All posts by randymccracken

I am a teacher at Calvary Chapel Bible College York and the author of "Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel".
Character Studies

Samson and the Gaza Prostitute: Did He or Didn’t He?

6 Comments

Samson and the Gaza Prostitute: Did He or Didn’t He?

Although this is a picture of Samson and Delilah, let's pretend it's Samson and the Gaza Prostitute since such pictures are hard to find!
Although this is a picture of Samson and Delilah, let’s pretend it’s Samson and the Gaza Prostitute since such pictures are hard to find!

Samson’s visit to the prostitute in Gaza has usually been considered as one example, among many, of his misadventures. Recently, several scholars have questioned this interpretation, suggesting that Samson has been misunderstood. How should the brief episode between Samson and the Gaza Prostitute be read? Is Samson a “good guy” whose intentions at the prostitute’s house have been misrepresented, or is this story just another example of his “bad boy” behavior?

Before beginning, I want to acknowledge my indebtedness to two of my colleagues for introducing me to this debate. They have both written about it on their blogs. Lindsay Kennedy has summarized an article written by Gordon P. Hugenberger entitled, “Samson and the Harlot at Gaza (Judges 16:1-3)” contained in the volume From Creation to New Creation. You can read his post at “Why Samson May Have Not Visited a Prostitute” at mydigitalseminary.com. Spencer Robinson has joined in the conversation by noting what Rikk Watts has to say on this topic. You can read his post at “Was Samson a Good Judge?” at spoiledmilks.wordpress.com. Besides Hugenberger and Watts, Miles Van Pelt has also joined the discussion with his post “What was Samson Doing with a Prostitute in Gaza?” at thegospelcoalition.org. Having read Hugenberger’s article and Van Pelt’s post, my purpose is to lay out their arguments for Samson as a “good guy.” However, while many of us would like to believe that Samson’s visit to the prostitute at Gaza has some “redeeming social value,” in the second part of this post I will attempt to explain why I disagree with Hugenberger’s  and Van Pelt’s arguments. Although I’m using the “good guy/bad guy” vocabulary, I must caution that neither I, nor any scholar I am familiar with, thinks that Samson is all bad or all good. Like all of us, he is a mixture of both.

Samson and the Gaza Prostitute: The Argument for a Positive Interpretation

from creationThe following list is a summary of Hugenberger’s arguments regarding a positive reading of the Samson story as a whole, as well as the story of Samson and the Gaza prostitute:

1.”The biblical text nowhere states why Samson went down to Gaza” (p. 63) and, therefore, the reader should not be influenced by speculations that he was lonely or had an “irrepressible libido.”

2. The expression “he came to her,” is ambiguous and, “In the vast majority of cases the expression refers to one entering into the company of another without any sexual implication” (p. 64).

3. 16:1-3 “offers no hint of moral rebuke,” and the feat of removing the doors, doorposts, and bar from the city gates implies, “if anything, divine approbation” (p. 65).

4. The progammatic text of Judges 2:6-23 suggests a “positive view of the judges” (p. 67). Hugenberger argues that, “many of the texts assumed to offer incontrivertible proof of egregious moral failure or infidelity toward God on the part of the judges are often susceptible to less negative interpretations” (p. 67).

Gordon Hugenberger, pictured above, along with Miles Van Pelt and others, argues for a positive interpretation of the Samson and the Gaza prostitute story.
Gordon Hugenberger, pictured above, along with Miles Van Pelt and others, argues for a positive interpretation of the Samson and the Gaza prostitute story.

6&7. Hugenberger’s two main proofs that the Samson and the Gaza prostitute episode should be read positively are based on the parallels between Judges 16:1-3 and Joshua 2, and the contrasts between Judges 16:1-3 and Judges 18. For a more detailed look at the comparisons between these stories, click the link to Kennedy’s post above.

7. Hugenberger also questions why God hears Samson’s prayers after the Delilah episode if he is the bad character that some paint him to be.

Van Pelt shares some similarities with Hugenberger’s arguments for a more positive interpretation of the Samson and Gaza prostitute story. He adds that Samson may have visited a prostitute to mask his true intent. He also notes that the similarities between Judges 16:1-3 and Joshua 2 may be “the author’s way of preparing us for the eventual destruction of that town.” He questions what the author’s point would be in recording that Samson had a one night stand and argues that “Samson goes to Gaza to do what Israel was failing to do.”

Samson and the Gaza Prostitute: The Argument for a Negative Interpretation

In this section I will respond to the arguments cited above made by Hugenberger and Van Pelt and demonstrate why, despite their reasonings, I continue to view the episode in Judges 16:1-3 negatively. The numbers in parenthesis below correspond to the arguments laid out above.

(1) I am in agreement with Hugenberger’s statement that the biblical text does not state why Samson went to Gaza. This is not an argument for a positive or negative interpretation, however. It is simply an assertion that we should remain open-minded as we approach the text.

(2) It is true that the expression “he came in(to) her” is used in various ways in the Hebrew Scriptures and that in a majority of cases it does not have any reference to sexual activity. However, when this expression is accompanied by other sexual references in the text it is certainly suggestive of sexual intimacy. Hugenberger notes that this phrase occurs 15 other times in Judges and, with the possible exception of Judges 15:1, it never refers to sexual intimacy. He also states, “a majority of modern English translations and commentaries do not favor this option” for 15:1. This is a bit of a “straw man” however. If I were to argue that “came (in)to” in a majority of cases throughout the Hebrew Bible does not refer to sexual intimacy (which is true, as noted above), therefore, it probably doesn’t refer to sexual intimacy in Genesis 38:16, I would be wrong. Just because a word doesn’t mean something in a majority of cases, does not rule out that it could carry that meaning in a context that specifically suggests such a meaning. For example, “came (in)to” has the regular meaning of approaching in the context of the Angel of the Lord “coming to” Manoah’s wife (Judg. 13:6, 9, 10). That is its natural meaning and there is nothing in the context to suggest otherwise. However, throw in the word “prostitute,” or other sexually charged words, and “came (in)to” quite naturally carries a sexual connotation. Whether Samson did or didn’t engage in sexual activity with the prostitute may be debated, but the atmosphere of the text is certainly sexually charged by the language used. We will return to this phrase when discussing Joshua 2 below, but for now I note that Hugenberger’s argument regarding “the usual meaning based on number of occurrences makes the less usual meaning doubtful,” as erroneous.

Samson carries the gates of Gaza - Judges 16 3 - Henri Motte The Bible and Its Story Taught by One Thousand Picture Lessons, vol. 3. edited by Charles F. Horne and Julius A. Bewer. 1908
Samson carries the gates of Gaza – Judges 16 3 – Henri Motte
The Bible and Its Story Taught by One Thousand Picture Lessons, vol. 3. edited by Charles F. Horne and Julius A. Bewer. 1908

(3) I agree, as Hugenberger points out, that this episode “offers no hint of moral rebuke.” But this doesn’t mean that we should automatically conclude that it demonstrates “if anything, divine approbation.” One of the characteristics of Hebrew narrative is to tell the story and leave the judgment up to the reader’s perception. For example, there is no moral rebuke for Abram’s action in taking Hagar and conceiving through her (Gen. 16). In fact, God protects Hagar and the child and commands them to return to Abram and Sarai after they had been driven away. Yet every reader knows that Abram’s actions are wrong. Closer to home in the Book of Judges, we could cite numerous examples. Whether one thinks Jephthah offered his daughter as a sacrifice, or simply doomed her to perpetual virginity, it can not be argued that his vow was anything except foolish. However, no moral censure is recorded and God still gives Jephthah victory. To argue that God blesses Jephthah with victory and that this demonstrates “if anything, divine approbation” of his vow, is clearly nonsensical.

(4) There is certainly truth to the contention that Judges 2:6-23 puts the judges in a more positive light than the rest of Israel. However, this does not mean that the judges are shining examples of virtue. The judges exercise faith and they are God’s instruments to deliver his people, but the evidence shows that they were very human and were affected by the environment they were a part of. Most, if not all, commentators will give high marks to the first few judges–Othniel, Ehud, and Barak & Deborah. Even here some raise their eyebrows at Ehud’s methods and Barak’s unwillingness to go to battle without Deborah; but, largely, these judges are positive role models. While there are good qualities in all of the judges, there does seem to be a turning point for the worse with Gideon and those who follow after him in the book. In spite of the good that Gideon accomplishes, are we really expected to cheer him for torturing and slaughtering fellow-Israelites (Judg. 8:13-17), or creating a golden ephod that leads Israel back into idolatry? (Judg. 8:27). We have already noticed the problem of Jephthah’s vow; should we also congratulate him for his civil war against the Ephraimites where he is said to slaughter 42,000? (Judg. 12:1-6). The point is, although the judges are capable of great good, they are also capable of great evil, and this includes Samson.

Is Joshua's sending of the spies in Joshua 2 positive or negative?
Is Joshua’s sending of the spies in Joshua 2 a positive or negative story?

(5&6) Hugenberger, as well as Van Pelt, are quite correct to notice the similarities of Judges 16:1-3 with Joshua 2 and Judges 18. However, how one interprets the relationship between these passages is up for debate. Both Hugenberger and Van Pelt see Joshua 2 comparing favorably with Judges 16, and thus presenting a positive picture of Samson. A number of commentators on Joshua would disagree. For example regarding Joshua 2, J. Gordon Harris states, “Note how the narrator reports that God ordered Joshua to arise and cross the Jordan, but instead Joshua orders spies to go to Jericho and Canaan. By sending spies, Joshua risked the success of the mission” (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, NIBC, p. 27). Robert Polzin is even more direct when he says, “In reponse, Joshua timidly sends out spies to reconnoiter the country, and we are immediately alerted that Joshua may not be as strong and resolute as God and the people had encouraged him to be” (Moses and the Deuteronomist, p. 86). If these commentators are corrrect, the spy story in Joshua 2 is actually a negative comment on the faith of Joshua and the Israelites. The fact of the matter is, it seems that most spy stories in the Hebrew Bible have a negative bent to them (Num. 13; Deut. 1:21-32; Josh. 7:2-5; Judg. 1:22-26.

It is also argued that the sexually charged language of Joshua 2 raises suspicions about the rightness of this mission. Creach states, “Sexual innuendo permeates the story and is a driving force in its plot” (Joshua, Interpretation Commentary, p. 32). Hugenberger argues strenuously that the spies did not engage in sexual promiscuity (pp. 71-73). I agree with him, but this misses the point. The sexually charged language of Joshua 2 is not meant to suggest that the spies had sexual relations with Rahab; it is meant to color the narrative so that the dubious nature of this mission is exposed. In other words, it is one more way that the narrator suggests that Joshua made a mistake in sending out the spies. Based on the assertion that the spies were not guilty of sexual misconduct in Joshua 2, Hugenberger makes a huge leap when he states, “it seems plausible that the same presumption of innocence should obtain for Samson at Gaza” (p. 72). Not only is this a huge jump in the interpretive process, but I would make two observations: 1) Early in his article, Hugenberger states “It is hardly persuasive to build an argument on what an author or editor ‘did not say'” (p. 66). Yet Hugenberger seeks to argue that if the spies didn’t, then Samson didn’t! 2) Hugenberger is also assuming that the spy story of Joshua 2 is positive. If it is negative, however, as noted above, then, using Hugenberger’s logic, the negative qualities of Joshua 2 color the narrative in Judges 16:1-3 making a negative interpretation of Samson’s actions more likely.

There is a further problem with Hugenberger’s application of both Joshua 2 and Judges 18 to the episode in Judges 16:1-3. Because Hugenberger interprets the story in Joshua 2 positively, he sees the similarity in language with Judges 16 as evidence for a positive interpretation of the Samson story. Again, there are two problems: 1) Even if, for the sake of argument, we agree that Joshua 2 is a positive story about the spies, how do we know that the Samson story is not a parody on the spy story of Joshua 2? In other words, in Joshua 2 the spies don’t have sex with Rahab, but in Judges 16 Samson does what the spies didn’t do! It’s all a matter of perspective as to whether the story is a parallel to Joshua 2 or an anti-parallel. 2) If the story in Joshua 2 is a negative story, then the parallel that Hugenberger argues for must be seen as a negative for the Samson and the Gaza prostitute episode. Otherwise, Hugenberger must change his intepretation and say Joshua 2 is an anti-parallel story! My point is this process, although helpful, is also very subjective. The same can be said of the similarities between Judges 16 and 18. Here, Hugenberger sees the story in Judges 18 as a contrast to Judges 16:1-3, whereas, I would argue that it is a parallel. One of the reasons I would argue for it being parallel is that the story in Judges 18 is the second half of a story that begins in chapter 17 with the words “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 17:6). This is a familiar refrain repeated throughout the end of the book (Judg. 21:25). In the Samson narrative (Judg. 13-16), the first words out of his mouth are when he demands his parents to get him the woman from Timnah as a wife for, “she is right in my eyes” (Judg. 14:3). This statement suggests that Samson has a lot in common with the people of Judges 17-21.

In his blindness, Samson was made to see.
In his blindness, Samson was made to see.

(7) I also believe that Hugenberger’s and Van Pelt’s argument for a positive Samson overlooks an important motif in the story. The author is clear that Samson has a “seeing” problem. As just noted, Samson has an eye for the ladies and the first words he utters include, “I have seen a woman” (Judg. 14:2), “Get her for me because she is right in my eyes” (Judg. 14:3). This “seeing” problem is what leads Samson to the house of the Gaza prostitute. Judges 16:1 begins, “Now Samson went to Gaza and saw a harlot there, and went in to her” (NKJV). Ironically, Samson’s eye problem is cured when he is blinded by the Philistines. It is only when he is blind, that he truly begins to see (as the hymn says!). While blind, Samson seeks the Lord and prays for strength to avenge himself for his two eyes (Judg. 16:28). It is Samson’s dependence on the Lord that renews his strength, not his upright character (as Hugenberger suggests) in relation to the prostitute or anyone else. An important mistake made by Van Pelt, along these lines, is that he argues that Samson went to the prostitute’s house so that he would not be detected, and so that he might mask his true intent. This is wrong on two counts: 1) As Hugenberger notes, the house of a prostitute did not guarantee masking your intentions–both Samson and the spies are found out by the people in the city (so much for masking one’s intent!). 2) Hugenberger also notes that Samson’s original destination in Gaza was not the prostitute’s house. This is made clear in 16:1 when it says that Samson only went to the prostitute’s house after he “saw” her. As Barry Webb states, “What the text clearly implies, however, is that he did not go to Gaza with the express intention of visiting a prostitute” (Judges, NICOT, p. 393). Thus, Van Pelt’s supposition that Samson went to the prostitute’s house  to spy out the town (like the spies of Joshua 2) is incorrect. Although Hugenberger’s comments help to undermine Van Pelt’s supposition, he comes to the same conclusion that Samson’s visit to the prostitute, like the spies of Jericho, is an “appropriate step that would enable the divinely approved work of dispossession to begin” (p. 79). From an authorial perspective of the Book of Judges, I can see how the biblical author’s parallels to Jericho might suggest this, but from a historical or practical viewpoint, I find it hard to understand how visiting the house of a prostitute announces the dispossession of a city! Again, from a literary point of view I can understand how Samson’s visit to a prostitute would recall the story of Joshua 2, and thus prepare the reader for Gaza’s destruction. However, to suggest that this was Samson’s motive, not only rings hollow to me, it doesn’t fit reality.

Finally, the Conclusion!

To make a long post, longer, let me conclude by saying that Hugenberger’s article and Van Pelt’s post are well worth reading. Not only should one read it for him/herself to judge whether I have represented them fairly, but also one should read it because, like Samson himself, there is good as well as bad in them (ha!). I also want to say that I greatly look forward to Hugenberger’s forthcoming commentary on Judges in the Apollos series (Judges Commentary in the Apollos series). I’m confident that, not only will this commentary be full of insight, but it will also give Hugenberger more space to develop and defend his thesis about Samson and the rest of the judges. Meanwhile, I remain convinced that the overall structure of Judges consists of a downward spiral where the spiritual life of the people of Israel and the judges themselves continues to deteriorate to the end of the book. For an excellent treatment and defense of this thesis see the commentaries by Daniel Block in the NAC series and Barry Webb in the NICOT (see link above). Since this topic seems to be a lively debate at the moment, I would welcome all comments that any readers might want to share. After all, it is in the give and take of exchanging our understanding of a biblical passage that we sharpen each other and strive to get at the real meaning of the text.

Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

Looks Can Be Deceiving

1 Comment

Looks Can Be Deceiving

Sometimes the "looks can be deceiving" trap can have deadly consequences.
Sometimes the “looks can be deceiving” trap can have deadly consequences.

We’re all aware that “what you see is not always what you get.” In spite of the fact that we know we shouldn’t “judge a book by its cover,” we still do. Although this is a very human problem, modern advertising, along with the entertainment industry, has trained us to trust what we see. Appearance is often everything! Sometimes falling prey to the “looks can be deceiving,” trap is relatively harmless. There are times when appearances suggest that we shouldn’t expect too much. So we are pleasantly surprised when we actually get more than we bargained for. Of course, the opposite can be just as true, and we find ourselves disappointed that things are not what they were “cracked up to be.” While getting caught up in the trap of “looks can be deceiving” is not always a life or death situation, there are times when it does have serious, and even deadly, consequences as the picture on the right illustrates. Apparently the Lord sees this as such an important human problem that he included examples of it over and over again in the books of 1 and 2 Samuel. This article looks at three examples from 1 and 2 Samuel (although there are many more!). Each example illustrates an important aspect of the “looks can be deceiving” trap that we all should seek to avoid.

Looks Can Be Deceiving: Hannah and the Problem of Judging Too Quickly

Desperate Hannah appeared to be drunk to Eli, demonstrating that looks can be deceiving!
Desperate Hannah appeared to be drunk to Eli, demonstrating that looks can be deceiving!

Hannah is introduced in 1 Samuel 1 as part of the dysfunctional family of Elkanah. She is one of two wives (1 Sam. 1:2), and is unable to have children. The other wife, Peninnah, is described as her “rival” (1 Sam. 1:6), and has a number of children (1 Sam. 1:2, 4). We are informed that Peninnah constantly provokes her, probably due to the fact that Elkanah “loved Hannah” (1 Sam. 1:5). This difficult situation goes on year after year (1 Sam. 1:7), until on one occasion Hannah rushes to the tabernacle to poor out her grief before the Lord. She is described as being “in bitterness of soul,” and weeping “in anguish” (1 Sam. 1:10). Although the reader is privy to all of this information about Hannah, Eli the priest knows only what he observes. He sees a desperate woman who’s mouth is moving but saying no words. The author tells us that Hannah was praying, but it was unusual in the ancient world to pray silently. Based on appearance, Eli jumps to the conclusion that Hannah is drunk and issues a strong rebuke saying, “How long will you be drunk? Put your wine away from you!” (1 Sam. 13-14). The reader is immediately aware of how wrong Eli is, and Hannah seeks to set the record straight immediately: “No my lord, I am a woman of sorrowful spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor intoxicating drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord” (1 Sam. 1:16). To Eli’s credit, he recognizes his mistake and seeks to reverse his harsh rebuke with words of blessing (1 Sam. 1:17).

It is true that a quick harsh judgment without the facts, often says more about us than the other person.
It is true that a quick harsh judgment without the facts, often says more about us than the other person.

Thus, in the very first story of 1 Samuel we are introduced to the theme of “looks can be deceiving.” Here the purpose is clearly to warn readers against jumping too quickly to the wrong conclusion and thus misjudging someone. Harsh and unfounded judgments often result in the disruption of a relationship. Of course leaders of God’s people need to make judgments. Leaders are to be concerned for God’s flock and to protect them from harm. This involves discerning a wolf in sheep’s clothing (Acts 20:28-31), or exercising discipline when necessary (1 Cor. 5:1-13). When Jesus warns, “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Matt. 7:1), he is not talking about the wise exercise of leadership that seeks to protect the people of God. Rather, he is speaking of the same sort of error made by Eli, who, not knowing the real facts, simply jumped to the wrong conclusions and then acted on them. This story affirms how important it is that people not judge others merely based on appearances. Fortunately, Eli admitted his mistake and was able to form a warm, lasting bond with Hannah and her family (1 Sam. 2:19-20).

Looks Can Be Deceiving: Playing the Hypocrite

eliInterestingly, 1 Samuel 1 gives us not one, but two examples of the theme, “looks can be deceiving.” A closer look at Eli reveals another aspect to this theme. Eli is introduced to us in 1 Samuel 1:9. In our English Bibles the introduction seems normal enough and is probably passed over without much thought by most readers. However, a number of the words in the original language have more than one meaning. When the other meaning of these words are applied, Eli’s introduction is totally transformed. For starters, Eli’s name means “exalted.” We’re not used to meeting many people who introduce themselves as “Mr. Exalted.” The meaning of Eli’s name provokes certain expectations. Are you really “exalted?” Next, we are told that Eli was “sitting on the seat.” The word translated “seat” is the normal Hebrew word for “throne,” used, of course, when speaking of kings. We are then told that Eli sits “by the doorpost.” The use of “doorpost,” particularly in a cultic situation (Eli is at the tabernacle), associates Eli with the greatest commandment in the Law. In Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Moses exhorts Israel to love the Lord and to teach his law “diligently to your children.” This includes writing the words “on the doorposts of your house.” Thus the “doorpost” associates Eli, Israel’s leader, with the task of seeing that others observe the Law. Perhaps now we have a better understanding of why he comes off so forceful to Hannah when he misinterprets her actions. The doorpost is still significant in modern Judaism. This word in Hebrew is mezuzah and it is used to refer to a small rectangular receptacle which many Jewish people place on their doorposts. The receptacle includes a rolled up scroll with a copy of the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9) and is a reminder to keep God’s Law. The last significant word in Eli’s introduction is the word translated as “house” (NIV) or “tabernacle” (NKJV). This is another unusual selection of terms. Normally this word is translated “temple,” or in the context of kingship as “palace.” If we step back now and reread Eli’s introduction with these other words in mind, it reads something like this: “Now Exalted was sitting on a throne by the doorpost (being a loyal follower and enforcer of God’s Law) of the palace of the Lord.” This is a lofty introduction for Eli and leads the reader to wonder exactly who it is that is being introduced here? Is this the savior Israel has been waiting for? Will he lead Israel back on the path of righteousness? Our appetites are certainly whet by this impressive introduction.

hypocritSadly, our initial impression of Eli proves to be a mirage. Over the next few chapters (1 Sam. 2-4), the biblical author begins to reveal another image of Eli which proves to be more accurate. 1 Samuel 2-4 reveals three physical flaws regarding Eli. The reader is told 3 times that Eli is old (1 Sam. 2:22; 4:15, 18), twice that he is blind (1 Sam. 3:2; 4:15), and twice that he has a weight problem (1 Sam. 2:29; 4:18). If we wonder why the inspired author chooses to dwell on these unflattering physical flaws of Eli, the answer lies in the fact that these physical imperfections suggest spiritual imperfections. One example will have to suffice for the sake of brevity. In 1 Samuel 2:12-17 the reader learns that Eli’s sons are wicked and steal the sacrificial meat that belongs to the people and to God. In 1 Samuel 2:29, we also learn that Eli partakes in these stolen sacrifices. The result is that he and his sons are “fat.” In other words, the spiritual wickedness of Eli and his sons (stealing and eating sacrificial meat that does not belong to them), manifests itself in a real physical way. The consumption of stolen meat makes Eli fat. Thus Eli’s weight problem becomes a symptom of a much more serious spiritual failing. What we learn from this revelation is that Eli comes off very impressively when first meeting him, but upon closer inspection, we learn that he is not like anything he appears to be. Eli, Mr. Exalted, may project an image of royalty and law-keeping, but upon closer inspection, he is nothing but a blind and fat old man. Eli’s example contrasts strongly with Hannah’s. Hannah is not concerned with image or putting up a false front. She is real and authentic. It may not be a pretty picture, but she is honest before God. As a result, God is able to do a great work in her life. Unfortunately, Eli keeps the pretense up until the very end, and as a result, he meets a tragic end. God literally knocks Eli off of his throne (the same word as in 1 Sam. 1:9) when he dies (1 Sam. 4:18). The lesson is simple, but harder to live out. God’s people are not to put up false fronts and pretend to be someone that they are not. God desires honesty. He’s not worried about how messy we might look. When we are real and truthful, God can and will do a great work in our lives.

Looks Can Be Deceiving: David vs. Goliath and Walking By Faith

David did not fall into the "looks can be deceiving" trap when he faced Goliath.
David did not fall into the “looks can be deceiving” trap when he faced Goliath.

Our final example takes us to 1 Samuel 17, the famous story of David’s defeat of Goliath. Although we did see a short physical description of Eli in our last example, it is very rare that the Bible gives a detailed description of anyone. Think about it. Wouldn’t you love to have a chapter, or even 5-10 verses dedicated to a physical description of David, Paul, or Jesus? That’s why the lengthy description of Goliath found in 1 Samuel 17:4-7 is so unusual. Why such a lengthy and detailed description of one of Israel’s enemies? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the author wants us to experience the same fear and intimidation factor that Saul and the Israelites experienced. With our gaze fully focused on this gigantic, intimidating bully, we are left to wonder who could possibly defeat such a well-equipped physical specimen? While everyone in Israel, including Saul, cowers on their side of the battlefield, we are reintroduced to the shepherd boy David (1 Sam. 17:12-22), who upon hearing the taunts of this giant Philistine, completely overlooks his intimidating looks and only sees an enemy to be killed because he has defied “the armies of the living God” (1 Sam. 17:23-26). As he confronts Goliath, David not only believes that God will overcome his foe, but that there will be a lesson in this victory for all. In his speech before killing Goliath, David says, “Then all this assembly shall know that the Lord does not save with sword or spear; for the battle is the Lord’s, and He will give you into our hands” (1 Sam. 17:47–emphasis mine). This statement makes clear that David is not looking at the physical, but rather at spiritual realities. As Paul would later encourage believers to do, David “walks by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). Once again we are confronted with the theme “looks can be deceiving.” This time, however, the theme exhorts God’s people not to fear intimidating circumstances, but to trust the outcome to the Lord.

Walking by faith will keep us from falling into the "looks can be deceiving" trap.
Walking by faith will keep us from falling into the “looks can be deceiving” trap.

Fear easily overcomes us when the physical obstacle in front of us looms large. It could be a lost job, a divorce, or a diagnosis of cancer. The natural response is one of fear, anxiety, and depression, but the message of God’s Word is to trust in him and not allow whatever enemy we are facing to intimidate us into losing our faith. Looks can be deceiving! This was an important enough message that God wrote it across the pages of 1 and 2 Samuel. We have only looked at 3 examples, but there are many more. So important was this theme, in fact, that God spoke it out clearly to Samuel when he began to fall prey to the trap of “looks can be deceiving.” When God called Samuel to go anoint a new king among the sons of Jesse (1 Sam. 16:1), Samuel quickly concluded upon seeing Eliab, Jesse’s firstborn, that he was “surely the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 16:6). God quickly rebuked Samuel with the familiar words, “Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). In other words Samuel, “looks can be deceiving!”

Family Portraits photoThis article was inspired by my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel.

If you have not bought a copy of Family Portraits it is available in hardback, paperback or ebook at Amazon USA / UK, WestBow Press, and other internet outlets. For Logos users it is also available on prepub at Logos.com

Book Reviews, The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit in the Gospels

2 Comments

The Holy Spirit in the Gospels

Available at Amazon USA / UK
Available at Amazon USA / UK

Understanding the work of the Holy Spirit, as well as the biblical usage of the word “spirit,” is an important aspect of both Old and New Testament theology and teaching. Desiring to gain a better knowledge and understanding of the S/spirit, I have been working my way through 3 books on this subject. To this point my posts about the S/spirit have focused on chapters found in A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit. Having reviewed the chapters on the S/spirit in the Old Testament (click here to read any or all of these posts), I now turn to the New Testament. In this installment I will summarize and evaluate two chapters on the Holy Spirit in the Gospels. The first chapter by Keith Warrington looks at the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), while the second chapter concerns the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John. A strong case could be made for treating the Holy Spirit in Luke/Acts in one chapter, but Warrington argues that, “the authors, to one degree or another, rely on one another for the presentation of similar information” (p. 84). However, Warrington notes special features about Luke’s Gospel, which in my opinion, would have justified it being treated with Acts rather than the other Synoptics. For example, he states that while all of the references to the Spirit in Matthew and Mark are found in Luke, Luke has ten other references (p. 96). Furthermore, Warrington notes that, “…Luke, almost uniquely in the Bible, offers the description of being filled with the Holy Spirit…” (p. 93). These observations demonstrate that Luke’s focus on the role of the Holy Spirit is more significant to his work, than it is to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.

The Holy Spirit in the Synoptic Gospels

This chart illustrates the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels. Chart is courtesy of wikimedia. org: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png
This chart illustrates the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels. Chart is courtesy of wikimedia. org: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png

Warrington proceeds to examine the role of the Spirit in the Synoptics in a topical way. The first section asserts, “The Spirit is divine.” Warrington addresses the uncertainty in some evangelical circles about the divinity of the Spirit and cautions that, “…there is a danger that he [the Spirit] may be viewed merely as an empowering force… (p. 85). Warrington notes important passages in Matthew (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 10:20; 12:18) which point to the divinity of the Spirit. His interpretation of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (in Matthew and Mark) being, “…the danger of an unbeliever rejecting the work of God, as initiated by the Spirit, and ascribing it to an evil source,” is a standard understanding of these passages. One of the core understandings of the Spirit in the Synoptics, according to Warrington, is that “The Spirit affirms and empowers Jesus” (pp. 88-93). For Warrington, this is the significance behind the baptism of Jesus. The dove has echoes of creation (Gen. 1:2) and Noah (return of the dove indicates a new world in Genesis 8). One interesting observation regarding empowerment is that, “…the Synoptics do not often explicitly relate the Spirit to miracles” (p. 90). Instead, the empowerment is along Old Testament lines of marking leaders and authenticating divinely appointed roles (pp. 90-91). Warrington notes that all of the Synoptics affirm that the Spirit was promised to believers (pp. 93-96). This comes through most clearly in John the Baptist’s statement that there was one coming who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16). Warrington notes that some believe this statement refers to a group of people who will be baptized with the Spirit, while another group will receive judgement. However, he argues that the Old Testament concept of judgement relates to refining (Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:2-3) and the cleansing of sin (Isa. 4:4). Therefore, he contends that, “The Spirit brings the eschatological judgement forward, where repentance occurs…” (p. 95). After noting the connection of the Spirit with prayer, Warrington concludes by looking at the Spirit as creative and notes qualities such as life, joy, speech, preaching, prophecy, suffering, leading people to Jesus, and exorcism (pp. 97-102). In terms of the Spirit’s connection with empowering, Warrington argues that this empowering most often is related to speech including preaching and prophecy (p. 103).

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

The gospel of JohnAnyone reading the Synoptic Gospels and then the Gospel of John recognizes the differences in presentation. According to  author, Gary M. Burge, John’s development of the Spirit is clearly one of the differences between his Gospel and the Synoptics. However, he believes that John’s most significant contribution relates to how “John integrates the Spirit into his ecclesiology and eschatology” (p. 104). Thus, Burge breaks his treatment of the Spirit in John into these three main categories. First, he looks at “Jesus and the Spirit,” moving chronologically through the Gospel of John. He argues that John the Baptist’s statement about the Spirit remaining on Jesus (John 1:32-33) demonstrates a permanent anointing and “stands apart from every other anointing,” since Old Testament leaders only had the Spirit for the duration of their work in office (p. 105). Burge examines two controversial passages (John 3:34; 7:37-38) which have been interpreted as referring to believers. However, he concludes that they both refer to Jesus’ relationship with the Spirit. In John 3:34, Burge believes the correct understanding is that God has not given the Spirit to Jesus by measure, and in John 7:37-38, the streams of living water do not flow from the believer, but from Jesus (pp. 106-107). Following this understanding of John 7:37-38, Burge suggests that the water that flows from Jesus’ side at his death (John 19:34) fulfills this passage. He also examines the difficult passage regarding Jesus breathing on the disciples in order to receive the Spirit. He does not think this is a pre-Pentecost anointing, or a partial giving of the Spirit as some have argued. Rather, he believes that this verse echoes the LXX (Septuagint) of Genesis 2:7 and speaks of Jesus as the author of a new creation. As God breathed into humankind in Genesis 2, so Jesus breathes the Spirit on his disciples which results in, “…the reconstituting of humanity; the unfolding of the new age, wherein new life is being given to the world” (p. 110).

Next Burge focuses on “Eschatology and the Spirit” (pp. 111-112), which is particularly evident in Jesus’ farewell discourse in John 14-16. “The promise of the Spirit is…a central theme in Jesus’ departing comfort for his followers” (p. 111). Jesus uses a new word, not found in the Synoptics–Paraclete. This Spirit-Paraclete is never an impersonal power, but is modelled after Jesus himself, though separate from him (note in John 16:7 Jesus sends the Paraclete). The Spirit is also characterized as “the Spirit of Truth” (e.g., John 15:26). For the Paraclete / Spirit of Truth to come, Jesus must first be glorified (i.e., must die). According to Burge, the Spirit and the cross are linked throughout the Gospel. The close identification between Jesus himself and the Spirit is why he can say to his disciples, that the Spirit of Truth now dwells with them, but in the near future he will be in them (John 14:17).

Burge’s examination of “Christian Life and the Spirit” (or ecclesiology as he refers to it earlier) contains, for me, one of the most important insights regarding the Spirit. We are accustomed to seeing parakletos translated as “Comforter,” “Helper,” or “Counsellor.” However, Burge contends, “This is not a word that refers to comfort (despite its use in the KJV), nor does it describe therapeutic ‘counsellor’. Rather, it is a word that originates in the judicial, forensic world of Hellenistic Judaism and refers to a legal defender or judicial advocate (hence a judicial ‘counsellor’). Here, we have a direct link to an important Synoptic theme–the power of the Spirit would appear most clearly in duress.” Burge ends his thought-provoking treatment of the Spirit in John with the statement, “John’s teaching about the Spirit is one of the great untapped themes of the NT.” If Burge’s treatment is any indication of the richness to be found, I would have to heartily agree.

Summary and Evaluation of the Holy Spirit in the Gospels

One of the important lessons to be learned from an investigation of the Holy Spirit in the Gospels includes a recognition that the Spirit is more frequently connected with empowering for speech, than with miracles. This is not to say that the miraculous element is absent, but only to affirm that some branches of the modern church tend to major on the miraculous aspects of the Spirit, while the Gospels give prominence to the empowering aspect of speech. Both Warrington and Burge link passages in the Gospels with Genesis 1-2 (and 8) which suggest the creative and restorative power of the Spirit. Both authors present arguments for understanding certain passages about the Spirit in a way that differs from popular perception. Warrington’s treatment of baptizing with “fire” and Burge’s interpretations of John 3:34; 7:37-38, have historical precedent, but are a bit “out of the box.” All three interpretations deserve further study and reflection. Both authors are also in agreement that the Holy Spirit was not the permanent possession of Old Testament saints (pp. 97, 105), although some scholars might disagree with this view. Another commonality is that both authors demonstrate that the Gospels continue to link the Holy Spirit with eschatology, something which is also familiar from such Old Testament passages as Isaiah 32:15-18; 44:3-5 (click here to read the article on The Holy Spirit in Isaiah); and Ezek. 36:27;  and 37:14  (click here to read about the Holy Spirit in Ezekiel), to name only a few. Of the two chapters which treat the Holy Spirit in the Gospels, I found Burge’s layout to be the easiest to follow. I also found his definition of Paraclete and his treatment of Jesus breathing on his disciples to receive the Spirit among the most enlightening aspects of these two chapters.

A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit is available at SPCK Publishers and also at Amazon USA / UK

Book Reviews, Commentaries

Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories

Leave a comment

Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories

Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories is available at Baker Academic.
Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories is available at SPCK.

Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories, vol. 2, by Philip Satterthwaite and Gordon McConville, continues the same excellent standard of evangelical scholarship found in volume 1 of this series on The Pentateuch. Having already given an overview of the purpose of this series (read my review on vol. 1 here), I will focus on the contents of The Histories. The Histories gives an overview of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. If you’re wondering about the order, the authors follow the Hebrew ordering of the biblical books, rather than the English ordering (which is based on the Septuagint = LXX). One of the purposes for this is so that the books that scholars frequently designate as “the Deuteronomistic History” (Joshua – Kings) can be treated consecutively.

Dr. Philip Satterthwaite is co-author of Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories, is responsible for the material in the Introduction through chapter 7.
Dr. Philip Satterthwaite is co-author of Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories, and is responsible for the material in the Introduction through chapter 7.

Following the Hebrew ordering of the books also allows the authors to make contrasting observations about the effect of each canonical ordering (Hebrew vs. English = the LXX) on the reader. For example, the order in English Bibles of the histories ends on somewhat of a downer with Nehemiah struggling to contain the Jewish community’s waywardness (Neh. 13) and Esther and Mordecai narrowly helping the Jews escape annihilation at the hands of the Persian Empire (Esther). McConville concludes that, “This unpromising end to the ‘history’ of Israel leaves an open question in English Bibles to which the prophetic section of the Old Testament gives an answer, with its predominant structure of judgment followed by salvation” (p. 288). Conversely, the order in the Hebrew Bible includes Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles in the last portion of the Canon known as “The Writings.” Notice that these books are also placed out of chronological order so that Chronicles comes after Ezra and Nehemiah. In fact, Chronicles is the last book of the Hebrew Bible. According to McConville, “This suggests that the Hebrew canonizers wished to allow Chronicles’ report of deliverance from exile (2 Chron. 36:22-23) to be the final word in the story of the post-exilic community” (p. 288).

Contents of Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories

Philip Satterthwaite begins this volume with a brief “Introduction” followed by chapter 1 which is entitled: “What are the Histories? A survey of recent scholarship,” which deals with such topics as “The Histories as literary texts,” “The Histories as Historical documents,” “The Histories as part of a larger story,” and the theology and ethics of the Histories. In this chapter, and throughout the volume as a whole, the authors are very fair in presenting various scholarly approaches and methods, while citing their own presuppositions and approaches. For example, Satterthwaite notes that he and McConville see the Histories as “artfully constructed texts,” and while understanding that various sources and hands may have played a part in the formation of the Histories, he states that, “Our interpretations of the Histories begin with an assumption of literary unity” (p. 25).

J. Gordon McConville is the co-author of Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories, vol. 2
J. Gordon McConville is the co-author of Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories, vol. 2 and is the author of chapters 8-11.

After a brief overview of ancient Near Eastern history in chapter 2, a survey of the biblical books, beginning with Joshua, starts in chapter 3. The chapters adhere to the following outline: 1) An outline of the book which includes a chapter-by-chapter breakdown of the contents; 2) key themes of the book; 3) critical issues–dealing with various issues that have arisen in the scholarly study of the book; 4) historical issues; and 5) how the book is reflected throughout the rest of the biblical canon. Each chapter, like its predecessor (The Pentateuch, vol. 1), is also interspersed with boxes dealing with special issues or question boxes prompting students to “dig deeper.” Satterthwaite is responsible for the material in chapters 3-7, while McConville is the author of chapters 8-11. Because the review would be too long to include comments about each chapter, I have chosen a few chapters to illustrate the content.

Joshua is the first book of The Histories
Joshua is the first book of The Histories

Chapter 3: Joshua–Satterthwaite agrees with the general 4 point outline of Joshua’s structure found in other commentaries on Joshua. He notes that the law of Moses is “a particular unifying factor” (p. 41). The Book of Joshua is (in)famous for several knotty problems. One involves the utter destruction (kherem) of the Canaanites. Satterthwaite devotes a special two-page box discussing kherem, including that kherem involves “making a person or object entirely over to YHWH” (p. 46), and the relationship of kherem to holiness and sacrifice (pp. 46-47). A second problem, related to kherem is the inference in some passages that there were no survivors, while other passages indicate that survivors did exist (e,g., compare Josh. 10:28, 30, 35 with 15:13-16). One of the ways Satterthwaite explains this is by a helpful comparison of Joshua 1-12 with other ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts. This comparison, found on p. 51 notes, among other similiarities, that hyperbole is “typical of ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts” (a quote from K.L. Younger in his book, Ancient Conquest Accounts. A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing, pp. 226-228). Among other important issues, Satterthwaite argues for a 13th century B.C. date for the Exodus (p. 68), and that certain interpretations of the Book of Joshua (often used to argue that Joshua is a fictionalized account) are invalid when Joshua is examined more carefully.

king david
Satterthwaite concludes that the books of Samuel “remain our major source for Israel’s early monarchy,” and that the picture is “plausible, and the grounds urged for rejecting it are not compelling” (The Histories, p. 143).

Chapter 5: 1 and 2 Samuel–Satterthwaite follows the usual outline of the books of Samuel, except that he includes 2 Samuel 8 with chapters 9-20. Notable observations include connections between 1 Samuel 1-15 with the Book of Judges (pp. 105-106); the contrast between faithful and unfaithful leaders in 1 and 2 Samuel (p. 108); rather than “anti-monarchic” and “pro-monarchic” sources in 1 Samuel 8-12, both authors argue for a “unified but nuanced account of Saul’s rise…. The people were wrong to ask for a king, not because monarchy was intrinsically unsuitable for Israel, but because they asked with wrong motives; the result was that a wrong sort of king was chosen” (p. 112). Among some of the difficulties addressed, Satterthwaite discusses the evil spirit from the Lord sent upon Saul (p. 116); and two ways of looking at the execution of Saul’s sons by the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1-14, p. 133). Other tough issues such as the question of double narratives in 1 Samuel 16-17 (p. 117), Saul’s seance (119), and whether Mephibosheth or Ziba was lying (p. 130), are left for students to chew over. Under “Key Themes” Satterthwaite lists the “Rise of monarchy: theological implications,” “Prophecy,” “Monarchy: politics, pragmatism and image?,” and “Divine-human interaction.” Under “Literary Critical Issues,” Satterthwaite discusses some of the usual sources proposed by scholars such as “The History of David’s Rise” (1 Sam. 16:14-2 Sam. 5:25) and the “Succession Narrative” (2 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2), but concludes that, while there are undoubtedly different sources and traditions underlying the material, it is not easy to identify such sources in the present text of Samuel. Therefore he concludes, “In their present form, 1 and 2 Samuel are more or less a seamless robe” (p. 139). Satterthwaite accepts the picture laid out in the books of Samuel as historical. He also notes the famous Tel Dan Stela which provides archaeological evidence for the existence of the Davidic monarchy (p. 142).

"The Histories" also has a good introduction and discussion of the Deuteronomistic History.
“The Histories” also has a good introduction and discussion of the Deuteronomistic History, a theory first proposed by Martin Noth.

Before leaving a discussion of those books designated as “The Deuteronomistic History” (DH), I should note that Satterthwaite devotes an entire chapter (chapter 7) to the origins and history of this well entrenched scholarly dogma. He discusses the origins of the original proposal by Martin Noth in 1943, and presents an overview of Noth’s basic thesis. Satterthwaite follows this up by looking at the various ways in which Noth’s original proposal has been revised or altered. Satterthwaite proves himself capable of some literary humor when, after finishing this survey, he quips to the reader, “Are you still awake?” (p. 208). Actually, I found Satterthwaite’s (McConville should be included here as well. The author frequently refers to “we”) evaluation of the DH and its scholarly mutations interesting. The authors agree that there are significant links between the ending and beginning of the various books “which are often reinforced by verbal echoes (e.g., compare Josh. 1 and Deut. 31 and 34 … )” (p. 208). They also agree that “the perspective of Joshua-Kings is ultimately that of the sixth century BC, simply on the basis that 2 Kings ends its account in that century” (p. 209). However, Satterthwaite and McConville also have important objections to the DH theory. They believe that Joshua-Samuel “(or something close to them) might have come into existence much earlier than is often argued” (p. 210). The authors point out that “According to a standard view Deuteronomy in its present form is a largely seventh-century work, linked to Josiah’s reforms” (p. 211), but they argue, “This, of course, runs contrary to the testimony of Joshua-Kings, according to which something like Deuteronomy (‘the Book of the Law’) was current long before the seventh century” (p. 211). Furthermore Satterthwaite states, “… the theological framework of Deuteronomy (linking faithfulness with blessing, unfaithfulness with judgment), which is what scholars often have in view when they argue that a text in Joshua-Kings reflects Deuteronomic influence, is not properly Deuteronomic at all, but a theological commonplace of the ancient Near East” (p. 211). Along these lines, the authors also note that the theology of Joshua-Kings is more complex than the simple “faithfulness brings blessing, unfaithfulness judgment.” Satterthwaite states these books “do not always conform to that schema; on the contrary, there are many unforeseen twists in Israel’s history, and they almost all relate to unexpected displays of divine grace” (p. 214). Another valid objection presented is that Joshua-Kings not only shows evidence of the Book of Deuteronomy, but also “significant echoes of Genesis-Numbers (particularly Genesis and Exodus)” (p. 216). In conclusion both authors question “the viability of the whole DH enterprise” (p. 217). While admitting that their position is not necessarily stronger, they claim that it is no weaker. I find myself in agreement with much that the authors say in this chapter.

McConville notes the literary artistry of the Book of Esther, including its comedic element.
McConville notes the literary artistry of the Book of Esther, including its comedic element.

Chapter 9: Esther–McConville’s outline of Esther follows the chapter divisions. He notes that a serious consideration of the Book of Esther prompts some provocative questions. For example, while most post-exilic books focus on the return to Judah, “In Esther, Jewish life goes on at the heart of the empire itself, with no apparent sense that Jews ought to return there” (p. 231). Furthermore, what is the reader to make of Esther’s marriage to a foreign king and the fact that she eats the food given to her without making objections based on Jewish food laws? The books of Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah demonstrate other viewpoints on these important issues. McConville is keen to note the literary artisty of the Book of Esther, including its use of irony and perhaps comedy. He includes a “Think about” box which discusses the idea of the potential use of comedy in Esther (p. 241). McConville sees the “Key Themes” being, “God and events” (“The coincidences can be seen as evidence, not of randomness, but of God’s providential ordering of things”, p. 236); “Providence, prayer, and responsibility,” and “Retribution” (which prompts an important discussion about how such a theme should be viewed, p. 237). “Critical Issues” looks at the additions to Esther found in the Greek text. McConville points out where the additions occur and how these additions differ theologically from the other form of the book. One important feature of the additions is the explicit mention of God. As most are aware, the edition of Esther found in our English bibles never uses the word “God” or any form of God’s name.

Evaluation of Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories

Satterthwaite and McConville have written an excellent introduction to the Histories, geared toward the undergraduate student and interested lay person. Those who identify with these “learning labels” will surely find discussions of “Critical Issues,” and the chapter on “The Deuteronomistic History” deep wading, and perhaps as Satterthwaite jests, a bit difficult to keep one’s eyes open. Some might even object that such material could be dispensed with. I would disagree, however. Anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the Histories will inevitably seek out commentaries, dictionary articles, etc. to enhance their comprehension. In doing so, they will encounter all of the views (and many more) spelled out in this volume. Exploring the Old Testament: The Histories, gives the student a starting point of understanding concerning what the issues, presuppositions, and conclusions are of the scholarly literature that they will inevitably turn to. But more importantly, this volume is full of valuable information and insights. The content overviews of each biblical book is worth the price alone. The special boxes and charts enhance the learning process. Personally, I found myself in agreement with much of what Satterthwaite and McConville write, but I also found them fair in representing other approaches and scholarly positions. If you are interested in learning more about “The Histories,” then I would highly recommend this book as a well-written and informative introduction to them.

Buy Exploring the Old Testament Volume 2: The Histories at Amazon USA / UK or From SPCK Publishing

 

  • Paperback: 295 pages
  • Publisher: SPCK Publishing (21 Jun. 2007)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0281054304
  • ISBN-13: 978-0281054305
  • Product Dimensions: 18.6 x 1.6 x 24 cm

(Many thanks to SPCK for providing this copy of Encountering the Old Testament: The Histories, in exchange for a fair and impartial review.)

Bible Backgrounds, The Book of Romans

The Church in Rome: Jews and Greeks

13 Comments

The Church in Rome: Jews and Greeks

Why did Paul write the Church in Rome? This article helps to answer that by looking at the beginning and makeup of the Church in Rome.
Why did Paul write the Church in Rome? This article helps to answer that by looking at the beginning and makeup of the Church in Rome.

Paul’s letter to the Romans is full of the use of ethnic terms. In fact, no letter in the New Testament uses as many ethnic terms, or duplicates the frequency with which Paul uses such terms as Romans. A tabulation of the following words illustrates my point. The word “gentiles/nations” occurs 29 times in Romans; “circumsion/uncircumcision” occurs 15 times; “Jew” is found 11 times as is “Israel”; “Greek” is used 6 times; while “Israelites” occurs 2 times and “barbarians” once. This comes to a total of 75 ethnic references in Romans. Although Paul uses various ethnic designations, all of the words can be boiled down into two distinct groups of people: Jews and Greeks (or gentiles). This would be similar to an author today using ethnic designations such as “Afro-American,” “black,” “Caucasian,” and “white.” Although 4 different words are being used, only two groups of people are being described. Paul’s frequent usage of these ethnic terms suggests something about the population that made up  the church in Rome in the first century, as well as potential reasons why he was writing to them. The following article seeks to fulfil a promise made last year in a post entitled, “Jews and Greeks in the New Testament.” I recommend reading that article first (or rereading it if it has been awhile) as it provides some necessary background for what I will be discussing here.

The Beginnings of the Church in Rome

peter-preachingAll scholars agree that the beginnings of the Church in Rome are shrouded in obscurity. However, it is noted that “visitors from Rome” were among those who heard Peter’s sermon on that  first Pentecost Sunday that the church began (Acts 2:10). It is usually thought that the gospel may have first reached Jewish synagogues in Rome through some of these witnesses. Even if this was not the case, Jews in Rome were closely in touch with what was happening in Jerusalem, and there were frequent goings and comings between these two important cities in the Roman empire. So it is reasonable to assume that the gospel message reached Jewish ears in Rome not long after that first Pentecost in one way or another, and that some responded by becoming believers in Jesus. This reconstruction suggests that the original makeup of the Church in Rome would have been mostly Jewish in the beginning, with perhaps some proselytes or God-fearers (Gentile attenders of the synagogue) also coming to faith.

We know from Roman records that in 41 A.D. the emperor Claudius restricted the public meeting of the Jews in Rome. The reason seems to relate to trouble within the synagogues in Rome. While the cause of this trouble is not specified, an educated guess would be that it involved disputes over Jesus as the Messiah. We know from the Book of Acts (e.g., Acts 17:1-9; 18:4-8, 12-17) that this was a major cause of, not only disruption in the synagogues, but civil disruption as well. Further evidence may be provided by Claudius’s expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49 A.D. The Roman writer Suetonius states that Claudius “expelled the Jews from Rome because they kept rioting at the instigation of Chrestus.” Although the correct form for Christ in Greek would be “Christos,” many scholars think that Suetonius simply got the name wrong. This statement, as well as the evidence from Acts, suggests that the synagogues in Rome were experiencing the same kind of conflict going on in synagogues throughout the empire regarding the proclamation of Jesus as the Christ. Indeed, we might ask, what else could cause such violent conflict in Jewish synagogues of this era?

The Church in Rome and the Gentile Majority

This interesting tombstone from Rome shows 2 Jewish menorahs, but the inscription is in Greek. Paul's letter to the Romans makes it clear that the Church in Rome consited of Jews and Greeks.
This interesting tombstone from Rome shows a Greek inscription flanked by 2 Jewish menorahs, as well as other Jewish symbols. Paul’s letter to the Romans makes it clear that the Church in Rome consisted of Jews and Greeks.

With the expulsion of the Jews from the city of Rome in 49 A.D., the Church in Rome would have mostly consisted of gentiles (Many scholars believe only Jewish leaders were actually expelled from Rome. If this was the case, some Jewish believers would have remained in the Church.). After the death of Claudius in 54 A.D., many Jews returned to Rome. Aquila and Priscilla are examples of this. Although they left Rome when Claudius expelled the Jews (Acts 18:1-2), they had returned to Rome by the time Paul wrote his letter to the Church in Rome (Rom. 16:3-5). However, by the time some of these Jewish believers returned, circumstances would have changed. The Church in Rome would now have consisted of gentile leadership and a gentile majority. That the Church in Rome consisted of a majority of gentiles when Paul wrote his epistle, seems clear from a number of references in the letter (e.g., Rom. 1:5-6, 13). As Thomas Schreiner states, “When he [Paul] reflects on the composition of the Roman church, he apparently conceives of it mainly as Gentile. This is confirmed by Rom. 11:13, which specifically addresses the Gentiles, and by 15:15–16, where Paul justifies his boldness in the letter since he has a particular calling as a ‘minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles’” (Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Romans (Vol. 6, p. 14). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books). This historical shift from a church which consisted mainly of Jewish believers and leadership to one that consisted mainly of Gentile believers and leadership, was bound to create some problems when Jewish believers began returning to Rome. Ben Witherington III sizes up the problem this way: “They [the Jews] have been marginalized by the expulsion, and Paul is addressing a largely Christian Gentile audience in Rome which has drawn some erroneous conclusions about Jews and Jewish Christians” (Witherington III, Ben. (2004). Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (p. 12). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Historical and Cultural Context and Paul’s Letter to the Church in Rome

The Church in Rome shifted from a Jewish majority to a Gentile majority
The Church in Rome shifted from a Jewish majority to a Gentile majority

Being aware of the historical context described above, as well as the cultural context (i.e., problems between Jews and Greeks, see my previous article cited above), opens a new window of understanding into Paul’s Letter to the Romans. First, the 75 ethnic references in the letter (Jew and Greek, etc.) suggest that ethnic relationships in the Church in Rome are a major concern of Paul’s. Second, a number of the doctrines that Paul writes about in the letter begin to make sense against this background of ethnic tension. For example, Jews and Greeks are all sinners (Rom. 3:9), both Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same way–by faith (Rom. 3:28-30), and Abraham is the father of those who are uncircumcised as well as those who are circumcised (Rom. 4:9-12). Furthermore, as one understands the historical switch from Jewish majority to Gentile majority in the Church in Rome, Paul’s exhortations in Romans 9-11, as well as Romans 14-15 make a lot of sense. For example, Paul argues that God is not finished with Israel (Rom. 11:11-12, 15, 25-26), and that the Gentiles need to recognize their debt to Israel and not be arrogant (Rom. 11:17-23). Paul’s discussion about not being divisive over food and the observation of certain days also highlights some of the struggles between Gentile and Jewish believers (Rom. 14:1-15:6). This understanding of the historical/cultural situation in the Roman Church helps us to better appreciate how significant Paul’s statement in Romans 10:12 is when he says, “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all bestowing his riches on all who call on him” (ESV).

The Church in Rome was Not a Church As We Think of Church

An excellent article in italymagazine.com on Roman housings shows an artistic rendering of what ancient tenement houses or insulae would have looked like.
An excellent article in italymagazine.com on Roman housing shows an artistic rendering of what ancient tenement houses or insulae would have looked like.

To further appreciate the situation Paul is addressing, one other historical/cultural insight is important. When we talk about the “Church in Rome,” we are not referring to a single congregation which meets in a large public building somewhere in the city. Nor are we speaking about a “megachurch” in the sense that some might think of today. Rather, we are speaking of a number of groups of people meeting throughout the City of Rome, either in houses or apartment (tenement) complexes. Paul’s greetings in Romans 16 are instructive regarding this point. Paul notes that some Christians meet with Priscilla and Aquila “in their house” (Rom. 16:5). Besides this group Paul mentions several other groups meeting in Rome (Rom. 16:10, 11, 14, 15). Along with these groups, Paul mentions a number of individuals but does not cite what group they may be meeting with. Rome was a city of one million people in the first century and Christianity was not a legal religion, therefore, Christians could not meet in a public building. The groups that Paul mentions suggests that the Church in Rome was scattered throughout the city and meeting in houses or apartments. This small-group setting would mean that any tension between believers would be very noticeable and potentially volatile. This makes Paul’s words in Romans 14:1 and 15:7 about “welcoming” one another very significant. People who feel unwelcome in a small-group setting will not stay around for long. Conversely, those who are making them feel unwelcome may not even invite them in! The result would be a horrible fractioning of the body of Christ in Rome, something that the fledgling church certainly did not need.

How History and Culture Help Us Understand the Letter to the Romans

The unity of Jews and Gentiles was a primary concern of Paul's, not only in Romans, but also in other espistles written by the apostle.
The unity of Jews and Gentiles was a primary concern of Paul’s, not only in Romans, but also in other espistles written by the apostle.

Although Paul’s letter to the Romans probably had several purposes (one being his desire to receive their assistance on a trip to Spain–Rom. 15:24), the historical and cultural background we have traced in these two articles relating to “Jews and Greeks,” demonstrates that the unity of the Church in Rome was a significant concern of Paul’s. As Craig Keener points out, “Given this situation, what the Roman Christians needed was what we would call racial reconciliation and crosscultural sensitivity” (Keener, C. S. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament (Ro). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press). This is a message that is easily overlooked without the proper background knowledge. Yet it is arguably one of the most important teachings in the Letter to the Romans. There are many good resources available today for understanding the background to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. I have noted a few of them in this post. Hopefully, these posts (about Jews and Greeks) will help to encourage those interested in the study of the Bible about the significance of knowing the historical and cultural background in which the Bible was written.