The Sons of Rizpah: Reflections on a Mother’s Love

Then Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it on a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodies by day, or the wild animals by night. (2 Samuel 21:10).

This coming Sunday is Mother’s Day. On that day most churches will be honoring mothers and the contributions they have made to the lives of their children. As part of the celebration, ministers will be talking about biblical mothers. Generally, sermons about biblical mothers use Hannah, Elizabeth, Mary, and a few other notable women as examples of mothers who love their children and set a positive role model for mothers today.

One mother who probably will never be remembered on Mother’s Day is Rizpah. Ask yourself this question: how many sermons about Rizpah have you heard preached from the pulpit? Probably, you have never heard or you have never preached a sermon about the extreme demonstration of love Rizpah displayed on behalf of her sons. Today, I want to honor Rizpah and her love for her children. Here is her story:

During the days of king David there was a severe famine over all the land that lasted three years. The time of the famine is unknown and except for the reference in 2 Samuel 21:1-10, there is no other reference to this famine in the Bible. Not knowing the reason for the famine, David went to inquire of the Lord in order to ascertain the cause of the famine and the reason the Lord was punishing Israel.

The Lord answered David’s prayer and he was told that Saul and his house were guilty of the massacre he had inflicted upon the Gibeonites. Nothing is known about this event and what caused Saul to shed Gibeonite blood. The Gibeonites were part of the original inhabitants of the land. With their tricks, they deceived Joshua and the people of Israel. Their deception led Joshua and Israel to make a covenant with them.

According to 2 Samuel 21:2, Saul, because of his zeal for the honor of Israel and Judah, tried to destroy the Gibeonites. Saul persecuted the Gibeonites and planned to exterminate them so that they would be completely removed from all the territory of Israel (2 Samuel 21:5). It is possible that the Gibeonites had done something wrong and Saul had used the occasion to exterminate them from Israel.

Because of the revelation from God that Saul’s bloodshed caused the famine, David called the Gibeonites together to decide how to repair the wrong done to them. David said to the Gibeonites: “What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement, that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord?” (v. 3).

The Gibeonites refused to take any money from Saul or from his family. They also recognized that they were not allowed to kill anyone in Israel. When David asked again what he could to make amends for the crime committed against them, the Gibeonites answered:

The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us, so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel, let seven of his sons be handed over to us, and we will impale them before the Lord at Gibeon on the mountain of the LORD” (2 Samuel 21:5-6).

To save Israel from the famine, David agreed to their request. In making his selection, David spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, because of the promise he had made to Jonathan. In order to select the seven descendants of Saul, David selected Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, Saul’s concubine. David also selected the five sons of Merab, Saul’s daughter and the wife of Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

The Gibeonites took the seven descendants of Saul and impaled them on the mountain before the Lord. The seven were impaled at the beginning of the barley harvest.

There, at the foot of the cross, “Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it on a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodies by day, or the wild animals by night” (2 Samuel 21:10).

The sackcloth was a type of clothing worn when mourning for the dead. Out of love for her dead sons, Rizpah kept a watch over her dead sons “from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens” (2 Samuel 21:10), that is, from March until October.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says that when a person was impaled (or crucified), the body should be removed at the end of the day: “When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree.” The sons of Rizpah remained on the stake more than six months and Rizpah stayed with her sons until it rained.

The reason the bodies were left on the cross was because they were making atonement f Saul’s sin and they had to remain there until the end of the drought. The coming of the rain was a sign that God’s judgement had come to an end and that the sins of the nation had been forgiven.

Day and night, week after week, Rizpah kept a dreary watch over her dead sons, scaring away scavenger birds from feeding on their bodies during the day and not allowing wild animals to eat their bodies at night.

This demonstration of maternal affection is very moving. Her action is the action of a loving mother moved by grief, deeply affected by the agony her sons suffered on that cruel cross. Her attempt at protecting the integrity of the exposed bodies of her sons reveals the fire of love which burned intensively in Rizpah’s heart.

The tragedy and the agony of Rizpah has been captured in the poem by Felicia Hemans:

The Vigil of Rizpah

Who watches on the mountain with the dead,
Alone before the awfulness of night?
A seer awaiting the deep spirit’s might?
A warrior guarding some dark pass of dread ?

No, a lorn woman! –On her drooping head,
Once proudly graceful, heavy beats the rain;
She reeks not–living for the unburied slain,
Only to scare the vulture from their bed.

So, night by night, her vigil hath she kept
With the pale stars, and with the dews hath wept.
Oh! surely some bright Presence from above
On those wild rocks the lonely one must aid!
Even so; a strengthener through all storm and shade,
The unconquerable Angel: mightiest Love!

May the memory of this loving mother be a blessing to all!


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Gibeonites, Love, Mother, Rizpah

David and Goliath as Metaphors

The Wikipedia defines a metaphor as follows:

Metaphor (from the Greek: metapherin) is language that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects. In the simplest case, this takes the form: "The [first subject] is a [second subject]." More generally, a metaphor is a rhetorical trope that describes a first subject as being or equal to a second subject in some way.

Then, the same article describes a mixed metaphor as follows:

A mixed metaphor is one that leaps from one identification to a second identification that is inconsistent with the first one. Example: "He stepped up to the plate and grabbed the bull by the horns," where two commonly used metaphoric grounds for highlighting the concept of "taking action" are confused to create a nonsensical image.

Some times people use the language of the Old Testament in speeches to illustrate what they are trying to communicate to a group of people. Once in a while, people use the language of the Old Testament in a way that creates mixed metaphors. Take for example, the case of Mayor Dennis Donohue of Salinas, California, a city in which I lived for three years. Speaking to a group of people at their annual faith community luncheon, the Mayor told those attending the luncheon “that he sees the city as David from the Old Testament, up against the Goliath of gangs and other challenges.”

I think this is a good example of a mixed metaphor. David and Goliath are people while the city is a political entity and gangs are a group of individuals. I am quite sure the Mayor’s illustration described to his audience the great challenge the city is facing, however, in my view, he used two items that are equals (two individuals) to illustrate two items that are not equal (a city and a group of people).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Goliath, Metaphors

Can Archaeology Prove Mythology?

Archaeologists have discovered an ancient Roman cave that has led many people to believe that the cave is the shrine of the Lupercale, the sacred place where according to Roman mythology, Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were suckled by a wolf.

The picture above shows the underground grotto believed to be the sacred place where the wolf nursed Romulus and his twin brother Remus.

The discovery has generated heated debate among archaeologists. According to the news report published in USA Today,

Archaeologist Andrea Carandini of Rome's La Sapienza University calls the finding “one of the greatest discoveries ever made” and says the chances are “minimal” that the cave is not the site revered by the Romans as the Lupercale. Carandini and others point to discoveries such as the cave and earlier findings of ancient structures as evidence that myths about the city's founding reflect history, and say that the founder of Rome may actually have been named Romulus.

On the other hand, T.P. Wiseman, of the University of Exeter in England, said that “Archaeology by its nature can’t provide such evidence.” In addition, Christopher Smith, a historian at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland said that “even if artifacts clearly reference the Romulus and Remus story, all they will show is that the cavern is a place where first-century Romans celebrated the legend — not that the story is real.”

So, the question is: can archaeology prove mythology? The answer is “no.” However, if the myth is based on history, then archaeology can demonstrate the historical foundation for the myth. Take for instance, a book edited by Raymond-Jean Frontain, The David Myth in Western Literature (West Lafayette: Purdue Research Foundation, 1980), a book in which David is presented as a mythical figure in Jewish literature. For many scholars, the biblical David was a figure of legend because his name did not appear anywhere outside the Bible.

Then, in 1993 archaeologists excavating at Tel Dan discovered “The House of David Stela,” A monument erected by an Aramean king which contains the reading “house of David.” In addition, some epigraphers have proposed that the phrase “house of David” also appears in the Mesha Stele.

Archaeology cannot prove mythology and it cannot prove the theological claims of the Bible. Although archaeology cannot yet demonstrate that David and Solomon ruled over a large empire, archaeology has shown that “the mythical David” was not a myth. To the contrary, the Tel Dan Stela reveals that David existed and that his descendants were known as “The House of David.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, David, Lupercale, Mythology, Tel Dan

The Wisdom of Old Age

James Ball Naylor (1860-1945) was a physician and also a prolific writer of early Ohio history. He wrote poetry and historical novels, with a focus on the struggles between frontier settlers and Indian tribes in the Ohio territory. Recently, I found one of his quotes that speaks about the wisdom of old age:

King David and King Solomon
Led merry, merry lives,
With many, many lady friends
And many, many wives;
But when old age crept over them,
With many, many qualms,
King Solomon wrote Proverbs
And King David wrote the Psalms

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Proverbs, Psalms, Solomon

The Lost Kings of the Bible: A Review

On Sunday, May 6, 2007, The National Geographic Channel will present the “Lost Kings of the Bible.” This program is a study of the reign of David and Solomon and a discussion of recent archaeological discoveries that have a bearing on the historical events described in the biblical text.

The blurb describing the program summarizes the content of the program: “Are two of the most famous kings of the Bible - King David and King Solomon - mythical heroes or made of flesh and blood?” The program will explore what the National Geographic Channel calls “groundbreaking new evidence that may provide answers to these questions.”

The purpose of this post is to review some of the issues that will be raised by the program and addressed by some of the archaeologists that were interviewed in the program. The issues discussed in this post are in the forefront of the debate raging in scholarly circles on the historicity of David and his monarchy.

The question that has been raised by biblical scholars and archaeologists concerns the historical reliability of the biblical texts. In recent years, archaeologists have claimed that the patterns of settlement in the land of the Bible have cast doubts about whether there was a united monarchy during the days of David and Solomon.

The traditional view says that after the death of Saul, David became the king of Judah first and then of Israel. David became the king of a united Israel. David’s kingdom grew and became a small empire. With the conquest of neighboring nations, David’s kingdom covered a territory that extended from the borders of Egypt all the way to the Euphrates.

However, this view has been challenged by archaeologists. In their book, The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman (p. 131) say that there is no archaeological evidence for David’s conquests or for his empire. Their conclusion was that archaeologists misdated the evidence for David and Solomon by a century (p. 142).

Some biblical scholars are skeptical about the historicity of the Davidic monarchy. In his review of Storia d’Israele: Introduzione alla storia d’Israele e Giuda dalle origini alla rivolta di Bar Kochbà by Alberto J. Soggin, Jim West wrote:

One overarching question that needs further address (not only by Soggin but by most historians of ancient Israel) is, How can so much be said about so many when historical sources are so few (and almost fairly said, nonexistent)? How can Soggin really say what he says about the Davidic monarchy when there is no historical source for it?

After discussing the problem of history vs. historiography, Jim concludes:

In short, what Soggin brilliantly offers us here is theology in the makeup of history. If the makeup is scrubbed off and the pristine skin of theology laid bare for what it is, we have a simple retelling of the story of the Bible. Or perhaps an archaeological example will be better. If the patina of theology is scrapped [sic] off the underlying historical events, the one who scrapes will soon discover that the patina is so thick that the actual artifact is forever encased and hence lost unless the patina is thoroughly shattered, which would sadly also shatter the membrane-thin artifact beneath. What Soggin (and virtually all other historians of ancient Israel) offers us is more patina on the existing patina of historicism. If this is not the case, I have a simple solution: let two or three witnesses (aside from the biblical text) be called and testify to what they have seen and heard or else admit the hearsay nature of the evidence and dismiss the case called Historical Ancient Israel as unfounded.

There are three witnesses (aside from the biblical text) that mention the house of David: the Tel Dan Stela, the Mesha Stela, and the Karnak Inscription.

The Tel Dan Stela. The discovery and publication of the fragments of the Tel Dan inscription revealed for the first time the existence of “the house of David.” This reference to David in the Tel Dan Stela is the first time that the name of David appears in a non-biblical material. Although a few scholars have made an attempt at translating byt-dwd as the “Temple of Dod,” this translation has been almost universally rejected. Dod as the name of a god does not appear in any ancient literature.

The Tel Dan mentions a king of Israel and a king from the House of David. Although the fragments are broken, the names have been identified with Jehoram, son of Ahab and king of Israel, and Ahaziah, a king from the house of David.

The Mesha Stela. The second reference to the House of David appears in the stela of Mesha, king of Moab. Mesha ruled in the 9th century B.C. Mesha had been paying tribute to Israel since the days of Omri but after the death of Ahab, Omri’s son, he rebelled and reconquered several cities that were under Israelite control, including the city of Horonen, which was under the control of the house of David.

The Karnak Inscription. The third reference to the house of David may be found in the Karnak inscription in Thebes. The inscription celebrates Shishak’s victory against the Asiatics.
Shishak, also known as Shoshenq I, was a Libyan and the founder of the Twenty-Second Dynasty of Egypt. Shishak invaded Canaan in the fifth year of Rehoboam, son of Solomon and king of Judah. The information about his presence in Canaan is found in 1 Kings 14:25-26 and in 2 Chronicles 12:2-9. According to the biblical text, Shishak took as tribute the wealth of the temple and the treasures of the royal palace. The inscription lists the places in Israel and Judah that Shishak said he conquered. Among the names listed there is a list of places located in “the heights of David.”

In addition to this possible evidence for the name of David, other recent archaeological discoveries are shedding light on the tenth century and events associated with the life of David. For instance, I have written about the discovery of David’s palace by Eilat Mazar and about Aren Maeir’s discovery of a broken piece of pottery containing an inscription in early Semitic style spelling with the name of Goliath.

More and more archeologists are discovering evidence that David was a real person. The discovery of inscriptions bearing the title “the house of David” tends to substantiate that David was a real person. Now, there is no reason to deny the historicity of David and his house.

As for the reality of a monarchy, the recent findings may not be enough yet to prove that there was a government in Jerusalem during David’s reign. Was David the leader of an Iron Age chiefdom? Is the concept of a united monarchy the legacy of the post-exilic community?

As Finkelstein and Silberman wrote:

There is hardly a reason to doubt the historicity of David and Solomon. Yet there are plenty of reasons to question the extent and splendor of their realm. If there was no big empire, if there were no monuments, if there was no magnificent capital, what was the nature of David’s realm?

I do not believe that the “Lost Kings of the Bible” will answer this question. Until a few years ago, some people were willing to say that David and Solomon never existed and that they were invented to promote a utopian view of a united Israel.

Today we can say with certainty that there was a “house of David” and that someone was called “Goliath.” Today we can say that Omri, Ahab, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoash, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea, kings of Israel, are mentioned in extra-biblical documents. We can also say with certainty that David, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, kings of Judah, are also mentioned in extra-biblical documents.

What else is buried in the remains of old cities? What kinds of written material are buried that have not yet been discovered? We do not know what else will be discovered a few years from now or in the next decade. But one thing is sure: little by little we are learning that the lost kings of the Bible are being found, one at the time.

References:

Biran, Avraham. “‘David’ Found at Dan.” Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 1994): 26-39.

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil A. Silberman. The Bible Unearthed. New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Kitchen, K. A. “A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and the Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76 (1997): 29-44.

Lemaire, Andre. “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription.” Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1994): 30-37.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Karnak Inscription, Lost Kings of the Bible, Mesha Stela, Solomon, Tel Dan Stela

Lost Kings of the Bible

The National Geographical Channel will present “Lost Kings of the Bible” on Sunday, May 6, 2007, at 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, 9:00 p.m. Central. The program deals with the reign of King David and whether or not David was a real person.

The following is a short description of the content of “Lost Kings of the Bible” provided by the
National Geographical Channel:

Are two of the most famous kings of the Bible - King David and King Solomon - mythical heroes or made of flesh and blood? Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all chronicled the fantastic lives of these kings but skeptics have historically dismissed the stories for their lack of proof. Now, in Lost Kings of the Bible, the National Geographic Channel explores the groundbreaking new evidence that may provide answers to these questions.

The new evidence mentioned above is the Tel Dan Inscription. Scholars agree that the Tel Dan Inscription mentions “the house of David” and gives evidence to the historicity of David. This is a program worth watching.

To watch a brief video of “Lost Kings of the Bible,” click here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

UPDATE: Jim West has a post about the “Lost Kings of the Bible.” In his post he has comments from Eric H. Cline and Aren Maeir who are participants in the program. Both of them agree that the program is balanced and gives a fair presentation of the scholarly debate about David and Solomon. I specially recommend that you read Cline’s comment.

UPDATE II: I have written a post reviewing the issues discussed in the program. Read "The Lost Kings of the Bible: A Review."

Tags: Archaeology, David, Solomon, Tel Dan Inscription

A Royal Priesthood

Several days ago, I wrote two posts dealing with the idea of priesthood in the Old Testament. The first post “Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek,” dealt with the priesthood of David and the fact that he inherited the religious traditions of Jerusalem and became a priest in the same way Melchizedek served as priest and king of the old Jebusite city.

That article also dealt with the priesthood of Jesus. Jesus, a man from the tribe of Judah, became a priest, not because he was a Levite or from the tribe of Levi, but because he was a descendant of David. As such, he was considered eligible to carry on the tradition initiated by David. Thus, Jesus was a priest according the tradition established by Melchizedek and adopted by David.

The second article, “Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘David’s Sons Were Priests,’” dealt with the statement in 2 Samuel 18:8 that the sons of David were priests. Although the writer of Chronicles was not willing to affirm that David’s sons could serve as priests, the article concluded that David’s sons were indeed priests. They did not become priest because they were Levites. David’s sons exercised the priesthood because, as sons of the king of Jerusalem, they followed the same tradition established by Melchizedek and continued by David when he became king of Jerusalem.

Today I want to address the passage in 1 Peter 2:9 and offer a new proposal for the proper understanding of the fact that Christians are called “a royal priesthood.” My proposal is based on my previous discussion in the articles above. I presuppose that you have read those articles; if you have not read them, I suggest that you do so for the proper understanding of the discussion below.

The text in Peter reads: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9 ESV).

The expression “a royal priesthood,” has been interpreted in many different ways. Most commentators understand this expression as describing the dignity of the priestly office that Christians have attained (see 1 Peter 2:5). This expression was taken from Exodus 19:6. In Exodus the entire nation of Israel was to be a kingdom of priests. Thus, for Peter, Christians were set apart to offer spiritual sacrifices to God.

The word “royal” has been understood in different ways: that these priests belong to the king, that they are priests of the kingdom of God, that this title demonstrates the exalted position of believers, or the dignity of their office as priests, or that they belong to God, the king, and for this reason, all of God’s followers are royal.

Peter H. Davids, in his commentary on The First Epistle of Peter (p. 87) wrote:

The term for “priesthood” is found in the NT only here [2:5] and in 2:9. The latter reference shows clearly that Peter sees the church in terms of Israel’s priestly functions, for it alludes to Exod. 19:6. And other NT authors pick up the theme using different words (e.g, Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6)–such language is used elsewhere only of Christ as a priest in Hebrews and of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem.

The expression in 1 Peter 2:9 “a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” is taken from Exodus 19:6:

“You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

All English translations translate the expression ממלכת כהנים as "a kingdom of priests.” The Septuagint (LXX) translates the Hebrew expression as “a royal priesthood” in Exodus 19:6 and in Exodus 23:22, although the extended text of Exodus 23:22 does not appear in any English translation. It is clear that the citation in 1 Peter 2:9 was taken from the Septuagint.

What is lost in all the discussion of 1 Peter 2:9 and in all the commentaries of the text is the most obvious question: how could Gentile Christians become priests of God? Since most believers were not Jews, the possibility of a Levitical priesthood is out of the question. How could non-Levites act as priests of God even when they only offered spiritual sacrifices (as in 1 Peter 2:5)?

The answer seems to be in the way David’s sons served as priests. Since David, a man from Judah, served as a priest following the tradition established by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, David’s sons exercised a “royal priesthood,” a priesthood based on the authority delegated by their father, who was a king.

Jesus, a man from Judah, exercised the priesthood following the tradition established by Melchizedek and continued by his ancestor David. His followers became priests by the authority given to them by their Lord, who was the King of kings.

Both the sons of David and the followers of Christ did not exercise a Levitical priesthood because they were not from the tribe of Levi or from the family of Aaron. They exercised a “royal priesthood,” the type of priesthood established by Melchizedek who was the king and priest of Jerusalem and adopted by David when he became the leader of the Canaanite population who continued to live in Jerusalem after the conquest of the city.

Reference: Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing House, 1990.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: 2 Peter 2:9, David, Melchizedek, Priesthood, Priests

David, History, and Evangelicals: A Response to Chris Heard

My fellow blogger Chris Heard has written a post, "David’s sons and the history of biblical ideas," in which he addresses some of the issues I raised in my post on the priesthood of David’s sons, Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests.” Some of the issues Chris raised deserve some kind of response. It is impossible to provide a detailed response to every one of these issues, but I hope with this response to Chris’ post, to clarify some of my views and address some of Chris’ concerns.

The Historical Issue

Chris wrote: As Claude wrote, the Chronicler apparently found it unacceptable for non-Levites to be priests, but, in Claude’s words, “Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.” Claude apparently means this as a historical point about David, which I judge a tenuous point to make.

There is much debate about the historicity of David and some events related to his kingdom. Those who are familiar with the history of the debate also know that scholars on both sides of the issue cannot come to a definite conclusion.

Notwithstanding the unwillingness of scholars and archaeologists to accept the reality that David is mentioned in extra-biblical sources, archaeological discoveries make references to the “house of David,” clearly indicating that David was a historical figure. The name of David appears in the Tell Dan stela, in the Mesha stela, and possibly in the Karnak monument commemorating Shishak’s conquest of cities in Canaan.

If David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it his city, and even if Jerusalem was a small city, it is possible that he would become king or leader of the Jebusite city and assume some of the duties associated with the religious life of the city. I have no problem in accepting the historical reality of “the house of David.

"From “Priests" to "First Ministers"

Chris wrote: we are basically presented with the dilemma that either the author of the smallest original unit containing 2 Sam 8:18, as well as (presumably) the tradents who preserved that unit through to canonical expression, either (a) did not know anything about the Priestly Torah’s insistence that only Levites may be priests, or (b) were not bothered enough by David’s flouting of these commandments to rewrite the text or to insert an editorial comment on the impropriety, or (c) they themselves were not happy with this situation but thought it represented historical reality, and they were historically sensitive enough to realize that times change.

Chris’ statement may reflect a lack of understanding of the theology behind the Deuteronomistic history (even though I doubt it). The books of 1 and 2 Samuel are part of what is known as the Deuteronomistic history and were probably the work of the people involved in Josiah’s reform c. 622 B.C.

In their book The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman wrote (p. 14) that “archeology has provided enough evidence to support a new contention that the historical core of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History was substantially shaped in the seventh century B.C.E.”

Finkelstein and Silberman also wrote (p. 14): “And we shall side with the scholars who argue that the Deuteronomistic History was compiled, in the main, in the time of King Josiah, aiming to provide an ideological validation for particular political ambition and religious reforms.”

The book of Deuteronomy, which is the initial chapter of the Deuteronomistic History, makes a clear distinction between the Levitical Priests and the Levites. The writers of the Deuteronomic History were well aware that there were priests who were not Levites. In fact, at the instigation of the reformers, Josiah “deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places of Judah and round about Jerusalem” (2 Kings 23:5).

So, the historian knew about priests who were not Levites. It is the Deuteronomist who insisted that all priests be Levitical priests. Chris’ statement, that the writers of 2 Samuel 8:18 “did not know anything about the Priestly Torah’s insistence that only Levites may be priests” is incorrect because it was the writer or writers of 2 Samuel 8:18 and the whole Deuteronomistic history who insisted that all priests must be Levitical Priests.

The tradition initiated in the seventh century continued in the post-exilic period and the Chronicler was very adamant that only descendants from the tribe of Levi could become priests. In saying this, I am avoiding the controversy between the Zadokites and the Aaronites, an issue that, I believe, is very evident in the book of Chronicles.

The Dictation Theory

Chris wrote: Many on the conservative/evangelical end of Christendom apply to the Bible a Qur’anic model of inspiration, resulting in the idea that God basically wrote the Bible by means of dictation to human secretaries.

I am surprised that Chris could make such a statement. His statement that evangelicals believe in the dictation theory is mind-boggling. The statement shows that Chris may not have a clear understanding of the evangelical movement. The fact is that only a minority of fundamentalist Christians would accept dictation theory. Many conservatives and evangelicals are not fundamentalists and they reject the dictation theory.

I hope he is not including me among those who believe in the dictation theory. If Chris has been reading some of my posts, he should know by now that I reject any view that can be classified as dictation theory. I believe in the inspiration of Scriptures but I reject any aspect of the dictation theory.

Chris’ Conclusions

At the end of his post, Chris wrote: By implication, it seems that the restriction of the priesthood to the Levites did not occur in some pre-monarchical wilderness experience, real or imagined, but sometime relatively late in the monarchy or after it. The whole thing has implications for the authorship and provenance of the Torah and of the book of Samuel.

First, I never said that “the restriction of the priesthood to the Levites occurred in some pre-monarchical wilderness experience.” To the contrary, I inferred in my post that the restriction was the work of the Chronicler. What I did not say in the post was that I believe the restriction originated at the time of Josiah’s reform.

Second, I never implied in my post that the Torah was the work of Moses or that the book of Samuel was written by Samuel himself or even written in the early monarchy. Maybe if I had given more detailed information in my post, Chris would have had a better understanding of my own position.

Now, let me clarify what I tried to convey in my post. First, I believe that David and his sons exercised some form of priestly duties by virtue of having conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites. Yes, I believe in a historical David and I believe that there was a “house of David.”

Second, I believe that with the Deuteronomic reform the cultus was centralized in Jerusalem and that all non-Levitical priests were removed from official duty and that in the seventh century, restrictions were established on who could serve as priests.

Third, in the post-exilic period, the Chronicler made an attempt at eliminating the reference that David’s sons served as priests in Jerusalem because during his days only Levites could serve as priests.

I hope these clarifications will give Chris a better understanding on where I stand on these issues.

Reference: Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Deuteronomic History, Evangelicals, Priests

Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests”

Last week, in my post on “Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek,” I wrote that after David conquered Jerusalem and made the city the capital of his government, he “incorporated the original inhabitants of Jerusalem into the population of Israel and became their king.”

I also wrote that David became a priest of the people who lived in Jerusalem, “not because he was a Levite, but because he continued the tradition established by Melchizedek.” Then I concluded: “Melchizedek now becomes a type of the Davidic king. The descendants of David will be kings and they will be priests; this is clearly expressed in 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘and David’s sons were priests.’”

The statement in 2 Samuel 8:18 that “David’s sons were priests” is very controversial and even the translations disagree on how to translate the word kohanim (“priests”) in this section of the verse.

The following translations translate the word kohanim in 2 Samuel 8:18 as “priests”:

The Bible in Basic English (BBE), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Bible (NAB), the New English Translation (NET), the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Jewish Publication Society (TNK), the New English Bible (NEB), and the Today’s New International Version (TNIV).

Other translations are not willing to accept that David’s sons were priests. Instead, they reinterpret the word and say that David’s sons were his advisors. These are the ways the word kohanim is translated:

“Chief ministers”: the American Standard Version (ASV), the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New King James Version (NKJV).

“Chief officials”: the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).

“Chief rulers”: the King James Version (KJV), the Revised Webster Bible (RWB), and the Geneva Bible (GNV).

“Princes”: the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB).

“Royal advisers”: the New International Version ( NIV).

“Priestly leaders”: the New Living Translation ( NLT).

“Princes of the court”: the Septuagint ( LXX).

In defense of the translations of kohanim as “chief rulers” or “royal advisors,” some commentators acknowledge that the word “kohen” means “priest,” but that in early Israel the word was also used to designate a royal minister or a person who advised the king.

Keil (p. 369), in order to justify translating the word kohanim as “confidants,” cites 1 Kings 4:5, where Zabud, Nathan’s son, is a kohen (“priest”) and “the king’s friend,” that is, the king’s confidential advisor..

Most of the translations that say that David’s sons were advisors base their translations on the interpretation offered by the Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 18:17 where David’s sons are called “the chief officials in the service of the king.” This description of the office occupied by David’s sons reflects the post-exilic perspective of the Chronicler, where only Levites could serve as priests. Thus, the designation of David’s sons as priests was unacceptable to the Chronicler.

Many English translations follow the Chronicler’s unwillingness to acknowledge that individuals who were not Levites could become priests. Since the Chronicler does not use the word “priests” but calls the sons of David “chief officials at the king’s side” (NIV), many English translations follow the reading of the Chronicler.

But, as P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (p. 255) concluded:

“Almost all critics, therefore, have agreed that the readings of I Chron 18:17 and the versions in II Sam 8:18 are interpretive paraphrases of the reading of MT by scribes who considered it impossible that there should be non-Levitical priests.”

In conclusion, it is better to translate the word kohanim as “priests” rather than “royal advisors.” Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.

References:

C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary of the Books of Samuel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Priests, Translations

Non-Aaronite Priesthood

Darrell Pursiful has written a post “Melchizedekian (and Other) Priesthood” in response to my post on Jesus and Melchizedek. In his post, Darrell introduces several ideas worthy of consideration. In this post, I would like to join Darrell in his discussion of non-Aaronite priesthood and pursue some of his suggestions.

In his post, Darrell wrote: “There are, in fact, several hints in the Bible about a non-Aaronic priesthood associated with the tribe of Judah in general and the Davidic line in particular.” As an example of a non-Aaronite priesthood, he mentions the Levite in Judges 17:7. He wrote:

In Judges 17:7, there is mention of a Judahite who was also a Levite: “Now there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah, of the clan of Judah. He was a Levite residing there.”

The key factor in this verse is the expression “residing there.” These words mean that the Levite was a ger, a resident alien who was living in Judah. Thus, the text may be understood in two different ways:

First, since Levites did not possess land of their own, they would live within the territory of other tribes as resident aliens (gerim). For this reason, the Levite mentioned in Judges 17:7 may not have been a man from the tribe of Judah, but a man from the tribe of Levi who was living in Judah.

Second, it is possible that a Levite was a person who dedicated himself to the service of Yahweh irrespective of tribe affiliation. Thus, a Levite could be from the tribe of Judah, as Judges 17:7 indicates. Samuel functioned as a priest and later is called a Levite even though his family are said to be Ephraimites (1 Samuel 1:1).

Since Micah, a man from Ephraim, appointed his son to be a priest of his idol (Judges 17:5), it is very possible that one did not have to be a Levite to be a priest. These references to Levites may indicate that in pre-monarchic Israel, the Levites and the tribe of Levi were two different groups.

Another point Darrell raises in his post is the issue of David’s priesthood. Darrell quotes 2 Samuel 6:17, a text which declares that “David offered burnt offerings and offerings of well-being before the Lord.” The evidence that David acted as a priest is found in the next verse, 2 Samuel 6:18: “When David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the offerings of well-being, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts.” In Israel, one of the functions of the priests was to bless the people (Numbers 6:22-27).

Solomon also acted as a priest. During the dedication of the temple, Solomon prayed before the altar of the Lord (1 Kings 8:54), blessed the people (v. 55) and offered peace offerings before the Lord (v. 63). In the post-exilic period, at the time when only priests could offer sacrifices before the Lord, Solomon’s altar becomes a platform (2 Chronicles 6:13) and the mention of the peace offerings is removed from 2 Chronicles 7:5.

On the significance of the omission of the words that said that Solomon “sacrificed peace offerings to the Lord” in 2 Chronicles 7:5, Gray (232, note a) wrote:

“This phrase of MT is omitted from the parallel version in II Chron. 7:5 in accordance with the view of the late priestly writer that sacrifice was the monopoly of the priests.”

So far Darrell and I agree. There were priests in Israel who were not descendants of Aaron. Levites from different tribes exercised the duties of the priesthood. In addition, before the Josianic reforms, other people could offer sacrifice, and Elijah is a good example (1 Kings 18:30-38).

Darrell and I differ on two small points: I do not think there is evidence of numerous examples of intermarriage between the descendants of David and the descendants of Aaron. It is true that the case of Joseph and Mary in the New Testament could be cited as an example, but off hand, I do not remember many examples in the Old Testament.

Second, I do not believe the Rechabites were priests. The Rechabites were the descendants of Jehonadab, the son of Rechab (2 Kings 10:15-17). The Rechabites had made a commitment to keep the desert way of life because they believed that was the best way to worship the God of Israel. Although their practices were similar to the Nazarites, the Rechabites lived nomadic lives that were characterized by the rejection of sedentary life. Jeremiah used the Rechabites as an example of a people dedicated to the Lord.

As for Zechariah 6:13, that is a problematic text that deserves a post all of its own. I may return to the issues raised by Zechariah 6:13 at a later time.

I want to thank Darrell for his very stimulating post.

Reference:

John Gray, I & II Kings. Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Aaron, David, Levites, Priesthood, Rechabite