Bible Difficulties (40 page)

Which name for David's brother is correct, Shammah or Shimea?

In 1 Samuel 16:9 the name of Jesse's third son (David's older brother) is given as Shammah (
sammah
). But in 1 Chronicles 2:13 it is spelled
simeà'
(though the Syriac Peshitta reads
samo'
there as well as in 1 Sam. 16:9). There is still another passage (2

Sam. 21:21) where the name is given as Shimeah (
simeày
). From these data we must come to some conclusion as to which was the correct and original spelling of this man's name.

First of all, it is significant that even though the
àyin
(`) is missing from 1 Samuel 16:9, the
mem
(m) does have a mark of doubling (dagesh forte) within it (
sammah
rather than
samah
), which makes it identical with the adverb for "thither" or "there"--and rather 175

unlikely as a personal name. But it could represent an assimilation with a following consonant such as
àyin
. It may be that in some regions of the Hebrew-speaking territory, such as Judah, there was a tendency to deemphasize or even omit the sound of
àyin
, especially in proper names. Thus we find the name of the Moabitess spelled
rut
(Ruth), rather than
reù-2t
("Friendship"), which it probably should have been. (
Ru-t
is a meaningless word without an
àyin
.) So also, Samuel is rendered
semu'el
(which could only mean "The name of God"), whereas according to Hannah's statements in 1 Samuel 1:20 and 1:27 it should have been
semù'el
("Heard of God"). We must therefore conclude that the spelling in 1 Chronicles 2:13 (
simeà'
) is the correct one and that the reading in 1 Samuel 16:9 is a scribal error resulting from a regional pronunciation of the name.

How many sons did Jesse have? First Samuel 16:10-11 makes it eight, but 1

Chronicles 2:13-15 makes it seven.

1 Samuel 16 names only the three oldest brothers of David: Eliab (v.6), Abinadab (v.8), and Shammah (v.9), who is called Shimea in 1 Chronicles 2:13. Yet it does specify that Jesse introduced seven of his sons to Samuel (v.10) before he had the youngest, David, called home from the field (v.11). 1 Chronicles 2:14 gives the names of the other three as Nethanel, Raddai, and Ozem, and specifies that David was the seventh. What became of the other son, unnamed in 1 Samuel 16 and totally ignored in 1 Chronicles 2? Delitzsch (Keil and Delitzsch,
Chronicles
, p.62) suggests that he might have died without posterity; therefore his name was not preserved as late as the period when Chronicles was composed. It may well have been that he died of illness or accident while still a young man, prior to marriage. Since he produced no descendants and contributed no exploits back in David's time, there was no special reason for retaining him in the later enumeration of Jesse's sons.

The writer of this article had an older brother who died quite young, which would bring up the count of the children to four. Yet after the death of that earlier son, the three surviving children always spoke of themselves as a family of three siblings. Perhaps a similar event happened in Jesse's family as well. The full number of his sons was eight, but only seven survived and played a role during David's career. (1 Chron. 2:16 adds that there were two daughters as well, Zeruiah and Abigail. After they were married, their sons played an important role as well in the service of their uncle David.)
In 1 Samuel 16:19-21 Saul recognizes David as the son of Jesse, but in 1 Sam. 17:58

Saul is said to have asked David, "Whose son art thou?" How can the two be
reconciled?

It is true that Saul had already been introduced to David (1 Sam. 16:18) as "a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is a skillful musician, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, one prudent in speech, and a handsome man" (NASB). But it should be noted also that up until the contest with Goliath, David had shown to King Saul only his artistic side; and then David had been permitted to return home to Bethlehem. It is altogether true to life for Saul to see David in an entirely new light and to show a keen interest in his 176

background. Apparently General Abner had no previous acquaintance with David except as a harp player and so was not even aware of Jesse's name (17:55). Abner had not been involved in David's earlier introduction to the palace as a soothing musician (16:18); rather, one of Saul's "young men" (that is, a retainer of the royal bodyguard) had mentioned Jesse's name to Saul.

Saul's rekindled interest, however, went far beyond the name of David's father--even though that was his lead-off question. It is quite apparent that Saul wanted to know whether there were any more at home like him; this was in line with his standard policy set forth in 1 Samuel 14:52: "When Saul saw any mighty man or any valiant man, he attached him to his staff" (NASB). That is to say, Saul was intent on building up a first-class bodyguard of champion fighters, and he saw in David a promising lead to obtaining more soldiers like him. From 18:1 we are informed that David then carried on a fairly extensive conversation with Saul, going far beyond the giving of his own father's name.

Thus we find that when we view the two episodes in their own context and situation, they turn out to be very true to life; and there is no real contradiction between them.

Who killed Goliath--David or Elhanan?

1 Samuel 17:50 states that David cut off Goliath's head with the giant's own sword, after he had first felled him with a sling and a stone. Because of this amazing victory over the Philistine, David became the foremost battle-champion among the Israelite troops, even though he was still a mere teenager. But 2 Samuel 21:19 in the Hebrew Masoretic text states that "Elhanan the son of Yaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." As this verse stands in the Masoretic text, it certainly contradicts 1 Samuel 17. But fortunately we have a parallel passage in 1

Chronicles 20:5, which words the episode this way: "And Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite." It is quite apparent that this was the true reading, not only for the Chronicles passage but also for 2 Samuel 21:19.

The earlier manuscript from which the copyist was reading must have been blurred or damaged at this particular verse, and hence he made two or three mistakes. What apparently happened was the following:

1. The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-
t
; the copyist mistook it for
b-t
or
b-y-t
("Beth") and thus got
Bet hal-Lahmi
("the Bethlehemite") out of it.

2. He misread the word for "brother" ('-
h
) as the sign of the direct object ('-
t
) right before
g-l-y-t-
("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (
wayyak
), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chron. passage does).

3. The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-
r-g-ym
) so as to put it right after

"Elhanan" as his patronymic (
ben Y-`-r-y'-r--g-ym
, or
ben yaàrey 'ore-gim
-- "the son of the forests of weavers"--a most unlikely name for anyone's father!). In Chronicles the 177

'oregim
("weavers") comes right after
menor
("a beam of")--thus making perfectly good sense.

In other words, the 2 Samuel 21 passage is a perfectly traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5.

First Samuel 18:10 says that an evil spirit from God came on King Saul. How can
this be explained if only good comes from God?

It is not quite accurate to say that only good comes from God. While it is true that God's original creation was good (Gen. 1:31) and that God Himself is not tempted by evil, nor does He tempt (in the sense of attracting or enticing) any man to evil (James 1:13), nevertheless it remains true that genuine goodness in a moral God requires that a real difference be made between good and evil. As the ordainer and preserver of the moral order, it is absolutely necessary for God to punish sin, no matter how much love and compassion He may feel toward the sinner.

In Isaiah 45:7 we read, "[I am] the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (NASB). The word rendered by NASB as "calamity" is the Hebrew
rà
, which has the basic meaning of

"evil" (either moral evil or misfortune evil). Here it points to the painful, harmful consequences that followed the commission of sin. Notice how James goes on to indicate how this process works: "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death" (James 1:14-15, NASB).

In Saul's case, he had knowingly flouted the law of God--first, by performing priestly sacrifice at the Lord's altar contrary to the divine command (1 Sam. 13:12-13), and, second, by sparing King Agag and some of the cattle of the Amalekites after he had been ordered to put them all to death (1 Sam. 15:20-23). Moreover in 1 Samuel 18:8 it is stated that Saul became insanely jealous of young David because of the public praise he had received for his prowess in slaying Goliath and the Philistines. By these successive acts of rebellion against the will and law of God, King Saul left himself wide open to satanic influence--just as Judas Iscariot did after he had determined to betray the Lord Jesus (cf.

John 13:2).

Insofar as God has established the spiritual laws of cause and effect, it is accurate to say that Saul's disobedience cut him off from the guidance and communion of the Holy Spirit that he had formerly enjoyed and left him a prey to a malign spirit of depression and intense jealousy that drove him increasingly to irrational paranoia. Although he was doubtless acting as an agent of Satan, Saul's evil bent was by the permission and plan of God. We must realize that in the last analysis all penal consequences for sin come from God, as the Author of the moral law and the one who always does what is right (Gen.

18:25).

178

First Samuel 19:23-24 states of King Saul that "the spirit of God was upon him also,
and he went on, and prophesied....And he stripped off his clothes also, and
prophesied before Samuel in like manner." Why did he prophesy naked?

The passage beginning with v. 19 indicates that Saul was in pursuit of his son-in-law, young David, and that David had gotten to Naioth in Ramah. Saul was informed that David was there with the prophets who had been trained for the Lord's service under Samuel. So he sent his agents up to arrest David and to bring him down in chains.

When the king's agents got there, however, and saw the august figure of Samuel himself and his prophetic assistants all engaged in a joyous praise service before the Lord, they too came under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Unable to control themselves or carry out the business for which they had been sent, they could do nothing else but surrender to the same emotional excitement and join in the songs and shouts of adoration before the Lord.

By that time they felt utterly unable to perform their mission, and they had to return to Saul empty-handed.

After the same thing had happened to two other teams of soldiers whom Saul sent up to Samuel's group, Saul finally resolved to carry out his mission himself. Until then he had hung back, hoping to avoid confrontation with Samuel, with whom he had had a complete falling out after the episode at Gilgal (1 Sam. 15:17-35), where Samuel had announced that Saul had been rejected by God from the kingship. Saul did not relish the prospect of facing that fearsome prophet again, but he felt there was no alternative.

Also, Saul was subject to manic depression and given to extreme changes of mood (cf. 1

Sam. 16:14-23; 18:10-11; 19:9). As he came near the praise service over which Samuel was presiding, Saul found himself coming under the spell of the excitement of the occasion; and he could not control himself. He too began to sing, shout, and dance along with the prophets themselves. (Somewhat similar cases have been reported at camp meetings during the Great Awakening in America in 1740 under George Whitefield and in 1800 at the revival meetings held in Kentucky.) Such an overpowering sense of the presence, power, and glory of God came over this wicked king that he recalled his earlier revival experience near Bethel (1 Sam. 10:5-6, 10), when he had first been called to the throne; an he succumbed to the same excitement again.

Unlike the other worshipers, Saul became so carried away with his enthusiasm that he stripped off his clothes as he shouted and danced, and he finally collapsed exhausted on the ground and lay there in a stupor or trance the rest of the day and all through the night (1 Sam. 19:24). Undoubtedly this humiliation came on him as a divine judgment because in his heart he was radically opposed to the will of God, insofar as it went counter to his own ambition.

What took place in 1 Samuel 28:8-16? Did Samuel really appear to Saul? Did Saul
actually talk with him in the witch's cave?

179

There is little doubt that satanic powers are able to produce illusionary images and communicate with the living by this means. Such "lying wonders" (2 Thess. 2:9) are part of the Devil's stock in trade. On the other hand, it certainly lies within God's power as well to present an appearance for the purpose of conveying His message by a special revelation.

The oracle delivered by this shade or apparition sounded like an authentic message from God, with its announcement of doom on the guilty, unfaithful king. It even sounded like something Samuel himself would have said, had he remained alive after the massacre of Ahimelech and the priests of Nob (1 Sam. 22:11-19). Therefore it is entirely possible that this apparition was the actual shade of Samuel himself, when he asked, "Why has thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" Apparently Samuel had been directed by God to leave his abode in Sheol or Hades (where even the saved believers awaited the future resurrection of Christ, which would bring about their transferal to heaven itself) in order to deliver this final message to King Saul. Conceivably the deceased Samuel could have communicated long distance through an apparition in the cave of Endor, but the words