King David’s life and reign are so well documented in the Bible that the many people involved – truly a cast of hundreds – can be confusing at times. But the identity of some of these individuals is important for understanding David’s story.
For example, the individual Zeruiah is named a total of twenty-six times (twice as many times as Nehemiah, for example) in four separate books of the Old Testament. Zeruiah also had three prominent sons: Joab, Abishai, and Asahel (2 Samuel 2:18). But who was Zeruiah?
The answer to this question is found in the genealogy of David, recorded in 1 Chronicles 2:3-16. This genealogical summary records that David had seven older brothers (also mentioned in 1 Samuel 16:10-11) and two sisters. Zeruiah was one of David’s two sisters, and the three sons of Zeruiah (Joab, Abishai, and Asahel) were David’s nephews. This explains a number of otherwise puzzling events or circumstances in David’s reign.
For example, 2 Samuel tells us that when David’s son Absalom attempted to forcibly take the kingship and sought to kill his father, he made Amasa the commander of the Israelite army (2 Samuel 17:25). Even though Amasa led the forces that tried to overthrow and kill David at this time, once Absalom had been defeated King David retained Amasa as commander of the army in place of the previous commander Joab who had disobeyed David by killing Absalom.
We might wonder why David would trust Amasa, but the answer to this question is found in 2 Samuel 17:25 and 1 Chronicles 2:16–17. Amasa was the son of a woman called Abigail (not David’s wife by that name). This Abigail was David’s other sister in addition to Zeruiah (1 Chronicles 2:16). So Amasa was David’s nephew. This is why David asked Amasa, “Are you not my own flesh and blood?” (2 Samuel 19:13).
Unfortunately for Amasa, Joab (the son of Zeruiah) killed his cousin to regain his role as head of Israel’s army. The fact that Joab was David’s nephew explains why David would not execute him despite his crimes, but had Solomon kill him – as Solomon did not have the same direct familial ties to the commander.
Royal politics, as with many other aspects of life in the biblical world, were often driven by such family connections and relationships. Responsibilities to close family members were particularly strong, and it was rare for individuals in power to kill or even punish close relatives unless they were perceived as a direct threat. In the cases we have looked at here, David not only would have had to break this societal attitude if he had executed his nephews Amasa or Joab, but also he would have disgraced his own sisters by doing so.
The identity of David’s two sisters helps us to understand David’s actions or lack of action on several occasions and looking at the family connections involved can often help us to understand the story of this and other Old Testament kings.
When we think of Bible versions we can’t understand, most of us might think of Bibles in the original languages of Hebrew or Greek, or perhaps a medieval Latin Bible. But we often don’t realize how much our own language has changed over the centuries and how difficult it would be for us to read a Bible in English from several hundred years ago. Below, we give the example of the Lord’s Prayer from Matthew 6 – as it looked in English Bibles every two hundred years from the thirteenth century to today. Before the thirteenth century very little of the Bible was translated into English at all. The first complete English-language version of the Bible dates from 1382 and was credited to the translator John Wycliffe and his followers, so we begin with that time point.
Thirteenth Century – Manuscript in the Library of Cambridge University:
Fader oure that art in heve, i-halgeed be thi nome, i-cume thi kinereiche, y-worthe thi wylle also is in hevene so be an erthe, oure iche-dayes-bred gif us today, and forgif us our gultes, also we forgifet oure gultare, and ne led ows nowth into fondingge, auth ales ows of harme.
Fifteenth Century – Manuscript in the Library of Oxford University:
Fader oure that art in heuene, halewed be thy name: thy kyngedom come to thee: thy wille be do in erthe as in heuen: oure eche dayes brede geue us to daye: and forgeue us oure dettes as we forgeue to oure dettoures: and lede us nogte into temptacion: bot delyver us from yvel.
Seventeenth Century – The King James Version of 1611:
Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen. Giue vs this day our daily bread. And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters. And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill: For thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer.
Nineteenth Century – The English Revised Version:
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Twenty-first Century – The Christian Standard Bible:
Our Father in heaven, your name be honored as holy. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
The differences between these Bible versions become more noticeable the further we go back, of course, and considering that most of us know what the examples above say before we started to read them, we would probably agree that we would find it difficult to read a whole Bible of the thirteenth, fifteenth, or seventeenth centuries – even if it is in English.
While it may be interesting to see and realize the difficulty we would experience in reading a Bible in our own language unless it were of recent date, we can draw a useful lesson from this. Often, Christians think that the major work of Bible translations into other languages is essentially done. The Bible has, after all, been translated into over 700 languages, and the New Testament has been translated into well over 1200 languages.
While it is true that this means the Bible has been translated into most important languages, it is still equally true that there are many thousands of dialects of these languages that still have no Bible translation. We may think that local dialects are relatively unimportant – for instance, someone in the United States speaking a southern dialect can fairly easily understand someone using an Appalachian dialect – the differences in our dialects are relatively small. But in many language groups the various dialects are just as, or even more, different than what we see in an English Bible of today and an English Bible of the thirteenth century – that you and I would find extremely difficult to read.
The moral of the story is simple. While a great deal of Bible translation work has been tirelessly accomplished by dedicated translators over the past century or so, there are many millions of people who still have no Bible in their own language or only one in a related dialect that is very difficult for them to understand. Understanding this situation can help us to pray more, and more intently, for still-needed translations, and to see the need to support the ongoing work of Bible translators in whatever way we can.
We are all so used to hearing people say “Amen” at the end of prayers and saying it ourselves that we seldom think about the word, but the following points may show you that there is a lot about that small word you don’t know.
1) “Amen” doesn’t just mean “may it be so.” Many people think of amen as a kind of spiritual punctuation mark – something we put at the end of prayers to mean “the prayer is over.” Those who understand the word better think of it as meaning “may it be so” and being a way of adding our agreement to what was said, but the word means much more than that and actually has a number of meanings. Amen comes from a Hebrew root which in its various forms can mean: to support, to be loyal, to be certain or sure, and even to place faith in something. At the most basic level, the word can mean simply “yes!” as we see in Paul’s statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ. And so through him the ‘Amen’ is spoken by us to the glory of God” (2 Corinthians 1:20). But the central meaning of the word has to do with truth, as we will see.
2) Amen was not usually used to conclude prayers in the Bible. Although it is found many times in the Bible, its main use was to affirm praise for God (Psalm 41:13; Romans 1:25; etc.) or to confirm a blessing (Romans 15:33; etc.) – either by the speaker or the hearers. The “amen” found at the end of the Lord’s Prayer in some manuscripts of the New Testament affirms the expression of praise that concludes the prayer. Perhaps because of this, over the course of the centuries it became common practice to use “amen” as the conclusion for prayers.
3) Amen is used as a characteristic of God in the Old Testament. Although the English Bible translation you use may not show it, in Isaiah 65:16 the Hebrew text speaks twice of “the God of Amen,” and this clearly uses amen as a characteristic or even a title of God. Because many translators feel this would be confusing in English, they choose to render the text as “the God of truth,” and although that is not a bad translation, it does somewhat obscure the original sense of what was written.
4) Amen is used as a characteristic of Jesus in the New Testament. Just as God is referred to as the God of Amen in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament in Revelation 3:14 “Amen” is used as a title for Jesus Christ “These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.” The combination of Amen with “faithful and true witness” clearly show the connection between amen and truth.
5) Amen was used uniquely by Jesus. Jesus usually used the word amen at the beginning of his statements, and in those cases, it was sometimes translated by the Gospel writers into Greek as “truly” (Luke 4:25; 9:27; etc.). The NIV translates this in turn as “I assure you …” But a completely unique use of amen by Jesus in the New Testament is recorded by the apostle John ,whose Gospel shows us that Christ frequently doubled the word at the beginning of particularly important statements. In the King James Bible this is translated “Verily, verily,” in the ESV as “truly, truly,” and in the NIV “Very truly.” The doubling of amen was not only used by Jesus, however. In the early 1960’s part of a Hebrew legal document dating from the time of Jesus was found in which an individual declares “Amen, amen, ani lo ashem” meaning “Very truly, I am innocent.” It is possible, then, that Jesus borrowed this doubled form of amen from legal language of the day. But knowing that Jesus used this expression to signify important things he wanted to stress can help us see their importance in our own study of his words. The full list of occurrences of amen being doubled in John’s Gospel is: 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24-25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; and 21:18.
It is interesting that while the New Testament writers often left untranslated certain Hebrew or Aramaic words such as abba, “father,” but immediately followed the word with a translation into Greek, they invariably left “amen” untranslated in its Hebrew form. This could possibly have been because they felt the word amen was known and understood by all their readers, but it is more likely that they knew that the word represented a range of meanings and they felt it better to simply include the word and let the reader or hearer consider the possibilities. If this is the case, we can draw a lesson from the fact. That small untranslated “amen” we read in our Bibles can mean more than just “may it be so.” We can often profitably think about what it most likely means in a given context or the intended force with which the expression was used. Finally, we should remember that “amen” certainly is not just a spiritual punctuation mark or a simple exclamation – wherever we use it we should think of it as a solemn affirmation that we are giving our personal guarantee that what was said is true!
Photo by Dafna Gazit, Israel Antiquities Authority.
Archaeology has been able to document an increasing number of individuals mentioned in the pages of the Bible – including the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah as well as King David, Hezekiah, and others (see the other posts in this category).
Most recently – just a few weeks ago – archaeologists officially announced the discovery of a 3,100-year-old inscription from the period of the biblical judges which may refer to Gideon, the Israelite warrior-leader famous for defeating the Midianite and Amalekite armies that invaded ancient Israel (Judges 6). While this inscription may not provide firm proof of Gideon, it is of great importance for a number of reasons.
For one thing, before its discovery there were practically no inscriptions of this time from the area of Israel in which it was found. Some had even argued that the alphabet was unknown in the region, that there were no scribes, and that the biblical accounts must therefore have been written much later. This find helps correct that view.
The inscription itself was found in excavations being conducted as a joint project of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Israel Antiquities Authority, and Macquarie University in Australia. It consists of the name Jerubbaal, known in the Bible as the nickname of the judge Gideon (Judges 6:31–32), written in ink on what remains of a pottery jar or jug. The preserved name probably identified the owner of the vessel, which may have held a precious liquid, such as perfume.
The Bible explains why the name Jerubbaal was given to Gideon: “because Gideon broke down Baal’s altar, they gave him the name Jerub-Baal that day, saying, “Let Baal contend with him” (Judges 6:32). Jerubbaal may also mean “May Ba‘al be great,” and while biblical writers often used the word ba‘al to refer to the pagan Canaanite god Ba‘al, the word could simply mean “lord,” as in the name of one of David’s heroes Baaliah (“Yah is Lord”) in 1 Chronicles 12:5 – so that the name Jerubbaal (“May the lord be great”) could also refer to Israel’s God Yahweh.
But one of the important aspects of the newly released inscription is that outside the Bible the name Jerubbaal is otherwise unknown in archaeological or historical contexts. Even if the new inscription does not refer to the Jerubbaal we know as Gideon, it shows that Jerubbaal was a name in use in exactly the time Gideon is said to have lived.
It is not known that the Jerubbaal inscription does not refer to the biblical Gideon in some way – especially as the name is otherwise unknown. The find was made at the site of Khirbet al-Ra‘i, thought by some to be the biblical Ziklag (1 Samuel 30, etc.), and petrographic analysis indicates it was locally made. Since the biblical Gideon lived in Oprah (Judges 6:11, 8:27), usually assumed to have been in the Jezreel Valley nearly a hundred miles away, it is thought that this inscription likely belonged to another Jerubbaal. However, the exact location of Oprah is unknown, and so original ownership by the biblical Gideon could still have been possible.
Interestingly, the related name Ishbaal (“Man of Baal/ the Lord”), which is only mentioned in the Bible during the time of King David, was found in stratum dated to that period at the site of Khirbat Qeiyafa in Israel, showing an emerging pattern of names previously only known from the Bible being attested archaeologically.
Ultimately, of course, we do not know if the Jerubbaal artifact was named for Gideon or some other Jerubbaal, but the fact that it demonstrates the actual use of the unusual name for the first time and that it dates to the time of the biblical Gideon makes it especially interesting. The artifact may not be proof of Gideon, but it certainly demonstrates the reality of an important aspect of the Gideon story – the name Jerubbaal itself.
The Bible is clear that we should confess our moral and spiritual failures, but the subject of confession can be confusing even for long-time Christians. Does the Bible teach that it is a public or a private thing? Should we confess all or just some of our faults to others? Do we need a priest or minister in order to confess? Understanding what the Bible teaches on this topic can help us answer these and other questions we may have on the subject.
There are actually a number of different words in the Bible that are translated “confess” or “confession” in English. In the Old Testament the most important word translated “confess” is the Hebrew word yada which can mean “to praise / give glory,” or “to confess an offence.” When Joshua tells the thief Achan “give glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and honor him. Tell me what you have done; do not hide it from me” (Joshua 7:19), he is using the word yada and we can see both senses of the word – to give praise or glory, and to confess – in this verse. When we confess our sins, we are acknowledging God is right and we are wrong, so we are praising or giving glory to God in addition to admitting our own faults.
In the New Testament there are also several words translated “confess,” but the most important is homologeō which is a compound word meaning “to say the same.” Just like yada in the Old Testament, this Greek word can be used in the sense of praising God (acknowledging that God is God and that he is right) or confessing that we are sinful (acknowledging that God is right in his judgment).
This dual meaning of the biblical words translated confess is the reason why Bible verses seem to use the word in two very different ways – positively, to confess our faith, and negatively, to confess our faults. Thus, when the apostle Paul wrote “And every tongue [will] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11) and when Matthew tells us regarding the people who went to John the Baptist “Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River” (Matthew 3:60), they are using the same Greek word – homologeō.
But how exactly should we go about the kind of confession that involves admitting our faults and sins? Some biblical verses seem to speak of private confession to God (for example, David’s psalm of repentance, Psalm 51), while others speak of public confession (for example, Acts 19:18-19 which tells us “Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly.”
A good way to understand the way in which confession should be accomplished is found in the statement that our confession should usually be as wide as our sin. This means that if we have sinned secretly, in most cases we should confess the sin to God and we need not confess it to others (more on this later). However, if we have sinned against another person, we should usually confess the sin to God and to the individual we have wronged. Finally, if we have sinned in a way that affects many people, we should confess it to God and sometimes also in public.
Notice that in explaining this principle of confession we have used the words “usually” and “sometimes.” This is because there is no hard and fast rule given in the Bible or even that we can make ourselves. We may need to act differently according to different circumstances. For example, in the case of a secret, personal sin we might wish to ask our pastor or a trusted Christian friend to pray for us in dealing with the sin we are fighting. This is the principle of accountability which can be very helpful in some cases, but it is a principle that should always be applied with wisdom and care – we should never simply “unload” our sins and faults on another person simply because they are a Christian.
When we realize that circumstances affect how confession to others is managed (in every circumstance we should confess our sins to God, of course), we can better understand the apostle James’ words with which we began this short article. In context, James tells us: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). Here, we see that James is talking about confession to elders of the church (vs. 14) regarding sins that may have brought sickness upon us or prevented our healing (vss. 14-15). So this is not speaking of confession in all circumstances. Second, notice that James speaks of confessing our sins to “one another,” which indicates that in some circumstances confession should be mutual. Certainly, the New Testament shows us that it is Jesus Christ who is our true mediator and the one through whom we are forgiven (“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”– 1 John 1:9), so our attitude is never one of looking to others for forgiveness, but simply for help in fulfilling the responsibility of repentance and growth that we all share.
In summary, the Bible teaching on the matter of confession is not one in which there is one rule for every circumstance. We should always confess our faults to God, but we should use wisdom, care, and discretion in deciding how widely the confession of certain sins should be made to others.
Recent Comments