Locating Sheep & Making Disciples

mathêteuô means to be a pupil – a taught one, or a learner – and primarily denotes one who directs his mind towards something. So it is said in Matthew 28:19, that true Christians are to make pupils out of those who believe, and wish to learn. You will note that the verse does not speak of pisteuô, or a “believer”.

Sheep who are located are to be made disciples (Matthew 28:19) - they are the ones to be located, and locating them is done through the good news, and they respond all on their own - because he calls them by name (John 10:3-6).

Send Us A Confusing Consensus

"This is a confusing incident all the way around ... The only way the story would make sense is if the Lord didn't order the census". ~ Plotz.

And that it is possible that Jehovah did not order the census is, well, quite possible, maybe even probable.

Plotz starts off with, "The Lord orders David to take a census." But did Jehovah order David? In 2 Samuel 24:1, it reads (NSRV) "Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.'"

Okay. But who exactly is "he"? It might first help to know that in the original language, a separate Hebrew word for "he" which necessarily relates to the object "Jehovah" does not exist in this verse, nor does it exist at all.

The "he" which we read from an English translation comes from the within the form of the word "cuwth" [sooth/sut] or סֶת by virtue of the masculine form preceded by the conjunction וַ - the entire verse reads as follows: א וַיֹּסֶף, אַף-יְהוָה, לַחֲרוֹת, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וַָיּסֶת אֶת-דָּוִדבָּהֶם לֵאמֹר, לֵךְ מְנֵה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת-יְהוּדָה.Or literally, "and inciting", masculine, in English becomes "and he is inciting" (very simplified explanation mind you).

The English syntax suggests in our English thinking mind that the "he" must be associated with the preceding object, "Jehovah", for that is the most common comprehension under English syntax. But this is not necessarily always to be the case in Hebrew. Equally, the use of "one" can also be supported (I.e., "when one incited" or even "when one went inciting"). So who is "he" then, or who is this "one"? It is not necessarily specified in 2 Samuel 24. The meaning of "cuwth" includes "deceit", but unlike "pata" (which can also mean deceive), there is the firm underlying root of cunningness and cause to entice or incite. Most commonly this verb has dysfunctional (or evil if you will) connotations as contextually represented in 2 Kings 18:32, Jer 43:3, 1 Kings 21:25, 2 Chr 18:2, Deut 13:6 Jer 38:22, and so on). The one who did the inciting is not identified. Was it some human counselor? Was it Satan? Or even Jehovah (God)?

1 Chronicles 21:1 helps to answer the question, saying "Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel" (a rendering supported by the Hebrew text, and with translations into Greek, Syriac, and Latin as well – and is consistent with other English renderings in the AT, NE, RS, JB, and Mo). However, the rendering is not "ha'satan", but rather simply "satan" in 1 Chronicles 21 – and the Hebrew word satan can also be rendered "a resister", or even "a satan", or as Young's literal applies "an adversary" (lacking the definite article ha' most likely places the use of satan into the indefinite "class of"). So then the inciter was perhaps an adversary, "the" adversary himself even, or perhaps a human resistor.

As the writings of the Chronicles are traditionally assigned to Erza, and are believed to have been prepared following the return from exile to Babylon, many scholars (Adele Berlin for one, and Marc Brettler for another) have speculated that "satan" was a replacement by the author for Yhwh rendered in 2 Samuel 24:1.

And that possibility is certainly available within the boundaries of speculation, but equally as non-conclusive as anything offered so far (i.e., we may never know one way or the other). What we do know, however, is that Erza identifies many sources from which he drew upon in preparing the Chronicles – some are still with us, some which are mentioned we no longer have – but he does mention use of the "word of Samuel the seer and of Nathan the prophet and of Gad the visionary (1 Chr 29:29 – which may be one work, two, or three separate, or it may refer to Judges and the books of Samuel). He identifies some 20 plus sources relied upon in preparing his text – and from that stand-point, he (or whoever you wish to assign authorship to) – was much closer to the source than we obviously are today. The point being; confirming text were available not only to Samuel, but others as well. In my personal opinion, whether Erza was performing what he perceived to be politically-correct maintenance or whether he was rendering what was already understood from the books of Samuel, and possible documented in others now not available to us – is something we will never be able to firmly conclude based on any objective evidence present today.

One should, however, not summarily discount the possibility of the later; as already mentioned - many works existed at the time of the penning of Chronicles, including most probably the rendering in 2 Samuel 24.1. It cannot be ignored that a prudent "editor" wishing to mend politically incorrect views, would also likely have "edited" 2 Samuel 24.1 as well and for the same reasons – yet they did not. In my subjective opinion, this weakens the former position, and favors the latter. Though we find it quite true that many commentators and scholars consider that the "one" or "he" who incited David to take the census was Jehovah. According to this view, his "anger against Israel" predated the census and was due to their recent rebellions against Jehovah and his appointed king, David, when they followed first ambitious Absalom and then the "good-for-nothing Sheba, the son of Bichri, in opposition to David (2 Sa 15:10-12; and 20:1-2).

Such a view could be harmonized with the view that Satan, satan, or some bad human counselor incited David if the incitement is viewed as something Jehovah purposely allowed, as by removing his protection or restraining hand (compare 1 Kings 22:21-23; 1 Samuel 16:14). On David's part, there may have been wrong motive due to pride and trust in the numbers of his army, hence a failing to manifest full reliance oh Jehovah. In any case, it seems quite clear that on this occasion David's primary concern was not that of glorifying god - and that in and of itself would constitute k'hate.