Was Ahaziah 22 or 42 When He Became King?

October 14, 2023October 14, 2023 Matthew Gage

“Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.” – II Kings 8:26

“Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.” – II Chronicles 22:2

First, it must be stated that this is not a KJV issue, it is a Hebrew text issue. The Hebrew Masoretic text in II Kings 8:26 says twenty-two years and in II Chronicles 22:2 says forty-two years. To deny the forty-two years in I Chronicles is to deny the text and imagine a mistake was made.

There are other ancient translations that appear to have “corrected” the 42 to 22, including the Septuagint. I do not think this is evidence for an error, but rather that many before were like the critics of today and sought to “correct” perceived errors.

Second, it is frankly improbable that this is a copyist’s mistake. Below is an illustration of the mistake that is imagined having been made by a uncareful scribe. [1] The top word is “twenty” and the bottom is “forty”. This would not have been a simple mistake, like making an “O” a “Q”.

Third, there are many misrepresentations of the facts by those who claim there is a copyist mistake here. For instance, it is often stated that these numbers are reckoned using numerical letter values. Thus כ (kaf = 20) and מ (mem = 40) are mistaken for each other. But the text is not using this system and instead spells out the words as seen above.

Another instance is an insistence that Ahaziah’s father Jehoram died at the age of 40, those making it impossible for Ahaziah to ascend the throne at age 42. However, the text never explicitly states how old Jehoram was when he died. It states that Jehoram was 32 when began to reign and reigned for 8 years “in Jerusalem” (II Kings 8:17, II Chronicles 21:5&20). It is therefore assumed that those 8 years begin when he is 32, but that does not have to be the case if there was a coregency between Jehoram and Jehoshaphat before an 8-year solo rule.

Fourth, while I cannot find one conclusive solution to this conundrum, there are multiple theories that are quite plausible.

Matthew Poole notes two possible solutions based on the idiomatic language found in II Chronicles 22:2, these being either the 42 years as the age of Ahaziah’s mother Athaliah or the age of Omri’s dynasty:

“In the Hebrew it is, a son of forty-two years, &c., which is an ambiguous phrase; and though it doth for the most part, yet it doth not always, signify the age of the person, as is manifest from 1 Samuel 13:1, See Poole ‘1 Samuel 13:1’. And therefore it is not necessary that this should note his age (as it is generally presumed to do, and that is the only ground of the difficulty); but it may note either,

“1. The age of his mother Athaliah; who being so great, and infamous, and mischievous a person to the kingdom and royal family of Judah, it is not strange if her age be here described, especially seeing she herself did for a season sway this sceptre. Or rather,

“2. Of the reign of that royal race and family from which by his mother he was descended, to wit, of the house of Omri, who reigned six years, 1 Kings 16:23; Ahab his son reigned twenty-two years, 1 Kings 16:29; Ahaziah his son two years, 1 Kings 22:51; Joram his son twelve years, 2 Kings 3:1; all which, put together, make up exactly these forty-two years; for Ahaziah began his reign in Joram’s twelfth year, 2 Kings 8:25. And such a kind of computation of the years, not of the king’s person, but of his reign or kingdom, we had before, 2 Chronicles 16:1, See Poole ‘2 Chronicles 16:1’. And so we have an account of the person’s age in 2 Kings 8:26, and here of the kingdom to which he belonged.”[2]

The Trinitarian Bible Society has published a solution involving coregencies:

“Again, a number of scholars attribute the apparent discrepancy to a copyist’s error. We are unwilling to do this, particularly as this discrepancy can be reconciled. The Hebrew Masoretic Text has ‘forty-two’ in 2 Chronicles 22.2; and while only the original manuscript was ‘inspired’, God has, in His special providence, preserved the Holy Scriptures so that we do now possess faithful and authoritative copies.

“We must admit, of course, that there is a problem in reconciling these two Scriptures. In 2 Kings 8.17, we are told that Jehoram (Ahaziah’s father) was thirty-two when he became king, and that he died eight years later, apparently at the age of forty. Now if Jehoram was eighteen years old when he became a father, this would mean that Ahaziah would have been twenty-two years old when he succeeded his father on the throne of Judah. And that is what the inspired historian says in 2 Kings 8.26. But 2 Chronicles 22.2 states that Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king. If Jehoram died at forty and Ahaziah became king at forty-two, then Ahaziah appears to have been two years older than his father!

“There have been various explanations, but we will confine ourselves to just one of these. According to 2 Kings 8.17, Jehoram (the father) was thirty-two when he began to reign. This appears to have been as co-regent with Jehoshaphat, for note the wording of 8.16, ‘Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign’. If Jehoram, at thirty-two, was co-regent with Jehoshaphat for twenty years, and then sole monarch for another eight years – and Scripture says that ‘he reigned eight years in Jerusalem’ (8.17) – this would mean that he died at the age of sixty (and not forty).

“Now this brings us to Ahaziah. Let us suppose that he was admitted to co-regency when he was twenty-two years old (as in 2 Kings 8.26) and that he continued in his office as co-regent for twenty years, he would then have begun to reign alone in his father’s sixtieth year, when he himself was forty-two years old – exactly as we have it stated in 2 Chronicles 22.2.

“Co-regency was a common practice in Israel ever since the time of David, who used it to ensure the succession of Solomon (1 Kings 1.29ff). If we take it into account here, we are able satisfactorily to harmonize 2 Kings 8.26 and 2 Chronicles 22.2.

“The explanation given above upholds the Masoretic Text and is perfectly reasonable. The believer in verbal inspiration always takes the position of faith: that is, he always tries to find an answer to a problem posed by the text of Holy Scripture. The believer does not immediately – or indeed after study – jump to the conclusion that there is an error in the text. Instead, he believes there is an answer to all these problems, even if he does not know the answer at that particular time. ‘The scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10.35).”[3]

There is another, to me, less plausible theory that Ahaziah was not the actual son of Jehoram, but his stepson. This theory involves Athaliah being the daughter of Omri and not Ahab, and that Ahaziah was born to another husband before her marriage to Jehoram. This would account for the idea that he is older than his father, if Jehoram did indeed die at 40 and Ahaziah became king at 42. I do not think this is the best interpretation of all the Scriptural evidence.

Fifth, there are deep and convoluted ties between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms at this time that may not be possible to completely unravel. Evidence for this includes:

In II Chronicles 18:1, it is noted that Jehoshaphat (Judah) enters an “affinity” with Ahab (Israel). This involves a marriage between Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram and Ahab’s daughter Athaliah. This does not unite the kingdoms, but it does intertwine the ruling houses.
In II Chronicles 20:35, Jehoshaphat is said to “join himself with Ahaziah king of Israel” (Ahab’s son). The nature of this arrangement is not clear except for a trading venture at Ezeiongeber.
In II Chronicles 21:2, Jehoshaphat is said to be “king of Israel”. This is often taken as another “copyist’s error” but could use Israel generically for the Jewish people[4] or could be used literally of the Northern Kingdom. That latter option could reflect the alliance between the kingdoms.
In II Kings 8:27, Ahaziah is said to be the “the son in law of the house of Ahab”. Poole comments: “He was the proper son of Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, and the grandson-in-law of Ahab, because his father was Ahab’s son-in-law”.[5] Most do not believe that he married someone of Ahab’s house, but that his relation was the son of his son-in-law. The one wife we are aware of is Zibiah (II Chronicles 24:1) but it is possible there could be more, perhaps even a daughter of Ahab.
In I Kings 22:6, a “king’s son” named Joash is mentioned that some a few[6] is the same as Joash, king of Judah. The chronology does not seem to support this and most commentators state this is a different Joash.[7] This is a possible link, but I very doubtful.

These deep ties could make chronology difficult if, for instance, a prince was raised over a different kingdom for a time until they became king of another kingdom.

MY THEORY

I believe that both of Ahaziah’s ages are correct but refer to different occasions of becoming a prince or king. He became a prince or co-ruler at 22 and then sole king at 42.

This theory depends on coregencies going back to at least into the reigns of Asa or Jehoshaphat. Let us look at the evidence from the reigns of the kings of Judah dating back to Rehoboam. Note the ages of when the heirs became king and lengths of their reigns.

Rehoboam was 41 years old when he became king and reigned 17 years (I Kings 14:21, II Chronicles 12:13).
Abijah/Abijam was 34 years old[8] when he became king and reigned 3 years (I Kings 15:1-2, II Chronicles 13:1-2).
Asa was 18 years old[9] when he became king and reigned 41 years (I Kings 15:9-11, II Chronicles 16:13-14)
Jehoshaphat was 35 years old[10] when he became king and reigned 25 years (I Kings 22:41-42, II Chronicles 20:21)
Jehoram was 32 years old[11] when he became king and reigned eight years (I Kings 22:17,20; II Chronicles 21:5).
- There is definitely a coregency between Jehoshaphat and Jehoram (II Kings 8:16). Reese says this is for 5 years on top of the 8 years, making 13 years total.

The coregency of Jehoram is key. It is unclear if the 8-year reign includes the coregency or not. This falls into the vagaries of chronological studies. I have found differing opinions on the matter. My theory is that it does not and those 8 years are the length of his reign as king.

So, is there a gap between Jehoram becoming coregent with his father and his solo reign of eight years? I believe there is. Gill quotes Lightfoot saying that there are possibly three ways to calculate the beginning of his reign:

“…according to Dr. Lightfoot, there were three beginnings of his reign; ‘first’, when his father went with Ahab to Ramothgilead, when he was left viceroy, and afterwards his father reassumed the kingdom; the ‘second’ time was, when Jehoshaphat went with the kings of Israel and Edom against Moab; and this is the time here respected, which was in the fifth of Joram king of Israel; and the ‘third’ time was, at the death of his father; but knew his father was living.”[12]

Interestingly, according to Reese’s chronology, this is roughly the same time (~898 B.C.) the Ahab entering a coregency with his son Ahaziah.[13] This all seems to involve the combined campaign of Jehoshaphat and Ahab against Syria. There is a likelihood that these coregencies were safeguards in case the coming military campaign went bad.

The ages of Jehoshphat and Jehoram at the beginnings of their reigns suggest that that their presumptive heirs were born around the time of their ascensions. Then when the heirs were of a respectable age, they were given some authority, perhaps as a secondary ruler or even coruler. Such a thing is not unknown in history. Diocletian would do something similar with the Roman Empire with the establishment of the Tetrarchy in the late third century.

If these assumptions are true, then it is likely that Jehoram is older than Reese’s calculations. He would have been born when Jehoshaphat was perhaps 18-20 years old. He would have been given some authority or title (up to coregency) when he was also around 18-20 years old. This shows he could very well have been elevated to a prince or coregent for most around 20 years of Jehoshaphat’s reign before being the primary ruler for eight years. This scenario allows Jehoram to have a son very early in his father’s reign. This son, Ahaziah, would then follow a similar track, being elevated in his late teens (or perhaps even as an infant or child) to be a prince or coregent. This could feasibly even date back into his grandfather’s reign.

So, it is both possible that Ahaziah became a ruler (prince/coregent) at the age of 22 but the primary ruler (king) at 42. He had twenty years of ruling experience of some lesser type before his ascension to the throne.

Why then does II Chronicles, written after the Babylonian Captivity, give a different age? There are numerous examples where Chronicles has a different approach to numbers than Samuel/Kings. It is commonly theorized that Chronicles was written with access to different sources of information than Samuel/Kings, perhaps even different official records. I think there is also a perspective shift on how some things were calculated that comes from Babylonian and Persian influences. In many cases, I believe the changes where Chronicles varies information in Samuel/Kings are to clarify something that now was confusing with this perspective shift in place.

The answer to why the writer of Chronicles chose to record the age differently is because of the Ahaziah’s ties to the Northern Kingdom and the house of Omri and Ahab. Chronicles focuses on the Southern Kingdom, not the Northern. Ahaziah is technically a prince of both Kingdoms. Note his genealogy:

Therefore, in Ahaziah we find an opportunity for the Kingdoms to be united again. The problem with this would be that idolatrous influence of the counterfeit religion of Jeroboam and the corrupted religion of Jezebel that seems to have had a great influence on Ahaziah. It is noted that Ahaziah “walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly.” (II Chronicles 22:3). God intervenes and ends these evil influences with Jehu’s rise in the Northern Kingdom, followed by the execution of Athaliah and the ascension of Joash in the Southern Kingdom. It likely speaks to the wickedness of Ahaziah that he is cut down by Jehu in his purge of Ahab’s house.

On this it is worth noting how Matthew’s genealogy of Christ handles this series of kings: “And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias [a.k.a., Uzziah or Azariah];” (Matthew 1:8). Matthew skips Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Gill comments: “either because of the curse denounced on Ahab’s family, into which Joram married, whose idolatry was punished to the third or fourth generation; or because these were princes of no good character; or because their names were not in the Jewish registers.”[14] It is plausible to assume that the writer of Chronicles and Matthew have a similar approach to approaching the influence of Ahab, that is, ignoring it.

To summarize my theory: Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became a prince/coregent, possibly with connections to the Northern Kingdom. Ahaziah was 42 years old when he became king of Judah. The writer of II Kings chose to include the time as prince/coregent, and the writer of II Chronicles did not.

In my opinion, the burden of proof should lie on those that claim there is an error in the text. They can prove others believed there was an error and that attempts were made to correct this perceived error, but not that there is an actual error. It is merely theorized that there is an error in the text to account for something that does not seem to make sense. The danger here is that because something does not make sense to someone, it is assumed that it is because there is an error. This makes man the final arbiter between what is God-breathed Scripture and what is not. To casually dismiss something as an error when there are multiple plausible scenarios for it to be correct is careless as best.

[1] Made with screenshots from E-sword module “Hebrew Old Testament (Tanach) w/ Strong’s Numbers”.

[2] https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/2_chronicles/22.htm – accessed 10-13-23

[3] “Brief notes on 2 Samuel 15.7, 2 Kings 8.26 and 2 Chronicles 22.2” by the Rev. M. H. Watts from the Trinitarian Bible Society’s April-June 2004 Quarterly Record. Found at: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/156A9AA2-2086-4C4E-BE0A-08A4508415DA/Brief-Notes-2-Samuel-2-Kings-2-Chronicles.pdf – accessed 10-13-23

[4] So says Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on this passage.

[5] Matthew Poole’s Commentary, E-Sword module.

[6] Ruckman, for example.

[7] Reese, Gill, and Barnes are examples.

[8] Reese estimates that Rehoboam was 24 at his son’s birth.

[9] Reese estimate that Abijam was 19 at his son’s birth.

[10] Reese estimates that Asa was 24 at his son’s birth.

[11] Reese estimates that Jehoshaphat was 25 at his son’s birth.

[12] Gill’s Commentary on II Kings 8:16 – E-sword module.

[13] Reese’s Chronological Study Bible, p. 624.

[14] Gill’s Commentary, E-Sword Module

Physical Expression in Worship

August 11, 2023August 11, 2023 Matthew Gage

There has been great debate throughout the history of Christianity on how to properly and acceptably express worship through physical expression. The debate is usually presented as a false dichotomy: you are either for physical expression in worship or you are not. Actually, there is a vast spectrum of opinions on the matter.

If we were to be honest, how we express our worship to God has much to do with our culture. Some cultures are far more physically expressive than others and it tends to bleed into how they worship. This is evident here in America, where many have observed that church services in the south are typically livelier than those in the north. A church service in Central America may be even livelier, while one in Europe may not be lively at all. Each of these situations is caused by the culture of the people.

Culture is something that must be considered when discussing this topic. Our modern American culture has some overlap with that of ancient Israel but there are also great differences. For instance, we do not express lament or mourning by tearing our clothes, wearing sackcloth, and putting ashes on our heads (II Samuel 13:19, Esther 4:1, Daniel 9:3, Jonah 3:6, etc.). Yet we know what these actions represent in that culture.

The bottom line is that physical expression is worship is an area of Christian liberty. There are many verses that condone it and few that condemn it. As Paul said in Romans 14:5: “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

The issue today is that there is a great push for physical expression in worship that is not based on sound interpretation of Scripture. In this chapter, I want to look at four commonly promoted physical expressions and examine the Biblical case for each.

Bowing/Kneeling/Prostration

The primary Hebrew and Greek words used for worship carry with them the idea of bowing or prostration. The Hebrew shachah (Strong’s H7812) is defined as:

“A primitive root; to depress, that is, prostrate (especially reflexively in homage to royalty or God): – bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.”

The Greek proskeneo (Strong’s G4352) is defined as:

“to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): – worship.”

So obviously there is a connection between worshipping and humbling oneself by lowering ourselves toward the ground. I do not think anyone would deny that.

The issue then is whether that physical expression is figurative or literal for us today. Can this be done?

We must consider that in Hebrew especially there is a tendency to express abstract concepts with concrete imagery. That is, things that cannot be interacted with via our human senses are explained with things that are. A great example of this is the word qavah (Strong’s H6960) which is translated as “wait” in Isaiah 40:31. The Strong’s definition for this word is:

“to bind together (perhaps by twisting), that is, collect; (figuratively) to expect: – gather (together), look, patiently, tarry, wait (for, on, upon).”

Thus, the abstract idea of waiting is expressed in the concrete imagery of twisting and binding, such as braiding a rope from individual fibers. We see this meaning in Genesis 1:9 and Jeremiah 1:17 where qavah is translated “gathered”.

Does “waiting” (qavah) on the Lord mean that I must be twisting and binding? I do not think anyone would take those implied actions as literal. Instead, we would enhance our understanding of “waiting” to include preparing, strengthening, or producing so that waiting does not mean idleness.

So, does “worshipping” (shachah) mean that I must bow myself to the earth to truly worship? I would contend that it is a similar case to that of qavah, in that the implied action should be applied figuratively. It is therefore important to humble ourselves before God in our spirit, which may or may not be expressed physically.

Let me be honest here. I do not see any sort of command or precedent for physically bowing in our worship today. But of all the physical expressions we will discuss, this is the one that I would have the least problem with because it is the truest to the original sense of the words. Personally, I often lay prostrate on the ground in private prayer. I do think it would be out of place in corporate worship.

Clapping Hands

Clapping hands is a sign of joy or appreciation in our American culture. We may clap when our sports team wins or after a piano recital.

There is a little more nuance to the action when it appears in the Bible. It is chiefly an expression of joy or appreciation. However, it is also used in a mocking or derisive sense. Let’s look at the appearance of clapping and what each represents.

The first group are verses in which clapping hands is a clear expression of joy:

“And he brought forth the king’s son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king.” – II Kings 11:12

“O clap your hands, all ye people; shout unto God with the voice of triumph.” – Psalm 47:1

The second group are verses in which anthropomorphic rivers and trees clap their hands in joy:

“Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful together” – Psalm 98:8

“For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.” – Isaiah 55:12

The third group are verses in which clapping hands is derisive or mocking, like gloating over a defeated enemy:

“Men shall clap their hands at him [wicked man], and shall hiss him out of his place.” – Job 27:23

“For he [Job] addeth rebellion unto his sin, he clappeth his hands among us, and multiplieth his words against God.” – Job 34:37

“All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth?” – Lamentations 2:15

“For thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou [Ammon] hast clapped thine hands, and stamped with the feet, and rejoiced in heart with all thy despite against the land of Israel; Behold, therefore I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and will deliver thee for a spoil to the heathen; and I will cut thee off from the people, and I will cause thee to perish out of the countries: I will destroy thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD.” – Ezekiel 25:6-7

“There is no healing of thy [Assyria’s] bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?” – Nahum 3:19

Those nine references are all the references to clapping in the Bible. None of the five references in the third group are instructive for us as they do not relate to worship. Neither does II Kings 11:12. I would say that both Psalm 98:8 and Isaiah 55:2 are artistic representations of joy and not instructive to us.

This leaves us with one verse – Psalm 47:1 – to build a case for clapping our hands in worship of God. Here I believe we see the joyful praise of the Messiah in His Kingdom (see vs. 7-9) expressed through clapping (applause), shouting (vs. 1), and singing (vs. 6-7). Charles Spurgeon wrote: “The most natural and most enthusiastic tokens of exultation are to be used in view of the victories of the Lord, and his universal reign. Our joy in God may be demonstrative, and yet he will not censure it.”

I do believe that clapping is an acceptable means of expressing our joy toward God. I do think this refers to applause and not keeping rhythm to a song.

Raising Hands

Over the past few decades, the act of raising hands has become an almost ubiquitous expression of worship. Even in conservative churches there is often a grudging acceptance of the act even if it is not actually promoted or practiced.

I believe there is a great misunderstanding on the subject that is based on people reading a different definition or motivation into the appearance of raising hands in the Bible. To try to avoid confusion, we will look at the references to the practice grouped according to what the act of raising hands is referring to. I do acknowledge that some of these could fit into different or even multiple categories.

First, there is a group of references where raising hands is part of pronouncing a blessing:

“And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and peace offerings.” – Leviticus 9:22

“And he [Christ] led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.” – Luke 24:50

Second, there is a group of references where raising hands is part of swearing an oath:

“For I [God] lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.” – Deuteronomy 32:40

“And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.” – Nehemiah 8:6

“And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.” – Daniel 12:7

Third, there is a group of references where raising hands is an act of violence or opposition:

“And Ahimaaz called, and said unto the king, All is well. And he fell down to the earth upon his face before the king, and said, Blessed be the LORD thy God, which hath delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king.” – II Samuel 18:28

“Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews.” – Esther 8:7

“Thine hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.” – Micah 5:9

Fourth, there is a group of references where raising hands is an act of beckoning or welcoming:

“Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.” – Isaiah 49:22

“I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;” – Isaiah 65:2

Fifth, there is a group of references where raising hands is an act of prayer or pleading:

“And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven.” – I Kings 8:54

“And he [Solomon] stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands:” – II Chronicles 6:12

“And at the evening sacrifice I arose up from my heaviness; and having rent my garment and my mantle, I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the LORD my God, And said, O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens. ” – Ezra 9:5-6

“Hear the voice of my supplications, when I cry unto thee, when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle.” – Psalm 28:2

“If we have forgotten the name of our God, or stretched out our hands to a strange god;” – Psalm 44:20

“Thus will I bless thee while I live: I will lift up my hands in thy name.” – Psalm 63:4

“Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God.” – Psalm 68:31

“Mine eye mourneth by reason of affliction: LORD, I have called daily upon thee, I have stretched out my hands unto thee.” – Psalm 88:9

“Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the LORD.” – Psalm 134:2

“Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.” – Psalm 141:2

“I stretch forth my hands unto thee: my soul thirsteth after thee, as a thirsty land. Selah” – Psalm 143:6

“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.” – Isaiah 1:15

“Zion spreadeth forth her hands, and there is none to comfort her: the LORD hath commanded concerning Jacob, that his adversaries should be round about him: Jerusalem is as a menstruous woman among them.” – Lamentations 1:15

“Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens.” – Lamentations 3:41

“Arise, cry out in the night: in the beginning of the watches pour out thine heart like water before the face of the Lord: lift up thy hands toward him for the life of thy young children, that faint for hunger in the top of every street.” – Lamentations 2:19

“I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” – I Timothy 2:8

Sixth, there is a group of references where raising hands is simply the act of raising hands with no clear meaning behind the act:

“And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the LORD; and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how that the earth is the LORD’S.” – Exodus 9:29

“Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up thine hand: forget not the humble.” – Psalm 10:12

“LORD, when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see: but they shall see, and be ashamed for their envy at the people; yea, the fire of thine enemies shall devour them.” – Isaiah 26:11

“The mountains saw thee, and they trembled: the overflowing of the water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, and lifted up his hands on high.” – Habakkuk 3:10

“My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes.” – Psalm 119:48

“For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.” – Jeremiah 4:31

The sixteen verses of the fifth group regarding prayer are generally the ones used to promote raising hands in worship. This goes against not only a straightforward interpretation of the phrases, but also fails to discern how often these prayers are linked to lament or despair. I would challenge the reader to study out the setting for each of these verses, especially the ones from Ezra, Psalms, Isaiah, and Lamentations. What you will find is that the act of lifting hands in prayer is often tied to lament and desperation.

I firmly believe that careful study of raising hands in Scripture has little to do with worshipping or praising God. I believe that modern readers are reading a meaning into the action that is not consistent with a plain reading of the references.

Dancing

Dancing, like clapping or shouting, is a common expression of joy (Exodus 15:20, II Samuel 6:14). In Ecclesiastes 3:4 and Psalm 30:11 it is seen as the opposite of mourning.

Here again we need to consider the culture of ancient Israel and not let our modern actions creep into our understanding of Scripture. The dancing of the Jewish people is folk dancing. It is very different than modern or popular dances today. The emphasis is on communal activity and not individuals. It is to be participated in by a group of people and not for performance. It is also not so sexually charged as much of today’s dance is.

The question is not whether the Jewish people danced, but rather did they dance as an act of worship. There is little evidence from Scripture to suggest they did. The Mosaic Law has no mention of it. There are two commonly cited references that we need to discuss.

The first is the example of David, who danced when the Ark of the Covenant was brought to Jerusalem (II Samuel 6:14-16, I Chronicles 15:29). If seen through the lens of Jewish culture, this appears to be a celebratory folk dance like those following the Red Sea crossing in Exodus 15:20 or Goliath’s defeat in I Samuel 18:6. If it is an act of worship, it is the only record of such. Frankly, there is no indication this David’s dance is an example for us to follow.

The second is the final two Psalms. Those who defend the use of dancing say that these Psalms detail how we should worship and praise God because they begin with commands to “sing… his praise in the congregation of saints” (Psalm 149:1) and “praise God in his sanctuary” (Psalm 150:1). They will often claim this is descriptive of Temple worship.

However, Psalms 149 and 150 are not exclusively about Temple worship. They are the grand climax of the Psalms that extol all people at all times in all places to praise God. Psalm 149 is clear on this. Vs. 5 talks about praise in the nighttime – “let them sing aloud upon their beds.” Vs. 6 and following talks about praise in battle – “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged word in their hand.” To be consistent, if you claim 149:3 commands or commends dance in worship then you should also see the same emphasis on using beds and swords.

Another issue with using Psalms 149 and 150 is the artistic language of the Hebrew poetry. Many well-meaning people misinterpret Hebrew poetry by taking it too literally or doing so inconsistently. Psalm 150 is a great example of this. It is not commanding us to praise God only with trumpets, psalteries, harps, timbrels, dances, stringed instruments, organs, and symbols. It is not even saying we must use those means. It is poetically imploring us to joyfully praise God with any proper means at our disposal. It is like the famous Winston Churchill quote about defending Britain from Nazi invasion: “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” Churchill is not saying that beaches, landing grounds, fields, streets, and hills are the only places they would fight. He is artistically stating that they will fight the foe on any ground.

Why?

I have attempted to be honest and open-minded in approaching the subject of physical expression in worship. I cannot find a good Scriptural basis for the promotion of it as we see so much of today. However, I cannot find clear prohibitions against it.

Like I said in the opening of this chapter, we are dealing with a subject that is largely governed by Christian liberty. To each his own, right? Sort of.

The biggest issue is why would we encourage physical expression in worship. This question is often overlooked in the discussion as we chase down verses and definitions and such. We must address why to clear up the entire debate.

Some will claim that the why is an attempt to be obedient to the clear teaching of Scripture. I think I have demonstrated in this chapter that this is not the case.

Some will claim the why is an attempt to restore a true means of worship that has been forgotten or lost. I highly doubt God would let His people forget how to properly worship Him for over two thousand years.
Some will claim the why is breaking down barriers in our hearts so that we can experience unbridled worship. This is New Age philosophy and not Bible doctrine. We are nowhere commanded to “follow our hearts” because our fallen and depraved nature is untrustworthy (Jeremiah 17:9).

Some will claim the why is to allow the Holy Spirit to move believers. This creates something like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are promoting actions that you think the Holy Spirit would do, then you are also promoting people perform those actions as proof of the Holy Spirit’s working. You are getting what you expect and denying what you do not.

I think the why is that people are not satisfied with what God has already given them as means to worship. They want to worship God on their own terms. It is the same motivation as Caan’s offering in Genesis 4. It is the same motivation that led to the creation of the golden calf in Exodus 32. It is the same motivation that led Peter to want to build three tabernacles in Luke 9:33. It is the same motivation that led many early believers to be burdened with the customs of the Mosaic Law. All these thought they too had found a better, newer, more effective way of worshipping God.

Christian Maturity

Careful study of the Scriptures will show that it is not unbridled passion or exuberant praise that marks a mature believer. It is the opposite: temperance, sobriety, and soundness of mind. Note the following verses and the underlined words and phrases:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” – Galatians 5:22-23

“Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.” – I Timothy 3:8-9

“For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” – II Timothy 1:7

“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” – Titus 1:7-9

“But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.” – Titus 2:1-2

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” – Titus 2:11-14

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.” – I Peter 5:8-9

“And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.” – II Peter 1:5-7

It is clear that a spiritually mature believer is not marked by reckless abandoning themselves in uninhibited worship. If anything, that description would apply to the weak or immature believer. These need to be encouraged “to put away childish things” and grow into richer and deeper understanding of worship.

Is “Tyrant” Missing From The KJV?

May 19, 2023December 29, 2023 Matthew Gage

From time to time I hear a claim that King James I interfered with the translation of the Bible he sponsored by demanding words or phrases not be used. There is no evidence of this ever occurring. The only directions we are aware of are fifteen guidelines for the translation process.

Today, I came across a claim on Twitter (original video above) that James did not want the word tyrant used in his translation. That video claims, “But King James didn’t like this word, so he took it out and replaced it with something different.” James was an advocate of the divine right of monarchy to rule (and wrote about it), and so it is claimed that he would be sensitive to criticism of a such a monarchy as “tyranny”.

Translation Comparison

The primary comparison used is KJV with the Geneva Bible, with some attention paid to other earlier translations like the Bishop’s Bible or the Coverdale Bible. Using BibleHub and BibleGateway, here are the relevant verses compared:

Job 3:17
- Hebrew – Strong’s H7267
- Geneva Bible – “The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny, and there they that labored valiantly, are at rest.”
  - Also in Bishops and Coverdale.
- KJV – “There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.”
- Other translations use words like “trouble” or “raging”
Job 6:23
- Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
- Geneva Bible – “And deliver me from the enemy’s hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?”
  - In Bishops but not Coverdale
- KJV – “Or, Deliver me from the enemy’s hand? or, Redeem me from the hand of the mighty?”
- Other translations use “ruthless, except the NASB which does use “tyrant”.
Job 15:20
- Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
- Geneva Bible – “The wicked man is continually as one that travaileth of child, and the number of years is hid from the tyrant.”
  - Also in Bishops and Coverdale
- KJV – “The wicked man travaileth with pain all his days, and the number of years is hidden to the oppressor.”
- Other translations are mainly “ruthless”
Job 27:13
- Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
- Geneva Bible – “This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty.”
  - Also in Bishops and Coverdale
- KJV – “This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of oppressors, which they shall receive of the Almighty.”
- Other translations: NASB has “tyrants” while others vary.
Psalm 54:3
- Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
- Geneva Bible – “For strangers are risen up against me, and tyrants seek my soul: they have not set God before them. Selah.”
  - In Bishops but not Coverdale.
- KJV – “For strangers are risen up against me, and oppressors seek after my soul: they have not set God before them. Selah.”
- Other translations mainly have “ruthless” or “violent men”
Isaiah 13:11
- Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
- Geneva Bible – “And I will visit the wickedness upon the world, and their iniquity upon the wicked, and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will cast down the pride of tyrants.”
  - Also in Bishops and Coverdale
- KJV – “And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.”
- Other translations have a mix of words like “tyrant” or “ruthless”
Isaiah 49:25
- Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
- Geneva Bible – “But thus saith the Lord, Even the captivity of the mighty shall be taken away: and the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children,”
  - Not in Bishops or Coverdale
- KJV – “But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.”
- Most other translations have “tyrant”.
Jeremiah 15:21
- Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
- Geneva Bible – “And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the tyrants.”
  - Also in Bishops and Coverdale
- KJV – “And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible.”
- Other translations mostly have “cruel”, “ruthless” or “violent”, but a few do have “tyrant”.
James 2:6
- Not found in Greek.
- Geneva Bible – “But ye have despised the poor. Do not the rich oppress you by tyranny, and do they not draw you before the judgment seats?”
  - Also in Bishops, but not Coverdale or Tyndale.
- KJV – “But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?”
- Most other translations do not have a parallel, a few have “exploit”

Regarding the Geneva Bible

The Geneva Bible was a tremendous achievement. It is essentially the world’s first “study Bible”, with notes, maps, and other features found in most Bible printed today. It did a great job of translation and was the primary Bible of English Protestantism for almost a century.

However, the downfall of the Geneva Bible is likely attributed to the added notes, in which are found many strong political statements. Remember that the Reformation was not just religious, it was political. For example of political commentary is found in a note in Daniel 11:36 states “So long the tyrants shall prevail as God hath appointed to punish his people: but he showeth that it is but for a time.” Simply put, the Geneva Bible was a politically disruptive force.

Historical Language Analysis

Today word tyrant might mean “an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution” or “a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally”.

In the ancient world it was a little different. The word tyrant comes from Greek, where it described opportunists that seized power with little or no right to do so. Originally it did have any connotation, good or bad, but developed a bad one over time.

As Western society progressed into the Enlightenment, tyranny became something to be despised. John Locke described it as “the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage.”

Old Testament Language Analysis

Because of the Greek heritage of the word and idea behind a tyrant, there really is not clear equivalent in ancient Hebrew.

Hebrew – Strong’s H7267

The Geneva Bible translated this word as “tyrant” only in Job 3:17.

Strong’s defines as “commotion, restlessness (of a horse), crash (of thunder), disquiet, anger — fear, noise, rage, trouble(-ing), wrath.”

Conclusion – Tyranny is probably not the best word here. It is describing the actions of the wicked as being turbulent, nothing inherently tyrannical here.

Hebrew – Strong’s H6184

This word is translated 7x in the Geneva Bible as “tyrant”. It occurs 20x overall

Strong’s defines as “fearful, i.e. Powerful or tyrannical — mighty, oppressor, in great power, strong, terrible, violent.”

Conclusion – Tyrant is not a bad translation of this word, but it is one application of a broader idea, which is “something to be feared that is mighty and oppressive”. Some appearances like Proverbs 11:16 or Jeremiah 20:11 do not contain the idea of being a tyrant. Again, “tyrant” is not an inaccurate translation in some cases but it is definitely not an equivalent for the Hebrew word.

New Testament Language Analysis

As we saw above, the only appearance of “tyrant” in the Geneva Bible’s New Testament in James 2:6 does not appear to have a textual basis. I’ll leave figuring that out to someone else, but I will show you the one time “tyrant” appears in the Greek New Testament: Acts 19:9. Yes, the name Tyrannus (Strong’s G5181) literally means “tyrant”.

Conclusion

So, according to the argument presented in the beginning, King James I did not like the word tyrant because it could be thought of as critical of his monarchy. He then supposedly directed the translators of the KJV to not use the word “tyrant”. We cited the references in the Geneva Bible (and others) that use the word tyrant where the KJV does not.

Case closed, right?

No, because the presented argument is critically flawed.

All we must do to utterly destroy the argument is show that the KJV does include the word tyrant. This completely undermines the foundation for the argument.

But didn’t we admit that the KJV does not contain the word tyrant? Yes and no.

What we proved above is that tyrant is not found in the Old or New Testaments of the KJV.

Here is the fatal flaw: no one that presents this argument bothered to look in the Apocrypha of the original KJV. If anyone had bothered to do so, you will quickly find that the word tyrant appears 3x in the KJV Apocrypha:

Wisdom of Solomon 12:14 – “Neither shall king or tyrant be able to set his face against thee for any whom thou hast punished.”
II Maccabees 4:25 – “So he came with the king’s mandate, bringing nothing worthy the high priesthood, but having the fury of a cruel tyrant, and the rage of a savage beast.”
II Maccabees 7:27 – “But she bowing herself toward him, laughing the cruel tyrant to scorn, spake in her country language on this manner; O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education.”

It should not be a surprise that Wisdom of Solomon and II Maccabees were originally written in Greek. The original writes used the Greek term for tyrant and the English translators used the English equivalent.

So, to counter the original argument:

King James could not have forbidden the use of the word tyrant because it does appear in the work of the translators within the Apocrypha.
The Greek etymology and heritage of tyrant makes it anachronistic to use in ancient Hebrew, meaning there is not equivalent that must be translated as such.

Oh, and I guess since the word “pudding” isn’t used in the KJV that James must have directed the translators to not talk about British desserts.

Acts 9:31 – “Church” or “Churches”?

April 4, 2023 Matthew Gage

Why do some Bible translations use “church” and others “churches in Acts 9:31? Which is the correct reading?

I recently came across a difference between Bible translations that I feel greatly affects what the Bible teaches about the nature of the church. I found very little information regarding this, so I thought I would share what I have found so far in studying it.

Background Context

The first 3/4s of Acts chapter 9 is the record of Saul’s conversion. Saul of Tarsus had menaced the church at Jerusalem after Stephen’s death, causing many believers to flee from Jerusalem to surrounding areas. But God had greater plans for Saul, and through a divine encounter on the road to Damascus Saul was wondrously converted.

Saul proved to be a controversial convert. Many Christians feared him because he had so recently persecuted them. He also proved zealous to the extreme, preaching so boldly that twice his enemies sought to kill him. He is sent back to his home in Tarsus to escape these threats.

This brings us to verse 31, which tells that state of the believers. The believers that had been centered in Jerusalem are now found throughout the regions of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Their faith and numbers continued to grow through the blessings of the Lord.

Singular or Plural?

When comparing different English translations of the New Testament, there is a marked difference in the opening words of Acts 9:31.

Version	Text
King James Version	Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria…
New International Version	Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria…
New Living Translation	The church then had peace throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria…
English Standard Version	So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria…
New American Standard Bible	So the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria…
Legacy Standard Bible	So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria…
Christian Standard Bible	So the church throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria…
American Standard Version	So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria…
New Revised Standard Version	Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria…
Geneva Bible (1587)	Then had the Churches rest through all Iudea, and Galile, and Samaria…
Coverdale Bible (1535)	So the congregacions had rest thorow out all Iewry, and Galile, and Samaria…
Tyndale Bible (1526)	Then had ye congregacios rest thorowoute all Iewry and galile and Samary…
Douay-Rheims Bible	Now the church had peace throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria…

Source – BibleHub

While the King James Version and other older translations have a plurality of churches/congregations, almost all recent translations have a singular church.

The issue also appears when comparing the various Greek texts.

Greek Text	Greek Word	Singular/Plural
Beza (1598)	ἐκκλησία	Singular
Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550)	ἐκκλησίαι	Plural
Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894)	ἐκκλησίαι	Plural
Tischendorf (1872)	ἐκκλησία	Singular
Greek Orthodox (1904)	ἐκκλησίαι	Plural
Westcott and Hort (1881)	ἐκκλησία	Singular
Nestle (1904)	ἐκκλησία	Singular

Source – BibleHub

Commentaries

In my opinion, most commentaries that touch the subject do very poorly, as seen in this roundup of those found on BibleHub:

Ellicott’s Commentary – “The better MSS. have ‘the Church’ in the singular.”
Meyer’s NT Commentary – “Observe, moreover, with the correct reading ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία κ.τ.λ. the aspect of unity, under which Luke, surveying the whole domain of Christendom, comprehends the churches which had been already formed (Galatians 1:22), and were in course of formation (comp. Acts 16:5).”
Expositor’s Greek Testament – “αἱ ἐκκλησίαι—if we read the singular ἡ ἐκκλ. with the great MS. the word shows us that the Church, though manifestly assuming a wider range, is still one: Hort, Ecclesia, p. 55, thinks that here the term in the singular corresponds by the three modern representative districts named, viz., Judæa, Galilee, Samaria, to the ancient Ecclesia, which had its home in the whole land of Israel; but however this may be, the term is used here markedly of the unified Church, and in accordance with St. Paul’s own later usage of the word; see especially Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 126, 127, and also p. 124.”
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges – “In the best texts the noun and all the verbs agreeing with it are in the singular number, and what is meant is the whole Christian body, not the various congregations.”
Vincent’s Word Studies – “The best texts read the church; embracing all the different churches throughout the three provinces of Palestine.”
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown – “Then had all the churches rest—rather, ‘the Church,’ according to the best manuscripts and versions.”
Gill’s Exposition – “The Alexandrian copy, and some others, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, read in the singular number, ‘the church’: but the several countries hereafter mentioned shows that more are designed…”

Lange’s Commentary has this footnote (note – the bracketed sections are in the original, not added by me):

“Acts 9:31. H—ἐκκλησία—ἐπληθύνετο; this is the reading of A. B. C., and. as it has recently appeared, also of Cod. Sin. as well as of many manuscripts of the second rank, of the majority of the Oriental versions, and also of the Vulgate, and of Dionysius of Alex. On the other hand, the plural [text. rec.], (αἱ—ἐκκλησίαι (πᾶσαι E.) ει̇͂χον .. ἐπληθύνοντο) is found in E. G. H. and some other manuscripts. As the latter generally belong to a later period, and as most of the ancient versions exhibit the singular, this is far better attested than the plural, and has been preferred by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf and Bornemann [Stier and Theile, and Alford, with whom de Wette concurs. Meyer had, in earlier editions, espoused the opposite view, but in the last edition of his Commentary (3d, 1861) unhesitatingly adopts the singular as the original reading, and as ‘expressive of the apostolical conception of the unity of the Church.’—TR.]. The plural is to be regarded as an explanation. [The word ἐκκλῃσία, in the singular, used for the whole body of Christians, or the Church universal, occurs, e. g., in Matth. 16:18; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 10:32; 12:28; Eph. 1:22.—TR.]”

William Kelly has this footnote:

“The singular is read by ABC Vulg. Syr. Pst., Sah. Cop. Arm. Æthiop, Erp Arab., et al., as against the plural of the Text. Rec. HLP Syr. Hcl (and E, ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι).”

Better/Best Manuscripts?

As you can see, many of the commentaries above support the singular church in Acts 9:31 on the basis of it being in the “better” or “best” manuscripts. This level of hubris is common after the rise of Higher Criticism in the 18th and 19th centuries. It assumes that the Bible texts used by Protestant and other non-Catholic groups (basically the Majority Text) since the earliest days of Christendom was seriously flawed with various corruptions and errors. It assumes that variant readings are superior to the historically accepted ones if their source document is (a) older or (b) deemed more trustworthy through various factors. Thus new Critical/Eclectic Greek texts are produced incorporating the textual changes.

Certain problems arise. First: there is a general assumption of doubt as to the reliability of the word of the traditional textual readings. Second: much of the criteria for determining alternative readings has openings for error. For example, the rule of “older is better” assumes the older document is less corrupt based on age, with little regard to any possibility that it could be more corrupt and less trustworthy. Three: the final authority shifted from the text itself to the opinions of scholars. Four: the temptation to achieve notoriety and prestige pushes scholars to seek corrections even when not warranted instead of supporting an established text.

The support for a singular church in Acts 9:31 comes primarily from accepting the “older is better” argument. It is argued that older manuscripts like the Vaticanus (4th century) or older translations like the Vulgate (4th century) contain the singular church. It further ignores other “old” manuscripts that support a plural churches, as in the Laudianus (6th century):

Source (see fol. 78)

Since there are both “old” manuscripts that attest to a plural churches and a centuries-long tradition of interpreting the verse as such, it is disingenuous to ignore that there is a case to be made for its acceptability.

If the textual evidence is inconclusive, then let us look at the theology.

Usage of Ecclesia in Acts

Luke is an astute and careful chronicler of history. Time after time the language he uses has been tested and proven correct. I would contend that the same goes for his uses of the church or churches.

The chart below shows every use of ecclesia in the Book of Acts according the the Textus Receptus. I am including notes to show that each singular use of ecclesia refers to singular church, while each plural use of ecclesia refers to a plurality of churches. I also am including the references for ecclesia that do nor refer to the Christian church.

References	Greek	Singular/Plural	Note
Acts 2:47	εκκλησια	Singular	The singular church at Jerusalem.
Acts 5:11	εκκλησιαν	Singular	The singular church at Jerusalem.
Acts 7:38	εκκλησια	Singular	The singular nation of Israel.
Acts 8:1	εκκλησιαν	Singular	The singular church at Jerusalem.
Acts 8:3	εκκλησιαν	Singular	The singular church at Jerusalem.
Acts 9:31	εκκλησιαι	Plural	The plural churches of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria
Acts 11:22	εκκλησιας	Singular	The singular church at Jerusalem.
Acts 11:26	εκκλησια	Singular	The singular church at Antioch.
Acts 12:1	εκκλησιας	Singular	The singular church at Jerusalem.
Acts 12:5	εκκλησιας	Singular	The singular church at Jerusalem.
Acts 13:1	εκκλησιαν	Singular	The singular church at Antioch.
Acts 14:23	εκκλησιαν	Singular	“each church” – churches of Lystra, Iconium, and Derbe
Acts 14:27	εκκλησιαν	Singular	The singular church at Antioch.
Acts 15:3	εκκλησιας	Singular	The singular church at Antioch.
Acts 15:4	εκκλησιας	Singular	The singular church at Jerusalem.
Acts 15:22	εκκλησια	Singular	The singular church at Jerusalem.
Acts 15:41	εκκλησιας	Plural	The plural churches of Syria and Cilicia
Acts 16:5	εκκλησιαι	Plural	The plural churches of Lystra, Iconium, and Asia Minor
Acts 18:22	εκκλησιαν	Singular	The singular church at Caesarea.
Acts 19:32	εκκλησια	Singular	The singular political assembly at Ephesus.
Acts 19:39	εκκλησια	Singular	The singular political assembly at Ephesus.
Acts 19:41	εκκλησιαν	Singular	The singular political assembly at Ephesus.
Acts 20:17	εκκλησιας	Singular	The singular church at Ephesus.
Acts 20:28	εκκλησιαν	Singular	The singular church at Ephesus.

I contend that Luke’s use of the singular or plural ecclesia is instructive. When he refers to a singular church there is a singular local church to be the object. When he refers to plural churches there is a region or multiple cities containing many churches.

Excluding Acts 9:31, there is not a single other reference where a singular church refers to a anything but a singular local church. Acts 15:41 and 16:5 prove that a plural usage is acceptable and appropriate, and there appears to be no debate as to whether or no those be plural.

Acts 15 clearly shows that the singular ecclesia should refer to a local church and not a universal church. The church at Antioch is upset by the teaching of some visitors from the church at Jerusalem. In vs. 3, Paul and Barnabas are sent by the church at Antioch to the church at Jerusalem and stop and visit with other believers along the way. This shows at least two distinct churches, with other churches or gatherings along the way. In vs. 4, the church at Jerusalem welcomes Paul and Barnabas. In vs. 22, the church at Jerusalem decides to send men back to the church at Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. In vs. 41, Paul and Silas visit multiple churches in the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

So then, when the Book of Acts is examined as a whole it is clear that Luke purposefully and appropriately uses the singular and plural forms of ecclesia. When referring to a singular church in a singular city, he uses the singular. When referring to a plurality of churches in a region or groups of cities, he uses the plural.

Why then would he break from this consistency to use a singular church in Acts 9:31 to refer to many assemblies of believers in a region? Because he does not. Our survey shows that the plural churches must be the correct word based on how Luke uses it.

Theological Implications

The traditional Baptist interpretation of the Scriptures holds that there a many local assemblies of believers that a called churches. It holds that each is autonomous in government. It rejects the ideas of a “universal” or “invisible” church as being incompatible with how the Bible describes the local assemblies.

If Acts 9:31 does indeed have a singular church, then it would stand against the idea of local congregations being individual churches. It would go against how Paul writes about to and about churches. It would go against how Christ deals with the Seven Churches in Revelation. It would open the door to ecclesiastical hierarchy. It would stand against autonomous governance of local assemblies.

If you are unfamiliar with the idea of ecclesia and church referring to local congregations and not a larger conglomeration of congregations, then I would challenge you to study how the Bible describes churches. If there are plural churches, there cannot be one universal church.

Final Thoughts

We are left to assume that an error has crept into Biblical texts. Where it came from we do not know but surely it came very early.

The question is whether church or churches is the mistake in Acts 9:31. The two are incompatible so one must be correct and the other false.

Yes, a case can be made from extent Biblical manuscripts that church is correct. Yet, that case is not as sure as it is presented. If there is logically an error that has been introduced, why not conclude that these manuscripts contain error? Can you conclusively prove otherwise?

I realize much will come down to opinion. Someone will read this and mock me as being foolish and ignorant regarding textual criticism and its intricacies. Yet, the nature of that field of study at its highest levels assumes that everything must be continually questioned. Why not question which word is appropriate in Acts 9:31?

My basis for accepting the plural churches in Acts 9:31 are as follows:

There is a reasonable case to be made that it is the correct word based on textual history.
It has been the standard interpretation for much of Christianity for much of the time.
It is the correct word based on Luke’s consistent usage of it.
It is consistent with the usage in the rest of the New Testament.
There is more to gain by purposefully altering the word from plural to singular than vice versa.

Brass or Bronze?

September 9, 2022September 9, 2022 Matthew Gage

*Image by Thanasis Papazacharias from Pixabay*

Compare Bible translations or references and you may notice a difference in how the Hebrew word nechosheth (Strong’s H5178) is treated. There are three possible translations that are asserted: copper, brass, or bronze. Which is accurate?

The KJV translates nechosheth as “brass” or “brazen” 131x. It can also be translated as other things, such as “fetters” or “chains” based on context. It has a very broad application. Strong’s defines it as “copper; hence, something made of that metal, that is, coin, a fetter; figuratively base (as compared with gold or silver): – brasen, brass, chain, copper, fetter (of brass), filthiness, steel”.

Is brass a proper and acceptable translation of nechosheth? Some claim it cannot be, by asserting:

“In ancient Israel there was no such metal known as brass.” [source]
“The word translated ‘brass’ in the King James Version would be more correctly translated bronze, since the alloy used was copper and tin (Ex 27:4).” [source]
“[Brass,] which is an alloy of copper and zinc, was not known till the thirteenth century. What is designated by this word in Scripture is properly copper (Deuteronomy 8:9).” [source]
“The word nechosheth is improperly translated by ‘brass.’ In most places of the Old Testament the correct translation would be copper, although it may sometimes possibly mean bronze a compound of copper and tin.” [source]

We may simplify these claims into two arguments: (1) the term brass is anachronistic and inaccurate, and (2) brass did not exist in the ancient world.

Is brass an inaccurate term?

In modern English, the word brass refers to a specific alloy of copper, but until the 1700’s is would be a more general term for any copper alloy.

The Online Etymological Dictionary states that brass was “originally any alloy of copper, in England usually with tin (this is now called bronze), later and in modern use an alloy of roughly two parts copper to one part zinc.” The same source also states: “In Middle English, the distinction between bronze (copper-tin alloy) and brass (copper-zinc alloy) was not clear, and both were called bras”.

So, etymologically and historically speaking, brass has been a much broader term to refer to any copper alloy. This changed in the 1700’s when advances in science made it easier to discern different elements and alloys, which also brought a need for more technical terminology. Wikipedia states of brass: “…its true nature as a copper-zinc alloy was not understood until the post-medieval period because the zinc vapor which reacted with copper to make brass was not recognised as a metal.” As part of this new knowledge of metals, the term bronze was first used around 1721 (see Online Etymological Dictionary and Merriam-Webster).

Therefore, we see that brass is historically as broad of a term as nechosheth. In the English of the KJV, it is the best and most accurate term.

But, with what we know today about the differences between brass and bronze, is brass still an accurate translation for today’s world? This can only be answered if we are absolutely sure that nechosheth refers exclusively to bronze and that brass is an impossibility.

Did brass exist in the ancient world?

It is clear that the alloy we today call brass was present in the ancient world. Conclusive evidence and scholarly opinion establish this fact. A few examples:

The Roman dupondius coin used in the early Roman Empire was often struck in a type of brass called orichalcum [source]
“Calamine brass” was being made in Asia Minor as far back as the 1st millennium B.C. [source]
“…numerous copper-zinc alloys (e.g. brass, gunmetal) that have been found in prehistoric contexts from the Aegean to India in the 3rd to the 1st millennium BC.” [source]
Brass artifacts have been discovered from 5th millennium B.C. in China [source]

Since (1) brass existed in the ancient world, (2) since nechosheth is vague at best about the precise alloy of the metal, we can therefore safely say it is plausible that the metals described could be actual brass.

Do we know what the metals were?

Since the term nechosheth, and even the Greek word chalkos (Strong’s G5475), are vague terms for copper or its alloys, we simply cannot say for certain the precise metal they are speaking of. The terminology is too vague and the ancient metallurgists themselves almost certainly did not have the sophisticated understanding of metal composition we have today.

It must be state that according to history and archeology that bronze was in far greater use than brass. It was far cheaper and easier to produce, and it would appear that ancient brass was considered to be more valuable. We might assume that because bronze was more common that it is more likely that bronze and not brass is being referred to. But this is purely supposition and we cannot rule out that at least some appearances of nechosheth could be referring to brass. We simply do not know since we cannot examine every object made of nechosheth.

Conclusion

The truest definition of nechosheth would need to be vague and inclusive, so “a copper alloy” is probably the best definition. In modern English, there just is not a simple, concise word to use that has that same meaning and “copper alloy” fails to be an workable translation. To try to force nechosheth to be simply bronze is inaccurate: an interpretation rather than a translation. We cannot honestly say what the metals used were by modern classification. It is like trying to take the English word snow and determine which of the dozens of terms of snow used by Eskimos it should be.

The word brass in its classic, KJV English definition is the best equivalent term to be found. It is the same broad term for any copper alloy that we see in nechosheth.

The Mysterious Tabernacle of David

June 19, 2022June 19, 2022 Matthew Gage

Recently, I have made a few posts concerning elements of Charismatic/Pentecostal theology. This has been brought on by my recent studies of the theology behind Praise & Worship music. In this post, I have another element that I feel needs to be addressed: the so-called Tabernacle of David.

By the Providence Lithograph Company, Public Domain

Historical Account

When reading the Scriptures and arriving at II Samuel chapter 6, you will find King David’s desire to bring the Ark of the Covenant to his new capital at Jerusalem. To understand how this came to be, we need to examine the history of the Ark and the Tabernacle of Moses leading up to this point:

c. 1150 B.C. – The Tabernacle of Moses and Ark are together at Shiloh, where they had been for over three centuries. – Joshua 18:1, Judges 18:31, I Samuel 1:3, 2:3
1122 B.C. – The Ark is removed from the Tabernacle of Moses and brought to the war camp of the Israelites at Ebenezer, maybe 18-20 miles west of Shiloh. This First Battle at Ebenezer was a terrible defeat of the Jews by the Philistines. The Ark was captured in the battle and in the rout that followed it is believed by some that Shiloh was sacked or destroyed. – I Samuel 4:1-11, Jeremiah 7:12
1121 B.C – The Ark spends seven months in the hands of the Philistines. It is was moved among their capitals of Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron. In each of these locations God cursed the inhabitants while they possessed the Ark. – I Samuel 5:1-6:1
1121 B.C. – The Philistines send the Ark back to Israel by placing it on a cart pulled by two untamed milk cows. It arrives in Bethshemesh, where the Israelites there do not respect the Ark by opening it and God punishes their lack of reverence. – I Samuel 6:2-20
1121 B.C. – The Ark is taken to Kirjathhearim, where it stays in the house of Abinidab. – I Samuel 6:21-7:2
1065 B.C. – David flees from Saul’s court and arrives at Nob. He is given shewbread by Ahimelech, implying that at least some of the Tabernacle furniture and setup is present there. The large number of priests and the high priest himself also suggest something special about this site. Based on the evidence, we assume that some form of the Tabernacle of Moses (minus the Ark) existed at Nob when David visited there. When and how it came to be here from its last appearance at Shiloh is unknown. – I Samuel 21:1-9
1046 B.C. – David attempts to bring the Ark to Jerusalem by placing it on a cart. Uzzah is killed when he attempts to steady the Ark on the cart. The Ark is placed in the house of Obededom, where it stays for the next three months. – II Samuel 6:1-11, I Chronicles 13:1-14
1046 B.C. – David brings the Ark to Jerusalem, amid sacrifices and singing. It is placed in a specially constructed tent/tabernacle, the Tabernacle of David. – II Samuel 6:12-19, I Chronicles 15:1-16:37
1046 B.C. – David organizes the service of the Levites to serve in two locations: before the Ark in Jerusalem and at the Tabernacle of Moses which was now in Gibeon. It is assumed that the Tabernacle of Moses moved to Gibeon after the slaughter of the priests at Nob by Doeg in I Samuel 22:6-23 This separation remained until the completion of the Temple by Solomon in 1004 B.C. – I Chronicles 16:37-43, 21:29; II Chronicles 1:3

There are a few great questions that come to mind:

First, why were the Ark and Tabernacle of Moses not reunited? Some speculate that the Tabernacle of Moses was worn out, damaged, or incomplete and thus unable to be moved or possibly even to properly function. It has even been suggested that this was a move by David to force the other tribes to submit to his rule. Some even think that this was David’s self-will not part of God’s design. One person suggests that David kept the Ark like a petulant toddler because he was unable to go in the Tabernacle of Moses himself.

Sometimes, God chooses not to reveal His plans to us and we simply must trust in Him (Deuteronomy 29:29). That could very well be the case here, if it were not for a passage in Psalms that appears to explain God’s purpose.

In Psalm 78 is a rehearsal of God’s dealings with Israel as means of instruction of spiritual truths. I think A.C. Gaebelein summarizes it well:

“This historical retrospect needs no further comment. It is God speaking to the hearts of His people through their own history from Egypt to David. How graciously He dealt with them all the way! The crowning fact is His sovereign grace in choosing Judah, Mount Zion which he loved, building there His sanctuary, and choosing David His servant to feed Jacob His people and Israel His inheritance. Here we may well think of the Son of David, God’s Anointed in whom God’s sovereign grace is made known and who will yet feed Jacob and Israel His inheritance.”

Let’s examine Psalm 78:56-72:

78:56-58 – The Israelites had turned their back on God. Even a casual Bible study of the events of Judges into I Samuel will show how the Jews continually turned away from God.
78:59-61 – God turned away from His rebellious people and sent judgment in the capture of the Ark by the Philistines and the fall of Shiloh.
78:62-64 – The judgment that fell on Israel is described.
78:65-66 – The judgment that fell on the Philistines is described.
78:67-68 – God rejected the Tabernacle and the powerful tribe of Ephraim that held it, instead choosing to lead through the tribe of Judah from mount Zion in Jerusalem.
78:69 – The temple at Jerusalem is described.
78:70-72 – The reign of David is described.

What does Psalm 78 teach us about the separation of the Ark and the Tabernacle of Moses? That it was a result of God’s judgment on Israel’s sin and that God was reforming their worship by establishing its new center in Jerusalem and the Temple.

Second, why did David place the Ark in its own new tent/tabernacle? Why not build something grander for it?

It appears that David saw this new tabernacle for the Ark (I am calling it the “Tabernacle of David” to differentiate it from the “Tabernacle of Moses”) as only a temporary dwelling. We see in II Samuel 7 that David had every intention of building a grand Temple. Even though God did not allow him to build it, we see his concern and preparation for its construction (I Chronicles 22). David was anxious for the day when God’s presence returned to Israel in a complete Tabernacle/Temple.

But David also realized that day had not arrived yet. The Tabernacle of David was a temporary structure that awaited something grander to replace it. Though they possessed the Ark and some blessing from their respectful keeping of it, God’s presence was not upon it like the days in the wilderness. This is emphasized in the fact that God’s presence fell in such a mighty way at the dedication of the Temple (II Chronicles 5:13-14) but no mention is made of any similar event for the Tabernacle of David.

Third, what actually happened at the Tabernacle of David?

Let’s do a rundown of actions we see there:

Sacrifices – II Samuel 6:17-18, I Kings 3:15
Gathering of the people – II Samuel 6:19
Corporate praise – I Chronicles 16:36
Personal Worship – II Samuel 12:20
- NOTE – I’m honestly not 100% sure “house of the LORD” refers to the Tabernacle of David instead of the Tabernacle of Moses. It makes sense that he would go to the former rather than the latter since it was closer, but the use of the phrase “house of the LORD” generally refers to the Tabernacle of Moses or the Temple.
Music – I Chronicles 15:16-22, 16:42

Now, let’s look at the roles of the priests that served there:

Asaph and his family took care of day-to-day affairs – I Chronicles 16:37
Obededom and family were porters/doorkeepers – I Chronicles 16:38

Note that the names and positions that follow in I Chronicles 16:39-42 appear to be associated with the Tabernacle of Moses at Gibeon and not the Tabernacle of David at Jerusalem. It is interesting to find that this is the first reference to incorporating music in to the services at the Tabernacle of Moses.

The position of Asaph is interesting. If this is the same Asaph as in I Chronicles 6:39, 15:17, etc. (and there is little doubt that is the same person) then it is assumed that he must be exercising his musical abilities in this service. But Asaph could be acting in his position as a Gershonite. The Gershonites were the division of Levites charged mainly with carrying and caring for the decorative materials of the Tabernacle of Moses (Numbers 4:24-28). It is also interesting to note that Obededom was a Kohathite (I Chronicles 26:1-5), the division charged with carrying the “most holy things” of the Tabernacle of Moses (Numbers 4:4-14). Regardless, the presence of Asaph suggests but does not prove a musical program.

Historical Inaccuracies

The information above is the most concrete information we have on the Tabernacle of David. I have been quite surprised to see other claims with no basis in Scripture or history. Let’s examine a few:

1. The Tabernacle of David had only one compartment that corresponded with the Most Holy Place [source]

There is nothing mentioned in Scripture of the design or layout. This is pure conjecture.

2. There was unrestricted access for many/all into the presence of the Ark. [source]

Again, no basis for this claim. It actually goes against the way the Jews revered the Ark, even covering it when it was moved (Numbers 4:5-6).

3. There was constant, 24/7 praise, worship, and music before the Ark. [source]

The only basis for this claim is two assumptions. First, that Asaph and those under him were operating in a musical role. We simply have no concrete evidence of if or how music played a part in what they were doing. Second, that their ministry “continually, as every day’s work required” was 24/7/365. This can also be understood that they regularly did the requirements of each day. The similar language found in passages such as II Chronicles 8:14 and Ezra 3:4 supports this as a better interpretation.

4. David dwelt in his Tabernacle. [source]

The references cited for this claim are Psalms 23:6 and 27:4. However, in both of these David is speaking longingly of something he desired but did not possess.

5. God’s presence was in the Tabernacle of David. [source]

As we looked at before, there is no evidence for this claim. It is an assumption that God was present because the Ark was there. But God is not bound to one place or one piece of furniture. The strictest interpretation of Scripture would support the presence of God departing when the Philistines took the Ark (see I Samuel 4:21) and its return when Solomon dedicated the Temple.

6. The worship was marked by spontaneity. [source]

No evidence for this whatsoever.

7. The worship was marked by dancing. [source]

The only dancing that could be referred to was David’s dancing for joy before the Ark as it was carried to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:16). First, this is in connection with bringing the Ark and not with it resting in its new home. Second, David’s joyful expressions are wonderful in themselves but not a prescriptive command for others. Third, there is no reference to others emulating David’s action in that day.

8. The Tabernacle of David was open so all could see the Ark. [source]

No evidence for this. The sacred nature of the Ark would have most likely inspired them to keep it covered.

9. David initiated a new form of worship marked by singing, physical expression, etc. [source]

This assumption is based on many other assumptions about the sort of worship that went on in the Tabernacle of David. David did in fact do much to reorganize the priesthood and prepare for an expansion of the services of the Temple. Part of this does appear to be the introduction of music in to the Tabernacle/Temple services. But to insinuate that dancing, spontaneous singing, etc. were integrated into worship at this time and place is without sound Biblical basis.

The Prophetic Element

Having examined the historical background of the Tabernacle of David, let us move on the prophecy that some claim is related to it.

The first reference we will look at is in Isaiah chapter 16. This chapter and the previous one are together one prophecy against the nation of Moab. In the midst of this message to Moab, we find a striking prophecy in 16:5: “And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.”

The second reference is in Amos 9. This chapter deals with the fall of the kingdom of Israel into captivity with a promise that they will later be restored. We see in 9:11-12: “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.”

The third reference is in Acts 15. The Apostles and the church at Jerusalem debated whether or not Gentile Christians were subject to the ordinances of the Law of Moses. There is much debate with testimonies from Peter, Paul, and Barnabas with no resolution. James the delivers a speech, declaring that the God had declared that He would save the Gentiles and not just the Jews. James quotes the prophecy from Amos 9 as proof of God’s plan of bringing salvation to the Gentiles. Let’s read his speech in full from Acts 15:13-21:

“And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: (14) Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. (15) And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, (16) After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (17) That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. (18) Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. (19) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”

A few observations:

First, it was assumed by some interpreters that this prophetic tabernacle must be the physical Tabernacle of David that held the Ark. However, on closer examination there is no relation between these prophesies and Tabernacle of David.

Someone will surely object at this: “But it says the ‘tabernacle of David’! What other tabernacle did David have?” I’ll answer that in the next point.

Second, the use of the ‘tabernacle’ here is figurative for the kingdom and household of the royal line of David. That’s why Isaiah said it had a throne, which the physical Tabernacle of David did not have. That’s why Amos speaks of it possessing or ruling over foreign people and lands. It is speaking of a kingdom and its authority.

Third, note that the three prophetic verses (Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11, Acts 15:16) that speak of the “tabernacle of David” are the only verses in the Bible that use that exact phrase. That term is never actually applied to the tent that house the Ark. To be honest, it is somewhat anachronistic and indeed inappropriate to apply the term to the tent David used since this name appears here in a very different context. [Please recall that I have only used term “Tabernacle of David” to describe David’s tent for the Ark in order to differentiate it from the Tabernacle of Moses and because that is what others have called it.]

Fourth, someone, I believe in the past century or so, conflated the prophetic “tabernacle of David” with the physical “tabernacle that David had pitched for [the Ark]” (II Samuel 6:17). I can understand how it could be easily done, but any contextual analysis should show that two very different meanings are found between the physical and the prophetic. This is essentially the same as confusing Noah’s Ark and the Ark of the Covenant. Two very different things that are called the same name (in English, at least).

Fifth, these prophesies do not apply directly to the church at all. When James references Amos he is not saying, “The prophecy of Amos is fulfilled!” Instead, he is saying, “This is like a greater truth I see in the prophecy of Amos.” He is saying that Christ intends to bring the Gentiles into His Kingdom, so who were they to deny their entrance?

Sixth, the prophecies are clearly pointing to Christ’s future kingdom. He will reign upon the restored house/throne/kingdom/tabernacle of David. See Psalm 132:11-12, Isaiah 9:7, Jeremiah 17:25, etc.

The Source of the Confusion

The fountainhead for the confusion about the Tabernacle of David is most certainly in Pentecostal/Charismatic theology from the mid-20th century. Yes, there are those that did relate the prophetic and physical Tabernacles of David previous to them, as seen in the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary on Amos 9:11. But the propagation and proliferation of studies on the Tabernacle of David we see today come directly from Pentecostal/Charismatic sources and influences.

The claim that is made is that the Tabernacle of David is a true model for worship that was lost/forgotten/neglected for centuries upon centuries. That model of worship is said to have been loud, animated, spontaneous, and musical. This model is further proposed as the only true way of worshipping God.

The next claim is that the prophecies, seen especially in Amos and Acts, are of a restoration of this lost form of worship that will appear in the “latter days”. It is proclaimed that through this restoration of true worship and royal authority that will reach the nations and ready the Bride of Christ.

Yes, if you have never been exposed to these teachings (and there are many variations) some people out here are literally teaching that God withheld the method for true and powerful worship for over 3,000 years and just recently decided to give it back to His people. The first group to start making these connections was likely the Latter Rain movement (See p. 46-47 of A History of Contemporary Praise and Worship). Now these teachings are infiltrating mainline denominations.

How did this happen? I think largely because it began with such an obscure reference in Biblical history that there was not a good counter to their claims. There was not (and is still not as far as I can tell) a well developed understanding of what exactly happened at that tent that David that can be used as a defense. From my study I find only miniscule references to the Tabernacle of David in older commentaries, dictionaries, and such. Even Jewish resources seem to gloss over it.

So they begin from obscurity, then start connecting dots to other re-interpretations of commands for terminology for worshipping and praising God. Through the use of typology or application of definitions (mostly redefinitions), these lines between the dots weave a facade of doctrine that appears formidable but is empty when examined. Before long it is difficult to tell if the Tabernacle of David is the legitimate basis for their beliefs or something that was reinterpreted based on other positions. Likely there as so many individuals with differing methodologies that we may never discern the actual roots.

A Final Word

I am amazed at how widespread these teachings are and how little material has been produced to counter them or to inoculate against them. But I think this is how so much of the Charismatic influence has taken root in orthodox institutions. On the surface it appears they are using Scripture to back their positions, but all the proof texts and Biblical imagery belie the fact that their arguments constantly fail to stand up to careful scrutiny. Sadly, too many undiscerning believers are falling prey to their charlatanism.

Hebrew Words For Praise

May 28, 2022July 21, 2022 Matthew Gage

While studying the history and philosophy of Praise & Worship music, I encountered a particular study that is commonly used by its proponents. As noted in Ruth and Hong’s A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship, much of the basis for Praise & Worship has been found in the book of Psalms. This is found even in its earliest days (1940-50’s):

“Part of [James] Beall’s presentation of this restored divine order was a use of proof texts from Psalms to justify specific practices: Psalm 150 to ground the use of a variety of musical instruments, Palm 134 or the lifting of hands, and Psalm 47 for clapping hands. In the surge of teaching materials in the next historical periods such us of proof texts – especially from Psalms – would become a standard teaching device.”

– A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship, p. 41 [Emphasis added]

“The use of psalm proof texts to develop a liturgical schema points to the fourth core theological conviction: Praise & Worship was approached as a biblically derived, God-given pattern for worship. Convinced that this was the way of worship God had given in the Bible, its practitioners taught it with the confidence they had in the Scriptures themselves. Their tone was neither experimental nor cautious since Praise & Worship was not human-created, according to this theology. Rather, it was God’s gift to renew the church. Consequently; the Bible as God’s Word outlined its underlying promise (God desires to dwell with his people and does so through their praise) and its specific methods.

“Not surprisingly, this conviction about the biblical basis for Praise & Worship generated a method for theologizing. It had three regular features: The first was a predilection for undertaking studies of biblical words and then using key words to compile a group of passages from which to form a synthesis. For example, what Reg Layzell did in 1946 (see chap. 1), Judith McAllister did forty years later when the criticalness of praise first hooked her: she immersed herself for days in Bible study tools like concordances, skipping nearly a week of college classes. Her goal was to see when and how the Bible used the word “praise.” The second regular feature was an attraction to typology drawn from Bible stories, especially from the Old Testament and especially from narratives about David. (The book of Revelation was a favorite of some too.) Praise & Worship teachers used these stories to develop types instructive for how and why Christians should worship. The third regular feature of the theological method was, as mentioned above, a predilection for using the Psalms to provide the details about the specific dimensions of Praise & Worship, especially those involving physical expression. Therefore, the biblically derived theology of Praise & Worship was a very embodied theology, because the Psalms drew a picture of worshipers fully engaged with their whole persons.“

– A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship, p. 127 [Emphasis added]

The same process of using the Psalms, its imagery and its vocabulary, is alive and well today. A quick search on Amazon will reveal works like Worship Actions & Attitudes: Understanding 10 Hebrew Words For Praise and Worship by Rob Stiles, Holy Roar: 7 Words That Will Change the Way You Worship by Chris Tomlin and Darren Whitehead, and The Power of Praise: The 7 Hebrew Words for Praise by David Chapman. There is not shortage of online resources on the subject either: such as here, here, or here.

Before we move on, let me say that just because a person uses Scripture or language studies to back their beliefs it does not guarantee that they are correct. Verses can be taken out of context (looking at you, Jeremiah 29:11) and words can be redefined. You can also use faulty scholarship or logic. Too often I see people, even those I agree with, defend their positions through eisegesis and not exegesis. As a side note, let me say as someone that is pro-KJV that I get nervous when I see someone who generally doesn’t use the KJV quote from it (see uses of Proverbs 29:18 for an example). It is a sign of cherry picking verses with just the right wording in order to support an argument, which is an application of eisegeses.

As far as I can tell, no one across the multiple millennia of the history of worshipping the God of the Bible ever used the Hebrew language (including Psalms) to discover or defend charismatic-style ecstatic worship practices until the mid-twentieth century. Centuries of rabbinical thought and debate did not uncover it. Centuries of Bible scholarship did not discover it. Millions of believers who earnestly sought how to properly express their worship and praise through diligent study of Scripture did not discover it. Who did discover this? According to the afore mentioned A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship it was likely the Latter Rain branch of the Pentecostal movement that developed and propagated it as they believed God had “restored” through them the lost and forgotten truths of how He wanted to be praised.

But I am not putting this together to talk about history (please, just go and read A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship already). I want to present a more balanced exegetical study of the Hebrew word studies they promote. I do not claim to be any sort of expert on the Hebrew language, but most of the pro-P&W writers who have also written on this subject are clearly not either. The entire presentation is obviously built around looking up words in a Strong’s Concordance.

Alphabetical List of Words

Halal

Hebrew: הָלַל
Verb
Strong’s: H1984 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 165x total, 94x in Psalms
KJV translations: praise (117x), glory (14x), boast (10x), mad (8x), shine (3x), foolish (3x), fools (2x), commended (2x), rage (2x), celebrate (1x), give (1x), marriage (1x), renowned (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to be clear (orig. Of sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence, to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively, to celebrate; also to stultify — (make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool(- ish, -ly), glory, give (light), be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, (sing, be worthy of) praise, rage, renowned, shine.

The common P&W definition is “to praise, to make a show or rave about, to glory in or boast upon, to be clamorously foolish about you adoration of God”. I that find exact definition copied and pasted across multiple websites without acknowledging its original source.

I find a much truer emphasis should be placed on the ideas of “shining”, “focusing”, or “revealing”. It used to describe light sources emanating their light (Job 29:3, 31:25), revealing through action an inner madness or insanity (I Samuel 21:13, Jeremiah 50:38), boastful claims from a prideful heart (Psalm 10:3, Proverbs 27:1), and revealing outwardly an inner foolishness (Job, 12:17, Psalm 75:4)

There is no hint of “raving” or being “clamorously foolish” in the proper use of halal. Those that claim so misapply the connection with madness to the broader application of the word.

The best way I can describe the true meaning of halal is the idea of a spotlight. When we praise God, we are not focusing on ourselves but spotlighting His worthiness and greatness. When we boast, we are spotlighting our prideful self. When someone is foolish or insane, their actions are spotlighting their inward condition.

So when we praise God, we are putting all the attention and glory and honor onto Him. When halal is applied to praising God it has little or no focus on the one praising. When we praise Him we step into the shadows and so that He can shine.

For further reading, see this post by Daniel Rodriguez.

Barak

Hebrew: בָרַךְ
Verb
Strong’s: H1288 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 330x total, 75x in Psalms
KJV translations: bless (302x), salute (5x), curse (4x), blaspheme (2x), blessing (2x), praised (2x), kneel down (2x), congratulate (1x), kneel (1x), make to kneel (1x), miscellaneous (8x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also (by euphemism) to curse (God or the king, as treason) — X abundantly, X altogether, X at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, X greatly, X indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, X still, thank.

The common P&W definition is “to kneel or bow, to give reverence to God as an act of adoration, implies a continual conscious giving place to God, to be attuned to him and his presence”. This definition is also copied and pasted around the internet, including many with attuned misspelled as atuned.

This word carries the ideas of kneeling before someone as in homage or reverence (II Chronicles 6:13, Psalm 95:6), to acknowledge through salutation (I Samuel 13:10, II Kings 4:29), to pronounce a desire of goodwill and bountifulness upon (Genesis 12:2-3, 49:28), or to be specially granted goodness and favor (Psalm 5:12, Proverbs 3:33). In a negative sense, it can mean to denounce or wish evil upon (Job 2:9, I Kings 21:10).

When applied to our worship of God, we see the ideas of humility (kneeling down), acknowledgement, honor, and reverence. The primary targets of our blessing is either God Himself (Psalm 103:1-2) or His name (Psalm 113:2). This is a heartfelt reaction to God’s glory (Psalm 104:1) and His great works (Psalm 28:6). I want to press the point of humility here: when we bless God, we are acknowledging His greatness in part by bowing (literally or figuratively) before Him. The focus is on God and not the worshipper.

Where the aforementioned P&W definition errs is in its application toward God’s presence and in “giving place”. There is no consistent connection with blessing God and being in His presence. The teaching of God’s omnipresence (Psalm 139:7-18, Isaiah 57:15, etc.) greatly undermines any need to acknowledge His appearance. As to the idea of “giving place” or yielding, I see no connection at all to this word.

Shabach

Hebrew: שָׁבַח
Verb
Strong’s: H7623 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 11x total, 7x in Psalms
KJV translations: praise (5x), still (2x), keep it in (1x), glory (1x), triumph (1x), commend (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; properly, to address in a loud tone, i.e. (specifically) loud; figuratively, to pacify (as if by words) — commend, glory, keep in, praise, still, triumph.
Note – an Aramaic form of the word (Strong’s H2624) is used 5x in Daniel and translated as “praise”.

A P&W definition found here is “to address in a loud tone, a loud adoration, a shout, proclaiming with a loud voice (unashamed), to glory, triumph, power, a testimony of praise”. This word does not make it onto all the word study lists, probably because of the scarcity of its usage, but it is the source for the title of Chris Tomlin and Darren Whitehead’s popular book Holy Roar.

The primary emphasis the that P&W supporters focus on is “loud” as expression of boldness in sound volume. This is interesting because not all dictionaries, lexicons, etc. agree on that emphasis. Strong’s definition shown above uses it, but the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, New American Standard Concordance, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, and Ancient Hebrew Lexicon do not mention anything about loudness. Another Hebrew word study I stumbled across mentions shabach while discussing Shavuot and describes it as “praise, happy praise, but also: calm down, appease”. So far, Strong’s is the only language resource I have found that mentions loudness. The idea of loud volume actually contradicts the context of all but the uses in I Chronicles and Psalms.

The consensus on the root definition appears to be “to soothe or stroke”. A much safer application to praise would be “praising in/through peace”, which is the complete opposite of the P&W materials I have examined.

Since I mentioned Holy Roar earlier, let me say that that book is a terrible book (you just don’t have to take my word for it). It is extremely faulty and misleading in its presentation. When it presents shabach in chapter 7, it states with no reference or foundation: “Quite literally, it means to raise a holy roar.” (p. 99) It does recognize that word only appears 11x, “but each time, it has powerful effect.” (p. 99). It then goes on to only reference 3 of the 11. What about the other 8? Is there not enough “powerful effect” in them? The reason why other references are not used is because doing so destroys the presented definition and argument.

Here are the verses that are referenced:

Psalm 63:3 – “Because thy lovingkindness is better than life, my lips shall praise [shabach] thee.”
- NOTE – They wrongly identify the appearance of shabach on p. 99. They place it in verse 4, which is actually: “Thus will I bless [barak] thee while I live…”
Psalm 117:1 – “O praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise [shabach] him, all ye people.”
Psalm 145:4 – “One generation shall praise [shabach] thy works to another, and shall declare thy mighty acts.”

Below are the verses that the “powerful effect” wasn’t enough to include:

I Chronicles 16:35 – “And say ye, Save us, O God of our salvation, and gather us together, and deliver us from the heathen, that we may give thanks to thy holy name, and glory [shabach] in thy praise.”
Psalm 65:7 – “Which stilleth [shabach] the noise of the seas, the noise of their waves, and the tumult of the people.”
Psalm 89:9 – “Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest [shabach] them.”
Psalm 106:47 – “Save us, O LORD our God, and gather us from among the heathen, to give thanks unto thy holy name, and to triumph [shabach] in thy praise.”
Psalm 147:12 – “Praise [shabach] the LORD, O Jerusalem; praise thy God, O Zion.”
Proverbs 29:11 – “A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth [shabach] it in till afterwards.”
Ecclesiastes 4:2 – “Wherefore I praised [shabach] the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.”
Ecclesiastes 8:15 – “Then I commended [shabach] mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun.”

So, maybe three more might could have been used to support their argument (I Chronicles 16:35, Psalm 106:47, Psalm 147:1). But where is the “powerful effect” of raising a “holy roar” in stilling/calming (Psalm 65:7, 89:9), keeping/holding (Proverbs 29:11), praising the dead (Ecclesiastes 4:2), or commending mirth/pleasure (Ecclesiastes 8:15)? You cannot claim the word means “holy roar” or has a “powerful effect” each time it appears when in half of it uses it cannot mean what you claim. If you do some digging it appears obvious that there is no basis for equating shabach with a “holy roar” other than taking Darren Whitehead’s word for it.

Yadah

Hebrew: יָדָה
Verb
Strong’s: H3034 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 114x total, 67x in Psalms
KJV translations: praise (53x), give thanks (32x), confess (16x), thank (5x), make confession (2x), thanksgiving (2x), cast (1x), cast out (1x), shoot (1x), thankful (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; used only as denominative from yad; literally, to use (i.e. Hold out) the hand; physically, to throw (a stone, an arrow) at or away; especially to revere or worship (with extended hands); intensively, to bemoan (by wringing the hands) — cast (out), (make) confess(-ion), praise, shoot, (give) thank(-ful, -s, -sgiving).

A thorough P&W definition is “to use, hold out the hand, to throw (a stone or arrow) at or away, to revere or worship (with extended hands, praise thankful, thanksgiving)” and a concise definition is “to worship with extended hands.”

The primary root is “to cast with the hand”. That can be applied to shooting arrows (Jeremiah 50:14), throwing a rock (Lamentations 3:53), or expelling someone (Zechariah 1:21). However, the overwhelming majority of uses of this word have nothing to do with literally throwing anything. Instead, we find this word translated as “confess”, or “give thanks”, or “praise”. The connection seems to be in acknowledging one’s guilt by raising hands in identification or surrender (Leviticus 5:5, Numbers 5:7), in expressing thankfulness by pointing toward or marking its object (II Samuel 22:50, Psalm 92:1), or in raised hands to God in giving Him honor (Genesis 29:35, Psalm 33:2).

The issue we have in interpreting the correct meaning of the yadah is determining if the “casting with the hand” root is applied literally/physically, figuratively, or if it is even relevant at all. A similar case I came across a while back is qavah (Strong’s H6960), which implies twisting or binding (as in the strands of a rope), yet is generally translated as “waiting” in Isaiah 40:31. Many Hebrew words have “actions” in them that may be illustrative of the word’s meaning but not always applied in its definition. Sometimes there just isn’t a logical connection to be made.

Another question with yadah is whether the emphasis is on the hand or what the hand casts. Perhaps the emphasis is not on the raised hand in praising God but on the praises that are cast out to Him. An illustration of this is Psalm 33:2, where we find praising (yadah) God with an instrument. Is there literal hand-raising to God, a literal hand extended to the harp, or are the praises being figuratively thrown out towards God? I think this could also make sense in regards to confessing sins in that you are casting your guilt out before others.

I did find reference to Psalm 134:2 in regards to this word (“Lift up your hands in the sanctuary”), but the actual word yadah is not used here. Two other words are: nasa (Strong’s H5375) meaning “to lift” and yad (Strong’s H3027) meaning “hand”. On closer examination, this particular reference in Psalm 134 does not support the ideas of P&W . This is an exhortation to the priests serving at night time in the Temple, not to the congregation of Israel (vs. 1). Any study of nightly activities in the Temple will not show any times of exuberant praise. It must be also noted that in the language of Psalmody that nighttime is a time of darkness and despair, not joy and happiness. The general understanding of the lifting of hands here and in general is that of prayer and not praise (see commentaries here and here).

A deeper look at many of the proof texts of raising hands in joyous worship are actually in context speaking of something quite different (see here for a further discussion of this). We actually see the lifting of hands as a sign of lamentation or desperation in places such as Psalm 28:2, 63:4, 141:2, and Lamentations 2:19, 3:41. A few other references like Genesis 14:22 and Deuteronomy 32:40 have the lifting of hands as part of taking a oath. While these references may not be the focus of our present study, it is important to note they fail to show the lifting of hands in exuberant praise.

For further reference, here is someone that goes a bit deeper in the Hebrew.

Tehillah

Hebrew: תְּהִלָּה
Noun
Strong’s: H8416 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 57x total, 30x in Psalms
KJV translations: praise (57x).
Strong’s definition: From halal; laudation; specifically (concretely) a hymn — praise.

One P&W definition is “to sing hallal, a new song, a hymn of spontaneous praise glorifying God in song”. Another (also seen here) includes: “Singing scripture to instruct and encourage”.

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (p. 185) highlights four applications of the word. First, it may denote praiseworthiness (Deuteronomy 10:21, Isaiah 62:7). Second, the words or song used to express praise (Psalm 22:22,25). Third, a term for a song (see heading of Psalm 145). Fourth, deeds that are worthy of praise (Exodus 15:11).

I think this definition is clear if you have the definition settled for halal, which we covered before. This is basically the noun form of that verb. It is almost disingenuous to make it a separate word.

What is interesting to me are the two very different additions to the core definition of a song of praise we see in the P&W definitions. One says it is a “spontaneous” song and the other a “scripture” song. Honestly, I think the definition is broad enough to include both cases. I would take exception to the “spontaneous” song if I knew for sure it was used as an expression of prophetic worship (and I assume it is), but that is a whole other subject for another time.

An important appearance of this word is in one of earliest and most frequently used verses as a foundation for P&W theology: Psalm 22:3. I hope to deal with that verse more fully in the future, but I can say that if you see that verse applied to Christian worship I can practically guarantee you are dealing with some Charismatic theology or influence.

Zamar

Hebrew: זמר
Verb
Strong’s: H2167 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 45x total, 41x in Psalms
KJV translations: praise (26x), sing (16x), sing psalms (2x), sing forth (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root (perhaps ident. With zamar through the idea of striking with the fingers); properly, to touch the strings or parts of a musical instrument, i.e. Play upon it; to make music, accompanied by the voice; hence to celebrate in song and music — give praise, sing forth praises, psalms.

P&W definition #1: “Make music by striking the fingers on strings or parts of a musical instrument. When we play instrumentally to facilitate a holy atmosphere, it’s not just church cocktail music, it’s zamar.”

P&W definition #2: “‘Zamar’ means to pluck the strings of an instrument…. Zamar speaks of rejoicing. It is involved with the joyful expression of music. Zamar means to sing praises or to touch the strings. It speaks of involving every available instrument to make music and harmony before the Lord. It is God’s will that we be joyful. Use Zamar when you are rejoicing after God has done something great for you.”

By itself, zamar means to play a musical instrument (Psalm 33:2, 144:9), but it appears to be a more inclusive word including instrumental and vocal music, probably together. It is interesting to note that zamar occurs in the same (and sometimes adjacent) verses with other praise or musical terms in 39 of its 45 appearances:

12x in the same verse with sir (Strong’s H7891, “to sing”) – Judges 5:3, I Chronicles 16:9, Psalm 21:13, 27:6, 57:7, 68:4, 68:32, 101:1, 104:33, 105:2, 108:1, 144:9
11x in the same verse with yadah (Strong’s H3034, “to praise”) – II Samuel 22:50, Psalm 7:17, 18:49, 30:4, 30:12. 33:2, 57:9, 71:22, 92:1, 108:3, 138:1
- 1x in close proximity to yadah – Psalm 9:2 (see vs. 1)
4x in the same verse with halal (Strong’s H1984, “to praise”) – Psalm 135:3, 146:2, 147:1, 149:3
2x in the same verse with nagad (Strong’s H5046, “to declare”) – Psalm 9:11, 75:9
2x in the same verse with ranan (Strong’s H7442, “to rejoice”) – Psalm 9:11, 75:9
- 2x in close proximity to ranan – Psalm 59:17 (see vs. 16), Isaiah 12:5 (see vs. 6)
2x in the same verse with shachah (Strong’s H7812, “to worship”) – Psalm 66:4 (2x)
1x in the same verse with anah (Strong’s H6030, “to answer”) – Psalm 147:7
2x in close proximity to rua (Strong’s H7321, “to noise”) – Psalm 66:2 (see vs. 1)

This leaves only the 5x it appears in Psalm 47:6-7 and 1x in Psalm 61:8.

Since the preponderance of uses seem to combine instrumental and vocal terms, I think it is safest to assume it will generally mean a combination of the two. I think the fact that so many other terms appear around it means it is a very generic word.

Examining the P&W definitions, once again the core is close: we are certainly talking about instrumental and vocal music. This is certainly not creating an “atmosphere”: the worshippers here are active and not passive. It is also by no means glorifying “every available instrument”: only specific ones that were acceptable to the Jews are mentioned. I realize this again touches on larger topics that are outside the scope of this study. But that is part of why I am doing this study, because these P&W studies are putting ideas and thoughts into the text (eisegesis) that are simply not there.

Oh, and seriously… “cocktail” music”??? That reference is so absurd. I did need that laugh though.

Taqa

Hebrew: תָּקַע
Verb
Strong’s: 8628 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 69x total, 2x in Psalms
KJV translations: blow (46x), fasten (5x), strike (4x), pitch (3x), thrust (2x), clap (2x), sounded (2x), cast (1x), miscellaneous (4x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to clatter, i.e. Slap (the hands together), clang (an instrument); by analogy, to drive (a nail or tent-pin, a dart, etc.); by implication, to become bondsman by handclasping) — blow ((a trumpet)), cast, clap, fasten, pitch (tent), smite, sound, strike, X suretiship, thrust.

This one is not found on many of the P&W lists I referenced, but the definition here is “Clap, applaud. Expresses joy and victory.”

Of course the reason why it is not on many lists is because it barely even occurs in context with worship. It is used to “blow a trumpet” 50x, but this is not musical. These trumpet blasts were signals and calls and far more primitive than more modern bugle calls used in the military. There is nothing about making music in these references.

Basically, this verb means to “hit or strike”. Look at its objects when it is used: nails, daggers, tents, darts. When using blowing a trumpet they are just sounding it, or “hitting a note” if I could be pardoned to apply that stretch here.

We have only one true reference to clapping (“striking hands together”) in Psalm 47:1. In Nahum 3:19 someone claps their hand over their mouth but that is quite a different thing. There are two additional references to clapping that use different words: II Kings 11:12, Isaiah 55:12 (see macha). We can see in those that there is a connection between clapping hands and joyous celebration.

Karar

Hebrew: כָּרַר
Verb
Strong’s: 3769 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 2x total, 0x in Psalms
KJV translations: dance (2x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to dance (i.e. Whirl) — dance(-ing).

Defined simply here for P&W as “Dance. ‘David danced before the Lord with all his might.’ Expresses joy and celebration.“

This word only appears in the account of David celebrating the return of the Ark of the Covenant in II Samuel 6. This is a singular act by a singular person at a singular time. To extrapolate this into a command to dance in worship is unsound at best. There are other words used for dance that we will get to, but since I find this word on a few lists I feel the need to cover it although it is essentially worthless in arguing for charismatic worship.

(I would recommend you reference Scott Aniol’s Changed from Glory into Glory: The Liturgical Story of the Christian Faith, p. 43-45, for better analysis of this. It’s too long for me to post here.)

Tephillah

Hebrew: תְּפִלָּה
Noun
Strong’s: 8605 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 77x total, 32x in Psalms
KJV translations: prayer (77x).
Strong’s definition: From palal; intercession, supplication; by implication, a hymn — prayer.

A very straightforward definition found here: “Prayer, often sung as intercession and petition.”

Okay, this the first word that we have looked at that I really don’t have any problem with. It means prayer, spoken (I Kings 8:28) or sung (Psalm 17 heading). Perhaps some P&W teachings go beyond this simple definition but the places I am referencing seem to have this one right if they mention it at all.

Todah

Hebrew: תּוֹדָה
Noun
Strong’s: 8426 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 32x total, 12x in Psalms
KJV translations: thanksgiving (18x), praise (6x), thanks (3x), thank offerings (3x), confession (2x).
Strong’s definition: From yadah; properly, an extension of the hand, i.e. (by implication) avowal, or (usually) adoration; specifically, a choir of worshippers — confession, (sacrifice of) praise, thanks(-giving, offering).

A P&W definition found here: “an extension of the hand, avowal, adoration, a choir of worshipers, confession, sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving”

Basically we have here the noun form of yadah. I will refer you to the previous examination of that word.

(Honestly, you can tell some of the foundation for these lists of “Hebrew words for worship” just got the words from a Strong’s concordance without really digging into them at all. Otherwise, words like todah and yadah would be classified together. See this article which couples todah, not with yadah as would be logically and grammatically correct, but with shabach.)

Shachah

Hebrew: שָׁחָה
Verb
Strong’s: 7812 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 172x total, 17x in Psalms
KJV translations: worship (99x), bow (31x), bow down (18x), obeisance (9x), reverence (5x), fall down (3x), themselves (2x), stoop (1x), crouch (1x), miscellaneous (3x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to depress, i.e. Prostrate (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God) — bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.

Your P&W definition, found here and here: “to depress or prostrate in homage or loyalty to God, bow down, fall down flat”

When we discuss worship I believe this is the key word. In a secular sense (which is about half of its uses), it means to “bow down”, as one would do in reverence to a ruler (Genesis 42:6, Esther 3:2). It is is sign of humility on the one bowing down and a sign of honor to the one bowed down to. It also implies service to something (Exodus 20:5).

This is not loud or ecstatic. It is quiet. It is not celebratory. It is reverential. It is not proud. It is humble. It is not accidental. It is intentional.

I like the image of bowing down. It puts all the glory and honor on the one being worshipped and not on the worshipper. We bow ourselves out of the picture and let all the attention and glory go to God. We worship according to His commands and expectations, not our own. That is true worship.

It does not require a band. It does not require being worked up into frenzy. It does not require a precursory time of praise. It does not require being at a church or even gathered with other believers. We simply acknowledge our ever-present God and His ceaseless majesty.

(Can you tell I preached a sermon on this not too long ago?)

Shir

Hebrew: שִׁיר
Verb
Strong’s: 7891 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 87x total, 27x in Psalms
KJV translations: sing (41x), singer (37x), singing men (4x), singing women (4x), behold (1x).
Strong’s definition: Or (the original form) shuwr (1 Sam. 18:6) {shoor}; a primitive root (identical with shuwr through the idea of strolling minstrelsy); to sing — behold (by mistake for shuwr), sing(-er, -ing man, – ing woman).

A rather simple P&W definition found here: “strolling minstrelsy, to sing, singer (man or woman)”

This one is another very direct and basic word that essentially means “to sing”. The only real headscratcher to me is Strong’s addition of “strolling minstrelsy”, which appears to come from a similar root shur (Strong’s H7788) which means to journey or travel. I am not so certain this word means anything about being minstrel but may rather be a description of singing (changing tones and moving rhythms), perhaps related to the term shiggaion (Strong’s 7692). Again, I am no expert here, but I am not seeing anything similar to “strolling minstrelsy” in other reference works.

Alats

Hebrew: עָלַץ
Verb
Strong’s: 5970 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 8x total, 4x in Psalms
KJV translations: rejoice (6x), joyful (1x), triumph (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to jump for joy, i.e. Exult — be joyful, rejoice, triumph.

This is another case where the action part of the word may be more figurative than literal. For instance, Hannah said: “My heart rejoiceth [alats] in the LORD” (I Samuel 2:1) We have a similar expression today in saying “our hearts leap for joy” which is figurative.

Alaz

Hebrew: עָלַז
Verb
Strong’s: 5937 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 16x total, 7x in Psalms
KJV translations: rejoice (12x), triumph (2x), joyful (2x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to jump for joy, i.e. Exult — be joyful, rejoice, triumph.

A similar word and case to alats.

Anah

Hebrew: עָנָה
Verb
Strong’s: 6030 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 329x total, 39x in Psalms
KJV translations: answer (242x), hear (42x), testify (12x), speak (8x), sing (4x), bear (3x), cry (2x), witness (2x), give (1x), miscellaneous (13x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; properly, to eye or (generally) to heed, i.e. Pay attention; by implication, to respond; by extens. To begin to speak; specifically to sing, shout, testify, announce — give account, afflict (by mistake for anah), (cause to, give) answer, bring low (by mistake for anah), cry, hear, Leannoth, lift up, say, X scholar, (give a) shout, sing (together by course), speak, testify, utter, (bear) witness. See also Beyth ‘Anowth, Beyth ‘Anath.

Nothing crazy here. Basically means “to give attention to or answer”.

Chagag

Hebrew: חָגַג
Verb
Strong’s: 2287 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 16x total, 2x in Psalms
KJV translations: keep (8x), …feast (3x), celebrate (1x), keep a solemn feast (1x), dancing (1x), holyday (1x), reel to and fro (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root (compare chagra’, chuwg); properly, to move in a circle, i.e. (specifically) to march in a sacred procession, to observe a festival; by implication, to be giddy — celebrate, dance, (keep, hold) a (solemn) feast (holiday), reel to and fro.

This means “to keep a religious festival or ritual”. The first reference in Psalms means to participate in or observe a Jewish festival (Psalm 42:4). The second means to dance or move as a drunk person (Psalm 107:27). Wide variety in those two.

Chuwl

Hebrew: חוּל
Verb
Strong’s: 2342 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 62x total, 12x in Psalms
KJV translations: pain (6x), formed (5x), bring forth (4x), pained (4x), tremble (4x), travail (4x), dance (2x), calve (2x), grieved (2x), grievous (2x), wounded (2x), shake (2x), miscellaneous (23x).
Strong’s definition: Or chiyl {kheel}; a primitive root; properly, to twist or whirl (in a circular or spiral manner), i.e. (specifically) to dance, to writhe in pain (especially of parturition) or fear; figuratively, to wait, to pervert — bear, (make to) bring forth, (make to) calve, dance, drive away, fall grievously (with pain), fear, form, great, grieve, (be) grievous, hope, look, make, be in pain, be much (sore) pained, rest, shake, shapen, (be) sorrow(-ful), stay, tarry, travail (with pain), tremble, trust, wait carefully (patiently), be wounded.

Used for “dance” in Judges 21 and nowhere else. Has the idea of “writhing” or “shaking”. The uses in Psalms are not noteworthy in our present study as they do not refer to worship.

Qol

Hebrew: קֹל
Noun
Strong’s: 6963 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 506x total, 57x in Psalms
KJV translations: voice (383x), noise (49x), sound (39x), thunder (10x), proclamation (with H5674) (4x), send out (with H5414) (2x), thunderings (2x), fame (1x), miscellaneous (16x).
Strong’s definition: Or qol {kole}; from an unused root meaning to call aloud; a voice or sound — + aloud, bleating, crackling, cry (+ out), fame, lightness, lowing, noise, + hold peace, (pro-)claim, proclamation, + sing, sound, + spark, thunder(-ing), voice, + yell.

Basically means the sound something makes. Could be an animal (I Samuel 15:14), thunder (I Samuel 12:18), or water (Psalm 42:7). It does not necessarily mean something is loud, but doesn’t rule it out either. In many uses it means the human voice (Genesis 3:7, Psalm 3:4) or even God’s voice (Genesis 3:8, Psalm 103:20).

Kabad

Hebrew: כָּבַד
Verb
Strong’s: 3513 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 116x total, 11x in Psalms
KJV translations: clap (3x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to rub or strike the hands together (in exultation) — clap.

“To be heavy”. Can be in the sense of honor (Exodus 20:12, Daniel 11:38) or glory (Leviticus 10:3, Psalm 22:23). Can be negative in these sense of hardening a heart (Exodus 8:15, I Samuel 6:6) or something extreme (Genesis 18:20, Isaiah 9:1). The most common use in Psalms is to denote glory (Psalm 86:9,12).

Macha

Hebrew: מָחָא
Verb
Strong’s: 4222 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 3x total, 1x in Psalms
KJV translations: honour (34x), glorify (14x), honourable (14x), heavy (13x), harden (7x), glorious (5x), sore (3x), made heavy (3x), chargeable (2x), great (2x), many (2x), heavier (2x), promote (2x), miscellaneous (10x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to rub or strike the hands together (in exultation) — clap.

Used twice for anthropomorphic clapping (Psalm 98:8, Isaiah 55:12). I suppose someone may say those set some sort of precedent for clapping in worship since the rivers and trees are seen doing it, but there are better verses to build that case with. I would like to point out that both also appear to picture the earth celebrating the arrival of the Millennial Kingdom.

Used once for Ammon celebrating the Jew’s despair (Ezekiel 24:6).

Machowl

Hebrew: מָחוֹל
Noun
Strong’s: 4234 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 6x total, 3x in Psalms
KJV translations: dance (5x), dancing (1x).
Strong’s definition: From chuwl; a (round) dance — dance(-cing).

The noun form of chuwl. Scott Aniol in Changed from Glory into Glory (p. 43-44) states that is is the only Old Testament term that corresponds to what we call dancing today. He describes it as a joyful folk dance of celebration. It is used to convey the idea of utter joy (Psalm 30:11, Jeremiah 31:13, Lamentations 5:15)

I also want to go ahead and note that the plural form of the word, mechowlah (Strong’s H4246) is used to describe the celebratory dancing after crossing the Red Sea (Exodus 15:20), Japhthah’s victory over Ammon (Judges 11:34), David’s victory over Goliath, (I Samuel 18:6, 21:11, 29:5) and in a more negative context in the worship of the golden calf (Exodus 32:19). Scott Aniol does not differentiate between the singular and plural forms in his discussion. That isn’t a problem at all, but someone not paying attention and cross-referencing with a concordance may be confused since there will be multiple Strong’s numbers in play.

In discussing the uses of machowl and mecholah in Psalm 149:3 and 150:4, Aniol points out that the emphasis is not necessarily on corporate worship but rather on praising God at all time. In Psalm 149 for example, we see the times of praise including while the congregation is assembled (vs. 1), while the saints are resting in their beds (vs. 5), and while the nation is at war (vs. 6-9). In Psalm 150 we see praising God in His sanctuary (vs. 1) but also a command that every living thing should praise the Lord (vs. 6) which is a much broader application.

Mechowlah

Hebrew: מְחֹלָה
Noun
Strong’s: 4246 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 8x total, 0x in Psalms
KJV translations: dance (5x), dancing (2x), company (1x).
Strong’s definition: Feminine of machashabah; a dance — company, dances(-cing).

See previous notes on machowl. This is the the plural form of that word and is referenced in that discussion.

Nasa

Hebrew: נָסָה
Verb
Strong’s: 5375 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 654x total, 48x in Psalms
KJV translations: (bare, lift, etc…) up (219x), bear (115x), take (58x), bare (34x), carry (30x), (take, carry)..away (22x), borne (22x), armourbearer (18x), forgive (16x), accept (12x), exalt (8x), regard (5x), obtained (4x), respect (3x), miscellaneous (74x).
Strong’s definition: Or nacah (Psalm ‘eb: ‘abad (‘abad)) {naw-saw’}; a primitive root; to lift, in a great variety of applications, literal and figurative, absol. And rel. (as follows) — accept, advance, arise, (able to, (armor), suffer to) bear(-er, up), bring (forth), burn, carry (away), cast, contain, desire, ease, exact, exalt (self), extol, fetch, forgive, furnish, further, give, go on, help, high, hold up, honorable (+ man), lade, lay, lift (self) up, lofty, marry, magnify, X needs, obtain, pardon, raise (up), receive, regard, respect, set (up), spare, stir up, + swear, take (away, up), X utterly, wear, yield.

A general verb meaning “to bear or carry”. In Psalms it used in many ways, including to lift up heads (Psalm 24:7), lift up hands (Psalm 28:2), bearing reproach (Psalm 69:7) taking or bringing (Psalm 72:3, 81:2), lifting up soul (Psalm 86:4), forgiving (Psalm 99:8), and lifting up eyes (Psalm 121:1). I think there usage is too varied to draw any concrete conclusions about worship solely from this word.

Nagan

Hebrew: נָגַן
Verb
Strong’s: 5059 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 15x total, 2x in Psalms
KJV translations: play (8x), instrument (3x), minstrel (2x), melody (1x), player (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; properly, to thrum, i.e. Beat a tune with the fingers; expec. To play on a stringed instrument; hence (generally), to make music — player on instruments, sing to the stringed instruments, melody, ministrel, play(-er, -ing).

Means “to play an instrument” and by extension “those that play instruments.” Nothing earthshattering here.

Neginah

Hebrew: נְגִינָה
Noun
Strong’s: 5058 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 14x total, 9x in Psalms
KJV translations: Neginoth (6x), song (5x), stringed instruments (1x), musick (1x), Neginah (1x).
Strong’s definition: Or ngiynath (Psa. ‘abal:title) {neg-ee-nath’}; from nagan; properly, instrumental music; by implication, a stringed instrument; by extension, a poem set to music; specifically, an epigram — stringed instrument, musick, Neginoth (plural), song.

Means “music of stringed instruments.” Found in the headings of multiple Psalms (4, 6, 54, 55, 61, 67, 76) to note that those songs had musical accompaniment. The idea of musical accompaniment is also seen in Isaiah 38:20. There are a few cases that in their context show their music to be satirical or mocking in nature (Job 30:9, Psalm 69:12, Lamentations 3:14), but these applications shouldn’t define the other uses.

Patsach

Hebrew: פָּצַח
Verb
Strong’s: 6476 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 8x total, 1x in Psalms
KJV translations: break forth (6x), break (1x), make a loud noise (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to break out (in joyful sound) — break (forth, forth into joy), make a loud noise.

This is a case where the Strong’s definition is taking into account the object or effects of the verb and ignoring the words actual meaning. Patsach means “to break or to burst”, as in the breaking of bones in Micah 3:3. It can then have an object that says what is breaking out. Five of the uses involve the anthropomorphic descriptions of the earth or nature “breaking out” and singing coming forth (Psalm 98:4, Isaiah 14:7, 44:23, 49:13, 52:9, 55:12). The lone use where it is people breaking out in song is Israel in Isaiah 54:1. It would be hard to apply this to our worship.

Pazaz

Hebrew: פָּזַז
Verb
Strong’s: 6339 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 2x total, 0x in Psalms
KJV translations: made strong (1x), leaping (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root (identical with pazaz); to solidify (as if by refining); also to spring (as if separating the limbs) — leap, be made strong.

Strong’s definition is almost longer than the verses this word appears in. The NAS Exhaustive Concordance make it far more concise: “to be supple or agile”.

There are only two uses of this word in Hebrew Scripture. The first is in Genesis 49:24 in Jacob’s blessing of Joseph speaking figuratively about Joseph’s strength as being enhanced by God using the imagery of pulling back a bow string.

The second is when David was “leaping” as he danced before the arriving Ark of the Covenant in II Samuel 6:16. That lone appearance is why this word may appear on some of the more exhaustive P&W lists. For a deeper look at David’s dancing, see notes on karar.

Raqad

Hebrew: רָקַד
Verb
Strong’s: 7540 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 9x total, 3x in Psalms
KJV translations: dance (4x), skip (3x), leap (1x), jump (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; properly, to stamp, i.e. To spring about (wildly or for joy) — dance, jump, leap, skip.

The best idea of this word is “skipping, jumping, or leaping”. We see chariots bouncing at high speed (Nahum 3:2, Joel 2:5), the children of the wicked dancing or jumping around (Job 21:11), animals leaping about (Isaiah 13:21), and anthropomorphized mountains and trees skipping like animals (Psalm 114:4, 114:6, Psalm 29:6).

I want to examine the two remaining cases where it means “dancing”. The first I want to note is in Ecclesiastes 3:4 where joyful dancing is the opposite of mourning. This is not prescriptive but descriptive.

The second case is, of course, David dancing before the Ark in I Chronicles 15:29. For a deeper look at David’s dancing, see notes on karar. (Spoiler: its not a command or example we are called to follow.)

Renanah

Hebrew: רְנָנָה
Noun
Strong’s: 7445 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 4x total, 2x in Psalms
KJV translations: joyful voice (1x), joyful (1x), triumphing (1x), singing (1x).
Strong’s definition: From ranan; a shout (for joy) — joyful (voice), singing, triumphing.

The connotation of this word adds the idea of “rejoicing or joyfulness”. The two occurrences in Job 3:7 and 20:5 are not instructive in a study on worship. The two references in Psalm 63:5 and 100:2 are instructive that we should joyfully praise or God.

Rinnah

Hebrew: רִנָּה
Noun
Strong’s: 7440 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 33x total, 15x in Psalms
KJV translations: cry (12x), singing (9x), rejoicing (3x), joy (3x), gladness (1x), proclamation (1x), shouting (1x), sing (1x), songs (1x), triumph (1x).
Strong’s definition: From ranan; properly, a creaking (or shrill sound), i.e. Shout (of joy or grief) — cry, gladness, joy, proclamation, rejoicing, shouting, sing(-ing), triumph.

This word can be an expression of grief (Psalm 106:44, 142:6) or joy (Psalm 30:5, 126:5). Roughly 1/3 of the uses are expressing grief or desperation.

Rua

Hebrew: רוּעַ
Noun
Strong’s: 7321 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 46x total, 12x in Psalms
KJV translations: shout (23x), noise (7x), ..alarm (4x), cry (4x), triumph (3x), smart (1x), miscellaneous (4x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to mar (especially by breaking); figuratively, to split the ears (with sound), i.e. Shout (for alarm or joy) — blow an alarm, cry (alarm, aloud, out), destroy, make a joyful noise, smart, shout (for joy), sound an alarm, triumph.

Rua essentially means “to shout” but is applied in varied ways. It is the shout of Israel when the circled Jericho in Joshua 6. It can be a cry of alarm (Numbers 10:7, Joel 2:1). It can mean shouting in triumph (Psalm 41:11, 108:9), which can also mean defeat (Proverbs 13:20).

As far as the uses in Psalms, we see shouting for victory and joy (Psalm 47:1, 65:13), the aforementioned triumphs (Psalm 41:11, 108:9), or the “joyful noise” (Psalm 66:1, 81:1, 95:1, 95:2, 98:4, 98:6, 100:1). To read more about the “joyful noise”, here is an GotQuestions.org article. I may need to revisit that in a future study.

Samach

Hebrew: שָׂמַח
Verb
Strong’s: 8055 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 152x total, 52x in Psalms
KJV translations: shout (23x), noise (7x), ..alarm (4x), cry (4x), triumph (3x), smart (1x), miscellaneous (4x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; probably to brighten up, i.e. (figuratively) be (causatively, make) blithe or gleesome — cheer up, be (make) glad, (have, make) joy(-ful), be (make) merry, (cause to, make to) rejoice, X very.

This word means to “to rejoice” or “be glad or happy”. Not any controversy here that I see.

Sason

Hebrew: שָׂשׂן
Noun
Strong’s: 8342 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 22x total, 5x in Psalms
KJV translations: joy (15x), gladness (3x), mirth (3x), rejoicing (1x).
Strong’s definition: Or sason {saw-sone’}; from suws; cheerfulness; specifically, welcome — gladness, joy, mirth, rejoicing.

Pretty clear. No comments needed.

Raam

Hebrew: רָעַם
Verb
Strong’s: 7481 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 13x total, 4x in Psalms
KJV translations: thunder (8x), roar (3x), trouble (1x), fret (1x).
Strong’s definition: A primitive root; to tumble, i.e. Be violently agitated; specifically, to crash (of thunder); figuratively, to irritate (with anger) — make to fret, roar, thunder, trouble.

I’ll be honest and I say that I don’t recall which list I saw this word on. I thought it was maybe here but its not. It must have ended on my list for a reason so I will go ahead and look at it.

This word means “to roar or thunder” or by extension “to tremble”. We see the roar of the sea (I Chronicles 16:32, Psalm 96:11, 98:7), literal thunder from the sky (I Samuel 2:10, 7:10), and God’s voice associated with thunder (Job 37:4-5, 40:9, II Samuel 22:14, Psalm 18:13, 29:3). The two references to being troubled or trembling are in I Samuel 1:6 and Ezekiel 27:35.

That’s all. Not sure why this would appear in a P&W Hebrew word list but I guess it did somewhere to make it on my list.

Shaon

Hebrew: שָאוֹן
Noun
Strong’s: 7588 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 17x total, 4x in Psalms
KJV translations: noise (8x), tumult (3x), tumultuous (2x), rushing (2x), horrible (1x), pomp (1x).
Strong’s definition: From sha’ah; uproar (as of rushing); by implication, destruction — X horrible, noise, pomp, rushing, tumult (X -uous).

Picture a “tumultuous uproar” and that fits practically every appearance. This is never applied to praise to God and never used in a positive sense.

Though it appears on a list here, the listed references do not even contain the word (they appear to be for rua). Not sure why it would be listed unless they are pushing an idea of tumultuous or uproarious worship but the word is never used in a way to support that idea.

Shiyr

Hebrew: שִׁירָה
Noun
Strong’s: 7892 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 89x total, 43x in Psalms
KJV translations: song (74x), musick (7x), singing (4x), musical (2x), sing (1x), singers (1x), song (with H1697) (1x).
Strong’s definition: Or feminine shiyrah {shee-raw’}; from shiyr; a song; abstractly, singing — musical(-ick), X sing(-er, -ing), song.

A generic word for “song, singing, or music”. I’ve got nothing to add. Moving on…

Sus

Hebrew: שׂוּשׂ
Verb
Strong’s: 7797 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 27x total, 9x in Psalms
KJV translations: rejoice (20x), glad (4x), greatly (1x), joy (1x), mirth (1x).
Strong’s definition: Or siys {sece}; a primitive root; to be bright, i.e. Cheerful — be glad, X greatly, joy, make mirth, rejoice.

Another straightforward definition. I’ve got nothing to add.

Teruah

Hebrew: תְּרוּעָה
Noun
Strong’s: 8643 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 36x total, 5x in Psalms
KJV translations: shout (11x), shouting (8x), alarm (6x), sound (3x), blowing (2x), joy (2x), miscellaneous (4x).
Strong’s definition: From ruwa’; clamor, i.e. Acclamation of joy or a battle-cry; especially clangor of trumpets, as an alarum — alarm, blow(- ing) (of, the) (trumpets), joy, jubile, loud noise, rejoicing, shout(-ing), (high, joyful) sound(-ing).

Noun form of rua. I will refer you to that previous study for the meaning here.

Zimrah

Hebrew: תְּרוּעָה
Noun
Strong’s: 2172 – BibleHub – SudyLight – BlueLetterBible
Uses: 4x total, 2x in Psalms
KJV translations: melody (2x), psalm (2x).
Strong’s definition: From zamar; a musical piece or song to be accompanied by an instrument — melody, psalm.

Noun form of zamar. I will refer you to that previous study for the meaning here.

On Typology

April 28, 2022 Matthew Gage

I’ll be honest and say that when it comes to Bible study I have generally avoided the area of Typology. But recently I have been studying, teaching, and encountering this system of Bible interpretation more than before. I had a few thoughts that I wanted to share on the subject.

Lewis Sperry Chafer defines it well in his Systematic Theology (Vol. III, p. 116-117):

A type is a divinely purposed anticipation which illustrates its antitype. These two parts of one theme are related to each other by the fact that the same truth or principle is embodied in each. It is not the prerogative of the type to establish the truth of a doctrine; it rather enhances the force of the truth as set forth in the antitype. On the other hand, the antitype serves to lift its type out of the commonplace into that which is inexhaustible and to invest it with riches and treasures hitherto unrevealed.

For example, so many wonderful types are found in the Tabernacle and its services that point to Christ. Indeed, this is almost certainly the primary application of Typology that you will find today. We could go on to speak endlessly on how the Passover lamb pictured Christ’s sacrifice. The books of Romans and Hebrews are full of types that use Old Testament references to highlight New Testament truths. Typology is a cornerstone of New Testament theology and Biblical interpretation.

But it is not without its limits or problems. This system of study has been greatly abused over the millennia. Quoting Chafer again (Systematic Theology, Vol. III, p. 116):

Typology, like prophecy, has often suffered more from its friends than its foes. The fact that extremists have failed to distinguish between that which is typical and that which is merely allegorical, analogous, parallel, happy illustration, or resemblance may have driven conservative theologians from the field. When truth is tortured by faddists and extremists, an added obligation is thereby imposed upon conservative scholarship to declare it in its right proportions. It is obvious that to neglect truth is a greater error than to overemphasize it or to misstate it; and typology, though abused by some, is, nevertheless, conspicuous by its absence from works Systematic Theology. That typology is neglected is evident from the fact that of upwards of twenty works of Systematic Theology examined, but one lists this subject in its index and this author has made but one slight reference to it in a footnote.

The safest interpretation of types and antitypes is to only claim as Old Testament types that which is explicitly states to have an antitype in the New Testament. For instance, Paul uses the first man Adam as a type of Christ (I Corinthians 15:21-22 and Romans 15:14-17). Another is Melchizedek (Genesis 14) who in Hebrews 7 is used as a type to reinforce Christ’s priestly role.

Yet, there are New Testament verses that apply typology very broadly. In Hebrews 9:8-12, we find that entire system of Tabernacle worship with its systems of sacrifices and varied ordinances points to the antitype of Christ’s redemptive work. The details are not given of how this applies to every aspect of the Tabernacle’s construction or the multitude of commandments in the Mosaic Law. It is clear that the Paschal lamb represents Christ, but what about the shewbread or the regulations concerning the differing types of sacrifices? We certainly know that the Bible is HIS story (Psalm 40:7, Hebrews 10:7). So then we are evidently left to discern these ourselves by the guidance of the Spirit.

But not every allusion to the Old Testament in the New Testament refers to a type. There are also illustrations, allegories, and analogies, to name a few. We must carefully discern among these.

So, let us develop of working theory of Typology.

First, it must be a connection of type and antitype, generally found in the Old and New Testaments respectively.
Second, the foundation for interpreting the relations of type and antitype must come from an emphasis on the antitype. We do not judge any truth about Adam on his typological parallels to Christ, but we do perform the opposite reaction.
Third, any supposition or hypothesis regarding the interpretation of a type and antitype must harmonize with the preponderance of clear Scriptural teaching. Just because a connection can be logically construed between two subjects does not give it the power to trump doctrine that is definitively and inarguably taught in Scripture.

Which brings me finally to the reason for this post. There are an error I encountered in the application of Typology that I wanted to mention. I doubt that I will be able to conclusively disprove it here, perhaps at a future time I will further develop my arguments to that level.

I encountered this problem while reading A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship by Lester Ruth and Lim Swee Hong. While discussing the development of Praise & Worship music in the Latter Rain movement, the authors highlight that one of the theological bases was Typology, specifically concerning Tabernacle.

“The linchpin of theological development within the Latter Rian movement of this period was a liturgical theology based on a typology.” (p. 46)
“Because the theology behind Praise & Worship was a typologically based theology, the identification of the key Scriptures and their interpretation as types was critical.” (p. 46)

The basis for their worship theology was a typological interpretation of the “tabernacle of David”. This not the Tabernacle of Moses, but the temporary dwelling place of the Ark of the Covenant from its arrival in Jerusalem in II Samuel 6 and the construction of the Temple by Solomon. There are verses that speak of the “tabernacle of David” being restored in Amos 9:11-12 and the quotation of Amos by James in Acts 15:15-17. How was this justified? Another quote (p. 47-48)

The result was a more highly developed theology featuring praise as the key to God’s presence in the church. or example, an instructor at Bible Temple’s Portland Bible College, Kevin Conner, wrote an influential textbook, The Tabernacle of David, that provided the most detailed hermeneutic to this theology. The core tabernacle of David passages mentioned above – both Old Testament and New Testament – along with a handful of other passages led to an emphasis on divine presence at the place of worship. The identification of this place as Zion reinforced the connection to praise and liturgical activity through a range of scriptural associations. The centerpiece of the original tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, was likewise central in the interpretation by being a type of Jesus Christ himself, who is present among his people, especially in their praise. The lack of reference to bloody animal sacrifices in the liturgical activity of the tabernacle of David, apart from the initial arrival of the ark, highlighted the centrality of perpetual praise as sacrifice, especially by an arrangement of priests whose work was now musical. The connection of the tabernacle and its way of worship to David reinforced the propriety of fully engaged, physically expressive, and musically offered Praise & Worship. In other words, a theology based on the restoration of the tabernacle of David took the earlier emphasis on the sacrifice of praise as the key to experiencing God’s presence and raised it to the level of a highly developed liturgical ecclesiology in which the church is a corporate priesthood that is praise-oriented and fulfills its priestly ministry in a musical manner.

There are, of course, problems with the system of Typology they are using, including.

There is no antitype, violating the primary rule of Typology. All emphasis is on examining the type but here is no clear antitype in the New Testament.
It assumes the “tabernacle of David” refers to the place the Ark was kept. In context, I believe (and so do most commentaries I have referenced) that this instead refers to the house or kingdom of David.
It assumes that restoration was occurring through them. This is part and parcel with their Restorationism, that is their belief that God was bring back true Christianity that had been lost for since the days of the Apostles through special revelation through their movement.
It conjectures that the worship at the “tabernacle of David” was all about praise and not about sacrifice or rituals. We simply do not have sound information on the approximately 40 years the Ark dwelt there until placed in the Temple. Much of details we see of David organizing the priesthood during this time was likely preparing for the construction of the Temple.

Similar errors are made in this same movement using Typology and the Tabernacle of Moses as a basis for a worship theology. They are not the only ones to do so. I have encountered in my recent studies on the Tabernacle many differing takes on the Typology of the Tabernacle, not all being soundly based with its antitype, Christ.

I close by echoing the words of Chafer quoted above. Typology can be a field of study that bears rich harvests to the believer today. But we must be careful and consistent it its application, and above all not let its abuse cause us to neglect its study. I certainly have been guilty of doing so.

II Samuel 15:7 – Forty Years or Four Years?

February 10, 2022September 26, 2022 Matthew Gage

“And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron.”
II Samuel 15:7 (KJV)

“At the end of four years, Absalom said to the king, ‘Let me go to Hebron and fulfill a vow I made to the LORD.'”

II Samuel 15:7 (NIV)

On Biblehub.com you will find 38 different translations of the Bible that can easily be compared to one another. 22 of these have forty years. This is not just a KJV issue as some portray it.

The division boils down to whether or not the Hebrew text stands on it own. I would not count myself an expert in ancient texts and languages by any stretch, but from those that give an honest take on this verse it appears the ancient Hebrew supports the reading of forty years. When referring to textual evidence supporting the reading of four years, much of the emphasis is placed on the writings of Josephus (late first century A.D.) or the Peshitta translation (maybe second century A.D.). Even the most studious critics seem to be unable to find textual evidence or variance in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts or text. One could argue that the error that has been passed down is not textual but interpretational.

The common argument made for four years is that it must have been an early copyist’s mistake. After all, they will argue, there is little difference between four and forty in Hebrew (compare Strong’s H702 and H705. The evidence they give is other scholars or translations that follow their own reasoning.

Let me say that I feel it is a dangerous precedent to simply assume the text must contain an error because it does not appear to make sense. It is purely subjective and places the authority not on God’s Word but in the mind of its human interpreter.

Since the entire argument for four years is based on the supposition that forty years does not make sense, I would like to propose that a reasonable argument made in the defense of forty has more weight since it has the authority of the Hebrew text behind it.

How Can Forty Years Be Explained?

There are a few different arguments that can be found in support of forty years. Let me list some that I have seen:

Absalom was forty years old. This is unlikely since he was born at Hebron after David was made king of Judah (II Samuel 3:3). Even it true, it would then place his rebellion in the final days of David’s forty-year reign (II Samuel 5:4), which does not fit in the scope of the Biblical account of that time.
It was the fortieth year of David’s reign. Again, this would place the revolt in a different time than the text places it and making it fit the chronology of David’s last years is practically impossible.
It was forty years since David had been anointed king by Samuel. This one is plausible according to the timeline in Reese’s Chronological Bible. The problem with it is tying the significance of David’s anointed in I Samuel 16:13 and Absalom’s rebellion.
It was forty years since David fought the Geshurites. This one is interesting and requires some imagination into Absalom’s motives. David’s attack on the Geshurites is briefly mentioned in I Samuel 27:8-9. Absalom’s mother Maacah was a Geshurite (II Samuel 3:3). So the theory goes that Absalom’s rebellion was a retaliation against David’s earlier attack against his mother’s people. However, we see little or no evidence in Absalom’s actions to suggest this to be the case. I don’t see it holding up chronologically since that attack would have come shortly before he was made king over Judah and thus falling into the same time issues as previous suggestions.
It was forty years since Israel requested a king. Since Saul reigned for forty years (Acts 13:21) that does not allow for enough time for this to be true.
It was just an “era of reckoning”. John Gill records this suggestion, basically that forty years just means a vague epoch. It would be odd to find such a singular occurrence here.
It was forty years since Saul slew the priests at Nob. Another suggestion recorded by John Gill. The chronology might work but once again there is no clear connection between this event and Absalom’s rebellion.
It is forty days and not forty years. The changing of the Hebrew words in this case seems to be less plausible than a change from forty to four as the the words for day and year are not closely related.

A More Reasonable Interpretation

I think context is the key most often neglected in situations like this, and I believe it provides a very plausible reason for forty years being correct.

In II Samuel 15:1-6, we see Absalom playing the part of a politician in winning over the people of Israel. He was visible with an entourage of chariots and men, he poured out superfluous compliments, he planted the suggestion that he should be in charge. What was the end result?

“…so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.” – II Samuel 15:6

Israel’s heart had turned from their present king (David) to a popular young rival (Absalom).

Let me point out that the phrase above directly precedes the verse we have been focusing on. Absalom had worked until he had Israel’s heart (vs. 6) then he puts his plan for a coup into action (vs. 7).

Here is my reasonable explanation for forty years being correct: Absalom had stolen the hearts of Israel which David had possessed for forty years. This is the bookend to David’s popular beginning as seen in I Samuel 18:16 – “But all Israel and Judah loved David… “

This holds up chronologically. Reese’s Chronological Bible (which has a footnote preferring four years) gives evidence for this alternative. He assigns Absalom’s actions in II Samuel 15 to 1026 B.C. He assigns David’s popularity after slaying Goliath (as seen in I Samuel 18:16) to 1067 B.C. That is a difference of forty-one years – well within a scope of reasonable probablity.

It fits thematically. Israel’s heart had once turned from their current king (Saul) to a popular young rival (David). That parallels what happens in II Samuel 15. In a sense we have Absalom as the anti-David. David did not seek the throne but Absalom greedily campaigned for it. David would not raise his hand against Saul, but Absalom will stop at nothing to reach his goal.

I also think there is a connection to the judgment against him after his sin with Bathsheba (II Samuel 12:1-14). David’s family and kingdom were never the same after that sin. Losing the hearts of the people may have been part of that judgment.

Concluding Thoughts

I like simplicity and I prefer simple solutions over complex ones. I do not think the theory holds up that some scribe wrote the wrong word down, that it was not caught, and that is came to dominate the Hebrew manuscripts available today. I prefer to assume that the words presented are the words God wants us to have. To me that is a matter of simple faith. When we come across an oddity, such as the one we have examined here, I think we would do well to trust in the Scriptures themselves. Men are fallible, God is not. Scholars may fail and even our own interpretations may fail, but God never fails.

What did David Do to the Ammonites in II Samuel 12:31 and I Chronicles 20:3?

January 28, 2022January 28, 2022 Matthew Gage

*“David Punishing the Ammonites” By Gustave Doré*

II Samuel 12 is primarily about Nathan confronting David over sin with Bathsheba. Easily overlooked are the closing verses concerning the capture of the Ammonite capital of Rabbah by Joab and David. It is a fairly straightforward account: Joab has besieged the city and it is ready to fall, he sends for David to be there for the final assault, Rabbah falls to David’s forces, and David spoils the city including taking the king’s unwieldly crown that weighed over 100 pounds. The fate of the prisoners (likely the males of age to fight) in verse 31 is what is debated. The same events are covered in I Chronicles 20:1-3.

Depending on the translation or commentary you will find two opinions on what happened to the Ammonite prisoners. These are:

1. They are killed in a brutal manner.

2. They are enslaved and made to labor.

Which is correct? How can each be supported? What can we learn from about Bible interpretation in the process?

1. The Hebrew Verbs

In II Samuel 12:31, the word that is most important in this study is the root sim [H7760], translated as “put under” in the KJV. Englishman’s Greek Concordance shows it appears 583 times in the Old Testament. It is a simple verb with a many possible meanings based on its setting, but the basic definition is “to put, place, or set”. Basically this verb connects the Ammonites to the axes and iron implements. They were “put to” them.

But how were they “put to” those implements? A cursory look like above does not give a clear answer because the verb can be used in so many ways. We do find the same verb used to denote violence in Judges 7:22, where we find “…the LORD set [H7760] every man’s sword against his fellow…”. So we do have at least one example of the verb being used in a manner that would find with a violent interpretation of II Samuel 12:31.

In I Chronicles 20:3, we have another interesting verb – sur [H7787], translated as “cut” in the KJV. Strong’s defines it as: “A primitive root (identical with suwr through the idea of reducing to pieces; compare massowr); to saw – cut.” Some scholars speculate (with no textual evidence that I can find) that this word is perhaps a corruption of the verb from II Samuel 12:31 since only the last letter differs (see Jamieson-Fausset-Brown on I Chronicles 20:3). Just because the words are similar does not mean that a mistake was made, especially since the two passages do not perfectly mirror each other in all other details.

2. Regarding Brickkilns

Another important section of II Samuel 12:31 concerns the brickkilns. The Ammonites were made to “pass through” (KJV) them – the Hebrew verb root is abar [H5674]. This verb means “to cross over” or to “transition through”. Here the Ammonites are not “put to” something, but rather “put through” it.

Of note is that this verb is found in the exact same tense in II Kings 21:6 when it says that Manasseh “…made his son pass through the fire…”, which will be readily understood by an student of Bible history as a reference to child sacrifice to a pagan deity. To save time, I will refer those interested in more information on Molech to this article from GotQuestions.org.

Also of note is the word used for brickkiln – malben [H4404]. Some see this is not as the kiln itself but of a brick mold or shape, and they then make it a military formation that the Ammonites would have passed through as gauntlet (see John Gill’s commentary on this verse). I personally prefer a more literal than figurative approach to this word and believe it is the brickkiln itself.

3. Other References to Forced Labor

The idea of enslavement or forced labor is not unknown in the Old Testament. Let us look a few passages and see if we can shed light on our study.

Genesis 49:15 – “And he saw that rest was good, and the land that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became [H1961] a servant [H5647] unto tribute [H4522].”

Deuteronomy 20:11 – “And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be [H1961] tributaries [H4522] unto thee, and they shall serve thee.”

Joshua 16:10 – “And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve [H5647] under tribute [H4522].”

Joshua 17:13 – “Yet it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen strong, that they put [H5414] the Canaanites to tribute [H4522]; but did not utterly drive them out.

Judges 1:35 – “But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became [H1961] tributaries [H4522].”

I Kings 9:21 – “Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice [H4522] [H5647] unto this day.”

So we see in these verses above that specific words can be used to denote force labor, but the words and phrases used in these verses are not the same as in II Samuel 12:31 or I Chronicles 20:3. This may not be conclusive in the settling the matter, but it does appear that if the Ammonites were forced into slavery the much clearer language seen above could or possibly should have been used.

4. What about the Gibeonites?

Joshua chapter 9 contains the story of the Gibeonites who deceived Joshua and Israel into making a treaty with them. They were spared destruction but were made made slaves, specifically “hewers of wood and drawers of water” (Joshua 9:21,23,27).

Some point to this case as proving the Ammonites were enslaved and not killed. However, closer inspection proves these two cases are very different. For instance, Joshua was being forced to honor a treaty with the Gibeonites. David had no such things limiting his actions.

The only bearing the case of the Gibeonites has on our present topic is that it could be seen as an historical precedent that David could follow. But we have no indication that David was under any obligation to do so. A much better precedent to examine would be David’s previous military campaigns in II Samuel 8. In these David is seen conquering, spoiling, and even performing executions (II Samuel 8:2).

5. Could the implements mentioned be used in torture?

Let us turn our attention to the implements mentioned in II Samuel 12:31 and I Chronicles 20:3. Are these best understood as tools or weapons?

We find four implements mentioned: saws [H4050], harrows [H2757], axes [H4037] and brickkilns [H4404].

Concerning saws it is pretty straight forward what they are and that historically they were used in executions. We have the tradition that Isaiah was killed through sawing and the reference in Hebrews 11:37 to saints that had been killed by such means.

The harrows are bit more clouded. We find the same Hebrew word used to describe the cheeses David took to his brothers in I Samuel 17:18, probably highlighting the idea of “something cut into pieces”. These could be agricultural threshing instruments (see Isaiah 28:7 and 41:15 which use a similar Hebrew word [H2742]) repurposed as instruments of war. Such devices would have used to separate grain from harvest plants by grinding, cutting, or beating. We find a reference in Amos 1:3 to the Syrians cruelly using such instruments on the people of Gilead.

The word for axes only appears in these two verses. It is generally understood to be a generic term for a cutting instrument. I am not sure we can dogmatically describe it beyond that.

Last, brickkilns will likely remind the reader of the fiery furnace of Daniel chapter 3. Executions by burning are abundantly common in history so such an idea as this is perfectly plausible.

So, we find that the four implements mentioned can be used both as work or military implements. Their appearances by themselves do not necessarily prove either of our proposed interpretations correct.

6. Jewish Code of War

I think the most relevant passage of Scripture to our inquiry is Deuteronomy 20:10-14 which gives instruction on what the Israelites were supposed to do when besieging a city. We find that they are first to offer a chance of peaceful surrender and if the city surrenders its people are to be work for or pay tribute to Israel (vs. 10-11). If this offer is refused then the city is to be besieged (vs. 12). When the city falls, every male inhabitant is to be killed (vs. 13) and the women, children, and all cattle are to be the spoils of war (vs. 14).

If David was following this prescribed order then he would have to kill all the adult males when the city fell, not enslave them.

Of note in this is that the adult males were to be slain and the women and children were left alive. This can explain how the Ammon was not annihilated in David’s campaign and continuing to exist as the rest of Scripture testifies.

6. The Character of David

We must address the question as to whether it was in David’s character to torture or execute the Ammonite prisoners. Those that favor him enslaving them may refer to David being a “man after God’s own heart” (I Samuel 13:14 and Acts 13:22) and would be incapable of such an atrocity.

However, when we look at the history of David it is clear that was “man of war” (I Chronicles 28:3). The reason given for God not allowing him to build the Temple was that he had “shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars ” (I Chronicles 22:8).

Even as a warrior his actions at times may startle modern sensibilities. After slaying Goliath he kept the giant’s severed head as war trophy (I Samuel 17:54,57). He slew two hundred Philistines and gave their foreskins to Saul as a dowry to marry Michal (I Samuel 18:27). It seems to have performed some sort of systematic execution of the Moabites in II Samuel 8:2.

If David enslaved the Ammonites it would also be an aberration from his other wars. We see in the accounts of II Samuel 8 and 10 that David fought many battles and slew thousands of men. We see that he carried away great riches as the spoils of war. Even with kingdoms that he subdued into servitude (see Moab in II Samuel 8:2 or Edom in II Samuel 8:14 for examples) the language used is very different that that concerning the Ammonites.

It also worth considering the possible spiritual state of David at this time. It is difficult to say exactly when David conquered Rabbah but we do know that it coincides with his sin with Bathsheba (II Samuel 11:1). It possible that the fall of Rabbah occurred before Solomon was born (II Samuel 12:24) if the account is arranged thematically around David’s in and not strictly chronological. So there is a possibility that Rabbah fell when David was in one of the lowest spiritual states of his life, between his affair with Bathsheba and Nathan’s confrontation. I suggest merely that it is possible that David’s aggressive behavior toward the Ammonites may have been fueled his weak spiritual state.

7. Lex Talionis

Another consideration is that justice at this period in the ancient world was typically performed according to the law of retribution, or lex talionis. The Scripture famously summarizes this as “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Exodus 21:24-25).

If David was following this judicial reckoning, would the Ammonites have committed some sort of heinous crimes to bring about their execution? There is evidence in the Scripture that they were an unusually cruel people. Nahash the Ammonite had demanded that the men of Jabeshgilead to not only surrender, but to also remove their right eyes as as symbol of reproach (I Samuel 11:1-2). Hanun, king of the Ammonites, cruelly mistreated peaceful envoys that David sent after the death of Hanun’s father (II Samuel 10:1-3). Some 250 years later, the prophet Amos denounced them because “they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead” (Amos 1:13).

The Old Testament world is quite different in some areas when compared to New Testament Christianity . We are today compelled to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) but that was not the law of the land in David’s time. We must remember that he was a man of his time and for his time, and as such would have acted in ways we simply cannot understand.

8. What Do Others Say?

Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews – “…but as for the men, he tormented them, and then destroyed them; and when he had taken the other cities of the Ammonites by force, he treated them after the same manner.”

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers – “In the infliction of these cruelties on his enemies David acted in accordance with the customs and the knowledge of his time. Abhorrent as they may be to the spirit of Christianity, David and his contemporaries took them as matters of course, without a suspicion that they were not in accordance with God’s will.”

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary – “To be thus severe in putting the children of Ammon to slavery was a sign that David’s heart was not yet made soft by repentance, at the time when this took place. We shall be most compassionate, kind, and forgiving to others, when we most feel our need of the Lord’s forgiving love, and taste the sweetness of it in our own souls.”

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary – “he brought forth the people … and put them under saws, &c.—This excessive severity and employment of tortures, which the Hebrews on no other occasion are recorded to have practised, was an act of retributive justice on a people who were infamous for their cruelties (1Sa 11:2; Am 1:13).”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary – “Put them under saws: he sawed them to death; of which punishment we have examples, both in Scripture, Hebrews 11:37, and in other authors. Under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron; he caused them to be laid down upon the ground, and torn by sharp iron harrows drawn over them, and hewed in pieces by keen axes. Made them pass through the brick-kiln, i.e. to be burnt in brickkilns. Or, made them to pass through the furnace of Malchen, i.e. of Moloch, called also Milchom, and here Malchen; punishing them with their own sin, and with the same kind of punishment which they inflicted upon their own children: see 2 Kings 16:3 23:10 Leviticus 18:21 20:2 Deu 18:10.”

Geneva Study Bible – “Signifying that as they were malicious enemies of God, so he put them to cruel death.”

Pulpit Commentary – “We cannot defend these cruelties, but they unhappily were the rule in Oriental warfare, and would have been inflicted on their enemies by the Ammonites. We have proof in l 1 Samuel 11:2 and Amos 1:13 that they were a barbarous race; but this did not justify barbarous retaliation.”

Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge – “Rather,… ‘And he put them to saws, and to harrows, and to axes,’ etc., as we say, to put a person to the plough, to the anvil, to the last, etc.

Adam Clarke’s Commentary – “The meaning therefore is, He made the people slaves, and employed them in sawing, making iron harrows, or mining, (for the word means both), and in hewing of wood, and making of brick. Sawing asunder, hacking, chopping, and hewing human beings, have no place in this text, no more than they had in David’s conduct towards the Ammonites.”

A.C. Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible – “What is recorded in verse 31 was cruel and barbarous. (However, there is a doubt about the translation. It has been rendered in the following way: ‘And he set them to saws and iron picks and iron axes and made them labor at the brick kiln.’) Ammon did horrible things to the women of Israel. (See Amos 1:13.) A fearful retribution came upon them. How often it has been repeated in history, even down to the 20th century with all its boasted civilization, now collapsed in the greatest and most awful war the world has ever witnessed. And thus it will continue to the end, till the true King comes.”

B.H. Carroll’s Interpretation of the English Bible – “The weight of authority seems to favor the ‘torture’ interpretation, and yet how readily does a humane mind turn in preference to Murhpy’s rendering [of enslavement].” Note – Carroll deals with this subject in greater depth than most commentaries and his assessment is worth reading in full.

Alfred Edersheim’s Bible History Old Testament – “The punishment meted out to those who had resisted was of the most cruel, we had almost said, un-Israelitish character, not justified even by the terrible war which the Ammonites had raised, nor by the cruelties which they seem to have practiced against helpless Israelitish mothers (Amos 1:13), and savoring more of the ferocity of Joab than of the bearing of David – at least before his conscience had been hardened by his terrible sin. And so David returned triumphant to his royal city!”

Further notes on this:

An observation that has been made by others is that ancient Jewish rabbis almost universally taught that David tortured and killed the Ammonites. I do not have access to many of these, but you can see this represented in the last post of this conversation on Reddit.

I would also like to say that in general the older commentaries and author favor the execution interpretation. There seems to be a transition around end of the 19th century and today’s newest commentaries and authors seem to favor the enslavement interpretation. This is just a personal observation.

As far as translations go, many newer ones favor the enslavement interpretation unless they are very literal translation. For an overview of different translation, check out Bible Hub’s pages on II Samuel 12:31 and I Chronicles 20:3.

9. My Conclusion

I feel confident in interpreting the information in II Samuel 12:31 and I Chronicles 20:3 as referring to the brutal executions of the adult male Ammonite prisoners. I believe that this interpretation stands best when examined under scrutiny. I think the language when taken literally supports it. I think it is fitting for the culture of the time. I think it fits in the consistency of Scripture.

I do find this as in interesting case study in how we interpret the Bible. I think the main argument against the execution interpretation is that appears inhuman to the modern Christian’s mind. If we are not careful, we then project our own philosophies into the words of Scripture. It is a classic case of exegesis vs. eisegesis.

MY THEORY

Bowing/Kneeling/Prostration

Clapping Hands

Raising Hands

Dancing

Why?

Christian Maturity

Translation Comparison

Regarding the Geneva Bible

Historical Language Analysis

Old Testament Language Analysis

New Testament Language Analysis

Conclusion

Background Context

Singular or Plural?

Commentaries

Better/Best Manuscripts?

Usage of Ecclesia in Acts

Theological Implications

Final Thoughts

Is brass an inaccurate term?

Did brass exist in the ancient world?

Do we know what the metals were?

Conclusion

Historical Account

Historical Inaccuracies

The Prophetic Element

The Source of the Confusion

A Final Word

Alphabetical List of Words

Halal

Barak

Shabach

Yadah

Tehillah

Zamar

Taqa

Karar

Tephillah

Todah

Shachah

Shir

Alats

Alaz

Anah

Chagag

Chuwl

Qol

Kabad

Macha

Machowl

Mechowlah

Nasa

Nagan

Neginah

Patsach

Pazaz

Raqad

Renanah

Rinnah

Rua

Samach

Sason

Raam

Shaon

Shiyr

Sus

Teruah

Zimrah

“And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron.” II Samuel 15:7 (KJV)

“At the end of four years, Absalom said to the king, ‘Let me go to Hebron and fulfill a vow I made to the LORD.'”

II Samuel 15:7 (NIV)

How Can Forty Years Be Explained?

A More Reasonable Interpretation

Concluding Thoughts

1. The Hebrew Verbs

2. Regarding Brickkilns

3. Other References to Forced Labor

4. What about the Gibeonites?

5. Could the implements mentioned be used in torture?

“And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron.”
II Samuel 15:7 (KJV)