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".

Archaeology, Interviews

Life on an Archaeological Dig: Interview with Luke Chandler

October 6, 2015 randymccracken 2 Comments

Life on an Archaeological Dig: Interview with Luke Chandler

What’s it like to participate in an archaeological dig? Exciting? Difficult? Do you have to be a certain age? These are just a few of the questions that Luke Chandler, volunteer archaeologist for the past 7 seasons, addresses in this post. If you’ve ever wondered what it would be like to go on an archareological dig, then continue reading.

A picture of Luke participating in the archaeological dig at Tel Lachish

Luke is a minister at North Terrace Church or Christ in Temple Terrace, Florida. He holds an MA in Ancient and Classical History and has participated in archaeological digs at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Tel-Lachish. You can find his insightful posts about archaeology and other subjects, as well as information on tours that he leads at https://www.lukechandler.wordpress.com/

Thanks for taking the time to answer a few questions regarding your archaeological experiences Luke.
What first kindled your interest in archaeology?
I grew up with the Bible and occasionally heard or read about artifacts from biblical times. My parents had a college friend who was involved in the excavations at Tel Lachish during the 70’s and 80’s. He visited once when I was 8 or 9 years old and let me hold an oil lamp from around the 10th century BC, the period of the early Israelite monarchy. This fascinated me and kindled an interest that eventually became my college major. When I decided to become a minister, archaeology became even more interesting, especially as it related to the Bible.
It must be said… Indiana Jones made archaeology look cool. Of course, he’s a terrible archaeologist. He does not record or preserve anything except the object of his obsession, and he destroys most ancient structures he enters. Still, he’s a lot of fun to watch and his character has introduced archaeology to new generations.

How many years have you been participating in digs in Israel and how has your “job description” evolved, if at all during those years?
This summer (2015) was my seventh year with a dig but the job hasn’t really changed. I still excavate soil and stones, sift dirt for small finds, identify and clean architecture, discover things that were last seen and touched thousands of years ago, and have a wonderful time doing it. The job also means getting to know like-minded people from around the world, which is as enjoyable as the dig itself.
Since I’m not staff (which requires additional time with the dig), I don’t manage the paperwork or take part in the off-season research and analysis. I’ve learned to do a couple of additional things in the field but it’s best to say that after several years I am a “more experienced” archaeological volunteer.

An archaeological dig is hard work, but also fun and rewarding.

What advice would you give to someone who has never been on an archaeological dig and how can they best prepare themselves to join one?
If you’ve never been, don’t worry. It’s honest work but it’s not overbearing, and some jobs are fairly easy. In the end, the archaeologists know we are all volunteers and they want to make us happy.
How can you prepare for a dig? Some physical preparation certainly helps, even if it is light exercise a few times a week. It can be as simple as walking, some golf/tennis, jumping jacks, etc. – anything to get the muscles accustomed to activity. You can dig without this kind of preparation but being active makes it a little easier.
The best preparation is to learn something about your dig site before going. Find out its history, both biblical and extra-biblical. What took place there? Who lived there, and what happened to them? Have previous excavations found anything? This gives context to your experience. You know why you are digging as well as the potential impact of your work.

What is the most difficult part of an archaeological dig in your experience?
The schedule is probably the most difficult if not opting for a decent bedtime. We get up each morning around 4:15am, which comes quickly if you stay up late!
That being said, it’s not a bad schedule if managed properly. Work at the site begins before sunrise and concludes at 1pm sharp. The rest of the day is pretty easy with lunch, a restful siesta, pottery washing & reading (a good chance to sit and chat, and maybe discover something new about the day’s finds), followed by an archaeology lecture and dinner. Go to bed fairly soon after dinner and you’ll be fine. Stay up too late, too often, and the mornings get tougher. Not that this problem is without remedy – God has given us caffeine.

What is the most rewarding part of that experience?
This is hard to answer. I love the thrill of discovery, when you realize you have something no one has seen or touched since Bible times. On one occasion, a friend and I were the first people in nearly 3,000 years to pass through a city gate we had just unblocked. You can’t forget moments like that.
For me, the most rewarding part is what follows the dig. Simply put, the experience changes the way you read and study the Bible. I’ve used Bible commentaries and dictionaries, studied biblical languages, read Bible-based journals, subscribed to Biblical Archaeology Review, and even traveled to Israel on a tour, but none of these gave me the same insights and perspectives as a dig. A dig gives you an up-close, intimate view of the land and the people who lived there. You do not constantly move from place to place with only minutes to appreciate what you see. You get to soak in the Bible Lands and see more of what Bible people saw. It puts you inside their heads. This has deepened my own understanding beyond words.

This is the fertility goddess mentioned by Luke. This photo is taken from his website.

What is the most exciting discovery that you, or the team you were with, ever found?
That is hard to narrow down. Finding my first sling stone stands out, as does a fertility goddess from this year, but my favorite discovery may be two jars full of burnt grain that I found in 2014. It was someone’s pantry some 3,200 years ago when Lachish was burned to the ground. Whoever the grain belonged to, they did not get to eat it before their home and city were destroyed. Were they killed in the process? Did they have to flee with no food? Those burned jars told a personal story. As a bonus, we were able to carbon date the burned grain and get an approximate date for the destruction of that city level. It is hard to select one favorite discovery, but this one is near the top.

Khirbet Qeiyafa, where Luke participated in his first archaeological dig.

There are some archaeologists, as well as Bible scholars, who believe that the kingdom of David and Solomon is largely fictional. If it existed, it certainly wasn’t as powerful and sophisticated as portrayed in the Bible. The discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa are thought by some to refute this viewpoint. What insights have you gained regarding this controversy, based on your experience of digging there?
Skeptics of the early Israelite kingdom have always based their conclusions on negative evidence. “We have no evidence that David was a king… No evidence of a central authority in that period… No evidence of literacy…” and so on. They rely primarily on what has not been found. The risk in this approach is that someone, someday, may find that missing something and collapse the paradigm. That seems to be exactly what has happened with my first dig site, Khirbet Qeiyafa.
At Khirbet Qeiyafa, we have uncovered a small planned city with massive fortifications. Tribal shepherds could never build something like that! It is on Judah’s border with the Philistines but from the material culture we know it was not a Philistine city. The builders were strong enough to hold off the Philistine army during the years of construction, which suggests a powerful military. The architecture and finds show strong links to other sites in ancient Judah and indications of central administration. We also found multiple inscriptions. It’s almost as if someone made a list of the “missing” evidences for an early monarchy and put all of them in one place. This site has changed the debate over the beginning of the Israelite and Judahite kingdoms.
I believe the Qeiyafa discoveries validate accounts of an early Israelite monarchy. They do not prove that David killed Goliath or that Solomon built the first temple, but are evidence of a central government in that region and in that time. This is a big deal, especially in light of what we had to work with just ten years ago. Only some of the excavation results have been formally published at this point. It will be a few more years before everything is known and available to other scholars.

Tel Lachish was an important fortified city of Judah in biblical times

As I understand it, the discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa have inspired Dr. Yosef Garfinkel, who directed the excavation there, to move on to Lachish. Although Lachish has been excavated in the past with some exciting finds, the layer which contains 10th century BC remains (the time of David and Solomon) has not been excavated. Can you tell us what has been learned so far in the first couple of seasons (recognizing that there are things you may not be able to reveal until they are published)?
Previous excavations identified at least eight different habitation strata and it appears the fifth one is relevant to the early kings in Judah. The problem is that not enough has been found from Level V to provide a date for its habitation. Was it built in David’s time? In Rehoboam’s reign? We just don’t know at this point. The Bible says that Rehoboam fortified the city. Does this mean he actually built Level V or that he expanded an existing settlement? Our primary goal is to obtain enough physical evidence of Level V to date it. It would be especially useful to find something organic, such as olive pits, that can be carbon dated. C-14 dating is not accurate enough to pinpoint a year but it gives an approximate range. Who knows? Maybe we’ll be lucky enough to find an inscription that zeroes in the date.
What have we found at Lachish? Oddly enough, the top five levels (dating from the Persian period back to the Canaanite period) are missing entirely from portions of our current excavation area. On the first day of the first season, some people in my group uncovered Level VI just a couple of inches below the surface. We don’t know why this is. One possible explanation is that these layers were removed from our area in the 8th century BC to build stronger defenses elsewhere in the city during an attack. We may get a solid answer to this in the future. We may have found Level V in another area of the site, though we won’t know for sure until we resume digging next summer
We have been able to find wonderful things from the Canaanite civilizations that preceded the Judahites at Lachish. We have found a temple with multiple idols/figurines, imported pottery, an inscribed Egyptian scarab, and at least one inscription. We’ve also identified some new entrances to the city that are currently blocked. We plan to begin opening and dating them next year. It’s possible one of these gates is from the elusive Level V. The Bible does not tell us much about the early Divided Kingdoms, so our work over the next few years may impact on our understanding of that period. It is exciting stuff.

Is there anything else about an archaeological dig that you would like to add Luke?
Let me say one thing for anyone who has not yet experienced a dig… If you want a deeper understanding of the Bible and its world, find a way to get yourself on a dig, even if just for a couple of weeks. It will give you understanding and insights that no book can provide. You will benefit from it the rest of your life, along with others whom you teach or influence. I’ve excavated with people as young as 13, with others who are in their 70’s, and with every age in between. Most of the best digs are open for people just like you. The sooner you go, the longer – and greater – the benefit will be.
– – – – – – – – – –
Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions Luke and may God continue to bless the work that you are involved in. I am hoping to join you at Tel-Lachish in the season after next, Lord willing. For any who might be interested in learning more about joining an archaeological dig you can contact Luke at his website (regarding Lachish), or you can go to biblicalarchaeolgy.org and click on the “digs” menu.

Character Studies, Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

Amasa and His “Blood Brothers” in 2 Samuel

September 16, 2015 randymccracken 1 Comment

Amasa and His “Blood Brothers” in 2 Samuel

Joab murdered his own cousin Amasa in order to hold on to his position as commander

One of the interesting, but admittedly gruesome, features of 2 Samuel concerns the stabbing of 4 different men in the stomach. The stories are tied together by this (un)common theme. The first two killings occur between rival houses for the throne–i.e. members of Saul’s and David’s house killing one another. The first incident involves Abner of the house of Saul killing Asahel, the nephew of David (2 Sam. 2:18-23). For a more indepth treatment of this incident see my post entitled: “Asahel: Running into Trouble.” The second incident involves Joab and his brother Abishai of the house of David (and brothers of Asahel) killing Abner of the house of Saul (2 Sam. 3:26-27). The first killing happens during a time of battle, and in spite of Abner’s pleadings for Asahel to stop pursuing him. The second killing is more treacherous as Joab lures the unsuspecting Abner into a trap and murders him. Although these killings are both tragic because they involve rival houses during a time of hostility, they are, to some extent, understandable.

Ish-bosheth's own captains murdered him while he slept. — Ish-bosheth’s own captains murdered him while he slept.

The second set of killings, however, are more shocking. They are “in-house” killings. Ish-bosheth is stabbed by fellow Benjamites, captains of his own army (2 Sam. 4). Amasa, another nephew of David, is brutally dispatched by Joab, who is not only a nephew of David, but a cousin of Amasa (2 Sam. 20:8-13). Thus there is a steady progression of brutality and violence as we read through the story in 2 Samuel tracing this theme of 4 men who “get it” in the belly. The writer seems to linger a little longer over the death of Amasa. It is the last in this gory chain of stabbings and provides a climax in several ways. First, Joab’s killing of a fellow cousin through the deception of a kiss, and the callous treatment of Asahel as he lies “wallowing in his blood in the middle of the highway” (2 Sam. 20:12), presents the most tragic and gruesome scene of any of the 4 accounts. Second this scene intentionally recalls the other 3 accounts. In my book, Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel, my concluding thoughts on Amasa’s character study provides a summary of the similarities and differences between these accounts and some of the lessons to be learned from them. That conclusion is reproduced below.

Conclusion: Amasa and His “Blood Brothers”

One cannot read the account of Amasa’s death without recalling the violent deaths of other men in 2 Samuel. As Polzin notes, “2 Samuel makes it clear that Joab’s smiting of Amasa in the belly looks backward to the murders of Ishbosheth in 4:6, Abner in 3:27, and Asahel in 2:23. Moreover, these instances of ‘smiting in the belly’ occur only here in 2 Samuel, and always in the context of an explicit reference to ‘brother.’ ” These similarities invite the reader to compare and contrast the four different stories.

Parallels between the deaths of Abner and Amasa are especially noteworthy. They both share the same murderer: Joab. In both cases Joab deceived the men he murdered by catching them off guard and striking them in the stomach (3:27; 20:10). Both were commanders over their respective armies, who fought and lost a civil war against David (2 Sam. 2:12–17; 17:25). Joab perceived the reconciliation of both men to David as a threat, and both were killed in an atmosphere of “peace” (3:21–23; 20:9). Joab’s murder of these men threatened to disrupt the tenuous unity recently forged in both situations. Finally, David himself drew a parallel between these two murders, advising Solomon to deal with Joab accordingly (1 Kings 2:5–6).

These similarities provide the backdrop for the contrast between the two deaths. Although the narrative makes it clear that Joab was wrong in murdering Abner, at least the author provided him with some motivation: Abner’s killing of Joab’s brother Asahel (3:30). No such explanation is provided for the murder of Amasa; indeed, none can be. The silence of the text convicts Joab. Perhaps the text’s silence also suggests that Joab had reached such a hard-hearted state in his killing of others that he no longer felt the need to justify his actions.

Amasa and Joab were cousins. Both were sons of David's sisters. — Amasa and Joab were cousins. Both were sons of David’s sisters.

A final contrast that highlights the heinous nature of Amasa’s murder is that he was a blood relative of Joab from the house of David, whereas Abner belonged to the rival house of Saul. The murder of Amasa sounds a climactic note in 2 Samuel on the consequences of the abuse of power. Joab’s unrestrained lust for power begins with killing his fellow-countryman (Abner) and ends with killing his own kinsman (Amasa).

Besides the act of “smiting in the belly,” a number of other similarities also connect Amasa’s death with Asahel’s. Both stories center on Gibeon (2:12; 20:8). Each story speaks of “pursuing” an enemy, and in each case the battle ends by Joab blowing the trumpet (2:28; 20:23). The root ʾaḥar (“after”) occurs frequently (11 times) in the account of Amasa’s death, as it does in the story of Asahel. Furthermore, in both accounts the author vividly relates the gruesome nature of the death and comments that those who came upon the scene “stood still” (2:23; 20:12).

The difference between Asahel’s death and Amasa’s highlights again the brutality of Joab’s action. Since Asahel and Abner are on opposite sides in the battle, it is not surprising that one would kill the other. Amasa and Joab, however, are on the same side. Abner warns Asahel twice (2:21–22) before delivering the deadly blow, whereas Joab lulls Amasa into a false sense of security, and then kills him without warning (20:9–10).

The similarities of Amasa with Abner and Asahel also suggest certain character traits that they share. Both Abner and Amasa are caught unaware and “die as a fool” (3:33). Asahel’s inexperience contrasts with Amasa’s experience, but both prove to be naive in their own way.

Sadly, there is not much of a positive nature that can be said of Amasa. He was the nephew that betrayed his uncle the king. He was the general who lost a war, and the ineffective commander of David’s troops who could not fulfill his commission. In the end he dies the death of a fool, his body disgraced by being dumped in a field, ultimately forgotten by his men, and by the narrator as the story continues without him. Amasa, as commander of the army (both David’s and Absalom’s), has all the outward trappings of success, but his life is a dismal failure. His cruel death evokes sympathy, but his betrayal of the Lord’s anointed appears to reap consequences that go beyond the civil war. His under-achieving seems to be related to his lack of true perception (he did not recognize the Lord’s anointed or the sword in Joab’s hand). As such, he becomes a warning to all who might “dress for success” and look the part, but inwardly lack the real quality of greatness: a quality that comes only by aligning oneself with the Lord and His purposes.

Helpful Suggestions for Bible Study

Why Do We Have to Interpret the Bible?

September 9, 2015 randymccracken 8 Comments

Why Do We Have to Interpret the Bible?

Why do we need to interpret the Bible? Can't we simply accept what it says at face-value? — Why do we need to interpret the Bible? Can’t we simply accept what it says at face-value?

Can’t we just take the Bible for what it says? Isn’t it plain enough? Do we really need others to help us interpret the Bible? These questions came home to me this past week when an old friend of mine emailed me about his concern regarding interpretation of the Bible. He was troubled by the existence of many different churches and the various interpretations of Scripture that they represent. He wanted to know why we need anyone to interpret the word of God for us. His position was, to quote him, “It seems to me that the word of God, the will of God, should be instinctively, intuitively…ACCURATELY interpreted by the knowledge of God I have within me.” He continues, “To wit: I believe God is capable of this…”miracle?” Anyone who experiences God’s true word will know, recognize and understand without the need for another person to assist or interpret for them. So where is this miracle? Why does the world have, (does it) need people who believe they are interpreters of God’s word?”

The great reformers desired for all to read the Bible, but they were also concerned with how to interpret the Bible correctly.

My friend’s concern is a valid one and his question is worth exploring. One of the points of the Reformation was that individuals did not need to have a priest act as an intermediary between themselves and God. Nor did they have to depend upon the Church’s interpretation of Scripture. Each individual could read the word of God for themselves and allow God to speak to them. This belief helped propel the translation of the Bible into the common languages of people throughout Europe. However, the Reformers were well aware that not everything in the Bible is equally plain. Whether we’re speaking of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or others, these men brought certain principles of interpretation with them to the text, and they were all familiar with the original languages in which the Scripture was written.

The Holy Spirit new the Ethiopian eunuch needed someone to help him interpret the Bible, so he sent Philip. — The Holy Spirit knew the Ethiopian eunuch needed someone to help him interpret the Bible, so he sent Philip.

The Bible itself teaches that we need others to help us comprehend its message correctly. For example, the disciples of Jesus needed his guidance to comprehend the meaning of the Scriptures. After Jesus appears to two of his disciples on the Emmaus road and instructs them, they later say to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” (Lk. 24:32). Later Jesus appears to his disciples in the Upper Room and speaks to them of how all must be fulfilled that was written in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (i.e., the Old Testament). The next verse states, “And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures” (Lk. 24:44-45). Let me offer one final example, lest it be thought that Jesus was the only one who helped people to understand the Scripture. After the establishment of the Church, the Book of Acts records an incident where the Spirit takes Philip (a deacon and evangelist in the early church) to an Ethiopian eunuch who is riding along in his chariot and reading the prophet Isaiah. Philip asks, “Do you understand what you are reading?” To which the eunuch replies, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:30-31). For more on this topic see my article “Can Bible Study Be Spirit-Led and Academic?”

The Response to My Friend’s Question

The rest of this post (mostly) consists of the email response that I sent to my friend in answer to his question. I have modified the format slightly (he didn’t have the benefit of all the pretty pictures you have here in the article) and have corrected and/or adjusted some wording. As I emphasized to my friend, the following response is not all that can be said on this subject. It merely consists of some important aspects to consider.

Dear (friend), your question is an important one and also one that could take a book to answer, but a modest email will have to do. Thanks for asking and for paying me the compliment that I might have some sort of answer to offer.

All Communication Involves Interpretation

First I would say that all communication involves interpretation. As we read each other’s emails we are interpreting what the other is saying. Sometimes we are accurate and sometimes we may misunderstand each other. Speaking the same language and having the same cultural background helps in the communication process. Still, as I read your email (and you mine) because it is written communication, we must discern things that would be more easily communicated face to face. For example, when communicating face to face, I can see your facial expressions, your hand gestures, and I can tell a lot by your tone of voice as to what you mean. As I write this you can’t see those things. You only have the written word, so you have to decide from the language whether I am speaking with a kind considerate tone, or whether I am being condescending or sarcastic etc. That process is interpretation. It is possible that even with the best of intentions you and I may misunderstand each other. You might be positive I’m saying one thing, when in fact, I’m intending to say something different. It is only through the communication process–the give and take–that we finally come to a true interpretation of what the other meant. Because the Bible is a written document, this not only makes interpretation necessary, it also makes it more challenging!

The Importance of Language and Culture in Interpretation

Differences in language make interpretation even more essential.

The second thing I would say is that communication becomes more difficult when either language or culture (or both) differ between the people who are trying to communicate. For instance, when we moved to England we learned that American words can have different meanings here in England. If I say 100 bucks, an English person may think I’m talking about a herd of male deer. If an Englishmen tells me to look under my bonnet, I might reply that I’m a man and I don’t wear a bonnet, but what he means is the hood of my car. Context, of course, is a key to interpreting these expressions correctly. Also, culture, and how words are used, makes a HUGE difference in interpretation. Every culture also has certain idioms and expressions that don’t make sense in another language, or even in another culture that speaks the same language. Here in England if I am impressed with something I might say, “I’m gobsmacked.” Someone in America wouldn’t know what I was saying. If I say to someone of another language “Stop pulling my leg” they may take it literally and be confused because their hands are nowhere near my legs. When we share the same culture and language we automatically understand what someone is saying, or at least usually we do, whereas, to someone of a different culture or language our expression will be confusing. All of this involves interpretation. Sometimes we are interpreting without being consciously aware of it, and other times we have to struggle to interpret what someone else is saying. Either way, we are constantly involved in interpretation from the moment we wake until the moment we go to sleep.

The Bible was Written in a Foreign Language, a Foreign Culture, in a Time Long Ago

The third thing I would say is that when it comes to the Bible, we are dealing with a book that was written in another language, in another culture, and in a time long ago. All 3 of these circumstances present interpretive challenges. To begin with, unless you or I read Hebrew and Greek, we are automatically reading an interpretation of the Bible. All English Bibles, or any other language Bible, is an interpretation. It has to be because no language can be translated word for word into another language. Some languages have several words for a certain concept, while other languages have just one word that must do the duty of bearing all the meanings. For example, Greek has 3 words for love while English has only 1. Certain Hebrew or Greek idioms make no sense to us, so it does a translator no good to translate something literally. They must translate the sense. For example, in 1 Samuel 1:5 the literal rendering of the Hebrew says that Elkanah gave his wife Hannah, “a portion for the nostrils.” That is a Hebrew idiom which clearly makes no sense to us in the English world. Scholars still debate what exactly is meant by this idiom. It is usually translated “a double portion.” Personally, I believe it refers to the fact that Hannah has been angered and Elkanah is trying to calm her down and cheer her up by offering her a portion of the sacrifice (see my article, “Anger: The Bible Says the Nose Knows,” or my book Family Portraits).

The importance of having to interpret the Bible becomes evident in the first two verses of the Bible!

I’m currently teaching Genesis and Genesis is an excellent book to talk about the importance of interpretation. The first few verses of Genesis (verses 1-2) require interpretation, and different Bible translations interpret it differently. To give you just one example. The New King James translates Genesis 1:2 as “the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” The New American Bible (NAB) translates this as “a mighty wind swept over the waters.” This is obviously quite different! The problem involves deciding what the Hebrew words mean in this particular context. The word for “Spirit” also means “wind” or “breath” in Hebrew and in Genesis 8:1 this same word is translated as “wind” because this seems to be the obvious meaning there from the context. Furthermore the word translated “God” (‘elohim) is sometimes used as an adjective meaning “mighty” (as it is in Genesis 23:6 where Abraham is called a “mighty prince”). This is why some translations say “mighty wind” and others say “Spirit of God.” The words legitimately mean both, so it is up to the translator to determine from context which meaning seems the most likely. Unfortunately, we can’t speak to any ancient Hebrews to ask them what is meant by this expression! So already in Genesis 1:2 we have had to make an “interpretation.” By the way, Genesis 1:1 is also translated in different ways depending on how one understands the Hebrew grammar (compare NKJV, NRSV, for example).

The Bible is an ancient document. The dead sea scrolls, one of which is pictured above, are the oldest copies that we have of the Bible.

When it comes to the Bible, it is important that we realize that we are dealing with an ancient document. One of the mistakes that people frequently make is interpreting the Bible from their own 21st century perspective. Here’s another example from Genesis 1. Because of the “Creation and Science” debate many people come to Genesis 1 with an agenda to answer this question. Coming to Genesis 1 in order to answer questions about evolution or the Big Bang means superimposing our cultural questions on the Bible which often ends up making it say something it never intended to say. The (inspired) author of Genesis 1 didn’t know who Darwin was and wasn’t trying to debate the evolution question. Instead, God used him to address the issues that were important to his audience and the culture of his day. If we are going to understand Genesis 1 rightly, we must first seek to understand it in its ancient context. If we don’t know much about the ancient world, and if we don’t know the Hebrew language, then this is where we have to consult books written by those who do. Once we are fairly confident that we know what the text meant to the original audience, then we can make application as to what it means to us today. (The following info was not part of my original email but I include it here for my readers. Earlier this week I was watching a video on Genesis 1 by Dr. John Walton, an expert on Genesis and the ancient Near East. He goes into great detail as to why we need to understand what the ancient author meant and why we need to be careful about bringing our modern agendas to the text. Get a cup of coffee and a sandwich and enjoy his 1 hour lecture by clicking here: Reading Genesis with Ancient Eyes.)

The Conclusion of My Email on Why We Need to Interpret the Bible

The fact that many churches/people have different understandings of the Bible or a biblical passage is an example of at least two things. 1) It demonstrates that there are things in the Bible that aren’t always plain. They need study to interpret them correctly because of the difference of time, culture and language. 2) Some people do not observe proper procedures of interpreting the Bible and therefore they come up with interpretations that distort its original meaning. You mentioned that God speaks to each of us and why isn’t that good enough? I do agree that God speaks to us, but it’s been my experience that He usually does it when we put the effort into truly understanding the Bible. If I simply trust the “voice within,” I may be wrong. Someone says, “God told me this passage means such and such,” and I say, “No that’s not right because God told me it means this.” Such arguments are purely subjective. If I only listen to the voice within, why is that voice better, than someone else’s voice within? This leads to the same problem that you voiced your frustration over–i.e., many different interpretations all claiming to be right. There has to be a more objective way of getting at what a passage truly says and means. If someone puts the time into studying the language, the culture, and the time period and takes the context seriously doesn’t it make more sense that they are more likely to have the correct understanding of a passage than someone who simply listens to their inner voice? The person who puts a lot of time into studying the Bible shows that he or she treasures it. Anyone can say, “I think it means this.” Maybe they are right, or maybe they aren’t. Maybe God spoke to them or maybe He didn’t. But when we sit down together and look at the Bible and learn what the words in the original language mean and learn the culture, etc. then we have a much more likely scenario for getting the correct message from the text. (end of email)

Final Thought: The Importance of Knowing the Genre

Correctly identifying the genre is very important when interpreting any piece of literature.

There are, of course, other important considerations that I did not mention in my email. I thought it was long enough already! One that I just note in conclusion is the importance of understanding genre. We read a love letter differently from a telephone book, and a novel differently from a piece of poetry. The same is true when we seek to understand the Bible. We need to be aware of the genre(s) we are dealing with. If we don’t we may make the mistake made by some people in America in 1939 when H. G. Wells’s “War of the Worlds” was presented on the radio in the form of a newscast. People who heard the opening of the newscast realized that the broadcasters were simply doing a dramatazation of Wells’s book. Others who tuned in later, however, misunderstanding the genre, thought that a real invasion from Mars was taking place! Havoc was the result in many cities and communities across the United States! We all approach a piece of literature with certain presuppositions which causes us to interpret it in a certain way. Knowing the genre of the literature we are reading is certainly another important ingredient in reading the Bible properly.

(For those interested on a good book dealing with biblical interpretation, I would recommend, Grasping God’s Word by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, available at Amazon USA / UK).

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit in Acts

September 3, 2015 randymccracken Leave a comment

The Holy Spirit in Acts

This painting by El Greco in the El Prado Museum depicts the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost

How does Luke portray the gift and outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts? The gift of the Holy Spirit excites Christians in certain church traditions. Unfortunately, in some of these traditions, an understanding of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts is often limited to discussions about speaking in tongues, or miraculous manifestations. On the other hand, certain church traditions seem rather frightened about discussing the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts. They want to confine it to a first century phenomenon and teach that this outpouring is no longer available today. In both of these instances an understanding of the Holy Spirit seems to be based more on a particular church tradition, and/or, reaction to the tradition of another church, rather than an investigation of the biblical text itself.

The Holy Spirit as the Origin of the Eschatological Community

In A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit, Matthias Wenk explores Luke’s theology of the Holy Spirit in Acts, as well as the Gospel of Luke. He is convinced, and persuasively argues, that there are two main truths that Luke seeks to communicate about the outpouring of the Spirit. First, the renewal of God’s people envisioned by the prophets, finds its origin in, and is fulfilled by, the giving of the Holy Spirit. It is the gift of the Spirit that makes this renewed community of God’s people possible. Wenk asserts that in order to grasp Luke’s understanding of the Holy Spirit in Acts, one must connect it with Luke’s understanding of the Spirit in the life and ministry of Jesus (p. 117). For example, he states, “The Spirit-inspired words and deeds of Jesus (Luke 24:19; cf. Acts 2:22; 7:22), carried forward by the Church, accomplish God’s saving and restoring work and thereby transform the (social) reality of those who believe by forming a new people of women, men, old, young, male and female slaves and … Gentiles” (p. 117).

The Gift of the Spirit Breaks Down Social and Ethnic Barriers

Luke’s other emphasis on the Holy Spirit in Acts involves the Spirit’s power in breaking down social and ethnic barriers. For example, Wenk notes that the purpose of the narratives which speak of the gift of the Spirit being given is to demonstrate how the Spirit accomplishes reconciliation. In other words, a proper theology of the Holy Spirit in Acts should focus, not so much on an individual’s experience with the Spirit, but on how the Spirit is reconciling communities and people groups to God and each other. For example, Wenk notes that the first non-Jewish group reached with the gospel is the Samaritans (Acts 8). It is the preaching of the gospel followed by the gift of the Holy Spirit that ends centuries of hatred and hostitlity according to Acts. Wenk insightfully points out that the episode in Acts 8 is a purposeful contrast to Luke 9:51-56. In Luke 9 the apostle John is wanting to call fire down from heaven to destroy the Samaritans, while in Acts 8 it is a transformed apostle John (by the Spirit) who brings the gift of the Spirit to these same Samaritans! Peter’s visit to Cornelius’s house and the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit on Gentiles, is also clearly understood as the breaking down of the ethnic barrier between Jews and Gentiles.

According to Wenk's understanding, the Holy Spirit in Acts breaks down ethnic and social barriers as in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch. — According to Wenk’s understanding, the Holy Spirit in Acts breaks down ethnic and social barriers as in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch.

The Holy Spirit in Acts, not only breaks down ethnic barriers, He also breaks down social barriers. Wenk argues that the point of the story about Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch is to demonstrate how the cultically unclean (cf. Deut. 23:1-9) are accepted into the new community led and empowered by the Spirit. Wenk notes that the eunuch’s conversion is the only place in Acts where someone has to asked to be baptized. “This is unique in Acts, for normally the recipients of the good news are summoned to turn to God and to be baptized (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:12; 9:18; 10:48)” (p. 125). This potential hesitation on Philip’s part may hint at some uncertainty as to how the gospel applied to some social classes. Thus, according to Wenk’s understanding, “…the role of the Spirit is less to inspire prophetic speech than to initiate a communication process, which leads to the overcoming of prejudices and the inclusion of people into the community who would otherwise not have been included” (p. 124).

What Does a Person Full of the Spirit Look Like?

Although Wenk is persuasive in demonstrating that the focus on the Holy Spirit in Acts is not on individuals but on a renewed community, he does note that Acts puts forward two individuals “who personify the qualities of the renewed community” (p. 127). In other words, they demonstrate what the rest of the community of believers who are full of the Spirit should look like. These two individuals are Barnabas and Stephen who are both described as “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5; 11:24). The qualities that exemplify Barnabas as a man “full of faith and the Holy Spirit” include, the selling of his property, “introducing the person whom everybody else mistrusted into the people of God [Paul], mediating between churches in conflict [Acts 11:22, 30], being involved in missions and giving a failure [Mark] a second chance” (p. 127). Stephen, on the other hand, demonstrates faithfulness, courage, power (both in words and deeds) and the willingness to forgive his persecutors (p. 127).

Reflections on the Holy Spirit in Acts

Wenk’s study of the Holy Spirit in Acts is very challenging to the modern church which either seeks to avoid the Spirit, or, at times, places the emphasis on the wrong aspects of the outpouring of the Spirit. If the Spirit is the one through whom the new community is constituted, and if it is the Spirit that breaks down barriers that divide people, then we dare not relegate Him to only the first century era. Likewise, to emphasize individual experience with the Spirit while neglecting the importance of the Spirit’s communal value, is to miss an extremely important function and role that the Spirit plays within the Church. Wenk believes that the message conveyed about the Holy Spirit in Acts is essential for the Church today. His chapter concludes with this poignant observation: “It seems that a world threatened by ethnic conflicts, a Church suffering from schism and individualism, and a society divided into numerous subcultures, interest groups and even generations who can hardly communicate any more with each other at all, is in desperate need of a renewed outpouring of the Spirit as at the day of Pentecost. Luke’s vision of the work of the Spirit is, in our days, as astounding and needed as it was in his days” (p. 128).

Character Studies

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

August 25, 2015 randymccracken 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

The 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.

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.

(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.