Logos Mobile Ed Review: Introducing Biblical Interpretation (Part 1)

October 9, 2014 randymccracken 2 Comments

Logos Mobile Ed Review

Although I count myself among those who still enjoy pulling a book off of a shelf and reading through it, modern Bible software has taken Bible study to a whole new level. Among the Bible software programs available today, none is more comprehensive and powerful than Logos 5 (now Logos 8!). I have been a Logos user for over 11 years and whether I am doing personal devotions, preparing to teach a class, or writing a book, I have found it extremely helpful.

Logos Mobile Ed Course: Introducing Biblical Interpretation. For a look at this resource in Logos, click anywhere on this link.

Besides all of the great Bible study tools available, Logos has recently inaugurated a series of courses taught by knowledgeable and experienced instructors called “Logos Mobile Ed Courses.” These courses cover everything from Introductions to the Old and New Testaments, to various biblical books, as well as topical courses on apologetics, pastoral counselling, and many more. For a complete listing of available courses, click on this link (Logos Mobile Ed Courses). These courses can be downloaded to your Logos Bible study library and are then available for you to explore at your own pace. I have recently received the Logos Mobile Ed course entitled: Introducing Biblical Interpretation taught by Dr. Michael S. Heiser, the academic editor of Logos Bible Software. In this review I will introduce you to the format of the Logos Mobile Ed courses, as well as provide an outline and critique of Introducing Biblical Interpretation. In future reviews, I will look at the course material in more depth.

Logos Mobile Ed: Introducing Biblical Interpretation

The format of the Logos Mobile Ed courses splits your computer screen into two panels. The right panel consists of the textual information which includes, title, table of contents, and a word for word account of everything the instructor says. The left panel consists of short video clips covering the subject material. The advantage of this design is that you can click on the video in the left panel and follow the text in the right if you choose. Conversely, if you don’t want to follow along with the text, you can enlarge the video and just listen to the instructor. Below is a sample page of what a typical Logos Mobile Ed course looks like:

A typical view of the Logos Mobile Ed course screens with video on the left and text on the right.

Looking at the photo above, you can recognize two features about the video. First, each video clip is very short, lasting anywhere from 1 1/2 minutes to 4 or 5 minutes. This is very helpful, as the instructor breaks the material down into small bite-sized chunks. It also makes it easier for you to go at your own pace. If you want to cover an hour’s worth of material, you can; but if you only have a few minutes, you can still sit down and go through a couple of videos. Short videos also provide motivation. If I realize that I have to block out a longer period of time, I’m less likely to open the resource, and consequently, it will take me longer to make it through the course. A longer video also makes it more difficult to find the place you’re looking for. For example, if you only have time to watch about 10 minutes worth of material but the video is 30 minutes long, you will have to click through the video to find your place later on. Similarly, as a teacher, if I am wanting to use a particular video to show my class, it is much nicer to have a concise presentation of a particular point, rather than having to search through the video for the exact beginning and ending point. Speaking of finding your place, another helpful feature of the Logos Mobile Ed courses is that they reopen in the same place that you close them. So you can watch several videos, close the program and when you return it will open to the exact same spot.

A second feature of the video is the plain white background. My initial reaction was that this seemed a bit Spartan. Why not spruce up the background with a plant or something? But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that Logos has chosen a more productive approach. First, it allows plenty of space for putting up main ideas, which is another nice feature of the video lectures. Second, it makes for a nice clean presentation without a lot of clutter to distract. Third, background tastes change over time. The simpler, the better. Having come around to Logos’s way of thinking on this, I would still offer one suggestion: People who struggle with dyslexia and other learning disabilities frequently have more trouble with black type on white backgrounds. Logos should keep the background plain, but I would suggest using a different color to make reading easier.

While we are talking about the videos, I have had one problem with this particular course. Every video I watch jumps about, similar to the effect of someone poorly editing a piece of film. I thought this might be my internet connection (even though the program is loaded on my hard drive), so I have tried watching the videos both at home, and at the office. However the result was the same. Next, I downloaded all of the videos to a separate folder (not an easy task!) so that I could pull them up apart from the program. This time the videos seemed to work perfectly. This has left me a bit confused as to where the problem lies. My colleague, who has another Logos Mobile Ed course, has had no such problem with his program. So I don’t know whether the problem is with this particular course, or my particular download of this course, or some other factor. I would be interested to know if other Logos users have experienced a similar problem with this course.

Introducing Biblical Interpretation: Purpose and Content

Here is the purpose and objectives of the course in Michael Heiser’s own words:

Course Description

This course provides an introduction to the science and art of Bible interpretation, focusing on the importance of interpreting the Bible in its original ancient contexts. These contexts include the biblical writers’ ancient worldview, their historical circumstances, cultural and religious beliefs, the attitudes of their day, literary genre, and the original languages of the Bible. The course aims to foster an awareness of these contexts, all of which require competence for correct interpretation. Students are introduced to tools for developing competence in all these areas.

Course Outcomes

Upon successful completion you should be able to:

• Understand a variety of difficulties inherent to biblical interpretation

• Grasp the crucial role of context for biblical interpretation

• Comprehend the need for competence in various contexts—worldview, history, religion, literary—for accuracy in biblical interpretation

• Be aware of academic resources for recovering the contexts of the biblical writers

• Understand the differences in types of biblical commentaries

• Be acquainted with a range of biblical genres and literary devices

• Appreciate the role of literary genre in discovering the meaning of a biblical text

• Comprehend how word form and word relationships contribute to word meaning

To accomplish these goals, Heiser’s course is broken down into 6 sections. These are: 1. Obstacles to Interpretation; 2. Seeing the Bible in Context; 3. Worldview Context (by which he means background material such as history, culture, etc.); 4. Literary Context (examining the different types of literary material in the Bible. E.g., narrative, poetry, apocalyptic, etc.); 5. Linguistic Context; and 6. Application

Units 3 and 4 contain the largest amount of material. These units are interrupted by quizzes and a midterm and final exam. Thus, you have an opportunity to test yourself and see what you have learned.

Next time I will take a closer look at the contents of this course.

To order the Logos Mobile Ed course, Introducing Biblical Interpretation: Contexts and Resources, click this link.

For reviews on similar Logos Mobile Ed courses, see my colleague Lindsay Kennedy’s review at: mydigitalseminary.com

(Thanks to Logos who provided a copy of this course in exchange for an unbiased review)

Bible Backgrounds

Jews and Greeks in the First Century A.D.

October 7, 2014 randymccracken 20 Comments

Jews and Greeks in the New Testament

Even a casual reader of the New Testament cannot help but notice the frequent use of the expression “Jew and Greek.” To cite just a few examples, Paul writes that salvation is “for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Rom. 1:16); or, “Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:22-24); or, “There is neither Jew nor Greek…for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Although we might notice this language, it is easy to read over it without understanding its significance. In a previous post, I promised to demonstrate how Bible background knowledge (history, culture, language, etc.) can help illuminate our study of the Bible (see my article, “Bible Background Knowledge: Why is it Important, How does it Help?“). In this article I will provide some historical and cultural background that will not only demonstrate the importance of the “Jew and Greek” language used by New Testament writers, but will show how revolutionary the Christian message was as it sought to reconcile Jew and Greek into one body (the church).

Identity: Jews and Greeks

greek dress — Style of dress can be a marker of ethnic identity

The most elementary definition of identity might define a Jew as someone from Judea and a Greek as someone from Greece. This definition not only oversimplifies the problem, but it ignores the fact that by the first century A.D. Jews and Greeks were scattered across the Roman empire and beyond. The Assyrian and Babylonian captivities (722 B.C. and 586 B.C., respectively), had uprooted the ancient Israelites from their homeland and scattered them among other nations. Similarly, the conquest of Alexander the Great (333-321 B.C.) not only brought the spread of Greek culture and language, it also facilitated the movement and migration of Greeks throughout his empire. This means that by the first century, Jews and Greeks were living side by side in cities throughout the Roman Empire. How does a person maintain their ethnic identity when they are separated from their homeland over the span of many years and miles? Christopher Stanley (‘Neither Jew Nor Greek’: Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society, JSNT, 64, 1996, p. 111), identifies three important factors: 1) a belief in a shared history; 2) common culture (including language and religious beliefs); and 3) some form of physical difference (which could include bodily appearance, hairstyle, clothing, etc.).

For a Jew these 3 factors are easily identifiable. A Jew would, 1) identify with Israel’s history (the Exodus, the kingship, etc.); 2) believe in the one true God (keeping the Law by observing the Sabbath and the distinction between clean and unclean foods) and; 3) would practice circumcision. These distinctions, however, would not only apply to someone born of Israelite blood, but also to any foreigners who became proselytes (converts). Acts 2:10 mentions such proselytes. Similarly, a Greek came to mean more than just someone who was from Greece, but someone who had also adopted Greek (Hellenistic) culture, and spoke Greek. Ironically, it was these ethnic “identity markers” that could potentially attract or repel people in the other group.

Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and Barbarians

The terms “Gentile” and “Greek” are often used synonymously by scholars and sometimes by ancient authors. There is some support for linking these two words in Scripture, but it’s worth pointing out that the terms Gentile and Greek are not necessarily referring to the same people group. The word “Gentile” is from the word for “nations” and was used by Jews as a description of those who were outside of the covenant God had established with Israel. Therefore, in the eyes of a Jew, all Greeks were Gentiles, but, to be accurate, not all Gentiles were Greeks. Therefore, context should determine what is meant by these terms. For the purposes of this article, the words will usually refer to the same people group unless otherwise specified. In some cases Jewish use of the word “Gentile” was not meant derogatorily, but in other cases it was. When used derogatorily it could be shorthand for “sinner” (see Gal. 2:15; mention could also be made of the well-known rabinnic saying that God created the Gentiles in order to stoke the fires of hell). The point is that to speak of “gentiles” is a Jewish way of viewing the world. No other group in the Roman world would refer to themselves or others this way (although they might speak of other “nations” of course).

Famous painting of Alexander the Great's battle with Darius III of Persia. The Greeks viewed even the great Persian empire as barbarians. — Famous painting of Alexander the Great’s battle with Darius III of Persia. The Greeks viewed even the great Persian empire as barbarians.

Like the Jews, the Greeks also divided the world into two distinct populations. There were Greeks, and the rest who weren’t Greek were Barbarians. After all, considering the legacy of language, art, philosophy, politics, and culture, who in their right mind would not want to be Greek? This two-fold way of viewing the world by both Jews and Greeks reveals a deep-seated pride on the part of both groups. Commentaries have made us well-aware that the Jews could be capable of arrogance. In fact, “Phariseeism” in our day is synonymous with legalism and pride (although this is an oversimplification). What is often overlooked (although modern studies have come a long way in correcting this view), was that the Greeks could be just as arrogant concerning their culture and way of life. In other words, when it comes to pride and arrogance, there was plenty of blame to spread around whether one is talking about Jews or Greeks in the first century.

Conflict Between Jews and Greeks

Attitudes of arrogance and the natural human tendency toward viewing those outside our group as inferior, naturally leads to prejudice and conflict. But before discussing the differences between Jews and Greeks that led to conflict in the Roman world, it should be noted that many Jews adopted various facets of Hellenistic culture, including speaking Greek. In fact, following the conquest of Alexander the Great, it would have been impossible to not be affected in some way by Hellenistic culture. Indeed, some Jewish writers such as Josephus and Philo sought to explain Jewish beliefs and practices by appealing to Greeks using Greek terminology and philosophy. There were also Greeks, and other Gentiles, who spoke well of Judaism. This is further evidenced by the fact that some became proselytes, while others regularly attended synagogue being known as “God-fearers” (e.g., Acts 13:26). In spite of the attraction that some from each ethnic group had for the other, prejudice and conflict were a common response. As noted above, we are well-aware of Jewish prejudice toward Gentiles (including Greeks), therefore, I will focus on Greek/Gentile attitudes toward Jews (this includes the elite of Roman society who had become thoroughly Hellenized).

Ancient Greeks are famous for the glorification of the human body, well-evidenced in the statuary they have left behind. Greeks loved athletic competition and this competition took place in the nude. Circumcision was abhorrent to a Greek and considered to be a mutilation of the body. To demonstrate the detrimental effect that this Greek attitude could have on Jews, the writer of 1 Maccabees informs us that in the days preceding the Maccabean revolt some Jewish youths began to attend the gymnasium (a Greek institution) in Jerusalem, and sought to remove “the marks of circumcision” (1 Macc. 1:14-15). When the Greek King Antiochus Epiphanes IV enforced Hellenization of Judea and attempted to terminate Jewish religious practices, war was the inevitable result (168-163 B.C.). When Judea was taken over by the Romans (63 B.C.), Pompey desecrated the Temple by entering it and sent about 100,000 Jewish captives to Rome. Fortunately, the Jews also had some gracious Roman patrons, including Julius Caesar and Augustus, nonetheless, many well known ancient writers derided them for their beliefs and culture. For example, the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca said, “the way of life of this accursed group (the Jews) has gained such influence that it is now received throughout the world; the vanquished have given laws to their victors.” The Roman historian Tacitus wrote, “those who have gone over to their (the Jews) way of life follow the same practice, and the earliest lesson they receive is to despise the gods, to disown their country, and to regard their parents, children, and brothers as of little account” (both quotes are taken from Thomas H. Tobin, “Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, p. 24). Roman emperors twice expelled the Jews from Rome (once in 19 A.D. by Tiberius, and again in 49 A.D. by Claudius, see Acts 18:2). These examples could be multiplied, but they demonstrate the uneasy tension that existed between Jews and Greeks in the ancient world.

Violent conflict between Jews and Greeks erupted in many of the cities found on this map

An investigation of the period between 50 B.C. and 120 A.D. (a 170 year span), produces evidence that there was violent ethnic conflict between Jews and Greeks. This is an historical fact known to scholars, but not as familiar to lay people. Stanley (in the article cited above) categorizes this violence into 4 phases. Phase 1 occurred roughly between the years of 49 B.C. and 11 B.C. and was limited to western Asia minor (modern Turkey). Some of the troubled areas included Sardis (49 B.C.), Laodicea (46/45 B.C.), Ephesus (43 B.C.), and Cyrene in North Africa (13 B.C.). Phase 2 occurred between the years of 38 – 44 A.D. and centered in the areas of Egypt, Judea, Syria, and Babylonia. Some of the cities included Alexandria, Egypt (38-41 A.D.), Jamnia (39 A.D.), Dora (41 A.D.), and Philadelphia (44 A.D.) which are all areas within the boundaries of ancient Israel (referred to as Palestine by many scholars), and Syrian Antioch (39-40 A.D.). Phase 3 occurred during the years of the Jewish Revolt (66-73 A.D.) and encompassed all of Israel (Palestine), plus Alexandria, Cyrene, Antioch, and Damascus. Phase 4 occurred during the years of the Diaspora Revolt (115-117 A.D.) resulting in violent conflict in Jewish communities in North Africa and Mesopotamia (this info is taken from Stanley’s article, pp. 102-103).

The Significance of the Conflict Between Jews and Greeks

If you’ve stayed with me this long we’ve finally come to the point of this article. First, however, it has been necessary to sketch the historical and cultural background. If you look at the cities mentioned above where ethnic conflict and violence between Jews and Greeks was known to occur you will notice many familiar names found in the New Testament such as Ephesus, Sardis, Antioch, Damascus, Cyrene, etc. It is phenomenal to think that in the midst of this ethnic tension and hatred, often expressed through civic violence, that a group of Jewish believers were commissioned to take the gospel to the Greeks (and the rest of the Gentiles)! In fact, Paul, a former Pharisee, residing in the city of Antioch, which only a few years earlier had been at the center of one of these ethnic uprisings, is called by the Holy Spirit to a mission to the Gentiles (Acts 13:1-2)! That a former Pharisee would become an “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13) and would suffer greatly to see Greeks and others won for the kingdom of God, is a testament to God’s transforming power. That a movement consisting of Jews and Greeks in one body could maintain a bond of unity and peace, in a world where ethnic violence was the norm is a witness to the power of the gospel itself!

Gallio shows no concern for the Greeks who beat the ruler of the synagogue. (picture from thebiblerevival.com)

The violence between Jews and Greeks also sheds light on the narrative accounts of Acts. In every city that Paul travels to he begins in the synagogue. Some Jews believe, some Greeks believe and this volatile combination creates civic unrest for the remainder of the population. In Iconium some Jews and Greeks believe which causes unbelieving Jews to stir up a mob of Gentiles to persecute the fledgling church (Acts 14:1-5). This same scenario is repeated in cities throughout the Roman empire. In Philippi, Paul and Silas are dragged to the market place before the city authorities. The accusation brought against them is, “These men, being Jews, exceedingly trouble our city” (Acts 16:19-20). In Thessalonica when a “great multitude of devout Greeks” are converted, the unbelieving Jews become envious and stir up a mob (Acts 17:4-5). In Corinth another mob is stirred up against the disciples, but when the proconsul Gallio refuses to judge the case we are told, “Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat” (Acts 18:17). When one becomes aware of the violence between Jews and Greeks, these accounts recorded by Luke in the Book of Acts take on a sober realism. Relating this knowledge to the Book of Romans, Philip Esler, influenced by Stanley’s research, states, “This mutual hostility between Judeans and Greeks would have formed part of the living memories of most people to whom Paul wrote Romans, and some of them may have experienced it in other cities of the Mediterranean region” (Conflict and Identity in Romans, p. 75).

By becoming sensitive to the ethnic problems that existed between Jew and Greek, the above passages, as well as the ones mentioned at the beginning of this article, take on a richer and deeper meaning. This is just one example of how a study of Bible backgrounds can greatly enhance our understanding and appreciation of Scripture. In the next article, I will take a look at how Bible backgrounds can enhance our knowledge of the Book of Romans. (To read the follow up article, click here).

Helpful Suggestions for Bible Study, Motifs in Samuel

Biblical Narrative: How Motifs Enrich a Story

September 30, 2014 randymccracken 13 Comments

Biblical Narrative: The Use of Motifs

A Viking embroidery motif. Biblical narratives use a similar pattern of repetition. — A Viking embroidery motif. Biblical narratives often use imagery with similar patterns of repetition.

A motif is a recurring pattern or design, or a familiar image that is repeated in a piece of writing such as a biblical narrative. In my last post on “Helpful Suggestions for Bible Study,” I focused on the importance of paying attention to the details of a story (you can read that post here). Another detail that is often overlooked in Bible study is the recurrence of motifs within a story, or even a whole book. Biblical narratives commonly use motifs. These motifs spice up a story and not only increase the “entertainment” value of the story, but usually contribute to the understanding of an important theme, message, or character within the narrative. This is a “detail” worth pondering, and so I would like to take the opportunity in this article to look at various stories and the motifs found in them. With some stories, the reason for the motif is obvious. With other stories, the reason for the motif is more obscure. In this article I will explore the meaning of some motifs while asking all of you who read this blog to offer insights and suggestions about others. I hope you’ll join me by sharing your comments. So let’s have some fun exploring various motifs in biblical narratives and see what we might learn from them.

A stone becomes Jacob's pillow and that night God appears to him in a dream. — A stone becomes Jacob’s pillow and that night God appears to him in a dream.

Stones are a common motif in some biblical narratives. For example, the story of Jacob, in the Book of Genesis, frequently refers to them. When Jacob has his famous dream of the “ladder” that reaches from heaven to earth, we are told that he uses a stone for his pillow (Gen. 28:11). The following morning he takes the same stone and sets it up as a sacred pillar (yes, his pillow becomes a pillar) for a memorial of the occasion (Gen. 28:18, 22). The stone here is obviously a motif that suggests God’s provision, protection, and blessing on Jacob, as he flees from his brother Esau and goes to Syria where he will meet his future wives (Leah and Rachel) and encounter his diabolical uncle Laban, but it also suggests Jacob’s lack of certainty about God. Upon Jacob’s arrival in Syria (Paddan Aram), he comes to a well which has a large stone that covers it (Gen. 29:2). The narrator spends several verses talking about this stone and the shepherds’ reluctance to remove it quickly (Gen. 29:3, 8). However, when Rachel arrives on the scene and Jacob sees her for the first time, we are informed that he rolls the stone away by himself and waters the flocks (Gen. 29:10)! The contrast between the lazy shepherds and the energetic Jacob, the heaviness of the stone and the appearance of Rachel, seems to suggest that Jacob is showing a little machismo and flexing his muscles for the little beauty he has just met! In this case, the stone represents Jacob acting in the flesh. Up to this point in the story it must be admitted that Jacob relies on himself, rather than on God. Jacob secures Rachel as a wife by showing off, working hard, and bargaining with Laban (Gen. 29:18-19). It is all done in his own strength. By contrast, his father Isaac had received his wife through the fervent prayer of Abraham’s servant who sought God’s guidance each step of the way (Gen. 24). Jacob never prays about a wife. He flexes his muscles, works hard, and negotiates.

Stones are a biblical narrative motif. The heap of witness (Gen. 31:44-55) — The heap of witness (Gen. 31:44-55) One example of the use of stones in the biblical narrative of Jacob

After years of mistreatment at the hands of his father-in-law, stones reappear again in the story of Jacob as he and his family flee from Laban. The stones in this story represent a covenant (Gen. 31:44-46), but the covenant is based on hostility and mutual mistrust (Gen. 31:51-52). For Jacob they also appear to have the deeper meaning of recognizing God’s protection over him (Gen. 31:53). In Genesis 35, Jacob finally returns to Bethel (where he had his original dream). God appears to him and reiterates all of the promises He had made to Jacob. When God is finished speaking, the Scripture tells us that Jacob set up a “pillar of stone” to commemorate where God had talked with him (Gen. 35:14). This scene brings the story full-circle demonstrating both God’s faithfulness to Jacob and Jacob’s trust in God. The first stone pillar at Bethel (Gen. 28) was set up by a lying and deceitful Jacob who trusted in his own wits and strength. The final stone pillar at Bethel (Gen. 35) is set up by a Jacob who has learned humility, trust, and dependence on God. Jacob’s trust in God is declared one final time through this “stone” imagery. On his deathbed, as he is blessing his son Joseph, Jacob refers to God as “the stone of Israel” (Gen. 49:24). Thus by following the “stone” motif in the story of Jacob we can not only discover significant insights into the personality of Jacob, but we can discover the message of how God transforms a self-sufficient man into one who depends on Him.

Saul's spear was his constant companion and is an example of another literary motif in a biblical narrative. — Saul’s spear was his constant companion and is an example of another literary motif in a biblical narrative.

Another motif that Bible commentators frequently draw attention to is the spear of Saul. Following the story of David and Goliath, a spear becomes Saul’s constant companion (1 Sam. 18:10-11; 19:9-10; 20:33; 22:6; 26:7-22). Some wonder about the frequent reference to Saul’s spear but have no explanation for it. Others suggest that it is a sign of his kingship. To a certain extent this is true, but this insight needs to be taken further. The real key to understanding the significance of Saul’s spear is found in David’s statement to Goliath, “You come to me with a sword, a spear, and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts” (1 Sam. 17:45). Most significantly, David states, “Then all this assembly shall know that the Lord does not save with sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s, and He will give you into our hands” (1 Sam. 17:47). David’s statements to Goliath cast a shadow over one who puts his trust in a sword or a spear. As mentioned above, it is after these statements by David that the biblical narrative constantly draws attention to the spear that accompanies Saul. The spear becomes a symbol of Saul’s trust in the flesh and his lack of trust in God. This is especially clear when he attempts to use this spear to rid his kingdom of David, God’s anointed (1 Sam. 18:10-11; 19:9-10). Thus, Saul’s spear represents his conflict with God. By seeking to kill David, he is opposing God and God’s plan for the kingdom. This is part of the significance of David taking Saul’s spear (1 Sam. 26:7-22). God (through David) disarms Saul and demonstrates who the true king of Israel is. Reflecting on the people’s original request for a king (who turned out to be Saul), we are reminded that they asked for a king “to judge us like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5). Saul’s trust in his spear rather than in God, suggests that he is a king “like all the nations” and, therefore, the people got the kind of king that they asked for!

Biblical narrative: Samson sets the Philistine fields on fire. — Samson sets the Philistine fields on fire. Fire is a frequent motif in the biblical narrative of Samson.

Samson’s name is from the Hebrew word for “sun” and fire is a recurring motif in his story. When Samson’s wedding guests are not able to solve his riddle, they threaten to burn his wife and father-in-law with fire (Judg. 14:15). The most famous incident involving fire in connection with Samson is when he captures 300 foxes, ties torches to their tails and releases them into the fields of the Philistines to destroy their harvest (Judg. 15:5). In retaliation for this incident, the Philistines fulfill their threat against his former wife and father-in-law by burning them with fire (Judg. 15:6). After Samson responds by attacking more Philistines, they demand that the tribe of Judah hand him over. Samson agrees to allow his fellow-Israelites to tie him up, but when he is handed over to the Philistines we are told, “Then the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him; and the ropes that were on his arms became like flax that is burned with fire” (Judg. 15:14). Similarly, when Delilah ties Samson up with bowstrings and says “The Philistines are upon you Samson,” he breaks the bowstrings, “as a strand of yarn breaks when it touches fire” (Judg. 16:9). What we are to make of all of these references about fire, and Samson’s name (which actually means “little sun” or “sunny”) is uncertain. However, fire is clearly a motif of the story. Because many in the ancient world worshipped the sun, some see Samson’s name in a negative light (no pun intended!). Certainly, he was the worst of the Judges. But in spite of his self-indulgent ways, he does bring partial deliverance to Israel. The fire motif is connected with this theme of deliverance from the Philistines. So what should we make of this motif in the story of Samson? I would be interested in hearing what some of you think.

I find the motifs of various biblical narratives an interesting way to approach Bible study. I’ve even thought of one day writing a book on some of the motifs of 1&2 Samuel. We have already looked at the motif of the spear in 1 Samuel. Let me conclude this article by mentioning two more. The motif of feet and lameness appears in the early chapters of 2 Samuel. Asahel is said to be “fleet of foot” (2 Sam. 2:18), while David laments the death of Abner by stating, “Your hands were not bound; Nor your feet put into fetters” (2 Sam. 3:34). In 2 Samuel 4:4 we are introduced to Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth who is “lame in both feet.” In 2 Samuel 5 when David attacks Jerusalem, the Jebusites taunt him by saying “You shall not come in here; but the blind and the lame will repel you” (2 Sam. 5:6). More talk about the blind and the lame continues in 2 Sam. 5:8. By the end of 2 Samuel 9, Mephibosheth, the man lame in both feet, is sitting at the king’s table (2 Sam. 9:13).

Mephibosheth, the man lame in both feet, eats at the king's table. — Mephibosheth, the man lame in both feet, eats at the king’s table.

Speaking of the king’s table, another very interesting motif that runs through the biblical narrative of 1&2 Samuel, is the motif of eating and not eating. This motif is so widespread that I will only mention a few examples (for a fun study, see how many others you can find!). In 1 Samuel 1:8 Hannah refuses to eat. In 1 Samuel 2, Eli and his sons cannot help but eat everything in sight, including the sacrificial meat that belongs to God (1 Sam. 2:12-17; 27-30). There is definitely a contrast being made between Hannah who refuses to eat what she is entitled to, and Eli and his sons, who eat what they are not entitled to. Other examples include: Saul putting the army under a vow of fasting until he defeats the Philistines, but Jonathan eats some honey unaware of Saul’s command (1 Sam. 14:24-30); Jonathan refusing to eat at the table with Saul because he is grieved over Saul’s desire to kill David (1 Sam. 20:34); Saul’s visit to the “witch” at Endor where he is persuaded to eat after initially refusing (1 Sam. 28:20-25); as noted above, Mephibosheth is invited to eat continually at King David’s table (2 Sam. 9:7-13); David refuses to eat as he prays for the child that Bathsheba has given birth to, but once the child dies, David eats (2 Sam. 12:16-23); and Amnon requests food from his sister Tamar, but then refuses to eat it (2 Sam. 13:5-11). These are only a few of the many stories that contain the theme of eating and not eating in 1&2 Samuel. This motif seems to have different meanings depending on the context and I look forward to exploring it in more depth in the future. Meanwhile, if you have any thoughts regarding this motif or others not mentioned in this article, I would welcome hearing them.

Hopefully this brief survey of a few of the motifs in biblical narrative will encourage you in your Bible study. The Bible speaks at many different levels and motifs can be an interesting way of entering into the meaning of a story.

Interviews, Violence in the Old Testament

Robert B. Chisholm Jr’s Comments on Violence in the Old Testament

September 25, 2014 randymccracken Leave a comment

Robert B. Chisholm Jr’s Comments on Violence in the Old Testament

This past summer I had the pleasure of conducting an interview with Robert B. Chisholm Jr., department chair and professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. The interview was primarily about his new commentary on 1&2 Samuel (you can see the entire interview here). However, I did take the opportunity to ask him about his views on Violence in the Old Testament. As part of my on-going series, I thought I would repost his comments on this topic. Bob’s comments particularly focus on the idea of justice and the biblical concept “you reap what you sow” (see my treatment of this idea here). I have reproduced Bob’s comments as they originally appeared in the interview. The only change I have made is to include Scripture references that were not part of the original interview so that the interested reader does not need to look them up. If it’s been awhile since you’ve read these comments, or if you’ve never read the entire interview, I hope you enjoy the following recap.

Here is my question followed by Bob’s answer.

I am currently writing a series of articles on my website entitled “Violence in the Old Testament.” This seems to be an important topic given the publications of books by the “new atheists” such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins. Christians are often embarrassed about the violence in the Old Testament and many shy away from reading and studying it. I know this is a big topic but do you have any comments you’d like to share on this subject, especially as it relates to the books of 1&2 Samuel?

This is also a topic of great interest for me and I hope to do more writing on it in the days ahead. At the 2011 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, I delivered a paper entitled: Fighting Yahweh’s Wars: Some Disturbing Acts of Violence in Judges-Samuel. It should be published soon; I’m still working on the logistics of where. I study six different episodes where God endorses violence. I am not as apologetic as some and prefer to give God the benefit of the doubt. It’s a messy fallen world filled with a lot of evil people and sometimes God rolls up his sleeves, so to speak, and enters into the fray as the just Warrior-King. Here’s the conclusion to my paper: A close reading of these six accounts reveals that in each case the act of violence involved the implementation of divine justice against the object. In two instances (Adoni-Bezek–Judg. 1:5-7, and Agag–1 Sam. 15:32-33) an individual was treated in a way that mirrored his crimes against others. In four cases a people group (the Amalekites–1 Sam. 15) or representatives of a people group (the Moabite king Eglon–Judg. 3:14-25, the Canaanite general Sisera–Judg. 4-5, the thirty Philistines murdered by Samson–Judg. 14:15-19) were, at least from Yahweh’s perspective, the objects of violent acts of justice in response to crimes committed or intended (in the case of Sisera) against Israel. In Goliath’s case (1 Sam. 17), David refused to view the Philistine’s taunt as simply a verbal assault against Israel’s army. Yahweh identifies with his people and so he was the ultimate target of the Philistine’s slander. Consequently, David’s victory over Goliath was an act of justice that vindicated Yahweh’s honor by punishing a blasphemer.

Though these violent acts are disturbing at an emotional level, they are, as acts of justice, gratifying at a deeper, more elemental level. Ultimately, it is not worth living in a world in which there is no justice. Such a place would be nothing more than a jungle in which superior strength breeds arrogance and evil, and the strong take what they want, dishing out pain and suffering with reckless abandon. But justice, to truly be justice, must be implemented fully and appropriately. To use a contemporary example, when the Harry Potter saga finally reaches its climax, Nagini, Bellatrix Lestrange, and, of course, Voldemort cannot just die; they must be killed the “right way” for justice to be satisfied and for some sense of moral equilibrium to be realized. Bellatrix cannot be pitied as long as the image of a dying Dobby persists in the mind’s eye.

So it is in the biblical story: Those who cut off the thumbs of others or make mothers childless eventually discover that what goes around comes around. Those who attack, oppress, and abuse Yahweh’s people eventually pay the price in “the right way.” Those who dare defy the living God and challenge him to step into the arena may end up a decapitated torso. And though the scene may make one want to vomit, in the end the image prompts a sigh of relief and more. As the psalmist declares: “The godly will rejoice when they see vengeance carried out; they will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then observers will say, ‘Yes indeed, the godly are rewarded! Yes indeed, there is a God who judges the earth!’” (Ps. 58:10-11) In conclusion I leave you with this scene: “Then I saw heaven opened and here came a white horse! The one riding it was called ‘Faithful’ and ‘True,’ and with justice he judges and goes to war” (Rev. 19:11). Even so, come Lord Jesus!

For a list of some of Robert B. Chisholm Jr’s works click on the links here for Amazon USA / UK

Bible Backgrounds, Book Reviews, Commentaries

The IVP Bible Background Commentary Part 2: Genesis – Kings

September 23, 2014 randymccracken Leave a comment

The IVP Bible Background Commentary Part 2: Genesis – Kings

THE IVP BIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTARY: Old Testament. By John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. 832 pages. Available at Amazon USA / UK

In my first review (which you can read by clicking here), I looked at the overall purpose and scope of the IVP Bible Background Commentary. In this review, I will focus on some of the interesting insights that can be learned by using this resource. Because of the sheer volume of material, I have chosen to focus on the Books of Genesis through 2 Kings. In a future review, I will look at the sections concerning the Psalms and Wisdom literature, as well as the Prophets.

Cultural Insights from the Ancient Near East

Since this is a commentary on Bible backgrounds, one expects information that provides insight into the culture of the ancient Near East. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, is loaded with wonderful insights that the ordinary Bible reader would be unfamiliar with. Moderns may think that the practice of polygamy in the ancient world was simply to satisfy the sexual desires of the male, but there were other motivating factors as well: “1) an imbalance in the number of males and females; 2) the need to produce large numbers of children to work herds and / or fields; 3) the desire to increase prestige and wealth of a household through multiple marriage contracts; and 4) the high rate of death of females in childbirth” (comment on Gen. 4:19, p. 34 and 1 Sam. 1:2, p. 281). Although this insight doesn’t justify polygamy, it does demonstrate some of the cultural factors that led to the practice.

From the movie "The Ten Commandments," Moses (Charlton Heston) and his father-in-law Jethro. — From the movie “The Ten Commandments,” Moses (Charlton Heston) and his father-in-law Jethro.

One interesting problem that the commentary resolves concerns the supposedly different names for Moses’s father-in-law. Was his name Jethro (Exod. 3:1), Reuel (Exod. 2:18), or Hobab (Judg. 4:11)? Did one man really have 3 names, or as some more sceptical scholars suggest, are 3 contradictory sources being used? The authors explain that, “The difficulty can be resolved once the ambiguity of the terminology is recognized. The term designating male in-laws is nonspecific. The term referred to a woman’s male relatives and could be used for her father, brother, or even grandfather” (comment on Exod. 3:1, p. 79). The authors suggest that Reuel may be the grandfather, Jethro the father (of Moses’s wife Zipporah), and Hobab a brother-in-law of Moses, or some other such combination.

<img class=” wp-image-961″ src=”https://www.biblestudywithrandy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/joshua.png” alt=”An account by Sargon II has similarities to Joshua 10:11 ” width=”173″ height=”213″ /> An account by Sargon II has similarities to Joshua 10:11

Other insights are provided by a brief discussion of the ancient Near East’s concept of corporate responsibility and how Achan’s sin impacted his whole family, not to mention the entire nation (comment on Josh. 7:1, pp. 218-219). A description of palace architecture also helps the reader better understand Ehud’s assassination of the Moabite king Eglon, and how he managed to escape (comment on Judg. 3:23, pp. 248-249). The authors also frequently quote from ancient texts that have similarities to biblical accounts. For example, one ancient Near Eastern text that comes from Sargon II, king of Assyria “reports that in his campaign against Urartu (714 B.C.) the god Adad stormed against his enemies with ‘stones from heaven’ and so annihilated them” (p. 225). This is reminiscent of the Lord’s intervention for Joshua against the kings of Canaan (Josh. 10:11).

The "witch" at Endor (1 Sam. 28) — The “witch” at Endor (1 Sam. 28)

One very interesting feature relates to an understanding of life after death in the ancient Near East. The authors discuss the strange story of the medium at Endor summoning Samuel at the request of Saul, after Samuel had died (1 Sam. 28). They comment, “This specialist from Endor used a ritual pit to conjure up the spirits of the dead….The pits were believed to be magical portals through which spirits could pass between the realms of the living and the dead. The practitioner was one who had special knowledge of the location of such a pit and who was familiar with the procedures necessary to summon the dead” (comment on 1 Sam. 28:7, p. 318). Of course, this doesn’t mean that the woman conjured up Samuel through her own power, but it does give insight into the ancient beliefs and practices involved. A comment on 1 Kings 16:4 regarding the fate of King Baasha of Israel and his family is also enlightening. The passage states that the king and his family members will be eaten by dogs if they die in the city or by birds if they die in the fields. The authors comment, “most ancient peoples believed that proper, timely burial affected the quality of the afterlife….We know that even Israelites believed that proper burial affected one’s afterlife, because they, like their neighbors, buried their loved ones with the provisions that would serve them in the afterlife; most often pottery vessels (filled with food) and jewelry (to ward off evil), with tools and personal items sometimes added” (p. 373).

IVP Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Old Testament: Limitations

Me hanging out with Philistines at Tel es-Safi (Gath).

The authors frequently site knowledge that is available through archaeology. This could be regarding certain cities, or artefacts. For example, when speaking of the Tabernacle (2 Sam. 6:17, p. 332), the discovery of a Midianite tent shrine that dates from the 12th century B.C. is noted. While this is interesting information, it also points up a shortcoming in the commentary. A photo of such discoveries would be helpful (or a reference where further info and pictures might be found). Additionally, it is the archaeological information contained in the commentary that particularly cries out for a new updated edition. For example, when the Philistine city of Gath is mentioned in the text, the authors constantly remind us that there has been no archaeological work done at this site (see e.g., the comment on 1 Sam. 27:2, p. 317). However, this is no longer the case. In fact, excavations have been going on at Tel es-Safi (biblical Gath) since 1996 with many fascinating discoveries made (see my article on Philistine cities here).

Although the authors have intentionally omitted the use of references for the sake of the average reader, still the lack of references hurt the commentary. Besides the Midianite tent shrine mentioned above, there are many places that references would be extremely helpful, even for the average reader. For example, there is a brief discussion of the problem of the date of the Exodus on page 86. Although the article gives the basic outline of the problems involved, it is still very general. The curious reader, however, is not left with any suggestions on how to pursue a deeper treatment of the subject.

The commentary is also full of repetition. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be quite helpful to have information at your fingertips rather than being told to go to another place in the commentary to find it. The problem is the authors do both. For example, whole sections of the commentary on 1&2 Kings refer the reader to 2 Chronicles. Again, if this was the practice throughout the commentary, I would have no problem with it. In fact, it would shorten the commentary considerably and might allow for the photos and references that I believe would be helpful. My complaint is that the decision to repeat information (sometimes 3, 4 or more times), while at other times saying, “see such ‘n such” for information on this passage, seems arbitrary.

Evaluation of Genesis – 2 Kings, IVP Bible Background Commentary

In spite of the shortcomings I have mentioned, I believe this commentary is extremely useful and informative. Besides simply providing a review, I have attempted to show the reader some of the interesting insights available. Other helpful features include geographical information (stating how far it is from one place to another, or what the terrain is like). This can raise important issues for interpretation. For example, what are we to make of the fact that Saul’s hometown is only a short distance away from Samuel’s hometown, and yet Saul had never heard of Samuel! (comments on 1 Sam. 9:6, p. 293). Other helpful explanations include the value of different types of money (shekels, etc.), the times of year represented by the names of various months, and the meaning of certain political or military offices (e.g., the Assyrian official known as Tartan means “field marshal, 2 Kgs. 18:17, p. 405). Although I am hopeful that an update on the Old Testament volume will be forthcoming from IVP (as the New Testament one which appeared this year), I would still heartily recommend this commentary as a source of valuable information in better understanding the Bible and the ancient Near East.

(A copy of this commentary has been provided for the reviewer in exchange for a fair and unbiased review. Many thanks to the publishers at IVP!)