David Cavanagh writes: There is a longstanding and widespread convention that Judges is structured around a cyclical structure. Broadly speaking, the pattern is that after arriving in the promised land, Israel turns away from YHWH, who then hands his people over to oppression by surrounding peoples, until Israel repents and calls out to YHWH, who then sends a deliverer or “judge” who liberates Israel and calls the people back to the Lord, re-establishing peace until a new generation, who do not know YHWH and his saving acts, arise and the whole process begins again. This understanding of Judges is by no means merely a popular device to frame its reading, but is also endorsed by notable Old Testament scholars. No less a figure than Walter Brueggemann, describes the “pattern of ‘cry-hear’ or ‘cry-save’ “to be dominant in the narrative pattern of the book of Judges” and sees the “fourfold pattern…exemplified in the brief narrative of Othniel in Judges 3:7-11” as characteristic (Brueggemann, Old Testament Theology: pp 107–108).
While this is a broad outline and some variation is to be expected, attentive readers will find it increasingly difficult to make sense of Judges through this framework. As the narrative progresses, leaders become increasingly self-absorbed and more preoccupied with furthering their own interests rather than liberating their oppressed kinsmen and calling them back to covenant loyalty with YHWH. YHWH himself is increasingly erased from Israel’s memory, history and identity as the people forget the covenant and do not look to him for liberation. Oppression by neighbouring peoples is no longer an issue, as the tribes are riven by conflict with one another. As the account draws to a close, Israel slides into near-total anarchy, with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes, and the book becomes a “text of terror” in which it is hard to find any constructive or edifying instruction (and with which preachers rarely engage from the pulpit).
Isabelle Hamley’s recent commentary, God of Justice and Mercy, will help perplexed readers navigate Judges. She agrees that the prologue
builds a framework for interpretation and expectations of a repeating behaviour cycle: sin-punishment-crying out-deliverance” (p. xi, Introduction)
but cautions that
every story departs from the framework pattern somehow (p. 40) [and] it is where the episode diverges from the ‘nom’ that most of the meaning resides (p. 164).
Taking “the text as received… in its most common form” and read “as part of the Christian canon” as the starting point for a “theological interpretation of the text” (p. viii, Introduction), Hamley provides a clear and incisive reading of Judges, focussing closely on issues of power, justice, faithfulness, and mercy which have characterised much of her work (see, for instance, her 2021 Lent book, Embracing Justice), and which she considers central to Judges.
The truth underlying the tendency to read Judges according to the schematic framework introduced by the prologue is that when human creatures turn away from their Creator, he allows them to experience the consequences of their actions. As the apostle Paul puts it, God “gives them up” to what they have chosen (cf. Romans 1:18ff). In this, Yahweh is a God of justice; as his people reject him, there is a “pattern of increased withdrawal” as Yahweh’s “response to the people’s choice to break the covenant” (p. 143)
Hamley, who has recently taken up an appointment as principal of Ridley Hall after serving as Secretary for Theology and Ecumenical Relations and as a theological adviser to the House of Bishops, proposes that we should read Judges as charting Israel’s failure to learn “how to walk with Yahweh” in the “more settled times” which follow the conquests recorded in Joshua (p. 2.). She argues that over the course of the book we see
a gradually worsening picture of tribes struggling to actualise the unified nation portrayed at the end of Joshua and their increasing assimilation to the surrounding culture (p. xii, Introduction).
In Embracing Justice, Hamley has written at some length about the way in which the shaping of a people’s public imagination structures their social life. Her treatment of the liberation narratives of Exodus draws on this concept to illustrate the oppression of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, the need for justice to be public, and the need for the people of Israel to develop a new identity if they are to live as free people under the Covenant in the Promised Land (Embracing Justice, pp. 37-77).
In similar fashion, she sees Judges as portraying a failure to find ways of “shaping or reshaping the public imagination” (Embracing Justice, p. 49) to provide a framework that is suited to the life of the twelve tribes in the Promised Land. Israel fails to remember and celebrate Yahweh’s saving acts. Judges is characterized by a “paucity of interaction with Yahweh” (p. vii, Introduction), who is often reduced to “a walk-on part” (p. xxi, Introduction). This is reflected in the “conspicuous paucity” of references to “Israel’s spirituality and participation in organised religion” (p. xviii, Introduction), which should provide the rituals and “practices that nurture faith” and so enable each successive generation to both know the story and find their place within it (p. 13).
From this perspective, Israel’s failure to keep the covenant inevitably leads to a breakdown in social cohesion and increasing violence, and Hamley ably charts the progressive dominance of this tendency in Israel’s life. This breakdown of social cohesion and increasing violence appears first in Israel’s conduct towards others. Commenting on the mutilation of the defeated Adoni-bezek, Hamley points out that “The laws of Deuteronomy did not permit Israel to dehumanize their enemies in this way” so that Israel is choosing Canaanite practices over those of the covenant, adopting “another god’s approach to justice” and “already behaving like the people of the land” (p. 4). In similar fashion, when Israel puts the conquered Canaanites to forced labour, Hamley sees this as a tragic failure of memory when “so soon after having been slaves in Egypt, the Hebrews are forcing others into service” (p. 9).
As the narrative progresses, however, this violence increasingly turns inward. “The further…the people move from the covenant, the more…vulnerable members are victimised” (p. 278). As a common vision and framework for living well is eroded, “‘doing what is right in their own eyes’ becomes no more than the law of the strongest, and victims have no recourse” (p. 220). Hamley observes that the death of Gideon’s brothers is the only record (in Judges) of Israelites being killed by foreigners and points out that from that point onwards “all Israelite violent deaths will be at the hands of other Israelites” (p. 94). At the end of the book, as the tribes gather in response to Benjamin’s supposed abuse of the Levite and his concubine, this is
the first time in Judges the nation has gathered, yet it is to punish one of their own rather than to settle the land” (p. 252) [and] Israel assembles for war without having heard clear reasons for it….they assume that violence and war are the solution (p. 246).
Hamley’s earlier work drew significantly on the writings of Luce Irigaray, and it is no surprise that she is attentive to questions of power and oppression. She takes a definite interest in the place of women in Judges, noting how their “agency and personhood are gradually eroded” (p. 155). She contrasts the early narratives, in which women such as Acsah, Deborah and Jael act decisively, with the way in which “women disappear from public spaces and lose speech and names” (p. xx, Introduction) as covenantal life breaks down. Samson’s first wife, for instance, “is nameless, ‘the woman’, the object of Samson’s eyes” (p. 171); her wishes are never considered (p. 167), she is manipulated as a pawn by both Samson and the Philistines (p. 172) and, together with her father, is finally a casualty of the feud between her husband and her people (p. 178).
It would be a mistake to see this as a narrowly feminist reading, however. Hamley’s interest is in the misuse and abuse of power, and she is aware that the complex dynamics and intersections of privilege make it impossible to neatly pigeon-hole whole groups as “victims” or “oppressors”. Her treatment of Sisera’s mother, for instance, illustrates how any given individual can occupy an ambiguous position in terms of such categories. While the attention given to her is “a surprising acknowledgement of the shared humanity and suffering of ‘the other side’” (p. 56-57), the sympathy initially elicited by the portrayal of a woman waiting for her son is then undermined as we see her imagining and condoning the violence of the world of men, especially when she imagines Sisera’s soldiers raping Hebrew ‘wombs’ thereby “reducing women to their forcible sexual use by soldiers” (p. 57).
Similarly, Hamley is aware that in a society “dominated by martial and hypermasculine values, men may survive…though hardly unscathed” (p. 143). She recognises that “male leaders are shaped by hegemonic masculinity” (p. 249), noting how Gideon orders his son, described as a na’ar, a “lad” or “youth” to kill the kings of Succoth, as a possible “rite of initiation” through which Gideon invites his son into leadership (p. 95). In the preceding episode, where Gideon captures a boy or young lad (again, the term is na’ar) and questions him to get the names of the elders of Succoth, Hamley argues that “the use of ‘capture’ together with the differential of power between seasoned military commanders and a boy suggests coercion rather than willing betrayal” (p. 93). In the closing episode, as Benjamin is routed in battle, “they become a victimised individual, like the concubine” (p. 259).
The extent to which individuals (of either gender) can become complicit in self-damaging assumptions and patterns of expectation is similarly foregrounded in Hamley’s analysis of Jephthah’s rash vow. She asks if “father and daughter equally misguided in thinking that the vow must be obeyed? Are they both beholden to inappropriate and damaging notions of obedience and respect for powerful figures, Jephthah towards Yahweh, the daughter towards her father?” (p. 141) and draws attention to the way that both the daughter and her father “focus on the ethical obligation to fulfil the vow, rather than on whether the vow is ethical in the first place” (ibid).
In Judges, as in Paul’s exposition of the gospel in Romans, God’s “justice” in allowing his people to suffer the consequences of their actions is not the last word. Yahweh is a God of mercy, who refuses to ultimately abandon his people (cf. Hosea 11:8-9). Hamley draws out the importance of God’s “mercy” as she observes how the schematic framework of sin-repentance-deliverance is an over-simplification almost from the very beginning. Already in 3:9, when Israel first cries out to Yahweh, the term used (za-aq) “is not normally used to indicate repentance” (p. 27). Here, as in the Exodus, Yahweh responds simply to the suffering of his people (cf. Exodus 3:7-8 and Brueggemann’s comment that
The cry is not addressed to YHWH—or to anyone else. It is a cry addressed to no one—and to anyone who would listen. But it ‘rose up to God’ (Delivered out of Empire, p. 4).
Equally, as the narrative progresses, “the ‘crying out’ is not always addressed to Yahweh and sometimes fails to materialise” (p. 27). Yahweh’s intervention on behalf of Israel is grounded only in his own merciful character (cf. Exodus 20:5-6) and not in any human merit, however minimal, on Israel’s part.
Yahweh’s mercy and grace are also evidenced in his willingness to work with, and through, deeply flawed human leaders. The leaders of Judges, often presented uncritically as Marvel-style heroes in Sunday school lessons, are in the main, deeply flawed characters. Ehud has “mixed motives and a mixed character” (p. 38), Jephthah takes “hesitant and misguided steps” (p. 153), while Samson, described by Justin Welby as “a psychopath entrapped by stupidity and greed” (p.vi, Preface) is the embodiment of “exactly what a man should not be” (p. 196).
All in all, Hamley’s verdict is apt:
These men were not included because they were heroes and perfect followers, but precisely because they were not (p. xv, Introduction). In his mercy, “Yahweh works with human creatures as they are” (p. xxi, Introduction), accepting “whatever faith they had as enough” (p. xiv, Introduction).
In their short-comings and failings, Israel’s leaders point beyond themselves in the first instance to Yahweh, and in a broader canonical perspective, prepare us “for the coming of Jesus as true saviour and king” (p. xiv, Introduction).
This approach naturally influences Hamley’s reading of the book’s closing section, marked by the refrain “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in their own eyes”. This refrain is sometimes understood as laying the groundwork for the establishment of the monarchy. Hamley understands the refrain differently, as raising “the question of kingship and rule, and what it means for Yahweh to be the true king of Israel” (p. 103). She has elsewhere expressed the conviction that “Scripture itself casts doubt on the idea that a system could ever be the answer to the problem of injustice”, arguing that the varied political structures of Israel’s history are all subject to “the dangers of power and abusing it”, and that the roots of abuse and injustice are found “not primarily in systems, but in the human heart of leaders, and the people who enable their leadership to thrive” (Embracing Justice, p. 50.).
There is much to commend this reading. From a canonical perspective, it is clear that the monarchical project is ultimately a failure. With a few honourable exceptions, the kings of Israel and Judah are not faithful to YHWH: indeed, many of them are charged with actively leading the people astray into the idolatry of other gods. Within Judges itself, the failure of the monarchical project is foreshadowed in the Gideon-Abimelech cycle: Gideon may formally refuse kingship, but his son’s name, “meaning ‘my father is king’ is ominous” and “probably reflects Gideon’s real-life status”, given the discrepancy between his words and actions (p. 104). Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that
What matters is not whether Israel has a judge or a king, but what kind of judge or king they have, and what the people’s expectations are (p. xvii, Introduction.).
If, as previously stated, “The failure of human saviours in Judges is part of the pattern that lays the foundation for the coming of Jesus as true saviour and king” (p. xvii, Introduction), this again raises the question of how faith is to be passed on from one generation to the next. Hamley notes that the narrative gives little detail of Israel’s spirituality and participation in organised religion” and “the prologue’s covenantal background sharpens the absence of covenantal living in the rest of the book” (p. xviii, Introduction).
She further comments that although for some,” ‘right’ was following Yahweh as king and seeking to live well…this was an individual choice, rather than an attitude of the nation as a whole” and concludes that Judges “shows the flaws of individualized religion: spirituality may be possible at a personal level, but for justice to be possible there needs to be a collective movement that shapes the life of the whole community” (p. 273).
It would seem to follow that a new generation which has no direct experience of YHWH’s saving acts will only be able to appropriate the faith of the fathers and “move from head knowledge to some form of experiential knowledge” so that it does not just know the story but finds its place within it (p. 13) only if it finds forms of “memory, family and community practices that nurture faith” across the generational divide (ibid).
Leaving aside questions of dating, and adopting the canonical perspective taken by Hamley, in practice this would mean celebrating the festivals prescribed for Israel in Deuteronomy, especially those which involve the re-telling of the exodus from Egypt. Like their New Testament equivalents of the Lord’s Supper, which proclaims the Lord’s death until he returns (1 Corinthians 11:26), and baptism, which is linked to Jesus’ death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4), the Old Testament festivals are acts of remembrance (cf. Luke 22:19b) which “draw us into the event of the covenant’s sealing”, as Rowan Williams reflects in his essay “The Nature Of A Sacrament”. It is here, in these acts of remembrance and recapitulation, that the people of God find their identity and their security.
I warmly recommend God of Justice and Mercy. While it is accessible in style and eschews long technical discussions, and engages only briefly with other studies, it is clearly underpinned by considerable learning and sustained engagement with the Hebrew text. It offers a succinct, clear and articulate reading of Judges, and will be invaluable to those coming to this Old Testament book for personal reading and for those who wish to teach and preach on it.
Bibliography
Walter Brueggemann, Old Testament Theology: An Introduction (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2008).
Delivered out of Empire: Pivotal Moments in the Book of Exodus (Louisville, TN: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021).
Isabelle Hamley, God of Justice and Mercy: a theological commentary on Judges (London: SCM Press, 2021).
Isabelle Hamley, Embracing Justice (London: SPCK, 2021).
Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000).
David Cavanagh was commissioned and ordained as an officer of The Salvation Army in 1992. He subsequently spent 28 years with The Salvation Army in Italy, serving together with his wife, Elaine, as the leader of local congregations in Milan, Catania, Naples and Florence before being appointed as the General Secretary for Italy and Greece. Returning to the UK in the summer of 2020, he now serves as the Assistant Secretary for Scotland, with responsibility for The Salvation Army’s political engagement and ecumenical and interfaith relations in Scotland.
He holds a BA in English & American Literature from the University of Manchester (1986), a BA in Religion and Theology from Oxford Brookes University (2014) and is about to embark on the MA in Mission from Cliff College. His theological interests include hermeneutics, the Quest of the Historical Jesus, the New Perspective on Paul, and Christian Mission.
Buy me a Coffee
Thanks for the review. Another book for my reading list! I’ve generally thought Judges to be a downward spiral – in one way cyclic, but always heading away from the Lord.
These men were not included because they were heroes and perfect followers, but precisely because they were not (p. xv, Introduction). In his mercy, “Yahweh works with human creatures as they are” (p. xxi, Introduction), accepting “whatever faith they had as enough”.
This strikes me as a very poor reading. We’re all deeply flawed characters (speaking for myself at any rate). The men in Judges are included in the story because they were the ones specifically ‘raised up’ (Jud 2:16, 18) by God to save faithless Israel from its enemies. Samson is a good example. He would not have been born at all had God not proactively opened his mother’s womb (Jud 13:3). This is the first of many anticipations of the gospel story (cf Luke 1:7), and it’s near the start of the 40-year period of Philistine oppression (Jud 13:1), decades before he gets to be a judge. Thus God is at work while Israel is still doing evil in his sight and long before anyone might have thought to cry to him for deliverance (no such cry is recorded).
Call him a ‘psychopath entrapped by stupidity and greed’ if you must, but Samson is a type, of which John the Baptist and Jesus himself are the antitypes. The Angel of Yahweh – the pre-incarnate Son of God – tells the mother she is to bring up her child as a Nazirite, eschewing wine and strong drink (Jud 13:4, cf Luke 1:15). Like Zechariah, the father Manoah also plays a prominent part at this point in the story. (Yes, being the head of the family, the father is named and the mother is not. Get over it!) The Spirit of God works in him and through him (Jud 13:25, 14:6). He is betrayed in the same way as Jesus is betrayed (Jud 16:5). He is arrested, bound, tortured and mocked as Jesus was (Jud 16:25, cf Mark 15:17-20). Like Jesus, he voluntarily gives up his life, and by his death Israel is saved from its enemies. Most remarkably of all, his death involves stretching out his arms, just as Jesus outstretched his arms on the cross. Finally, assembled in the temple of Dagon, 3000 men and women were crushed to death; at Pentecost 3000 souls in Jerusalem, probably in the Temple, were saved (Acts 2:41).
The story ends by noting that Samson judged Israel for 20 years. None of that judging activity is described in the story of Samson’s exploits and marriage. He may have judged with great wisdom for all I know, but to speak about his ‘faith’ is beside the point. So far as the biblical writer is concerned, his life was significant not for his 20 years of judging but chiefly because of the way he died.
I generally agree, but Hebrews 11 does commend Samson explicitly for his faith.
” Hebrews 11 does commend Samson explicitly for his faith….”
True, although very much in passing and with no comment.
David Cavanagh – it doesn’t matter at all if it was ‘very much in passing and with no comment’. Faith is a zero-one law; either you have it (c/f John 3:16) or you don’t. At the time of Samson, Jesus had not yet come ‘in the flesh’; faith in Old Testament times was always looking forward to a Redeemer and trust that the Redeemer would restore communion with God, so that one would not perish, but have eternal life.
When Hebrews 11 lists people of faith, we therefore understand that these people had faith in this sense. We therefore have to take Samson very seriously in this context. Ultimately – and despite all his failings – he was a man of faith in the sense of John 3:16.
I appreciate that faith (the starting point) is supposed to instigate a journey whereby, indwelled by the Holy Spirit, we are supposed to conform more and more to the way God intends us to be in the heavenly life to come, the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives should become increasingly apparent – and that Samson, in many ways, doesn’t seem to be very far along that journey.
We have to take very seriously that is is a man of faith. Faith means that John 3:16 applies and that he is ultimately in the number of the Saviour’s family; he is saved.
As Hamley says, “whatever faith they had was enough”…..Mustard seeds and all that
…. but there is something decidedly odd about the phrasing here. It almost looks as if she is giving Samson marks out of 10 for his faith, deciding on a low mark – and condescendingly saying that despite being bottom of the class in terms of faith, it was enough anyway.
How is Samson’s uncontrolled anger and unbridled lust a ‘type’ for Jesus…?!
When did you stop beating your wife?
I do not understand what you are inferring from this comment Steven. Could you explain please?
It’s a standard phrase objecting to a loaded question. I didn’t accept the characterisation of Samson, and I took care to be specific about the aspects in which I saw parallels with John and with Jesus; anger and lust were not among them.
I’m not quite sure who was worrying about the fact that Samson’s mother is not named, but it is worth noticing that she behaves more sensibly than her husband (as far as I remember offhand.)
In response to the various points you raise…
1. You are quite right that we are all imperfect and that the leaders in Judges are mentioned because God raised them up. I think, however, that Hamley’s realism is valuable precisely because it contrasts a tendency to see the leaders in Judges as “Marvel-type heroes”. Figures like Deborah, Gideon and Samson especially tend to be presented as heroes in Sunday school lessons (or at least, were in my day, which is admittedly some 40-odd years ago…!).
2. I am far from convinced by your argument that Samson is a “type” of Christ. While you list an impressive series of apparent parallels, I think the connections are tenuous at best. Whereas the gospels do associated John the Baptist with Elijah, and Matthew seems to present Jesus as a “second Moses”, I don’t see the gospels linking Jesus to Samson in the same way; I do not see the kind of textual echoes that would be necessary to substantiate your claim.
3. Equally, I am perplexed by your claim that the author of Samson is interested in him mainly because of the manner of his death. It seems to me that this argument can be sustained only by bracketing out the various stories that lead up to Samson’s death.
1. Is there really a tendency to see the leaders in Judges as “Marvel-type heroes”? What is the evidence for this, if not primarily your own recollection of Sunday school lessons from 40 years ago? The Samson story can be read at that level, and Sunday school was the context in which I first encountered it, my imagination captivated. I for one am not inclined in my old age to be supercilious and superior about that quality now. I suspect, though, that where Judges is taught at an adult level in churches, the approach is generally an adult one. Mention has been made of Keller’s book. I don’t get the impression he treats the leaders as Marvel-type heroes, and doubtless the same can be said of other such commentaries.
2. To dismiss the connections as tenuous strikes me as merely wilful. The OT can foreshadow the NT in many ways. You’re trying to restrict them just to the one way you recognise (Moses, Elijah). Joseph is a supreme example of a man whose story points to significant aspects of Christ’s life, but again, as with Samson, the only mention of him in this regard is in Hebrews 11. Last year this site hosted an article by James Bejon pointing out parallels between Athaliah and Herod, Joash and the young Jesus – also not mentioned in the NT. In my view they are striking, but with your approach one would have to regard these too as ‘tenuous’.
3. As you say yourself, the various stories – from at least Judges 16:4 – lead up to Samson’s death, and all the stories are unified by the theme of how Samson was the man whom Yhwh appointed to be Israel’s deliverer. Judges 2:18 says: ‘Whenever Yhwh raised up judges for them, Yhwh was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge.’ Yhwh raised Samson up for that purpose, as he announced before his birth (Jud 13:5). Luke 1:69-74, before Christ’s birth, records the prophecy that God would ‘raise up’ a horn of salvation for Israel, whereby ‘we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us’. Another tenuous parallel in your view, but in mine another example of how Luke presents Jesus as the supreme and perfect ‘Judge’ – even though the prophecy is still, as yet, unfulfilled. Indeed I would argue that it is precisely because the prophecy remains unfulfilled that Luke’s echoes of the Book of Judges are of more than passing interest.
I think I would respond as follows:
1. You may be right that scholarly treatments of Judges avoid seeing the leaders as Marvel-style heroes. Adult treatments – by which I assume you mean preaching and teaching – are in my experience very rare, but do tend to focus on the individual “heroes” and their exploits (or failings, particularly with Jephthah), but fail to see them in the wider context of the book. As I point out, hardly anyone preaches on the closing chapters: several years ago, I announced that I was going to use the story of the Levite’s concubine for a Sunday dedicated to the theme of combatting human trafficking, and most of my colleagues were shocked and appalled, with one even suggesting the text had no edificatory value!
2. I don’t remember the post drawing parallels between Jesus, Athaliah, Herod and Joash – and in any case, I don’t necessarily agree with everything I read on “Psephizo”! My initial response is that I would be equally sceptical about those parallels, and also that which you draw with Joseph. There may be some parallels, in the sense that because God is consistent in his dealings with us, there are elements in these narratives that are then seen also in NT texts. However, I don’t see any textual evidence that the NT writers really had these in mind. Ultimately, I think this is a rather subjective issue: hermeneutics and exegesis are an “art” more than a “science”.
3. I remain unconvinced that the death of Samson is the key interest of the cycle. Whereas the gospels, for instance, dedicate what might seem to be disproportionate space to the Passion narratives, this is not the case here. The cycle ends with Samson’s death only because there is no particular period of peace that he established (perhaps the way in which this cycle departs from the standard pattern of sin-crying out-deliverance = peace), and in this sense also his death does not really accomplish anything. It seems to be that the writer of Judges simply regards this as the last in a series of exploits, and it is the last simply because it is…the last.
“Israel fails to remember and celebrate Yahweh’s saving acts. Judges is characterized by a “paucity of interaction with Yahweh” (p. vii, Introduction), who is often reduced to “a walk-on part” (p. xxi, Introduction).”
Would you not expect the Judge whose parent are visited by God, consecrated to God from birth, given incredible strength by God and who cries out to God to be the best judge then?
As opposed to the standard reading where he is expected to be the worse judge*. I agree with the standard reading.
And although you have said that it’s not a narrow feminist reading – it does seem to me (just from your review) that the difference between the four-fold pattern progressively breaking down leaving terror (the standard view) and the four-fold pattern being continuously subverted is how you approach the lady chapter if Jael. In the standard view what Jael (and Deborah and Barak) have done is as clearly inferior to Othniel and Ehud (and context makes plain that the issue is sex-related). The subversion model allows you to escape that certain decline, but from your review I can’t see it doing anything else or influencing anywhere else.
*Abimalek big counting as a judge
I find it very interesting that the characterisation of Samson is arousing such strong responses. In reply to your observations:
1. You suggest that on the of Hamley’s perspective, insofar as my review is accurate, we should expect Samson to be the best of the Judges because Yhwh is very active in his story. I think this is a misunderstanding. Hamley’s point is that Israel has very little “interaction” with Yhwh, and Samson’s story does illustrate this. Yhwh is very much active in his life, but Samson does not really respond to Yhwh in any meaningful manner. So his career does illustrate the downward spiral of leadership in Israel – indeed, Samson’s story is very much dominated by his personal agendas (“what Samson wants, Samson gets”) and there is no real sense of a national dimension to his “leadership”.
2. I’m afraid I can’t really respond to your second point, because it is not really clear to me what it is….You seem to be suggesting that Hamley is putting forward a “narrow feminist reading”, but then connect that to the story of Jael (and Deborah) and a “subversion” of the pattern of a downward spiral.
I am not sure who is “subverting” the pattern of a downward spiral or what such a “subversion” consists of. Can you explain further what you mean?
What I can add is that the point about Hamley not adopting a “narrow feminist reading” was made in the context of her analysis of how power is misused and abused. Hamley does note how women are often victims of such abuse, but this is balanced by her awareness of 1. the way in which men can also be victims and are scarred by the hegemonic masculinity of the society described in Judges, and 2. the way in which women can themselves be complicit in such abuse of power (Sisera’s mother) even when it is harmful to them (Jephthah’s daughter)
I did not mean that the downward spiral was being subverted, but the fourfold pattern. Rereading the review, her term was ‘every story departs’ rather than ‘subverts’
—
Samson – I think – is the only judge recorded proactively reaching out to God with his death (actually, there’s Jephthah, isn’t there, with his bargain) So if that’s our metric then Samson and Jephthah would be the best judges.
Thank you, that is helpful.
1. If I understand, you are taking issue with Hamley’s statement that attempts to read Judges through the pattern of sin-crying out-deliverance-relapse are subverted because “every story departs from the pattern”. Well, first of all, Hamley does recognize that the pattern is there to some extent – she proposes that we should look for the significance of the individual cycles in the variations. Secondly, are you suggesting that there is a cycle in which the pattern is perfectly expressed? If so, which cycle is that?
In your original post, you seemed to connect this to the cycle of Deborah and Jael…..I am still not clear what connection you see – unless you think this is the cycle that perfectly expresses the pattern?
2. Samson turns to God just before his death? Well, yes….but his prayer is very much that of a man seeking “revenge” for personal injury (the loss of his eyes). There doesn’t seem to be much thought for God’s people, which very much reflects the personal character of Samson’s exploits, and the absence of any real role as a national leader (16:31 notwithstanding).
I’m not convinced that is enough to make us expect him to be the best leader (or even a good one), and I don’t think that is a conclusion that follows from Hamley’s analysis. I can see why you might think that, but you would really need to engage directly with “God of Justice and Mercy” – even a 3000 word review doesn’t capture all the nuances of her study!
Ian, thank you for publishing this, especially for the editing you’ve done on a rather long and rambling piece of work.
There is one point where the editing has produced some glitiches…
“In Embracing Justice, Hamley has written at some length about the way in which the shaping of a people’s public imagination structures their social life. Her treatment of the liberation narratives of Exodus in, invokes the shaping of the public imagination is invoked”
I think you shifted the reference to Embracing Justice to the start of the paragraph, and this has left some awkward phrasing….
Public apology!
It turns out the garbled phrase was mine….I had started work on this review some 2 years ago, abandoned it and come back to it at various times.
So, there was a lot of chopping and changing, and as often happens, a certain “blindness” set in!
Grateful to Ian, who will edit the offending paragraph so that it makes (some) sense!
David Cavanagh. You have made a very comprehensive and detailed review which is very helpful in approaching a study of Judges which is not the easiest of books to understand. Thank you.
I have just read through Judges with Hamley and concur with David’s review of a very stimulating and useful book
Judges 2:1–3
Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, ‘I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done? So now I say, I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods [elohim] shall be a snare to you.’ Judges 2:1–3
Although we talk about a ‘cycle of sin’ in Judges (as the article mentions) — the central issue is specifically idolatry. This is puzzling to the modern mind — but it is not that Israel believed the idols were a ‘god’ — instead they believed the idols were occupied by a god (an event which was often celebrated in a ceremony when the idol’s ‘eyes were opened’, cf. Gen 3:5) — specifically an elohim.
When God said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you’ (Judges 2:1) — he was true to his promise. It was Israel that broke the covenant with him on this specific matter (2 Kings 17:7–23).
This is a story of the Bible’s marital imagery — just as a human husband could [only] divorce his wife for her sexual immorality (which includes adultery) — so God would [only] divorce Israel, not for ‘sin’ in general — but for her unfaithfulness with the other gods — which the first commandment of the decalogue forbade.
Of course the reference should be Judges 2:1-3.
It was Joshua who pointed out that the promised land contained giants — which were believed in Israel to be descendants of the elohim.
And the spies told Moses, ‘We came to the land to which you sent us. … However, the people who dwell in the land are strong … we saw the descendants of Anak there … [they are] the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim [aka Rephaim i.e., descendants of the elohim]), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.’ (Numbers 13:27–28, 33; see also Deut 2:20–21; 3:11.)
Re: Samson – one aspect of him is that he is surprisingly normal. We fail to see this, because we are not ‘of the world’, but yesterday I glanced at the comments underneath an article about Sven-Goran Eriksson, the former England football manager, and they were pretty much all along the lines of ‘great and admirable fellow. In his time he bagged some top skirt and got 5 goals against Germany. If he has to go, then he should die on 5th January, so that 5 – 1 is inscribed on his grave stone’.
The exploits of Samson, while abhorrent to us, are considered admirable and commendable by the world in general.
Also, the battles and warfare described in Judges seem to be a Sunday school picnic compared with the ethnic cleansing that is currently going on in the Palestine where Netanyahu is endeavouring to create an apartheid state – also, the war between Russia and Ukraine, where upwards of 1000 men are being slaughtered every day.
Judges, while it does paint a grim picture, it nevertheless paints a picture of a society that is no worse than anything before or since – and no worse than what we see today.
Which brings us to Samson – who, as Kyle Johansen points out above, was commended in Hebrews 11 as a man of faith. That is, Samson was saved and in the number of the Saviour’s family.
Hi Jock,
Some would describe God’s command destroy people groups in Canaan as ethnic cleansing. And in a sense, it was — God wanted all the descendants of the elohim — that is the Nephilim/Rephaim destroyed. That is why Samuel is so brutal here:
Then Samuel said [to Saul], ‘Bring here to me Agag [in Jewish tradition a Nephilim giant] the king of the Amalekites’ … And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. (1 Samuel 15:32–33)
It was the elohim that caused the loss of Eden (‘For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods [elohim], knowing good and evil’ Genesis 3:5, KJV, cf. Genesis 3:22 ); the flood, when the elohim came to earth (Genesis 6:1–8); the dispersion of the nations at Babel, when the nations sought to bring the elohim down to earth (Genesis 11:1–9); and cost ethnic northern Israel their land and relationship with God (2 Kings 17:7–23).
So – Jesus did not die for all the world as 1 John 2:2 might lead us to believe – these pesky elohim weren’t included.
Jock,
‘For surely it is not angels that he [Jesus] helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham’ (Hebrews 2:16).
— angels are elohim. The Nephilim are the descendants of a union of fallen elohim with human women. It seems that these Nephilim are not, as you suggest, included in God’s salvation plan — and this understanding seems to be supported by the narrative accounts.
Jock,
You will remember ‘Abraham’s offspring’ via Sarah was a ‘supernatural’ conception — a recurring theme of Scripture. Could it be that God was ensuring that there was no Nephilim DNA in the promised offspring?
And, before him, Noah was ‘blameless in his generation’ (Genesis 6:9) — it is suggested a more accurate translation is ‘pure in his generations’ — that is, not genetically polluted by Nephilim blood.
So eventually the holy and pure Jesus Christ (the creator of the elohim) is incarnate (embodied) of a pure virgin to defeat the fallen elohim of Genesis 6 and their embodied offspring, who the early church believed manifested themselves in the NT as demons. Thus, Mark 5:7 and the ‘unclean spirit’ — unclean in the sense of impure, i.e., the product of a mixed blood union.
As I see it, the Judges narrative and its ‘genocide’ is difficult to explain without this backstory.
Colin – well, your understanding is utterly repulsive and repugnant to a Christian mind. Noah found favour in the eyes of God because he was the only one around who didn’t have Nephilim DNA …..
The whole train of thought here is so ugly that I don’t want to interact with it. I find some of the stuff about SSM posted on Ian Paul’s blog (by people expressing the views propounded by PCD and Andrew Godsall, etc ….) wacky and ‘off the wall’ by Christian standards, but at least they come across as having a social conscience (albeit the application – in my view – is misguided and fails to understand the serious reasons why the good book tells us that certain activities are sin).
What you are outlining, though, is utterly hideous – and isn’t a million miles from a certain German chancellor of the 1930’s. When one thinks it has reached rock bottom, it suddenly gets an awful lot worse …..
Jock,
The understanding that the elohim interacted with human women and produced the Nephilim — a mixed blood race — is the historic teaching of the church and the consensus of contemporary biblical scholarship.
Richard Bauckham describes the elohim interaction with human women in Genesis 6 as ‘a violation of the created order of the world … a deliberate rejection of the divinely ordered ordained order of things’ — Richard Bauckham, 2 Peter–Jude (Grand Rapids Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 1990), 13–14.
The Blog title is ‘How should we read the Book of Judges?’ — I think it should be read in light of that. Thus, God told Israel to act decisively against the Nephilim descendants — and made it clear that this was a battle against good and evil that only he could win, so at the beginning of Israel’s incursion into the land he spoke to Joshua:
‘When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” And he said, “No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, “What does my lord say to his servant?” And the commander of the LORD’s army said to Joshua, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.’ (Joshua 5:13–15)
And we read:
‘When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out …’ (Exodus 23:23)
So I think your argument is with the God of the Hebrew Bible?
I presume your comments about SSM relate to polygyny. You suggested on that blog post in relation to those who practised polygyny:
“We are informed (and we are supposed to understand from Scripture) that they were a bunch of rotters, every single one of them.”
But 1 Samuel 1 tells the story of Hannah, who entered into a polygynous union, and we read the conclusion:
‘And Hannah prayed and said, “My heart exults in the LORD; my strength is exalted in the LORD. My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in your salvation. Indeed the LORD visited Hannah, and she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters. And the young man Samuel grew in the presence of the LORD.’ (1 Samuel 2:1-2)
As Peter M comments on this blog post —God’s judgments are not always the same as ours.
Strictly speaking, it’s Adam and Eve’s desire to be as “elohim” (God) which causes the loss of Eden, surely?
And unless there is some textual detail that I am missing in the references to the flood, Babel, and the fall of northern Israel, the elohim don’t really seem to feature…
Hi David,
Thanks for enaging with me.
“Strictly speaking, it’s Adam and Eve’s desire to be as “elohim” (God) which causes the loss of Eden, surely?”
Exactly.
Genesis 3:22 tells us Adam did indeed become ‘like the elohim’ — as Satan had suggested – and God specifically says for that reason Adam was to be ejected from Eden, “lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
And you comment:
“And unless there is some textual detail that I am missing in the references to the flood, Babel, and the fall of northern Israel, the elohim don’t really seem to feature.”
The overwhelming consensus in the church up to 350 AD (in other words before Augustine), and the academic consensus today, is that Genesis 6 flood is all about the elohim, the ‘sons of god’ (elohim is the Hebrew word in Genesis 6:2).
And as far as I am aware every secular and biblical archaeologist acknowledges that the ziggurats, and specifically the tower of Babel, were to allow the elohim to come down.
As regards Israel losing the land, 2 Kings 17:7-23 clearly and unambiguously spells out they were exiled from the land because of their engagement with the other ‘gods’ — the ‘elohim’ — it is in the Hebrew text.
David,
I know these things seem strange to our modern ears and people do get cross when it is pointed out that there are some aspects of the Bible text that do not seem conform to our Reformed tradition.
I suggest we see in Judges the outworking of the protoevangelium:
I will put enmity between Satan and the woman, and between Satan’s seed and the woman’s seed [ultimately Jesus Christ]; Christ shall bruise Satan’s head, and Satan shall bruise Christ’s heel. (Genesis 3:15)
The literal ‘seed of Satan’ are the physical offspring of the elohim [who fathered the Nephilim] who descended to earth in Genesis 6:1–4, and the literal ‘seed of the woman’ is Jesus Christ incarnate.
The metaphoric seed of Satan are the lost Adamic humanity — the metaphoric seed of Christ are the saved of Adamic humanity — as 1 John 3 articulates so clearly.
I suggest this understanding underpins the whole of the Bible’s narrative from Eden to the eschaton.
We see Genesis 3:15, and a typological portrayal of Christ, in David’s encounter with Goliath. We know that Jesus is great David’s greater son — Jesus Christ incarnate (the seed of the woman) of the spiritual realm — and David tackles the incarnate of the evil spiritual realm, Goliath a descendant of the Nephilim — i.e., the seed of (offspring of) Satan. It is a conflict that God says only he can ultimately resolve (Joshua 5:13–15).
I suspect Isabelle Hamley never mentioned any of this in her book. Why not try asking any of your Christian friends to explain the protoevangelium? I can virtually guarantee they will struggle. The presentation of the gospel in our churches does not seem to relate to it.
David,
I should have explained re the Eden story, that ‘elohim’ is a plural noun like ‘sheep’ – so elohim can refer to God, or his created non-corporeal spiritual beings — ‘gods’ (i.e., angels). The context determines how it is to be translated. So, 2 Kings 17:7 is usually translated correctly:
“Israel … had feared other gods [elohim]’.
The context in Gen 3:5 is clear because in Gen 3:22 God says Adam has become like one of ‘us’ — i.e. plural. He was inlcuding his divine council of elohim that we know were in Eden. KJV gets this right: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
I think I am taking issue with your statement that “It was the elohim that caused the loss of Eden”….
This suggests that the elohim themselves are active agents, and that is simply not the case. It is Adam and Eve’s desire to be like the gods (elohim) that leads to the loss of Eden. Much the same can be said of the fall of the northern kingdom: the elohim themselves are not active agents, they are simply worshipped by the people.
I’ve looked at Wenham’s commentary on Genesis (Word), and he pretty much agrees with your reading of Genesis 6:1-4, but not that of Genesis 11, where the text itself does not seem to mention any intention to “bring the elohim down to earth”.
well, 5-1 wont be on his grave now.
Peter – well, I always thought of Samson as a bit of a loner, but Steven Robinson informs us that ‘judge’ was not a nominal term – and that Samson actually did some active work.
While not exactly a ‘type’ for Jesus, could Samson perchance be a type for football managers (after all, saying that he ‘judged’ Israel could have similarities to ‘managed Manchester United)? He had an unbridled lust for women – and in this he prefigured Sven-Goran Eriksson. He had uncontrollable anger – and in this he prefigured Alex Ferguson (I think we all remember Ferguson’s reaction when, as manager of Aberdeen, after the match where Aberdeen WON the Scottish cup by beating Rangers 1-0, he came on the TV, face like blue thunder, and said, ‘that was a terrible performance. I don’t care if we did win the cup – it fell well short of the standard. And the standard was set long ago!’
I’m simply trying to point out here that if one goes outside the sanctimonious bubble of church-life, where people feel obliged to use good and holy phrases all the time – and instead one enters into the ‘real world’, then the mentality of the characters we meet in Judges suddenly become much more real and much less exceptional; perhaps we shouldn’t be thinking of the time of the Judges as some sort of singular black spot. The moral degeneracy found in Judges is equally with us today.
Actually, I’ve always wondered if, in the Samson narrative, the author wasn’t ‘having a laugh’ – I’m thinking (for example) of Samson catching the foxes, tying their tails together with burning branches between each pair of tails and setting them running through the Philistine corn fields ….
A couple of things on Judges:
Does the commendation of people like Samson and Jephthah in Hebrews 11 show the difference in the way we read scripture to the people of the first century? They measured people by their achievements rather than judging them by their failings. Judges makes no attempt to cover them up! It would be why David is admired and his psalms recognised as scripture despite his reprehensible behaviour. This is so different to the present judgmental attitude which emphasises failings while minimising successes. Churchill was once the greatest Briton but now an irredeemable racist.
Also, why does Judges never mention the Tabernacle at Shiloh? Was it really of no significance to Israel’s life then or did the writer(s) want to convey a particular message which excluded its role? I’m pretty sure that reading Judges with a 21st century mindset and moral evaluation will mean missing the main message!
Would I buy this book based on this review, probably not;
the book appears to me to be written through a pair of Brueggemann optics.
There seems to be a lack of comment on the nature and activity of God or indeed His thinking.
What little I have read of Brueggemann seems to have a Socialist Humanist bent; May be like Sampson he finds faith?
As for Ian’s emphatic interjection “How is Samson’s uncontrolled anger and unbridled lust a ‘type’ for Jesus…?! Seems to me to be more heat than light, no doubt he is aware
Of “the wrath of the Lamb” has anyone ever heard of or seen a lamb having wrath?
Or the “Zeal of thine House has [consumes] eaten me up?
In general, Neh 9:27 Therefore thou delivered them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.
How they cry or to whom they cry is immaterial [“There are no atheists in foxholes”comments one observer.]
Though the people are unfaithful to their covenant with God, God is always faithful.
Humanist’s might cavil at the ways of God, but the faithful know that [our] God is a consuming fire.Selah.
Habakkuk 3:5
“Israel assembles for war without having heard clear reasons for it….they assume that violence and war are the solution”
I’ve been thinking about that all day. That is an interesting thought.
Could it be suggested that this book review be compared and contrasted, with Judges for You, by Tim Keller.
While it does draw out the cyclical events, it departs from Hamley in substantial and significant ways, and in ways that may answer the questions raised in some comments.
The accompanying Good Book Guide can be a stand alone resourse.
I have both to hand, but only a phone to attempt any coherent and cogent short synopsis that would fit the comments section.
The book is short 217p. And is in my view and others excellent as a resource for study and preaching.
Alan K,
You may appreciate Keller, below. He does draw out the cycles and where there the scriptures depart from the cycle.
He also emphasises the Covenanting nature of God. (Which answers the point that God answers his people’s calling out to Him, yet not in repentance.
As a taster: “In the same way the Lord Jesus would, Samson did his act of deliverance alone, unlooked for and unasked for.”
Quoting, Ed Clowney (The Unfolding Mystery)…’But when the Spirit of God came upon Sampson, the Lord showed that he had no need for even three hundred. He could deliver by one…
In short, we have in Sampson, more than in any other Judges, the pattern of ‘the victorious defeat.’ Rejected, beaten, chained, alone snd finally
dying under an avalanche of his enemies, Sampson triumphed. God delivered his people through the victorious defeat of one saviour ”
David Jackman (Judges, Ruth) writes, ,”The Sampson narrative begins with a strong man who is revealed to be weak, but ends with a weak man who is stronger than ever he ess before.”
Keller: “It is the gosel!…The One who became weak to save
will rule in strength and power eternally.
Becoming and continuing ass Christian is about the same pattern.
Only those who admit they are unrighteous receive the righteousness of Christ.
Judges “shows the flaws of individualized religion: spirituality may be possible at a personal level, but for justice to be possible there needs to be a collective movement that shapes the life of the whole community” (p. 273).
As the narrative progresses, however, this violence increasingly turns inward. “The further…the people move from the covenant, the more…vulnerable members are victimized” (p. 278). As a common vision and framework for living well is eroded, “‘doing what is right in their own eyes’ becomes no more than the law of the strongest, and victims have no recourse” (p. 220).
The first time in Judges the nation has gathered, yet it is to punish one of their own rather than to settle the land” (p. 252) [and] Israel assembles for war without having heard clear reasons for it….they assume that violence and war are the solution (p. 246).
For those of who watch TV, one often wonders if the pundits commentating are watching the same match that we are!
Here one wonders if the commentator is reading the same book of Judges as chaps on the number 48 Omnibus are; e.g.-
“The first time in Judges the nation has gathered, yet it is to punish one of their own rather than to settle the land” (p. 252) [and] Israel assembles for war without having heard clear reasons for it…. they assume that violence and war are the
solution (p. 246).”
A simple reading of the Scriptures e.g. Judges Chs 19 and 20. would show that there was
a] a gathering to hear what had transpired and
b] thus assembled enquired of the Lord God
20:18 And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, “ Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the LORD said, Judah shall go up first.
20:23 (And the children of Israel went up and wept before the LORD until even, and asked counsel of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up again to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother? And the LORD said, Go up against him.)
20:26 Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the LORD, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD.
Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And the LORD said,
“Go up; for tomorrow I will deliver them into thine hand”. Selah.
Leaving aside the issue of whether Hamley’s approach is similar to that of Brueggemann, I reply to your observations regarding the closing sequence.
You have certainly drawn attention to the tribes consulting YHWH as to what they should do. The main problem is that these are preceded by earlier statements in which it is clear that a verdict has already been reached and a course of action decided.
20:3 And the Israelites said, ‘Tell us, how did this criminal act come about?’
20:8-10 All the people got up as one, saying, ‘We will not any of us go to our tents, nor will any of us return to our houses. But now this is what we will do to Gibeah: we will go up against it by lot. We will take ten men of a hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and a hundred of a thousand, and a thousand of ten thousand, to bring provisions for the troops, who are going to repay Gibeah of Benjamin for all the disgrace that they have done in Israel.’
20:12 The tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, ‘What crime is this that has been committed among you?
Against this background, the later consultations can be regarded as a posteriori attempts to get approval for a course of action that has already been decided. That is, of course, only a possible reading, which you are free to reject (as you do) – but the matter is rather more complex than your rebuttal suggests
Yes there was a prior intention to take action against somthing that had never been known in Israel,and there was a distribution of
body parts that signified the horror of the crime, at which the whole nation became incenced, They baulked however in attacking their own people and thus fasted and prayed and inquired of God if they should even do so,God answered in the affirmative.
there is nothing of complexity if one does just read the Scriptures.
In some ways, that is a clear, linear reading of the text, and there is much to commend it. There are also some issues….
1. You admit there was a prior intention to take action “against something that had never been known in Israel” ie. a horrific “crime”. However, that takes the Levite’s account at face value. Hamley notes that the text does not tell us that the men of Gibeah killed the concubine, and the Levite’s account also glosses over his part in delivering the concubine up to the men to be raped.
2. On your reading of the account, it appears that at the very end of the book the tribes are – for practically the first time! – united in seeking and obeying Yahweh’s will. The complications that follow are rather perplexing, and on this view it is very difficult to see why the book closes as it does with the reiterated statement that there was no king in Israel (which Hamley reads as a statement that Yahweh’s rule is not really accepted) and all the people did what was right in their own eyes.
David Cavanagh – the final refrain seems quite in order, in the context of what it immediately follows – namely, the repulsive way in which the remaining Benjamites got their wives.
Even if you have a problem taking the Levite’s account ‘at face value’, Scripture does inform us (as Alan Kempson points out) that Israel did enquire of God if they should go up to fight the tribe of Benjamin. Not only did God say ‘yes’, he also directed the battle and told them how to go up against Benjamin.
So God Almighty Himself endorsed the battle -indicating how Benjamin’s behaviour was seen in His eyes – and, by this, God Almighty Himself indicates that the Levite’s account can be taken seriously.
In fact, the whole of that discourse shows them communing with God, seeking advice from God and implementing God’s will.
Another thing Hamley gets wrong is the significance of the name ‘Abimelech’ = ‘the King is the/my father’. The suggestion that his earthly father Gideon had become a quasi-king is anachronistic. The king is Hadad, the Canaanite king of heaven, also known as ‘Baal’ = Lord. Look up (e.g.) the Wiki article on the ‘Baal Cycle’ for details of the Canaanite theology. Abimelech was named by his mother, Gideon’s concubine, and like his mother he was a bad egg – a worshipper of Baal-berith. The implication is that some in Israel were making out that the deity who had made a covenant with Israel was Baal/Hadad (the same kind of syncretism as first manifested at the time of the covenant itself (Ex 32:4)). Joel Kramer recently made an instructive video on the House of Baal-berith in his Expedition Bible series.
For similar theophoric names, compare Abijah = ‘Yah(weh) is the/my father’, Abiel = ‘El is the/my father’.
Correction – Abimelech was named by his father (I don’t know how I misread). Nonetheless, the point about the meaning of the name holds good. The choice of name suggests some backsliding (as in Jud 8:37).
FROM SEPARATION TO ASSIMILATION
Fratricide.
PART 1
1. What is it doing here? In the Holy Bible? In the Old Testament, in the book of Judges? Where did it start?
It was an early and significant outworking and warning of the consequences of fall, with Cain and Able.
2. It is part of the book in the Bible “featuring, lying, assassination, murder, massacres and worse. (And that is just the men and women appointed by God, to save his people, Israel, from their enemies and from themselves-the Judges, Deliverers.) Flawed individuals living in a deeply flawed society.
3…. Judges is unvarnished history about real people. “Despicable people doing despicable things,”
4…. And it is about the real God. It is the gospel.
5…Judges shows us a God who is relentlessly loving to unlovely people; who continually rescues people from the consequences of their own flaws and failings; and points forward to the flawless Leader, Deliverer and Saviour who he will one day send.
6. And how to live and not to live as God’s people in a society which offers a dizzying array of alternative “gods” to worship such as gods of wealth, .
celebrity, ideology, achievement”( and plurality). Quotations are from The Good Book Guide to Judges
PART 2
1. An overall theme has been identified, or rather cycles, which have some exceptions against the background of a Covenanting God :
1The people rebel – 2 God is angry- 3 Oppression by enemies- 4 The people cry out- 5 Salvation through chosen Judge- 6 Peace- 7 Judge dies- 1 The people rebel – – –
2. Chapters 17- 21 of Judges are different from the rest:
2.1 the earlier passages give a bird’s -eye view of the state of Israel, telling us that the people “did evil in the eyes of the LORD”, (eg: 3v7; 10v6)
2.2 Now is a ground level detailed view of what life was like during those times.
2.3 There are two horrific case studies on what it was God rescued Israel *from*.
They barely mention the LORD – this is what life is like when people choose to live as they see fit, “doing what is right in their own eyes” rather than under Gods rule/sovereignty.
2.3.1 First is a family who make up there own religious approach to God and live how they want.
2.3.2 It is a family from priestly or tabernacle class of Levites and a particular Levite Micah, descended from Moses , 17v30.
Here is a show self promotion and status and idol worship (breach of the first commandment) self made worship, shrines, and approaches to God. He is “glad” when offered promotion to lead Dan’s idol worship.
His is a descent that that shows how far Israel has fallen, from Moses to to leading idol worship
.
2.3.2 Next,the story of another of the Levite class, and his “second class” wife, treated as a chattel, not made in the image of God, a town and and nation who engage in in horrendous acts including gang rape and mass rape. And fratricide.
And his avoidance of any culpability.
It is not a straightforward story, which admits more than the cascade of comments to the article.
Here is a free Commentary on the whole Book of Judges, which sets out a fuller picture than the review of Hamley’s book. And as it reach chapters 17-21 draws out more pertinent points than any of us has.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/commentary/judges/
Further comment could be made but welcome has been overstayed
Not quite sure here, Geoff, where you are disagreeing (or are you disagreeing?) with Hamley’s book or David’s review. But it does seem that you prefer general overviews rather than detailed interaction with the actual text, yes?
As usual Bruce, you offer nothing.
If you care to read the commentary it brings out much that is at odds with with the review of Hamley. I’ve not read her book.
Agree or disagree? I thought this was meant to be for discussion. I think I’ve brought something to the table that could further the discussion.
How about you?
Which particular texts do you have in mind? Chapter by chapter verse by verse?
I was in the process of responding to Jock’s comment, but thought that I had commented enough!
I may have saved part of it on the computer.
Suffice to say, I don’t think it is quite as straightforward as Jock puts it. And for what its worth I think that Steven Robinson’s early comment is correct whe he cites Hamley, and says she is wrong.
And if that is her prime lens of interpretation, it would be anticipated the rest of her commentary would contain parts that are amiss, wide of the mark. Especially if she takes no account of the covenanting nature and purposes of God.
Hope that helps.
Geoff – I’m inclined to agree – with apologies to both David Cavanagh and Isabelle Hamley – that the commentary presents a method of reading that is not my cup of tea (one clue is in David’s comment ‘that takes the Levite’s account at face value. Hamley notes that the text does not tell us that the men of Gibeah killed the concubine’ – when God Almighty has pretty much endorsed the account and is even directing Israel in battle. When they fight against the tribe of Benjamin, it is clear that they are carrying out God’s will).
As a result of this article, I looked over the weekly bible study notes that I got when I was doing my undergraduate studies; someone has helpfully put the daily bible reading notes by James Philip up on the web:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58a1a3d586e6c01db801af19/t/66c454fc6b701e15545e1126/1724142844716/7.+JudgesFINAL.pdf
I found it useful back then – and this piece inspired me to go back and read these notes again now. As ever, the perspective from James Philip is level-headed conservative evangelical.
Jock,
Thanks for the link. I’ll look at it from home on the computer as the downloaded format on my phone is too poor for me to read well.
No Geoff it really doesn’t help :-).
You provided us with a commentary on Judges, but reading through David Cavanagh’s review many (all?) of your points are to be found in David’s quotations from Hamley’s book. So I questioned what you thought you were adding to the discussion of the review.
What you have now added is this:
‘it would be anticipated the rest of her commentary would contain parts that are amiss, wide of the mark’ since Steven Robinson has said ‘she is wrong’. (Do we ever find irony in narratives?)
And Jock has added below:
‘the commentary presents a method of reading that is not my cup of tea’ (Again about irony?)
David presented that we find a close reading of Judges in Hamley’s commentary — a reading that notes the way that an author uses language to guide her reader towards the thoughts that she is expressing. Surely this method of ‘reading’ is to be commended?
Bruce – you missed the bit where I indicated quite clearly *why* the style of reading the text was not my cup of tea – which is because after her careful consideration of the text (and use of language) she concludes that the author must be a liar. (She questions whether the Levite’s word is reliable – glossing over the fact that the Israelites actually enquired of God and got an answer – glossing over all the pointers, presented by the author, that the Israelites made a careful investigation before attacking Benjamin – and were carrying out God’s will. Very funny use of language on the part of the author if this is not what he or she was trying to convey – and not even Paul Grice will be able to get you out of that one!
Note also her dismissal of Samson – dismissively saying ‘whatever faith he had, it was enough’ – which is (of course) a true statement, but her phrasing implies that in her opinion it wasn’t actually very much (just the mustard seed necessary to get him over the line). You may think that she is entitled to say this based on the evidence of the text – the author of Hebrews takes a different view, listing Samson as one of the Old Testament heroes whose faith was so admirable that we should take it as an example – way more than someone fortunate enough to have only a ‘mustard seed’ which turned out to be enough to get him over the line.
My basic problem with the Isabelle Hamley / David Cavanagh reading is that it is actually the first thing that would come into my head on a superficial reading of the text – but on closer inspection, after some thought, I find myself in disagreement with much of it and I think that it misses the point.
This shouldn’t be taken as a criticism of Isabelle Hamley or David Cavanagh – I find myself very uneasy with most commentaries.
Bruce,
Your reply is very selective and dies not represent a careful reading of my response and questions asked of you.
My reference to Steven Robinson’s comment was to draw put a general principle for weighing Hamley’s review and discerning it’s understanding of the text in context, not only the chapter and verse but the whole book of Judges and it’s context in the whole of the canon of scripture.
For a more careful reading, I’d again point to the commentary linked.
And the comment I have made from Keller indicates why I think she is far of the mark with Samson.
And the comments I I’ve made so far about the two Levites also indicates that she is missing main points.
And more could be added, such as the descent into paganism of Benjamin as it mirrors Sodom (but not exactly).
Further there is no consideration of how Benjamin may have ended up like this, basically by not obeying God and the assimilation of culture.
And with the response of God to Sodom, would it be little wonder if God responded in a like manner here? Again, more could be said.
Jock, interesting that you bring Grice into the discussion.
Jock and Geoff, you might well be right about Hamley’s (mis?)understanding of what the author of Judges intended. But your complaints are coming from inferences that you (and the commentators you cite) are drawing from reading the text. It cannot be otherwise! (This is where ‘Grice’ comes in — any text we hear/read is radically underdetermined and hearers/readers are expected to infer (guess, fill in the gaps, mind-read, etc….) what the speaker/author intended.
So to say that Hamley is wrong here because she is wrong there, or to simply replace some inferences with other ones without closely reading the text is not enough.
Please, Jock and Geoff, read something like Margaret Sim’s A Relevant Way to Read to think further about how we humans communicate using language.
Bruce – briefly, the issues of contention here don’t seem to have anything to do with the linguistic side of what was communicated. I’d say (based only on my reading of David Cavanagh’s summary and what he wrote below the line) that there is broad agreement on the meaning of what the author of Judges wrote – and what the author of Judges conveyed – there doesn’t seem to be disagreement over what the author intended to communicate using language. There is broad agreement over this and the disagreement comes in elsewhere.
I think that on sexuality issues, it has already been pointed out to you several times that – for example – Walter Brueggeman does not dispute the meaning of the texts, what the authors of Leviticus intended to communicate – he thinks that they are wrong (Ian Paul pointed this out – I hope I’m not misquoting him).
This book review of a commentary on Judges is not on that subject – but here it is the same thing. Language – and what the author intends to convey – is not the issue. The point of divergence is rather the theological lens through which the text is being read.
Jock, are you saying that ‘Pragmatics’ is not ‘part of’ ‘Linguistics’? Please note that what I have always commented on is the ‘use’ of language in human communication. So deciding ‘what is said’ is only *one* aspect of understanding what a text means.
You ( and Alan and Geoff) seem to imply that simply reading the text shows that the Israelites enquired of the Lord and the Lord told them what they should do. But as David (and Isabelle) have pointed out, understanding the whole text of Judges is not that straightforward. Where does ‘all the people did what was right in their own eyes’ come into the context for interpreting ‘enquiring of the Lord’ and ‘the Lord said (X)’? Even your approved commentator (James Philip) brings in an inference to make sense of the *whole* narrative (from 20:29-48):
‘This time they used subtlety and guile. Some think this guile was less than justified, and morally questionable, but there seems no need to suppose this to be so. *The implication of these verses is that God blessed their careful tactics and planning* (Philip p.107, my emphasis *…*).
So (even according to James Philip) it wasn’t just the threefold ‘enquiring of the Lord’ that ‘won’ the battle? If we are going to understand a narrative then we need to read the whole narrative carefully and not bring only our own assumptions into it. Listening to others (even(!) like Isabelle) might help us.
Bruce – well, I’m encouraged to see that you have read at least some part of the daily bible study notes by James Philip that I linked to. I’d say that I concur entirely with his take on Judges – particularly this part of Judges (the Levite, his concubine, leading to the action against Benjamin and its aftermath).
Please note that he simply takes the text as it stands, assumes that the author is writing in ‘plain man’s language’ and works from there.
I’m also glad that you brought up the implication ‘God blessed their careful planning and tactics’. This was a constant theme of his – God has given us a mind – he expects us to use it and to think with it. He was always opposed to a ‘touchy feely’ understanding of ‘keeping in step with the Spirit’ – for him, keeping in step with the Spirit meant using the thinking mind to think rational thoughts which, when guided by the Holy Spirit were morally ethical thoughts.
Here, he’s simply applying a basic Christian ethic expressed in Romans 12:2 ‘be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds’ – and you’ll also find this basic ethic expressed in the OT long before the book of Judges.
‘Please note that he simply takes the text as it stands, assumes that the author is writing in ‘plain man’s language’ and works from there.’
Jock, that is just the point in contention. We DO NOT take any text ‘as it stands’. Please read something on Pragmatics (I suggested Margaret Sim’s A Relevant Way to Read).
On the ‘implication’ you say ‘This was a constant theme of his’. I assume by ‘his’ you are referring to James Philip, yes? Or no? — you are forcing your reader to infer here who you mean. If you are referring to James Philip, what does this have to do with reading the text of Judges?
Bruce – yes – I’m talking about James Philip; this was one of the themes that ran through his whole ministry. You ask: what has to do with Judges? Well, I’m simply pointing out that he puts the text of Judges in the context of what has gone before in Scripture, particularly the instructions given to them through Moses. So he is reading the text of Judges in the context of what has gone before in Scripture – as we all do.
The phrase that you quoted from his commentary illustrates one aspect of what the Israelites did that was commendable in the eyes of God (and, if you have read his commentary, you’ll see that he finds plenty – working from the text – that the Israelites did that wasn’t commendable – and was downright evil).
Bruce – if you think I (or indeed any other Christian) should be reading Margaret Sims or indeed anything else on the topic of ‘Pragmatics’ from Linguistics, you have to make a better case for it than you have to date.
It would help if you could point to some specific part of Scripture where an understanding of ‘Pragmatics’ has really helped you to get to the bottom of the text – and hence helped you to develop as a Christian.
If you can do that (i.e. show that ‘Pragmatics’ has had a positive impact for your own faith) then that might help. So far, I haven’t seen this from your contributions here.
Jock, I am very glad to say that linguistics and pragmatics has had a very positive influence on my faith. Maybe some would regard it as too ‘touchy-feely’ but studying and teaching linguistics for a while has allowed me to praise and thank God for this ‘thing’ we call language — its complexity, flexibility, creativity, subtlety and wonder. Not only for its sound and syntactic aspects but much more for how we humans use it to communicate. This latter aspect points me to marvel at the human mind/brain — how we can (and do) communicate thoughts when so much depends not on the utterances that come out of our mouths or appear on a page but the interaction of (parts of) our whole previous experience to understand and interpret those utterances. Yes, Jock, that causes my heart to praise God!
What disappoints me is when people (Christians or otherwise, teachers of biblical studies or otherwise) ignore or don’t appear to have taken advantage of what has been studied/discovered about how language seems to work especially when they incorporate arguments/comments about language/communication into what they are saying. We have a biblical text — it involves language, it is also (presumably) intended to communicate. So if we can think more about how that communication is actually achieved, that ought to be a good thing, right?
On the place of inference, any text produces a number of inferences (or, has a number of implications). Some of these were intended by the speaker/writer. Some are less likely to be intended. Understanding/interpreting a text requires a hearer/reader to figure out which inferences are intended. ‘Context’ helps with this. ‘Context’ here includes any cultural or intertextual understanding of how the world operates/what the world is like but much more than this. It can include the current situation that the speaker and hearer are in, the previous understanding they have of each other, any ‘thing’, in fact, that is reasonably obvious to both of them.
Yes, context might include other texts in the Bible, but it also might not — James Barr did warn about something called ‘illegitimate totality transfer’, which is a misunderstanding of how words mean.
So, Jock, will you still allow me to question people on Ian’s blog when they make illegitimate claims about language and how it is used in communication? Please?
Bruce – this is actually the first time I’ve seen something positive from you here. If you could enhance it with some specific examples, that would be great – especially if you could bring it down to the level of the ‘plain man’ (after all, an acid test is that one shouldn’t have to be an intellectual giant to be a Christian).
So instead of simply pointing out that we haven’t taken into account aspects of use of language, you could go further – and do more to point out what we get in addition if we view the text through the lens that (you claim) linguistics and pragmatics gives us. This is important if these principles have helped you personally with Scripture and had a positive impact on your own faith. So if you want any recommendation from me, emphasise *how* the positive has come about.
Jock, I’m not sure about giving ‘recommendations’ or not, but I think there is a basic misunderstanding in asking me to ‘point out what we get in addition if we view the text through the lens that (you claim) linguistics and pragmatics gives us’. It seems to me that you are asking me to explain why and how studying anatomy might be important for becoming a nurse or doctor.
If there are faulty understandings of how language works do you not think that these should be pointed out and discussed? Even ‘our own’ James, in a more recent thread, recommended understanding basic linguistics through, say, Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies book, Silva, and James Barr. Anyone interested in language would agree, and maybe add Cotterell & Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (but beware, they have a chapter where they refer to and discuss Paul Grice) and, as I have suggested, Margaret Sim.
If you were to look back at what I have usually questioned (but, please don’t bother wasting time doing that) you would see it is regarding ideas like these: ‘dictionaries give us the proper definitions of words’, ‘defining a word tells us its meaning’, ‘all words have basic meanings’, ‘if a word means X here, then it means X in this other place as well’, ‘this passage does not have the word X so it cannot be talking about CONCEPT [X]’, ‘word X made up of bits from two different languages cannot be a proper word in this language’, ‘the meaning of an utterance is obvious from the words used’, and so on. These are misunderstandings about how language works and how words mean.
Ian and David,
May I offer something that I believe everyone has missed on the book of Judges.
I believe the main character of the book of Judges is Rachel. What do I mean since her name never appears? There are many judges from different tribes, but all of the major judges are from Rachel’s side of the family, along with her handmaid. Commentators have not noticed this, but it seems fairly stark and relevant to me for the reading of the book. From the book of Joshua to Judges to the beginning of Samuel, all the key leaders spotlighted are from Rachel’s side of the family. First Joshua from Ephraim, then the major judges from the tribes of Rachel and her handmaid, then Saul from the tribe of Benjamin. All of these come before David from the tribe of Judah who is from Leah’s side of the family. It is not just that no king rose up in the book of Judges, but more so, no king rose up from their mother Rachel.
James puts it in a nutshell concerning mankind.
JAMES 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Some might suggest that Judges is the most brutally violent book in the Bible and all with the approvals and sanctions of God to boot!
Furthermore every king, ruler etc. demands it’s people lay down their lives and give their blood for them or “the nation”
Jesus as King lays down His Life for his friends, and pours out His own blood.
No, Judges is not the most violent book in the Bible the Revelations is!
One often wonders if the vials of wrath are even now being poured out by the Angels; if not then something more horrific is our destiny.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, His name is “Jealous” He is a consuming fire to either consume or to purify. Let he who has ears hear.
Alan, Because the book of Revelation, singular, is about Jesus, I take the Bowls of Wrath to be about Jesus Passion. It seems to portray a future punishment of the wicked but is in fact a description of the suffering of the infinite God, made sin for us. The whole weight of sin. If you like, it is a first hand account from the holy Spirit’s perspective. At this point He is so identified with fallen humanity He has become sin for us.
Steve,That seems a strange reading of the text Rev. Ch 15
I feel that you may be confusing the Passion of God with the Passion of Jesus. Shalom.
Which brings us to “What is Justice”?
The global common cry today is for Justice against perpetrators of wickedness
The common man despairs of getting judicial redress, “the sentence given is not Justice etc.
People then feel that we must fight for Justice, some by peaceful persistence, others by disruptive or violent protest.
God preached the “Gospel” EX.33:18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Rom 1.17–18 In continuity with the distinction of justice as salvific deliverance and wrath as God’s justice against “all ungodliness and wickedness.”
Rom 3.5: “But if our wickedness shows forth the justice of God … is God unjust to inflict wrath on us?” This verse is again placed within covenantal theology.
Even if Israel does not remain faithful, God will not break his bond. Israel’s infidelity will serve only to make God’s fidelity even more merciful. Thus Paul establishes three antitheses: infidelity – fidelity (3.3); injustice – justice (3.5); and falsehood – truth (3.7).
Once again the justice of God is his fidelity and truth to his covenantal promises despite the infidelity of man, which, of course, begets his wrath.
Rom 3.25–26: “… Christ Jesus, whom God has put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s justice, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is just and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.” Justice of God | Encyclopedia.com
In Mercy, Righteousness and Mercy have kissed each other.