Читать книгу Judges - Abraham Kuruvilla - Страница 9

Paradigm and Exemplar

Judges 2:6—3:11

[Israelites’ Infidelity; Spiral of Failure; Othniel’s Example]

REVIEW, SUMMARY, PREVIEW

Review of Pericope 1: In Jdg 1:1—2:5, the background of sociopolitical decline for the rest of the book of Judges is set. The people of God fail to live in uncompromising godliness, and to trust God for success. As a consequence, there is a progressively worsening state of coexistence with the native Canaanites, drawing an indictment from God.

Summary of Pericope 2: The second pericope of Judges (2:6—3:11) comprises Prologue II of Judges and the Othniel story. It details the religious decline of the Israelites, the unfaithfulness of the new generation after Joshua who did not know or experience God firsthand. Their infidelity spirals downward with each iteration of the judge stories, creating a paradigm for these failures, as well as for the divine punishment that ensues. Othniel, the first judge, is the parade example of a godly leader: his story follows the paradigm precisely and, with divine aid, he deliverers Israel.

Preview of Pericope 3: The next pericope, Jdg 3:12–31, depicts the second major judge in the series, Ehud. His duplicitous words and deceptive actions are subtly deprecated in his story. Finally, the cameo of Shamgar makes this minor judge a foil for the major judge who lacks integrity. With the implicit disapproval of Ehud’s actions and the approval of Shamgar’s, integrity in leadership forms the thrust of this pericope

2. Judges 2:6—3:11

THEOLOGICAL FOCUS OF PERICOPE 2
2	Personal experience of God produces unwavering commitment to him, with minimizing of self so as to give him glory (2:6—3:11).
	2.1	Failure of uncompromising obedience to divine commands precludes the enjoyment of divine blessing.
		2.1.1	Failure to experience God firsthand dilutes commitment to him.
		2.1.2	Forsaking the true God and following other idols have disastrous consequences.
	2.2	Faithful commitment to God gives him the glory and minimizes self (3:7–11).

OVERVIEW

Judges 1:1—3:6 constitutes the Prologue of the book of Judges, comprising Prologue I (Pericope 1: Jdg 1:1—2:5) and Prologue II (part of Pericope 2: Jdg 2:6—3:11, that also includes the Othniel story, 3:7–11). This corresponds to the two-part epilogue of the book: Epilogue I (Pericope 12: Jdg 17:1—18:31) and Epilogue II (Pericope 13: Jdg 19:1–30 and Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1—21:25).

O’Connell observes that “[t]he high concentration in 2:11—3:6 of phraseological parallels to biblical passages that focus upon covenantal adherence (particularly Josh 23–24, Deut 4–11 and 31:14–29)” are indicators of the narrator’s concern in this pericope to view Israel’s conduct as essentially covenantal malfeasance (i.e., religious decline), as opposed to the primary interest of Pericope 1 (1:1—2:5) which was to depict Israel’s failure to conquer the land (i.e., socio-political decline).122 There is concern for the conquest of the land in Pericope 2 (2:6, 21, 23; 3:1, 3), but that does not appear to be its focus; rather, the failure to occupy the land and the continuing presence of the enemy in Canaan seem to be symptoms of a disease: covenant disloyalty. Unfortunately, under the leadership exhibited by the various judges in this book, a strong commitment to Yahweh’s covenant will never materialize—the calamitous story of Judges. Indeed, a glance at Prologues I and II clue us in to the reason: Prologue I begins with the cult: 1:1–2, Israel seeking Yahweh’s guidance; Prologue II ends with the cult: 3:5–6, but unfortunately with Israel serving other gods.

In sum, while Pericope 1 reports events from a human point of view–socio-political decline—most of Pericope 2 relates matters from a divine point of view—religious decline. The first is more linear in arrangement and historical in nature; the second, more cyclical in arrangement and theological in nature, particularly 2:11–19, that creates a repeatable paradigm that resonates through the rest of the book.123 In Pericope 2, the story shifts back to Joshua’s demise already noted in 1:1 (and reported in Josh 24:28; see Jdg 2:6–10). From this starting point, 2:6—3:6 paints “a panoramic temporal overview of the entire period covered by the Book of Judges. In sweeping temporal terms, a cyclical sequence is presented [2:11–19] which explains not only the incidents of Judges 1 but all the events to follow in the book.”124 After this flashback to Joshua’s death and burial (2:6–10),125 there is a description of the cycle of disobedience, discipline, and deliverance (2:11–19, the paradigm), followed by the report of Yahweh’s censure (2:20–23), and a narratival summary reflecting the divine diatribe and the people’s covenantal failure (3:1–6). The text then provides the account of the first judge in the book, Othniel (3:7–11), that precisely fulfills all the elements of the paradigmatic cycle of 2:11–19.126 In any case, the outlook is bleak for the Israelites and this period of the judges.

2.1. Judges 2:6—3:6

THEOLOGICAL FOCUS 2.1
2	Personal experience of God produces unwavering commitment to him, with minimizing of self so as to give him glory (2:6—3:11).
	2.1	Failure to experience God firsthand and forsaking him have disastrous consequences (2:6—3:6).
		2.1.1	Failure to experience God firsthand dilutes commitment to him.
		2.1.2	Forsaking the true God and following other idols have disastrous consequences.

NOTES 2.1

2.1.1 Failure to experience God firsthand dilutes commitment to him.

The narrative could easily have moved from 2:5 to 2:11, from repentance to regression, from contrition to corruption. Instead, we have a sort of detour in 2:6–10 to establish a theological point. Judges 2:6–10 is almost identical to Josh 24:28–31, but it weaves the story in its own way for a different theological purpose—a case of the author doing things with what he is saying. The death of Joshua had already been noted in Jdg 1:1, to introduce the military failures of the Israelite conquest. Now the restatement of the hero’s demise in Pericope 2 explores the theological underpinnings of these Israelite debacles.

As seen above, Joshua 24:31 is shifted forwards in the Judges report (making it Jdg 2:7), to which 2:10 is added (that has no parallel in Joshua 24).127 This distinguishes the generation before (2:7) the death of Joshua (2:8–9)128 from the generation after (2:10). Another change worthy of note: Josh 24:31 uses the verb “know” to describe the generation before Joshua’s death—they knew the deeds of Yahweh.129 Judges 2:7 changes that to “see”—this earlier generation did not just know the “great deeds of Yahweh,” they had actually seen them!130 Judges 2:6 also has “the sons of Israel went each to his inheritance to possess the land” (Josh 24:28 simply has “each to his inheritance”). These additions in Jdg 2:6 underscore the responsibility of the Israelites: they had to go and possess the land—that was the intent of Joshua’s dismissal and, indeed, the goal of the entire conquest.

Unfortunately, as was detailed in Pericope 1, the post-Joshua generation went but did not possess the land for, as Jdg 2:10 declares, they did not “know Yahweh, or the deeds which he had done.” This is the most significant change from Josh 24:28–31—the addition of the notice in Jdg 2:10 regarding the generation after Joshua’s death and their ignorance of Yahweh and his work. And what they did in their abysmal ignorance—and kept on doing—is the burden of 2:11—3:6, and indeed, of the rest of the book of Judges. Strikingly, in “all” the days of Joshua, and in “all” the days of the elders of his day (2:7), “all” that generation (2:10) had seen “all” the great work of Yahweh on behalf of Israel (2:7). But now there was a new generation indifferent to Yahweh and his deeds (2:10). What a contrast! Since “knowing” in Hebrew has deeper connotations than simply cognition, and includes covenantal relationships and loyalty thereto (for e.g., Gen 18:19, between God and man; Gen 4:1 [with Mal 2:13–16], between man and wife), “‘not knowing’ involves more than lacking information; it is a refusal to accept the obligations entailed in a [covenant] relationship.”131 Thus, Jdg 2:6–10 is not primarily about Joshua; it is about the new, post-Joshua generation of people and their deplorable failure to follow Yahweh as their predecessors had done.132 Had it been otherwise, had they followed Yahweh wholeheartedly, “Israelite history would have taken a completely different course, the events described in the rest of the book would never have happened, and the Book of Judges would never [have] been written.”133

The only named human in this pericope (excluding the Othniel account, 3:7–11) is Joshua, the exemplar, “the servant of Yahweh” (2:8; also in Josh 24:29), a term also used of Moses (Exod 14:31; Num 12:8; Deut 34:5; Josh 1:1; etc.). In contrast to him are the Israelites, “who did not know Yahweh or the deeds which He had done” (Jdg 2:10), and who “played harlot after other gods and bowed down to them” (2:17), corrupt and stubborn (2:19). The other actant here is, of course, divine: Yahweh. This one is in turn angry (2:14), moved to pity (2:18), and angry again (2:20), with the evil engagements of his people. This cycle of emotions parallels the cycle of wickedness of the Israelites: doing evil and following other gods (2:11–13), groaning about their punitive afflictions (2:18), returning again to evil and to other gods once their oppression has been alleviated (2:19). The first clues of apostasy were seen in Pericope 1, but it is highlighted in 2:11—3:6, so that the bulk of Pericope 2 declares “the author’s fundamental thesis: the nation of Israel has been thoroughly Canaanized; this accounts for and is fundamental to the darkness demonstrated in the rest of the book.”134

And the result? Yahweh had once promised to give Canaan “into the hands” of the Israelites (Josh 6:2; 10:8; 11:6); he had once begun to give the land “into the hands” of the Judah-Simeon alliance (Jdg 1:4). But alas, that was only a partial success (see Pericope 1: Jdg 1:1—2:5). Now we are told in 2:14 that Israel was given/sold “into the hands” of their enemies by Yahweh himself, the result of their unfaithfulness to him (2:11–13). It was no longer a coexistence of Israelites with Canaanites, the latter—divinely ordained enemies—were oppressing the former. All because of a “failure of the community to keep alive its memory of Yahweh’s gracious saving acts. . . . All that follows in the book is a consequence of Israel’s loss of memory” (2:10) and a lack of firsthand experience of God.135

2.1.2 Forsaking the true God and following other idols have disastrous consequences.

Judges 2:11–19 forms the paradigmatic layout of what will be discovered in each of the six major judge accounts.136

That 2:11–19 describes a paradigm or a pattern is clear: “everywhere they went” (2:15), “when[ever] Yahweh raised” (2:18; the temporal sense of yki, ki), and “when[ever] it came about that the judge died” (2:19; the temporal sense of b, b).137 The structure of 2:11–14a, the opening indictment of the Israelites, is illuminating:

Notice the interweaving of the names of deities that literarily demonstrates the Israelites’ syncretism: “Yahweh” in A, C, D, C', and A'; and “Baal(s)”/“gods”/“Ashtaroth” in B, D, B'. “Israel” is symmetrically found in A and A'. Chisholm observes that the eight wayyiqtol verbs in 2:11–13 that depict Israel’s evildoing forms a pattern: one (2:11a, summary) and seven (2:11b–13, details), suggesting a comprehensive and thoroughgoing apostasy.138 So the central element, D (2:12b), though stunning, is not surprising. It was not simply a memory lapse that the Israelites suffered, in forgetting Yahweh and his great deeds (2:10); neither was it merely an inadvertent straying from the straight and narrow. Rather, it was a deliberate going after other gods and worshiping them!139 This was treason!

Not knowing Yahweh firsthand, Yahweh is only “the God of their fathers” to the current generation (2:12)—suggesting distance. But the false gods they were running after now were “the gods of the peoples who were around them” (2:12)—suggesting greater proximity.140

The Canaanites, “the inhabitants of the land” (1:32–33), were practiced at working the land and attributed their success to the worship of these gods. The new generation of Israelites, who had known only desert life, had no such skills, but their survival now depended on adapting to their new situation as quickly as possible. What else could they do but learn from their Canaanite neighbors? It was the way of “common sense” and “necessity.” It was not the way of Yahweh, however; it was the triumph of pragmatics over principle, and a failure to trust the God who had proven himself capable of meeting their needs in the wilderness, and would surely have done so again in the land he had given them if only they had trusted him to do so. But they did not; they abandoned him . . . .141

In the chiastic scheme shown above, first, human actions are depicted (2:11–13): “did evil,” “served” (×2), “forsook” (×2), “went after,” “bowed,” and “angered.”142 Then divine actions, in response to the human ones, are described (2:14–15): “burned,” “gave,” “sold,” “was against.” “Doing evil in the sight of Yahweh” (2:11a) frequently indicates idolatrous practices in the OT: Deut 4:25; 9:18 (referring to the golden calf episode); 17:2–3; 31:29 (where “work of your hands” = idols); and Jdg 2:11; 3:7; 10:6 (though the element occurs in all the narratives in Judges, only here is evildoing specifically linked to idolatry). In several of these references, one also finds the verb “angering” with Yahweh as the subject (Jdg 2:12), also frequently linked with the idolatrous practices of his people (see Deut 4:25; 9:18; 31:29; 32:16, 21). Of course, doing “evil in the sight of Yahweh” is equivalent to each Israelite doing what is “good in his own sight” (Jdg 17:6; 21:25). And so Yahweh’s disgust and outrage at the progressively increasing Canaanization of his people is depicted in the repeated statement: “and the anger of Yahweh burned against Israel” (Jdg 2:12b, 14a; also 2:20a, and later in 3:8; 10:7), bespeaking deity’s emotional and personal involvement with his people. A direct discourse, later in 2:20–22, opens a window into Yahweh’s deep concern. Thus the whole scheme of punishment “is not caused by an automatic deed-consequence nexus.” Rather, it is a sequence of Israelites’ deed → Yahweh’s intense emotion → Israelites’ punishment. In other words, Yahweh has strong feelings towards, and an abiding personal involvement with, his people.143 His giving the Israelites—and selling them—into the “hands” of their enemies (2:14) is equated with the “hand” of Yahweh being against them for evil (2:15): the people fall from the divine “hand” into the human “hand.”144 And, with the native hostile characters mentioned in 3:3, the entire topography of the Promised Land is seen to be filled with belligerents inimical to Israel’s and Yahweh’s interests: the Philistines in the southwest,145 the Sidonians in the northwest, the Hivites in the northeast, and the Canaanites in the southeast. The Israelites are in for a tough time, surrounded by enemies!

When the Israelites “groan” or “cry” to Yahweh, an immediate response from the latter takes place only in 2:18; 3:9; and 3:15 (see paradigm above). In the rest of the narratives, the reader is in suspense: Will Yahweh act? Clearly the relationship between God and his people deteriorates with time. Indeed, the entire paradigm, first set in 2:11–19 and then exemplified perfectly in Othniel (3:7–11), crumbles as the narration proceeds in the rest of the Body of Judges. Exum’s observation is perceptive:

Although we are led to expect a consistent and regular pattern, what happens is that the framework itself breaks down. Rather than attributing it to careless redaction, I take it as a sign of further dissolution. The political and moral instability depicted in Judges is reflected in the textual instability. The framework deconstructs itself, so to speak, and the cycle of apostasy and deliverance becomes increasingly murky.146

Yahweh’s lack of response to the burden of his people in later narratives is because the Israelites’ “cry” does not necessarily include repentance.147 The “groaning” (and later “crying”) of the Israelites in 2:18 reflects their weeping (and sacrifices) in 2:4–5—neither had any indication of being accompanied by repentance. Though bWv, shub, “turn back” (frequently denoting repentance in the OT) occurs in 2:19, that did not constitute repentance towards Yahweh. It was actually the other way round—a deeper plunge of the Israelites into apostasy, their “return” to idolatry. It was as if they had repented of Yahwism! “Indeed one could reasonably argue that the cries so described have no spiritual or theological component, but are simply ‘the loud and agonized “crying” of someone in acute distress, calling for help and seeking deliverance.’”148 This sense of “crying” sans repentance explains the repeated cycle of evildoing in Judges: they “continued to do evil” in 3:12; 4:1; 10:6; 13:1), they had never stopped! That, of course, makes God’s compassion even more remarkable as, time and again, he sends deliverers/judges to relieve his people from their enemies (2:18; 3:9, 15; 4:6–7; 6:12, 14, 16; 13:3–5).

The rest of the book details how everything falls apart from this point, each leader worse than the previous one. This spiral downwards is visible even here at the beginning. Earlier, in 2:12, the Israelites were said to have “gone after” (yrEx]a; $l;h', halak ’akhare) false gods; here, in 2:17, they have “lusted after” (or “played harlot after,” yrEx]a; hn"z", zanah ’akhare) those gods: they had gone from bad to worse!149 In fact, they were “turning aside quickly” from the obedient ways of their fathers (2:17), each succeeding generation “being more corrupt” than the previous (2:19), with a greater intentionality about their apostasy—“they did not abandon their practices or their stubborn ways” (2:19).150 Unfortunately, Yahweh’s compassion and deliverance (2:18) has no lasting effect on his people.

The last portion of Pericope 1, 2:1–5, is reflected in this pericope, in 2:20–22: both mention “covenant” (2:1, 2, 20), “fathers” (2:1, 20, 22) “obey/listen” ([mv, shm‘, 2:20), and “not drive out” (vrg, grsh, in 2:3; and vry, yrsh, in 2:21). But while in the earlier pericope, Yahweh spoke directly to his people through his angel (2:1–5), here in 2:20–22, he only speaks about them rather obliquely. The distancing is obvious. Besides, earlier, Yahweh only reminded Israel of his threat not to evacuate the inhabitants of the land (2:3); here, in 2:22, he actually decides to make good on that threat, declaring that he will “not drive out . . . any man from the nations” (2:21), not even one! It appears, from the language of 2:21—“I, also, for my part, will no longer drive out” Israel’s enemies—that, since “the nation has transgressed My covenant” (2:20), Yahweh, too, was going to hold off on his promise of giving his people success in the conquest. This announcement of the divine intention to leave Israel’s opponents in the Promised Land also had other goals besides chastisement (2:6–21): it would be a “test” of Israel’s adherence to Yahweh’s covenant and his commandments—keeping the way of Yahweh and walking in it (2:22; also 3:4)—and it would also be a “test” of Israel’s capacity for war (3:1–2). But these are not all disparate tests/purposes: it is obvious that all of these are wrapped into the single goal of God: to have his people walk in his ways.151

As Prologue II concludes with 3:5–6, we run into a couple of surprises: it is said that the Israelites “served [db[, ‘bd] their gods,” i.e., all the gods of the peoples just mentioned: Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and the Jebusites (3:5)!152 This was a wholesale defection from Yahweh to harlotry! Talking of which, we are also surprised to spot another new datum regarding the apostasy of the Israelites: their intermarriage with the inhabitants of the lands (along with a repeated affirmation that they served other gods, 3:6)—the first time such an accusation of exogamy is brought against God’s people in Judges. That was a clear violation of warnings given in Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3–4; and Josh 23:12–13. By these unsanctioned unions, societal structures would be destroyed, religious affections diluted, and Yahwistic passions adulterated. According to Chisholm, this is “the missing piece in the puzzle that explains how the compromises of Jdg 1:1—2:5 led to the outright paganism of 2:6—3:6 . . . for close alliances of this type pollute the covenant community and inevitably lead to compromise and sin.”153 One might picture the causal relationships that link Prologues I and II this way.154

Intermarriage is thus the “middle term” that demonstrates the sequence: living → intermarrying → serving. This particular sin had not been mentioned thus far; instead, what we found was the endogamous marriage of Othniel and Achsah, the former being the first and exemplar judge of the book (3:7–11). But the Israelites fail to follow that perfect model and lapse into harlotry, in more ways than one (2:2, 11–13, 17, 19; 3:6).

Thus Prologue I/Pericope 1 (Jdg 1:1—2:5) appears to take place before the apostasy of the Israelites. The consequence of living with the Canaanites was intermarriage, that led to the Israelites’ subsequent infidelity to Yahweh. So Prologue II (2:6–3:6) is a “narrative abstract, an outline” of this progressively increasing unfaithfulness that is detailed in the remainder of the book and is contemporaneous with the accounts of the judges (Body: Jdg 3:7—16:31).155 All that to say, forsaking God has its consequences.

2.2. Judges 3:7–11

THEOLOGICAL FOCUS 2.2
2	Personal experience of God produces unwavering commitment to him, with minimizing of self so as to give him glory (3:7–11).
	2.2	Faithful commitment to God gives him the glory and minimizes self (3:7–11).

NOTES 2.2

2.2 Faithful commitment to God gives him the glory and minimizes self.

The final part of Pericope 2 is the narrative of the first judge, Othniel (3:7–11). His story is launched with a formulaic report, “And the sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh” (3:7; also seen in the paradigm in 2:11, replicated at the beginning of the narratives of each of the major judges: 3:12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). It is likely that Othniel is part of the post-Joshua generation; his label as the son of Caleb’s “younger brother” (in 1:13 and 3:9), emphasizes this generational distinction.156 And thus the stories of the judges begin, with a new generation on stage.

In its details, Othniel’s account corresponds precisely with the paradigm set up in 2:11–19:

All of the stereotypical language is closely followed; there is no indication of any heroic personal action on the part of Othniel. Othniel’s account does not resemble a narrative as much as it does a “pattern-fulfillment description.”157 No other account will follow the paradigm of 2:11–19 as closely and as unambiguously as does the Othniel narrative, the shortest one of the stories of the major judges. Othniel is depicted as an ideal judge in a far-less-than-ideal age—when the post-Joshua generation did “what was evil in the sight of Yahweh” (3:7).

Othniel, as far as we are told, has no flaws, no character deficiencies, and no idiosyncrasies that cripple him, unlike the judges who follow. In the other judge accounts, there is always mention of a personal detail of the judge in question that appears to render that individual an unlikely choice for leader: Ehud’s left-handedness, Barak’s timidity, Gideon’s indecision, Jephthah’s pedigree, and Samson’s promiscuity. But not for Othniel—he, apparently, is blemishless, unless one counts his Kenizzite status: he is of foreign blood, but becomes firmly entrenched in the tribe of Judah.158 “[A]lthough for the first time there is a particular enemy and a particular judge, there are no plot expansions or developments: no dialogue, no reported speech of any kind, no dramatization of events, no scenic presentations, no descriptions of any character flaws, and so on. . . . Nothing distracts the reader from the clear message of God’s intervention through the deliverer . . . he raises up.”159 Thus any future deviation from the paradigm and its parade example, Othniel’s account, will be significant. “It is almost as if the narrative immediately presents us with an example of what the coming story about the judges will not look like.”160 So all we have in 3:1–7 is a verbally frugal, narrativally skeletal story of a man faithful to his God, bringing about good for his people. Perhaps that is the best kind of leader, the one without flashy pyrotechnics or glaring flaws. If only all the judges had been like Othniel, responsibly setting things straight, zealously striving for Yahweh, warring in the might of Yahweh’s Spirit, and bringing about rest for the land. But, alas, 3:12 shows us what happens after this worthy judge: “And the sons of Israel continued to do evil in Yahweh’s sight.” After Othniel, each judge account seems to be disintegrating, at least from the perspective of the paradigm, losing elements therefrom or, as in most cases, adding more insalubrious details of the evildoing of the Israelites, the turpitude of the judge, the oppression of the enemies, and the deplorable state at the demise of the particular leader.

Despite the strict adherence to the paradigm, 3:7 does introduce yet another new facet of the Israelites’ evildoing: “they forgot Yahweh their God.” This failure of memory, of which they had been warned in Deut 6:12 and 8:11, seems to have been the cause of all their transgressions—evildoing and serving Baals and the Asheroth (hinted also in Jdg 2:10–11: this new generation did not know Yahweh or his deeds, and that led them to evildoing and serving Baals). “To forget the Lord involves neglect of his covenant demands, ingratitude for his blessings, and a self-sufficient attitude. This in turn opens the door to idolatry.”161 It seems that forgetting Yahweh made them remember Baals! Because the Israelites “served” the Baals and Asheroth (3:7), they were made to “serve” the king of Mesopotamia, Cushan-rishathaim (3:8).162 The impact of his name and its etymology echoes in this brief narrative: “Cushan-rishathaim” occurs twice in 3:8 and twice in 3:10 (also repeated is “king of Mesopotamia,” 3:8, 10); “Othniel,” too, occurs only twice in the cameo (3:9, 11). But one notices that “Yahweh” occurs seven times in just five verses. So this narrative turns out to be primarily not about Othniel, but about Yahweh, himself. Indeed, in no other judge narrative is the role of God so clearly depicted; no other story does Yahweh permeate as fully as he does this one.

Yahweh’s support, an element of the paradigm, also shows up in an unusual way for the first time: “And Yahweh’s Spirit came upon him” (3:10). In the paradigm, this is reflected in the notice that “Yahweh was with the judge” (2:18), but the coming of the Spirit upon Othniel (and on some of the other judges) indicates a dramatic and dynamic involvement of Yahweh with his chosen deliverer.163 Underlining this support are textual clues: Othniel’s actions (in wayyiqtol verbs) is three times preceded by God’s primary action:

Othniel sets the standards by which all other judges must measure themselves. Othniel places the tribe of Judah at the head of the list of deliverers just as it stood at the head of the list of tribes who would go up to conquer for Yahweh (1:1–2). Othniel lets God remain in center stage. Othniel delivers Israel after only eight years of oppression. Othniel does nothing to intrude his own personality, his fears, his doubts, or his greed into the narrative. . . . The book of Judges should reflect a boring string of framework narratives like this. Instead it has to add the many stories of disobedience and ego.164

While the role of all the judges was to deliver their people (a notion introduced in the paradigm in 2:16, 18), only the first two judges, Othniel and Ehud actually are labeled “deliverers” (as a noun: 3:9, 15; the verb form is used of other judges, both major and minor: 3:31; 6:14, 15; 8:22; 10:1; 13:5). This sets these two apart from the ones who followed them. The unraveling has commenced!

The result of Othniel’s leadership is four decades of rest for the land—and this after a single-sentence report of a battle against one who was “doubly wicked”! The attainment of rest was a major goal of the conquest as Josh 11:23 and 14:15 indicate. But this is possible only when the leader is raised and empowered by God and aligns himself to divine purposes, eschewing self-aggrandizement, faithlessness, and fear. “Othniel, who lives in Israel after the death of Joshua and the elders who outlived Joshua, models true judgeship for all who follow him in that position. There never is another Joshua, a survivor of a faithless generation, and there never is another Othniel, a survivor of a faithful generation.”165 His faithful commitment to deity glorifies God and minimizes himself.

SERMON FOCUS AND OUTLINES166

THEOLOGICAL FOCUS OF PERICOPE 2 FOR PREACHING44
2	Personal experience of God produces unwavering commitment to him and gives him glory (2:6—3:11).

The negative side of “personal experience of God” is what is depicted in this pericope—the failure to experience God firsthand. Did the prior generation have a role in this? Were they negligent in some way? This pericope does not address the issue, but specific application could conceivably go in that direction: those who have experienced God firsthand are responsible to teach the next generation to do so themselves. Or the application could be an exhortation to the people of God to experience God personally, firsthand, themselves: perhaps this includes remembering the deeds of God in one’s own life (or in the corporate life of the church), etc.

Possible Preaching Outlines for Pericope 2

I. Forgetting God

Failure to experience God firsthand: new generation (2:6–10)

Missing the blessings of God: the cycle/spiral of failure (2:11–19)

Divine punishment (2:20—3:6)

Move-to-relevance: How God’s people forget him; the consequences

II. Following God

Importance of experiencing God firsthand: old generation (2:6–10)

Othniel’s parade example: minimizing self (3:7–11)

Move-to-relevance: The blessings of God for following him167

III. Experience God!

How we can experience God firsthand

How we can teach the next generation to do so

A rearrangement of the outline above gives us this:

I. LESSON: Forgetting God vs. Following God

Failure to experience God firsthand: new vs. old generation (2:6–10)

Missing the blessings of God: the cycle/spiral of failure (2:11–19)

Divine punishment (2:20—3:6)

Move-to-relevance: How God’s people forget him; the consequences

II. EXAMPLE: Othniel

Othniel’s parade example: minimizing self (3:7–11)

Move-to-relevance: The blessings of God for following him

III. APPLICATION: Experience God!

How we can experience God firsthand

How we can teach the next generation to do so

122. O'Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 117.

123. Younger, Judges, Ruth, 84–85.

124. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 151.

125. Judges 2:6 begins with a wayyiqtol verb, usually indicating a sequential order of the narrative, but that need not always be the case: see 2:23; 3:16; 5:1; 8:4 (referring back to 7:25), 29; 9:42; 11:4 (referring back to 10:9); 12:4; 16:3; 20:36; 21:6, 24; etc., for exceptions. It is best to see 2:6 as a flashback. See Chisholm, Judges and Ruth, 152 n.9.

126. Judges 3:7–11 remains distinct from 2:6–3:6, for it introduces the first of the judges; it forms part of the Body of the book (3:7—16:31). But Othniel’s account adheres perfectly to the paradigm of the cycle depicted in 2:11–19 and is therefore included within Pericope 2 (Jdg 2:6—3:11). As was noted in the Introduction, “pericope,” as I see it, simply designates a preaching text, irrespective of size or genre. The distinction made between pericopes is more pragmatic than technical. A pericope generates a theological thrust for a sermon sufficiently distinct from the theological thrust of the pericope preceding and following. In other words, a pericope is a unit of text upon which a sermon with a discrete theological idea can be preached.

127. The LXX maintains an identical order of verses between Josh 24:28–31 and Jdg 2:6–9 but, like the MT, it adds 2:10.

128. A further nuancing: The generation of Joshua includes those elders who outlived him (2:7), those who had seen Yahweh’s great work. These, of course, die only after Joshua (2:10a). It is the subsequent generation that is the problem (2:10b). The term “gathered to one’s fathers” (2:10a), employed of Joshua’s generation, is idiomatic for death and burial, but in this instance it may also connote integral union and solidarity in faith with the generations that preceded them (i.e., before Joshua). This is, of course, in contrast, to the subsequent generation (i.e., after Joshua) that was ignorant of God and his work (2:10b). Did the generation of Joshua’s time contribute unintentionally to this loss of collective memory of Yahweh and his deeds? “In one generation true religion, the religion of Josh 24, vanished from the promised land. . . . A generation that does not teach its children, as Josh 4:6, 21 advised, would lose its children to false religion” (Butler, Judges, 42).

129. The verb “know” shows up in 2:10: the generation after Joshua did not “know” Yahweh or his deeds.

130. And emphasizing what the previous generation had seen, the narrator of Judges also adds “great” to describe the work of Yahweh (2:7; the adjective is missing in Josh 24:28). There are, in addition, a few stylistic alterations of conjunctions, a minor difference in the name of Joshua’s burial place, etc., between the Joshua and Judges accounts.

131. Webb, Judges, 138.

132. The mention of Joshua’s 110 years (2:8) also subtly underscores the lengthy service of Yahweh that this leader of an earlier generation performed, making the rapid failure of the following generation all the more striking and painful.

133. Block, Judges, Ruth, 118.

134. Ibid.

135. Ibid., 122–23.

136. Modified from Gillmayr-Bucher, “Framework and Discourse,” 691–93; and Greenspahn, “The Theology of the Framework of Judges,” 388. Yahweh “selling” his people into the hands of their enemies also finds mention in 11:21; 15:12, 18. And the “giving” of enemies into Israel’s “hands” is also mentioned in an oracle (1:2), prophetic speeches (4:3, 14), a divine utterance (7:7), a dream sequence (7:14, 15), altercations (8:3, 7), a recital of history (11:21), a vow (11:30), and in a plea (15:18). The presence of the Spirit of God, as we shall see again, is not an indicator of Yahweh’s approval of the subsequent actions of the judge so imbued; it merely reminds the readers that God is acting, whether the judge knew it or not. One also must remember that, outside of Othniel’s story—he was the model judge—the rest of the stories show deviations from this paradigm, the shifts and alterations themselves being clues to the theologies of the individual pericopes.

137. In addition, Chisholm notes the sequence of weqatal forms in 2:18 (“[Yahweh] raised,” “[Yahweh] was with . . . ,” where one might have expected wayyiqtol forms), and a customary imperfect followed by a weqatal in 2:19 (“they returned and acted corruptly”)—all evidences of the narrator describing a pattern or a custom (Judges and Ruth, 149 n.5).

138. Ibid., 153. Amos 1–2 has, in a similar fashion, seven judgment oracles against the nations and Judah, followed by an eighth specifically against Israel.

139. We find out in 2:19 that these depravities were the result of “stubbornness”—deliberate and rebellious acts of evil. The note in 2:17 about Israel neglecting the “commandments of Yahweh” is particularly stinging, in light of the efforts of Joshua in the previous generation to instill in his people the importance of abiding by the word of God (Josh 1:7–8; 23:6–8, 14–16; 24:26–27). The succeeding generation, then, had not only forgotten (“not known”) Yahweh and his deeds (Jdg 2:10), they had forgotten his words, too!

140. “Baals” in 2:11 is a generic term indicating “all false divinities, powers, or numina, of either sex.” “Baal and the Ashtaroth” in 2:13 are more specific, indicating the male and female components of these false gods (Sasson, Judges 1–12, 190). In the OT, “Baal” is often in the plural and with the article (“the Baals,” 2:11) or with a localizing suffix (Baal-gad, Josh 11:17; Baal-hazor, 2 Sam 13:23; etc.; also see Baal-berith, Jdg 8:33; 9:4). Therefore, “Baal” is essentially a common noun, even when singular where it is likely a shorthand for Baal-X (where X = a particular place). On the other hand, “Yahweh” is always used as a personal name, and never with the article, or with a place-suffix. “In other words, according to the biblical writers the Canaanites, in contrast to Israel, worshiped many different ‘Baals’”—a pluralism of deities (Webb, Judges, 142). The “Astharoths” (singular “Ashtoreth,” a distortion of Astarte) were consorts and female counterparts of the Baals, often associated with sacred prostitution (2 Kgs 23:7). The gendering of these deities indicated their importance to fertility, particularly of land and livestock (though Baal was primarily a storm god).

141. Ibid., 143.

142. Also see 2:19 for the Israelites’ “going after,” “serving,” and “worshiping.”

143. Gillmayr-Bucher, “Framework and Discourse,” 691.

144. This was not a surprise for the Israelites, for the text makes it clear that this return of evil for evil (tit for tat) was “as Yahweh had spoken and as Yahweh had sworn to them”—they had been warned (2:15; see Deut 6:14–15; 7:4; 28:15–37; 31:16–21).

145. The mention of “Philistines” in 3:3, a puzzling addition, for these were one of several of Sea Peoples who came from Anatolia and the Mediterranean in the twelfth to eleventh centuries. and, according to 1:17–18, 34–36, in the days of Judges, Canaanites were occupying those cities that would only later be part of Philistine territory; perhaps the scene of 3:1–6 is set at a time later than 1:1–36.

146. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 412.

147. See Lam 2:18 and Isa 19:20 (repentance is seen only in 19:22). “Crying” is often paralleled with “wailing” (Isa 14:31; 65:14; Jer 25:34; etc.), and it also used in connection with the Israelites’ murmuring and complaining in Exod 15:25; 17:4; Num 11:2.

148. Greenspahn, “The Theology of the Framework of Judges,” 392 (citing Hasel, “q[;z", zā‘aq,” 4:115).

149. The metaphor of harlotry, is appropriate here: the relationship between Yahweh and Israel is frequently described in terms relating to marriage (Exod 34:15–16; Lev 17:7; 20:5–6; Deut 31:16; Pss 73:27; 106:39; Ezek 6:9). Unlike adultery, harlotry implied “habitual illicit behavior,” for ill-gotten gains, and with a multiplicity of partners. One must also consider the fact that the Canaanite deities were “lusty young fertility gods,” and that their cultic system often had erotic rituals and cultic prostitution. In a book whose narrative characters themselves frequently consort with prostitutes (Jdg 11:1; 16:1; 19:2) this metaphor is even more apt. See Younger, Judges, Ruth, 91n20; also Block, Judges, Ruth, 129; Butler, Judges, 47.

150. The phrase “turning aside quickly” occurs elsewhere in the OT only in Exod 32:8 and Deut 9:12, 16, in the context of apostasy. There is also a subtle change in the particles following the verb “to serve,” from Jdg 2:11b (B, above) to 2:13a (B'): ta db[ (‘bd ’t, “service of”) becomes l db[ (‘bd l, “service to). Sasson observes that, judging from 1 Sam 4:9, the latter may suggest that the Israelites had become victims of their idolatry, in bondage to false deities—a worsening of their already sorry state (Judges 1–12, 190). The very posture they adopt, “bowing themselves down [or ‘giving service’] to them” (Jdg 2:12) indicated the depth of their enslavement and perversion.

151. Thus we come up with an inexplicable relationship between cause and effect: the Israelites’ role in not removing the nations (1:1–36) was itself the cause of God not removing the nations (2:6–23). How divine sovereignty is linked to human responsibility is a question far beyond the capacity of any human’s portfolio. Nevertheless, considering a cyclical sequence might help give this some sense: God in his foreknowledge keeps enemies in the land in Joshua’s time (2:23); Israelites fail to drive them out (1:1—2:5); they cohabit with them and fall into apostasy (2:6–19); God refuses to drive out the nations any further (2:20—3:6), etc.

152. This business of serving false gods gets progressively worse as one proceeds through Judges: there is suspicion about idols in Ehud’s day (3:19, 26); Gideon’s father had an altar to Baal and an installation to Asherah that he sponsored (6:25); Gideon himself created an ephod, causing Israel to succumb to the lures of false gods (8:27); the situation was horrible in the time of Jephthah with a pantheon of gods in Israel’s cupboard (10:6–8). And of the nefarious affairs of Micah, his mother, his Levite, and the Danites (in Judges 17–18), the less said, the better!

153. Chisholm, Judges and Ruth, 162.

154. Webb, Judges, 150.

155. Ibid., 154.

156. Othniel is simply labeled the son of Caleb’s “brother” in Josh 15:17.

157. Butler, Judges, 56–57.

158. Or perhaps Othniel’s “deficiency” is that he was the son of a “younger brother” (1:13; 3:9). “In a society strongly influenced by primogeniture, the likelihood that the offspring of a younger (literally ‘smaller’ with implications of ‘unimportant’) brother will become the leader of the elder’s descendants warrants attention” (Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 34).

159. Younger, Judges, Ruth, 100.

160. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 156.

161. Chisholm, Judges and Ruth, 168–69.

162. “Cushan-rishathaim” is likely to have been a pseudonym, for it could mean “Cushan-the-Twice-Wicked” (~yIt'['v.rI, rish‘atayim, being the dual form of [vr, rsh‘, “wickedness”).

163. However, this does not necessarily reflect on the particular judge’s uprightness or the moral probity of his subsequent actions, Samson being a case in point.

164. Butler, Judges, 66.

165. Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books, 113.

166. 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.

167. That God is pleased with the obedience and righteousness of his people is an essential biblical concept. See Kuruvilla, Privilege the Text! 253–58.