“The Bible” Review, Part 3

Jared C. Wellman

In my review of Part One of The Bible, I summarized my thoughts in the sentence, “Over dramatized, under theologized.” While this statement is still fairly applicable for Part Two, I must admit that I was much more impressed with the second part than I was the first.Part Two essentially details four different stories from the Old Testament. These are Joshua’s conquest of Jericho, Samson, Samuel and Saul, and David. The stories are portrayed fairly accurately, but the theology behind the stories is again sacrificed for dramatization. This is not surprising given that The History Channel is not a theological organization, but it doesn’t mean that it is not worth talking about.The following summarizes some of the theology that was sacrificed for the television audience.RAHAB’S FAITH IN THE GOD OF ISRAELThe story of Rahab and the Israelite spies is found in Joshua 2. The Bible portrays Rahab as being forced by the spies to hide them from Jericho. The scriptures, however, do not include this detail. Instead Rahab is portrayed as hiding the men on her roof and telling the king of Jericho that they had fled the city before nightfall (Judges 2:5). This caused the men of Jericho to superficially pursue the spies on the road, allowing Rahab the opportunity to share her true motivation with them.Her words reveal the true nature behind her actions:

I know that the Lord has given you the land, and that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you. For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. When we heard it, our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you; for the Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath. Now therefore, please swear to me by the Lord, since I have dealt kindly with you, that you also will deal kindly with my father’s household, and give me a pledge of truth, and spare my father and my mother and my brothers and my sisters, with all who belong to them, and deliver our lives from death (Judges 2:10-13).

Rahab hid the spies because she feared the God of Israel, not because she feared the Israelites of God. This may seem minuscule, but downplaying Rahab’s faith is an injustice to her character. It was her faith in God that spared her from God’s wrath, not her fear of being killed.Moreover, Rahab’s faith led to her becoming a great ancestress of Jesus Christ according to Matthew 1:5. Her life was preserved and she went down in history as being a part of the family of God’s Son, a great honor indeed.SAMSON AND THE NAZARITE VOWThe story of Samson was entertaining and as far as I can tell no details were seriously misconstrued. Timelines were shortened, but there was no serious infringement upon the actual biblical story. With this said, the theological motivation behind Samson’s hair was not detailed.In The Bible, Samson tells Delilah that his strength is in his hair, but he fails to include why his strength was in his hair. It isn’t that God haphazardly blesses the shag. It was that Samson was “a Nazarite to God from [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=“yes” overflow=“visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=“1_1” background_position=“left top” background_color=“” border_size=“” border_color=“” border_style=“solid” spacing=“yes” background_image=“” background_repeat=“no-repeat” padding=“” margin_top=“0px” margin_bottom=“0px” class=“” id=“” animation_type=“” animation_speed=“0.3” animation_direction=“left” hide_on_mobile=“no” center_content=“no” min_height=“none”][his] mother’s womb] (Judges 16:17). This references Numbers 6 which speaks of a “special vow” that an Israelite can make to the Lord. Part of this vow includes “no razor [passing] over [the] head” (Num 6:5).The Nazarite vow was essentially a way to draw closer to the Lord. It was an act of separation to holiness. Samson was separated from birth in this fashion, and God blessed him for it. Samson’s strength, therefore, was not in his hair as much as it was in his holy separation to the Lord. His hair was a symbol of that separation and to cut it represented the cutting off of that separation.Thankfully, Samson served a gracious God who forgives and restores, granting Samson’s strength back to take vengeance on his enemies (Judges 16:28).SAMUEL, SAUL, AND THE AMELIKITESOf the various stories portrayed in The Bible, this one is perhaps the most complete and accurate thus far. A simple overview of the biblical narrative will suffice here.In 1 Samuel 15, Samuel revealed God’s instructions to Saul to strike Amalek “for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt” (1 Sam 15: 2). These instructions were to “destroy all that he has,” and the word “all” was to be taken literally (1 Sam 15:3). 1 Samuel 15:9, however, reveals that Saul ”spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly.” In other words, they ignored God’s command and decided that they knew better.Samuel immediately rebukes Saul, ultimately by revoking his anointed kingship of Israel. This is illustrated when Saul rips a piece of Samuel’s robe off. Samuel looks at Saul and says, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today” (1 Sam 15:28).This much was portrayed well in The Bible. Perhaps the most inaccurate portrayal of the event is when Samuel kills Agag, or the man who was apparently Agag. The scriptures portray him “hewing Agag to pieces before the Lord” (1 Sam 15:33), whereas The Bible portrays a simple knife-to-the-neck approach. This is an important scene because Samuel was a prophet of God, not a warrior. A prophet involving himself in brutality reveals that God takes his instructions seriously. Saul had ignored God’s command and Samuel had to pick up the slack, even if it meant going outside of his specific calling to do so.The theological message is that God means what he says, even if we think we know better.DAVID AND GOLIATHThis was another story that was portrayed fairly well. The most obvious theological sacrifice was perhaps when Saul offered his armor to David to fight Goliath. The scriptures portray Saul actually suiting David up with his entire suit of armor (1 Sam 17:38). The Bible only has Saul offering him a shield.Theologically, this event portrays the difference between dressing oneself up with the world and dressing oneself up with the Lord. In The Bible, David’s response is, “I’ll be better without them.” This seems trivial, but the theological message is lost in this response. It wasn’t that David was “better” without the armor; it’s that David desired to trust in God more than man.The idea is that God is better; not David.The scriptures portray David declining the full armor of man, saying, “I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them” (1 Sam 17:39). He instead places his trust in the tested Lord, who “delivered him from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear” (1 Sam 17:37). David knew that the Lord would also “deliver [him] from the hand of this Philistine” (ibid.).In life we have the option of suiting up with our own defenses or with the Lord’s. Even though David faced a giant his actions revealed that he would rather trust in the word of the Lord than in the sword of man. Unfortunately, this was not portrayed in The Bible, and a wonderful truth about God’s protection was lost in the desire to entertain.Overall, Part Two of The Bible was entertaining and fairly accurate. Unfortunately, some of the more powerful theological applications were again buried for the sake of dramatization.Originally posted at http://jaredwellman.com/2013/03/12/the-bible-review-part-two/[/fusion_builder_column][/fus