Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Trusting in the Sword instead of Yahweh
3. How the Later Old Testament Narratives Significantly Modified Earlier Old Testament Narratives
   1. Who Incited David to Sin: Satan, or God?
   2. Was Being a “Man of War” Good or Bad?
4. Jewish “Disagreement” with the OT in the Intertestamental Period
5. Paul Modified Details From an Old Testament Passage
6. Isaiah 53: Did God “Crush” Jesus, or The Powers of Darkness?
7. When Jesus and Paul Leave Out Violent Context of the OT Passages
8. Who causes sickness, Satan, or God?
9. Notes

Introduction

Last article in this series, we were introduced to the fascinating concept of “progressive revelation”, which empowers us to understand apparent “contradictions” as part of the way God-breathed His word over time, and what this might say about God’s character. Far from being an “unorthodox” way of understanding Scripture we saw how Christian leaders like Augustine and John Calvin readily affirmed the concept of “progressive revelation”, and is even present in ancient Rabbinic thought.

The biblical evidence proves that God’s “highest” will was progressively revealed over time, in various ways. We saw how the Psalmist nuanced an earlier OT account, and even how both Ezekiel and Jeremiah corrected a theological statement attributed to Moses.

Most Christians are unaware of the fact that Scripture contains inner-biblical conflict. Most Christians and non-Christians approach a passage of Scripture and usually immediately jump to conclusions about God and His character, primarily because our modern, scientific worldview tempts us to read Scripture as if it were some sort of textbook, rather than an extremely diverse set of individual books with multiple genres, sometimes blending genres in the same chapter and paragraph, and sometimes even in the same sentence!

Moreover, people generally don’t understand that Scripture is a grand, over-arching story. So, when we find examples where Scripture critiques itself as time goes on, we are required to be a little bit more cautious when jumping to conclusions about God.

This article will show how, as time went on, biblical authors and Jewish doctrine sought to distance God from violence; that is, they re-interpreted “plain-sense” stories where God was engaging in violence and war, and other morally questionable activity.

Trusting in the Sword instead of Yahweh

Consider the fact that God’s original plan was to bring the Israelites into the promised land without war:

I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way. But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.
(Ex. 23:27-30)

Note that it is the Lord fighting for them; they would essentially not have to do anything. Later the Lord reminded the Israelites that they could not boast in their own strength for entering the promised land when he told them “You did not do it with your own sword and bow” (Josh. 24:12).

When the Lord delivered the Israelites from Egypt, God was the one doing all the work; they merely had to believe and trust while He supernaturally made a way for them. The Israelites never used any military intervention when attempting their own deliverance. Not surprisingly, God says that He would bring them into the promised land in the same way:

You may say to yourselves, “These nations are stronger than we are. How can we drive them out?” But do not be afraid of them; remember well what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt. You saw with your own eyes the great trials, the signs and wonders, the mighty hand and outstretched arm, with which the Lord your God brought you out. The Lord your God will do the same to all the peoples you now fear.
(Deut. 7:17-19, emphasis mine)

We are so used to reading so many stories of violence in the OT, we often fail to see how OT teaching was resolutely against trusting in violence as a means of obtaining deliverance or victory.

Yahweh prohibited the king from amassing a great army (Deut. 17:16) and disapproved of a king forming an army of chariots (1 Sam. 8:6-22). Surely it is significant that David, an accomplished warrior, said that “No king is saved by the size of his army…a horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save.” (Ps. 33:16-17). Why would David say this if we know that David achieved unprecedented success in battle, and as a king, was certainly saved from death through his army?

Proverbs teaches us that “The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but victory rests with the Lord.” (Prov. 21:32). While in exile, the people of Israel wanted to possess the promised land again, only to receive a stern rebuke from the Lord for relying on the sword: “You rely on your sword, you do detestable things, and each of you defiles his neighbor’s wife. Should you then possess the land?” (Ezekiel 33:26).

Moreover, the very place we’d expect to find Yahweh’s approval of taking the promised land by force, the angel of Lord does not take sides:

Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?” The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.
(Josh. 5:13-15, emphasis mine)

To us the fact that the message comes from an angel of the Lord may sound like it was only an angel, but in reality the phrase refers to God Himself (Gen. 16:10-13, Gen. 22:11-14, Ex. 3:2-6). This “angel” produced holy ground just as the Lord did when speaking with Moses through the burning bush (Ex. 3:2-6). Why doesn’t his angel take sides? Wasn’t God “for” the Israelites?

Moreover, Jesus rebuked Peter for trying to defend Him by using a physical weapon when He said “…all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). Jesus didn’t just say this because Peter was getting in the way of the crucifixion, but rather seizes the opportunity to teach a timeless and universal principle about the implications for using “the sword”. When you sow death, you reap death.

Drawing the sword is certainly not God’s ideal, seen even in the OT where we find that God’s would eventually end all war: “Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.” (Hos. 2:18). More than just refraining to use the sword, Jesus takes it a step further by teaching us to love our enemies, and essentially undermined OT laws that commanded violent retribution.

So why was there so much war in the OT? Since trust in military might was an ever-present temptation, and all throughout the OT they surely exhibited an inability to trust in Yahweh, the Israelites were constantly finding themselves under God’s judgment, and so entered into battles with the sword. Sometimes these battles were depicted as being blessed and/or commanded by the Lord. But these were only after the Lord first gave them His original plan for enemies to voluntarily leave, and even because of the wickedness of Israelite kings, which Yahweh never intended to be a part of Israel’s history.

There is understandably some tension here, for how could one explain why God would continue to command violence? Much more needs to be said about violence in the OT, but that will need to be for another article. But we should nevertheless see a thread that existed through the OT and culminated in Jesus: violence through the sword is never God’s ideal, but is often associated with a lack of trust in God.

How the Later Old Testament Narratives Significantly Modified Earlier Old Testament Narratives

Recall that the concept of “progressive revelation” necessarily involves time: as time goes on, God’s revelation of Himself get more and more clear. The NT will make this concept even clearer. So far, the evidence has shown this within the OT itself, but the strongest evidence of the OT authors evolving over time can be found in the book of 1-2 Chronicles.

1-2 Chronicles, 1-2 Kings, and 1-2 Samuel are all part of the same genre of OT books; they belong to the genre of historical narratives. If “progressive revelation” is indeed a real phenomenon in the OT, then we should expect to find the latest possible books in the OT having greater and greater “disagreement” or “modification” to earlier accounts. Because 1-2 Chronicles recounts the same events recounted by 1-2 Samuel, and was written ~500 years after 1-2 Samuel¹, we should expect some differences.

And this is exactly what we find with 1-2 Chronicles: it adds in some important details that 1-2 Samuel seems to have left out, and in one fascinating example, completely changes one historical event.

Who Incited David to Sin: Satan, or God?

Let’s look at the example where the author of 1-2 Chronicles corrected the author of 1-2 Samuel:

Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”
(2 Sam. 24:1)

Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
(1 Chr. 21:1)

Various attempts to resolve these two statements have been unconvincing.

Skeptics say “see, God’s word is not trustworthy, God is contradicting himself!” If God’s supposed to fit into your box and be a Neat Heavenly Scientist With A Lab Coat, and was dictating the words of Scripture to authors, then yes. But that is certainly not how God has breathed His word (2 Tim. 3:16).

Some conservatives try to say that these statements both must be true at the same time, that God made Satan do it. There you go, problem solved.

But Conservatives also may adopt a double-standard here, because they also say that the “plain sense” of Scripture should always trump all other interpretations. In this case the “plain sense” of the first verse is clearly saying that God incited David to take a census, and that God even said to David “Go and take a census…”

Did God really tell David to go and take a Census, or was something else going on?

God might allow Satan to do something, but allowing and doing something are completely different actions. Moreover, a purely “logical” interpretation of these verses would require us to believe that God and Satan were doing something at the exact same time, to the exact same person, in the exact same place.

Conservative commentators also seem to forget that the apostle James probably would have disagreed with the author of 2 Samuel’s statement, when he taught us this:

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
(James 1:13)

I suppose someone would want to wiggle out of this by saying “well the Bible says God “incited” not “tempted” David.” Are we really supposed to assume that “incited” does not mean “tempt”? The Scripture says that God told David to take a census, and that David admits that he had just sinned (v. 10)! Who’s right, the writer of Samuel, or the writer of Chronicles (and James)?

The scriptural trend of “progressive revelation” would tell us that later authors of Scripture had greater clarity into God and His purposes. Given that 1 Chronicles was probably written around 500 years after 2 Samuel in the year 450 B.C., we should expect to find a more theologically accurate recounting of the events; the 1 Chronicles rendering is consistent with NT teaching (James 1:13), while the 2 Samuel rendering is clearly not; the better way to understand it is that God had allowed Satan to tempt David, not that God personally tempted David.

So how should we understand 2 Samuel’s rendering? The author probably couldn’t see the spiritual dynamics at play, although the author knew² that God was sovereign over everything and no other foreign gods were on God’s level. In my opinion then, the author was simply recounting an event with an incomplete picture, and the author also did not fully understand the relationship between God and the powers of darkness, which NT revelation later teaches.

Was Being a “Man of War” Good or Bad?

In addition to subbing out Satan for God, the author of 1-2 Chronicles also adds in an important reason why God would not let King David build a temple for God. While the author of 1-2 Samuel does not tell us why God wants David’s son to build the house, the author of 1-2 Chronicles does:

Then King David rose to his feet and said: “Hear me, my brothers and my people. I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God, and I made preparations for building. But God said to me, ‘You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood.’
(1 Chr. 28:2-3, ESV)

This seems at odds with the prophet Isaiah (and also Moses, see Ex. 15:3) comparing God to a man of war. I’m not sure that the author of 1-2 Chronicles would be comfortable with Isaiah and Moses praising God for being like a man of war. The book of Isaiah was also written more than 200 years before 1-2 Chronicles.

God’s ultimate desire would be that God’s temple (or his “house”) would be a house of prayer for all nations (Isa. 56:7). A man who sheds the blood of nations probably isn’t qualified to build a house of prayer for all nations. Would a man who could boast of beating people “as fine as the dust of the earth” (2 Sam. 22:43) and celebrate the fact that he “pounded and trampled them like mud in the streets” (2 Sam. 22:43) be qualified to lead a house of prayer for all people? I think the answer is a resounding no. He probably would need some deliverance ministry first!

Although we get some glimpses of God’s disapproval of the sword in 1-2 Samuel (2 Sam. 21:1), the author seems to paint war and violence in a positive light (2 Sam. 23:9-10). While the author of 1 Chronicles clearly believed that God disappoved of shedding blood and being a man of war, one might legitimately wonder why David believed that God was the one who trained him to shed blood (2 Sam. 22:35-40).

In their overview of 1-2 Chronicles, Evangelical scholars Douglas Stuart and Gordon Fee teach us that 1-2 Chronicles was more concerned with presenting the ideal parts of the lives of kings, and that that the author knew his readers were aware of the faults of these kings.³

This could explain why the author of Chronicles also modified God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel. Instead of God saying that “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me…” (2 Sam. 7:16), the author of 1 Chronicles reframes it by subtly de-emphasizing David when instead God says “I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever…” (1 Chr. 7:14).

Jewish “Disagreement” with the OT in the Intertestamental Period

I think it is even more clear the author of 1-2 Chronicles would have been uncomfortable with people describing God as a “man of war”, when we consider how the Jewish people translated the Old Testament into Greek, during the “intertestamental period”, which is the time period between the Old Testament and the New Testament (roughly 3rd century BC to year 0). This Greek translation of the Old Testament was what New Testament authors used when they quoted the Old Testament, and is also called the “Septuagint”.

Isaiah was probably translated into Greek sometime between the 3rd and 2nd Century B.C.,⁴ which would be roughly 100-200 years after 1-2 Chronicles was written. Jewish translators were probably on the same page with 1-2 Chronicles in distancing God from violence when they translated Isaiah’s statement that the Lord was “like a man of war” (Isa. 42:13).

Jewish translators reinterpreted Moses and Isaiah’s description of God as a man of war. They went so far as to translate the original Hebrew Scripture in Exodus 15:3, “The Lord is a warrior”, to “he shatters wars”⁵ and Isaiah 42:13 as God going forth to “crush the war”!⁶

Another popular intertestamental Jewish writing was the book of Jubilees (written around 200 B.C.), and is a retelling of Genesis. But the Jubilees retelling of Genesis also subs out God with a Satan-like figure.⁷ “Mastema” is depicted as the prince of the evil spirits in Jubilees.⁸ In the book of Jubilees, it is not God who tests Abraham, but Mastema who gets Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. While Exodus depicts God as the one who provoked the Egyptians to pursue Israel (Ex. 14:8), Mastema is the one who does this. Exodus also portrays God seeking to kill Moses on the way to Egypt (Ex. 4:24), but once again Mastema is the one who does this in Jubilees.⁹

While the book of Jubilees is not considered to be inspired by God like other books are, it reveals Jewish “disagreement” with some OT accounts.

Paul Modified Details From an Old Testament Passage

Here’s an example of an often unnoticed way that Paul completely disagreed with the OT narrative’s depiction of God’s judgment on Israel for “grumbling” in the desert. Rather than saying that it was God who killed them, he says they “…were killed by the destroying angel” (1 Cor. 10:10).

There are only two cases where Israel grumbled against the Lord, and in both cases they were judged by God. Not once is there ever a “destroying angel” mentioned in those narratives! So why would Paul substitute God for a “destroying angel”?

In the first account of Israelites “grumbling”, the OT says simply that people died (Num. 14:37). In the second instance, God was the one who is depicted as directly destroying people (Num. 16:31-35). So which case was Paul referring to?

Many theologians recognize that it is not clear which specific case Paul is referring to in 1 Cor. 10:10, but most commentators guess that it is the plague in Numbers 14:37. But I actually side with Dr. Greg Boyd favoring Numbers 16 and Korah’s rebellion as the case Paul was referring to, for the 3 reasons:

1. Paul clearly said that those who grumbled died (1 Cor. 10:10), but in Numbers 14, the people who grumbled did not die. Only the leaders who brought back a bad report died (Num. 14:36).
2. Numbers 16 and Korah’s rebellion is where we find two instances of where people grumbled and died: Korah and his leaders (Num. 16:11, Num. 16:25-35), and also Israelites (Num 16:41-48).
3. There are three influential Jewish writings written between the Old Testament and the New Testament that all reframe God’s judgment in Numbers 16 as being carried out by a mediating angel instead of God.¹⁰ These writings were not considered as authoritative as OT Scripture by ancient Jews, but they held considerable influence and they show us that Jewish theology had changed over time. NT authors like Jude quote these writings, and assumed his readers knew these writings.¹¹ It is surely significant that Paul seems to have sided with the “mediating angel” interpretation rather than the plain sense of the OT passage.

So Paul says that those who grumbled “…were killed by the destroying angel” (1 Cor. 10:10), but the OT says, says that “fire came out from the Lord and consumed the 250 men” (Num. 16:35), and that God himself would put an end to them (Num. 16:45). A surface-level reading would lead us to believe that these judgments were not just done under the supervision of God, but personally carried out by him. But nowhere in this narrative is there even one mention of a “destroying angel”; Paul therefore re-interpreted the surface-level reading of Numbers 16.

Isaiah 53: Did God “Crush” Jesus, or The Powers of Darkness?

For centuries, Christians have understood that the “suffering servant” passage of Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus’ suffering and death.

In this passage, this servant (Jesus) is “…punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted” (v. 4) and that “…it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer” (v. 10).

Even though these verses depict God as the one crushing Jesus, Paul does not recount Jesus’ death in similar terms. For example Paul tells us, in somewhat passive terminology, that Jesus was “…delivered over to death for our sins” (Rom. 4:24), without indicating God’s direct involvement. In a fascinating statement in another letter, Paul said that, if the forces of darkness knew of God’s hidden wisdom, “…they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). Paul attributes the death of Christ to the powers of darkness, not directly to God, as Isaiah 53 does. This is another example of how Paul reinterpreted and clarified the “plain sense” reading of OT Scripture.

When Jesus and Paul Leave Out Violent Context of the OT Passages

When NT authors quote the OT, they intentionally leave out violent verses either before or after the verses they quote.

For example, near the end of Paul’s greatest letter, Romans, Paul encourages the Roman church, made of both Jews and Gentiles, to “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you…” (Rom. 15:7). He then explains that:

Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written:

    “Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
        I will sing the praises of your name.”

Again, it says,
    “Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people.”

And again,
    “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles;
        let all the peoples extol him.”

And again, Isaiah says,
    “The Root of Jesse will spring up,
        one who will arise to rule over the nations;
        in him the Gentiles will hope.”
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
(Rom. 15:8-13)

What a powerful summary!

It’s clear that Paul is using these verses to show us how God desires Gentiles to place their hope in him and glorify God for his mercy, yet in 3 of the 4 OT passages he quotes (2 Sam. 22:50, Deut. 32:43, Isa. 11:14) the immediate context includes not mercy but rather vengeance!

Paul quotes David’s praise report of God avenging him (2 Sam. 22:48), God (in first person), says he will avenge the blood of his servants (Deut. 32:43), and a prophecy from Isaiah that includes people getting plundered and enslaved (Isa. 11:14). It is as if Paul seemed to think only the merciful parts of those Scriptures mattered for his point, or perhaps even mattered at all. Why else would he sort of “cherry pick” those verses to give examples of God’s desire to show Gentiles mercy (Rom. 15:8-13), when 3 of the 4 verses quoted have an immediate context where God shows vengeance?

Given that Paul’s background as a Pharisee taught a nation-conquering Messiah and expected a physical overthrow of Rome, why would Paul say things like “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph. 6:12). Something totally flipped for Paul.

And why did Jesus, when defining the essence of His own ministry, leave out a key part of an ancient passage when he said:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
    to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
(Lk. 4:18-19)

He is quoting Isaiah 61:1-3 and stopped mid-sentence, leaving out “and the day of vengeance of our God…” (Isa. 61:3). Why abruptly stop mid-sentence and leave out vengeance? Surely Jesus did take vengeance, although against the forces of darkness (1 Jn. 3:8) rather than His own human enemies. Jesus rebuked Peter for pulling out a sword taught that “…all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52).

Who causes sickness, Satan, or God?

We have already seen that writers of the NT already reframed surface-level readings of OT narratives that depict God as engaging in violence, and instead attributed them to Satan. But the NT authors go far beyond just attributing violence to Satan, but actually say that “…the whole world is under the control of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19). This doesn’t just merely continue the trajectory we have seen so far, but takes it even further.

When a woman whose back was bent over for 18 years came to hear Jesus at a synagogue, Luke says that she was crippled “…by a spirit” (Luke 13:11), and Jesus actually attributes the cause completely to Satan (v. 16). The apostle Peter summed up the entire ministry of Jesus when he said “…he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.” (Acts 10:38). Peter’s statement implies that God is actively opposed to Satan’s activity, rather God having Satan on a leash like some OT authors suggest. In the NT, Satan and the powers of darkness are depicted as diametrically opposed to God’s will, expressed most clearly in God’s kingdom rule. If a demon is cast out, than the kingdom of God has come upon that person (Lk. 11:20), and the very will of God is expressed as the kingdom of God (Matt. 6:9-13). The “kingdom of God” is the realm where God is reigning in the fullest capacity, and everywhere else is where God is not reigning in full capacity. Rather than Satan and demons being on a leash, Jesus always has to tell demons to shut up (Lk. 4:35, Lk. 4:41), and the devil can take people captive to do his will and not God’s will (2 Tim. 2:26).

Imagine being in the shoes of the woman who was crippled for 18 years. You can imagine that she probably would have at least tried to understand her illness from God’s perspective. Certainly, if she would have asked the Rabbis “why am I crippled?” they probably would have pointed to OT law. Imagine searching through OT passages that could explain why you would be suffering. How disappointing and scary it would have been to find that in the OT, sicknesses and diseases are always “from” God!

In the law, sicknesses and diseases are a result of disobedience (Deut. 28:59-61). This is probably why the disciples automatically attributed a man’s blindness to sin (Jn. 9:1). It was also the Lord who punished the king Jehoram with “an incurable disease” (2 Chr. 21:18). The logical understanding would be for the woman to consider her situation as caused by God. But instead of teaching everyone that God had brought this sickness upon her, Jesus teaches that Satan had bound her for 18 years (Lk. 13:16)!

Jesus and NT authors constantly attribute the source of sickness to Satan rather than someone’s sin (Mark 9:17-27, Matt. 9:32-33, Matt. 12:22, Lk. 13:11-16), although Jesus did at one time mention that sickness can be caused by sin (Jn. 5:14). All of these considerations show us that as time went on, biblical revelation brought a more nuanced understanding of Satan’s relationship with God and humans.

I hope you are beginning to see a pattern: when Jesus and the Spirit came, new revelation was being established that was previously hidden. Old revelation was being nuanced, and a more thorough understanding of Satan and the kingdom of darkness was being established.

The next and final article in this series will show us how NT authors made the concept of “progressive revelation” even more clear. I also provide some warnings about maintaining respect for the OT as God’s word, and offer a way forward for faithful interpretation of Scripture.

Notes