Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Thoughts on Israel’s Request for a King in 1 Samuel 8

by

  • It’s important to note that the existence of an Israelite king was not a problem.
    • It was part of God’s covenant promise to Abraham: Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11.
    • This promise was elaborated in Jacob’s blessing of Judah: Gen 49:10
    • It was prophesied: Num 24:7, 17
    • It was provided for in the Mosaic covenant: Dt 17:14-20
    • The book of Judges closed by noting that Israel needed a king: Jdgs 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25
    • Hannah sang of the coming king: 1 Sam. 2:10
  • Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides the divine legislation for Israel’s institution of a king:
    • They may establish a king when they have conquered and are dwelling in the land.
    • At this point they will say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me.”  This could be read in a neutral sense: “like all the nations that are around me [have].” Or it could mean, “[so that may be] like all the nations that are around me.” See Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, 417.
    • Yhwh permits a king, but he immediately sets up requirements of the king to foreclose the second possibility: having a king so that they will be like all the nations around them.
    • Requirements of selection:
      • Must be chosen by Yhwh
      • Must be Israelite (“from among your brothers”)
      • Must be male (“from among your brothers”)
    • Prohibitions:
      • Must not acquire many horses, especially not from Egypt.
      • Must not acquire many wives.
      • Must not acquire excessive silver and gold.
    • Duties
      • Write for himself a copy of this Law under the oversight of the Levitical priests
      • Keep that book of the Law with him
      • Read the Law all the days of his life so that he learns to fear Yhwh his God
      • Keep the Law
      • Not have his heart lifted up above his brothers.
  • Evaluation of Israel’s demand for a king
    • The people saw a real failure in Samuel’s sons when he tried to set up a dynasty of judges.
    • The elders used the language of Deuteronomy in their request for a king: “Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.” The question is whether they are using it in a neutral sense or to mean that they want to be like the nations.
    • Yhwh interprets the request: they are rejecting him as king in their request for a king. This means that the king they are asking for is not a Dt 17 kind of king, since that king ruled in submission to God’s law. Verse 7.
    • Yhwh interprets this in line with their rebellion since they came up from Egypt. Verse 8.
    • Samuel is to do what they ask, but he is to warn solemnly warn them about the “justice” of the king who will rule over them. Verse 9.
    • Verses 11-17 describe this king’s conception of justice:
      • Take sons and daughters to serve him in the court, military, fields, and household.
      • Take the best of the fields, vineyards, and orchards to himself.
      • Take male and female servants
      • Take livestock and flocks
      • They will become his slaves
      • When they cry out against this “justice” Yhwh won’t hear them.
    • Conclusion: this does not mean that kingship itself would be characterized by these kinds of things or that kingship itself is bad. What is bad are kings who do not rule in submission to God.
  • Further evidence that the people were looking for a king that would enable them to continue to live like the nations:
    • They insist they will have this king even after they are warned. Verse 19.
    • They specifically want the king to fight their battles. But we know from Judges that they are needing to fight these battles because they are living like the Canaanites and God is bringing enemies against them. Their request for a king is thus a request to be able to continue in their sin while mitigating the consequences.
    • This is reinforced in 10:17-19 where Samuel recalls how Yhwh has had repeatedly delivered them. But they have rejected God and wanted a king to displace God for that role.
    • After Saul is chosen by Yhwh, Samuel told the people of God’s expectations for just rule by the king. 10:25.
    • In his farewell address, Samuel attests to Yhwh’s continued deliverance of Israel when they repented of the sins that led them to come under attack (12:6-11). Thus their request for a king to fight their battles was a rejection of God (12:12). God have them a king of the kind they requested. (12:13). But both they and the king still have a chance to fear, serve, and obey God (12:14). If they don’t they will continue to fall under the curses of Mosaic covenant (12:15).
    • Samuel identifies their request for Saul to have been evil. (But this does not mean that the request for a God-fearing king from God-fearing motives would have been evil.) His solution is not to get rid of the king but to fear and to serve Yhwh wholeheartedly.

Translation Note on 1 Samuel 8:9

by

I recently read Jerry Hwang’s article, “Yahweh’s Poetic Mishpat in Israel’s Kingship: A Reassessment of 1 Samuel 8-12,” Westminster Theological Journal 73, no. 2 (Winter 2011): 341-61.

Hwang has some helpful individual exegetical comments, while other exegetical claims seem unlikely. I think if he argued that Saul was given to Israel as judgment because they were rejecting God as king, he would have a good case. However, he wanted too much to maintain a dialectic between so-called pro-monarchical passages and anti-monarchical passages, which led him to be too negative toward kingship as a whole (even while granting that God would use it for a redemptive purpose).

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article was his treatment of 1 Samuel 8:9. The NASB adjusted for Hwang’s interpretation would read:

1 Samuel 8:7–9—The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. “Now then, listen to their voice; surely, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the judgment of the king who will reign over them.”

Here are other translations:

AV 1873Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

NKJVNow therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”

ESVNow then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

NIVNow listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

NASB95“Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

LSB“So now, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly testify to them and tell them of the custom of the king who will reign over them.”

HCSBListen to them, but you must solemnly warn them and tell them about the rights of the king who will rule over them.”

CSBListen to them, but solemnly warn them and tell them about the customary rights of the king who will reign over them.”

Steinmann: Now listen to them. Yet be sure to warn them and tell them the rights of the king who will reign over them.”

Hoffner: Now then, obey their voice; but make sure to give them solemn warning and inform them of the prerogatives of the king who will reign over them.”

Firth: But now, listen to their voice. However, you shall surely testify against them, and declare to them the ‘justice‘ of the king who will reign over them.”

I think Hwang may be correct that אַ֗ךְ should be translated “surely” and that what follows is a statement of judgment. However, I don’t think that translating מִשְׁפַּ֣ט as judgment works because it won’t work in the parallel in 1 Samuel 10:25.

I prefer Firth’s translation. In 1 Sam 8:9, 11 Samuel was warning Israel about the kind of “justice” they would receive from the kind of king they were asking for (not a king under Yhwh, but a king in place of Yhwh).

The wording of 1 Sam 10:25 intentionally links back to 8:9. There Israel was warned about the way the kind of king they were asking for would think of “justice.” Here Samuel set out before the people Yhwh’s conception of justice that the king should adhere to. Since the idea of a king is not the problem, the people (and Saul) could still change course and fear and submit to God with a king. This is what Samuel in chapter 10 and 12 (see esp. vv. 14-15, 20-25) is seeking to encourage the people to do.

Tom Hicks and Garrett Walden on Doug Wilson’s View of Justification

by

A couple weeks ago I commended Kevin DeYoung’s critique of Doug Wilson’s sinful and worldly speech (a post I later updated with some thoughts on Joe Rigney’s response). I had one reservation about DeYoung’s article which I did not mention in the post. DeYoung concludes:

“One can only conclude that he prefers to write in a different way. Wilson could keep all the good stuff on classical Christian education, all the helpful material on family formation, all the countercultural advice on being old school men and women. He could explain the Bible. He could highlight heroes from church history. He could blog about the Great Books…. He could use the eighth decade of his life to devote his considerable writing talents to persuading unbelievers to consider Christianity, to passing on the Reformed faith, and to offering a deep, penetrating cultural analysis. I believe he could do all this if he wanted to.”

I commented to a friend about this paragraph:

I think this underplays two things: (1) Wilson’s bad doctrine seeps through into these other areas of writing. Not that he never says anything helpful. But having appropriately bracketed doctrinal concerns about Wilson, I don’t think DeYoung can suggest that a simple change in tone will fix Wilson’s problems. (2) The more I read Wilson the more I realized that he’s a popularizer who was out over his skis on too many issues.

DeYoung mentioned several doctrinal areas that he was going to bracket in his article: “I won’t be touching on Federal Vision, or paedocommunion, or his views on the antebellum South, or his arguments for Christian Nationalism, or his particular brand of postmillennialism.”

Tom Hicks and Garrett Walden have now addressed the first of these, Wilson’s view of Federal Vision. Here is their conclusion:

But the theological issues can’t be so flippantly dismissed because of a commitment to “own the libs.” More is at stake than that. And regardless of how effective his opposition to wokeness is, Wilson isn’t the hero we need to follow into battle. A significant error on the doctrine of justification isn’t merely a distraction.

Whereas some might (mistakenly, in our view) dismiss DeYoung’s critique as BigEva pearl-clutching because of Moscow’s “serrated edge,” our concern is anything but that. It’s not a disagreement about tone, emphasis, or “knowing what time it is.” It’s a fundamental disagreement about the heart of the gospel, about the doctrine Luther called “the article by which the church stands or falls.” For whatever “visceral” appeal “the Moscow mood” might present, we implore you to flee from the very real spiritual danger embedded in “the Moscow doctrine.”

UPDATE 12/12/2023: In response to a question regarding Wilson’s reply to Hicks and Walden:

I read it, and I’m glad that Wilson is affirming what he is affirming in that post. And yet, Wilson won’t repudiate the Federal Vision (though he has explained why he no longer uses the label). I followed the Federal Vision controversy closely while in seminary, reading a fair bit from the FV’s, especially Wilson, as well as the responses. It was that reading then that convinced me that Wilson (1) wasn’t entirely orthodox and/or (2) was out beyond his knowledge base. Because he won’t repudiate his earlier teaching, it’s hard to know what to make of his current professions of orthodoxy. It would really help if he paired his affirmations with denials. This morning I read back through the Hicks and Walden piece. They were interacting with statements that Wilson had made which were either erroneous or made with a misunderstanding of the theological terminology being used. Further, there is a history of him affirming justification by faith alone when challenged—and then also still affirming the statements that are in problematic tension with those affirmations (see, for example, here: Re: Sumpter, White, & Wilson on “Federal Vision Baptists?” – Contrast (wordpress.com)). This is why I’m saying some denials of past errors and/or a track record getting things right going forward is necessary. In other words, I don’t think it accurate to say that the charge made against him was untrue. At best, the charge made against him may no longer be true. I hope that is the case. 

I view Wilson similarly to N. T. Wright. Both have a way with words, and when either of them are fighting on the side of truth, I’m happy for the way they are using their powers of communication. But neither of them are faithful teachers, and I think that faithful shepherds need to warn the flock about them.

“Replenish,” a false friend in KJV Genesis 1:28

by

My friend Mark Ward often points out “false friends” in the KJV—words and phrases in the KJV that contemporary readers are likely to think they understand but in fact misunderstand due to changes in language.

The KJV of Genesis 1:28 begins, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” In contemporary English, “replenish” means to fill again (and, according to the OED, it had this sense in the 1600s as well). But the OED also indicates that at the time the KJV was translated, “replenish” could bear a different meaning: “fill abundantly” (again, see the OED). This is certainly the meaning intended in this context.

Interestingly, the Wycliffe, Coverdale, and Geneva Bibles all use the word “fill” here.

Best Commentaries on Nahum

by

Renz, Thomas. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021.

I found Renz especially insightful regarding the structure of the book and intertextual references, especially within the minor prophets.

Timmer, Daniel C. Nahum. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017.

Timmer was also helpful on the structure of the book. Though his other work, Judah among the Empires, I a obtained a sense of his understanding of the role of the book as a whole, and I found his comments valuable.

Armerding, Carl. “Nahum.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.

Armerding’s observations of the links between Nahum and Isaiah was especially helpful.

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. 1990.

O. Palmer Robertson, as always, was theologically insightful.

Baker, David W. Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

In the brief time I had for this study, I found Baker useful even as I used the above resources more.

Major Themes of Nahum

by

The major theme of Nahum is the judgment of God. God is a just God who will judge the guilty. His wrath will not be resisted and those who think they will not fall before it deceive themselves.

Linked to this overriding theme are the themes of sin and restoration for God’s people. The judgment is occasioned by the sin of Nineveh, most notably its vicious treatment of other nations. God’s judgment of Assyria, which Isaiah identified as a rod of God’s chastening, marked the hope that God would restore his people (1:2, 12-3, 15; 2:2; 3:19).

O. Palmer Robertson observes “the absence of virtually a trace of messianism” in this book.[1] But while the hope of the messianic Davidic king is not a theme of this book, Jesus is Yhwh, and he will come in the last day to judge the nations as Nahum foretold.

[1] Robertson, NICOT, 17.

NT Use of Nahum

by

Paul, in Romans 10:15, quotes from the same Isaiah passage that Nahum quotes in 1:15 to demonstrate the need for preachers of the gospel. More significant is the book of Revelation. Timmer writes, “The message of Revelation is essentially the message of Nahum restated in light of God’s redemptive actions fully revealed in Christ.”[1] John concludes the sixth seal judgment, which draws on Joel 2:10-11, 31, by alluding to Nahum 1:6. Nahum asked, “Who can stand before his indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger?” In context Nahum was probably speaking directly of the eschatological day of Yhwh of which the fall of Nineveh was a type. Of that day, John wrote, “for the great day of their wrath [that is the wrath of the one seated on the throne and of the Lamb] is come, and who can stand?” (Rev. 6:17). The enemy of Yhwh characterized as a prostitute (Nah 3:4) is also picked up in Revelation (17:2).

[1] Timmer, ESVEC, 509.

Nahum’s Use of the OT

by

Yhwh’s declaration of his own name and character in Exodus 34:6-7 is the cornerstone biblical text for Nahum. The fact that Yhwh is both “slow to anger” and “will by no means clear the guilty” explains why the judgment of Assyria is certain, though not immediate. The fact that Yhwh is described as “jealous” in 1:2 is also rooted in the Pentateuch (Ex 20:5; Dt 5:9; cf. Jos 24:19).

In drawing on Exodus 34, Nahum is following in the footsteps of earlier prophets. Joel roots his hope of Israel’s restoration in Exodus 34:6-7 and Jonah provides the same passage as the reason he did not wish to preach to Nineveh.[1] There may be some additional allusions to Joel with the references to heaven and earth shaking (Joel 3:16 with Nahum 1:5-7) and God serving as an avenger (Joel 3:21 with Nahum 1:3). In both Joel and Nahum, God’s judgment on the nations is linked with restoration for God’s people.[2] Amos1:2 mentions the withering of Carmel, which is an image that Nahum also uses (1:4). Within the Book of the Twelve the strongest contrast is between Jonah and Nahum. In Jonah Nineveh is shown mercy. God’s slowness to anger is on display. But Nineveh’s repentance did not last, and Nahum predicts the justice of God taking effect.

Isaiah had already predicted the destruction of Assyria (10:1-19). Nahum quotes directly from Isaiah 52:7, which prophesied that despite Assyria’s oppression, Yhwh’s people would come to know him and receive salvation and peace (Nah 1:15). It appears that in addition to this quotation a great deal of imagery from Isaiah, especially from chapters 51-52, is worked by Nahum into his prophecy.[3]

[1] Renz, NICOT, 50.

[2] Renz, NICOT, 52.

[3] Armerding, REBC, 560-63; Bailey, NAC, 146-47.

Structure and Summary of Nahum

by

After the superscription, Nahum can be divided into seven sections: 1:2-8; 1:9-15; 2:1-10; 2:11-13; 3:1-7; 3:8-17; 3:18-19.[1]

The book’s superscription (1:1) identifies its topic (Nineveh), that it is revelation (oracle, vision), and its author (Nahum of Elkosh). Nothing beyond this book is known of Nahum, and even the location of Elkosh is unknown and debated.[2]

The first poem in Nahum (1:2-8) is not specifically about Nineveh; it is universal in scope.[3] It begins by asserting that Yhwh is jealous. Three times Yhwh is said to be avenging or to take vengeance. Twice the poem affirms his wrath. This is directed toward his adversaries and enemies. This opening verse “provides a very strong, highly focused introduction to what the book of Nahum is about. It also does all but state outright that divine vengeance is the primary theme of the book.”[4] Verse 3 roots this assertion of God’s vengeance in the character of Yhwh by citing Yhwh’s revelation of himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7. Unlike Jonah’s citation of this passage, however, Nahum moves beyond the fact that Yhwh is “slow to anger” and also mentions that “Yhwh will by no means clear the guilty.” What follows is a description of God’s judgment that starts, not in Nineveh, but in the most fertile regions around Israel and then spreads to encompass the world, concluding with an allusion to the Flood―a worldwide judgment, which may also prefigure Nineveh’s destruction.[5] Thus, Nahum contextualizes his prophecy of judgment on Nineveh by directing his readers first to Yhwh’s ultimate judgment upon the whole world. The judgment on Nineveh therefore is a type of Yhwh’s coming judgment. Though day of Yhwh terminology is not used in Nahum, this book is about the day of Yhwh upon Nineveh as a type of the day of Yhwh on the whole world. In the midst of all of this talk of judgment, however, verse 7 stands out as an island of hope: “Yhwh is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him.”

In 1:9-15 Nahum turns his attention to Nineveh and Judah. First, he addresses Nineveh (1:9-11). Yhwh has observed their plots against him, and he will consume them. Then Yhwh turns to Judah (1:12-13). Yhwh affirmed to Judah that despite Assyria’s strength, and Yhwh’s chastisement of Judah, he will now cease from his chastisement and deliver Judah. In verse 14 the address turns back to Nineveh, and Yhwh affirms that he will destroy Assyria and its gods. In verse 15 Yhwh turns the address back to Judah, here quoting words from Isaiah 52, which prophesied that despite Assyria’s oppression, Yhwh’s people would come to know him and receive salvation and peace. Through this quotation Nahum directs his readers beyond physical deliverance to salvation in all its aspects.[6]

In 2:1-10 Nahum turns to describe in vivid poetic language the invading army that conquers and then plunders Nineveh. Verse 2 links the destruction of Nineveh with the restoration of Israel.

The Assyrian kings presented themselves as lion hunters. So Nahum 2:11-13 follows the prophecy of Nineveh’s destruction with a the imagery of one searching for a lion’s den. There the lion is found with the prey for his cubs and lionesses. But it then becomes clear that the lion hunter is Yhwh and the king of Assyria is the hunted lion who will be destroyed with his cubs.

Nahum 3:1-7 is another highly poetic passage, parallel to 2:1-10, in which the invasion is again described, in this case with an emphasis on the death, destruction and shame of Nineveh.

In 3:8-17 Nahum turns to another illustration (as he did with the lions after the poem in 2:1-10). He asks Nineveh if it is “better than Thebes,” another seemingly impregnable city that Assyria had conquered. Just as Assyria conquered Thebes, Nineveh will be conquered.[7] The empire that had devoured other nations like a lion (2:11-13) will itself be devoured like ripe figs falling into the mouth.[8] It will be devoured with fire. It will be devoured like locusts devour. The imagery then shifts so that Nineveh’s merchants and princes and scribes are like locusts—that are swept away.

The final two verses (3:18-19) are addressed directly to the king of Assyria. He is told that this destruction is certain—and that it will bring universal joy from all those he has injured.

[1] This structure draws on Timmer, ZECOT, 53-56; Renz, NICOT, 35; Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 323-24, though not following any of them precisely.

[2] Robertson, NICOT, 31; Patterson, WEC, 7; Armerding EBC, 452; Longman, 765-66; Rooker, The World and the Word, 459; Maier, 24-25.

[3] Timmer, ZECOT, 54.

[4] Timmer, Judah among the Empires, 18.

[5] “An ancient historian named Diodorus writes that during the siege of Nineveh, heavy rains swelled the Tigris, breaking the defensive wall and flooding the city. This would have “softened” the city’s defenses and allowed the invaders to enter much more easily. Another possibility is that the Medes and Babylonians flooded the city after it fell as a symbol of its defeat.” Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 326.

[6] Timmer, Judah Among the Empires, 27.

[7] Timmer, ZECOT, 55; Timmer, Judah among the Empires, 40.

[8] Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 323 notes the parallel.

Nahum’s Historical and Canonical Context

by

Historical Context

Nahum’s prophecy is not linked to a specific king or kings, but it must be dated between the conquest of Thebes in 664 or 663 BC, since that is mentioned in 3:8, and the conquest of Nineveh in 612 BC which this book prophesies will take place.[1] In addition, the contents indicate that the book was written while Assyria was still strong.[2] Nahum 2:2 refers to Yhwh’s restoration of “the majesty of Jacob,” which would point to the latter part of Manasseh’s reign or to Josiah’s reign.[3] Thus, Nahum was written around the middle of the seventh century BC. He is therefore grouped with the other seventh-century prophets, Habakkuk and Zephaniah.[4]

The northern kingdom would have already fallen to Assyrian in 722 BC and had swept over all of Judah until Yhwh defeated Sennacherib at Jerusalem (Isa 36-37; 2 Kings 18-19).[5]

Place in the Book of the Twelve

Nahum is the final book in what Dempster calls the Assyrian triad (Jonah, Micah, Nahum). All three books occur in the Assyrian context, with Jonah and Nahum both concerning Nineveh directly.[6] In addition, Exodus 34:6-7 plays a key role in all three books. In Jonah its statement of God’s character as merciful motivated Jonah’s resistance to delivering God’s message. in Nahum it underwrites God’s just judgment of Nineveh.[7] Nahum ushers Assyria off the stage of redemptive history, and Habakkuk, the following book, introduces Babylon, both as an instrument of Judah’s judgment and as a nation to be judged by God.[8]

[1] Robertson, NICOT, 31; Patterson, WEC, 3; Armerding, REBC, 559; Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 322.

[2] Robertson, NICOT, 31; Patterson, WEC, 5-7.

[3] Baker, TOTC, 18; cf. Maier, 27-31; Robertson, 31; Patterson, WEC, 7

[4] Timmer, Judah among the Empires, 10.

[5] Tully, The Prophets as Christian Scripture, 321.

[6] Dempster, THOTC, 54-56.

[7] Dempster, THOTC, 54-56; Renz, NICOT, 51

[8] Renz, NICOT, 52.