read. It was more practical than that workbook, far less time-consuming, and way more informative.

I would suggest this book for any couple thinking about getting engaged or getting married. I would even suggest that this book be used as the main text for a marriage counseling book. It talks about everything from working out problems and "the little things" before marriage, how to cope with change afterwards, sex-tips for the wedding night, and practical solutions to sexual dysfunction, and all of which stem from the Bible itself. Essentially, this book suggests that the Bible--Song of Solomon--is really the only book on love, sex, and relationships (marriage) that you will ever need. Other workbooks, textbooks, and articles are not going to be of the same caliber as Song of Solomon, and this books does a good job of showing why, after all, God inspired it!

If you want to know God's perspective on love, sex, and relationships, then check out Song of Solomon. If you want to come to terms with what's inside of the text, words, and imagery in Song of Solomon, then check out Solomon on Sex. It will help walk you through God's guide to love, sex, and relationships.