Who incited David to number Israel?

[Paidion]

The Old Testament clearly indicates that David sinned in numbering Israel.(Why that was sin, I'll probably never know). But the question is: who incited David to sin in this way? Here is the account in 2 Samuel:

Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” So the king said to Joab, the commander of the army, who was with him, “Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people.”

But David’s heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the LORD, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O LORD, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly.” (2 Sam 24:1,2,10)

And here is the account, written centuries later in 1 Chronicles:

Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Go, number Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, and bring me a report, that I may know their number.”

But God was displeased with this thing, and he struck Israel. And David said to God, “I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing. But now, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have acted very foolishly.” (I Chron 21:1,2,7,8)

I don't know how you all would explain this seeming contradiction, but I explain it as follows:

At an earlier stage the ancient Israelites believed that God brings about both good and evil, a God who brings both joy and suffering to mankind. Satan was understood to be a servant of God who was sent by God to tempt or to test man or to bring suffering or death upon him. But Satan could do nothing without God's permission (as in the book of Job, where he brought suffering to Job and death to his children with God's permission).

At a later stage of development the Israelites saw Satan as an independent being who did evil in his battle against God and God's purposes, a view that carried right into New Testament times where Satan tried to tempt even the Son of God, opposing Him rather than being His agent.

[steve]

Or not. More simply, perhaps both statements are true, since they involve no more contradiction than that which is found in Job, where Satan clearly brings disaster on Job (with God's permission) and Job rightly says "The Lord took away [the things God had previously given him)." The fact that Job did not misspeak is emphasized in Job 1:22; 2:10; 42:8. Thus, the writer of Job endorses the view that both Satan and God were, jointly, the cause of Job's trials.

That the Book of Job, teaching that both Satan and God were involved in testing the man Job, does not reflect theologies from two separate periods seems obvious, from the evident unity of the first two chapters of the book. If not in Job, then why in Kings and Chronicles?

When we reject the authenticity of large portions of what the Bible says, but wish to retain the authority of other parts, we put ourselves in the awkward position of judging each verse case-by-case, and creating de novo and ad hoc scenarios to justify this chopping and sifting. If this were somehow necessary, it would be one thing. However, when the solution is simple (except for the trouble it causes our personal opinions) then such chicanery seems gratuitous in the extreme.

By the way, since "satan" is not always used as a proper name (as you know, it is the generic Hebrew expression for "adversary"), it is possible to read in Chronicles that David was moved to take his census because of the approach of an adversary (like the Moabites or the Syrians). This would not be inconsistent with seeing God as being involved in the drawing of the enemy toward Israel (as in Isaiah 10:6 and Ezekiel 38:4), leading David to contemplate the taking of a military census.

I think that you, Paidion, (correct me if I'm wrong) are trying to say that the writer of Kings was mistaken in attributing the action to God, since you believe that all biblical writers, in both Testaments, are mistaken whenever they attribute such things as you dislike to God.

The Jews believe that Jeremiah wrote the books of Kings, and this seems likely, given the comparison of Kings with Jeremiah's other known work. I know from your earlier dialogues here on such matters, that you think you are more authoritative than the inspired prophets, since you continually say they are wrong, on no greater authority than your own disapproval of what they said. I realize that you claim the authority of Christ for your opinions, but, since Jesus never expressed or hinted at such opinions, this is unconvincing. Doesn't every wrong doctrine seek to make Jesus its founder?

While I respect you as a brother and a scholar, I have not seen any evidence that I should trust your opinions above those of God's chosen and inspired prophets (e.g., Jer.1:5)—whom even Jesus endorsed (Matt.5:17).

[Paidion]

Okay, we have Steve's view of the apparent contradiction—and of me.

What do the rest of you think?

[paulespino]

I think that you, Paidion, (correct me if I'm wrong) are trying to say that the writer of Kings was mistaken in attributing the action to God, since you believe that all biblical writers, in both Testaments, are mistaken whenever they attribute such things as you dislike to God.

From the statement quoted above, I think Steve is saying that if his opinion is wrong then let him know.

[Paidion]

Notice, Paul, that though Steve says, "Corrrect me if I am wrong", he is referring only to whether I believe "the writer of Kings was mistaken in attributing the action to God." Steve is right about that. Steve is not mistaken. That is indeed my belief.

But notice the additional clause, "since you believe that all biblical writers, in both Testaments, are mistaken whenever they attribute such things as you dislike to God." Steve doesn't ask me to correct him about this, since he is convinced that he is right about this. However he is wrong, and I have made this clear on numerous occasions. There are a number of "things I dislike" in the Scriptures which are attributed to God where I don't think the writers were mistaken. For example, I dislike like the severe correction which many people will have to undergo in the afterlife. Yet, I know that this will be necessary for some people. I believe God does it out of love, and will give them no more discomfort than is absolutely necessary. For God is pure LOVE. But love must sometimes be tough.

Steve seems convinced that my position is purely an emotional reaction. That I emphatically deny. My position is based upon the way in which Jesus depicts His Father—that He is kind to ungrateful and evil people, so that we, too, ought to love our enemies, and pray for them, and endure their evil as God does (in this life), rather than taking vengeance on them.

[steve]

Paidion,

It looks as if you still wish to continue our earlier debate about these things. Please do not blame me if I take your words and their implications seriously and answer them with serious concern.

As Psalm 103 makes abundantly clear, David believed that God was merciful and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy. Like Jesus, David believed that, as a father pities his children, so the Lord pities them that fear Him. He rejoiced that God has not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. He believed that God will not always chide, nor keep His anger forever.

Yet, without a trace of schizophrenia, David also believed that God “is angry at the wicked every day” (Ps.7:11), that He had struck David’s enemies on the cheekbone, breaking their teeth (Ps.3:7), and that God would destroy all who speak falsehood (Ps. 5:6). He believed that God “sharpens His bow and makes it ready,” and also “prepares instruments of death, and makes His arrows fiery shafts” (Ps.8:12-13), and that He has “destroyed the wicked” (Ps.9:5), etc.

David said that, because of God’s anger, the earth shook and trembled, the foundations of the hills also quaked, smoke went up from His nostrils,
 and devouring fire from His mouth, coals were kindled by it. He sent out His arrows and scattered the foe… and He vanquished them (Ps.18:7 8, 14). David said that God will judge the nations, filling the places with dead bodies, and executing the heads of countries (Ps.110:6).

I know you believe that David was deluded to believe these things—though Jesus said that the last Psalm I cited was written “through the Holy Spirit” (Mark 12:36). Rather than harp on that right now, I will leave you and Jesus to work out that little disagreement when you see each other.

My point is: Though David, the man after God’s own heart, had known and testified (as Jesus did) that God is merciful and gracious toward sinful mankind, this did not strike David as an inconsistency in God when He judges the wicked with temporal judgments, including death. David (like Jesus, who clearly believed both in the divinely-sent flood and in Sodom’s supernatural destruction) did not find the contradiction that you find in these two harmonious attributes of God. Interestingly, even the church fathers, including the philosophers among them, did not spot this glaring contradiction, though, if it really is there, it seems that someone either in the Bible or in the formative centuries of Christianity, would have noticed.

You think that Christ’s refusing to stone the adulteress proved that He did not believe in the ethics of capital punishment. It would be as reasonable to argue that, since David did not choose to execute the traitor Shimei (2 Samuel 19:21-23), that David therefore did not believe in capital punishment. To suggest such a thing about David would be sheer foolishness—and to argue from Jesus’ similar action toward the adulteress that He rejected the validity of the Old Testament law would be no more valid. The two cases are parallel. Your arguing this point about Jesus (i.e., that He rejected the validity of capital punishment) while not arguing the same way about David would indicate that it is your theology, not that of the Bible, that is marred by inherent contradiction.

If I were the one thus arguing against Jesus and the scriptures, in the manner that you do, I would be very nervous. Your entire case against a vast portion of scripture, both in the Old and the New Testaments, wis based on nothing other than the gratuitous assumption that incredible compassion and severe (even mortal) judgments cannot proceed from the same sovereign Ruler. Neither Jesus, nor any biblical author shared your view of this one-dimensional being that you present. The contradiction is in your mind, not in that of any biblical witness.

Moses, the man with whom God conversed face-to-face and mouth-to-mouth, obviously saw no contradiction between the God who is “merciful and gracious, longsuffenng, and abounding in goodness and truth keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Ex.34:6-7), and the God who commanded the slaughter of the Amalekites and the Canaanites. Moses claimed that God wants men to do good to their enemies (Ex.23:4-5), but that it was this same God who ordered capital punishment for over a score of criminal offenses. According to you, it is irrational for one to affirm both of these truths. Thus you suggest that you are more rational than Moses, who did affirm both.

Solomon, likewise, knew that it is godly for men to refrain from avenging themselves, and that they should feed their enemies when they were hungry and thirsty (Prov.25:21—the very teaching of Jesus and Paul about love for enemies—Rom.12:20). Yet, he saw no contradiction in believing that God was the one who brought Israel out of Egypt at Pharaoh’s expense (1 Kings 8:16), and who had wiped out all of his David’s enemies (1 Kings 5:3). He thought it not inconceivable that God might yet command Israel to go to battle against future enemies (1 Kings 8:44). More than this, Solomon believed that God would also afflict Israel, when rebellious, with military defeat (1 Kg.8:46), drought (v.35), famine (v.37)—all of which result in the deaths of men, women and children. Solomon believed all of these things, while also holding a view of the compassion of God no different from that expressed in the teachings of Jesus.

You personally find it impossible to harmonize both aspects of the divine character, but you don’t seem to think this could be a defect in your reasoning powers. Those who find the two facts capable of harmonization are, in your mind, poor thinkers—or else they would see the hopeless contradiction that you think you see. It does not seem to concern you that it is you alone, not Jesus, Moses, David or Solomon (men that I would not regard to be your rational inferiors, nor mine) who thinks there is a necessary contradiction.

You and I recently had this same discussion on another thread, and you agreed that we needn’t continue the debate. At that time, you left a very large number of biblical arguments I had presented against your view unanswered (because they were unanswerable, other than by). If you do not wish to be burdened with a long debate, then I will ask only that you answer one of the questions I raised earlier (and alluded to above). Here is the challenge:

Jesus said that David wrote Psalm 110 “through the Holy Spirit” (Mark 12:36). If you think David wrote some Psalms apart from inspiration, I cannot prove you wrong (though the apostles quoted David’s Psalms as authoritative more than they quoted any other portion of the Old Testament). However, you cannot, without contradicting Jesus, insist that Psalm 110 reflects David’s, rather than God’s, sentiments. It was inspired, according to the testimony of the same Jesus that you think disagreed with David’s judgment language. Yet, I cited (again in this post) Psalm 110:6, where David (through the Holy Spirit) wrote of God:

He shall judge among the nations,
He shall fill the places with dead bodies,
He shall execute the heads of many countries.

These are as gory a collection judgment images as we find in any of David’s Psalms. If he was able to write these words under divine inspiration, then

1) Why could he not have written his other similar words, elsewhere, by the same inspiration? And

2) Why, if the Holy Spirit wishes to reveal such things about God, do you insist that God cannot be the very God the Holy Spirit declares Him to be? Must we now add the Holy Spirit to the list of biblical characters who knew less about God than you claim to know?

[Paidion]

It looks as if you still wish to continue our earlier debate about these things. Please do not blame me if I take your words and their implications seriously and answer them with serious concern.

I really don't care whether we continue or not. I just wish to continue to clarify my position before those who post here.

As Psalm 103 makes abundantly clear, David believed that God was merciful and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy. Like Jesus, David believed that, as a father pities his children, so the Lord pities them that fear Him. He rejoiced that God has not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. He believed that God will not always chide, nor keep His anger forever.

Yet, without a trace of schizophrenia, David also believed that God “is angry at the wicked every day” (Ps.7:11), that He had struck David’s enemies on the cheekbone, breaking their teeth (Ps.3:7), and that God would destroy all who speak falsehood (Ps. 5:6). He believed that God “sharpens His bow and makes it ready,” and also “prepares instruments of death, and makes His arrows fiery shafts” (Ps.8:12-13), and that He has “destroyed the wicked” (Ps.9:5), etc.

I agree that David didn't believe that God was schizophrenic. As I have affirmed elsewhere, the ancient Hebrews believed that God did both good things "pitying his children, not punishing them according to their iniquities" and also what most people would call "bad things", such as killing enemies of the Hebrew people, killing a man for steadying the ark, ordering the Hebrews to kill men, women, and children, etc. It was only later, that the Hebrew people ascribed some of the hurtful and destructive events to Satan rather than to Yahweh as their predecessors had done. But even they were mistaken. Those events were either natural disasters or the destructive acts of war.

The attitudes of the ancient Hebrews have persisted to this day. Those who believe God has predestined all events ascribe natural disasters and even the atrocites of torture, rape, and war crimes, to God whom they believe ordained them. As for man's weakness in working unrighteousness, some say something to the effect, "The devil made me do it." So they ascribe to the devil their sin, rather than taking personal responsibility.

The author of 2 Samuel says that Yahweh incited David to sin by numering Israel.
The author of 1 Chronicles says that Satan incited David to sin by numbering Israel.
But both were mistaken. David numbered Israel because he had the desire to do so.

The author of James had it right. He indicated that God does not tempt ( or entice or incite) anyone but everyone is enticed by his own desires:

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. (James 1:13,14)

I know you believe that David was deluded to believe these things—though Jesus said that the last Psalm I cited was written “through the Holy Spirit” (Mark 12:36). Rather than harp on that right now, I will leave you and Jesus to work out that little disagreement when you see each other.

No, Jesus didn't say that that Psalm 110 was written through the Holy Spirit. Here is what Jesus said:

David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’

Those are the words that Jesus said that David spoke in the Holy Spirit, words recorded at the beginning of Psalm 110. I suppose that you don't think it possible that David could get out of the Spirit and pen his own thoughts during his writing of the same Psalm. I think it entirely possible, and not only possible, but probable.

I decline to comment on the your gem of sarcasm in your final sentence.

You think that Christ’s refusing to stone the adulteress proved that He did not believe in the ethics of capital punishment.

I find nothing in the New Testament about Christ's belief in the ethics of capital punishment or the lack thereof. Therefore I know nothing about it. All I know is that he was unwilling to go along with those who believed the woman ought to have been stoned, and though his words were, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," knowing the hearts of her accusers, He knew what the effect of his words would be.

By the way, do you believe in "the ethics of capital punishment"? Was it ethical for the ancient Hebrews to stone to death their rebellious sons? Was it ethical for the people of Connecticut to have their rebellious sons put to death? Is Canadian law unethical since capital punishment was abolished many years ago?

If it could be absolutely ascertained that everyone sentenced to capital punishment for murder were guilty, then capital punishment would prevent murderers from repeating their crime. But it is now known through DNA tests, that some have been wrongfully convicted and executed. Is it not more ethical to do away with capital punishment than to subject some to it who are possibly innocent?

[steve]

By the way, do you believe in "the ethics of capital punishment"? Was it ethical for the ancient Hebrews to stone to death their rebellious sons? Was it ethical for the people of Connecticut to have their rebellious sons put to death? Is Canadian law unethical since capital punishment was abolished many years ago?

I don't believe any modern state is to follow the Laws of Torah. God, clearly, assigned the death penalty for crimes in Israel, the covenant people, for which He has made no general rule for nations. However, he has assigned capital punishment for murder to all nations (Ge.9:6).

If God appointed capital punishment for additional crimes in Israel, that is His prerogative. In fact, since all sinners are appointed to death, it is not unethical for the sovereign God (who determined this sentence), to execute or not to execute it at will, regardless what the immediate act was that precipitated it.

If it could be absolutely ascertained that everyone sentenced to capital punishment for murder were guilty, then capital punishment would prevent murderers from repeating their crime. But it is now known through DNA tests, that some have been wrongfully convicted and executed. Is it not more ethical to do away with capital punishment than to subject some to it who are possibly innocent?

The Torah did not allow capital punishment, except in cases in which two witnesses testified to having seen the crime in progress. This would, apart from the case of false witness testimony, pretty much prevent the execution of innocent parties. We might object that human courts cannot guarantee the perfect verdict for the accused criminal, since he (like Jesus Himself) might be the victim of hostile false witnesses against him. It is true, but witnesses who were found to have witnessed falsely were themselves to be put to death, which would no doubt minimize the occurrence of this injustice.

In any case, though it is a very tragic thing for an innocent man to be executed, it is also a tragic thing for many guilty murderers to be let off for fear that an occasional innocent man might be wrongfully condemned. Where there is a murder trial, there is already at least one tragic victim, and for their murderers to go free without repentance or punishment is an insult to the worth of the victims.

If one counters that he does not wish for murderers to go free, only that they be not executed, I would ask, since the condemned man might, as you have pointed out, be innocent in fact, what general penalty for murderers would you wish for this wrongly convicted innocent man to face? What penalty would you wish to face, were you wrongfully convicted of murder? Life imprisonment? Would this not be a horrendous injustice to you, if you were innocent?

The argument that we should not have capital punishment because too many innocent men may be wrongfully punished remains an argument against any kind of punishment of criminals. If any condemned man happens to be innocent, it is unjust to punish him at all! The problem you describe, then, is a problem with the courts and the trial process—not with the sentencing. Courts should not condemn the innocent. At least an innocent man who dies may face God with a clear conscience (I know I would, if I were innocently killed), and that is infinitely more important than a few extra years of life. The society that lets murders go unpunished will not be able to face God with a clear conscience:

"So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it" (Numbers 35:33).

[Paidion]

In any case, though it is a very tragic thing for an innocent man to be executed, it is also a tragic thing for many guilty murderers to be let off for fear that an occasional innocent man might be wrongfully condemned. Where there is a murder trial, there is already at least one tragic victim, and for their murderers to go free without repentance or punishment is an insult to the worth of the victims.

If one counters that he does not wish for murderers to go free, only that they be not executed, I would ask, since the condemned man might, as you have pointed out, be innocent in fact, what general penalty for murderers would you wish for this wrongly convicted innocent man to face? What penalty would you wish to face, were you wrongfully convicted of murder? Life imprisonment? Would this not be a horrendous injustice to you, if you were innocent?

I so counter, as you suggested in your second paragraph. I would recommend life imprisonment, if the courts find a person guilty of murder (as is the case in Canada). Then, if he is wrongfully convicted, and it is later discovered that this is the case, he can be set free to live the rest of his life in peace (and let's hope the country compensates him for wrongfully taking years off his life). But when a man wrongfully accused of murder, is put to death, if he is later found to be innocent, he has no more life to live.

Even with life imprisonment, there can be great injustice. Consider the case of Canadian David Milgaard who was sentenced to life imprisonment for a murder he did not commit. He spent 27 years of his youth in prison before he was found innocent. The $10 million he was awarded for compensation could never pay for those 27 years, but at least he wasn't sentenced to death.

David Milgaard
A Saskatchewan inquiry found that the judicial system failed David Milgaard.
Milgaard was charged with the 1969 murder of Saskatoon nursing aide Gail Miller and in January 1970 was sentenced to life in prison. Appeals to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada in the two years after his conviction were unsuccessful.

Milgaard's mother, Joyce, believed from the day he was arrested that her son was innocent. She kept his case alive, talking to whoever would listen — and many who didn't — while he spent more than two decades in prison.

In 1991, Justice Minister Kim Campbell directed the Supreme Court of Canada to review the conviction. The Supreme Court of Canada set it aside in 1992, and Milgaard was subsequently cleared by DNA evidence five years later.

The Saskatchewan government awarded Milgaard $10 million for his wrongful conviction in 1999. That same year, Larry Fisher was found guilty of the rape and stabbing death of Gail Miller.

A provincial judicial inquiry, which released a comprehensive 815-page report in September 2008, concluded that "the criminal justice system failed David Milgaard." The inquiry also found that Milgaard might have been released from jail years sooner if police had followed up on a lead they received in 1980. (from CBC news)

So it's not that I don't abhor the injustice of life imprisonment for an innocent person. But it would be a far greater injustice to put an innocent person to death.

I invite you to check out these news stories of 12 Canadians who were wrongfully convicted, some of them for murder.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s- ... s-1.783998

[Paidion]

The fact is that the homocide rate in United States has been greater in the states which have the death penalty than in those who don't have it. And that has been the case EVERY YEAR from 1991 to 2011. Surely this cannot be coincidental. Check out the following site for statistics:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterre ... rder-rates