Читать книгу Judges - Abraham Kuruvilla - Страница 8
Pericope 1
ОглавлениеFailure and Indictment
Judges 1:1—2:5
[Failure of the Conquest; God’s Indictment]
SUMMARY, PREVIEW
Summary of Pericope 1: The first pericope of Judges (1:1—2:5) comprises Prologue I of the book. It sets the sociopolitical stage of the rest of the narrative, depicting the failure of God’s people to live in uncompromising godliness and to trust him for success. The consequence of this failure is a progressively worsening state of coexistence with the native Canaanites; these defeats culminate in a divine indictment.
Preview of Pericope 2: The next pericope (Jdg 2:6—3:11) is made up of Prologue II of the book and the story of Othniel. It details the religious decline of the Israelites, the unfaithfulness of the new generation after Joshua who did not know or experience God firsthand. A cycle of evildoing, punishment, and deliverance is described. Othniel, the first judge, is the parade example of a godly leader: his narrative follows the paradigm for the judge stories precisely and, with divine aid, he becomes the deliverer of Israel.
1. Judges 1:1—2:5
| THEOLOGICAL FOCUS OF PERICOPE 1 | ||
| 1 | Uncompromising faithfulness to God manifest in behavior distinct from that of unbelievers, maintenance of godly traditional values, and reliance on divine strategies for success results in the enjoyment of divine blessing (1:1—2:5). | |
| 1.1 | Failure of uncompromising obedience to divine commands precludes the enjoyment of divine blessing. | |
| 1.2 | Faithfulness to God involves behavior distinct from that of unbelievers, maintenance of godly traditional values, and abandonment of reliance on human strategies for success. |
OVERVIEW
The Prologues (I: Jdg 1:1–2:5 and II: Jdg 2:6—3:6) and the Epilogues (I: Jdg 17:1—18:31 and II: Jdg 19:1—21:25) are structured around the Body (Jdg 3:7—16:31) as follows69:
Joshua, the one who had begun to lead the Israelites so successfully against the Canaanites, and who was God’s agent for assigning land to the various tribes, was now gone. At his departure he had exhorted his people to follow after Yahweh, and not after the gods of the Canaanites—an apostasy that would jeopardize the Israelites’ taking over of the Promised Land (Joshua 22–24). Would they heed the words of this worthy one? An era had concluded with the death of Joshua. A new beginning was at hand, and with it the challenge of finding godly leaders. This is the burden of the book of Judges.
There appears to be a clear demarcation between Jdg 1:1—2:5 and 2:6—3:6: the first pericope is more narratival and descriptive, dealing with the sociopolitical decline of Israel, while the second pericope is more sermonic and evaluative, dealing with the religious decline of God’s people. Besides, Joshua’s death, noted in 2:6–9, seems to be starting a fresh unit, as also did the first pericope with a mention of that valiant one’s demise (1:1).70 In Judges 1, there are almost verbatim repeats of the central themes of Joshua:
Indeed, a similar recapitulation occurs in Joshua 1 duplicating the central themes of Deuteronomy, after the death of the hero of that book, Moses.
[T]he question in Joshua was not whether Israel under Joshua would occupy the land but how much or how little they would occupy; that they would indeed occupy the land had already been decided during Moses’ lifetime, as narrated in Deuteronomy 9–10. The Book of Judges goes a step further. Now the question is not how much or how little land Israel would occupy during the period of the judges, but why they had not been able completely to drive out the inhabitants of the land. The Book of Judges, like Joshua, briefly recapitulates the previous book before interpreting it further.71
One notices that the opening of Judges (1:1) resembles that of Joshua (1:1) and of 2 Samuel (1:1); in these cases, a leader dies and a new one takes over. But in the case of Judges, no new leader is on stage. This is concerning: What would happen to a rudderless nation? Rather than an individual, we see a tribe designated to lead: “Judah shall go up,” said Yahweh (Jdg 1:2). But down the road, it would be the same tribe that would lead in the tragic civil war (20:18). From the failures of the first chapter to the catastrophe of the last chapters, the nation is leaderless, faithless, and ultimately, godless!
This first pericope is carefully structured72:
Judah and Joseph73 (B, B') conduct parallel wars, around which are placed Yahweh’s promise to the “sons of Israel” regarding the war in 1:21—a prospective view (A), and, at the other end, Yahweh’s indictment of the “sons of Israel” (the only two occurrences of the label in this pericope)—a retrospective view (A', 2:4). The first time the “sons of Israel” are seekers of divine guidance; the second time they are subjects of divine grievance.
One also gets the sense of a geographic layout in the narration, a south-to-north arrangement commencing with Judah and concluding with Dan: Judah + Simeon, Benjamin, Joseph, Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher, Napthali, Dan. While this pericope mostly focuses on a human perspective of the war—a socio-political decline—the next (Pericope 2: Jdg 2:6—3:11), takes a divine perspective, providing reasons for the general failure of Israel’s military effort—a religious decline.
One notices that Benjamin stands alone in 1:21 as an orphan in the “house of Joseph.” This may well be an allusion to Epilogue II (especially Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1—21:25) where, again, Benjamin’s isolation shows up—the victim of Israel’s civil war. The insularity here in 1:21 is underscored by an unusual word order: “And the Jebusites [inhabitants] . . . were not driven out [verb] by the sons of Benjamin [tribal name]”; this is unlike the descriptions in 1:27, 29, 30, 31, 33, where the order is verb-tribal name-inhabitants.74 Another reason for Benjamin’s isolation may also be its geographic location between the major tribes of the south and the north.
1. Judges 1:1—2:5
| THEOLOGICAL FOCUS 1 | ||
| 1 | Uncompromising faithfulness to God manifest in behavior distinct from that of unbelievers, maintenance of godly traditional values, and reliance on divine strategies for success results in the enjoyment of divine blessing (1:1—2:5). | |
| 1.1 | Failure of uncompromising obedience to divine commands precludes the enjoyment of divine blessing. | |
| 1.2 | Faithfulness to God involves behavior distinct from that of unbelievers, maintenance of godly traditional values, and abandonment of reliance on human strategies for success. |
NOTES 1
1.1 Failure of uncompromising obedience to divine commands precludes the enjoyment of divine blessing.
There is an adumbration of danger right at the start. A comparison of Josh 1:1 with Jdg 1:1 immediately strikes the reader: the passage of the prior leader (Moses) in Josh 1:1 is juxtaposed to the appointment of the leader of the next generation (“Joshua, Moses’s servant”). But in Jdg 1:1, there is no subsequent leader waiting in the wings when Joshua exits. Besides, in Josh 1:1, Yahweh took the initiative to give directives; in Jdg 1:1, he is strangely silent, until the Israelites take the initiative. Things do not look good!
The living arrangements between the Israelites and Canaanites as this pericope progresses are revealing. Initially, with the endeavors of the Judah-Simeon alliance, we are not told of Canaanites living among the Israelites; then from Benjamin to Zebulun, the Canaanites are found living with the Israelites; the situation worsens with Asher and Naphtali: here it is the Israelites who are living among the Canaanites; in the final phase, they are themselves displaced, unable to occupy the valley. Far from a conquest, this is an “anticonquest”75:
In sum, this pericope portrays a failed project to take over Canaan.
Unlike most ancient military reports, the aim of this document is not to celebrate the achievements of the generation of Israelites that survived Joshua but to lament their sorry response to the divine mandate to occupy the land and to eliminate the Canaanites. Although the author delays sermonizing on the subject (cf. 2:1–5; 2:6—3:6), the structure of the chapter declares that this military failure accounts for the disastrous history of the nation in the next two or three centuries, as it is reported in the remainder of the book.76
And so while there is a seeking of God at the beginning of this pericope (1:1–2), there is, unfortunately, a weeping before him at the end (2:4–5; see below).
The verb “go up” (hl[, ‘lh, in the militaristic sense of “go against”) is a key word in this pericope (1:1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 22; 2:1; it does not occur at all in the next pericope). Of all these uses of hl[, only those indicating the key movements of Judah, Joseph, and the angel of Yahweh (1:4, 22; 2:1) are emphasized by location at the head of the sentence, at the commencement of the appropriate section (1:4–20; 1:22–36; 2:1–5). Certainly some of this upward movement is related to geography (for there is a “going down,” dry, yrd, as well, in 1:9), but it also serves as a link: the consequence of all the (failed) “goings up” in 1:1–36 is the ominous “going up” of the angel of Yahweh from Gilgal to indict the Israelites (2:1).
One also notices that in these “goings up” in Judges 1, Yahweh is associated only with the movements of two tribes (1:4, 19, with the Judah and Simeon alliance; and 1:22, with the house of Joseph—a broad south-north division of the nation77); both these campaigns at least begin well. Judah’s war is initially successful, but later meets with failure (1:19, 21—with the failure of Benjamin against Jerusalem; also see 1:8). Joseph’s war, though gainful, is suspect from the very start: despite a victory at Bethel/Luz, the informant from Bethel is allowed to go free in exchange (1:24–26), and he promptly rebuilds the destroyed city. A litany of incomplete “successes” and outright failures then follows (1:27–36). All of these miscarriages in Judges 1 form the basis for Yahweh’s indictment of Israel in 2:1–5. The same “sons of Israel” who had sought Yahweh’s counsel in 1:1 are now rebuked by him, for they were disobedient, making covenants with foreigners and not destroying their altars (2:2). Therefore, Yahweh announced, he would not completely drive out the land’s inhabitants who would end up as thorns to the Israelites (and their gods as snares; 2:3).78 Of course, Yahweh would be faithful to keep his covenant and Israel would possess the land, as he had promised the “fathers” (2:1). The question is why they failed to possess it now.
There was Moses who was unlike any other prophet in Israel, whom Yahweh knew face to face (Deut 34:10); then there was Joshua, “Moses’s servant” (Exod 24:13; Num 11:28; Josh 1:1), one attested by Yahweh as having his Spirit (Num 27:18; also Deut 34:9), and who followed Yahweh fully as his servant (Num 32:12; Jdg 2:8). Now Joshua had died. Who would be the next godly servant to lead Israel? Yahweh’s choice of a tribe, Judah, rather than an individual, is surprising. But then again, the Israelites did not ask him for a leader, only for a tribe to lead the battle. Indeed, a note of hesitancy is introduced into the Israelites’ question in Jdg 1:1 that literally reads: “Who will go up for us, against the Canaanites, first, to battle them?” Did Israel need to know who would go up? And why “first,” which has the limited sense of a beginning—“Who will . . . start to battle”? “Victory is relativised from scratch,” only a commencement of operations is envisaged by the Israelites.79 Commitment and confidence is thereby shown to be shaky. This, when the divine utterance is unambiguous: “Behold! I have given [perfect tense in Hebrew] the land into his [Judah’s] hand” (1:2). Though Judah conducts the most successful military exercises in this pericope, no longer in Judges will Judah appear in a leadership role before 20:18. There, Judah leads an utterly failed enterprise that becomes the conflagration of a civil war.
And why did Judah decide to include Simeon (1:3)?80 The specificity of God’s assurance that he had given the land into Judah’s hands (1:2) is consistently maintained in the narrative, despite Judah’s unilateral co-opting of Simeon into its martial endeavors: Judah conquers peoples and lands (1:4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19), but Judah + Simeon conquers only peoples (1:17)—and besides, even in this particular battle against the Canaanites of Zephath/Hormah, Simeon is not described as doing any fighting.81 All this renders Judah’s initial forays suspect.
Judah’s ascent in 1:3–7 (“going up,” 1:3, 4) and descent in 1:9–18 (“going down,” 1:9) bookend its efficacious exploits in Jerusalem (1:8), making its engagements a stark contrast with the failed project of Benjamin (1:21). But that is not to say Judah was entirely successful—they were not, presumably because their foes had “iron chariots” (1:19). If Yahweh was with Judah as 1:19 claimed he was, why were iron chariots too hard to defeat? The nine hundred iron chariots of Jabin, king of Canaan, would turn out not to be a problem for deity (4:3, 13, 15; see Pericope 4).82 Besides, Joshua had declared that iron chariots would not create obstacles for the Israelite conquest (Josh 17:16–18). Even in the literary structure of Jdg 1:19 and 1:20, Judah’s attenuated “successes” are underlined, with the failure of Judah contrasted with the success of one Judahite, Caleb; the paronomasia is obviously disparaging of the tribe’s endeavors.
The contrast between 1:20 and 21 also vividly portrays another failure83:
In keeping with Moses’s promise (Josh 14:6–15), Caleb was successful in “driving out” the Anakites and capturing Hebron.84 However, though Jerusalem was in territory allocated to Benjamin (Josh 15:8; 18:28), they were unsuccessful in “driving out” the Jebusites who lived there; in fact, these peoples lived there with the Benjaminites “to this day.”85
The remainder of the account (Jdg 1:22–36) describes the continuing failure of the Joseph league: the two Joseph tribes proper, Manasseh (1:27–28) and Ephraim (1:29), then Zebulun (1:30), Asher (1:31–32), Naphtali (1:33), and finally Dan (1:34–35).86 Perhaps these continued failures were the result of the precedent set at Bethel (1:22–26). In any case, the tribes do not evict the land’s inhabitants (1:26–35), but cohabit with them, even subjecting them to slavery and feudalism (“forced labor,” 1:28, 30, 33, 35).87 The inability to “drive out” the inhabitants of various parts of the Promised Land is repeatedly noted (1:19, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33). Indeed, the Amorites, in a climactic paragraph at the end of Judges 1, begin to “oppress” (cxl, lkhts) the Israelites instead (1:34), an ominous development and a foreshadowing of what would happen with recurring and tragic frequency: 2:18; 4:3; 6:9; 10:12 (all have the root cxl). And moreover, the only nation whose borders are mentioned is that of these Amorites (1:36)—it is not the attacking nation that is expanding its borders: “a final sardonic comment on the chapter as a whole!”88
Interestingly, while 1:27 states that Manasseh “did not drive out” the Canaanites, Josh 17:12 notes that Manasseh “was not able to drive out” these inhabitants (17:18 mentions their iron chariots, too). The theological purpose of the narrator of Judges is to suggest that this failure was inexcusable, more due to lack of desire than lack of ability.89
Naphtali’s failure to “drive out” the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath (Jdg 1:33), is particularly poignant: those towns were named after Canaanite deities, Shemesh and Anath. Pagan religiosity and culture remained completely untouched by the Israelite campaigns. In any case, the absence of any mention of Yahweh in the later military undertakings of this pericope, unlike in Jdg 1:2, 4, 19, 22, is also telling.
The relatively minor failures of Judah’s campaign thus led into the major failures of the operations of the house of Joseph. Our curiosity is aroused about the cause of all these failures—only one such adversity was given a reason (1:19), leading one to suspect an intentional and widespread abrogation of responsibility, rather than any external cause thereof. We find the real answer only in 2:1–5—there was a spiritual reason for the Israelites’ lack of military success. These failures, we are told there, stemmed from an illicit covenanting with the inhabitants of Canaan, noted in 1:22–26. Despite the assured presence of Yahweh as the house of Joseph went against Bethel, the campaign was a failure—not only did a Hittite family go free (1:25), the destroyed city was also rebuilt as Luz (1:26): the people and their culture had rebounded (see below). This was clear disobedience to divine will that no covenant be made with the local peoples: Israel was to destroy them utterly (Jdg 2:2; Deut 7:1–2, 16). This covenantal failure, snowballing over generations, would ultimately result in an abandonment of Yahweh for the gods of the land (Jdg 2:2; 10:6–14; also see Deut 7:4–5, 25–26).
Compromise and disobedience are always disastrous. In sum, the degradation of the nation had begun immediately after the demise of Joshua. This pericope begins with the most positive of the tribes (Judah) and ends with the most negative (Dan). Almost the same sequence of tribes is followed in the sections on individual judges (Jdg 3:7—16:31), with this progressive dissolution expressly detailed.
1.2 Faithfulness to God involves behavior distinct from that of unbelievers, maintenance of godly traditional values, and abandonment of reliance on human strategies for success.
There are three anecdotal interpolations in what is otherwise the account of a military campaign: 1:5–7 (featuring Adoni-bezek); 1:12–15 (featuring Achsah); and 1:23–26 (featuring the house of Joseph and Bethel). This section will examine these further, along with the summarizing indictment of the Israelites in 2:1–5.
Adoni-bezek is the first individual Canaanite mentioned in Judges; in fact, he is the first named leader we encounter in the book. It is significant that this defeated foe recognizes the truth that actions have consequences, something the Israelites fail to see time and again, as the rest of Judges will describe. Upon reading 1:4–7, one might be justified in wondering how Israelites could so mutilate a human, albeit an enemy (mutilation after death is seen in 2 Sam 4:12). Certainly, there was retribution being visited on the king for his past misdeeds (Jdg 1:7), but those evidently were not misdeeds directed against the Israelites. In other words, the Israelites were doing exactly what their Canaanite enemy had done, but without provocation, except for the fact that he was an enemy ruler. This was not a tit-for-tat, at least not for any mutilation or gross violation Adoni-bezek had perpetrated against the Israelites. There is also the oddity of Adoni-bezek being allowed to live post-mutilation till he was taken to Jerusalem. If he was not to be killed immediately, why was he mutilated? In fact, the text does not even tell us that he was later executed by the Israelites, but simply that “he died there” (1:6, 7). In contrast, the original Jerusalemites were utterly destroyed by the Israelites (1:8). The treatment of Adoni-bezek sounds like the beginning of the “Canaanization” of Israel, further suggested by the subsequent degradation of its military endeavor, cohabitation with Canaanites, and involvement in idolatry found in rest of this pericope (see above). In the large scheme of the book, Adoni-bezek, the Canaanite who killed seventy kings, foreshadows Abimelech, the only other “king” in Judges, an Israelite, who also killed seventy (9:5).90 This Israelite “Adoni-bezek” turned out to be worse than his Canaanite counterpart, killing in cold blood his own brothers, with retribution also mentioned twice in his story (9:24, 56, as opposed to only once in 1:7): Adoni-bezek’s thumbs and toes for those of the seventy kings he had killed; and Abimelech killed by a stone for the seventy siblings he had killed on a stone. “[H]e [Abimelech] may have even out-Canaanised the Canaanites.”91 Israel was not just in Canaan now; Canaan was in Israel!
Another anecdotal “interpolation” occurs in 1:12–15. In Joshua, Kiriath-arba/Hebron was given to Caleb in Joshua’s day (Josh 15:13; and see 14:6–15); in Judges, it is Judah that gets Hebron, and this after Joshua’s day (Jdg 1:10–11).92 In Joshua, Caleb was the one who defeated the three Anakites, Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai (Josh 15:14–15); in Jdg 1:10 it is Judah who does so.93 The very presence of the similarly named Anakites in these early days of Judges is itself reflective of the dogged persistence of these peoples and the failure of the Israelites to drive them out until now. While a victory is described here, there is a hint that these Canaanites as a whole are hard to dislodge from the Promised Land. Judah proceeds to attack Kiriath-sepher, and Caleb promises to give his daughter to the one who captures it (1:11–12). Othniel, Caleb’s nephew, performs the honors, captures a town, and wins a wife (1:13).
Achsah, Caleb’s daughter, however, is not satisfied with Kiriath-sepher—she calls it the “land of the Negev” because of its desert-like nature (1:15). Hence the request to her father by this enterprising lady for additional “springs of water,” which is granted.94 This episode might be a priming of the pump for another father-daughter story later in Judges 11—a pejorative account of the father who also made a vow before a battle and sacrificed his daughter (Pericope 9: Jdg 10:6—12:15). Here, however, the father finds his daughter a valiant husband (1:12–13), and rewards her initiative and resourcefulness with what she requested him for—a blessing (1:14–15).95 It also is a preparation for the presentation of Othniel as the first and paradigmatic judge in 3:7–11. Incidentally, all of the characters in this anecdote are Kenizzites—descendants of Kenaz an Edomite leader (Gen 15:19; 36:11, 15, 42; Jdg 1:13)—who joined up with the Israelites (Num 32:12; Josh 14:6, 14).96 So much so, Caleb is the proud face of the tribe of Judah, an exemplar of a Yahweh-worshiper. Thus the endogamy practiced is also subtly being held up, in contrast to the Israelites’ interest in non-Israelite women, pointed out in Jdg 3:6 and exemplified in the stories of Gideon (who had a Canaannite concubine) and Samson (who went after Philistine women all his life).97
But the key aspect of this cameo is the contrast it makes with the story of fathers and daughters in Epilogue II (particularly Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1—21:25). The giving of daughters as wives is mentioned six times in Judges, each time with the words “give,” “daughter,” and “wife” in proximity: 1:12, 13; 3:6; 21:1, 7, 18. Except for 3:6, the others deal with Israelite endogamy, and are all found in Prologue I (Pericope 1: Jdg 1:1—2:5) and Epilogue II (specifically, Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1—21:25), as part of a war narrative: Caleb, a tribal leader, finding a wife for his daughter; and the Israelite leaders finding wives for the depleted Benjaminites. Pre-war pledges also characterize each of these stories, the first a “blessing” to “give” a daughter as wife (1:12, 13, 15), the second a “curse” “not to give” daughters as wives (21:1, 18). “[W]hile Caleb’s pre-war promise to give his daughter in marriage to the one who succeeds in taking Kiriath Sepher seems to represent a wise move that merged concern for the fulfillment of YHWH’s promise with concern for his daughter’s welfare, the pre-war oath of Israel’s leadership not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjaminite seems to represent a rash and foolish decision made out of muddled thinking and excessive vindictiveness.”98 The contrast between a benevolent father in Judges 1 and malevolent fathers in Judges 19–21 is obvious (see both Pericope 13: Jdg 19:1–30 and Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1—21:25). Caleb not only gives his daughter to an intrepid warrior of his own tribe (endogamy), he also acquiesces to her enthusiastic request. The other fathers not only are involved in curses, the negligence of their daughters, and the murder of most of the men in an Israelite tribe, they also resort to deceptive and highly questionable practices to procure females for the remaining Benjaminite males. The contrast is also being made of a leader of the Joshua generation who appreciates and respects women, and leaders of the Judges generation who oppress and objectify and murder them. The former is keen on fulfilling the promises of Yahweh in the land and is concerned for, and protective of, his daughter’s (and her husband’s) welfare, unlike the latter who are rash, self-focused, and vindictive. The presence of this anecdote in Judges 1, then, points to the well-disposed, magnanimous, and bountiful nature of the leaders in a prior generation of Israel.99
So here is the first woman in the book of Judges, a remarkable lady keen on obtaining the best for her inheritance, family, and posterity within the community of Israel! She is asking for more than a gift; she wants land, the tangible sign of divine blessing in the OT. And thus “Achsah emerges as an image of ideal Yahwist womanhood,” and becomes the standard by which all other women in the book will be judged.100 This sense of fruitfulness in the presence of Yahweh depicted for the first time in Judges—by a woman—is significant; unfortunately this prosperity will only decline and drop henceforth as the book of Judges unfolds.
The third anecdotal “interpolation” in Pericope 1 deals with the capture of Bethel by the Joseph league (and their failure to keep it—it was rebuilt as Luz, a Canaanite city), and is described in greater detail than are the other campaigns of 1:22–36. The presence of Yahweh with the house of Joseph is noted in 1:22, and we anticipate another relatively successful takeover as in 1:4–20. In retrospect, one sees that unlike in 1:4, where Yahweh “gave” the victory, here we are only told that Yahweh was with the Israelite army. And that is borne out in the human strategy that the latter engages in, in their taking of Bethel. Besides, in 1:4–20 and in 1:22–36, an individual Canaanite is highlighted: Adoni-bezek and the Bethel informant, respectively. The former, a named ruler, is found, fought against, pursued, caught, mutilated, transferred, and probably killed (1:5–7). The latter, an anonymous man, is seen, spoken to, negotiated with, and shown ds,x, (khesed) and freed, family and all. And he promptly rebuilds Luz (1:24–26). The presence of Yahweh with the house of Joseph should have rendered all humanly contrived strategies unnecessary; indeed, there was to be no covenant made with the Canaanites (2:2; also see Deut 7:2). Tragically, there is no mention of Yahweh being present with the campaigns of any of the other tribes after this fiasco.
The house of Joseph, in their campaign to take Bethel, may have been attempting to imitate Joshua’s takeover of Jericho with the help of a native Canaanite (Joshua 2; see below for a comparison of the two events). However, the differences are significant (shaded below): in the earlier account Rahab took the initiative to ask for ds,x,, with a proclamation that was Yahwistic through and through, acknowledging his preeminence and his great deeds (Josh 2:9–13)—she had converted!101 So much so, after a divinely accomplished victory over Jericho, Rahab and her family were noted to be residents of Israel thenceforth: “to this day” (6:25).102 In the present case, there is no indication that the informant made any Rahab-like alliance with the Israelites, or with Yahweh. And the man’s final action of rebuilding Luz (which also stands “to this day,” Jdg 1:26), becomes a scandalous symbol of the unwise covenanting of the house of Joseph with a foreigner. It was as if the hostilities and capture of Bethel by the Israelites had never taken place—the city had merely been transferred from one site to another—“the spirit of Luz lived on.”103
A slavish imitation of a past strategy of success, without comprehension of that event’s critical elements, is futile. What was necessary here was an understanding of God’s work, his power, and his strategy for success—and a cooperation with that work, that power, and that strategy.
The final section of this pericope, 2:1–5, gives the reaction of God to the compromising and self-reliant attitudes and actions of his people. Judges 2:1–5 is a hinge between the failed conquest (“anticonquest”) of Judges 1 and the following “literary soliloquy” of the narrator in 2:6–23 (see Pericope 2: Jdg 2:6—3:10).104 It links to the previous section with the angel’s “going up” (2:1; the verb shows up also in 1:1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 22), and to the following pericope as well, with the impactful words of Yahweh’s angel: the reference to “covenant,” the accusation of “not listening to My voice,” and Yahweh’s resolution “not to drive [the nations] out before” Israel are found in both 2:1–3 and 2:21.105 In other words, the paradigm of 2:11–19 (see Pericope 2) and the pattern of the rest of the judge-narratives (built on this framework) are all based on what happened here in Pericope 1.
The angel’s message takes a forensic form: reminder of Yahweh’s past deeds and promise (2:1b)106; reminder of Yahweh’s demands (2:2a); an accusation (2:2b); the call for an explanation (2:2c)107; and a warning of punishment (2:3). The structuring of 2:1–5 places the accusation of disobedience and demand for an explanation at the center of the chiasm.
The past history of Israel’s conquest had a significant place marker, Gilgal, where the crossing of the Jordan was commemorated as the first major place of worship (Josh 4:1–24; 5:9). Now with the notice that Yahweh’s angel was leaving Gilgal to come to Bokim, the reader is alerted to the change of circumstances—from Joshua’s day of celebrated victory to this day of mourned defeat.108 This angel of Yahweh may well be “the captain of the host of Yahweh” that Joshua had encountered at Bethel (Josh 5:13–15), another not-so-subtle reminder of how much things had changed between then and now.109 Now Yahweh’s agent was “going up” to provide a divine verdict on the “goings up” of the Israelites. So, before a single judge shows up on the scene, in the very first pericope of the book, the status of God’s people before him is starkly diagnosed: they have been disobedient! For the rest of the book, there will only be cause for weeping (Bokim = “place of weeping/weepers”). Thus, in a sense, Judges commences with weeping (2:1, 4, 5) and concludes with weeping (21:2): “the book of Judges introduces the history of Israel as a story to weep about.”110
Yahweh’s rebuke is stinging: It is not so much that Israel had failed to drive out the inhabitants of Canaan, but that they, forgetting their covenant God, had made covenants with the Canaanites, and not destroyed their cultic sites: they had disobeyed the explicit commands of Deut 7:1–5, 16, 25–26 (see Jdg 2:1–2).111 In fact, it was because of their disobedience that God was refusing to drive out the Canaanites before the Israelites, that otherwise would have been accomplished by God himself (2:3). “In other words, the process of dispossession and occupation would have been completed in due course if the Israelites had fulfilled their obligations to Yahweh, but now their disobedience has put the completion of the Conquest in jeopardy (2:3).”112 Moreover, the Canaanite gods would ensnare the Israelite people (Exod 23:32–33; 34:11–15; Num 33:55; Deut 7:16; Josh 23:13).
After the mourning and sacrificing, “[o]ne expects to read of Israel breaking their alliances with the native population and launching a vigorous military campaign against the pagan altars and those who worship there. But the text is silent. Through the smoke of the weeping Israelites’ sacrifices, one can still see the outlines of the pagan altars.”113 Nonetheless, the contrition exhibited by the Israelites in Jdg 2:4–5 is hopeful (the only time it happens in conjunction with sacrifices in all of Judges) but, as it turns out, this change of heart is only transitory: the Israelites’ apostasy only worsens as the next pericope will show and the rest of the book will depict.
SERMON FOCUS AND OUTLINES114
| THEOLOGICAL FOCUS OF PERICOPE 1 FOR PREACHING46 | |
| 1 | Faithfulness to God manifest in uncompromising godliness and reliance on God brings blessing (1:1—2:5). |
Of the three narrative “interpolations” in this pericope—1:5–7 (featuring Adoni-bezek); 1:12–15 (featuring Achsah); and 1:23–26 (featuring the house of Joseph and Bethel)—it might be best to bypass the Achsah story with a brief mention, in the interests of time: the contrast is with the mistreatment of women in the Epilogues, and that, I believe, is the primary function of the cameo here.
Possible Preaching Outlines for Pericope 1115
I. Background116
Thrust of the book of Judges: leadership
God’s people: only as good as God’s leaders
All of God’s people are leaders in some fashion, to some degree
Structure of book: Prologues I and II; Body; Epilogues I and II
Leadership change in Israel; silence of Yahweh (1:1)
Move-to-relevance: God’s leaders today; God’s people as leaders today117
II. Failures
Judah’s inclusion of Simeon (1:3)
Iron chariots and Benjamin (1:19–21); yet Caleb’s success (1:20)
Joseph’s abortive effort (1:22–26)
Failure of the rest of the tribes (1:27–36)
Move-to-relevance: Our failures
III. Consequences
Worsening of situation with Canaanites (1:3–21, 21–30, 31–33, 34–36)
Indictment by God (2:1–3)
Move-to-relevance: Consequences for the church and the Christian
IV. Live godly! 118
How we lose divine blessings today with an ungodly lifestyle
Start to live godly: repentance (weeping: 2:4–5)119
A Problem–Solution–Application outline is given below120:
I. PROBLEM: Loss of Blessing
Worsening of situation with Canaanites (1:3–21, 21–30, 31–33, 34–36)
Indictment by God (2:1–3)
Move-to-relevance: Consequences for the church and the Christian
II. SOLUTION: Uncompromising Godliness121
Judah’s inclusion of Simeon (1:3)
Iron chariots and Benjamin (1:19–21); yet Caleb’s success (1:20)
Joseph’s abortive effort (1:22–26)
Failure of the rest of the tribes (1:27–36)
Move-to-relevance: Our failures
III. APPLICATION: Live godly!
How we lose divine blessings today with an ungodly lifestyle
Start to live godly: repentance (weeping: 2:4–5)
69. Prologue I comprises Pericope 1 (Jdg 1:1–2:5); and Prologue II, Pericope 2 (Jdg 2:6—3:11)—this also includes the Othniel narrative (3:7–11). Epilogue I comprises Pericope 12: Jdg 17:1—18:31; and Epilogue II, Pericope 13: Jdg 19:1–30 and Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1—21:25.
70. However, the sequence of waw-consecutive verb forms that commence Judges 2 moves undisturbed throughout 2:1–23. While this—as well as the similarities between the divine speech in 2:20–22 and the angelic utterance in 2:1–3 (“fathers,” “covenant,” “obey/listen,” and “drive them out” are shared)—may incline one to treat chapter 2 as an integral whole, the notion of a pericope that is espoused here is more pragmatic: separating 1:1—2:5 from 2:6—3:6 (and including the account of Othniel, 3:7–11 to comprise Pericope 2), enables the preacher to derive fairly distinct theological thrusts from each of the two pericopes, keeping the resulting sermons also distinct.
71. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 148.
72. From O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 62.
73. “House of Joseph” (1:22, 23, 35) is a league that indicates the northern tribes.
74. Ibid., 60–61.
75. Block, Judges, Ruth, 83. This is certainly a stylized and schematized arrangement of reality that is rarely so neat. But, of course, such author’s doings serve a theological agenda.
76. Ibid., 83–84.
77. As the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, whose descendants formed the two largest northern tribes (Gen 41:50–52), “Joseph” was a convenient designation for all the northern tribes (see Josh 18:5; Ezek 37:15, 19; Zech 10:6).
78. See Deut 7:1–5, 16, 25–26 for Yahweh’s similar warning to the exodus generation.
79. Marais, Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts, 75.
80. Perhaps it was because Simeon’s land allotment was within that designated for Judah (Josh 19:1–9)?
81. Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 23–24. “Hormah” is a play on ~r'x' (kharam, “utter destruction”). On “utter destruction,” see Deut 2:34; 3:6; 7:2; 20:17; Josh 2:10; 6:17–21. While the issue of such violence may need to be addressed some time in one’s pastoral ministry, my recommendation for the preacher is not to get bogged down by it in the pulpit. Employing another occasion to deal with it (Sunday School class? Adult Bible Fellowship?), or even writing a white paper on the topic, would be a better alternative. In a sermon, the preacher needs to maintain focus on the theological thrust of the text. As Younger notes, “[~r'x'] was not concerned with the eradication of . . . particular cultural preferences. But it was deeply concerned with the eradication of the Canaanite religion: its gods/idols, altars, rituals, divinatory practices, uses of magic, worldview, and so on” (Judges, Ruth, 77).
82. Not to mention the chariots of Pharaoh (Exod 14:23–28; 15:4; also see Josh 11:4–9) that were no match for Yahweh’s might. Drews suggests that it was the iron tires attached to wooden rims that are being referred to here. The weight of fully iron-clad chariots was likely too prohibitive for any kind of martial use; besides, the widespread use of iron occurs only later in history (“The ‘Chariots of Iron,’” 19–20).
83. Webb, Judges, 110.
84. Thus Caleb’s success (1:20) is enclosed on either side by failures: Judah’s (1:19) and the Benjaminites’ (1:21).
85. That Jerusalem shows up again in 1:21 makes it likely that the Judahites’ exertions described in 1:8 were against the Jebusite fortress on the southern hill of the city; the Benjaminites likely directed their attention to the citadel further north.
86. Issachar’s absence is inexplicable, though Chisholm notes that this may be to reduce the more complete number seven (= tribes involved in the inheritance lists in Joshua 18–19) to an incomplete six (= tribes involved in Judges 1: Judah, Joseph [= Ephraim + Manasseh], Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan) (Judges, Ruth, 135–36). Reuben and Gad lived outside the boundaries of the Promised Land, where the Amorites had already been taken care of (Numbers 21). Levi, of course, did not have a land inheritance.
87. The subjection to “forced labor” was permitted by Yahweh, but only of the inhabitants of those cities not given to the Israelites as an inheritance (Deut 20:11, 16–18; also see 7:1–2). Those allotted to Israel—depicted in Judges 1—were to be utterly destroyed. So the notations of “forced labor” are disconcerting. Was this some sort of compromise the Israelites had made with the Canaanites in exchange for their lives? Was there an economic criterion factoring into their (dis)obedience to divine command?
88. Ibid., 128.
89. Olson, “The Book of Judges,” 744.
90. Adoni-bezek is not explicitly called a “king,” but his name (Adoni-bezek = “Lord of Bezek”) suggests he was, as also does the description of his enemies as “seventy kings.” It is likely deliberate that Abimelech is the only one labeled “king” in Judges (9:6), crowned entirely by human initiative with no input from deity whatsoever.
91. The verbs used for “recompense” are different, ~lv, shlm, in 1:7 and bWv, shub, in 9:56–57, but Wong notes that the verbs are used in parallel elsewhere in the OT (Exod 21:34; Deut 32:41; Ezek 33:15; Joel 3:4) (Compositional Strategy, 205, 206). See Pericope 8 (Jdg 8:33—10:5). The interpolation of the Adoni-bezek cameo, that does not seem to fit the rest of the movement of Prologue I, indicates the likelihood that his story was deliberately intended to adumbrate the narrative of Abimelech and depict the latter as worse than his Canaanite counterpart.
92. Note the singular as the verb “he, Judah, went” in Jdg 1:10, 11, whereas plural verbs indicate the subject “sons of Judah” in 1:8, 9.
93. Reconciling these with Josh 10:36–37; 11:21–22 is not easy; there it appears that Joshua wiped out the Anakites in Hebron. Perhaps the Judges 1 account (and perhaps the Joshua 14–15 narratives) is a flashback, included here for theological purposes, rather than chronological completion.
94. “She charmed him [her father] to ask for a field” (1:14). Chisholm observes that “she ‘buttered’ her father up (as daughters are apt to do!)” (Judges and Ruth, 125).
95. There are several other equally zestful women in Judges: Deborah (4:4–14), Jael (4:17–22), and the woman of Thebez (9:53–54).
96. The Kenaz in Jdg 1:13 was another individual—Caleb’s brother.
97. The maintenance of covenantal purity through endogamy was an established tenet of Israelite life (Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3–4; Josh 23:12).
98. Ibid., 45.
99. Ibid., 42–45. In another parallel, Achsah “descends” from a donkey (1:14); the raped concubine “ascends” one (19:28)—these are the only two women in Judges on donkeys. Both women, for different reasons, leave their husbands and go to their fathers. One is blessed; the other raped and murdered. The father of one is benevolent, that of the other is malevolent (see Pericope 13: Jdg 19:1–30).
100. Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 26.
101. In fact, the formulation “do ds,x, unto . . . ” is found only in these two accounts in Joshua and Judges (Josh 2:12 [×2], 14; Jdg 1:24), making the construction of this text in Judges a deliberate allusion to the one in Joshua.
102. Again, there is verbal correspondence in the “sending” away of Rahab and her family after the city was destroyed “with the edge of the sword” (Josh 6:21, 23), and the “sending” away of the anonymous Bethelite and his family after their city was struck “with the edge of the sword” (Jdg 1:25).
103. Wong, Compositional Strategy, 152–53. Table modified from Webb, Judges, 117.
104. Block, Judges, Ruth, 109.
105. The verbs for “drive out” are different: vrn, grsh, in 2:3 and vry, yrsh, in 2:21. But Wong notes that they are synonymous; see Exod 33:2 and Josh 3:10; Josh 24:18 and Jdg 11:23; and Pss 44:3 and 80:9 (Compositional Strategy, 148n22).
106. While it is not certain what Yahwistic covenant is referred to in 2:1, it is likely to have been a promise to the nation to give them the Promised Land (Lev 26:42–44; and see Gen 24:7; 26:3; Exod 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Deut 6:10, 18). While binding upon Yahweh, the extent of the takeover of the land, how much, when, and in what manner, were all contingent on the behavior of the human partners to the covenant (see Jer 11:4–5, as well as the various iterations of the promises to the patriarchs in Genesis, that see a ratcheting up of the items of fulfillment with obedience, especially in Gen 22:16–18) (see Kuruvilla, Genesis, 261–62).
107. “What is this you have done?” is formulaic in the OT and indicates “a major breach of proper relations between parties” (see Gen 3:13; 12:18; 26:10; 29:25; Exod 14:11; Jdg 8:1; 15:11) (Niditch, Judges, 47).
108. In fact, that place was called “Gilgal” because Yahweh had “rolled away” (llg, gll) the reproach/disgrace of Egypt and changed the fortunes of Israel (Josh 5:9). Was another change of fortunes on the way here?
109. It is possible that Bokim is a pseudonym for Bethel: an “oak of weeping [tWkB', bakuth]” was located near Bethel (Gen 35:8). In fact the LXX at Jdg 2:1 has the angel coming “to Bokim and Bethel, that is, the house of Israel.” In Judges 20–21, the final part of the book (Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1–21:25), weeping takes place at Bethel (20:26). Besides, Gilgal and Bethel are often linked: see Hosea 4:15; Amos 4:4, 15; 5:5. Bethel also has the status of a place of rebuke in prophetic literature (1 Kgs 13:1–3; 2 Kgs 23:15–20; Amos 7:10–17). Though why the real name of the place should be camouflaged in this pericope is unclear; perhaps Bethel in the narrator’s day was a holy city, prompting the writer to soften the blow of indictment. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 112; Spronk, “A Story to Weep About,” 91–92; and Amit, Hidden Polemics, 119–28.
110. Spronk, “A Story to Weep About,” 87. In between these two lachrymal events, there is also weeping in 11:37; 14:16; 20:23, 26.
111. The accusation that Israel had not torn down the altars of the Canaanites (2:2) is rather unexpected; we had not heard any mention of cultic activity in Judges 1. Presumably all this anti-Yahwism was concurrent with the failed conquest.
112. Younger, Judges, Ruth, 74. Yahweh expands the apostasy of the Israelites and the intensity of his threat in the next pericope.
113. Robert B. Chisholm, personal communication.
114. In the view of preaching espoused in this commentary, the exposition of the theology of the pericope (represented as a statement by the “Theological Focus”), with all the power and potency of the text, is the critical task of the homiletician. Needless to say, the preacher must also provide the congregation with specifics on how the theological thrust of each pericope may be put into practice so that lives are conformed to Christlikeness in the power of the Spirit, for the glory of God.
115. One must see the points in these outlines as “moves,” rather than static chunks of information dumped on the unwary listener. See Kuruvilla, Vision for Preaching, 71–89. The outlines provided are deliberately skimpy; they are intended merely to be suggestions for further thought—rough-hewn stones to be polished by the preacher. It is nigh impossible to prescribe an outline without knowing the particular audience it is to be used for, and therefore this commentary will refrain from micromanaging homiletics for the preacher. Some equally abbreviated suggestions for development are provided below each main point.
116. Since this is the first pericope/sermon on Judges, reviewing the background state of affairs is helpful, including a statement of the overall theme of the book: leadership, and how this impacts the people of God.
117. Moves-to-relevance are critical in every major move of the sermon, relating the theological thrust (or portions thereof) to the listeners and their circumstances.
118. Outlines in this commentary will have an imperative of some sort as a major outline point—the application. The specificity and direction of that imperative is between the Holy Spirit, the preacher, and the audience.
119. Corporate repentance may be a good first step of commitment to live in uncompromising godliness.
120. This age-old rhetorical scheme is easy to organize and manipulate; perhaps the reason is because we tend to think that way. There might very well be a hardwiring in our brains for a Problem–Solution–Application sequence.
121. Of course, the portion of text employed here depicts the negative: the unsolution, if you will (or the cause of the problem)—what the Israelites did to merit the loss of blessing.
