Back to Christian Resources & Links
Back to The Moose's Lair.
As with the study on the Patriarchs this came from the defunct "The Bibliophobe's Guide to the Old Testament".
The Book of Judges relates the events in the history of Israel from shortly after they had (imperfectly) taken possession of Canaan, through to the recognition of the role first of Samuel as prophet over all Israel and thence to the establishment of the monarchy. It has been likened to the Dark Ages of Jewish history. After the death of Joshua (Moses' successor) and all those of the generation that had entered the land things went downhill. Its theme could be summed up as God's continuing love and rule over Israel, even in its disobedience. There was no appointed unitary leader, either because there was no-one suitable, or due to the scattering of the people through the land, or both. Without leadership the people drifted away from correct observance, and the suggestion that the Law had not yet been committed to writing might be seen in this. The period was marked by:
i) compromises (1: 27 - 33; 2: 1 - 3), where the commands to dispossess the inhabitants were not fulfilled (either through laziness or inability), and
ii) apostasy, (2: 11 - 15; 6: 8 - 10), not so much failing to follow God's commands as actually doing what they'd been told not too.
What do we mean by judges? In the context of the Hebrew used here a judge is not purely a legal figure, nor as some have suggested only a military figure. Descriptions might include 'tribal chief' or 'petty warlord'. A judge combined the elements of authority in legal and military disputes with that of wider leadership, and the word used is similar to that describing the function of chief magistrate. They form a natural link between the single leaders of the Exodus stage and the kings, although their authority was probably limited in extent. There are various ways of accounting for the total; 12, or 13, (depending on whether Deborah is given equal standing with Barak!). Six (or seven) are regarded as 'major', and may have held sway over much of Israel as 'hero-liberators', while the remaining six are held to be 'minor', and probably limited to certain tribal areas.
Judges cover perhaps some 350 years of history; from around 1400 B.C. to 1050 B.C. would constitute a reasonable estimate. In the Hebrew Bible the book is taken as one of the prophetic books, dealing with God's relations with His people, rather than as a piece of history as in the Christian tradition. Traditionally it is credited to Samuel, and could be the product of one of his associates (before 1020 B.C.), while others suggest that it could have been compiled in a similar manner to the Pentateuch, grouping together much older stories under the influence of, and therefore later than, Deuteronomy. This would make the book post-Exilic.
Vocation
11: 1 - 11
v.1 - 3 Jephthah was the son of a local notable, but has the misfortune to be discriminated against by his half-brothers, on account of his mother's status (cf. to Ishmael's problems in Gen. 21). The upshot is that to all intents and purposes he becomes an outlaw, or bandit, gathering others who bear grudges to his side. The term 'adventurer' is open to many interpretations, but the meaning is not a positive one, better expressed by other versions. (The AV refers to them as 'vain men', RSV as 'worthless fellows' and the Tanakh as men of 'low character'!) The presence of such men in the country is in itself evidence that there was a large amount of social upheaval occurring at the time.
v.4 - 6 He obviously made a name for himself, because when the crunch came the leaders of the region that had driven him out requested his aid. Not surprisingly Jephthah is somewhat scathing, and makes a request that is in effect that he become king of the tribe in all but name.
v. 8 - 10 This event might also shed some light on how other judges were chosen - not necessarily for holiness of lifestyle or piety, but in the hard practicalities of the need for a good fighter and an experienced leader. Nowhere are we told of a direct call from God. The request comes simply from those in need and serves to show that God can raise up people to work for His purposes in ways less obvious, and easier to contest, than a voice from heaven. Samson had a call on his life too (13: 3 - 5), but was far from being a paragon of virtue.
v.11 Before the centralisation of priestly authority in Israel it appears that there were a number of centres for worship and ritual (see also Josh. 22). Mizpah probably served as the holy focus for Gilead (which was allotted to the tribe of Gad). There solemn vows were made before God that Jephthah would indeed become chief.
Victory and a vow.
11: 29 - 40
v.29ff God empowered Jephthah, and therefore accepted the choice of the people of Gilead. Jephthah, with all good intent made a vow, a covenant even, that he would bless God if God blessed him (cf. Gen. 28: 20 -22). He didn't need to do it; we're not told that it was required of him (though it might have been traditional), but it appears he did it of his own free will. God acts in power and the forces of the Ammonites were routed, humbled.
v34ff Jephthah's vow has far-reaching consequences. There has been much argument over this passage. Under the conditions of the Law Jephthah cannot undo his vow (Num. 30: 3); the word given before God is binding. The Law also forbids human sacrifice and so the question is raised over which takes precedence. Under the conditions of the Levitical codes it was perfectly possible to vow something over to God for the express purpose it their destruction (Lev. 27: 28 - 29), although the normal context was in war. (Compare with the 'curse of destruction' placed upon Ai in Joshua 7).
Jephthah's (unnamed) daughter stood firm at whatever the future might bring, v.36. A promise to God is a promise to God, and a burnt offering has been promised.
There are two interpretations to this passage. Those who argue that God as a loving God would not, or could not allow an act of human sacrifice, and those who take the line that Jephthah fulfilled his vow, however abhorrent the concept is to our sensibilities, and despite the prohibitions of human sacrifice. (Lev. 18: 21; Deut. 12: 31). The first group claim that:
(i) Jephthah knew enough of the Law to know about the wrong of human sacrifice,
(ii) knew that it was highly likely a person would come out to meet him,
(iii) he must have been Godly or his name wouldn't appear in Hebrews 11: 32 -33
(iv) such an action was incompatible with a man who had been empowered by God's Spirit
(v) he knew that women served in the tabernacle and so would have dedicated his daughter to that purpose. The tragedy for him would be no heirs, and the removal of his daughter from him, not her death.
(vi) v.31 should have 'or' rather then 'and' , as well as disputing the translation of lament (v.40), claiming that it should be 'talk to'.
Those who take the words as written point out that:
(i) the words for burnt offering and sacrifice are thoroughly consistent with Hebrew thought and practice.
(ii) Jephthah was the son of a heathen and had spent time among heathens for whom human sacrifice was not uncommon. It was to be found later in Israel (2 Kings 21:6) so why not earlier?
(iii) It is entirely consistent with the theme of the book, that "in those days there was no King in Israel and everyone did as he saw fit" and plenty of the other judges did questionable things.
(iv) Jephthah's other warlike actions (chapter 12) are entirely consistent with his ability to sacrifice his own daughter.
(v) The whole point of v.37 - 39 implies that there was no hope of her bearing children in the light of her impending death.
(vi) the claims of other translations are somewhat tenuous.
Notice too that there is no record of a message from God telling Jephthah to stay his hand, or mention of a substitutionary sacrifice, unlike Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 22). Whatever the 'correct' answer, whether the tale is a pious fable or not, there are some very real truths in this passage, about God's choosing and leading, and about not making promises or vows to God lightly.
Judges 17: 1 - 13
A story illustrating the sort of problems involved in the transformation of a faith held by a tight group of nomads into one for a country. It illustrates most of the sort of things that the Israelites were deliberately told not to do!
v1. Micah (whose name means 'Who is like Yah [God]), has already shown himself to be a thief. v.2 - 3 are in themselves pretty obscure. Notice that in some versions the end of v.2 is rather incomplete. This could be because the writer does not wish to record the curse, since the words have power of their own (cf. Patriarchal blessings in Gen.) It can be argued that Micah's mother is encouraging him to set up his own shrine, complete with idol (probably intended as Yahweh), or interpreted as the one case of early practice in creating an image of God for legitimate use, even though condemned by Law (Ex. 20: 4). Simply put Micah has no access to God without a shrine, so he makes one. Notice that there is no condemnation written into the tale, rather it's just stated as a fact.
v.4 - 6 Micah is recreating the tabernacle in miniature, with all the cultic trappings, as well as reverting to tradition as family leader in appointing his own priest. He takes the tabernacle ideas from his Israelite heritage and combines it with Canaanite local practice of the local or family shrine. For example is the silver vowed over in a similar way to Jephthah's daughter
v.7ff Levites had no part in the landed inheritance of the tribes of Israel. As servants of God his service, and the privilege of it, was taken as their portion of the wealth of the land. Nevertheless that rank allowed a travelling priest superiority wherever he went. Micah represented a wealthy patron thus benefiting the Levite, and the Levite represented good fortune for Micah: the household had a 'ranking' priest! Notice especially v.13, the presence of the priest is translated as a sign of the favour of God.
But why shouldn't Israel make idols? Deut. 4: 15 - 19 gives a good summary, with v.28 making the point that an idol is not real, while God is. Deut. 27: 15 is one of the public statements of the confirmation of Hebrew doctrine to be read on frequent occasions. The problem with idols is that they cannot represent the wholeness on God, who though initially identified with a given nation is beyond our imaginings in size and extent. Idols were made out of Godly, legitimate articles by the Israelites too: Even in this book the ephod (priestly garment) made by Gideon came to be worshipped (Jud. 8:27) as did the bronze snake (Nehushtan) that Moses had made on God's instructions to heal the people (Num. 21:9) became an idol that needed to be destroyed by King Hoshea (2 Kings 18:3). The danger was that the object, being regarded as sacred, came to be viewed as a focus of God's presence, and more important than God himself. It even happened with the Temple (Jer. 7: 1 - 11). Do we tend to apply the lesson towards attitudes to churches, crucifixes and all our 'holy trappings' too?
This page last updated November 2001. The Bibliophobe's Guide to the Judges is ©:1996 Dr. S.N.Mousir-Harrison.
|
|