|
THE BIBLE CONSISTENT – 2 Anonymous (Investigator 114, 2007
May)
THE PROGRAM What did the inscription on Jesus' cross say? Who replaced Judas Iscariot and became the 12th apostle? Did David have men with him when he fled from King Saul? The Bible is accused of being inconsistent on these points. Over
many years I've shown
the Bible correct
in hundreds of scientific points. The implications of this result,
however,
are undermined if the Bible also has numerous inconsistencies.
In
The Bible Consistent
series we'll
investigate alleged Bible inconsistencies.
INCONSISTENCIES The
inscription above
Jesus on the cross
according to the four Gospels was:
This is Jesus
the
King of the Jews. (Matthew
27:37)
The King of the Jews. (Mark 15:26) This is the King of the Jews. (Luke 23:38) Jesus of
Nazareth,
the King of the Jews. (John
19:19
Possibly the four writers each quoted part of the inscription and the full inscription said:
However, John 19:20 says
the inscription
was in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Therefore it's possible that the
translations
varied giving three versions as in Matthew, Luke and John with Mark
employing
the phrase the three versions had in common.
Who replaced Judas and became the 12th apostle – Paul or Matthias? Paul called himself an
apostle, wrote 13
or 14 of the 27 books/letters of the New Testament, and spear-headed
Christianity's
expansion.
However, in Acts 1:21-26
the choice is out
of two men who:
…accompanied us during
all the time that
the Lord Jesus went in and out among us…
And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. (1:26) Who then replaced Judas? The Christian church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets…" (Ephesians 2:19-20) Elsewhere the Church is compared to a house and a temple. And that settles it. The "foundation" of any house or temple is laid down before the main structure. Since the Church began at Pentecost (Acts 2) Paul joined too late to be in the "foundation". Although Paul was an
"apostle" this designation
also applied to men with special missions besides the twelve apostles.
Sylvanus and Timothy, for example, were apostles but were not of the
twelve.
(I Thessalonians 2:5-6)
Now for a more difficult "discrepancy": DAVID'S MEN
Previously (#113) I cleared up the claims of critics that:
Apparently Jesus
additionally erred in
stating that David had "those who were with him." David (in I Samuel
21)
was alone and seemingly lied regarding men waiting nearby:
1 Then came David to Nob
[the main religious
centre] to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came to meet David
trembling,
and said to him, "Why are you alone, and
no one with you?" 2 And David said to
Ahimelech the priest,
"The king has charged me with a matter, 3 Now then, what have you at hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here." 4 And the priest answered David, "I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women." 5 And David answered the priest, "Of a truth women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy, even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?" 6 So the priest gave him
the holy bread…
Critics argue that David's statement in verse 2 was a lie since:
The critics, therefore,
conclude that David's
claim about having men was "part of an elaborate lie" to better his
chances
of getting help from the priest.
Authors of some Bible
commentaries agree
that David lied:
The choice to deceive
Ahimelech by inventing
a secret mission and a hidden troop
adds to the impression that Ahimelech was unaware of the real situation, though David's deception may have been an attempt to protect Ahimelech from accusations of conspiracy. Unleavened bread would remain edible for some time, and the nonexis- tent troop provides an excuse for David to ask for a good supply. (Evans 2000) If David lied about having men with him then Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) was wrong. DAVID'S STORY TRUE One of Saul's herdsmen named Doeg observed David with Ahimelech and reported it to Saul. This led to 85 priests being slaughtered. (I Samuel 22) In Psalm 52 David says of Doeg, "You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking the truth." Many other Psalms of David similarly criticize lies. (7:14; 34:13; 36:3; 38:12; 58:3; 62:4; 63:11; 101:7; 144:8, 11) David, in I Samuel 21:2, did not overtly lie but spoke truths that could be misunderstood – he used ambiguity. His claim "The king has charged me with a matter…" was probably assumed by Ahimelech to mean King Saul. However, "king" could also
refer to:
David's first statement to
Ahimelech, therefore,
was not an outright lie but a truth worded ambiguously.
What about his subsequent statements? DAVID AND HIS MEN Let's get a
bird's eye
view of I Samuel 10-22:
In Chapters
20 and 21
David seems a solitary
fugitive travelling alone except for his statement to Ahimelech about
rendezvousing
with his men. Since David asked for five loaves, let's assume he's
implying
there were four men.The four men
could have
joined David at Ramah/Naioth
because:
And he [David] and
Samuel went and dwelt
in Naioth. (19:20)
"Dwelt" implies a
lengthy stay, which is borne
out by the rest of the chapter. Therefore, at Naioth there was time and
opportunity for David's first active supporters to arrive.
In Chapter 20 David fled from Naioth and consulted with Jonathan at Gibeah. (20:11) Jonathan agreed to sound
out Saul's attitude
during the feast of the new moon and report to David two days later.
(20:5,
12) David would meanwhile hide in a field.
Note the time periods:
20:5, 18 Tomorrow is
the
new moon
20:24 …when the new moon came, the king sat down to eat food. 20:27-34 But on the second day, the morrow after the new moon…Jonathan ate no food the second day of the month… 20:35 In the morning Jonathan went out into the field to the appointment with David…
For two days and parts of two more "David
hid himself in the field…" (20:24) David and any men keeping watch or
scouting around would have been extremely hungry. After hearing from Jonathan that King Saul still wanted him dead David walked SE, 8km, from Gibeah to Nob (near Jerusalem). Nob was the location of the tabernacle – the elaborate tent which constituted the centre of Israelite worship and where the "showbread" or holy bread was kept. (Exodus 25:30; Leviticus 24:5ff) At Gibeah David had
exercised great caution
to stay inconspicuous. Why then did he go to Nob, which bustled with
activity?
Probably because:
Ahimelech wanted
assurance that David's
men were pure enough to eat holy bread and therefore asked if they had
been with women. David said:
Indeed women have been
kept from us as
always when I go on an expedition; the
vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?
The law required that a man
who had sexual intercourse
be ritually unclean until he bathed. (Leviticus 15:18) Men going into
battle
also had to be sexually clean. (Deuteronomy 23:10ff) This involved a
three-day
abstinence from sex. (Exodus 19:15)
David had hidden three days in the field at Gibeah. Previous to that David "dwelt" with Samuel at Naioth. The time requirement for sexual holiness fits with men having joined David at Naioth who were now rendezvousing with him near Nob. David's story rings true. "Holy
bread" was for
priests. The loaves
were made from 2/10 of an "ephah" of flour. (Exodus 25:30; Leviticus
24:5-9)
An ephah was a measure of capacity equal to 22 litres. Therefore David
wanted bread equivalent to 22 litres of flour – (i.e. 2/10 x 22 x 5).
Ahimelech gave David the sword of Goliath stored in the tabernacle because David said he had no weapons. Again this rings true since David had left his wife hurriedly at night (19:11-12) without opportunity to take weapons. David
left Ahimelech that
same day (21:10)
and fled 40km west to Gath the home town of Goliath.
Carrying
five loaves plus
Goliath's sword,
and walking 40km after three days without food seems too strenuous –
unless
David shared the loaves and did not carry them.
At
Gath the Philistines
recognized David,
which made him afraid:
So he changed his
behavior before them;
he pretended to be mad when in their presence. He scratched marks on
the
doors of the gate, and let his spittle run down
his beard. (I Samuel 21:13; Psalm 34 & 56) Then David fled Gath and went SE to the "cave of Adullam" where 400 men joined him: David departed there
[Gath] and escaped
to the cave of Adullam; and when his brothers and all of his father's
house
heard
it, they went down there to him. And everyone who was in distress, and
everyone who was in debt; and everyone who was discontented, gathered
to
him; and he became captain over them. And there were with him about
four
hundred men. (22:1-2; Psalm 57, 142)
How did these 400 men from far and wide "hear" where David was? David
would not have told
the Philistines
where he was going next. Nor could David press-gang strangers to pass
word
since they might report to King Saul or to the Philistines.
The plausible answer is David's men. David must have had a few men who joined him at Naioth as watchmen and messengers and contacted trusted supporters. The non-mention of these men in Chapters 19-21 is explained if they travelled separately except for several rendezvous. Furthermore,
in the Bible
bodyguards, messengers,
entourages and servants are not mentioned unless there's good reason.
At
Saul's feast on the new moon only Saul, Jonathan and a commander are
mentioned.
Yet, others such as servants and guards must have been present. At Nob
we initially meet only Ahimelech as if he lived there alone – in the
next
chapter, however, we realize that 85 priests and their families implies
hundreds of people.
Even whole
armies are
sometimes only implied.
For example, when David was still in Saul's service we read:
And there was war again; and David [alone?] went out and fought with the Philistines, and made a great slaughter among them… (19:8) If people are often
unmentioned even when they're
swarming all around why shouldn't four men travelling separately also
remain
unmentioned in a narrative?
After 400 men joined David
at the cave of
Adullam he became a guerrilla marauder. Only then does I Samuel
repeatedly
mention his "men". (22:6; 23:3, 5, 8, 13, 24, 26; 24:2, 3, 4, 6, 7 etc)
This is because there
were
no longer just
four, but 400 and then 600. And most were close and not scouting
around.
It was the beginning of David getting significant support from the
population.
The 600 men also did stuff that directly involved David. They "came",
they
"said", they "fought with the Philistines". (23:3, 5; 24:4, 6)
Nevertheless,
many verses still mention only David when context shows other men are
included.
(22:5; 23:14, 19, 25, 29; 24:8; 25:2)
CONCLUSIONS David's statement to
Ahimelech about having
men (21:2-5) was truthful because:
1 David spent
enough
time
at Ramah/Naioth for
some men to meet him there; 3 It required
"men" to
pass
word to, and summon,
400 supporters. 4 David's
men were
otherwise unmentioned
because they were few and rendezvoused Jesus sorted all this out
and expressed it
in the short phrase, "those who were with him." It's not
Jesus (or Matthew, Mark and Luke) who misunderstood the book of Samuel
but the critics.
REFERENCES:
Evans, M. J. 2000 New International Biblical Commentary 1 and 2 Samuel, Hendrickson, p. 97. Frank, H. T. (Editor) 1984 Atlas of Bible Lands, Hammond. |