Category Archives: Bible Bites [Exegesis]

This category includes all posts that are primarily about exegesis (biblical interpretation), except for posts already included in the Church Chat category.

Bible Bites [Exegesis]

Who Judged After Samson? Eli or Samuel?

7 Comments

A friend just asked a question about the upcoming Sunday School lesson (Christian Light Publications). The topic is rather technical and not obviously important, but I’m posting it here for those want SS input.

[First: I edited my last post about Romans 14:22 and the topic of keeping our convictions secret. A closer look at commentaries and textual details revealed my thinking was incomplete. My conclusions didn’t change much, but a few of you might find the exegetical trail educational, as I did.]

 The Question

Who was the judge that succeeded Samson? Was it Samuel or Eli? …Some say Eli was a High Priest and never filled roles that the Judge did. Some day Samuel was possibly placed in the judge position within days of Samson’s death….others say no, that was Eli. Samuel only served as judge for approx 10 years of his life. I suppose these things don’t really matter….. but I am interested in the setting historically and politically.

And a follow-up:

The Bible says Samuel judged all of his life. Some say the Bible can’t mean that literally… That he could only have judged 10 years. [But] if Eli was only the high priest then Samuel could have judged all his life.

My Answer

Introductory comments:

  • I think both Eli and Samuel should be considered as judges. You already mentioned that Samuel is called this. Eli is, too: “As soon as he mentioned the ark of God, Eli fell over backward from his seat by the side of the gate, and his neck was broken and he died, for the man was old and heavy. He had judged Israel forty years.” (1 Sam. 4:18). I suppose we could debate about what is meant by the word “judge(d),” and it seems like it didn’t mean exactly the same thing for everyone who bore that title. But both Eli and Samuel are called that, and at minimum I think it means that they were recognized as important leaders.
  • The question of whether it was Eli or Samuel who succeeded Samson is complicated by questions about the chronology of the judges in the book of Judges, and by whether the events of that book ended before the events of 1 Samuel, or whether there was overlap.

[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0825425565]So, based on the research of Robert B. Chisholm Jr., as presented in his [amazon text=big 2013 commentary on Judges and Ruth&asin=0825425565], here are some possible chronologies:

  • Philistines oppress Israel 40 yrs (Jg 13:1) — 1110-1070
  • Samson judges Israel 20 yrs (Jg 15:20) — Sometime between 1110-1070
  • Eli judges Israel 40 yrs (1 Sam 4:18) — 1130-1090
  • Philistines capture the ark (1 Sam 4:11) — 1090
  • Ark is at Kiriath-Jearim 20 yrs (1 Sam 7:2) — 1090-1070
  • Samuel defeats Philistines and judges Israel (1 Sam 7) — 1070-1050
  • Samuel anoints Saul, continuing as prophet (1 Sam 10) — 1050

That chronology assumes overlap between Judges and 1 Samuel, as you can see. I won’t try to explain why, because it’s super technical and I haven’t tried to understand it!

Another scheme (preferred by Chisholm) does not assume overlap between Judges and 1 Samuel. (It has the judges of Judges overlapping instead.) It goes like this:

  • Philistines oppress Israel 40 yrs (Jg 13:1) — 1190-1150
  • Samson judges Israel 20 yrs (Jg 15:20) — 1150-1130
  • The rest is the same, with Eli taking over from Samson at 1130.

So, to answer your question, the first scheme has Samson judging until the time of Samuel, and the second has Eli taking over from Samson. Good scholars argue both ways. Take your pick!

A quote from Chisholm:

Eli served as a judge for forty years (1 Sam. 4:18), but it is possible that this period was concurrent with one (Samson) or more of the final judges. Earlier we argued against overlapping periods for the judges because the expressions ‘again did evil’ and ‘after him’ most naturally indicate chronological succession. However, the notation about the length of Eli’s tenure is not part of this chronological sequence. (pg. 41)

Then, in a footnote:

In the overall structure of the history, 1 Samuel follows the epilogue of Judges (chapters 17-21), which is not in chronological sequence with the central section of the book… So, it is possible the incidents recorded in the early chapters of 1 Samuel, like those recorded in Judges 17-21, occurred during the judges period. 1 Samuel begins with an introductory formula that is similar to the introductory formula in Judges 17:1 [“Now there was a man from X whose name was Y”], suggesting they are linked at the macrostructural or discourse level. (pg. 41)

For reasons that have to do with the chronology within Judges itself, however, Chisholm prefers the scheme where Judges and 1 Samuel do not overlap.

One more comment: I would understand the statement that Samuel judged “all the days of his life” (1 Sam. 7:15) to mean that he judged from that point onward, not from birth. Even after the arrival of the kings, Samuel remained an important and recognized national leader. After all, he was the one who anointed both Saul and David. At his death “all Israel assembled and mourned for him” (1 Sam. 25:1).

A few of us will find it fascinating to puzzle over historical details like this, and I’m glad some of us do. Hopefully we can all agree, however, that both Judges and 1 Samuel clearly show that God is the one controlling the timetables of history, raising up and removing leaders. The lives of Samson, Eli, and Samuel all make this abundantly clear. Perhaps that is something you want to ponder in your SS classes?

Post your comments below!

 

Bible Bites [Exegesis]

Should You Keep Your Convictions Secret? (Romans 14:22)

11 Comments

[Editorial comments added Nov. 5, 2014.]

While reading through Romans in the NIV this morning I came across chapter 14, verse 22:

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. (NIV)

(This verse is part of an extended passage where Paul instructs the believers at Rome on how to handle their disagreements about whether they should observe Jewish holy days and dietary laws.)

What does it mean to keep something between yourself and God? It would be fun to stop and poll you on this question. When I hear that sentence, I hear Paul encouraging us to keep our own convictions secret between us and God, without telling others what we believe.  Several other translations make this idea explicit:

 You should keep your beliefs about these things a secret between yourself and God. (ERV)

Your beliefs about these things should be kept secret between you and God. (EXB)

Your beliefs about these things should be kept secret between you and God. (NCV)

Several other translations soften the “secret” language but still lean in the same direction:

Keep the belief that you have to yourself—it’s between you and God. (CEB)

You may know that there is nothing wrong with what you do, even from God’s point of view, but keep it to yourself; don’t flaunt your faith in front of others who might be hurt by it. (TLB)

You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. (NLT)

What does it mean to “keep” something? As I read the NIV this morning, I realized the word “keep” has a range of meanings. To give only two examples: Keep can mean “to refrain from divulging.” But it can also mean “to be faithful to; fulfill.” To keep a promise and to keep a secret involve two different kinds of keeping.

So is Paul saying we should “refrain from divulging” our personal convictions? Or is he saying we should “be faithful to and fulfill” our personal convictions? The two will look very different at times. (Or is he saying something else?) [Edit: I’m committing an interpretive error here, importing ideas into Greek from an English word, without demonstrating from other examples that the Greek word itself sometimes carries the idea. See the comments below where I refine my conclusions in this post a little and consider other interpretive possibilities.]

When we examine the Greek, we discover that the word translated “keep” in the NIV actually occurs two times in this sentence. You’d never guess it from the NIV:

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. (NIV)

You might guess it from the ESV, but it’s still unclear:

 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. (ESV)

The KJV, though it turns the first phrase into a question, shows the repeated word clearly:

Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. (KJV)

In the Greek we find two different forms of the same verb: ἔχω (echō), translated in the KJV both times as “have.”  This verb is extremely common, occurring 708 times in the New Testament. The basic gloss or core definition (according to Mounce) is “to have, hold, keep.”

Words like ἔχω have a range of meanings in various contexts. But when the same word appears within the same context–indeed, within the same sentence–it normally carries the same meaning. I can’t see any good reason to translate ἔχω two different ways here. Can you? [Edit: I’m on the verge of another interpretive error here, for the immediate phrase in which the second ἔχω is found does indeed open the door to some variation in meaning. I should at least consider this possibility. See below.]

I think the NASB communicates Paul’s probable intent quite clearly here:

The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. (NASB)

The NRSV also does well here–better than it’s younger, conservative ESV sister:

The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God. (NRSV)

Several other translations also express this idea well:

As for the faith you do have, have it as your own conviction before God. (ISV)

The faith that you have, have with respect to yourself before God. (LEB)

Phillip’s translation strangely turns a command into a statement of fact without telling us what to do about it. Otherwise, it’s pretty good:

Your personal convictions are a matter of faith between yourself and God. (Phillips)

Eugene Peterson’s paraphrase isn’t very literal but, given the context of the entire passage, it expresses Paul’s desire well:

Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don’t impose it on others. (The Message)

Here’s what I think Paul is saying in this verse: I think he is returning to an idea he emphasized earlier in the chapter, when he said that each of us lives to the Lord (Rom. 14:8). Whatever conviction we hold on disputable matters, we should be faithful to that conviction and live it in honor of the Lord (Rom. 8:6). We should not judge or despise each other as we do this, for “we will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Rom. 14:10). Paul is urging us to turn our critical eye inward, away from others, focusing instead on our own accountability before God. Here’s how Paul continues the thought that he began in our key sentence: “Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever had doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Rom. 14:22). Rather than destroying the work of God in your brother’s life (Rom. 14:20), Paul says, be sure you are honoring God in your own life. [Edit: Despite my oversights above, I still think this is a likely understanding of Paul’s intent. See Kruze in my comments below.]

Here’s what I don’t think Paul is saying in this verse: I don’t think he is saying that we should never voice our convictions on disputable matters. First, this seems to be stretching the meaning of the word ἔχω in this passage, which, I believe, probably means “have” or “observe” rather than “keep hidden.” [Edit: Again, see comments below for more nuance.] Second, Paul himself expresses his belief about disputable matters very clearly in this passage: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom. 14:14). In case we missed it, he repeats his conviction later: “Everything is indeed clean” (14:15). Paul is less concerned that everyone agree with his conviction on this point than that they learn to live together in love. But he does think it is helpful to state what he believes. Why would he turn about and command us not to do what he has just done?

No, we should not try to force others to live according to our own beliefs. Nor should we speak or live in any way that will “offend” our brother–that is, cause him to violate his own beliefs. Nor should we be known for harshly announcing our opinions every time a disputable matter arises. But there is a time to lovingly explain our convictions when we disagree with each other, to teach the things that we are fully convinced of in our own minds. [Edit: I still fully agree with my conclusions here!]

What do you think? Tell us what you believe in the comments below!

Bible Bites [Exegesis]

If You’re Not a Berean, Who Might You Be?

4 Comments

Be a Berean! This is a common encouragement among Bible-loving Christians. But what does this mean? Why is it important to be a Berean? And what is the alternative to being a Berean?

The term “Berean” comes, of course, from Acts 17:11-12, which records what happened when Paul and his band arrived in Berea on his second missionary journey:

11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. (ESV)

The most common way that I recall hearing these verses used goes something like this: “Be a Berean! Test what you hear by the Scriptures. Don’t believe everything you hear from every radio preacher. Don’t base your theology on what you read online. Don’t let commentaries determine what you believe. In fact, even when your own pastor teaches you something, don’t believe it without testing it first. Don’t be gullible! Test everything by the Scriptures!”

While I heartily agree with this exhortation, I don’t think it’s the most direct implication of what Luke (the author of Acts) records in our passage. Let’s reconsider these verse by examining their literary context.

According to Luke, whom were the Bereans more noble than? The Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonians. More precisely, the Jews in Berea were more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica.

So, in this situation, what was the alternative to being a Berean? What was the problem with the Jews in Thessalonica? We find the answer in the preceeding passage. The problem with the majority of the Thessalonican Jews is that they refused to believe Paul’s proclamation about Christ. Paul “reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead” (17:2-3). He did this over “three Sabbath days” (17:2). What was the response of the Jews? “Some of them were persuaded” (17:4). But the majority of them “were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob” (17:5). They dragged Paul’s converts before the city authorities and shouted denunciations against Paul and his coworkers: “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also” (17:6).

In short, the problem with the Thessalonian Jews was not gullibility, but unbelief. Despite Paul’s careful exposition of Scripture–reasoning, explaining and proving everything he claimed based on the Jew’s own Scriptures, the Jews still refused to believe.

Why didn’t these Thessalonian Jews believe? I think we find an answer in verse 5: “the Jews were jealous.” They didn’t like how Paul was turning their world upside down. They refused to believe for the same reason the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem refused to believe Jesus (see 1 Thess. 2:14-16)–because believing would have meant loss of prestige and power.

So, what about us? What implications might this passage have for us today? Here are several I’d like to suggest–two exhortations and three theological truths.

Two exhortations:

  1. Don’t be a Thessalonian. Don’t reject gospel truth without giving Scripture a fair hearing. Don’t let a desire to preserve prestige and power keep you from believing the Good News. Don’t prevent the gospel from turning your world upside down! What about the truth that good works are the fruit and not the root of our salvation; have we let this good news shake our world? What about the truth that God the Holy Spirit dwells in his people, empowering victorious living and manifesting himself in a multitude of “natural” and “supernatural” gifts; have we examined the Scriptures and let our hearts believe? (What gospel truths do you think we might be in danger of rejecting?)
  2. Do be a Berean. When you hear someone proclaim good news, take time to examine it by Scripture. Don’t be surprised or alarmed if the gospel sounds like good news. Examine the Scriptures “daily.” If what you hear passes the Scripture test–that is, it is “necessary” according to Scripture (and certainly not everything does pass this test), then accept it “not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). Believe it and let it turn your world upside down, even if it means rejection and “suffer[ing]… things from your own countrymen” (1 Thess. 2:14).

Three theological truths:

  1. Faith and reason are friends. Christian faith is rooted in reasoned, Scriptural evidence. True faith is not opposed to reason. It is not opposed to explanation and proof. It is not opposed to diligent Scriptural study. Notice the cause-and-effect link in our passage: The Bereans examined the Scriptures daily, and “therefore” many of them believed (17:12). Rational investigation is encouraged in Scripture and can lead to a strengthened faith. (In this case the rational investigation was of Scripture; in other places investigation of historical evidence is also encouraged.)
  2. Trust in Scripture is a friend to trust in Jesus. If the Bereans had not taken time to examine Scripture, they would not have accepted the gospel message Paul was proclaiming. But when they saw that Paul’s message was “necessary” (17:3) according to Scriptural evidence (that is, what Paul said had happened to Jesus was the perfect and necessary unfolding of the prophecies and typologies found in Scripture), they believed. It was the Berean’s prior trust in Scripture that prepared them to trust in Jesus. Those today who erode trust in Scripture are, by intention or not, also eroding trust in Jesus–even if the results of such erosion are not always evident for a generation or two.
  3. Heart condition determines our response to gospel truth. This observation opens difficult questions related to the order of salvation. (Which comes first? Our faith in Christ, or God’s work of regenerating our hearts?) But laying aside such discussions for the moment, notice the evidence in our passage. Both the Thessalonians and the Bereans possessed the Scriptures. They both heard the Scriptures explained by Paul. But one group was “jealous” (17:5) while the other “received the word with all eagerness” (17:11). And so, in the first group “some of them were persuaded” (17:4), while in the second group “many of them… believed” (17:12). Some versus many. Only hearts delivered from jealousy and self-preservation are prepared to believe the fullness of the Good News.

So, let’s be Bereans! Let’s be “gullible” enough to let Scriptural evidence convince us that all the riches of the gospel are true. Then let’s go out and imitate those who have willingly suffered for the sake of the word of God.