|
The Theme of the
Book of Judges as an Ethical Farce
The theme of the book of Judges is given at least four times: “In those
days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (Judges 17:6;
Judges 21:25). “In those days Israel had no king. . . .
”
(Judges 18:1; Judges 19:1)
While it is fully God’s Word, infallibly given by the Holy Spirit,
without error, the book of Judges is also a fully human book. As such,
it functions as a kind of monarchist tract, and all of its “heroes” and
“heroines” are deeply flawed, their great deeds being done by faith in
God (Hebrews 11:32ff.), rather than flowing out of their virtue or the
consistency of their character. One is compelled to see that the book as
a whole was written to illustrate what happens when “every man” does
“that which” is “right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25, KJV). Not a
pretty sight! Therefore, it not only prepares the way for the coming of
the King of Kings, David’s greater Son, but it also serves as a double
warning to us: first, to remember what we are still capable of in spite
of all that God has done for us and in us, if we begin to ignore the
Word of God; and secondly, when God uses us to do something for his
glory, to remind us that it is simply his grace working in us and
through us—“for it is God who works in you to will and to act according
to his good purpose” (Philippians 2:13).
The people of Judges are not altogether unlike us: they were part of the
Covenant Community, struggled with sin and unbelief, and sometimes
failed grievously to please God. Yet, in spite of their manifold flaws,
they were, nevertheless, mightily used of God to do extraordinary things
through their faith (Hebrews 11:32ff.). The Spirit of God came upon
Othniel, Gideon, Jephthah and Samson, as men anointed with the Holy
Spirit (Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14). As we run our
race, many of them are there in the heavenly grandstands, cheering us on
in the good contest of faith (Hebrews 12:1). Of course, they were on the
other side of the Cross from us, and so they lacked a measure of the
“fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy” in the means of their
Spiritual nurture that we now enjoy under the New Testament (Westminster
Confession of Faith, VII, vi). But many of them truly knew and loved
God. They are the saints of God, but of course, not necessarily all of
them, but they were part of the Covenant Community.
Here we meet the sinister assassin, Saint Ehud (Judges 3:15ff.), and the
only woman in history given the same title as the Virgin Mary, Saint
Jael, who betrayed one of the most fundamental codes of the ancient Near
East, when she “nailed” the hapless Sisera, who had secured sanctuary in
her home (Judges 4:17ff.). There is also the cowardly Saint Barak, who
hid behind the skirts of the prophetess, Saint Deborah (Judges 4:8).
Reading on we discover that “great man of faith,” Saint Gideon, who had
to have his faith bolstered up by no less than four miracles before he
would do what he was told to do and attack Midian (Judges 6:11-23, 38,
40; 7:9-15). After his great victory, Saint Gideon accepted “seventeen
hundred shekels” of gold from the plunder, and he “made the gold into an
ephod, which he placed in Ophrah, his town. All Israel prostituted
themselves by worshiping it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and
his family” (Judges 8:27).
After Jephthah, we encounter the whore-loving, Saint Samson (Judges
16:1), who in spite of being a very witty fellow, has to go down in
history as the man most easily fooled by evil women (Judges 14:15-18;
16:5ff. 10ff., 13ff., and 15ff.). Except
for one incident, Saint Samson was most scrupulous to follow the
religious ceremonies of his “order” (Judges 13:3-5; 16:17), but his lust
drove him utterly to disregard God’s solemn prohibition regarding
Canaanite women (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:1ff.).
After Saint Samson, we come to Saint Micah and his devout mother (Judges
17:1ff.), these pious folk went to great lengths to please God, even
securing their own, personal Levite to be their “father and priest” to
conduct divine worship before their pious representation of their Lord
(Judges 17:10). However, when a larger congregation came along, probably
offering better “terms of call,” the Holy Father left Micah to join the
Danites to be their “father and priest” (Judges 18:19). The pious
Danites (Genesis 49:17). “Went on to Laish, against a peaceful and
unsuspecting people. They attacked them with the sword and burned down
their city” (Judges 18:27).
Then we come to that wonderful example of male chivalry, the Levite from
Ephraim, who spent the night in Gibeah of Benjamin. The next morning,
the Levite spoke to his beloved after she had been gang-raped all night,
“Get up; let’s go!” (He really knew how to treat a woman!) When he
realized she was dead, he demonstrated his mastery of the art of
butchering, chopping her up into twelve pieces (Judges 19:28-30). It is
also in Judges that we encounter the first casuists, the predecessors of
Saint Ignatius of Loyola. Faced with the dilemma of a solemn vow, on the
one hand, and the loss of a whole tribe, on the other, they concoct a
plan to allow the daughters of Israel to be stolen from their parents at
a big dance (Judges 21:15-23).
The Vow of
Jephthah Considered Within this Ethical Farce
It is in this context that we read the story of Saint Jephthah, the son
of a prostitute. ‘And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the
Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to
meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’S,
and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”’ (Judges 11:30, 31).
‘When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to
meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was
an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he
saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh! My daughter! You have made
me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I
cannot break”’ (Judges 11:34, 35).
The holy child, instead of telling Saint Jephthah to break his rash and
sinful vow, submits: ‘”My father,” she replied, “you have given your
word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has
avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one
request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with
my friends, because I will never marry”’ (Judges 11:36, 37). Her
lamentation is not that she will live a long, cloistered life of
celibacy; it is that she will be put to death without ever having
married, because marriage, the delights of conjugal love and bearing
children are the universal ideal of the Old Testament. Her “celibacy”
lasted only two months: ‘”You may go,” he said. And he let her go for
two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she
would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father and
he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin’ (Judges 11:38, 39).
“He did to her as he had vowed:” “Whatever comes out of the door of my
house to meet me . . . will be the LORD’S, and I will sacrifice it as a
burnt offering.” Saint Jephthah “devoted” his “ever virgin” daughter to
the LORD by offering her up to him as a burnt offering.
Jephthah the Henotheist
Some have questioned the fact that Jephthah actually, literally kept his
vow to God. But Jephthah, perhaps more than any of the other Judges, was
influenced by the pagan religion around him. His words may only indicate
that Jephthah is a henotheist rather than an out and out polytheist, but
pagan syncretism oozes from Judges 11:24, “Do you not possess what
Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever Yahweh our God has
driven out before us, we will possess it.” I’ve kept the capitalization
distinct out of respect for my God, but Jephthah uses the identical
Hebrew word to describe both Chemosh and Yahweh, the only difference
being the pronominal suffixes.
Would any person who follows biblical revelation say the following to a
Muslim? “Do you not possess what Allah your god gives you to possess?”
Imagine what his response might be should certain folks’ fears prove
correct: “Yes, Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Mohammad is his
Prophet, blessed be his name. Washington, D.C., is lovely this time of
year with the cherry blossoms surrounding the White Caliphate at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.” There is at least henotheism underlying this
remark of Jephthah.
Virginity not an Ethical Ideal in the Old Testament
Some have supposed that Jephthah never intended to offer up anything as
a burnt offering and that he only meant his vow figuratively: that he
only intended to give one of his servants up to serve God in the
Tabernacle, as some kind of Israelite, Vestal Virgin. However, in the
one case of a parent giving up a child for service in the Tabernacle,
Hannah’s gift of Samuel, perpetual virginity is utterly foreign: little
Samuel grew up, married and had children (1 Samuel 8:1). On the
contrary, the universal witness of the Old Testament is that marriage is
the pattern for godly living, and sex between married people is very
good and pleasing to God. To be sure, under the New Testament, the Holy
Spirit gifts some people with a single life, removing all sexual desire,
but Spirit filled men are also those who are exhilarated always with
love for their wives and are satisfied with their wife’s breasts
(Proverbs 5:19). And the idea of somebody forcing another person into a
life of celibacy is clearly demonic (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
No Intention of Human Sacrifice in Jephthah’s Vow
Someone may suppose that sacrificial animals were never kept in houses.
But that flies in the face of the evidence of anyone who is fond of
pets. My wife’s cat won’t give me the time of day unless he’s hungry,
but our dog, Hamilton, scratches at the front door when he hears the key
in the lock. He loves to be with us and even sneaks into the car when
we’re not looking, whenever he think that we’re about to drive off. Deep
down, going back to Original Sin, all of us have a latent need to be
worshipped. When I’m feeling particularly neurotic and insecure, almost
nothing makes me feel better than my dog groveling in adoration. Nobody
really appreciates me but my dog: he reveres me even when I’ve got bad
breath or have said something ugly. Everybody needs a dog.
Maybe Jephthah didn’t have a dog; maybe he had a pet lamb instead.
Nathan told King David the story of a poor man, who “had nothing except
one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him
and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept
in his arms. It was like a daughter to him” (2 Samuel 12:3). Perhaps
having animals in the house was not so uncommon, after all.
Sadly, the book of Judges is full of incredible things that well
meaning, sincere people did, when they did that which was “right in
their own eyes.” One must presume all kinds of situations and read them
back into the text in order to get around the obvious: Jephthah killed
his own daughter, because this was “right in his own eyes.”
Pagan Syncretism, Human Sacrifice and the Religion of Ancient Israel
Furthermore, the idea of human sacrifice was not completely unthinkable
in the world of the ancient Near East, even among the Hebrew people,
until after the Babylonian Captivity. When Yahweh ordered Abraham to
offer up Isaac as a burnt offering, he unhesitatingly obeyed, stopping
only when Yahweh’s angel intervened (Genesis 22:11). The example of
Abraham illustrates that child sacrifice was not immediately ruled out
of Abraham’s mind, in part, at least, because the practice was rather
widespread at times in the ancient Near East. That he trusted God for
divine intervention afterwards, because he had a specific promise from
God, does not take away from the fact that Abraham did not immediately
dismiss the divine demand as perverse. Of course, this was prior to a
completed Torah (Leviticus 20:1-5). But even with a completed Torah,
Israel was, as I said, continually bedeviled by pagan syncretism,
leading them to disregard the Second Commandment and sometimes even the
First.
“Ahaz . . . burned his sons in fire, according to the abominations of
the nations whom the LORD had driven out before the sons of Israel” (2
Chronicles 28:1-3).
“The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the LORD. They
have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and
have defiled it. They have built the high places of Topheth in the
Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the
fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind” (Jeremiah
7:30, 31).
Even “Saint” (he eventually became one, 2 Chronicles 33:12ff.) Manasseh
indulged in the practice: “Manasseh . . . made his son pass through the
fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with mediums
and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD provoking Him
to anger” (2 Kings 21:1-7).
These examples demonstrate that Israelite religion was rarely observed
strictly according to the Law, but was, rather, a syncretistic blend of
biblical and pagan elements, and the all too common practice of their
pagan neighbors of killing children to appease the gods crept in at
different times in Israel’s history.
The history of Israel before the return from the Babylonian Captivity is
a long litany of neglect of the Word of God.
“The Passover had not been observed like this in Israel since the days
of the prophet Samuel; and none of the kings of Israel had ever
celebrated such a Passover as did Josiah, with the priests, the Levites
and all Judah and Israel who were there with the people of Jerusalem.
This Passover was celebrated in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign”
(2 Chronicles 35:18, 19). That is a span of roughly six hundred years.
“And they found written in the law how the LORD had commanded through
Moses that the sons of Israel should live in booths during the feast of
the seventh month . . . And the entire assembly of those who had
returned from the captivity made booths and lived in them. The sons of
Israel had indeed not done so from the days of Joshua the son of Nun to
that day. And there was great rejoicing” (Nehemiah 8:14-17). This is
almost a millennium!
After the Babylonian Captivity, Israel became more zealous for the Law
of God, but their zeal soon degenerated into the kind of legalism that
sired Pharisaism. We must give thanks to God, who sent the Holy Spirit
at Pentecost, to write the Law of God on our hearts.
Concern for the Second Commandment
In the story of Jephthah one must keep in mind that the theme of the
book is not heroic men and women of sterling moral character; it is a
gracious God who overrules our flawed obedience for his glory and the
ultimate welfare of his people, even in times when biblical revelation
is being ignored. As we read the book in light of its theme, we see the
actions of people who sometimes may actually vigorously hold to the
First Commandment, while utterly ignoring the principles of the Second.
God isn’t interested only in being worshipped; he’s concerned about how
we worship him, too. Until after the Babylonian Captivity, Israel was
constantly bedeviled by pagan syncretism. We see it in the “pious”
actions of Saint David.
David was a man after God’s own heart and an unwavering, devout
worshipper of Yahweh, and he carefully followed the First Commandment
all the days of his life (Acts 13:22; 1 Kings 15:5). However, when David
set about to bring up the Ark of the Covenant, he violated the
principles behind the Second Commandment and caused Uzzah to lose his
life. He ignored God’s explicit command that the Ark be covered with the
Veil of the Holy of Holies and then be carried on the shoulders of the
Levitical sub tribe of Kohath (Numbers 4:4-15; 1 Chronicles 15:11-15).
David put the Ark on an ox-cart instead. From where did he get such an
idea? The answer is found in 1 Samuel 6:7ff. One can imagine David
thinking, “If the Philistines got away with moving the Ark this way, why
can’t I? That rule must not really be absolute—after all, nowhere does
God directly condemn this action of the Philistines.”
Not everything that person does can pass divine muster, even if he loves
God, as did David. That is the case even if certain of his actions are
mentioned in Scripture, in passing, without specific divine disapproval.
As cases in point, God approves of both Rahab’s protecting the Hebrew
spies and of the Hebrew midwives’ saving the lives of little Hebrew
boys. But that does not mean that God completely approved of their
methods.
God certainly approved of the Philistines returning his Ark, because he
stopped visiting them with the rodent-born plague and hemorrhoids. But
that doesn’t mean that God approved of their placing his Ark on an
ox-cart, nor that he was particularly pleased with their offering of
five gold hemorrhoids and rats (1 Samuel 6:5). (What archaeological
finds those would be!) However, nothing in the text specifically
condemns their doing these things, even though they got the idea from
their demonically inspired priests and diviners. My point is this: even
though an action may not be explicitly condemned at the point it takes
place, does not mean that the action is not opprobrious. God has given
us the whole of Scripture, and we should judge actions by the Law of
God, rather than by an historical narrative’s failure, tediously to
remind us in minute detail of what is explicitly condemned elsewhere.
However, in spite of Jephthah’s theological and practical errors, he is
still a man of faith (Hebrews 11:32). It was an imperfect faith, to be
sure, but it is the Object of our faith who saves us and not the
theological precision or strength of our faith. And so God in his grace
and mercy anointed Jephthah for the redemption of Israel: “Now the
Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, so that he passed through Gilead
and Manasseh; then he passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah
of Gilead he went on to the sons of Ammon” (Judges 11:29).
“Spiritual”
People and Ethical Failure
Some have objected that a man on whom the Spirit of God had come could
not possibly do such a thing. But what does it mean that a man has the
Holy Spirit come upon him? Does it mean that he then becomes protected
from theological error or from committing sin? Consider the case of
Saint Peter, and man mightily used of God and full of the Spirit, yet
Saint Paul had to take him to task in public because of his gross error:
“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was
clearly in the wrong” (Galatians 2:11). Furthermore, it is important to
remember that the text does not say that the Holy Spirit inspired
Jephthah’s vow. Judges 11:29 connects Jephthah’s anointing by the Spirit
of Yahweh with his strategic move against the enemy Ammonites: “Then the
Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh,
passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the
Ammonites.” The vow of verse 30 is simply Jephthah’s rash response once
he faces the enemy. Jephthah’s vow is sinful and foolish—even those who
disagree with me about Jephthah carrying it out literally or not agree
on this point. His vow is sinful because it is presumptive; Jephthah
could not know what would come out of his house. What if Jephthah’s
neighbor had been visiting his family while Jephthah was away? What
could he have done? His vow is rash and presumptive because he had no
assurance from God that he would have authority to perform it. The
Westminster Confession of Faith is correct when it affirms in XXII,
vii:
“No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what
would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own
power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability
from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single
life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being
degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful
snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.”
Jephthah’s Holocaustic Vow
Furthermore, we must not get too far removed from what Jephthah
explicitly vowed to do: “I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” The
Hebrew word is ’OLAH. It is found 287 times in the Masoretic text
and means a “sacrifice which is wholly burned.” The Septuagint
translates ’OLAH, at this point, with the Greek word from which
we get the word “holocaust.” But again, whether someone agrees with me
about Jephthah’s doing this literally or not, is not the big issue. Even
if Jephthah simply kept his daughter from marrying, it was still a
perverse sacrifice: in the Old Testament the fundamental earthly purpose
of a woman’s life was motherhood. For Jephthah’s daughter never to
marry, have sexual intercourse and bring children into the world would
have been a kind of living death.
This story warns us never to make rash vows, because once we’ve made
them, we should keep them. But if we discover that those vows are
contrary to the written Word of God or that they would hinder us from
any duty set forth in Scripture, we should repent for having taken such
vows, renounce them and then trust that the Lord Jesus has set us free
from the curse of broken vows when biblical duty demands that we break
them (Galatians 3:13).
Bob
Vincent |
|