Leadership, David and the Promises of God

Claustrophobically cloistered in at a leadership conference where we were meant to be inspired (to do what, it was not said) and to learn valuable management lessons from seasoned leaders (a lot of whose theories seemed to contradict each other), the natives were restless at being taken out of their corporate jungle:
Finance Director I (looking at the garish lights above): Beam me up, Scotty!

Finance Director II (passing round a note with a doodle on it): Eh, guess who? Heeheehee...

Listening to John Woodhouse before and after work was much better.

Judges
In the Book of Judges, we read about the chaotic anarchic life of Israel as she lurched from one crisis to another, punishment for rebelling against God and worshipping other gods and taking on the abhorrent practices of people who had no knowledge of the true God. They are horrible tales of rape and murder and pillage. But everytime the Israelites found themselves in trouble, they suddenly remembered the God who had saved them in earlier times and cried out to him. Amazingly, God, instead of ignoring them as he could rightfully have done, saved them again and again and again by giving them a judge (not the pasty-faced fogey with a white wig and a black gown but a military leader who would deliver them from their enemies). Unfortunately, these periods of living under the security of God did not last long. When one judge died, the people would forget God again and the whole cycle of events would repeat itself.

At the end of the period of Judges, the situation is summed up succiently: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

There are 2 observations contained in that verse: (1) in those days before they had a king, they had no permanent leadership structure, no fixed political establishment. There was just God, really. There were 12 tribes and the only thing that held them together was God. When there was a crisis, God would raise for them a leader. That leader led Israel for a while, and then he died and they were again without a leader until the next crisis; and (2) there was social anarchy which led to terrible atrocities.

Are we meant to understand that (1) was the cause of (2)? That, because there was no king, there was chaos and anarchy? The text doesn't actually spell out a causal link; it doesn't say that if only Israel had a king, they would be ok. But this sets the scene for Books of Samuel.

Looking for a Leader
God, the creator of the world, had expressed his purpose for the nation of Israel in his promises to Abraham and Moses: they would have their own land and live under God. They would be God's people and he would be their God. They would be a great nation and a blessing to the whole world. But Israel at the end of the Book of Judges was looking distinctly like she was barely holding on to her own land. She wasn't living with God as her god. She didn't look like she could ever become a great nation. She was not much of a blessing to anyone much less a blessing to the whole world.

The issue raised at end of Judges is what kind of leadership do these people need to become the people God wants them to be? Even under Moses, Israel was failure - the Israelites didn't trust God and refused to go into the land he had promised them. Under the leadership of Joshua things were fairly ok but only for a generation. What kind of leadership would make them a great nation through whom the whole world would be blessed?

Leaders in 1 and 2 Samuel
In the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel, we are introduced to 4 leaders: Eli, Samuel, Saul and David.

Eli was a priest and also a judge in the style of the judges in the Book of Judges. He did not care much for the name of God and his sons were worse. So the next leader was Samuel - a prophet and also a judge. He was a godly man whose leadership takes up the first 7 chapters of 1 Samuel. However when Samuel grew old, his sons did not walk in his ways and, as instructed by God, he appointed Saul, Israel's first king.

Saul was a disaster and he was not succeeded by his son, which is the sort of thing you would expect to happen in a monarchy. (One of the benefits of a monarchy is that there is great certainty about the identity of the next leader (barring terrible horseriding accidents and assassination attempts by ambitious relatives). You watch him grow up from an infant to a teenaged prince who will one day take over the throne from his dad. Kingship is hereditary (unless, of course, you are poor old Prince Charles).)

The brand new king who succeeded Saul was not his own son but the son of Jesse (like, who's Jesse?). David was a very different kind of king from Saul. He waited in the wings for much of 1 Samuel and really only took the crown in 2 Samuel.

From Eli to Samuel to Saul through to David, we see the transition from judges to kings in Israel's leadership. So what? Who cares about pieces of the political history of this tiny little nation in the Middle East? It matters because Israel was God's chosen nation; by his grace, they and the office of king were a critical in the preparation of the coming of Jesus on whom the fate of the entire world would rest. As the leadership question took shape in Israel as they moved from Eli to David, we see what kind of leadership the people of God really needed to fulfil their role in God's salvation plan and why, ultimately, Jesus is the leader that the world needs.

David
But first, David or "Great King David" as he was fondly remembered through the subsequent generations, for the years of his glorious reign were not forgotten by the people. David was anointed king while Saul was still on the throne. So things did not go well for David and Saul had designs on his life and spared no effort in trying to kill him. Since David had already been announced as the newly appointed king-in-waiting and God had already proclaimed in no uncertain terms that Saul had been rejected as king over Israel, all that was left was for David to take over the throne. However when opportunities arose for David to dispatch Saul quickly with a sharp implement, he declined to do so.

Even if not for patently godly reasons, self-preservation should have dictated that David should strike Saul first in pre-emptive self-defence. He couldn't be on the run forever with his small motley crew and it would have been only a matter of time before Saul caught up with him.

However, David proved that he was a man after God's own heart by steadfastly refusing to assassinate God's anointed (1 Samuel 26:9,11), even if his own life was in danger. He was more fearful of God's displeasure (26:9) and he trusted fully in God's own judgement and God's own timing (26:10).

David's Suffering
Because of how intent David was on acting rightly in God's eyes, he suffered terribly. Many of the psalms about the suffering of God's king and his ultimate vindication by God, were written in this period when he was on the run and his life was under threat (1 Samuel 18-31). David's righteous suffering was a foreshadowing of Jesus' own suffering, which is why Jesus taught that the Christ "must suffer".

David God's City
After Saul hari-kiri-ed himself, David's first act as king was to take the city of Jerusalem. His second act was to bring the Ark of the Covenant from where it had been neglected by Saul (the last we heard of it was in 1 Samuel 7) to his new city, Jerusalem. The Ark was the most powerful symbol of God's claim on Israel as God's people. God's presence with his people was represented by his Ark. When the Ark came to Jerusalem, it said that this was the city in which God's king reigned and the real king in the city was not David but God. Which is why David was so excited he danced naked when the Ark was finally brought into Jerusalem.

David God's House
By 2 Samuel 7, David was enjoying good days. He'd built a palace for himself but he realised that the Ark had been kept in a tent as it had been for centuries. "That can't be right," said David and he wanted to build a nice shelter for it. But God said, through Nathan,"not yet" and "not you". Rather, this is what will happen:

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever. (2 Samuel 7:12-16)

The extraordinary thing about God's promise to David here is that it's unconditional! It's very different from the promise to Saul in 1 Samuel 12 which was conditional (if you are obedient, all will go well. If not, be afraid, very afraid). Of course, even with the current promise, disobedience will be dealt with. But disobedience will not stop David's kingdom from succeeding.

David was not the hero of that story, not according to him. We always like to find something for ourselves in the Bible. We like find the human characters to follow. But David said, "Who am I, O Lord GOD, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far?" (2 Samuel 7:18). God's promises to David were not to the result of the multitude of David's pious virtues (in fact, after the Bathsheba incident later in 2 Samuel, it is obvious that God's promises to David were in spite of his lack of virtue). God's promises to David had solely to do with God's will, God's grace and God's heart. God set his heart on David. David was God's choice. And it was God's decision to establish David's kingdom forever whatever David might do.

And there is nothing more certain in the world than a promise from God, for whatever God says, he will accomplish in his time. And God's promise to David was this: David will have a son and David's son will be God's own son and the kingdom of David's son will last forever and David's son will build God's house.

In due course, everything God promised in 2 Samuel 7 happened in 2 Samuel 8-10: David did secure his kingdom. David was powerful and just and kind and gentle and generous. We see the goodness of this king and the effectiveness of his godly reign. What an impressive king David was. How wonderful it was to live under he who exercised God's rule in his world.

Many of the prophets from Isaiah to Malachi (eg. Isaiah 11) foretold that the kingdom of David would be revived and, recalling God's promise to David, that a son of David would reign gloriously on the throne forever. The reign of David was important, it was the start of something very very big and very very eternal indeed.

David's Sons
David had a son with Bathsheba named Solomon, and Solomon's kingship turned out to be magnificent and he built a great temple for God (1 Kings 6). What glorious days they were. He was a great and wise ruler who reigned over a secure, prosperous kingdom. The thing that God had promised happened.

But then, it all crumbled. The reality was that the kings in David's line (beginning with David himself) were all flawed. And flawed people can only beget flawed children like themselves. And so we see that the promises of God were only fulfilled in some measure, for a limited period.

By the time we are introduced to more of David's sons, Amnon who raped his own halfsister and Absalom who murdered his stepbrother and conspired against his father (2 Samuel 13-18), we are wondering how God's promises will be fulfilled. What hope is there for God's kingdom? What hope is there for humanity? We see what a fragile unstable weak thing David's kingdom was. His throne was weak, his family was a mess.

This sorry state of affairs was finally put out of its misery in 580BC when Jerusalem was burnt to the ground, the temple was destroyed and the king was made an exile in a foreign land.

It was all over.

Finally! Fulfilment
Or was it? Not for anyone who heard and believed the promises of God, for God's promises can never fail. A few centuries later, in the New Testamental times, the faithful few, having remembered God's promises were looking forward eagerly to the coming of the promised son of David. And a man came preaching about the kingdom of God and he exercised extraordinary power. They ogled at Jesus and asked,"Could this be the one? Could this be the son of David?". Could this the one that Amnon plainly wasn't and whom Absalom definitely could not have been?

And Jesus asked his own followers,"Who do you think I am?". And Peter replied: you are the Christ, the messiah, the anointed one, the son of the living God. That is to say, you are the son of David who is the son of God. And what did Jesus say in reply? You're absolutely right, Peter. I am the one in the line of David. I am the one through whom God's purposes and God's promises will finally be fulfilled. I am the one whose kingdom will last forever. I am whom all those sons of David failed to be. Indeed, I am the son of God. And you know what I will do, Peter? I'll build my church and hell will not prevail against it.

Years later, Peter wrote a letter to Christians and he said:

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:4-5)

The house of Jesus consists of stones who are people who have come to know him and come into his kingdom. We are the temple he is building. We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken because it is the promise that God has made and God does not regain on his promises. And that promise is coming to its realisation as we are built into this kingdom. What a marvellous thing God is doing and what an extraordinary thing that he has let us be part of it! How much shall we serve him, our king and the king of the world, in gratitude.

1 Samuel 17: David and Goliath

Despite promising beginnings (being anointed as king, confirming his position by victory in battle and acknowledging God's hand in his victory), Saul failed to fulfil his kingly responsibilities of fighting battles for his people, of restraining them from doing evil and of obeying God (1 Samuel 13-16). God rejects him just as he has rejected God by his disobedience and will give the kingdom to David.

In 1 Samuel 17, we get our first peek at David in battle. This is an article reproduced from beginningwithmoses.

"Not by Spear or Sword: Reflections on David and Goliath in Biblical Theology. 1 Samuel 17" (David McDonald. Crossroads Christian Church, Canberra)

1. Introduction
My first exposure to the issue of how or how not to preach from the Old Testament came from reading Graeme Goldsworthy's book, Gospel & Kingdom. He begins his book by offering a 'typical' exposition of the David and Goliath story. In this fictitious account David is said to take up the sling of 'faith' and gather the five stones of 'obedience', 'service' and so on. The application involves the listeners applying these weapons to the Goliath 'sins' in their lives. Goldsworthy’s critique of this approach inspired me to learn how to handle God’s Word more carefully and how to honour Christ in preaching the Old Testament. Even more so, when shortly afterwards I endured a prominent preacher giving almost a carbon copy of the allegorical Goldsworthy critiqued!

1 Samuel 17 is without doubt one of the most treasured stories from the Old Testament. The story’s 'folkloric' [1] nature has given it life membership to any children’s Bible or Sunday School curriculum. The David and Goliath story of 'right versus might' and of 'faith overcoming fear' has enriched the lives of many for centuries. However, it is also true that such familiarity has led to unbridled allegorisation and a failure to come to terms with the text in its context. This paper will seek to examine the narrative of 1 Samuel 17 in its literary context as Christian Scripture.

2. Some critical concerns
This passage has some contextual and textual difficulties that have confounded commentators. Firstly, it is difficult to reconcile Saul's previous love of David (16:21-22) and his later ignorance of David's identity (17:55-58). Two separate sources or traditions are commonly postulated to explain these and other discrepancies. However, the question remains as to why the final redactor has not done a better job of ironing out the difficulties. Alter suggests that chapters 16 and 17 demonstrate 'the writer's binocular vision of David', providing different perspectives on David’s fitness for the throne. [2] He argues that this is an important narrative technique, used also in the twin accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. Brueggemann, similarly, claims that these chapters offer a threefold introduction of David as shepherd boy, musician and warrior. [3] The question of historical credibility takes a backseat to the literary function of the passages in these interpretations. We will consider some of these contextual difficulties in the course of our exegesis, while allowing chapter 16 to provide the 'background' that shapes our understanding of chapter 17.

Secondly, there is considerable debate about the text of 1 Samuel 17. The Septuagint omits many verses that are included in the Masoretic Text. Verses 12-31, 41, 50, and 55-58 (also 18:1-5) are removed, leaving a neater and more consistent account. While accepting the harmonising difficulties created by the MT account, Gordon argues that the abridged account has problems of its own. [4] It is most likely that the omissions indicate an 'unimaginative approach to the business of story telling' by a scribe or translator. [5] We will examine all the verses of the MT as they are translated in our English Bibles and seek to explain the text in its context.

3. 1 Samuel 1-15 as background
1 Samuel introduces the reader to the origins of Israel's king. Throughout the book of Judges God had preserved his people without the need of a king (Judges 21:25). This theme is continued throughout 1 Samuel 1-7, where the hand of the LORD delivers his people from their enemies, the Philistines. Hannah's song (2:1-10) is important in establishing the paradigm for God’s anointed king. He will win victory and rule, not through his own strength, but in weakness, according to the might of the LORD. However, throughout chapters 8 to 12 there is a tension between the people's sinful desire for a king like all the nations and God's plans to install his monarch. Saul is anointed as king and confirms his reign through victory in battle. Throughout chapters 13 to 15 Saul is involved in conflict with the Philistines, but he fails to remain faithful as God’s anointed, and God rejects him as king.

4. 1 Samuel 16 as background
In chapter 16 we meet God’s choice of king to replace Saul. David is anointed by Samuel and receives the Spirit of the LORD, who had departed from Saul. The suitability of David to be king of Israel does not rest in his stature or prowess, but in the will of God alone. This chapter heightens the tension between the outgoing and incoming kings by showing the intersection of their paths as David soothes the tormented Saul by his music. The affirmation that God sees not as man sees, with his eyes, but with his heart (16:7) [6] is foundational to interpreting the significance of the events in chapter 17. The reader is being prepared to look for a theological angle in contrast the anthropological perspective of most of the characters in the chapter. We will discover that David, himself, carries this perspective.

5. 1 Samuel 17 in view
1-3 Setting the scene
Chapter 17 moves us from the court of Saul to the battle front between the Philistines and Israel. The Philistines have been described throughout 1 Samuel as the main enemy of Israel, and now they are encroaching into Judah. Saul was given the mandate of saving God's people from the Philistine enemy (9:16), but proved to be unable to bring about their defeat (14:52). Saul is poised to make another attempt, but the reader should not be expecting much, given the context of Saul's regal deposition and personal disarray.

4-11 Enter Goliath
The Philistine champion, Goliath, is given a long introduction. Attention is drawn to his awesome size and the weight of his armour and weaponry. However, it is his arrogant bravado that dominates this section, as he defies and mocks the ranks of Israel. This derision is repeated often throughout the narrative and invites us to see these events as a challenge to the honour of God. [7] The reader has already been warned not to take too much notice of the outward appearance of this challenger (16:7). If the appearance of Goliath directs us anywhere, it is to Saul who stood taller than all Israel (9:2), and should be considered the match for Goliath. However, Saul and his people only look upon their predicament with their 'eyes' and are left in fear and dismay (17:11). Saul's failure is confirmed again.

12-24 Enter David
David's reintroduction in 17:12ff does more than repeat his family and place of origin. It reminds the reader that we are meeting again God's anointed. The reference to Eliab and his warrior brothers emphasises that David is a different kind of Messiah. Verse 15 is described by many commentators as a variously successful or unsuccessful attempt by the redactor to harmonise the accounts of chapters 16 and 17. However, this is to ignore the integration of this verse in its context. The three brothers are described twice as 'following Saul', whereas David merely goes back and forth to feed his father’s sheep. Goliath is described as taking his stand for 40 days, which is a holy and complete number emphasising the total humiliation of Israel. [8] Significant in this section, and throughout the chapter, is that Goliath is only named twice. On every other occasion he is described as 'the Philistine'. This man is the representative of God’s enemies, and not a lone nemesis. Likewise, the attention has now shifted from Saul and his armies to the one young man who will represent God and his people. Once David has heard the Philistine, this section concludes as the previous one, with the fear of Israel.

25-27 David speaks
David has now become engaged in the conflict and the reader hears the voice of David for the first time in the narrative.

Alter identifies David's first words as being 'in biblical narrative convention, a defining moment of characterisation'. [9] However, Alter's explanation in primarily political terms is inadequate. Rather, David provides a theological injection through which to interpret the scene. David is able to 'see' as God sees, in contrast to his countrymen. They see a formidable giant, whereas David merely sees an 'uncircumcised Philistine', representing dead idols, who opposes the representatives of the living God.

28-40 I'll do it God's way
The exchange with Eliab resonates with all who have older brothers, but its place in the narrative warrants more than psycho-social explanation. Again, chapter 16 prepares the reader to view Eliab as a mirror of Saul, and indeed Goliath. Yet, it is not only his appearance (16:6), but his contempt of his weakling brother that corresponds to Goliath. In fact, Davis suggests that 'David has to fight three Goliaths in this chapter', adding Saul, who also shows contempt for David's youth and demonstrates the same warrior mentality as the Philistine. [10]

The progression of the narrative is very slow as the conflict edges closer. Again, the reader pauses to hear the words of David that will provide the right understanding of the impending conflict. Each of David's speeches are theologically loaded. 'It is as if the writer makes David his expositor.' [11] David describes his credentials for battle in terms of his responsibilities as a shepherd. However, even his victories over the wild beasts are not cause for pride, for it is God who was and will be the deliverer (17:37). Once more, David affirms that the real issue in this conflict is the honour of the living God (17:36).

In his final preparations, David refuses to wear the armour of Saul. On the surface it could be argued that it was simply too big. However, the ill fit is ultimately of a different kind. How can God's anointed wear the battle clothing of the one whom God has rejected? How can he fight the enemy using the enemy's strategies? The messiah will win the conflict, such that it will be clear that the LORD is the deliver. The reader has been prepared for this since chapter 2, and David marks himself as a king according to God’s heart.

41-54 David versus Goliath
Once again, the Philistine's disdain for God's people is vented, but now focused toward God’s chosen representative. Goliath's words drip with irony as he is in fact a 'dog', who like the lions and bears, will be destroyed by David. Again, David's commentary reminds the reader that the conflict is over God’s honour and that God alone will be the deliverer. God's power will be demonstrated through weakness and so his glory will be manifest to all the earth. Each of David's speeches and his actions demonstrate the reality of his faith in the LORD to deliver him, and his people.

The battle is over almost before it has begun. With very few gory details, the emphasis is given to the fact that the Philistine was not killed by the military methods of the Philistines, or of Saul for that matter. The reader is repeatedly told that it was not the sword that killed Goliath. He is dead before David takes up the Philistine sword. [12] This completes a contrast with the ways of Saul, who sought to conquer the Philistines on their own terms. [13] Finally, the representative nature of this victory is established as the Philistines flee and their camp is plundered.

However, this is more than a conflict between David and Goliath, or even David and Saul. It is ultimately a conflict between the living God and idols. Hence, Goliath’s collapse face down is reminiscent of the twofold falling of the Philistine god, Dagon, in chapter 5. This is further confirmed as Goliath is beheaded (5:4).

Verse 54 reveals another chronological difficulty in the text, for Jerusalem was at that time still a Jebusite city. Perhaps a time adjunct is imagined, such as 'Much later David…'. [14] At any rate, its theological significance will become clear in 2 Samuel, and it is poignant that the victory of David is here connected with the city of David.

55-58 A question of identity
This chapter closes with the puzzling questions from Saul about whose son is David. This is enigmatic, given Saul’s previous awareness of David and his family in chapter 16. Whatever explanations are given must account for the fact that the redactor records Saul questioning three times. Has Saul’s mental illness made him forgetful? Is there a flashback being offered that is chronologically prior to 1 Samuel 16:14? It is beyond the scope or purpose of this paper to resolve the historical chronology question. However, this can be explained in narrative terms as directing the reader back to chapter 16, to be reminded that the victorious youth is none other than God’s messiah.

Conclusions
Chapter 17 is a highpoint in the narrative of the books of Samuel. The honour of the living God is declared. He is affirmed as the true king who brings deliverance for his people. However, he is shown to do this through his chosen messiah, who wins the victory through his faith in God and by means of weakness. David's actions acclaim him as the rightful king (see 18:7) and so make public, what has already taken place in private through David’s anointing by Samuel.

While David can be shown to be a model of faith for all who will follow God, it is the significance of David as God’s messiah that shapes our Christian understanding of this chapter. David becomes the prototype of Jesus Christ who maintains his faithful obedience in God unto death (Philippians 2:6-8). Like David, we meet a messiah who will be God's representative to deliver many (Mark 10:45; Romans 5:19). Jesus will be tempted with alternative means to take his place on the throne (Luke 4:1-13). In the very event that brings salvation, Jesus will be mocked and ridiculed (Luke 23). His method of bringing deliverance will be a scandal to his fellow Israelites and foolishness to the nations. However, in both David and Jesus Christ, we see the power of God and the wisdom of God at work through human weakness (1 Corinthians 1:24).

Praise be to the LORD!

ENDNOTES
[1] Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999),104. Alter sees the story of David and Goliath as a folk tale, which has been included in the narrative. Without prejudging the historicity of 1 Samuel 17, it is fair to say that this story has captured the imaginations of many, in a manner similar to more recent folk tales.
[2] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative. (USA; Basic Books, 1981), 147-154. See also J.P. Fokkelman. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Volume II: The Crossing Fates. (Dover, New Hampshire: Van Gorcum, 1986), 201-203.
[3] Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel. (Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 120.
[4] R.P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary. (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1986), 64-66.
[5] Gordon, 66.
[6] "…man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart" 16:7b (ESV). The Hebrew for 'outward appearance' literally means 'eyes'. It makes more sense to understand this as a contrast between the means of looking rather than the object looked at. Thus, we follow Alter’s translation: "For man sees with the eyes and the LORD sees with the heart.” Alter, The David Story, 96. This verse, then is seen to be describing how God sees David, not what God sees in David.
[7] Dale Ralph Davis, 1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994),144.
[8] J.P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 29.
[9] Alter, The David Story, 105.
[10] Davis, 149.
[11] Davis, 152.
[12] Contra Alter, 109. ‘The gigantic Philistine is stunned but perhaps not dead….’ Alter's choice to ignore the explicit affirmation of the text ignores the significance of victory without the sword.
[13] See especially 13:19-22 & 14:20.
[14] Fokkelman, 205.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative. USA; Basic Books, 1981.
Alter, R. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: W.W. Norton, 1999.
Arnold, B.T. 1 & 2 Samuel. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Baldwin, J. 1 and 2 Samuel. Tyndale. Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1988.
Bruggemann, W. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.
Davis, D.R. 1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.
Fokkelman, J.P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Volume II: The Crossing Fates. Dover, New Hampshire: Van Gorcum, 1986.
Fokkelman, J.P. Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.
Goldsworthy, G. Gospel & Kingdom: A Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament. Homebush: Lancer, 1981.
Gordon, R.P 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1986.
Gordon, R.P 1 & 2 Samuel. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.
Hertzberg, H.W. I & II Samuel. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1964.

Picnic at the Botanics and 1 Samuel 11-12

Saturday morning, at the end of the work week, is glorious skies and cloudless sunshine. We bounceburst out of our homes, happy and free, shouting,"A picnic! A picnic!" ("Vacate! Vacate!", yells someoneelse,"Fire in the hole!", just to be different and retain some semblance of macho-ness*. But we think, instead, that he means his morning toilet was somewhat explosive.)

(The soundtrack for the car-ride is this:
Jane Herships "Don't Be Afraid, I've Just Come To Say Goodbye (The Ballad of Clementine Jones)"
Mary Lou Lord "I've Figured You Out"
KT Tunstall "On The Other Side Of The World"
Imogen Heap "Hide and Seek"
Imogen Heap "Speeding Cars"
Snow Patrol "Chasing Cars"
Quite a bit of estrogen, no wrinkly Leonard Cohen. So somehow, despite the morose lyrics, the songs sound quite cheerful if chorused at the top of one's voice on a sunny day with the wind in our hair and a well-stocked picnic basket on someone's lap. A VW camper van with red plush upholstery, without Bob Dylan and his garish harmonica, would be a nice extra.)

(Too many estrogen-y singers also gives us this StrawberryShortcake descriptive:)
At the Singapore Botanic Gardens, butterflies dance ahead of us, past the bushy-tailed squirrels rustling in flowering bushes, past the lush morningglory-trellised walkway heavy with fleshy purple, past the fragrance of frangipanis hanging in the air like a thick pink cloud, and onto our usual spot on the undulating lawn, where there is shade under great palm trees. There, there is the laying out of mats and food and drinks. There are straw hats and sunnies. There is a bronzed barechested man, his baseball cap set jauntily, juggling, the red and white skittles winking in the sun. There are rosbif beetroot brie sandwiches wrapped in paper and packets of crisps. There are children running after excited puppies. There are children running away from excited puppies. There are copious amounts of icy drinks. There are lazy games of crocker. There is more cheese and chilled Misiones de Rengo Sauvignon Blanc. There is a contented breeze and quiet reading. There is the faint soundwall of cicadas in the rainforest nearby.

And when the ants find us, by the nasty black battalion, we leave.

*************

Salvation from External Enemies
While we (and the rest of Israel) are wondering at the end of 1 Samuel 9-10 if Saul will fulfil his role as king to save Israel from external enemies and from themselves, Nahash the Ammonite thoughtfully provides Saul with the opportunity to prove himself by besieging Jabesh-gilead (1 Samuel 11:1).

The people of Jabesh-gilead are so certain of defeat, so sure of death at the hands of Nahash that as a last resort, they offer themselves as his vassals (1 Samuel 11:1). But cruel old Nahash wants more than their servitude. He wants to rub salt in their wounds; he wants, literally, to put out their right eyes and thus bring disgrace to all of Israel (1 Samuel 11:2).

Faced with a fate worse than slavery, the people of Jabesh-gilead ask Nahash for a 7-day grace period to find for themselves a saviour. So complacent is the Ammonite that he grants their request, thus making him the forefather of all loser evil dudes in movies who exhibit great reluctance to kill the captive hero/heroine while they can, and instead waste time boasting about their own cunning clever evilness, allowing the heroic sidekick ample opportunity to rescue the captive.

The camera pans to another town, where Saul is coming in from the field behind the oxen (1 Samuel 11:5). He hears of this outrage, and the Spirit of God rushes upon him and he rallies 330,000 men to the Jabesh cause (11:6-9). Together, they overrun the Ammonites and save the people of Jabesh-gilead from their enemies.

This is a great start. Saul shows that he can and will deliver the people under his care; he will go out and fight their battles for them (1 Samuel 8:20).

Salvation from Themselves
What is better is that Saul gives credit to whom it is due. It is the LORD, says Saul, who has worked salvation in Israel today (11:13). For it was the Spirit of God who first moved Saul into action (how different he is from the mousy man hiding amongst the luggage (10:22) or the one who wanted to crawl back to the comfort of home without finding his lost asses (9:5)). It was also the dread of the LORD that fell upon the people so they responded to Saul as they did, turning out as one man to save the people of Jabesh-gilead (11:7-8).

And the people, acknowledging God's ultimate kingship, make Saul king before God. Things are indeed looking up. It looks as if God's people and their king are finally living in a right relationship with God.

But Samuel reminds them of the dark cloud hanging over their heads: in asking for a human king in place of God the divine king, they have rebelled against him. And the judgement for rebellion against God is death and destruction. Oh, perhaps the reason why the people sinned is because Saul was a stumbling block to them. Or was it because, really, God wasn't worthy of his kingship and if the incumbent was of no use, then a revolution, understandably, was in order; a human king would do better than a divine one?

Unfortunately, Saul himself was not the stumbling block. The people agree that since he was a young child serving at the temple, he had neither defrauded the people, nor oppressed them, nor taken anything from any man's hand (1 Samuel 12:3-5).

Even more unfortunately, God was far from unworthy of his divine kingship. Saul reminds the people of the righteous acts the LORD did for the people, of his power and his faithfulness to them: whenever they cried out, whether they were under their Egyptian oppressors or hardpressed by their enemies, it was the LORD who had the heart and the ability to deliver them, so that they could dwell in safety (12:6-11).

The problem is neither with Saul nor with God. The problem is the people themselves: their rebellious hearts, their ungratefulness, their myopia. Time and again, they forgot what God had done for them, and how he had punished them for previous sins and yet, how in great mercy, he delivered them from their enemies when they cried out to him (12:8-11).

So the whole of Israelite history was repetitive cycle of sin, punishment and grace on a linear timeline. And in that cycle, the Israelites, just having rushed past the Sin platform having rebelled against God by wanting to replace him with a human king, are hurtling towards the next stop: Punishment.

Do the people doubt that God is able to punish them? God demonstrates his ability to do so by sending a thunderstorm to destroy their harvest (12:16-17). If the people thought that the growing of the crops, the sure harvest, their daily lives were in their own control and were a matter of no concern to anyone else but themselves, they were surely disabused of that idea in a hurry. God's ability to send thunder and rain in the driest season show that the people are completely dependent on God for everything for he alone controls the world. They, mere creatures, are at his mercy. God is not impotent or ignorant or imaginary. He is very real, omniscient and omnipotent. That is a Very Good Thing To Remember.

The horror of what they've done, their faithlessness despite God's faithfulness, their distrust of God's proven trustworthiness cuts them to the heart. Face to face with the enormity of the evil they perpetuated, the people greatly fear for their lives (12:18). What terrible punishment surely awaits them.

Yet Samuel says,"Do not be afraid" (12:20). Even though they have done this evil, there is a way to escape what they rightfully deserve: fear the LORD and serve him (12:14), follow the LORD their God (12:14) and obey his commandments. God is merciful and patient, not destroying completely like he easily did to the harvest. Because grace is pardon freely given, there is no need for prior punishment, no requirement for purgatory.

However, warns Samuel, if they continue on their current path, if they continue not to obey the voice of God, if they continue to rebel against his commandments (12:15), then there will be no hope left for them. They and their king will be swept away (12:15).

Perhaps this time the people would save themselves much grief and obey God? Perhaps their new king will be able to lead them well and restrain them from doing evil?

See 1 Samuel 13-15.

*************

*A picnic, a picnic
The Smurfs are on their way
To go and have a picnic this bright and breezy day

A picnic, a picnic
We're bringing drinks and food
All Smurfs are in a happy mood

Upfront goes Papa Smurf and then the other Smurfs
And there they all gather merrily singing along
Oh this is such a happy day
[Or something similar. If anyone has the definitive lyrics, please let me know.]

1 Samuel 9-10 and Superman mp3s

Much port was spilt over our 1 Samuel 9-10 discussion, and later, tea and ink too which led to dodgy doodling.

The Neverending Cycle
From the Book of Judges (actually, from the Fall lah), we have seen a frustrating cycle: the demonstration of the greatness and goodness of God, the unthinkable sin of God's own chosen people in rebelling against him, so the rightful punishment of God on such people, but still just when you'd expect God to wipe this ungrateful and really rather daft lot (so much for survival of the fittest, Mr. Darwin) off the face of the earth, God exhibits an enormous amount of grace in continuing to preserve them. Of course the people keep "repenting" of their ways but then, only a chapter later, we see them going back to their old ways. Time and time again. The setting, scenario and characters might change, but the plot is always the same.

God's Replacement?
Now we thought 1 Samuel 8 might have been the last straw. Israel was unabashedly wanting to exchange God for a mere human king. But the great wonder is that God does not speak the word and cause them to de-exist. Instead, he actually gives them a king! What's this? Is the Creator condoning his replacement by a mere creature?

Nope. The human does not replace God as king, for the human king is also subject to God. He will be God's "prince" (1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1). He will be an instrument of God: saving the people from external enemies (1 Samuel 9:16) and from their worst enemies - themselves (1 Samuel 9:17).

A Suitable Candidate
We've been conducting interviews recently. There is a job match when a applicant's expertise, experience and character fit the job scope we have in mind. The jobseekers are polite. They make it a point to maintain eye contact like those getanyjobyouwant books tell them to. They come carefully groomed with good CVs and testimonials. They give their nicely-prepared speeches when asked about their strengths and weaknesses. But even though we get vibes and hunches, it is difficult to suss out a person out conclusively at just an interview. So there are interview tactics. There are ways of creating stressful scenarios to see how the candidate copes. Sometimes, there is a good cop and a bad cop. Sometimes, for variation, there are only bad cops.

Fortunately, Samuel didn't have to go through this hassle to find a suitable candidate for the brand new opening - God's Prince Over Israel. The day before Saul came, the LORD had revealed to Samuel:"Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince over my people Israel". And when Saul made his appearance, the LORD told Samuel, "Here is the man of whom I spoke to you!" (1 Samuel 9:15-17). Easy-peasy, cos God's still in control.

Saul
How is Saul looking as God's prince over Israel?

Physical Appearance
Well, at first glance, he appears to have the outward tokens of leadership: he is physically-capable and aesthetically-pleasing. "From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people" (1 Samuel 9:2, 10:23): not that Saul has an unusually long neck or a cone head or incredibly poofy hair, but that he was, err, just head and shoulders taller than anyone else. And the author of Samuel goes on to gush what "a handsome young man" Saul was. And just in case you thought he was only passably handsome, the author adds:"there was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he". The Midrash Shemuel suggests that the hamsumness of Saul was the cause of the young women's garrulousness at the well, so smitten they were by his beauty.

Election
But supermodel looks aside, he is more importantly elected, chosen by God. God identifies him to Samuel (1 Samuel 9:15-17). God gives Saul signs that he has indeed been chosen as the prince over Israel (1 Samuel 10:1-13). And as extra confirmation, it is Saul the son of Kish who is chosen as king by lot in front of all of Israel (1 Samuel 10:17-21)

Empowerment
Saul is empowered by the Spirit of God. He rushes upon Saul and Saul prophesies (1 Samuel 10:10). But we soon see that the Spirit's work in the Old Testament was not for the same length of time as in the New. The Spirit comes and goes. And when Saul is to be presented to all of Israel, we find the tall handsome young man hiding amongst the baggage (1 Samuel 10:22).

Eh?
This puts a bit of a damper on things. Why is the king elect cowering behind the luggage? And we remember that this was the man who wanted to give up looking for the lost asses and who needed to borrow money from his own servant to pay Samuel (1 Samuel 9:5-10). Saul's lineage is a bit sus as well, coming as he does from the tribe of Benjamin, from the town of Gibeah, infamous in Israelite history for its astounding act of lack of hospitality (to say the least, see Judges 19-21) that caused the other tribes to attack her. So unsurprisingly, there are doubters (1 Samuel 10:27) and a spectacular downfall would certainly satisfy their desire for some small town schadenfreude.

But the author of Samuel doesn't empathise with these doubters. Instead he calls them "worthless fellows" (1 Samuel 10:27). For Saul has been elected and chosen by God himself. And the people need not fear: dodgy lineage and past nambypamby-ness are of no consequence if Saul obeys God, for it is God, ultimately, who will save Israel from her enemies and herself.

So we end off 1 Samuel 9-10 wondering whether now, with a king over Israel (cf Judges 19:1; 21:25 - in the days when there was no king in Israel, everyone did whatever he pleased), things are looking up for Israel. We wonder whether, with this fresh beginning, Samuel will fulfil his kingship duties set out in the book (1 Samuel 10:25) and so lead Israel in proper obedience to God and end the terrible cycle of sin and punishment.

Akan datang 1 Samuel 11-12.

Meanwhile, the saviour/onemansavestheworld concept continues to this very day with some silly Superman-related mp3s:
13 & God "Superman On Ice" (mp3)
AC/DC "What's Next To The Moon"
American Hi-Fi "The Rescue" (mp3)
Atmosphere "Superman"
Black Lace "Superman" (mp3)
Blindside "Superman" (amazon)
Brad Street Band "Am I Superman Yet" (mp3)
Bush "Superman" (mp3)
Cafe of the Gate of Salvation "Superman's Prayer" (mp3)
Catman Cohen "Superman (It's Not Easy)". A Five For Fighting Cover.
Crash Test Dummies "Superman's Song" (mp3)
David Bowie "The Superman" (mp3)
Don McLean "Superman's Ghost"
Donovan "Sunshine Superman" (mp3)
Down By Law "Superman" (mp3)
Eminem "Superman"
Firewater "So Long, Superman"
Five For Fighting "Superman (It's Not Easy)" (mp3)
Genesis "Land of Confusion"
Goldfinger "Superman" (mp3)
Good Charlotte "Superman Can't Walk"
Hal Ketchum "Hang In There Superman"
Heaven 17 "The Contenders"
Ingram Hill "Superman"
Iron & Wine "Waiting For A Superman" (mp3). A Flaming Lips cover.
Jim Offerman Band "Like Superman" (mp3). From a father to a daughter.
Killing Heidi "Superman Supergirl"
Kissing Book "Superman vs Lloyd" (mp3)
Laurie Anderson "O Superman" (mp3)
Lazlo Bane "Superman" (mp3)
Lucian St. John Lumeire Scot "I Saw Superman" (mp3). He was driving in a Hyundai.
Luna Halo "Superman"
Matthew Clay "I Killed Superman" (mp3)
Maxeen "Save Me"
Miguel Bose "Super, Superman"
Musical Schizophrenia "Not A Superman" (mp3)
Nightmare of You "Waitin' For Superman" (mp3)
Our Lady Peace "Superman's Dead" (mp3)
Paramore "My Hero" (mp3). A Foo Fighters cover.
Pillar "Original Superman". How Jesus is better than Superman. ;-)
R.E.M. "Superman" (mp3). A Clique cover.
Receiving End Of Sirens "Superman"
Robert Pollard "Red Ink Superman"
Spin Doctors "Jimmy Olson's Blues"
Stephen Grayce "Superman For Free" (mp3)
Stereophonics "Superman" (mp3)
Stone Temple Pilots "Silvergun Superman"
Sufjan Stevens "Man of Metropolis Steals Our Hearts" (mp3)
The Academy Is "Superman" (mp3)
The Clique "Superman" (mp3)
The Films "Sunshine Superman"
The Flaming Lips "Waiting For A Superman" (mp3)
The Kinks "(Wish I Could Fly Like) Superman" (mp3)
The Matches "Superman"
The Robies "Superman"
The Sun "(Wish I Could Fly Like) Superman"
Three Doors Down "Kryptonite"
Throw Rag "Superman"
Victor Scott "Superman" (mp3)

Map of Places in 1 & 2 Samuel

Taken from Robert Alter's "The David Story" (the book is useful as a more literal translation of the text, but as a commentary, it is unduly and unspeakably speculative and a great diminisher of God's power and sovereignty)

Click for a larger image

Tragedy in 1 Samuel 8

1 Samuel 8 is a pretty depressing read after the comforting hope-full-ness of the preceding chapter.

Eli and his sinful sons were bumped off in 1 Samuel 4, never again to sabotage the security of Israel in the face of a wrathful God with their disobedient shenanigans. But their previous laxness meant that idolatry was rife in Israel and God had departed from the Israelites (symbolised, perhaps, by the ark of the LORD being easily captured by the Philistines)(1 Samuel 4). But there was hope that the tide would turn, as the Philistines were afflicted with disease and death and as the ark was promptly returned to the Israelites (1 Samuel 5-6). The Israelites repented and put away their idols and returned to God and God saved them from the Philistines (1 Samuel 7). There was peace and Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.

What a marvellous ending, the lovely picture of God's people living under God's rule in God's place, you can almost hear the sheep munching calmly on sweet grass and birds singing in overladden fruit trees...except, this was not the end. Samuel grew old and he appointed his two sons in his place (1 Samuel 8:1). Worse, they "did not walk in his ways but turned aside after gain. They took bribes and perverted justice" (1 Samuel 8:3). And we do an alarming doubletake: this reeks of Hophni and Phinehas and we all know what happened to Israel then...

Then the elders of Israel gather before Samuel and demand a king like all the other nations to replace his incompetent sons (1 Samuel 8:4-5). Samuel prays to God and God tells Samuel to warn them about the consequences of having such a king over them (1 Samuel 8:6-18). Is there a problem? Yessiree.

It seems that in this case, the problem is not so much that the Israelites are exhibiting a teenage desperation not to stick out in a crowd, succumbing to the peer pressure of surrounding nations, wanting to conform, insisting on changing their tacky China-brand clothes for the cool sophisticated rags of their schoolmates. Nor that they are running with the wrong crowd who will teach them to drink, smoke, gamble and dance to hiphop music. Nor that that they haven't got a backbone and aren't their own person. Nor that they've failed to be daddy's child, the distinctive salt and light of God in the world, "being in the world but not of the world".

What is appalling is whom they are spitting in the face of and turning away from. It is not Samuel, who has been a faithful judge over them all these years that they are rejecting; it is God:

they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you.(1 Samuel 8:7-8)

The dreadful horror of this outright rejection of God is emphasised by what the people want this king of theirs to do: to judge them and go out before them and fight their battles (1 Samuel 8:20). This is language previously used to describe what God did for the Israelites: he sent his angel before them to guard them on the way out from Egypt and bring them to the Promised Land that he had prepared for them; to bring them to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and subdue the land and blot their enemies out before them (Exodus 23:20-30; 32:34; 33:2; 34:11, 24; Leviticus 18:24; 20:23; Numbers 32:29; Deuteronomy 1:30, 33; 4:38; 6:19; 7:1, 22; 8:20 etc).

Going before them, the LORD fought their battles for them. They didn't need to do anything, only to be silent (Exodus 14:14; Deuteronomy 1:30; 20:4).

What the Israelites are asking for, really, is to replace their current king - a great and powerful God, with one who is a mere man, whom, it is obvious, even if he isn't corrupt, cannot have the same power and control over resources, the hearts of men, nature and destiny as the creator God had and used to the favour of Israel (and quite recently too infact, delivering them from and giving them victory over the Philistines at Mizpah (1 Samuel 7)). Shooting yourself in both feet, that is.

Like an audience watching Greek tragedy as the hero stands at the brink of certain disaster, we want to cover our eyes; we cannot bear to watch the carnage. We want to yell out to the Israelites in the narrative,"Don't do it! Don't be stupid! Samuel's sons might be incompetent, but that's no excuse to reject God himself as your king! Think of the consequences! Don't you learn anything from history?"

But of course we can't change anything. And we're left, at the end of 1 Samuel 8, with a terrible sense of dread in the pit of our stomachs: the Israelites are a motley crew obviously neither especially numerous nor particularly skilled in warfare against the superior enemy forces around them. They wouldn't have even made it out of slavery in Egypt much less to the Promised Land on their own. They survived only because of the God they had, who faithfully protected them all the way, who went before them and fought their battles for them and kept them safe. And now, in a show of spectacular stupidity (for innate sinfulness blinds the eyes and hardens the heart), they insist on exchanging this great, living, powerful God for a mortal muppet...

Ah, perhaps there's a glimmer of hope: remember that God's promise that after Eli's two sinful sons, Hophni and Phinehas, were killed for their disobedience, he would raise up for himself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in his heart and in his mind, who will intercede for the people before God forever (1 Samuel 2:35)? Perhaps this priest would do something about this folly. But there is no faithful priest in sight: Samuel showed a great deal of potential, what with his unusual birth, his dedication to the LORD, God being with him and speaking through him (1 Samuel 3:19-21) in the days when words and visions from the LORD were rare (1 Samuel 3:1) and his subsequent successful intercession for the people before God (1 Samuel 7). But Samuel got old and showed no signs of living forever and appointed his sons in his place.

What of God's promise then? But remember what God said the Eli,"'I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,' but now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. (1 Samuel 2:30). In a similar way, could it also be that the rebellion of the Israelites in wanting a replacement for God mean that there will now no longer be anyone to mediate for the Israelites before God, pleading with him to help them and protect them? That would surely be just and right. So there's no way out there.

Oh, but even then, perhaps, perhaps, God in his great mercy will tell them not to be silly and ensure they wake up their idea, and so they will get over this temporary insanity and all will be well. But no, God says to Samuel:"Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you" (1 Samuel 8:7), "obey their voice" (1 Samuel 8:9), "obey their voice and make them a king" (1 Samuel 8:22). "Obey my voice" is what God tells the Israelites or obey the voice of God's angel who is the representative of God (Exodus 19:5; 23:21; Deuteronomy 4:30; 8:20; 9:23; 13:4, 18; 15:5; 26:17; 27:10; 28:1-2), fear him, keep his covenant statutes and commandments and they will be his treasured possession in the whole world and he will bless them. The voice to be obeyed is God's, but now God tells Samuel to obey the voice of the Israelites. The implication is that they themselves are now their own gods. Good luck in that because that's surely bound to fail.

And we are fearful for them if when this monarchy fad fails. For Samuel says:"in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day" (1 Samuel 8:18). What hope is there for the Israelites then?

The Danger of Anthropocentric Preaching of Old Testament Narratives

Here's Sidney Greidanus in "The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text", on the dangers of man-centered interpretations of Old Testament narratives (which tend to lend themselves to this sort of abuse):

More crucial for narrative than for any other genre is the question, What does God here reveal about himself? The reason why this question is so crucial for narrative should be plain: in no other genre does the attention so easily drift from the theocentric focus of Scripture to human beings.

The Slide into Anthropocentric Preaching
Reasons for anthropocentric preaching are not hard to find. In biblical narrative the human characters frequently appear to be center stage. Moreover, it is so easy in preaching simply to relate the story of Joseph and his brothers, of Ehud and Eglon, of David and Bathsheba, and draw a few "lessons" for the contemporary congregation. It is somewhat understandable that busy preachers fall into the trap of preaching anthropocentric sermons from time to time; what is less understandable is that homileticians, presumably after giving it some thought, would advocate this approach. A quotation from [two such homilecticians] will clarify the point at issue:

Another effective type of expository preaching is that of preaching on Bible characters. Faris D Whitesell, in his excellent book on this subject [Preaching on Bible Characters], gives many reasons for placing this type of preaching in high priority. He points out that this is perhaps the easiest way to preach the Bible, the most likely to appeal to people and to hold their attention…and the most likely to be remembered. And, for freshness and variety, there are approximately four hundred Bible characters from which to choose. (CW Keller, "Expository Preaching without Notes")

For permanent collection of Biblical material, buy two cheap Bibles and clip out all the passages related to this character. Paste them together in chronological sequence… The keyword for the sermon will be "characteristics", "traits", or some such word… In the sermon, be sure to take the character off the pedestal by finding those traits that are relevant and most practical for the listener…

[Example]
Sermon from the life of Jonathan
I. Courage – 1 Samuel 14:6
II. Humility – 1 Samuel 18:4
III. Loyalty – 1 Samuel 19:2
(Perry, "Manual for Biblical Preaching")

Similar advice can be found in many homiletics texts. The question is, however, if such an anthropocentric approach does justice to the Scripture. Marten Woudstra, for one, observes that "the aim of biblical historiography is not to focus on the human agents of the redemptive drama, or to exploit their good and evil deeds for purposes of moral example or deterrent". Woudstra points to Joshua 24 as an illustration of "how sacred history must be viewed": "Throughout this summary the emphasis is on what God, the covenant Lord, has done. It is this emphasis, not that of moral example, that causes the people to respond with an expression of loyalty to their Lord and demonstrate their willingness to serve only him".

Sometimes preachers, sensing the deficiency of straight anthropocentric preaching, will try to do justice to both God and human characters as two distinct factors in the text. This procedure often leads to a curious split in the sermon between a theocentric explication and an anthropocentric application. In historical narrative, however, it is no a question of two opposite factors which must each receive their due, but rather one "factor", God, who works for, through, and sometimes in spite of people. God, after all, is the God who makes covenants with people. In the covenant history narrated in the Bible, the human characters appear not for their own sake but for the sake for showing what God is doing for, with, and through them. As von Rad puts it in connection with Genesis 16 (Hagar and Ishmael), "There can be no doubt that the story in no way intends to provide us with examples…The sermon must be careful…to treat not of human affairs but of God's gracious ways of dealing with men".

What then does purely God-centered/theocentric narrative and interpretation look like?
Old Testament Narratives: Theocentric Narratives with a Theocentric Purpose

Hebrew History Writing

Coffee & History*

Our God reveals himself in human history.

He did not merely create the universe, populate the bit called Earth with munchkins and leave them alone to run along on their own, perhaps checking in occasionally to have a quick look round and fix whatever was broken; instead, he created the universe, continued and continues to sustain it to this day, guiding its complete workings and determining its direction. He did not relate to mankind by presenting the first man and woman with a nicely-bound autographed autobiographical "All You Ever Wanted to Know About Me (and More)" with "Laws for Living in My World" in an outlying Appendix XIII; instead, he related to the human race through the lives of individuals and nations, in their physical growth, their interpersonal relationships, their hearts and minds and experiences etc.

Because our God reveals himself in human history, so the important and authoritative snapshots of God's involvement in the Old Testament world are contained in Hebrew historical writing.

Hebrew History Writing
Hebrew history writing is quite different from the modern idealistic ideal of "objective history" ("idealistic" because history can never be objective. Variables inevitably include (i) the observer's interpretation of what happened; (ii) the message the observer tries to communicate about the event; and (iii) the message received by the listener.)

Differentiating Hebrew History Writing
Ancient historical standards allowed, even expected, history writing to have a specific point of view. Authors shaped material to drive home their specific messages, perhaps by a rearrangement of the chronological order, selection of certain facts, or lingering over some events while zooming past others. They were laissez faire with copyright (a new-fangled concept if any) and certainly didn't bother to credit their sources with footnotes like "Spoken by the LORD to Samuel at [insert venue] on [insert date] at [insert time], who later dictated these words to [insert name of scribe] and verified the same on [insert date] at [insert time]". Speeches were not recorded verbatim (bloopers, burps, body language and all) as they are now with, say, parliamentary reports in the Hansard (well, even then the bloopers, burps and body language are edited out. Come to think of it, even reality TV isn't verbatim.).

The other thing is that the Biblical authors were plainly and obviously biased, interpreting history in a theocentric manner.

Perhaps our indoctrinated modern minds are shell-shocked by this flagrant disregard of proper historical methods and intend to approach the Bible with more sneering skepticism ever than before. But hold the lift! There really are good reasons for retaining every confidence in the good book.

Trusting Hebrew History Writing
The Bible does not purport to be a litany of historical facts nor an encyclopaedia of every thing that has ever happened in the universe. It confronts us not with history but with literature about history. What we find in the bible is not a chronology of all the events in the Middle East but an interpretation of selected events.

However, this does not impute that the events that are the subject of this interpretation are fictitious. In fact, the authors made sure of their historical facts - their location and their significance - and frequently appealed to their having-happened-ness. For example, in 1 Samuel alone, the author writes of God reminding Eli and the people of the Exodus rescue from Egypt (1 Samuel 2:27 and 1 Samuel 10:18), of the Philistines remembering God's judgement on the Egyptians before the Exodus (1 Samuel 4:8) and the hardened heart of the Pharaoh (1 Samuel 6:6)... It did matter to the Old Testament authors that the Exodus did actually happen because that event was integral to their message; if there was no Exodus, then there was no evidence of a God who worked in the past to rescue the forefathers of the Israelites from Egypt, and so, no reason to appeal to his goodness and faithfulness and power to spur them to obedience and submission.

In quality of history writing, it is the modern history writers who are deficient, not the Hebrew history writers. Far above the human limitations of the moderns who cannot but focus myopically on, say, the social, economic or political aspects of the same event, the Old Testament authors had a glorious bird helicopter God's-eye view of history. Up there, everything was as clear as day. The interpretation by the Old Testament writers of events in their day was not a product of their superior intellect nor remarkable inference, but rather, God's authoritative disclosure to certain servants of his concerning what he had done, is doing and will do. God granted to selected men an understanding of these things.

And because event + interpretation = revelation, God is thus revealed to us.

So the focus of our exegesis and exposition of Hebrew history writings in Bible studies and sermons is neither to prove the historicity of the text, nor concentrate on the historical facts and ignore the interpretation, nor make up our own interpretation (which we inevitably think is far superior to that of ye olde Old Testament author). The Old Testament events have already been interpreted by God himself, through his servants, and our work is not to say more or less than what the Spirit of God conveyed to those whom he first disclosed the meaning.

*"The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text" by Sidney Greidanus, an extremely helpful homiletician.

*************

Because our God works in human history, so most Hebrew history writing is inevitably and necessarily narrative. And reading Hebrew historical narrative, it seems, is a completely different kettle of fish.

The Danger of Anthropocentric (Man-centered) Preaching of Old Testament Narratives
Old Testament Narratives: Theocentric Narratives with a Theocentric Purpose

Sunday Night Samuel, Biblical Criticism and Reading Biblical Narrative

I think we're quite done with wedding dinners this month, he said. Before the wedding madness starts again in July, let's skip onedotzero and have a quiet night at home.

So the quiet night was: steak pies in the oven while Artur Rubinstein's necromantic hands wrung the poetic depth out of Chopin's normally anaemic waltzes (it's whingy old Fryderyk. Therefore, not the dancey kind, Pole-dancey or otherwise) and crashed through the nocturnes. Later, cold bottles of Chimay, courtesy of some Trappist monks, fuelled an attempted demonstration of how Vladimir Horowitz might have cheekily decimated a fragile timid poofy audience with his own outrageous interpretation (and also an attempted demonstration of how the same fragile timid poofy audience might have swooned in nervous shock in their plush red velvet seats). And later still, a wedge of brie de meaux, bitty crispbreads and a good readaloud of 1 and 2 Samuel.

Riverting stuff. Loved the dry humour. Can't wait to start the 1 Samuel studies!

The question is, how does one study the Old Testament, especially Old Testament biblical narrative?

Biblical Criticism
To reveal himself to mankind, God spoke in a human language. Had he initiated contact in the language of the angels we would have been none the wiser. He chose, rather, to reveal himself a language understood by humans, and he did so to a particular people, in particular times and circumstances in their own language, in their own dialects and slang.

So if we are to understand those messages, we must somehow seek to put ourselves back into the situation of the original recipients of the Word. We must discover exactly what the original authors of the Scriptures meant by their words. The generic term for techniques used to study the meaning of Bible passages is "biblical criticism" ("criticism" not that the reader sits in judgement over the Word but that he seeks to understand it).

Historical Criticism
In ancient times (as the reallyratherlongdeadhuman author of Samuel is fond of saying), when people drove manual cars, historical criticism was the preferred method of understanding the Bible. Historical criticism sought to investigate the origins of the Bible, the sources of the documents and determine the authorship, date, and place of composition of the text.

Gordon Wenham noted in his 1998 Griffith Thomas lecture*:

To understand the message of the Bible it is absolutely essential to have some understanding of the social setting in which its books were written. Otherwise we shall import our own twentieth-century models, impose them on the text and come up with quite a misleading interpretation. For example, Genesis 2:24 makes a very significant comment about the nature of marriage: 'For this reason a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.' But what exactly does it mean? A Westerner reading this passage might well conclude that it is endorsing our practice of setting up home independently of our parents, often indeed a long way from them. Indeed I remember reading a book by a missionary in Nigeria who criticized Nigerian men for continuing to live near their parents after they married. This he said was unbiblical and harmful to the marriage relationship! In fact what the Nigerians did was precisely what the Israelites did!! On marriage it was the woman who moved, not the man. The man stayed put, because he would succeed to his father's job and land, and the new wife moved in with him. In a literal physical sense the ancient Israelite man did not leave his family at all. So what is Genesis 2:24 really saying? Something far more profound than telling you where to live when you marry: it is talking about priorities and commitments. Before marriage a man's first obligations are to his parents. In the Ten Commandments, 'honour your father and mother' comes immediately after our obligations to God and before 'Thou shalt not kill'. In the ancient world filial duty was regarded as the supreme obligation. But according to Genesis 2:24 marriage changes this. Now a man's first duty is to care for his wife, and secondarily to care for his parents. 'He leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife.' Read in the context of OT society, rather than modern ideas, we see that Genesis 2:24 is a statement that revolutionizes the status of married women. Wives are not mere appendages or chattels of their husbands, rather the welfare of his wife must be a man's first concern.

Perhaps I may give another illustration of the necessity of understanding the social setting of the Bible if we are to grasp its intentions correctly. Leviticus 19:9-10 says, 'When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap the field to its very border....' The motive of this law is then explained: 'You shall leave them for the poor and the sojourner [i.e. the immigrant].' But J. V. Taylor in his book Enough is Enough expounded this text as proof of the Bible's ecological concern, that we should not exploit the earth to its limits. And in a lecture I heard him say he was outraged at visiting an agricultural show where combine harvesters which boasted of their ability to reap right up to the edge of the field were on display. How unbiblical, he said! But he had failed to grasp the purpose of the law and the difference between our society and theirs. The law is designed to help the poor of ancient Israel, who were scattered throughout the land and could indeed easily go into the countryside and glean in the fields of their well-to-do neighbours (see the book of Ruth). But the poor of our society are in the cities, far from the fields. To leave the edges of our fields unreaped would not help them in the least. We must devise quite different welfare measures in our society to help our poor. So I believe historical criticism has a most important role to play in delineating the nature of biblical society. Without such sociological study we are liable to make terrible mistakes in interpreting and applying Scripture today.

Form Criticism
Form criticism seeks to analyse Biblical texts by first by identifying a text's genre or conventional literary form, such as parables, proverbs, epistles, or love poems by identifying the typical features of texts such, especially their conventional forms or structures. It goes on to seek the sociological setting for each text's genre; its Sitz im Leben (situation in life).

The advantage of form criticism is that it has made us aware of the conventions that guided the biblical authors. It enables us to appreciate why they arranged material in the way they did, for example in the laws, the psalms, and the epistles. Through form criticism we can be more clear about the writers' intentions: why they included certain details and omitted others. And this knowledge should keep us from misinterpreting and misapplying biblical texts today.*

Source Criticism
Source criticism is concerned with elucidating the sources used by the biblical writers. For example, the book of Kings often refers to the royal annals of Judah and Israel, suggesting that if one wants further details about the events recorded these annals should be consulted. And for a historian concerned to reconstruct the exact course of Old Testament history, source criticism is clearly very important if he wants to come as close as possible to the earliest account of events.*

Redaction Criticism
What the editors do, whether they be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or the compiler of Kings, is also of great concern to Bible readers. By comparing their work with their source we can discover what their special interests are. We can see what they have left out, what they have added from another source, what aspects of the original they have played up, what they have played down. In this way we gain a much clearer insight into the editor's theological viewpoint and the message he is trying to convey. And this investigation, what is termed redaction criticism, has proved extremely fruitful for more clearly understanding the text.*

[Taken to silly extremes however, form, source and redaction criticism have gotten people's knickers in a twist. Documentary Hypothesis, in which the Pentateuch was thought to be a conflation of various sources – J, E, D and P, is a good example. You see, says Documentary Hypothesis, there were several sources of information out there and someone did a bit of a cut-and-paste job with them. Unfortunately for us, the final editor of the Pentateuch was so uncommonly daft that he didn't realise different sources were contradictory (eg. say, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), and included them both! Side by side! (He also appeared to have had a singular lack of chums courteous enough to point this out to him.)

David Cline's seminal "New Directions in Pooh Studies: Überlieferungs- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Pu-Buch" masterfully applies Documentary Hypothesis to the Pooh corpus to demonstrate that the text indicates the interweaving of various sources and thus the fallacy of unitary authorship of that corpus must be abandoned. Likewise, Mark Shea shares his thoughts on how "The Lord of the Rings" could not have been written by one so-called "author" named "Tolkien". ;-)]

Biblical Semantics
Linguistical studies have transformed our approach to determining the precise meaning of words in Scripture. Far too often, sermons are based on sloppy etymologies or words or phrases taken out of context, but linguistics has shown that this is quite mistaken. So quite central terms in the Bible's theological vocabulary, e.g. faith, soul, redemption, justification, may have been misunderstood by amateurs who fail to understand how language works. Modern linguistics has taught us to examine the context in which words are used rather than their etymology to determine their meaning. It has taught us to study language synchronically before studying it diachronically. In practice this means we must examine the usage of a word in a particular book of the Bible before examining its usage and meaning elsewhere. Just because a word means one thing in one writer, it does not necessarily follow that another writer uses it in exactly the same way. And once we recognise this principle we may well be on the way to resolving the apparent contradictions between different parts of Scripture, for example between Paul and James.*

New Literary Criticism
Finally, we have the new literary criticism, which focuses on the structure and plot development of stories and characterisation so that characters in the story come alive as real people not as mere names on the page.

For example, literary critics insist that repetition within a story often offers very valuable clues to the attitudes of the people involved. We must examine closely who says what, and what phrases they use: eg. after God has promised Sarah a child, she laughs in disbelief. The RSV says,"After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?" And it is remarkable that such brazen unbelief should be treated so mildly by God. Think of Isaiah's rebuke of King Ahaz when he refused to believe his message (Isaiah 7:13). But Sarah apparently gets away with it. Why?

A careful examination of the phraseology here gives the answer. The narrator first of all gives an objective, almost clinical, account of Sarah's situation:"Abraham and Sarah were old, well on in years. Sarah had stopped having periods". But Sarah describes herself more colourfully:"After I am worn out, shall I have pleasure? And my husband is old too".

From her language we see her real state of mind. It is not blind unbelief, rather it is the hopelessness of a woman exhausted by life who has been disappointed so often that she dare not believe things will change. And this could be why God in his mercy treats her so gently.

In some ways this new-style literary criticism is a reversion to the older exegetical methods used before the nineteenth century. Reading the older commentaries, eg. of Calvin or the mediaeval rabbis, one sometimes comes across interpretations like this. But this new-style criticism is a great advance over these old works. Their insights rested on the imagination of the commentator, and one is therefore never really quite sure whether Calvin's interpretation would have met with the biblical writers' approval. But the new literary criticism is based much more closely on hints contained within the text itself, so I dare to hope it is indeed enabling us to recover the original writers' understanding.*

An example of how literary criticism is used in relation to Old Testament narrative is provided by Iain Provan, V. Phillips Long and Tremper Longman III in "A Biblical History of Israel":

Biblical narratives may be characterized under three rubrics: scenic, subtle, succinct...

OT narratives are scenic — not in the sense of detailed descriptions of the physical setting or scene, but, rather, scenic in the way that a stage play involves scenes. Like a stage play, the OT narratives do more showing than telling. The reader is seldom explicitly told by the narrator how this or that character, or this or that action, is to be evaluated (though this does occasionally occur). Instead, the reader is shown the characters acting and speaking and is thereby drawn into the story and challenged to reach evaluative judgments on his or her own. In other words, the reader comes to know and understand the characters in the narrative in much the same way as in real life, by watching what they do and by listening to what they say. The scenic character of OT narrative leads quite naturally to a second dominant trait.

OT narratives are subtle. As implied already, OT narrators are generally reticent to make their points directly, preferring to do so more subtly. To this end, they employ an array of more indirect means in developing the narrative's characterizations and in focusing reader attention on those aspects of the narrative that contain its persuasive power. Mention of physical details, for instance, is seldom if ever random. If we read that Esau was hairy, Ehud left-handed, Eglon fat, and Eli portly and dim-sighted, we should anticipate (though not insist) that such details in some way serve the characterizations or actions of the story. Sometimes the words or deeds of one character serve as indirect commentary on those of another character. When Jonathan, for instance, remarks that "nothing can hinder the LORD from saving by many or by few" (1 Sam. 14:6), this casts Saul's excuse in the preceding chapter — "the people were slipping away" (13:11) — into a different light than a first reading might have done. Even small changes in the narrator's commentary on events may have far-reaching implications, not just literarily but historically as well. Immediately following King David's charge to his successor, Solomon, in 1 Kings 2:1-10, the narrator registers David's death (v. 11) and remarks (v. 12) that Solomon's "kingdom was firmly established" (made emphatic by Hebrew me)od), and this without Solomon having yet done anything. There follows an account of Solomon's eradication of Joab and Shimei (vv. 13-46), persons deemed dangerous by his father, and the account concludes with another narratorial comment (similar but not identical to v. 12): "So the kingdom was establised in the hand of Solomon" (v. 46). Gone is the adverb me)od, rendered "firmly" in v. 12. Added is the phrase "in the hand of Solomon," which is better rendered in this context as "by the hand of Solomon". Without coming right out and saying it, the narrator hints that Solomon's initial efforts to secure his kingdom by his own hand have accomplished little or nothing. His early days tell "a fairly sordid story of power-politics". No wonder, then, that Solomon confesses, in the next chapter, to feeling like a "little child" who does not "know how to go out or come in" (3:7). Ironically, it will be news of the death not only of David but especially of Joab that will trigger the return of Hadad the Edomite (1 Kgs. 11:21), the first adversary raised up by Yahweh (1 Kgs. 11:14) when it becomes necessary to "chasten" the apostate Solomon with "floggings inflicted by men" (2 Sam 7:14; NIV). If such subtleties often go unnoticed by modern literary readers, how much more so do they escape historians, but they can prove essential to proper reading and reconstruction.

OT narratives are succinct. Perhaps in part because of the constraints of writing in a scenic, or episodic, mode, biblical narrators tend to be economical in their craft. They accomplish the greatest degree of definition and colour with the fewest brushstrokes. Biblical stories, although written, are "geared toward the ear, and meant to be listened to at a sitting. In a 'live' setting the storyteller negotiates each phrase with his audience. A nuance, an allusion hangs on nearly every word". The very succinctness of the biblical narratives invites close attention to detail, and all the more so because the biblical narrators were masters in drawing special attention to key elements in their texts. They use all manner of repetitions to great advantage — words and word stems (i.e. Leitworte), motifs, similar situations (sometimes called "type scenes" or "stock situations"), and the like. The effect of repetition is often to underscore a central theme or concern in a narrative, as, for instance, in the repetition of the phrase "listen to the voice/sound" in 1 Samuel 15. As the chapter opens, Saul is exhorted to "listen" to the Lord's "voice" (v. 1) and destroy all the Amalekites (man and beasts): later he claims to have done so (v. 13); Samuel responds by asking about the "voice" of the sheep and cattle to which he is "listening" (v. 14); Samuel and Saul debate whether Saul has or has not "listened to the voice" of the Lord (vv. 19-20); when Saul seeks to excuse his failure to listen by claiming to have spared livestock only in order to sacrifice to the Lord, Samuel responds that "listening to the voice" of the Lord is vastly more important than sacrifice (v. 22); and Saul begrudgingly concedes that he has "listened to the voice" of the people (v. 24). While the attentive reader can surely judge from the general flow of the passage that Saul's (dis)obedience is a central theme, attention to the literary fabric of the passage underscores and enriches this insight.

Our brief description of the scenic, subtle, and succinct character of biblical narratives only begins to scratch the surface. Beyond these basics, readers—even those (or perhaps especially those) whose interests are in historical questions—will profit greatly from immersing themselves in...works...by Alter, Longman, and Sternberg. The key point is that biblical accounts must be appreciated first as narratives before they can be used as historical sources—just as they cannot be dismissed as historical sources simply because of their narrative form.

If this how Old Testament narrative is to be read, and it is the text that should shape the Bible study or the sermon, then it suggests exciting ways of leading Bible studies or preaching sermons on these texts (more on that here)!

Limitations of Biblical Criticism
However, before we all run off with the newest-fangled theory on how to read the Bible, we must remember that a perfect critical theory is not the end point. We as Christians are not so much interested in say, source criticism, for the sources that lie behind Scripture but in the text of Scripture itself.

And again, historicity is not everything. It of course matters whether Jesus lived, died, and rose again. But there was a Jewish scholar, Pinchas Lapide, who believed in these facts without being a Christian. And I suppose that if the Turin shroud had proved to be genuine, it would not have persuaded many unbelievers that Jesus was indeed resurrected. It is most heartening when archaeologists find evidence corroborating the historical record of the Bible, whether it be the names of the patriarchs, the ashes of towns sacked by Joshua, the pool of Bethesda or the house of Peter in Capemaum. All these discoveries confirm our faith in the historical reliability of the Bible. But the Bible is more than a human history book. Throughout, it claims to be offering a divine interpretation of public historical events, an interpretation that is beyond the scope of human verification. Take for example the book of Kings. It ends with recording the sacking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiachin's release from prison. These are events that are beyond dispute because they are also mentioned in contemporary Babylonian records. However these events are not recorded in Kings just because the writer wanted to mention them as important events. He has included them because they reveal God's attitude to Israel, that he was angry with them for breaking the covenant, that he was fulfilling the warnings made much earlier by Moses. Now who can check whether this interpretation is correct? Obviously no one. We cannot telephone God to check if that was his attitude or not. We simply have to accept or reject the view of the book of Kings. We have no means of checking his view. It is beyond the possibility of human verification. But that does not make it unimportant or insignificant: clearly it was the main theological point being made in Kings that Israel and Judah were punished for their sins. So let us keep the issue of historicity in perspective. As Christians we shall wish to maintain that where the Bible is relating historical events they really happened, but let us bear in mind that it is not so important that they occurred so much as what they teach us about God and his purposes and how we should respond.*

Critical issues can easily divert us from the purpose of Scripture. Like the Jews we should be searching the Scriptures to find eternal life. Or as Paul said, "Whatever was written in former times was written for our instruction, that we might have hope" (Romans 15:4). The purpose of the Scriptures is not simply to stimulate us academically, or to provide a living for professional biblical scholars. It is to lead us to God. Biblical criticism offers us indispensable aids to the interpretation and understanding of the Bible. But often instead of being the handmaid of Scripture it has become its master. I suppose that in the last 200 years there have been more than a hundred scholarly books discussing the criticism of Deuteronomy, its date, authorship, sources and so on. But very few have focused on its theology, or the meaning of its teaching and laws for today. And there is a similar imbalance in some biblical courses too - plenty on critical theory, and little on theology and its application. Yet what is the chief concern of Deuteronomy? "Hear O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD, and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might".*

When the academic study of Scripture diverts our attention from loving God with all our heart, soul and strength, I think we should pause and take stock. We should ask ourselves whether we are using it as it was intended. The Bible is both a divine book and a human book. Because it is a human book we cannot understand it unless we employ all the types of biblical criticism to the full. But because it is also a divine book we must recognise that these tools are insufficient by themselves for us to grasp and apply its message. To do that we must have a humble mind and heart and the guidance of the Spirit.*

*"The Place of Biblical Criticism in Theological Study", Gordon J. Wenham, Themelios 14.3 (April 1989): 84-89.