Thank you for your interest in the Essentials of Faith Class. We are beginning a new class entitled "Church & Culture" that we hope you will find worthwhile as you continue to grow in your Christian walk. This new blog can be found at essentials.typepad.com/church_culture. Please visit us there. Feel free to continue to visit this site to review or study our sessions beginning in September 2007.
See you at essentials.typepad.com/church_culture.
051 The National
Crisis (21:1-24)
This final chapter of the Book of Judges is perhaps the most
perplexing of all the chapters we have studied in Judges. In our last session
we saw that the tribe of Benjamin had been all but obliterated. There was only
a remnant of six hundred men left hiding near the Rimmon Rock. This chapter is
the account of the steps that the other tribes, the Nation of Israel, took to
find a solution to restoring and rebuilding the tribe of Benjamin that they had
just destroyed. What takes place is difficult to categorize, it can be
understood as comic or grotesque or almost anything in between. At the least,
it is a very strange chapter in Bible history. 
Recognizing the Crisis: 21.1-4
Verse 1 provides us with a flashback to the earlier meeting at Mizpah and reveals some new information. The writer informs us that not only did the forces of Israel agree to punish the men of Gibeah “they had all also pledged on oath that none of them would ever give his daughter to a Benjamite man in marriage.” It is ironic that they pledge not to intermarry with one of their own tribes but as we have seen throughout Judges, Israel had little trouble with intermarrying with the Canaanites. Daniel Block suggests that: “The men of Israel do not realize the significance of their action, but in the mind of the narrator this grotesque application of Yahweh’s prohibition on intermarriage with Canaanites (Deut 7:1-5) to their own kinfolks serves as a final acknowledgment of the Canaanization of Israel.”
Once the battle lust has dissipated and the victory secured, Israel comes to the realization that they have almost extinguished the tribe of Benjamin. They recognize that the remnant of Benjamin is all that is left. All of the women of Benjamin have been slaughtered and since the other tribes have sworn not to let the Benjaminites intermarry with their daughters, Benjamin will soon become extinct unless they intermarry with the Canaanites, but then Benjamin will also cease to exist. Either way Benjamin will soon become non-existent. Block points out the ironic fact that in a very bizarre way this is realization of Jacob’s fear for his youngest son Benjamin. “Their father Jacob said to them, ‘You have deprived me of my children. Joseph is no more and Simeon is no more, and now you want to take Benjamin. Everything is against me!!’ (Ge 42.36)”
Verses 2-3 describe the response to this realization by the Israelites. They first assembled again at Bethel where they sat before Yahweh weeping asking “why has this happened to Israel?” Is this weeping a tearful result of their sin against God or is the wailing of mourning over the near loss of a tribe of Israel? Indications would seem to point to the latter case as there is little evidence of repentance or sense of concern for their spiritual well-being. The writer’s use of the generic term for God indicates that he believes that there is little sincerity in their mourning.
Israel’s question is certainly up for interpretation. At its best it is asking for Yahweh to provide them with His perspective for this current state of affairs. Yet a more spiritual people should have been able to understand for themselves what happened. Would Israel have listened if Yahweh gave them the answer to the question “How did this come to pass?” “How did we get to this point?” Yahweh’s answer would likely have been that the reason that one tribe of Israel was almost blotted out, was that Israel, as a people of Yahweh, was no longer. Gibeah was not an isolated incident. What happened in Gibeah was characteristic of the moral rot within all of Israel and if something is not changed quickly all of Israel will be erased from existence just like Benjamin.
Some may understand this questioning as an honest desire to know what Israel should do now, where do they go from here. Israel, then, is seen to be asking the question of “What is Yahweh’s solution to the dilemma in which they find themselves?” At its worst this question could be understood as the opening of the “blame game.” Here Israel is seen as saying that Yahweh has failed them, Yahweh has forgotten that is His job to protect His people from harm. Evading their own responsibility Israel is quick to hold God accountable for their problems.
Whatever you may understand about Israel’s question or their motives, it is God’s response that is paramount, and here God’s silence is deafening. His silence says much and it seems to say “This is your mess, you got yourself into it. Do not blame me.”
Greatly disturbed by Yahweh’s silence, the people rose early in the morning to build an altar and present both burnt and fellowship offerings to Yahweh in the hopes that they can provoke Him to respond to their question. Block makes a point that we should pay particular attention to:
“They construct an altar, and then they offer their whole burnt and peace offerings (as in 20:26) as if nothing has changed since Exodus 24 and as if God is obligated to those who perform perfunctory religious and cultic service. But God does not answer, and the people are thrown back on their resources. The results would be comical if they were not so tragic.”
How many times have you and I followed a similar script in our own lives only to achieve the same results – no answer from God. Like the Israelites, the problem lies not with God but with our motivation.
Responses to the
Crisis (21:5-24)
The remainder of this final chapter raises many questions but the overriding question is: “What is Yahweh’s intention for the tribe of Benjamin?” Does Yahweh want Benjamin preserved or destroyed? Israel responds to the near decimation of Benjamin by trying to find a way that they can provide wives for the remnant of Benjamin without violating their oaths not to give wives to the Benjaminites. They come up with two solutions which are reported in verses 5-14 and 15-24.
The First Solution: 21:5-14
The Israelites, frustrated by Yahweh’s lack of response to tell them what to do, decide to take things into their own hands. Their motivation is that they have almost lost an entire tribe and they are grieving over this loss. Verse 6 gives graphic evidence of Israel’s sense of loss: “Today one tribe is cutoff from Israel.”
The Israelites start to find a solution to this crisis of losing the tribe of Benjamin by recognizing the fact that if they could provide wives for the Benjaminites holed up at Rimmon Rock then perhaps the tribe could be rebuilt. The problem was how to provide Israelite women to these men without violating the vows they took before the battle not to allow their women to marry Benjaminites.
Earlier when the tribes had gathered at Mizpah to decide what to do about Benjamin, we learn that they had agreed to a “solemn oath” that should be imposed upon anyone who had failed to appear before Yahweh at this assembly. This solemn oath was a death sentence on any who failed to gather with them before the Lord. So the question was asked of the Israelites “Did any of the tribes or clans fail to attend the gathering at Mizpah?” Upon review it was found that none of the people from Jabesh-Gilead were present at Mizpah. By not being present at Mizpah, they would not be bound by the oath not to give their daughters to the Benjamites. This could provide a source of Israelite women for the remnant of Benjamin to take as wives.
We are not given a reason why the men of Jabesh-Gilead did not appear in Mizpah but the decision is made to kill all the members of the city except the virgins who had not slept with a man. There is no indication that these people had any opportunity to offer a defense or reason for their absence from Mizpah (v12-13).
How Israel arrived at this solution we will never know. We can only guess that their thinking may have been that because the fathers of the women of Jabesh-Gilead were slain they could not be said to have given their daughters to the Benjaminites. This would mean that Israel did not violate their oath taken at Mizpah. The question remains, how did Israel justify not killing all the residents of Jabesh-Gilead? How did they justify allowing the 400 virgins to live? Unless they understood Nu 31.13-20 as a precedent, they simply resorted to man’s normal method of decision; they did what was arbitrary, opportunistic and practical. The writer gives us no reason why there was an exception made from the requirements of “holy war” for the 400 virgins yet it was a “clever” way of exploiting one oath to circumvent another by the selective application of the law of holy war.” Unfortunately, like many of Israel’s decisions, this action, while perhaps having the appearance of obedience to the law, clearly violates the spirit of the law and is morally questionable.
Israel took the virgins to the camp at Shiloh. Shiloh was the location of the tabernacle and was the religious center of the nation. It would likely have been seen as safe haven by the men of Benjamin and Israel may have felt that the priests could bless their actions taken to prevent a tribe of Israel from disappearing. .
The writer’s description of Shiloh as being “at Shiloh in Canaan” is curious. This is the only time in the Bible that there is a reference to an Israelite city being in Canaan after the “conquest” of the Promised Land. The writer has suggested that the men of Gibeah were like the Sodomites and the Canaanites in the narrative of the Levite and his concubine. The Benjaminites by protecting the Gibeahites are seen in the same light. Now the writer is suggesting that religious center of Israel has become Canaanite. This is indicating that everything that transpires in this chapter is to be understood through a Canaanite “worldview.” The writer is emphasizing that everything that is done at Shiloh in this chapter is “of Canaan.” Block tells us that: “They reflect the same Canaanized disposition as the other actions and attitudes that caused Yahweh to refuse to answer the Israelites’ overtures earlier in this chapter.”‘
After taking the virgins to Shiloh, the Israelites send an offer of peace to the Benjaminites at Rimmon Rock. The Benjaminites, having little choice, accept the peace offered by Israel, return with the Israelite delegation and are given the women to take as wives. In verse 14 we are told what we already knew, there are not enough women to go around. This provides the transition to the second half of the chapter as now Israel needs to come up with an additional solution to the problem of repopulating Benjamin.
The Additional Solution: 21:15-24
. Verses 15-18 remind us of verses 6-7 as the writer again reports how sorry Israel is about what has happened to the tribe of Benjamin. Verse 17 tells us that Israel is still worried about how Benjamin will continue to exist as a tribe if only four hundred of the survivors have wives. They are faced with the problem of finding an additional two hundred wives for these men
Verse 18 repeats the fact the daughters of Israel cannot be given to the men of Benjamin because of the curse Israel put on themselves. Where are they going to find an additional two hundred women? In verses 19-22 we are told the solution that Israel decided on. The solution to the problem is for the two hundred men of Benjamin to kidnap two hundred Israelite women and take them for their wives. If the women are kidnapped then Israel has satisfied the curse in that they did not “give” their daughters to the Benjaminites, the Benjaminites took them. This solves the problem. Israel avoids the consequences of the curse, and Benjamin gets the needed two hundred wives, and will not be blotted out, the twelve tribes of Israel still exist. The bottom line is that to solve their problem they conveniently overlook the legal and moral violations of these actions.
We do not know the particular festival in question. All we know is what the writer tells us. This may be done to continue the idea of the Canaanization of Israel. The Benjaminites were told to hide in the vineyards, and when the girls came out to dance, each of them was grab one of the women and drag them back to Benjamin. The idea of the men hiding in the vineyards may be a hint that the festival was associated with the harvesting of grapes. The women are identified as the “girls of Shiloh” not the “girls of Israel” suggesting that these “girls” were associated with the cultic rituals of Shiloh. The writer has alluded to Shiloh as being Canaanite and so it is not a great stretch to believe that the cultic ritual here is Canaanite and not Israelite.
Dan Block points out, that like much of the Book of Judges, Israel sanction the use of violence against their own daughters. Israel may have felt good about their solution to the problem of the Benjaminites but at what cost to their daughters. If these young women were unaware of what was to transpire, imagine the fear, confusion and fright they must have experienced as they were attacked and either dragged off or at best were witness to their friends and sisters being taken captive and dragged off. In another irony, Israel went to war and nearly wiped out Benjamin for defending those who had taken a woman and gang raped her and maybe even murdered her and yet here they gave their blessing to Benjamin to do almost the same thing.
Lest anyone complain about these actions on behalf of the victims a standard response is developed in verse 22. The response primarily reassures the fathers of the women taken by the Benjaminites that they are not in violation of the oath and that they should let matters lie as this would be good for Benjamin and ultimately good for Israel. This rationalization may have satisfied the letter of the law but it certainly violated the spirit of the law along with transgressing “every standard of morality and decency.” The response is worded in such a way that if one protested too much on behalf of the women they would be easily accused of putting their personal interests ahead the interests of the nation. The actual carrying out of this plan is described in verses 23-24. After effectively carrying out their plan to restore Benjamin, Israel broke camp and returned to their tribes as if all the problems had been properly resolved.
This chapter and Book close with verse 25:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.
This is intended as part of the continuing commentary on the events of this chapter along with the events of the Book of Judges. Israel acknowledges no king, human or divine, everyone one is free to do as he sees fit and the result is the Canaanization of Israel and her being cut off from Yahweh. Just like the near destruction of Benjamin, Israel’s separation from God is almost complete.
Conclusions
1) The rape and death of one woman had grown into the death and rape many more. The Women of Benjamin were destroyed because of the actions of their men. Four hundred women of Jabesh-Gilead not only lost their families and homes but they were forcibly taken and made to live with the Benjaminites. Two hundred women were kidnapped, dragged off to Benjamin, and forced to become wives to the Benjaminites. To coin a modern description of this situation, women became collateral damage due to the actions of men. Block quoting another commentator says: “Israelite males have dismembered the corporate bodies of Israelite females. Inasmuch as they have done it to one of the least of women, they have done it unto many.” The writer is not making the argument against patricentrism but rather against patricentrism that is filtered Canaanism. Biblical patricentrism “perceives male headship not as a position of power but one of responsibility, in which the leader sacrifices himself for the well-being of the led.” In the Book of Judges, with the impact of Canaanite influence on the culture “this pattern is reversed. Repeatedly women and children are sacrificed for males.”
2) Israel took whatever steps were necessary to maintain the twelve tribes of Israel but as seen through the words of our writer, Israel was more concerned with the outward signs or physical signs of preserving the nation than they were about saving or maintaining their spiritual relationship with Yahweh. Yet despite the methods used to maintain Benjamin as a viable entity we would be ill-advised to forget those who claim Benjamin as their tribe. Saul the King, Saul who became who became Paul and the apostle to the Gentiles whose impact flows down to our lives today to name two.
3) One looks to a response from God regarding what has taken place in this chapter but His silence continues to be deafening. There are questions on top of questions that we would like answered. Was Yahweh in agreement with all that Israel did to Benjamin? Did Yahweh want Benjamin destroyed? Was it wrong not to completely destroy Benjamin? Should Jabesh-Gilead have been destroyed? What about all of the human machinations that Israel undertook to restore Benjamin, how did God see them? Were they right? What sense did all of this make? “
4) How do we understand the fact that the “future of Israel depends on finding loopholes in the Law?” Like many in the modern world, Israel found itself sympathizing with criminal while overlooking the plight of the victims. What of “righteousness?” In trying to raise up Benjamin, Israel has putdown women and children. Israel has sacrificed the weak and the innocent upon the altar of pragmatism. “The entire nation becomes an accomplice in the defense of Canaanism. What Benjamin did for Gibeah the nation does for Benjamin.” But what of justice?
5) As we have seen throughout the Book of Judges, and in this final episode, there is God’s grace. Despite the actions of Israel, their rationalizations, their pursuit of Canaanite religious and social beliefs, their ignoring of the covenant, Yahweh does not allow or cause their destruction. As Daniel Block observes, it is important that we realize that while “Yahweh cannot allow his people to succumb totally to the Canaanite world . . . the reader must know that his work continues here and generally in human history in spite of, rather than because of, his people. “Judges and the continuing history of the nation that follows it, give testimony to the fact that “God’s people are often their own worst enemy.” It was not Israel’s enemies in the Promised Land that almost destroyed them but the Canaanization of their soul; it was the enemy within that should be feared. But we are not left without hope. We are told and allowed to see that despite everything, God’s purpose will get done! “His kingdom is eternal; his covenant with this people is eternal; his promises are eternal.”
6) Judges is often thought to be a book of heroes. Yet, as we have seen, the problem is that are few if any real heroes. Block draws the conclusion that this is also the case throughout the history of the church and perhaps more so today in the evangelical church in America. The Book of Judges is a mirror of today’s church. All of the ills that we have found in the Book of Judges are reflected in our own churches. Instead of following after our King Jesus Christ, we are doing what is right in our own eyes and calling it religion. If we are failing to make an impact on the world around us, we need only ask ourselves the question “Are we doing what is right in our eyes or are we doing what is right in God’s eyes?”
”May the Lord of the church continue to lavish his mercy upon an undeserving people.”
Response
to the Outrage at Gibeah (20:1-48)
In this session we will look at how Israel responds to
the rape and death of the young concubine at Gibeah. This chapter will provide an
insight into the character of the Levite, the Israelites, and the Benjamites, as
the writer depicts the preparation of the coming battle between Israel and the
wayward tribe of Benjamin. We will begin with the assembly of the tribes of
Israel in Mizpah. 
The
Assembly (20:1-3a)
In these verses the writer stress the depth and unity of
Israel’s response to Levite’s sending out body parts dismembered concubine to
the tribes of Israel. The writer uses
two phrases to show the solidarity of Israel in dealing with this tragedy and
stain on their national honor. We encounter both phrases in verse one. The first phrase, “all the Israelites” as
translated in the NIV, actually means “All the sons of Israel” in Hebrew and is
used in only one other place in Judges, 2:4. This is the first usage of the
second phrase in the Old Testament, “from Dan to Beersheba,” which represents a
“geographic definition of the nation in the Old Testament.” This would reflect
the geography of the writer’s time and not necessarily of the actual geography
at the time of this gathering of Israel at Mizpah. It is unlikely that the
Tribe of Dan was clearly recognized as the most northern boundary of the nation
at this time. Both phrases are used of the writer to demonstrate that it was
all of Israel that was united in taking action against the tribe of Benjamin,
with at least one known exception that will become important in 21.8-9. The writer will continue to emphasize this
unity of action by the use of the word “all” in several places in this chapter.
The context shows that this only includes the other eleven tribes; Benjamin was
not part of this assembly. Furthermore, the congregation was assembled as one
man, emphasizing the unity of the eleven tribes a unity emphasized several
times in the context. For example, the phrase as one man appears three times
(verses 1, 8, and 11); the phrase, all the tribes of Israel appears three times
(20:2, 20:10, and 21:5); the phrase, all the people in 20:8 only; and the
phrase all the men of Israel in 20:11 only.
Verse 2 describes the presentation of the chiefs at the
assembly: “The leaders of all the people of the tribes of Israel.” They
presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God. This is the only
place that the phrase the assembly of the people of God is used, but it again
emphasizes that this was a holy war with a moral mission. With the leaders was
an army of four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword. Not all the
Israelites were there, but all the leaders were there, along with the whole
army. Since this was the total army, it shows that the population had decreased
by one-third since the Exodus and the Conquest when the army was closer to
600,000.
Verse 3a notes the report to Benjamin: (The Benjaminites
heard that the Israelites had gone up to Mizpah.) Such a massive gathering at
the Benjamite border where Mizpah was located could not be hidden, and this
gave the Benjamites time to mobilize their army. The fact that they heard the
tribes had assembled but did not attend shows that they were siding with the
perpetrators of the crime. In verse 3b, the Levite was asked, “Tell us how this
awful thing happened.”
It is interesting to see that this nameless Levite from some
remote place in Ephraim did what no judge had been able to do. Daniel Block
tells us that “Not even Deborah and Barak had been able to galvanize support
and mobilize the military resources of the nation to this extent.”
After underscoring the unity and completeness of the
Israelites’ response to the outrage at Gibeah, the writer makes note of the
spiritual nature of this assembly. By referring to it as an assembly of the
people of God the writer “identifies the nation as a body “called out” by
Yahweh to engage in holy war.” In the Torah
the Hebrew word for “assembly” was a favorite designation for the people of
Israel gathered together to worship Yahweh.
The writer adds that Israel “assembled before the Lord at
Mizpah.” This Mizpah is not the Mizpah in the Transjordan where Jephthah made his
pact with the Gileadites in 11:11. The Mizpah spoken of here is thought to have
been located approximately “twelve kilometers north of Jerusalem and four to
five and one-half kilometers northwest of Gibeah, on the boundary between
Benjamin and Ephraim.”
In the first three verses we get the impression that
perhaps Israel has turned the corner- that they have come back to Yahweh. With
the mention of the fact that it was an assembly of the people of God and that
they had assembled before the Lord, it seems like this is a gathering of God’s
people turn to Him to seek His will- but that is not the case. They did not
gather to seek God’s will but they gathered as an army to right an outrage
against the Levite done by the men of Gibeah. We have little information as to
what the various tribes may have thought when they each received a body part of
the Levite’s concubine but it seems that the body part and the summons by the
Levite was enough to make the tribes gather at Mizpah and be willing to fight
to right the wrong that was done to him. In v3a we find out that not all tribes
gathered at Mizpah. The tribe of Benjamin was not among those tribes gathered
at Mizpah and no reason for their absence is given by the writer. We are left
to conclude that perhaps they had decided to defend their fellow Benjaminites,
the men of Gibeah, and stand against the other tribes of Israel and as Block suggests
also against Yahweh.
The
Question: 20.3b-4a
The question of 3b raises more questions. To whom was the
question of 3b addressed? Was it addressed to any of the leaders or was it
addresses specifically to the Levite? To what awful thing was the question
referring? Was it the murder of the concubine, the lack of hospitality shown by
the Gibeahites, or perhaps simply the dismemberment of the woman?
Since the Levite answers the question it is logical to
assume the question was addressed to him. It is interesting to note how the writer introduces the Levite. He is “the
Levite, the husband of the murdered woman.” If this were a spiritual gathering the Levite’s role would be to have
led the gathering but this is not a spiritual gathering and the Levite is
announced as the husband of the murdered woman and it as a husband he addresses
the gathering. Daniel Block raises an
interesting question by noting that the concubine is described as the “murdered
woman” rather than the “dead woman.” Murder normally refers to a “premeditated” act and if that is the case
then Block questions the description of her death in 19.27-29. “Was not the
intention of the men of Gibeah to rape her and abuse her all night, and then to
let her go (19:25)? If her death was a secondary effect of their violence,
would it be called murder? On the other hand, 19:27 leaves open the question
whether she was even dead when the Levite found her. If not, then the person
who answers the Israelites’ questions is no longer an aggrieved party but the
criminal.” Verses 4b-7, the Levite’s answer to the question of 3b, does not
provide any satisfactory answers to the questions raised by Block.
The Levite describes for Israel what happened in Gibeah.
He tells them that he and his concubine came to Gibeah of Benjamin to spend the
night. Once they were settled in the house of the old man the men of the city came
after him and surrounded the house, intent on killing him. Instead they raped
his concubine and she died. He then took his concubine, cut her in pieces, and
sent a piece to each tribe in Israel. After telling what happened, he asks for
a verdict.
On the surface the Levite’s explanation may seem
satisfactory but a closer examination suggests that there are holes and as
Block notices “certain features of the speech are extremely troubling.” Block has the following problems with the
Levite’s response:
“The Levite expresses no
concern whatsoever for his concubine. On the contrary, he diminishes her role
at the outset by opening with a first person singular verb (v. 4b). In fact, he
transforms an explanation of the events into a self-centered apologia. The
Levite makes it sound as though Gibeah was his destination saying nothing of
his domestic troubles or how he had been proved wrong for recommending to his
servant and concubine that they spend the night in Gibeah rather than Jebus. He
blatantly twists the facts by claiming that he was the primary target of the
men of the city. They had risen against him, surrounded the house because of
him, and sought to kill him. For some (undeclared) reason, their attention had
been deflected to the concubine, whom they raped and violated, though he does
explicitly link the woman’s death to the actions of the men of the city. His
addition of “and she died” at the end of v. 5 does not preclude the possibility
that he may himself have had a hand in her death. Finally, although his
vocabulary sounds pious, he makes no reference to Yahweh, let alone appeal to
him to act in defense of the covenant and/or the sanctity of the land.”
Regardless of Block’s questions or the Levite’s
self-interest, the Levite’s speech in conjunction with his sending various body
parts of his wife to the tribes of Israel is more than enough to galvanize
Israel to take action against Gibeah. The Levite, as we mentioned earlier, has
accomplished more than any Judge as he brought the tribes together to take part
in a united action against the Benjaminites. The irony here is that for both
the Levite and Israel all is accomplished without Yahweh. Yet even though the
Yahweh’s involvement appears non-existent, the plans of Levite and Israel
seemingly succeed just like the Danites did in the previous section.
Israel’s
Reaction: 20.8-13
The speech of the Levite moved the army of Israel to take
immediate action against Gibeah and then subsequently against Benjamin. Israel
resolves that none will go home until the city of Gibeah is punished (20:8-10).
Another example of Israel taking action
without Yahweh is seen in the fact that rather than inquire of Yahweh as to the
order in which the tribes should go into battle, Israel simply relies upon the
lot to determine who will lead the attack.
In verses 10-11 we see that Israel is preparing for a
rather protracted campaign as they are concerned about establishing supply
lines for the army. At the end of v10 we are given the mission statement of the
campaign: “When the army arrives at Gibeah in Benjamin, it can give them what
they deserve for all this vileness done in Israel.” As is proclaimed in verse
11 the support for this mission is unanimous. Not since the days of Joshua have
we seen the tribes of Israel so united against a common foe, it is tragic that
the foe is an Israelite city rather than a city of the Canaanites.
Verses 12-13 report that prior to attacking Gibeah Israel
sends representatives throughout the tribe of Benjamin asking their support in
punishing Gibeah by surrendering them to the army for execution.
Setting the Stage: (20:14-17)
Benjamin not only refuses the demands of their brethren,
placing themselves alongside the “rapists rather than the assembly of God,” but
they move their forces to Gibeah to confront the army of Israel (v14-15). The
Benjaminites mobilize an army of twenty-six thousand swordsmen and seven
hundred chosen men from Gibeah. In verse 16 we are told that among Benjamin’s
forces there were seven hundred left-handed men who were expert with a sling. Israel
counters by facing Benjamin with four hundred thousand swordsmen (v17).
Three
Battles (20:18-48)
The
First Battle (20:18-21)
The first battle opens with the Israelites at Bethel asking
God who should be the tribe to lead Israel into battle against the Benjamites. We
might wonder why the Israelites didn’t ask the big question like “Should we go
to war against our brothers over this issue?” but they didn’t instead the
writer tells us that it was the minor points that Israel turned to God to resolve. Block also points out that
the generic term for God, Elohim, was used instead of the more personal,
covenant name for God, Yahweh. Perhaps
the usage of Elohim is an indicator that this was more of a formality than a
real question.
Yahweh answers saying: “Judah shall go first.” Judah was
a logical choice in that the Levite had begun his travel from Bethlehem in
Judah and the woman was from Bethlehem. Judah was also the tribe that seems to have
been designated as the “go to tribe” when it came to fighting as evidenced by
their successes in chapter one of Judges. So this may have been a logical
choice. The difference here is that while this may have been looked at as a
holy war it is war against kin, a fellow Israelite tribe and not the Canaanites
even thought the Benjaminites “by their conduct have demonstrated themselves
functionally and spiritually Canaanites.”
We are told the events of the first battle in verses
19-21. Israel with all of the advantages
on paper was eager for battle and yet at the end of the day it was Benjamin who
emerged the victor. The Benjaminites are credited with killing twenty-two
thousand Israelites, a staggering number in that it was almost equal to the
entire army of the Benjaminites. We are not told how Benjamin achieved this or
what Benjamin’s casualties were but they indeed carried the day.
The
Second Battle (20:22-25)
There is no hint of the Israelites being discouraged by
their defeat as they prepare for a second engagement. This time however Israel
was not so eager. Before returning to the battlefield they went weeping before
God and this time they ask the big question “Shall we go up again to battle
against the Benjaminites, our brothers?” And Yahweh responds “Go up against
them.” On the morning of a new day, Israel launches another attack against the
Benjaminites, but the results are pretty much the same. Israelite casualties
are around eighteen thousand fighters while again there is no indication how
Benjamin was able to defeat Israel or is there any mention of Benjamin
casualties.
The
Third Battle (20:26-48)
The third battle is given the greatest coverage by our
writer as he goes into greater detail of this third and final battle. In verse
26 the writer reveals how crestfallen the Israelites were over this second
defeat. “Then the Israelites, all the
people, went up to Bethel, and there they sat weeping before the Lord. They
fasted that day until evening and presented burnt offerings and fellowship
offerings to the Lord.” Note the increase in the intensity as now all the
people go up and not only do they weep before Yahweh but now they also fast and
present offerings. Are they now realizing
that perhaps there are some relationship issues between Israel and Yahweh that
need to be repaired?
The Inquiry (20:27-28)
Verses 27-28
indicate that doubt regarding this venture is now foremost in the minds of
Israel. While they ask if they should go up against Benjamin there are two
telling words added “or not?” We also have mention of the presence of the Ark
of the Covenant of God. The writer may
be implying that after two defeats Israel was pulling out all the stops and
that they brought the ark to Bethel from Shiloh, as a symbol of God’s presence
and to bring them victory in the battle against the Benjamites. Daniel Block
suggests that it is possible that the phrase “in those days probably refers to
the days of the first two battles described in vv. 18-25. If this
interpretation is correct, then the strategy had obviously failed.”
According to v. 28b, in response to the third question of
whether or not the Israelites should attack Benjamin again, Yahweh replies that
yes they should attack and that He would deliver the Benjamites into the hands
of the Israelites the next day.
The Result (20:29-48)
The writer, until now, has described the battles between
the Israelites and Benjamites only from Israel’s perspective. After two
resounding defeats and the death of forty thousand or more soldiers, Israel is
left wondering “Is God on our side?” “If this is a just war where is God?”
Throughout his account of the first two battles the
writer has provided us with insight into the emotions of Benjamin after their
two victories against an overwhelming force. We know nothing of the losses of
Benjamin or how they went about so easily defeating a superior force. We are
left to construct for ourselves the emotions and excitement that must have been
on display in Benjamin’s camp after their first two overwhelming victories over
Israel. We might wonder about their confidence level. Where they beginning to
feel as if they were indestructible? Were they thanking Yahweh for their
victories? Did they feel that Yahweh was on their side and that they were in
the right to defend the men of Gibeah from punishment at the hands of Israel?
These are but some of the questions we are left to answer on our own.
It is in the third battle that we see the focus of the
writer turn from Israel to Benjamin as he pays particular attention to the
emotions of the Benjamites. “He (the writer) focuses particularly on the
emotions of the Benjamites at the moment they realize they are about to be
annihilated. This moment of realization is the high point of the chapter.”
Verses 29-34
describe the ambush that Israel sets in place to trap and destroy Benjamin. Israel lures Benjamin into its ambush by
doing what it had done in two previous engagements and Benjamin, predictably
reacts as it had previously. Experiencing initial success the Benjamite forces likely
felt certain that the results would once again prove them victorious over
Israel. Benjamin clearly feels that this battle will end with them experiencing
victory a third time. Things certainly seem to be going their way.
The Israelites turn from the forces of Benjamin and begin
to flee. Benjamin, believing that the rout is on run after them not recognizing
that they were being “lured” into an ambush. As soon as Benjamin had been lured far enough away from the walls of
Gibeah an Israelite force moved in behind the Benjamites, preventing them from
returning to the safety of the city walls. At the same time Israel launched an attack on the unprotected city of
Gibeah.
In verses 35-41 we are given a detailed account of the
destruction of Benjamin, prefaced with the statement in verse 35 that the credit
for this victory belonged to Yahweh. It
was “this divine intervention accounts for the rout of the Benjamites.” The results this day were unlike the previous
battles as this time more than 25,000 Benjamites had been cut down. The writer
recounts how Israel lured Benjamin into their ambush and how the Israel had
successfully triggered the ambush by burning the city, signaling that the city
had been taken.
In v. 39 the writer tells us that as Benjamin was
pursuing Israel they had no idea what was happening behind them. When Israel stopped running before them and turned
around to face Benjamin, the Benjamites felt an initial sense of victory only
to see the smoke rising from the city and realize that they were cutoff and
that they were trapped in a vice of the Israelite army. Realizing their dire situation Benjamin’s
forces turning towards the desert and begin to flee for their lives only to be
caught and cut down by Israel.
We are provided with the casualty list from this battle
for the Benjamites in verses 44-47. Twenty-five thousand Benjamites died survived by only six hundred men
who were holed up in an area near the Rock of Rimmon. In verse
48 the writer tells us that Israel turned to the land of Benjamin, burning the
cities, killing the inhabitants and livestock. The tribe of Benjamin was nearly
completely destroyed. This was what Yahweh had asked Israel to do to the
Canaanites and yet here it was done to their kinsmen.
Conclusion
There are at least four things that standout in this
chapter. First, we are finally given a picture of Israel completely engaged in a
holy war against evil. As Daniel Block says: “All the key elements of Israel’s
holy war traditions are found in this chapter: (1) The people assemble as one
man before Yahweh. (2) The priest leads the people in seeking the will of
Yahweh. (3) Yahweh gives directions about the order of march into battle. (4)
Yahweh goes before Israel as the divine Warrior striking the enemy. (5) The
people apply the law of holy war.”
The unfortunate thing is that this holy war took place
against an enemy that was one of their own. It was against a tribe that had
become so Canaanized that it literally was just like the Canaanites and they
were treated as such. It was a statement of how deeply rooted the Canaanizing
rot was in the culture of Israel.
Second, the writer presents us with a challenging picture
of Yahweh. We see Yahweh as being just a witness to the gathering of Israel at
Mizpah in verses 1-2, then responding to the inquiries of Israel regarding battle
strategy (vv. 18, 23, 28), and finally acting in judgment of Benjamin, and
punishing them for protecting and defending those whose despicable acts brought
disgrace on all of Israel. As Block says “this account provides the clearest
example of deuteronomistic theology in the book.” This is the classic example of disobedience
bringing down Yahweh’s divine curse. There is no mercy only brutal justice. But
it is not just the guilty that are punished: “All Israel suffers for the sin of
one city, for with the annihilation of Benjamin they lose a brother and
one-tenth of their own male population (over forty thousand soldiers from their
own ranks).”
Third, we come to another great irony in the Book of
Judges. Israel, which has been
increasingly canaanized, gathers before Yahweh as a covenant community (vv. 1-3).
Throughout the Book of Judges we have seen divinely called and empowered judges
fail to be able to mobilize the nation into taking united action against the
Canaanites and yet here “a nameless Levite of questionable character and with
questionable methods is able to rally all the troops as “one man.”
Daniel Block identifies another irony:
“The
tribe that embodies right-handedness (Benjamin, “son of the right hand”) not
only demonstrates its left-handedness metaphorically by being completely out of
step with orthodox theological and ethical standards, but also, ironically, is
able to field an entire contingent of first class left-handed warriors. A
little army of twenty-six thousand, seven hundred of who are “handicapped with
respect to the right hand,” is able to put to rout an army more than fifteen
times its size, not once but twice. In the process they slaughter forty
thousand Israelite soldiers, without a single stated casualty of their own.
Fourth and perhaps the greatest irony of all, we see the
nation of Israel fighting a holy war against one of their own tribes with all
the energy and aggression that they should have demonstrated if battling against
the Canaanites. “Israel has discovered who her greatest foe is: she is her own
worst enemy.”
We closed our last session with the question “Can too
much hospitality be a bad thing?” In this section our concerns will also focus
in part on hospitality but it will deal with the effects of a lack of
hospitality. We will be party to a series of events in which we will see
Israel’s moral conduct to a low that is not to be exceeded anywhere else in the
Old Testament. Our text for this session Judges 19.10-30 is readily divided in
to two parts: 1) The social outrage at Gibeah (vv. 10b-21); and 2) The moral outrage
at Gibeah (vv. 22-30). We look first at the social outrage at Gibeah.
The
Social Outrage at Gibeah (19:10-15)
One of the primary characters in this narrative is the
wife/concubine of the Levite. While the writer makes both the Levite and
father-in-law seem like real people to us by using a variety of literary
techniques, he does not do the same of the young woman. Behind a curtain of
questions about her, she seems to have little influence on the events
surrounding her. “Though none of the characters in the account is named, she is
the most faceless of all.”
The commentator Daniel Block recognizes that: “The only
events in which she is an active participant are her abandonment of her husband
(v. 2) and her welcoming him at her father’s house (v. 3). Other than these two
events the young woman has little to say about what takes place in her life.
The picture we are give of this woman is that she is a person at the mercy of
male dominated society and she seems to willing accept her passive role that society
has given her. Through the words of the
writer we are able to glimpse the fact the in her death, “she dies, a victim of
men who have no thought whatsoever for the dignity and feelings of this woman.”
Verse 19.10 is a transitional verse. For the first time
we see the Levite assert himself by refusing to stay any longer at his
father-in-law’s. Taking his wife/concubine, his servant, and his two donkeys,
he departs from his father-in-law’s home even though the time of his departure
is so late that he will have to look for a place to spend the night after only
traveling about six miles. This puts the travelers in the vicinity of Jerusalem
which is still occupied by the Jebusites. The Jebusites were non-Semitic
peoples who had not been driven from the city Jebus (Jerusalem) by the
Israelites.
As our travelers come near to Jebus, the servant and the
priest become engaged in a conversation about where they should take lodging
for the night (19:11-13). The servant makes the obvious suggestion that they
stop at Jebus and spend the night there. The Levite dismisses his servant’s
suggestion and the reasons he gives for not accepting his servant’s suggestions
are critical to our story. The Levite’s answer to his servant is that he won’t
go into any city whose inhabitants are not Israelites. In light of the general tone of Judges this is
something of a surprise because we have many instances where the Israelites
have co-existed with the Canaanites without incident. Why would this be any
different? The decision to bypass Jebus in favor of traveling on to two smaller
cities in Benjamin, north of Jebus, seems to have been made based on the issue
of hospitality. The priest felt that they would not be as safe in Jebus among
the Canaanites as they would in a city inhabited by fellow Israelites. Thus the
party continues on until they reached Gibeah in Benjamin.
In verses 14-15 our travelers enter the city of Gibeah,
expecting to receive hospitality from their fellow Israelites and be invited
into the home of one of the inhabitants of Gibeah. Going to the city square,
the Levite and his fellow travelers anticipated that someone would stop and
offer them a place to spend the night. No one invites them in. Verse 15 is a
shocking verse because of the lack of hospitality offered to these travelers.
It is made all the more shocking when one realizes that this lack of
hospitality was shown to them not by Canaanites but by fellow Israelites. It is
clear that “the social disintegration has infected the very heart of the community.
People refuse to open their doors to strangers passing through. It makes no
difference that these travelers are their own countrymen.”
The
Open Square (19:16-21)
These verses, consisting of mostly dialogue, introduce us
to a new character, an old man who is an Ephraimite, living and working in
Gibeah among the Benjaminites. Like our other characters the old man is
nameless.
Returning from his work in the fields the old man passes
through the city gates and sees the Levite and his band in the city square. The
old man, striking up a conversation with the priest, asks him where he is going
and where has he come from. The Levite tells the old man that they are coming
from Bethlehem and are going to the hill country of Ephraim. The old man does
not acknowledge the presence of the young woman or the servant but the Levite
responds to the old man’s questions in the plural, including his companions in
his answer. The Levite offers no insight as to the purpose of his trip. It
seems that, from the writer’s perspective, the reconciliation of the couple is
no longer an issue as the coming events are about to demonstrate.
The Levite complains v. 18b that no one in Gibeah has
offered him a place to sleep for the night even though they have food for
themselves and their donkeys. It is another of the writer’s ironies that the
Levite bypassed Jebus (Jerusalem) thinking that they would find no hospitality
in a Canaanite city in favor of spending the night in a city of their own countrymen
where he expected that hospitality would not be an issue. The priest gives
voice to a symbol of the “social malignancy in Israel,” even at the most
fundamental level, hospitality, there is no sense of nation, as one tribe fails
to extend the commonly accepted courtesy of hospitality to members of another
tribe. Daniel Block rightly said: “There is no sense of community.”
In contrast to the response of the Gibeahites, the old
man in verses 19:20-21 not only warmly greets the visitors, but extends to the
priest the hospitality that he was expecting to receive as the old man offers
to provide them with whatever they needed. The old man insists that the travelers should
not spend the night in the city square. Since Gibeah was a walled city and thus
should be safe from outsiders, the old man’s remark is as first curious. As we will find out shortly, the old man knew
that the threat to the travelers was going to come from outside the walls but
rather it would come from within the very walls that did not but create a false
sense of protection for the visitors. The
old man leads the travelers to his house and makes them welcome. Feeding their
donkeys, offering them water to wash their feet after which they refreshed
themselves with food and drink.
The old man’s show of hospitality is the ways things are
suppose to be, but this will be in sharp contrast to the way things are in
Israel which is represented by the response of the Benjamites. The writer does
not openly declare the state of Israelite society by saying that it is rotten;
rather “he tells a story to illustrate the point. This conversation turns out
to be a self-analysis-an Israelite is telling a story about Israelites.”
The Moral
Outrage at Gibeah (19:22-28)
Verses 19.22-26 are perhaps the vilest verses in the
Bible. As we mentioned in our last session it is impossible to read these
verses without being reminded of the passages in Genesis describing the
depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. In verse 19.22 the old man and
his guests are enjoying their meal and fellowship when the loud banging on the
door announces the arrival of the men of Gibeah who are not coming as a
friendly welcoming committee. The NIV identifies them as “wicked” men. The Hebrew word for wicked can cover a
wide-range of nastiness from murderers and rapists to the more mundane types
such as drunks and boors. The men of Gibeah fell into the murderers and rapist
category. The writer implies that while only some of the wicked men were
pounding on the door, the entire city was made up of wicked men. Block suggests
that “the author has generalized the depravity of Gibeah to the entire male
population, whose ravenous lust is demonstrated in their pounding on the door and
their demand to the host to hand the Levite over to them so they may have
sexual relations with him.” The demand of the wicked men violates a least three
fundamental laws: “the law of hospitality, the proscription on intercourse
outside of marriage, and proscription on heterosexual intercourse.”
Verses 19:23-24 provide us with a glimpse of the response
of the old man to the request of the wicked men to have the Levite come out so
that they could have sex with him. Even though the old man is not a Benjaminite,
he addresses the men as “my friends” in the NIV and asks them not to do such a
vile thing to his guest. The word
translated in the NIV as vile can also be translated “to do evil.” The writer
was likely attempting to link the word evil as used to describe the actions of
the men of Gibeah with the frequently used refrain that “The Israelites did
what is evil in the sight of the Lord.” This would support the writer’s
underlying contention that the Gibeahites behavior is merely representative of
the general “spiritual and ethical malaise of the nation during the days of the
judges.” The word translated “this disgraceful thing” in the NIV means
literally “this foolishness.” Block explains that the Hebrew word “denotes
emptiness, vanity, without moral, spiritual, or reasonable restraint, hence
intellectual stupidity and/or moral turpitude.” It is obvious that the writer
means moral turpitude here.
After rebuking the men for their proposed actions of
having sex with the Priest, the old man does what is right in his own eyes-he
offers his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine to the wicked men
instead. This action would allow the wicked men to have their way with the
women, “doing to them whatever is good in their own eyes.”
The ethical issues in this passage are many and they are
complex. We have issues of homosexuality, rape, adultery, and murder. We are
also confronted with issues related to a male centered society. The old man was
in a quandary and he took what for him was the lesser of two evils as he offers
young women in the house to the wicked men as a substitute for the Levite. Feeling
that his honor as a host was at stake he decided that his obligation of
protection was more important to his male guest than even his own daughter or
the man’s wife. Block points out rightly that for the old man “A host’s honor
is at stake-not justice or morality. That is why to him heterosexual rape is
preferable to homosexual rape. The host cannot betray his obligation to his
male guest.”
It is ironic that the object of the desires of the men of
Gibeah was the Levite, not the women or the Levite’s servant. Perhaps the men
were not even aware that the man was a Levite but the writer uses this to
demonstrate that as representatives of all the men of Israel they had no
respect for the priest. Here is another example of that which had been ordained
by God, called out to be holy being subjected to desecration at the hands of
Israel, not by Israel’s enemies, but by Israel.
The Levite, sensing that the men of Gibeah are not
interested in negotiating grabs his wife/concubine and throws her out the door
to be devoured like scraps given to a pack of wild dogs. Is the Levite trying
to defend his host, himself and as Block suggests “masculine honor” as well?
After all of the drama of the past four months to retrieve his wife could the
Priest give her up so easily? The men “doing what is right in their own eyes:
they raped her, they abused her, and at dawn they threw her back. At dawn she
crawls back to the door of her host’s house and dies. The actions of all the
characters, excepting the woman, give clear evidence that in Israel, the
knowledge of Yahweh and the doing what is right in His eyes has supplanted by
the evil of man and in everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.
Returning
Home (19:27-28)
The writer provides us with an almost unbelievable
portrait of the Levite on the “morning after.” Appearing totally indifferent to the fate of his wife he prepares to
depart for home. Opening the door of the
old man’s home, he steps outside to find the dead body of his wife lying on the
threshold. His response to seeing her
dead form at the door way is almost ludicrous, he commands her to “get up,
let’s go.” With no response from his wife, with little or no emotion, the
Levite picks her up and throws her body on one of the donkeys and heads off for
home. There may not be a more calloused portrait of a man in all of scripture
then what we see here.
This episode leaves us with a number of questions. Block
identifies seven questions that are particularly troubling.
(1) How could the host offer his own virgin daughter and
the guest’s concubine to this mob? How could the laws of fatherhood be
suspended, and did the laws of hospitality not apply to women?
(2) After going to such effort to recover his concubine,
how could the Levite thrust her out to these brutes?
(3) Why did the men of the town accept the concubine as a
substitute for the Levite?
(4) Where was the host’s virgin daughter in all this?
(5) Where was the Levite while the men of the town were
abusing his concubine? Could he really have continued his merriment or gone to
bed and slept?
(6) Why is there no apparent remorse when he discovers
her?
(7) Perhaps most torturous of all, was the woman dead
when the Levite found her?
This last question is particularly troubling. Several
translations (the LXX and the Vulgate) imply she was dead. If so the wicked men
of Gibeah can add murder to their already long list of crimes committed.
However verses 19.29-30 do not make it clear whether or not the Levite is
carving up a corpse or did he murder her and then dismember her. In 20.5 the Levite does not charge the men of
Gibeah with murder, he only says that they raped her “And she died.” Block says that this “leaves open the
possibility that he, rather than the rapists, was responsible for her death.”
If the young woman was not dead then the Levite is guilty of murder and if she
was dead then at best he is guilty of desecrating her body by carving her up as
if she was an animal.
Conclusion
This narrative can be understood on several levels. On
the surface it is about hospitality as the hospitality of the father–in-law and
the old man are contrasted with the inhospitality of the people of Gibeah. On an ethical level the narrative is about the
depth of “unrestrained animal lust and human depravity,” to which Israel, as
represented by the men of Gibeah, has sunk.
Yet there is more to this narrative. This narrative deals
with the question of what it is sometimes like to be a woman in a man’s world. Ordinarily,
a woman should not feel threatened by living in a man’s world. But the writer
exposes a situation that in a world of “unrestrained animal lust and human
depravity,” is without protection and is subject to “male exploitation and
violence.” Regardless of the societal rules of hospitality, in a man’s world
they do not include women. As the writer portrays, hospitality may protect men
but it can come at the expense of women. Hospitality, as practiced in Israel,
protects men not women. Block summarizes it this way: “In this world hosts need
not protect women as they protect men, husbands may seize their wives and throw
them out to the mob and men may rape, abuse, and discard women without
restraint. The rules of hospitality and family order protect only males, and
where the wills of males’ conflict, it is quite acceptable to offer females as
sacrifices in defense of male honor.”
In a society with Yahweh as King, we should find men
loving their women as themselves, willing to sacrifice themselves, if
necessary, to protect the lives of the women they love. Yet Israel no longer
recognizes Yahweh as King, in Israel everyone does as they see fit in their own
eyes and the results are predictable. The writer shares that in such a society
men use women as tools to satisfy their own needs and interests. There is no
sense caring, sacrificing or protecting them at a man’s expense, Israel is now
no different than the Canaanites that surround them. One of the many ironies of
this narrative is that the Levite sought out the sanctuary of Gibeah rather
than expose his party to the possible dangers of Jebus, “only to discover that
Canaan had invaded his own world.”
In our narrative the Canaanization of Israel is
represented by the four crimes that were committed by the Gibeahites: homosexuality,
rape, adultery, and murder. There is nothing in this narrative that attempts to
justify sexual crimes by men against women. The Old Testament, as it manifests
Yahweh’s will, is unequivocal in its statements against the crimes of rape,
adultery, homosexuality and murder. The standards
set for Israel are clear and the fact that such crimes could be committed so easily
are clear signs that the normative standards established by Yahweh are no
longer being practiced because of the nation’s Canaanization.
One question that Block suggests we ask is “What is it
about homosexual rape that makes it worse even than heterosexual rape?” The only
way we can answer this question rightly is to understand the “biblical perspective
on human sexuality.” This is not the forum for a full discussion of this
complex subject but here are the highlights. The primary role of sexual
activity in creation is procreation. In man’s case it is we begin to “fulfill
the mandate and promise of God to be fruitful.” Heterosexual sex is both natural and necessary
to propagate the species. With homosexual sex it is impossible to propagate the
species and therefore unnatural (Ro 12.26-27).
As unpopular as it maybe in our society today, the Bible,
affirming only heterosexual marriage, sees a “second function of sexual
activity is to express intimacy and marital commitment. The sexual activity between
a husband and wife expresses in physical intimacy their emotional and spiritual
union. Attempting to create this
intimacy between two people of the same sex, especially men, denounced as an
abomination and as a crime is put on a level with adultery and incest and is
punishable with death ( Lev 18:22 and 20:13). Homosexuality then is not a crime
against nature it is a crime against God and it is another way of demonstrating
the “expression of doing what is right in one’s own eyes.”
The writer’s judgment upon Israel is that the
Canaanization of Israel is complete. The only difference between the Israelites
and the Canaanites around them is that for a time they are ethnically different.
It is impossible to distinguish the Israelites from the Canaanites with “regard
to morality, ethics, and social values.” The cruel irony is that Israel is now
no different than the nations “whom they were commanded to destroy and on whom
the judgment of God hung.” If the
Israelites have become like the Canaanites can God’s judgment on them be far
behind?
049 The Rape at Gibeah
We closed our last session with the question "Can too much hospitality be a bad thing?" In this section our concerns will also focus in part on hospitality but it will deal with the effects of a lack of hospitality. We will be party to a series of events in which we will see Israel's moral conduct to a low that is not to be exceeded anywhere else in the Old Testament. Our text for this session Judges 19.10-30 is readily divided in to two parts: 1) The social outrage at Gibeah (vv. 10b-21); and 2) The moral outrage at Gibeah (vv. 22-30). We look first at the social outrage at Gibeah.
The Social Outrage at Gibeah (19:10-21)
One of the primary characters in this narrative is the wife/concubine of the Levite. While the writer makes both the Levite and father-in-law seem like real people to us by using a variety of literary techniques, he does not do the same of the young woman. Behind a curtain of questions about her, she seems to have little influence on the events surrounding her. "Though none of the characters in the account is named, she is the most faceless of all."
The commentator Daniel Block recognizes that: "The only events in which she is an active participant are her abandonment of her husband (v. 2) and her welcoming him at her father's house (v. 3). Other than these two events the young woman has little to say about what takes place in her life. The picture we are give of this woman is that she is a person at the mercy of male dominated society and she seems to willing accept her passive role that society has given her. Through the words of the writer we are able to glimpse the fact the in her death, "she dies, a victim of men who have no thought whatsoever for the dignity and feelings of this woman."
Verse 19.10 is a transitional verse. For the first time we see the Levite assert himself by refusing to stay any longer at his father-in-law's. Taking his wife/concubine, his servant, and his two donkeys, he departs from his father-in-law's home even though the time of his departure is so late that he will have to look for a place to spend the night after only traveling about six miles. This puts the travelers in the vicinity of Jerusalem which is still occupied by the Jebusites. The Jebusites were non-Semitic peoples who had not been driven from the city Jebus (Jerusalem) by the Israelites.
As our travelers come near to Jebus, the servant and the priest become engaged in a conversation about where they should take lodging for the night (19:11-13). The servant makes the obvious suggestion that they stop at Jebus and spend the night there. The Levite dismisses his servant's suggestion and the reasons he gives for not accepting his servant's suggestions are critical to our story. The Levite's answer to his servant is that he won't go into any city whose inhabitants are not Israelites. In light of the general tone of Judges this is something of a surprise because we have many instances where the Israelites have co-existed with the Canaanites without incident. Why would this be any different? The decision to bypass Jebus in favor of traveling on to two smaller cities in Benjamin, north of Jebus, seems to have been made based on the issue of hospitality. The priest felt that they would not be as safe in Jebus among the Canaanites as they would in a city inhabited by fellow Israelites. Thus the party continues on until they reached Gibeah in Benjamin.
In verses 14-15 our travelers enter the city of Gibeah, expecting to receive hospitality from their fellow Israelites and be invited into the home of one of the inhabitants of Gibeah. Going to the city square, the Levite and his fellow travelers anticipated that someone would stop and offer them a place to spend the night. No one invites them in. Verse 15 is a shocking verse because of the lack of hospitality offered to these travelers. It is made all the more shocking when one realizes that this lack of hospitality was shown to them not by Canaanites but by fellow Israelites. It is clear that "the social disintegration has infected the very heart of the community. People refuse to open their doors to strangers passing through. It makes no difference that these travelers are their own countrymen."
The Open Square (19:16-21)
These verses, consisting of mostly dialogue, introduce us to a new character, an old man who is an Ephraimite, living and working in Gibeah among the Benjaminites. Like our other characters the old man is nameless.
Returning from his work in the fields the old man passes through the city gates and sees the Levite and his band in the city square. The old man, striking up a conversation with the priest, asks him where he is going and where has he come from. The Levite tells the old man that they are coming from Bethlehem and are going to the hill country of Ephraim. The old man does not acknowledge the presence of the young woman or the servant but the Levite responds to the old man's questions in the plural, including his companions in his answer. The Levite offers no insight as to the purpose of his trip. It seems that, from the writer's perspective, the reconciliation of the couple is no longer an issue as the coming events are about to demonstrate.
The Levite complains v. 18b that no one in Gibeah has offered him a place to sleep for the night even though they have food for themselves and their donkeys. It is another of the writer's ironies that the Levite bypassed Jebus (Jerusalem) thinking that they would find no hospitality in a Canaanite city in favor of spending the night in a city of their own countrymen where he expected that hospitality would not be an issue. The priest gives voice to a symbol of the "social malignancy in Israel," even at the most fundamental level, hospitality, there is no sense of nation, as one tribe fails to extend the commonly accepted courtesy of hospitality to members of another tribe. Daniel Block rightly said: "There is no sense of community."
In contrast to the response of the Gibeahites, the old man in verses 19:20-21 not only warmly greets the visitors, but extends to the priest the hospitality that he was expecting to receive as the old man offers to provide them with whatever they needed. The old man insists that the travelers should not spend the night in the city square. Since Gibeah was a walled city and thus should be safe from outsiders, the old man's remark is as first curious. As we will find out shortly, the old man knew that the threat to the travelers was going to come from outside the walls but rather it would come from within the very walls that did not but create a false sense of protection for the visitors. The old man leads the travelers to his house and makes them welcome. Feeding their donkeys, offering them water to wash their feet after which they refreshed themselves with food and drink.
The old man's show of hospitality is the ways things are suppose to be, but this will be in sharp contrast to the way things are in Israel which is represented by the response of the Benjamites. The writer does not openly declare the state of Israelite society by saying that it is rotten; rather "he tells a story to illustrate the point. This conversation turns out to be a self-analysis-an Israelite is telling a story about Israelites."
The Moral Outrage at Gibeah (19:22-28)
Verses 19.22-26 are perhaps the vilest verses in the Bible. As we mentioned in our last session it is impossible to read these verses without being reminded of the passages in Genesis describing the depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. In verse 19.22 the old man and his guests are enjoying their meal and fellowship when the loud banging on the door announces the arrival of the men of Gibeah who are not coming as a friendly welcoming committee. The NIV identifies them as "wicked" men. The Hebrew word for wicked can cover a wide-range of nastiness from murderers and rapists to the more mundane types such as drunks and boors. The men of Gibeah fell into the murderers and rapist category. The writer implies that while only some of the wicked men were pounding on the door, the entire city was made up of wicked men. Block suggests that "the author has generalized the depravity of Gibeah to the entire male population, whose ravenous lust is demonstrated in their pounding on the door and their demand to the host to hand the Levite over to them so they may have sexual relations with him." The demand of the wicked men violates a least three fundamental laws: "the law of hospitality, the proscription on intercourse outside of marriage, and proscription on heterosexual intercourse."
Verses 19:23-24 provide us with a glimpse of the response of the old man to the request of the wicked men to have the Levite come out so that they could have sex with him. Even though the old man is not a Benjaminite, he addresses the men as "my friends" in the NIV and asks them not to do such a vile thing to his guest. The word translated in the NIV as vile can also be translated "to do evil." The writer was likely attempting to link the word evil as used to describe the actions of the men of Gibeah with the frequently used refrain that "The Israelites did what is evil in the sight of the Lord." This would support the writer's underlying contention that the Gibeahites behavior is merely representative of the general "spiritual and ethical malaise of the nation during the days of the judges." The word translated "this disgraceful thing" in the NIV means literally "this foolishness." Block explains that the Hebrew word "denotes emptiness, vanity, without moral, spiritual, or reasonable restraint, hence intellectual stupidity and/or moral turpitude." It is obvious that the writer means moral turpitude here.
After rebuking the men for their proposed actions of having sex with the Priest, the old man does what is right in his own eyes-he offers his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine to the wicked men instead. This action would allow the wicked men to have their way with the women, "doing to them whatever is good in their own eyes."
The ethical issues in this passage are many and they are complex. We have issues of homosexuality, rape, adultery, and murder. We are also confronted with issues related to a male centered society. The old man was in a quandary and he took what for him was the lesser of two evils as he offers young women in the house to the wicked men as a substitute for the Levite. Feeling that his honor as a host was at stake he decided that his obligation of protection was more important to his male guest than even his own daughter or the man's wife. Block points out rightly that for the old man "A host's honor is at stake-not justice or morality. That is why to him heterosexual rape is preferable to homosexual rape. The host cannot betray his obligation to his male guest."
It is ironic that the object of the desires of the men of Gibeah was the Levite, not the women or the Levite's servant. Perhaps the men were not even aware that the man was a Levite but the writer uses this to demonstrate that as representatives of all the men of Israel they had no respect for the priest. Here is another example of that which had been ordained by God, called out to be holy being subjected to desecration at the hands of Israel, not by Israel's enemies, but by Israel.
The Levite, sensing that the men of Gibeah are not interested in negotiating grabs his wife/concubine and throws her out the door to be devoured like scraps given to a pack of wild dogs. Is the Levite trying to defend his host, himself and as Block suggests "masculine honor" as well? After all of the drama of the past four months to retrieve his wife could the Priest give her up so easily? The men "doing what is right in their own eyes: they raped her, they abused her, and at dawn they threw her back. At dawn she crawls back to the door of her host's house and dies. The actions of all the characters, excepting the woman, give clear evidence that in Israel, the knowledge of Yahweh and the doing what is right in His eyes has supplanted by the evil of man and in everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.
Returning Home (19:27-28)
The writer provides us with an almost unbelievable portrait of the Levite on the "morning after." Appearing totally indifferent to the fate of his wife he prepares to depart for home. Opening the door of the old man's home, he steps outside to find the dead body of his wife lying on the threshold. His response to seeing her dead form at the door way is almost ludicrous, he commands her to "get up, let's go." With no response from his wife, with little or no emotion, the Levite picks her up and throws her body on one of the donkeys and heads off for home. There may not be a more calloused portrait of a man in all of scripture then what we see here.
This episode leaves us with a number of questions. Block identifies seven questions that are particularly troubling.
(1) How could the host offer his own virgin daughter and the guest's concubine to this mob? How could the laws of fatherhood be suspended, and did the laws of hospitality not apply to women?
(2) After going to such effort to recover his concubine, how could the Levite thrust her out to these brutes?
(3) Why did the men of the town accept the concubine as a substitute for the Levite?
(4) Where was the host's virgin daughter in all this?
(5) Where was the Levite while the men of the town were abusing his concubine? Could he really have continued his merriment or gone to bed and slept?
(6) Why is there no apparent remorse when he discovers her?
(7) Perhaps most torturous of all, was the woman dead when the Levite found her?
This last question is particularly troubling. Several translations (the LXX and the Vulgate) imply she was dead. If so the wicked men of Gibeah can add murder to their already long list of crimes committed. However verses 19.29-30 do not make it clear whether or not the Levite is carving up a corpse or did he murder her and then dismember her. In 20.5 the Levite does not charge the men of Gibeah with murder, he only says that they raped her "And she died." Block says that this "leaves open the possibility that he, rather than the rapists, was responsible for her death." If the young woman was not dead then the Levite is guilty of murder and if she was dead then at best he is guilty of desecrating her body by carving her up as if she was an animal.
Conclusion
This narrative can be understood on several levels. On the surface it is about hospitality as the hospitality of the father–in-law and the old man are contrasted with the inhospitality of the people of Gibeah. On an ethical level the narrative is about the depth of "unrestrained animal lust and human depravity," to which Israel, as represented by the men of Gibeah, has sunk.
Yet there is more to this narrative. This narrative deals with the question of what it is sometimes like to be a woman in a man's world. Ordinarily, a woman should not feel threatened by living in a man's world. But the writer exposes a situation that in a world of "unrestrained animal lust and human depravity," is without protection and is subject to "male exploitation and violence." Regardless of the societal rules of hospitality, in a man's world they do not include women. As the writer portrays, hospitality may protect men but it can come at the expense of women. Hospitality, as practiced in Israel, protects men not women. Block summarizes it this way: "In this world hosts need not protect women as they protect men, husbands may seize their wives and throw them out to the mob and men may rape, abuse, and discard women without restraint. The rules of hospitality and family order protect only males, and where the wills of males' conflict, it is quite acceptable to offer females as sacrifices in defense of male honor."
In a society with Yahweh as King, we should find men loving their women as themselves, willing to sacrifice themselves, if necessary, to protect the lives of the women they love. Yet Israel no longer recognizes Yahweh as King, in Israel everyone does as they see fit in their own eyes and the results are predictable. The writer shares that in such a society men use women as tools to satisfy their own needs and interests. There is no sense caring, sacrificing or protecting them at a man's expense, Israel is now no different than the Canaanites that surround them. One of the many ironies of this narrative is that the Levite sought out the sanctuary of Gibeah rather than expose his party to the possible dangers of Jebus, "only to discover that Canaan had invaded his own world."
In our narrative the Canaanization of Israel is represented by the four crimes that were committed by the Gibeahites: homosexuality, rape, adultery, and murder. There is nothing in this narrative that attempts to justify sexual crimes by men against women. The Old Testament, as it manifests Yahweh's will, is unequivocal in its statements against the crimes of rape, adultery, homosexuality and murder. The standards set for Israel are clear and the fact that such crimes could be committed so easily are clear signs that the normative standards established by Yahweh are no longer being practiced because of the nation's Canaanization.
One question that Block suggests we ask is "What is it about homosexual rape that makes it worse even than heterosexual rape?" The only way we can answer this question rightly is to understand the "biblical perspective on human sexuality." This is not the forum for a full discussion of this complex subject but here are the highlights. The primary role of sexual activity in creation is procreation. In man's case it is we begin to "fulfill the mandate and promise of God to be fruitful." Heterosexual sex is both natural and necessary to propagate the species. With homosexual sex it is impossible to propagate the species and therefore unnatural (Ro 12.26-27).
As unpopular as it maybe in our society today, the Bible, affirming only heterosexual marriage, sees a "second function of sexual activity is to express intimacy and marital commitment. The sexual activity between a husband and wife expresses in physical intimacy their emotional and spiritual union. Attempting to create this intimacy between two people of the same sex, especially men, denounced as an abomination and as a crime is put on a level with adultery and incest and is punishable with death ( Lev 18:22 and 20:13). Homosexuality then is not a crime against nature it is a crime against God and it is another way of demonstrating the "expression of doing what is right in one's own eyes."
The writer's judgment upon Israel is that the Canaanization of Israel is complete. The only difference between the Israelites and the Canaanites around them is that for a time they are ethnically different. It is impossible to distinguish the Israelites from the Canaanites with "regard to morality, ethics, and social values." The cruel irony is that Israel is now no different than the nations "whom they were commanded to destroy and on whom the judgment of God hung." If the Israelites have become like the Canaanites can God's judgment on them be far behind?
The
final unit in Judges is established by the statement “In those days Israel had
no king” in 19.1 and 21.25. This unit is exceeded in length only by the unit on
Gideon if we include the Abimelech cycle within the Gideon unit. What starts
out as a seemingly simple family dispute telescopes in a full blown national
crisis that threatens the integrity of the nation. The plot is complex and the
writer continues his expert use of a variety of literary features to make some
very subtle and some not so subtle points about the impact of the Canaanization
of Israel on the moral integrity of Israel and its entire people. 
A
particular striking feature of this account is that outside of a single
instance, none of the characters, major or minor, are named. The only name
mentioned is that of the priest at Bethel, Phinehas, in 20.28. All the other
characters are nameless. The only reason for the writer to even mention the
name of the priest is to provide us with a clue to the approximate time of
these events. The commentator Daniel
Block tells us that “Phinehas, the priest, is the grandson of Aaron, and that
places the events transpiring in this chapter within one hundred years of the
death of Moses and within a few decades after the death of Joshua.” This literary device is intended to
demonstrate the universal nature of Israel’s Canaanization.
By
making the characters nameless the writer accomplishes a couple of things. The
characters become similar to Everyman of the English morality plays, in that
they represent everyone in their particular group. For example “the Levite
represents every Levite; the concubine, every woman; the father-in-law, every
host; the old man residing in Bethel, every outsider in a Benjamite town.” Much
like the “If it makes you feel good do it” philosophy of our day the “everyone
did as he saw fit” attitude in Israel opened the way for people doing what they
wanted. “Every host was capable of committing the atrocities of the Benjamites;
every guest could be mistreated; and every woman was a potential victim of
rape, murder, and dismemberment.”
The
namelessness of the characters also reflects “the dehumanization of the
individual in a Canaanized world.” A name makes us distinct, it separates us
from others, and it gives us an identity. Without names we become objects, we lose our individuality and we become
part of the faceless crowd. For our writer, it is apparent that “In a world in
which the individual makes himself the measure of all things the individual
eventually counts for nothing.” Man is made unique by Yahweh, without a belief
in Yahweh, without knowing Yahweh; man is simply another nameless creature in
the universe. “By means of anonymity
the narrator has depicted a sinister world of alienation, denigration, and
deconstruction.”
These
final chapters of Judges provide us with a final, great example of the
Canaanization of Israel. We will be
faced with the Canaanization of Israel at both the individual level as well as
a communal level as we are shown just how deep and important the impact of
individual actions are on the community. This is a fitting conclusion for our
writer’s story of the spiritual and moral destruction of Israel from the inside
out.
We
will review this section in four parts.
1. The Background to the Rape at Gibeah
(19:1-10a)
2. The Rape at Gibeah (19:10b-30)
3. Israel’s Response to the Rape at Gibeah
(20:1-48)
4. The National Crisis Precipitated by the
Rape at Gibeah (21:1-25)
From
a theological stand point God is almost never mentioned. In sections one and
two, God is not mentioned by his name Yahweh or by the more generic term of
Elohim. In section three we are told that Israel assembles “before the Lord” at
Mizpah (20:1) as the “people of God” (20:2), and when they consult him at
Bethel he responds (20:18, 23, 27-28). In section four we see the Israelites
weep before Yahweh at Bethel (21:1) and let his name drop freely from their
lips (21:3, 5, 7-8). Other than these few examples, we see the people making their
own decisions. God is silent, allowing them to do things their own way and He
even allows them to succeed. We have a key to the writer’s understanding of
these events in 21:15: “The Lord had made a gap in the tribes of Israel.” Here
the writer is asking us, his readers, to see the intervention of God. In
Israel‘s “Holy War” against a fellow tribe, God has delivered the enemy into Israel’s
hand (cf. 20:28) just as if it were an external enemy. Hoverer, this concluding
narrative in Judges, Israel discovers her greatest enemy, and that enemy is in
the enemy within her very own midst.
It
is not accidental that this chapter, as provides the background leading up to
the rape and the rape itself, presents a close parallel to Genesis 19. Daniel
Block provides us with a list of some of the most obvious links:
1. A small group of travelers arrives in
the city in the evening.
2. A person who is himself an alien
observes the presence of this company.
3. The travelers have a mind to spend the
night in the open square.
4. At the insistence of the host, the
travelers agree to spend the night in his house.
5. The host washes the guests’ feet (implied
in Gen 19:3 after the offer of v. 2).
6. The host and guest share a meal.
7. Depraved men of the city surround the
house.
8. They demand that the host deliver his
male guests to them so they may commit homosexual gang rape.
9. The host protests this display of
wickedness.
10. When the protests prove futile, a
substitute female is offered or handed over.
However
not only the two incidents share common plot line, they even share a common
vocabulary. Consider some of the common verbs used: “to spend the night,” “to
turn aside,” “to rise early and go on one’s way,” “to dilly-dally,” “to wash
the feet,” and “they ate.” The parallels
between the two intensify as the narratives proceed and reach their climax in
Gen 19:4-8 and Judges 19:22-24 respectively. We will look at some of these
similarities as they occur. There can be
little doubt that the writer’s intent was to compare the time of Judges with
one of the darkest times in Old Testament times; the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah. The elements of moral and spiritual decay are obvious in both but the
writer leaves it to us to draw our own conclusions.
The
Background to the Rape at Gibeah (19:1-9)
In
19:1, the beginning of the final plot of Judges is opened with the ominous
announcement of the absence of a king in Israel. By refusing to acknowledge
Yahweh as its King, Israel does not have the spiritual strength to resist
sinking to the moral level of the Canaanites at all levels of its society, the
personal, tribal, and national levels. As we have suggested before it is also
true that the people do not need a human king to lead them into sin and
immorality, they are quite capable of doing that on their own. If asked, it is
likely that these people would profess to be followers of Yahweh, they could
talk the talk, but walking the talk was an entirely different matter, “their
conduct and their consequent fate contradict this claim.”
After
the statement about the absence of a king, the writer introduces us to the main
characters, another priest and his concubine. The writer introduces the priest
as a Levite, a member of the tribe of Levi who were charged with maintaining
the spiritual character of the nation of Israel. As we mentioned earlier, like
everyone else in this narrative with the exception of the priest Phinehas, the
priest is not named. This would indicate that the writer wants us to generalize
the issues surrounding the character. The priest is to be understood as “every
priest.” Who the priest is of little importance in comparison to the issue he
represents. The Levite was a traveler who does not appear to have permanent
home and is without a mission or calling in his life. Like the priest in the
previous narrative regarding the Danites, this priest also is associated with
Bethlehem of Judah. In this narrative, just the opposite situation arises as
our priest travels from the hill country of Ephraim to Bethlehem. If you recall
in the previous version the priest made the journey in reverse traveling from
Bethlehem to the hill country in Ephraim. The issue of hospitality also arises in both narratives though the way
in which hospitality is expressed is quite different.
Similarly
to our priest, his concubine is also nameless, but the writer does give us
three pieces of information about this woman. First, we are told that the woman is the priest’s concubine. The use of
the term concubine raises the immediate question of whether or not the Levite
has other wives, as the term concubine as used here would indicate that this
woman is a second-class wife. If he doesn’t have other wives then why is this
woman not being treated as “a normal wife?” Second, the woman is referred to as the “young woman,” which would help
explain her running back to her father’s house. Third, the woman leaves her
husband and goes back home to her father’s house. Her motive for going home is not entirely
clear. On the surface this would seem to be a case of a woman leaving her
husband because as Daniel Block says: “She seems simply to have abandoned her
husband, perhaps because she was tired of being treated as a secondary wife,
and returned to her father’s home.” Divorce in Israel was a one way street, a man could divorce a woman for
a multitude of reason but we are not given any hint that a woman was permitted
the same freedom of choice. If she left
her husband, she may have been called a prostitute because of her walking out
on him. Block again offers us an
alternative interpretation. “On the other hand, these are strange and evil
times; and we should not be surprised if, when she returned home, her father
sent her out to work as a prostitute to contribute to the family economy.
Perhaps this explains his reluctance to let her go.”
There
has been a great deal of speculation as to the reason that the text would say
that she acted as a prostitute and then went home to her father. Upon returning
to an older version of the text, it appears that the word translated in the NIV
as “unfaithful” may have meant “she was angry with him,” or “she despised him,”
both interpretations would fit the context. The writer’s do not present us with
whose fault the falling out was, but in light of what takes place later and
based on our writer’s known sympathy for women throughout Judges it is hard to
believe that he does not favor the woman.
The
woman returns home and is welcomed by her father. The reason for her return
home, whether because of anger, a quarrel or unfaithfulness, was not so great
as to preclude an attempt at reconciliation on the priest’s part. In fact we
see that when the Levite shows up at his father-in-law’s house, he is warmly
welcomed (v3).
19:3
explains that whatever the reason, angry over some marital crisis, the
concubine had left her husband went home to her father in Bethlehem of Judah.
The Levite appears to have waited for her to return, but after four months he
decides that she is not returning on her own and decides to go to Bethlehem and
bring her back.
In
preparation for the Levite’s encounter with his father-in-law and
reconciliation with his concubine, he takes with him a servant and a pair of
donkeys; his ultimate goal was to persuade his concubine to return with
him. The presence of a servant and a
pair of donkeys seems to have impressed his father-in-law and the young women
with the Levite’s seriousness. His wife appears to welcome him with open arms
when he arrives and she brings him immediately into her father’s home.
The
writer tells us in 19:4 that the Levite’s father-in-law rejoiced at the arrival
of his son-in-law. We have no of knowing way the father-in-law was so happy.
Perhaps he was looking forward to having his daughter reunited with her
husband, maybe he was tired of her company after four months and wanted to get
back to his empty nest, whatever the reason it seems in this verse that the
couple has been reconciled and that good times are head when the couple returns
home.
What
takes place in verses 5 through nine is hard to understand. We are left to wonder at the father-in-law’s
actions as he continues to want his son-in-law to stay and not leave. We can
feel the tension build as the father-in-law seeks to detain his son-in-law and
daughter, while the son-in-law is increasingly anxious to get away and get back
to his home. There seems to be more here than just taking the opportunity to
turn “normal oriental hospitality into a celebration with plenty of food and
drink and lasting for days.”
The
writer never explains why the young woman’s father is so intent on having the
couple stay around. Yet it is clear to the reader that the more the
father-in-law pushes for them to stay the more anxious the son-in-law is to
depart. Trying to be respectful of his father-in-law’s hospitality, the
son-in-law willingly stays three days but as the fifth day arrives the
son-in-law cannot bring himself to stay another night. Despite his
father-in-law’s continuing attempts to change his mind, and the fact that it
has already grown late in the day, the Levite makes a rash decision to leave
and that unwise decision will have repercussions that will almost blot out of
existence a tribe of Israel. If only the Levite had left in the morning then he
would have been able to travel well beyond Gibeah and he would have been forced
to spend the night in a town so lacking in hospitality.
Can
too much hospitality be a bad thing? The writer doesn’t seem to think so or at
least he doesn’t criticize the ways of the father-in-law whose hospitality can
only be contrasted with what lies ahead for the Levite, his concubine and his
servant in the town of Gibeah.
In
our next session we will look at the consequences of the young couple’s delayed
departure for home in “The Rape at Gibeah.”
047
The Religious Degeneration of Israel (Part 2)
Chapter eighteen begins with the simple refrain: “In
those days Israel had no king.” The writer is asking us to evaluate the
preceding events in light of the absence of a king. We cannot determine whether
the writer was speaking of Yahweh as king or if he had a human king in mind,
but according to the Mosaic Law, Israel “should have risen up against Micah and
stoned him for his idolatrous ways (Deut 13:6-11). One of the responsibilities
that belonged to the king was that he was to ensure the orthodox interpretation
of the Law and the correct practice of the cult. If the writer was indeed
referring a human king, the comment still suggests the fact that Israel has
repudiated Yahweh as their king.
As Israel would learn, Yahweh would not give up His rule
because His people rejected Him. We
might assume that the Danite treatment of Micah was just a human one, yet “the
Danite treatment of Micah may be interpreted as the divine response to Micah
for his abominable behavior. With delightful irony the despised Danites serve
as agents of judgment upon this representative of the high and mighty
Ephraimites.”
Chapter 18 presents us with an unusual picture for
Judges, the Danites, without the obvious help of Yahweh or a human king achieve
a military success. Daniel Block notes: “This chapter portrays a tribe
venturing out independently of Yahweh and without the benefit of a king but
achieving perfect success. The nation needs no king to lead them in battle or
into apostasy. They will do both on their own.”
The theme of chapters 17 and 18 remains the religious
degeneration of Israel as represented in by corruption of Dan. As the writer
has continually pounded home the point of the downward spiral of the spiritual
condition of the nation the singling out of Samson, a Danite, and then the
narrative of Micah and the Tribe of Dan, it is obvious that the writer’s
purpose is to demonstrate all that is spiritually amiss with Israel. It would seem likely, that as readers, we can
only expect more of the same. As we have seen throughout Judges, our writer is
a master at using irony and in chapter 18 his skill at using this literary
device at is best.
Chapter eighteen is easily divided into two parts. The
first part verses 1-10 deal with the mission of the spies while part 2 verses
11-31 deal with Dan’s conquest of Laish. Let’s look at the particulars of
chapter 18.
The
Mission (18:1-10)
In 18:1 the writer provides us with the context in which
chapter 18 will take place, “In those days Israel had no king,” and then
proceeds immediately to his primary focus, Dan’s struggles to find a place of
their own where they could settle down. This poses the question of if the tribe
of Dan didn’t have a place of their own what are we to make of the statements in Joshua 19.40-48 which tell us of the
specific territory that was to Dan’s. Much has been made of this question but it seems reasonable to assume
that the writer is just stating the fact that Dan had been unable to conquer
the Amorites and take possession of the land that had been allotted to them by
Joshua. It seems likely that Danite
towns of Zorah and Eshtaol were more refuges than anything else. Unable to capture the lowlands held by the
Amorites, Dan took refuge in the hill country surrounding and including Zorah
and Eshtaol, but this area was not sufficiently large enough for the tribe and
the lack of good agriculture territory made food production a constant problem.
As we see in chapter 18 there was an urgent need to find a more suitable,
productive home for the tribe of Dan.
In the tribe of Dan’s response to their problem we might
see a bit of ourselves. Faced with a crisis, the Danites, instead of turning to
Yahweh, and confessing their sins and seeking His help, they proceeded to do “what
is right in their own eyes.” They sought to find a land that would support them
and that they could call their own.
In 18:2, seeming to take a page from the playbook of an
earlier generation, the Danites appointed five spies to go in search of a new
and suitable territory rather than have the whole tribe wandering around the
Promised Land looking for a home. The five men selected represented the best of
each of the clans of Dan and were charged with spying and exploring the
land. The writer doesn’t tell us what
land they are exploring or spying on at this point only that they are to
“explore the land.”
It is easy to miss the parallelism suggested by the
writer as he mentions that the spies enter the land of Ephraim and come “to the
house of Micah.” It is almost certain that the writer wants us to recall the
earlier account of the spies sent into the Promised Land by Moses and their
coming to “the house of the prostitute.” The idea of Israel playing the harlot
as mentioned earlier by the writer now comes to center stage. Block suggests
that this would also explain why “Micah is out of the picture in vv. 2b-6. The
scouts’ primary interest is in the Levite, the facilitator of their spiritually
harlotrous activity.”
The writer sets up an interesting situation in verse18:3 when
the scouts arrive at Micah’s house. Rather than being greeted by Micah, they are
greeted by the Levite priest whom they recognize, not by sight but by his
voice. The writer doesn’t explain how the spies may have known the priest. One
can assume that the priest in his wanderings, before coming to Micah’s house,
had spent time with the Danites and that their path of exploration had
inadvertently, followed the priest to Micah’s house. The voice recognition will
become important in subsequent scenes as the voice of the priest comes to carry
the same importance as the voice of Yahweh for the Danites.
In verse three the Danites pepper the priest with
questions: "Who brought you here? What are you doing in this place? Why
are you here?" Block raises an interesting point. He says that:
“If the Levite had been
playing his rightful spiritual role, he would have turned the tables and asked
these same questions of the scouts. If they were honest, they would have
replied: (1) “The tribe of Dan has sent us.” (2) “We have come to spend the
night.” (3) “We are scouting for a land where we can live and claim as our
inheritance.”
The dialogue that would ensue from this reversal of
questioning should result in the priest’s rebuke of the spies. “(1) “You should
be going where Yahweh sends you.” (2) “You should not spend the night in the
home of this apostate Micah; he should be stoned.” (3) “You should not be
scouting for territory; go back and claim the land Yahweh has granted you as
your inheritance.” What should have been
was not what was and this is readily apparent in the priest’s reply in verse 4.
Rather than respond in verse 4 as a proper priest of
Yahweh should have, for example: “(1) Yahweh has brought me here. (2) I am
instructing the people of this household in the way of Yahweh. (3) I am
faithfully fulfilling my charge as a Levite,” the priest responds that Micah “has
hired me and I am his priest.” His comment reveals his self-serving motives and
also the fact that his services may be had by anyone willing to offer him
greater compensation. Like the Danites, he is seeking his own well-being, his
own way, and he is not seeking Yahweh.
Verse18:5-6 have the Danites seeking confirmation from
the priest that their venture will be a successful one. They ask him to inquire
of God, Elohim, the generic designation for God, rather than the more personal,
covenant name for God, Yahweh. The priest’s
answer is too quick and too simple. Using a standard formula, beginning with “Go
in peace,” the Levite tells the Danites what they want to hear. Block believes
that the priest’s response “does not declare out rightly that the mission will
succeed, only that, literally, “The course on which you are going is before the
Lord.” Block continues to say “This could mean that it has the approval of
Yahweh’s watchful eye, but it could also mean the opposite that is, the conduct
of the scouts and the Danites as a tribe is under critical scrutiny by Yahweh.”
Yet the bottom line is that the scouts heard what they wanted to hear, that
their mission was to be a success.
The spies depart from Micah’s house in verse 7and find
their way to Laish (Lion), which is called Leshem in Joshua 19.47. Laish is
located in the northern portion of the Promised Land. Laish was known for is
pleasant climate, plentiful water, and productive land. Located at the foot of
Mount Hermon it was 18 miles north of Hazor. The scouts’ impression of the
population of Laish was that they were prosperous, unsuspecting, and living under
a false sense of security, in other words easy pickings. The Laishites false sense of security seems to
stem from the facts that they lived under the shadow of Sidon rule, the major
Phoenician City of the day, they had no immediate enemies in the region, they
had never lived as a subjugated people or lived under oppression, while under
the shadow of Sidon, Sidon didn’t interfere with them, Sidon was more concerned
with building their commercial trade, and lastly, they were somewhat isolated
from the surrounding peoples, they were of the beaten path so to speak. All of
this worked to create a sense of peace and well-being among the Laishites until
the arrival of the Danites.
Another reason may have existed for the Laishites sense
of security; findings from recent excavations indicate that Laish was not
defended by stone walls but by huge ramparts consisting of alternating layers
of soil from the surrounding region and debris from previous settlements. These
“earthen works” would have conquest by attacking forces more difficult than
just the normal stone wall defenses of the day.
Verses 8-10 give us a sense of the anxiousness of the
Danites that had been left behind to wait for the news from the spies. The
enthusiasm of the spies upon their return offers us a stark contrast to the
response of the spies returning to Moses from their foray into the Promised
Land. Eager to begin the move to and subsequent attack on the Laishites, the
spies offer a glowing report designed to motivate the rest of the tribe. Urging
the tribe to attack, the spies tell them that the land is good, people are
unsuspecting, the land is spacious and it lacks nothing. Each of their points
solves an existing problem for the tribe in their present circumstances. The
scouts even play the “God card,” assuring everyone God has given the land into
their hands. Yet here is another instance of the use of the generic term for
God rather than the more personal term Yahweh.
The
Migration (18:11-31)
In verses 18:11-13 the writer tells us of the march to
Micah’s in the hill country of Ephraim by six hundred armed Danites on their
way to Laish. This number is critical as
there is no subsequent mention of those left behind ever moving to Laish. This
would indicate that all a small number of the tribe of Dan participated in the
“migration” to Laish. Those that stayed behind are never heard from again
having disappeared from history. This might explain the sense of impatience the
scouts where having with their fellow countrymen about moving forward and taking
the land of Laish. Daniel Block says that “Having been commissioned by the
tribe as a whole, only a small fraction accepted their report. The rest of the
Danites disappeared from history all together.”
The tribe of Dan was unable to take and possess the
territory allotted to them by Joshua. Their territory was small in comparison
to some of the tribes, and in their territory there was no city that was any
larger than Laish. So here is the irony; how does a band of six hundred
warriors travel all the way to Laish, conquer the city without apparent
difficulty, make their home there, and all without the need of a “divinely
called governor, nor a king, as a later generation would demand?”
The writer emphasizes that this military force provides
us with an abbreviated itinerary. He notes that their first camp was made in
Judah and that they named the site “the camp of Dan.” From there they move on
to Ephraim with the seeming intention of stopping at the home of Micah. This
fact alone builds tension and anticipation in the reader as we wonder what is
going to happen next.
The
Danites and the Priest (18:14-20)
In verse 14 upon the arrival of the Danite force at
Micah’s, the scouts ask if their countrymen know that there is “a complete set
of religious and cultic appurtenances-ephod, teraphim, and idol? The scouts,
with their own idea of what should be done, slyly ask the others if they know
what to do? Without words, the writer lets the actions of the Danites speak for
them. The men go straight to the Levite’s house, surrounding the compound with
the six hundred armed men, the scouts greet the priest and then go in and seize
the cultic objects. Confronted by the
priest about what they are doing, the scouts threaten him to be quiet and offer
him the opportunity to be their priest instead of Micah’s. The Levite was happy
to accept their offer and taking the Ephod, the household idols, and the idol,
he joins the Danites. The priest is complicit, along with the Danites, of
committing “grand larceny and treachery as well. The man has betrayed his
patron and employer.”
The
Encounter with Micah (18:21-26)
.Where has Micah been? With all that has being going on
with the visit of scouts of Dan and their return 600 fighting men and their
families Micah has been conspicuously absent from the action. Micah does not
re-enter the scene until the Danite force has left the compound, taking with
them his priest and his household gods.
In preparation for departure, the Danites also prepare
for some sort of response by Micah to the loss of his priest and his gods. The
Danites send out their woman and children first and have their fighting men
departing last. This was likely done because they expected Micah to attack with
some sort of force and they wanted to make sure they met him force run which is
why the fighting men were placed last in the order of march.
Upon discovery of the loss of his gods and priest, Micah
hastily assembles a small fighting force and takes off in pursuit of the
Danites. Traveling swiftly, without the baggage of women and children, Micah
quickly closes the distance and he and his force started calling after Danites
and causing a commotion. The Danites insolently ask Micah what his problem is
and want to know why he has chased after them with his fighting men, raising a
battle cry along the way. The writer is
likely leading us to draw the conclusion that Micah’s cries are like those of
earlier Israelites that raised their voices against oppressors. The difference
here is that the oppressors are not outside enemies, but rather “fellow
apostate Israelites.”
Verse 24 contains Micah’s response to the Danites. “He
replied, ‘You took the gods I made, and my priest, and went away. What else do
I have? How can you ask, what’s the matter with you?’” The great irony of this statement contained
in the two words, “I made,” the gods that Micah made with his own hands are
incapable of defending “themselves or their maker.” Another irony is that the
priest that he had “bought,” that Micah thought would bring good fortune to him
and his family, has been bought by a higher price and has betrayed him and his
family, leaving them with less than when the priest had joined them, without
the protection of Yahweh or his gods. And the Danites have the audacity to ask
him “What’s the matter with you that you called your men out to fight?”
This is a gathering of those without integrity, Micah,
the Levite and the Danites all have no room to talk; they are all bereft of
integrity. The Danites go a step further adding intimidation and the threats of
brutality to their sins in verse 25.
The character of the Danites is reflected in verse 25 in
their response to Micah. The writer continues to cast this remnant of the Tribe
of Dan in the same light as the main tribe, arrogant, insolent, bullying,
whiners and complainers, who will stop at nothing to get their way. Block suggests
that: “These men are brutes before whom any right-thinking person will step
aside. By threatening to take the lives of Micah’s household as well as his own
life, they escalate the threat and also confirm their own inhumanity.”
Predictably, verse 26 carries the results of this
encounter, this much ado about nothing. Recognizing his inability to defeat the
Danites, Micah decides to cut his losses and turn around and go home. The
Danites, with the stolen gods and the bought off priest, push on towards the
“promised land.” It is likely not an accident that the silver that Micah had
stolen from his mother, who had been melted down and poured into a mold to make
and idol, had now been stolen from him. He, who was a thief, has now been robbed. “This man, whose ethical (and spiritual)
values were clearly pagan, finds himself the victim of his own Canaanized
countrymen.” Micah, whose crime of
idolatry called for his death, is allowed to escape with his life and return to
his life, seemingly little worse for wear.
Mission
Accomplished (18:27-31)
These verses offer is a of the events that took place as
this relatively small remnant of the tribe of Dan capture, destroy, and rebuild
the city of Laish as Dan.
Attacking the unsuspecting city, the Danite force
slaughters Laishites and burn the city. Like Micah, the writer portrays the
Danites as opportunists and their victory over the Laish as a victory of man
without any help from or reliance on Yahweh. Renaming the town Dan after their
ancestor, they establish Dan as a center of cult worship; install the Levite
priest as their own priest, all without regard for covenant law. The writer
presents this event as “a purely human affair-human in its origin, design, and
intention.”
In a shocking conclusion to this chapter of the narrative
of Judges, the identity of the nameless, Levite priest is revealed as being
that of Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of Moses.” The shock of having the
name of Moses tied to “abominable idolatrous behavior” is great. The writer,
recognizing that a nameless Levite priest would help to attribute “the present
symptoms of spiritual Canaanization to the priestly class/tribe as a whole,”
takes to another dimension “by associating the abominations committed in this
chapter with Moses, the most venerable character in Israelite history.” The depth
religious syncretism in Israel is so great that it has even infected its “most sacred
institutions and the most revered household.”
Verses 30b-31 provides us with a postscript to the
conquest of Laish and the establishment of the city of Dan. We are told that Jonathan
and his descendants continue to serve as priests at this cult site until the
day the land went into captivity. This is likely in reference “to the
deportation of the population of Dan by Tiglath Pileser III to Assyria in 734 BC
(2 Kgs 15:29).” The writer also continues to highlight the sin of apostasy by
contrasting as a center of apostasy with Shiloh, the location of the ark and
tabernacle of Yahweh. Throughout the time of judges, this cult site at Dan “functioned
as an apostate challenge to the true worship of Yahweh.” This center of
apostasy was man-made; Micah made the image, and the Danites using it for their
own purposes, established a shrine of apostasy in Israel.
Conclusion
and Observations
The role of the shrine of Dan in the history of Israel is
difficult to overestimate. This shrine along with the shrine established at
Bethel became symbols of the apostasy of Northern Israel as Jeroboam became
king became king of the ten northern tribes (1 Kgs 12:25-33).
In this and the previous chapter of Judges, the writer
continues to pound home his them of the Canaanization of Israel, as
individuals, as tribes and as a nation. By portraying individuals and “an entire
tribe as faithless and opportunistic,” the writer makes his point that Israel
is as shameless in their religious practices and conduct as the Canaanites, and
considering the Covenant that Yahweh had made with them, their behavior is even
more abominable than that of their neighbors.
In an unlikely ending, the writer shows us that sin can
and does have its own reward as the sin of the Danites does not prevent them
from accomplishing their goal and their man-made agenda is completed. A rule of
observation, from the writer, then, is that success is no guarantee or
indicator of blessing or righteousness. It could mean just the opposite. “God
does not stifle every corrupt thought and scheme of the human heart.”
The conclusion can certainly be drawn from this narrative
that “the people do not need a king to lead them down this path. They are quite
capable of sinning on their own.” We can change our surroundings, hire
qualified people, destroy old symbols and establish new one but if there has
been no change of heart then there really hasn’t been any change. Israel has
become like the Canaanites and even those, the professional clergy, the
Levites, even “the descendants of Moses,” have come under the influence of
apostasy and become corrupt. “The cult is syncretistic, the priesthood is
mercenary, and the devotees are evil. Instead of calling people to repentance
the professional spiritual leaders capitalize on the degeneracy of the times.”
Thing are not much improved today. How many religious leaders are motivated by
personal gain rather than the call of God? Who should today’s pastor serve? Is
it better to serve a small church or is it better to be the pastor of a
“mega-church?” “The contemporary problem
of ambition and opportunism in the ministry has at least a three-thousand-year
history,” with no end in sight.
046 The Religious Degeneration of Israel (Part 1)
Verse 17:1 announces the start of the third major section
of the Book of Judges. With Samson’s death and burial we have reached the end
of the accounts of the lives of the judges of Israel. As we have seen, even
though the judges were raised up by Yahweh, they each have become increasingly
separated from Yahweh, lacking spiritual and moral sense. Each judge has
surpassed the previous judge in becoming more and more like the Canaanites.
Throughout the chapters of judges that focused on the lives of the particular
judges (2.6-16.31), there was little dealing with the lives of Israel’s
ordinary citizens. In these remaining chapters of Judges, the writer will
provide us with a picture of life in the day of the ordinary people during the
“dark ages” of Judges. The major theme of the writer, the Canaanization of
Israel, will remain unchanged. 
The remaining five chapters, 17-21, are divided into two
sections. The first section, chapters 17 and 18 describes the life in the Tribe
of Dan during the period of Judges, and section two will describe the life in
the tribe of Benjamin, chapters 19-21. Each of these sections has their own
story but Daniel Block identifies several common features that link the two
sections.
1. Dan and Benjamin had been assigned territory in
Israel’s heartland, between Judah and Ephraim, the two major tribes that would
later lead the Southern and Northern Kingdoms respectively. The intent of the
writer was to demonstrate “that the degenerating tendency in Israel was not
simply a problem in the fringe territories. It had infected the very heart of
the nation.”
2. Both tribes found themselves in desperate situation
though for different reasons. Dan was unable to conquer the territory allotted
to it wandered in search of a territory they could make their own. Actions on
the part of the tribe of Benjamin so incensed the remaining tribes that
Benjamin was almost wiped out in an internal “holy war.”
3. In both accounts the crisis was precipitated by the
actions of a nameless Levite.
4. In both accounts the Levite had a Bethlehem-Judah
connection. The first Levite came from Bethlehem-Judah (17:7-8); the second
traveled to Bethlehem-Judah (19:1-2).
5. Both Levites had connections with Mount Ephraim. The
first Levite ended up in the household of Micah, who lived on Mount Ephraim
(17:1); the second actually lived in this region (19:1).
6. Both accounts involved priestly characters inquiring
of God concerning the outcome of a proposed plan of action (18:5-6; 20:27-28).
7. Both accounts conclude with a reference to Shiloh.
Judges 18:31 notes that the Danites continued to use Micah’s idols as long as
the tabernacle was at Shiloh; in 21:19-24 the narrator describes an event that
took place at Shiloh.
8. In both accounts military contingents consisting of
six hundred men played a critical role (18:11, 16-15, 25; 20:47; 21:7, 12, 14,
16-17, 23).
9. Both accounts are punctuated by variations of the
refrain “In those days Israel had no king” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). Twice,
once in each section, the formula is augmented with, “Everyone did as he saw
fit” (17:6; 21:25).
There has been much debate about the significance of the
refrain in item 9. Many scholars and commentators have understood this as being
evidence of an idealized monarchical agenda in the Book of Judges. But it may
not be that simple. The key to understanding “the significance of the refrain
is found in the expanded versions in 17:6 and 21:25 where together these two
frame the entire work, that tells the reader how to interpret these events.” The suggestion is that as the events describe
in chapters 17-21, “Israel does not need a king to lead them in doing what is
right in their own eyes-they will do exactly as they please without being led
astray.” Stated simply, the writer’s intent was to demonstrate that the
Israelites didn’t need a judge or a king to lead them into sin, they were quite
capable of doing it on their own.
The remaining five chapters of the Book of Judges will
examine the Canaanization of Israel from the perspectives of: 1) Religious and
cultic Canaanization as seen in the lives of the Danites (17.-18.31) and; 2)
Moral and ethical Canaanization as demonstrated in the lives of the
Benjaminites (19.1-21.25).
The Religious Degeneration of Israel
(17.1-18.31)
Micah’s Idols: (17.1-13)
(1) The Religious Corruption of the Family (17:1-6)
Verses 1-5 provide us with an interesting mix of both
positive and negative elements. Let us look first at four positive
elements.
It is positive that our main character has an orthodox
Israelite name that is tied to Yahweh. The name Micah is translated “Who is like Yahweh?” This rhetorical
question is intended to draw the response “No one!” It would be typical for
names such as this to reflect the belief of the one doing the naming. So it would be easy to assume that Micah’s
parents were Israelites and were believers in Yahweh.
Second, it is always a positive when someone confesses to
sin, right? Micah confesses his sin to his mother and even returns the money
that he stole from her (v. 2a).
Third, and perhaps totally unexpected, Micah’s mother
blesses him (v. 2), after his confession and return of her money. The reason
for the blessing is to counteract the curse she had uttered on the one who had
stolen her money. The woman’s blessing is an expression of thanks to Yahweh for
the recovery of her stolen silver but it is also a prayer request to counter
the curse she had spoke against the thief which turned out to be her son. It is
also a positive that she turns to Yahweh and not some Canaanite God and would
indicate the “she is devoted to the covenant God of Israel.”
Fourth, Micah’s mother takes the money that has been
recovered and sets it apart to Yahweh (v. 3). Thus, leaving us with a curse
that has been canceled by a blessing and a the stolen silver no has been
dedicated to Yahweh
However lest we succumb to the idea that all is well in
Israel, Block suggest that there are a least “eight troubling issues.”
First, let us not forget that despite his pious name and
his confession, Micah did violate the commandments of Yahweh by stealing and
dishonoring his mother (cf. Ex 20:15; Deu 5:19), and (cf. Ex 20:12; Deu 5:16).
Second, why did Micah return the stolen goods? We must
realize that Micah only returned the goods upon hearing his mother’s curse.
Since there is no apparent regret or remorse, we are left with the feeling that
Micah was “motivated by fear of the curse,” more than a desire to make things
right.
Third, the woman’s dedication of the silver to Yahweh
appears to be in name only. She does not take it to Shiloh, or give it to any
of Yahweh’s priests but rather gives it back to Micah.
Fourth, in the same vein, the woman, while saying she is
dedicating the silver to Yahweh, gives the money to her son to have it made
into an image and an idol. Noting that she gave Micah just two hundred of the
eleven hundred silver shekels, we are left to answer the question “Where has
all the silver gone?”
Fifth, the woman’s intention in having the dedicated
silver made into an image and an idol violates the second commandment
prohibiting the making or worshipping of an idol (Ex 20:4-5; Deut 5:8-9).
Sixth, Micah establishes a shrine or “house of God” of
his own (v. 5a). This is another violation of the covenant (Deu 12), which
declares that the Israelites were to worship only at the place which Yahweh
would designate. Here we see Micah building a shrine “at the place of his own
choosing.”
Seventh, Micah, acting as if he were a priest, designs
and makes “an ephod and some idols” (v. 5b). As was noted by Block: “the items
crafted by Micah represent a direct challenge to the ephod of Israel’s
officially authorized priests (cf. Ex 28) and the Urim and Thummim which Yahweh
had sanctioned for oracular purposes (Ex 28:30).
Eighth, Micah “installed one of his own sons as priest”
(v5a). “This action posed a direct challenge to the officially authorized
Aaronic priesthood.”
Verses 1-5 set the tone for the remainder of this chapter
and the next. On the surface it may appear that the characters are following
the covenant of Yahweh, but it is in appearances only. Sadly, the characters
are not even aware of how far they have drifted from Yahweh; their actions do
not support their words. The syncreticism that is rampart here is likely
rampart throughout Israel and it establishes the basis for the actions of the
Danites in subsequent events.
17:6 provides us
with a bridge to the next section. It is also gives us an insight into the
personal understanding of the writer and his interpretation of the biblical
events that he has been writing about. One may be quick to jump to the
conclusion that the writer is making a statement in favor of the monarchy. This
is highly doubtful. Writing from a time when Israel had a king, our writer was
likely making a comment on the fact that “Israel did not need kings to lead
them into idolatry, since the people did it on their own.”
Additionally, the writer seems to believe that Micah and
his mother, “did what was right in their own eyes”, and that their actions were
typical of all Israel. “They illustrate
the general disregard for Yahweh’s covenant within the nation.” The difference
between the time of judges and the time of kings does not rest in the degree of
idolatry or evil but rather in its source. “During the monarchy kings led the
way in abominable acts; in premonarchic times the people did it on their own.”
(2) The Religious Corruption of the Priesthood (17:7-13)
17:7 introduces us to a new character, “A young Levite
from Bethlehem in Judah.” Before we make too much of the statement “a young
Levite” we need to remember that Moses said that a man had to be thirty years
old before he could begin service in the priesthood. We are also told that the
young Levite was from “Bethlehem of Judah,” which distinguishes this town, five
miles south of Jerusalem, “from a Zebulunite place of the same name near
Nazareth mentioned in Josh 19:15.” The
writer tells us that the young is from one of the clans of Judah. Since we know
that the young man is a Levite from Bethlehem and that the Levites had not been
given a “territory” like the other tribes, but were given forty-eight cites
within the territories of the other tribes, none of which were Bethlehem of
Judah, it is a safe assumption that the Levites for whatever reasons no longer
confined themselves to their allotted cities. It would seem our young Levite
had a bit of the wanderlust in him.
The tribe of Levi was chosen to be responsible for the
spiritual leadership of Israel. The tribe had earned that right by standing
with Moses during the rebellion of the golden calf, and they were subsequently
“rewarded for their faithfulness to Yahweh by receiving the divine blessing and
being dedicated for priestly service.” The fact that this young man was a
Levite will be very important to Micah in v. 13.
There are a number of problems that we can find with this
young man based on even the scant information that the writer has provided us.
Our guide is Moses’ instructions regarding the conduct of the Levites in Deu
18.6-9.
If a Levite moves from one
of your towns anywhere in Israel where he is living, and comes in all
earnestness to the place the Lord will choose, 7 he may minister in the name of
the Lord his God like all other Levites who serve there in the presence of the
Lord. 8 He is to share equally in their benefits, even though he has received
money from the sale of family possessions.
Our young, wandering Levite will violate these instructions
in several critical areas. He does not appear to be headed to the central
shrine at Shiloh but any place of interest to him. AS we will see shortly, he is not going to
join other Levites but he is going to simply replace a single, unauthorized
priest. He will not serve Yahweh or in the name of Yahweh, but he serves Micah,
in the name of Micah. Our priest will
not serve at a place of Yahweh’s choosing but rather he will serve at a place
of man’s choosing. His money or
compensation is not that described by Moses but rather it is one derived from
negotiations between him and Micah.
It is interesting to note that we have here another
nameless person. The writer’s intent here is difficult to determine because in
18.30 he reveals the priest’s identity. Not only are we given his name,
Jonathan, but we find out the shocking fact that he is the grandson of Moses,
the son of Gershom. Why would the writer take pains to hide his identity from
us here only to reveal it to us in the next chapter? It might be that the
writer was trying to protect Moses and was just delaying the inevitable as long
as possible. It is more likely that as
Block suggests that writer,” by keeping the man anonymous . . . invites the
reader to generalize the present specific event to the Levite tribe as a whole.
This man’s behavior is typical of the group.”
In verse 8 we are confronted with the statement that our
young priest left Bethlehem “in search of some other place to stay.” What was
he searching for? We have no sense that he is going towards that to which
Yahweh has called him but rather we have an impression that he is wandering,
without a sense of guidance. He is certainly not priest whose heart is on fire
for Yahweh. Yahweh’s hand is not on him, leading him. There is no fire in him
to hold himself or others accountable to the covenant. He is an uninspired,
priest for hire looking for the right opportunity to come his way, and he found
just such an opportunity in the house of Micah. As Block concludes: “And he
just happens to arrive at the house of Micah in the hill country of Ephraim.
But what a stroke of luck this turns out to be, for both him and Micah!”
Verses 9-10 allow us to observe the negotiations between
the unnamed Levite and Micah. The
writer’s dialogue is designed to portray the “opportunism of both men.” Beginning
with the simple question of where has the young man come from, Micah opens the
door for our young priest to walk through. The priest gives all of his particulars and openly confesses he is
looking for a place to setup shop.
In verse 10 realizing what this could mean to him, Micah,
makes an offer that it would be hard for the young man to resist. Micah offers
him a chance to live with him; to be his spiritual advisor (his father) and
counselor; and to be his priest, to oversee the cultic activities of his shrine
that are performed on his behalf. Micah
tops of his offer “with a handsome salary of ten shekels of silver annually, a
suit of clothes, and a living allowance.”
Micah’s is a ball of human spiritual insecurity. Even with his own shrine and his son as its
priest, Micah was in need of constant encouragement. Micah was dependent upon his own man-made
religion and could not bring himself to rely on a system of worship that was
centered on Yahweh. The thought of
having a Levite priest as his own priest surely would have helped him overcome
much of his insecurity and yet it only enhanced his man-made religion. Instead
of placing his dependence on Yahweh and a cultic structure designed by Him
Micah retreats to that which he can control-a system of his choosing, led by a
priest of his choosing. Micah makes an offer to the young priest. The young
priest accepts. On the surface it is a good deal for both of them.
In verses 11-12 the young priest accepts Micah’s offer.
The priest agrees to live with Micah and accept the role of being “father” to
him and is “ordained” by Micah. The irony of all of this is expressed in v11,
where while Micah has hired the priest to be his “father,” he ends up treating
him like one of his sons and it this relationship that brings about the events
in chapter eighteen.
17:13 Micah, thrilled by the young priest’s acceptance of
his offer, believes that now “God is on his side.” He can only see a rosy
future ahead as he expects now that Yahweh will be good to him. For Micah, “the
Levite is nothing more than a good luck charm.”
The young Levite, rather than speaking the hard truth to
Micah, explaining that it was not right and proper for him to start his own
man-made religion and in the process alienating himself from Yahweh, he takes
the profitable way out, he takes the money and runs, he promotes Micah’s
man-made religion as it will be lucrative for him as well as expedient to do
so. This is the perfect job, heady stuff for a young Levite priest to be asked
to be a spiritual advisor and mentor to a man of such wealth and prestige as
Micah. Yet for the writer, this is another grievous example of the
Canaanization of Israel. Here, even the guardians of the Covenant, the priests
of Aaron, participate in the corruption of society. Instead of being the
defenders of the faith that they were called to be, they have played a key role
in helping Israel violate their covenant with the Lord.
“In the words of Malachi,
the heirs of “the covenant of Levi” have corrupted their high calling. Instead
of serving as an agent of life and peace, revering Yahweh and standing in awe
of his name, offering truthful and righteous instruction, walking with Yahweh
in peace and uprightness, turning Micah back from iniquity, preserving
knowledge, and serving as a messenger of Yahweh of hosts, this Levite has
himself been apostatized. He has lent his support to the perversion of his
countryman, failed to keep Yahweh’s ways, and demonstrated partiality to this
man with money (cf. Mal 2:1-9). The religious establishment in Israel has been
thoroughly infected with the Canaanite disease.
There will be a high price to pay for these actions.
045 Samson and Delilah
The writer of Judges continues his account of Samson’s
problems with women in Chapter 16. The concluding verse in chapter fifteen gave
the impression that the Samson cycle was completed. Yet the writer has more say
as he continues to build his case against Israel in general and Samson in
particular. This concluding chapter of the Samson cycle is divided into two
parts and will highlight Samson’s continuing love affair with Philistine women.
The
Prostitute of Gaza (16:1-3)
Samson’s Gaza affair is simple and brief. Sampson visits
a prostitute in Gaza and the Gazites plan to capture him when he leaves the
prostitute in the morning. Leaving earlier, around midnight, Samson eludes
capture and escapes by picking up the gates of the city and carrying them off.
This simple story raises far more questions than it
answers.
1) Yahweh is not mentioned. Unlike the other
episodes of Samson, why is there no reference to the Spirit of the Lord coming
upon him?
2) Why are there “no editorial comments” in this
narrative?
3) Who is the prostitute? She is unnamed like
Samson’s mother and his Timnite wife.
4) What is Samson doing in Gaza which is 45
miles from his home and of the five major Philistines cities is the one
furthest south?
5) Samson was well-known to the Philistines near
his home but how had his reputation carried this far from his home and who was
it that notified the Gazites that he was in their town at the prostitute’s?
6) What did the Gazites surround or does the
word as used here just mean to gather?
7) What were the Gazites planning to do to
either capture or kill Samson? Block asks the question: “What were the men
planning to do “until the light of the morning?” - The NIV’s “at dawn we’ll
kill him” obscures the difficulty of the Hebrew.
8) If surround and out in force, how did Samson
get past the Gazites and then move the city gates without alerting anyone
especially if there were guard rooms with guards flanking the gates?
9) How did Samson move the gates without the
Spirit of the Lord coming on him and if the Spirit of the Spirit of the Lord
did come on him why does the writer not mention it?
10) We are told that Samson carried the gates to
the top of a hill opposite Hebron. Is this the same Hebron that was in the
territory of Caleb and if it is, “how could he carry these gates forty miles
(as the crow flies) uphill from the coastal town to the highland city?”
All of these unanswered questions beg another question:
“What is the purpose of this text?” Daniel Block provides us with three likely
explanations. First, Block suggests that the writer is using this episode to
continue to reinforce the image he has created of Samson to this point. This
episode portrays “an Israelite inexorably drawn to the Philistines and
continuing to be driven by his senses. He has no scruples about fraternizing
with the enemy. But this relationship is even more reprehensible than the one
in chap. 14, since he does not bother to marry this woman. Furthermore, in
going to Gaza to fraternize with a pagan woman he has gone as far as he could
from his geographic and spiritual home.” The writer, by not making mention of
the Spirit of God, forces us to consider the possibility that Samson’ strength
was natural rather than a gift from God.
Second, this brief episode adds to the picture being
painted of the Philistines. The anger against Samson no longer confined to a
backwater locale, Samson has achieved fame and recognition, and he has become
the Philistines “Public Enemy #1.” Samson evidently has “a bounty on his head
throughout the land.”
The third possible purpose for this narrative is that it
provides the reader for the reason that Samson is in Gaza initially. Gaza is
the place of Samson’s greatest, most dramatic, and deadliest episode. It is the
place where all the unnamed women in Samson’s life will give way to the one
named woman, Delilah, and she will be the one to bring about his destruction
Samson
and Delilah (16:4-22)
Samson and Delilah is the longest episode in the Samson
cycle. The themes that permeate this episode are “knowledge and ignorance,” and
are reflected in the verbs that the writer uses throughout the episode. Verbs
like: “to see” (vv. 5, 18); “to tell, declare” (vv. 6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18a,
18b); “to know” (vv. 9, 20); “to declare
falsehood,” that is, “to lead away from knowledge” (vv. 10, 13); “to deceive”
(vv. 10, 13, 15); and the question, “How can you say” (v. 15). Daniel Block
concludes that “Samson has become a riddle to the Philistines.”
The great irony of this episode of Samson is that when the
Philistines learn the truth of about Samson, Samson loses his source of power
and it is not his hair but most importantly, his God. Throughout this episode
we are left with the image of a man that cannot see the forest for the trees.
He is so enamored with both Delilah and what he thinks are his own strengths
that he is oblivious to what is transpiring around him. We wonder how this man
could be so dense as to not have learned anything from the episode with the
riddle and his wife and see the same issues at play here with Delilah. Perhaps
it is nothing more than the fact that as Block suggest that: “In this man we
witness a classic example of “all brawn and no brain.”
The theme of testing is also dominant in the Samson
cycle. Daniel Block provides the following examples of testing from this final
episode for us.
First, the Philistine lords
test Delilah: is she a Philistine, or is she Samson’s lover? Second, Delilah tests Samson: Does he love
her, or is he just teasing her? Like the riddle in 14:14, for Samson this test
becomes a trap. Third, Yahweh tests Samson: Will he remain true to his Nazirite
vow (vv. 17, 20)? Verses 15-17 contain the keys to the development of this
motif as all three tests come together and Samson admits that the game is more
than a test of love. Fourth, Yahweh tests Dagon: Can he stand up for himself
and his people (vv. 23-30)? Fifth, Samson tests God: Will he intervene to
defend his agent in the end (vv. 28-30)? Indeed in this section every speech is
a test. As for Samson, the principal character, although he is able to shed the
ropes and the web that bound his hair, he fails everyone’s tests, ultimately
being trapped in his own words.
The
Stage Is Set (16.4-5)
Verse 4 is a bridge from the previous episode with the
prostitute to the beginning episode with Delilah. It provides us with a great
summary of Samson’s problem, “he fell in love.” Throughout the Samson cycle
this has been Samson’s problem. Samson has become the answer to the riddle in
14.18. Block declares, “Samson’s love of women is sweeter than honey and
stronger than a lion.”
Samson’s problem was not necessarily his love of women
but his love of Philistine women. Samson falls in love with a woman from the
valley of Sorek, which was occupied by Philistines. Instead of falling in love
with a woman from the high country of Hebron, which likely would have been an
Israelite woman, Samson falls for a woman who is from the lowlands and is a
Philistine. Hard to read this without the refrain of “looking for love in all
the wrong places” playing in your mind. And for the first time in the Samson narrative a woman is named. No one
is sure what the name Delilah means. Commentators have suggested many possible
interpretations but it appears that the name may simply be a Philistine name
whose meaning has been lost.
In verse 5, the writer provides us with the ingredients
of a modern day James Bond novel. Expectedly, an Israelite man who is a judge
falling in love with a Philistine woman is going to raise some issues, and
issues we have in great abundance. The
Philistines are somehow made aware that Samson is in Gath and that he is in
love with a woman named Delilah. The city fathers of Gath, along with other
Philistine leaders from the four major cities, seek to recruit Delilah to help
them capture Samson. “Like an ancient version of a spy movie, this plot
involves a heroic male, a female agent, money, love, death, and ironic
reversal.”
These “lords of the Philistine” want Delilah to discover
the secret of Samson’s strength and report to them. The writer expresses their
objectives in four verbs: “find out” where his great strength lies; “overpower
him”; “bind” him; “afflict” him. The lords of the Philistines persuade Delilah
to help them by offering her eleven hundred pieces of silver each, an
exorbitant reward, if you will, of 5500 pieces of silver. Like everything that
happens to Samson, even the reward for helping in his capture is exorbitant.
Working the Plan (16.6-20)
The Philistines discovery of the source of Samson’s
strength is made up of four stages. Each stage is similar to the others and
each successive stage builds the tension and heightens the suspense.
The first attempt is reported in 16:6-9. Delilah agrees to cooperate with the
Philistine lords and begins to question Samson about the source of his “great
strength.” Perhaps surprised at Samson’s willingness to divulge the secret of
his strength, Delilah relays what Samson has told her that if he is bound “with
seven fresh bowstrings not yet dried,” he will become like any other man. The
Philistine lords give Delilah the seven bowstrings and she binds him with them.
She wisely tests his statements by announcing the arrival of the Philistines,
the cords disintegrated like yarn in a fire. The first attempt by the
Philistines was a failure. Do you think Samson was intentionally violating his
Nazerite vows by telling Delilah to use the tendons (bowstrings) of dead
animals to bind him?
The second attempt is in verses16:10-12. Delilah accusing
Samson of lying to her, asks him again to give her the secret of his strength.
Samson quickly gives her a more believable answer. Samson tells her that if he
is bound with new ropes his strength will be like that of other men. Just like the previous time, Delilah ties him
up with new ropes, and announces the fact that Philistines are attacking her.
Samson easily breaks his binds.
The third attempt as told in 16:13-14 is a step closer to
the truth as it at least involves his hair. Samson tells her that if she would weave
the seven braids of his hair into the fabric on a loom and then tighten them
with a pin, he would be as vulnerable as any ordinary man. It is hard to envision
how this would have been done. Perhaps Samson laid down close enough to the
loom so Delilah could weave his hair into the fabric and tighten it with the
pin. Delilah follows his instructions, Samson falls asleep, Delilah signals the
arrival of the Philistines, and Sampson just pulls out the pin and was free.
The fourth and last attempt is contained in 16:15-17. After failing three times to extract the
secret for Samson’s strength from him, Delilah breaks out the heavy artillery,
she follows in the footsteps of Samson’s wife and plays the “you don’t love me”
card. She complains that he does not really love her and that there can be no
love if Samson is not willing to share the innermost secrets of his heart with
her. “This had been the issue with regard to the riddle of the wedding, and
this is the issue regarding the riddle of Samson’s strength.” The writer’s
reference of Delilah nagging him to death foreshadows coming events.
In 16:17 Samson finally gives in and tells her everything.
He tells her that if his hair is cut (shaved) his strength would leave him. He
even explains that he is a Nazerite and that he was set apart to God since
birth. Why would he tell that to a Philistine? This confession reveals more
than the source of his strength; it tells us that Samson was aware that he was
indeed set apart to God. Yet still it seems obvious the Samson does not take
his vow seriously, he gloss over his responsibilities in fulfilling his vow; “he
simply does not take it seriously. Like his strength, and the people around
him, it is a toy to be played with, not a calling to be fulfilled.”
It is also significant that Samson refers to God by the general
designation Elohim instead of the more personal designation of Yahweh. From Delilah’s
perspective then his vow could have been made to any god. And Block tells us
that may have been just as well: “Given the character and conduct of the man,
the narrator probably was relieved to have Samson put it this way; it limited
the damage he was causing for the reputation of the God of Israel.”
Verses 16:18-20a reveal that like “the riddle in 14.18,
sweetness has won over strength,” and Delilah has won and Samson has fallen.
Betrayed by love and betrayed by his own lack of commitment to his vows, Samson
is now powerless.
In this last attempt, Delilah recognizes the truth when
she hears it. There is no need of a test or a trial and the Philistines return
again and even bring their silver with them. Delilah gets Samson to fall asleep in her lap
and has a man come and cutoff Samson’s seven braids. Like the previous episodes
she announces the arrival of the Philistines but unlike the other times, this
time she turns Samson over to them and her job is successfully completed.
Verses16.v20b-22 is the climatic event of Samson’s
capture by the Philistines. In v19 the writer tells us that Samson’s strength
has left him. Now in v. 20 the writer reveals the greater tragedy, that Yahweh
has left him. This is the real tragedy. There can be no worse fate than to be
abandoned by God and now Samson, the one divinely chosen by God has been
abandoned by Him. As we have seen throughout the cycle, Samson has played with
his gifts and taken them lightly, only to come to this point of realizing that
everything he had, he has thrown away.
16:21 reveals a great irony of the Samson cycle. Samson,
the man who did what he thought was right in his own eyes is turned into a
blind man as the Philistines gouge out his eyes. Throughout this cycle Samson
has come and gone as he pleased, did what he please when it pleased him and now
his life is one of bondage, imprisonment and humiliation. Samson is apt proof
of the adage “How the mighty have fallen.” “Overnight a man with the highest conceivable calling, the divinely
commissioned agent of deliverance for Israel, is cast down to the lowest
position imaginable: grinding flour for others in prison.”
In16:22 the writer provides us glimpse of hope with the
simple statement “But the hair on his head began to grow again after it had
been shaved.” All is not lost.
One
Final Act (16.23-31a)
Verses 23-24 report the gathering of the rulers of the
Philistines and their people to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon and celebrate
the capture of Samson. Samson was put on display before the crowds and caused
the people to breakout in praise of their god.
Our god has delivered our
enemy into our hands;
The one who laid waste to our
land, and multiplied our slain.
In 16:25-27 the people called for Samson to be brought
out so that he might entertain them. The Philistines brought Samson out and
stood between the pillars at the center of the building. In v. 26 our attention shifts “to the man who
has been placed in the center of the crowd and of the building, the man who was
the victim of Philistine torture and the butt of Philistine jokes.” What a
pathetic image of our hero, having to ask a servant to put his hands on the
pillars so that he could lean on them. Verse 27 tells us that the temple was
crowded with more than three thousand spectators, some in the temple and many
on its roof.
Verse 16.28tells us of Samson making one last impassioned
plea to his God, to Yahweh. His plea is in two parts. In the first part Samson
asks Yahweh to remember him, to act on his behalf and secondly he asks Yahweh
to strengthen him one last time so that he may “get revenge on the Philistines
for my two eyes.” Finally, when deprived of strength, and about as low as one
can get, Samson calls upon the God who was the true source of his strength finally
acknowledging the role of Yahweh in his life
Yet again there are issues with Samson’s prayer. Samson’s
requests are still all about him, all about him getting his revenge. He makes
no requests for his people, his nation or for the purposed of his God. We
should also note that Samson switches from the use of the personal God, Yahweh,
to the generic term, Elohim, in the middle of his pray as he asks for his
revenge. We are left to deal with Samson’s total lack of concern for the divine
agenda or the fate of his people. “All he seeks is personal vengeance.”
In 16:29-30 Samson gets his revenge. Samson extends his
arms so each of his hands could touch the pillars on each side of him and
utters his final words: “Let me die with the Philistines.” Then he pushes on each pillar causing them to
fall and that with the weight of the crowd on the roof destroy the temple,
killing more than more people that he had killed previously and he dies as he
had lived, among the Philistines. The Nazirite, set apart for the service of
God, dying as he had lived, with the uncircumcised Philistines. The tragedy of
Samson’s wasted life is summarized in the words that “he killed many more when
he died than while he lived.” Samson’s epitaph reads “He accomplished more for
God dead than alive.”
Verse 31 concludes the Samson cycle. “He had led Israel
twenty years.”
Final
Observations
Samson’s life reveals the consequences of the
Canaanization of Israel. Samson operates according to the “do what is right in
his own eyes” rule. Throughout the Samson cycle Samson never deviates from this
rule, he never operates “in anyone’s interest but his own.” The people that enter into his life are simply
tools to be used for his benefit, for his good. There is no sense of servant leadership, where the leader puts the
interests of those he is leading ahead of his own, to be found in Samson’s
life. When each man is doing right in his own eyes, how can he see the rights
of others? This is one of the ultimate results of the Canaanization
process.
Another result of the Canaanization process is that those
in leadership positions will frequently operate on the “the basis of their
senses rather than on the basis of principle.” Samson was able to kill his
enemies by the hundreds and thousands, but he was without principles. He sought
to gratify his physical needs and driven by lust his relationships with women
were based on his needs not principles. How could he ever “love,” when the most
important thing to him, was him?
Samson provides us with a classic example of the fact
that often those with greatest gifts neglect the purpose(s) for which they were
given those gifts and often end using their gifts for their own betterment.
Like many men before and after him, Samson wasted his gifts. And that which is
wasted God takes away. Samson takes his place upon the pile of human tragedy,
of a life of unfulfilled potential.
As we have seen in the previous deliverer cycles, if there
is anything positive to come out of Samson’s life, it is only due to the
gracious intervention of Yahweh. And like Samson, “if Israel will eventually
emerge as an identifiable entity from the dark period of the judges, this says
nothing about the quality of her leaders. Yahweh is determined to build his
people. Even if she becomes her own worst enemy and her human leaders fail her
in the end, by the grace of God she will triumph.”
044 Samson and the
Timnite Affair Part 2
In our last session we left off with Samson angry at his
wife for having revealed the answer to his riddle to her people, leaving his
wife at her father’s house and going back to his house with his parents. Samson paid his debt by taking the lives of
thirty men in Ashkelon, taking their clothes and giving them to the wedding
companions with whom he had made his bet. These two actions begin a change
reaction in chapter fifteen that reads like a modern day suspense thriller,
characterized by non-stop action. Chapter fifteen is broken into four episodes taking place in four
different places, dealing with retaliation, and “reach their climax with the
Spirit of Yahweh rushing upon Samson. “ The writer increases the action and the intensity of each successive
episode, leaving us, like Samson, exhausted.
Samson Returns for
His Wife (15.1-3)
Chapter 15 opens with the writer alerting us to the fact that some period of time has passed since Samson’s wedding and his angry return home leaving his wife behind. We are informed in v1 that Samson returned to Timnah during the wheat harvest to claim his wife. The implication of the wording in v1 is that Samson was intending to consummate the marriage yet it could also mean that he was just interested in trying to make things right between them. In either case it seems that he thought that a young goat was the way to his wife’s heart. It is clear from the subsequent events that Samson, while he returned home in an angry fit after losing his bet, had no clue that his actions might be interpreted as meaning he wanted to break off the marriage. Samson is in for a rude awakening.
As he arrives at his wife’s house he is met by his father-in-law who would not let him into the house. The father-in-law then drops the bombshell that thinking that Samson wanted absolutely nothing to do with his wife, he gave her to another man. Whether or not the father-in-law’s conclusion were right or wrong, what is apparent is that he held his son-in-law in about that same esteem that Samson’s parents held their daughter-in-law, not very high. The father-in-law cannot undo what he has done so he offers what he thinks is a reasonable solution, he will give his younger daughter to Samson instead, telling Samson that she is even more attractive than her older sister. The father-in-law has as much luck telling Samson how to find a wife as his parents did. Almost predictably, Samson’s rage is unleashed and it is directed at all Philistines.
Verse 3 describes Samson’s reaction to his father-in-law’s news and it isn’t good news for the Philistines. “Samson said to them, "This time I have a right to get even with the Philistines; I will really harm them."
Samson will shortly fulfill Yahweh’s plan expressed in 14.4, as he alone is about to break down the comfortable coexistence between the Israelites and the Philistines.
Samson Burns the
Fields (15.4-8)
These verses deal with three episodes and the chain reactions by the participants to each of those episodes all leading up to the “then he went down” in v. 8. As we learned from the writer in verse one it was the time of the wheat harvest in the Land of the Philistines. The topographical features that made the land of the Philistines ideal for chariot warfare also made it ideal for growing wheat. Similar to our Midwest, “Philistia was grain country.” By burning the grain in the fields as well as the grain that had been harvested, “Samson strikes at the heart of the Philistine economy.” Not only did he burn the grain but he also burned the vineyards and the olive groves. It may be a bit of an understatement to say that Samson’s methodology for accomplishing this feat is somewhat amazing but then we are reminded with God all things are possible. Today, it might take you several days to catch just a couple of foxes let alone three hundred, and to tie their tails together, to use them as a torch that would stay lit long enough to bring about the damage implied in this passage would itself take a miracle, yet, for Samson, that was all in a day’s work. Surely God’s hand was in this. How this was actually done will likely always remain a “mystery” to us, yet, can we surprised by anything Samson is able to do? As Daniel Block says, regarding Samson and the burning foxes, that no matter what we may think “it fits into the picture of a man who kills a lion singlehandedly, kills thirty Philistines, breaks brand new ropes that bind him, slays a thousand Philistines with a jaw bone, and brings a house down over thousands of reveling Philistines.” It would seem nothing is impossible for our superhero. As we said in an earlier lesson, all of Samson actions are about Samson. We are only given glimpses of his personal achievements and his personal failings, and these all stem from his personal actions. The deliverers that we have looked at previously led troops against Israel’s oppressors and defeated them in battle providing Israel a brief respite from their enemies. Defeating Israel’s oppressors (the Philistines) is not on Samson’s radar screen, his only interest in defeating the Philistine is motivated by revenge and the revenge he wants is with his own hands. He is indeed the deliver that has the greatest potential and yet delivers the least. Block tells us: “Samson is a man with a higher calling than any other deliverer in the book, but he spends his whole life doing his own thing.””
Verse 15:6 reveals the reaction of the Philistines to Samson’s burning their crops. The Philistines are able to identify Samson as the man who burned the crops, but they also learn the motivation behind his actions and the Philistines response to this information makes it seem that they side with Samson, as they learn that he was provoked by his father-in-law giving his wife to another man. By their actiona against the father-in-law and his family, the Philistines seem to recognize Samson as the legitimate husband of the woman. The Philistines, perhaps thinking to appease Samson, burn Samson’s father-in-law and Samson’s wife to death. As we spoke of in our last session this brings about the ironic situation that Samson’s wife tried to avoid when she was threatened by the companions that they would burn her and her father to death if she did not give them the secret to the riddle, and in spite of everything she and her father die anyway.
In verses 15:7-8 the intensity in this narrative is
ratcheted up another notch. The
Philistines are totally unprepared for Samson’s response to their actions. Rather than having appeased Samson, the
Philistines’ actions have served to only raise Samson’s anger to a greater
level. Samson reacts by seeking to get revenge on those that burned his wife
and her family. His response is immediate and deadly as he attacks and
slaughters many of the Philistines. Samson, recognizing that his actions will
make him “public enemy number one,” flees to the territory of Judah and hides
in a cave. We are left with a picture of Samson hiding from his enemies in cave
like a common criminal.
Samson Captured (15.9-13)
Verses 9-13 can be broken into two parts. In vv. 9-10 the Philistines enter Judah to find Samson. The Philistines suspect the Judahites are harboring Samson. The Philistines send an army large enough to deal with both the Judahites if they don’t agree to help them capture Samson and an army that is large enough to find and capture Samson. Judah fears the Philistine army’s presence is a prelude to war. Judah seeking to avoid a conflict with the Philistines capture Samson and turning him over to the Philistines. The commentator Daniel Block notes: “Instead of calling on Samson to lead them in battle, however, as previous deliverers had done, they try to negotiate a peace. Their question, “Why have you come to fight us” - seems innocent enough. Little do they realize that the Philistine aggression is instigated by God to break the status quo between Israel and the enemy.”
The Philistines answer is simple and direct. They have come to take Samson prisoner and “to do to him as he did to us.” Revenge is now their guide as it has been with Samson. The primary players are now following the rule of “do unto others as they have done unto you.”
What was a localized scrap between Samson and some Philistines has now escalated into a possible confrontation between Judah and the Philistines which is exactly what God has been planning – yet Judah, rather than responding to the Philistines in any number of positive ways, takes the path of least resistance and take it upon themselves to capture Samson and bring him back to turn him over to the Philistines. Again, peaceful coexistence reigns regardless of cost. “The Judahites would rather deliver their countrymen into the hands of the enemy and live under that enemy’s domination than fulfill the mandate Yahweh had given them to occupy the land and drive out the enemy.”
In 15:11 we read that Judah dispatches three thousand men to capture Samson at his hideout in Elam. Consider the irony of this picture – Judah rather than using their forces against the Philistines, sends their army to go out and capture one man and bring him back to turn him over to their “enemy.” It would seem that Judah believes that it has more to fear from Samson than the Philistines. This present us in the church today with an interesting analogy to consider.
The conversation between the forces of Judah and Samson speaks volumes. As previously noted Judah wants to maintain the status quo with the Philistines at all cost. They are content in their role of the oppressed and are not interested in rocking the boat and apparently want nothing to do with anyone who is interested in rocking the boat. One of the costs that Judah is willing to give up is the sacrifice of a Godly appointed leader to the Philistines. It is obvious that Samson is equally disliked and mistrusted by both Philistines and Judahites.
Samson is engaged in a cycle of revenge with the Philistines, a game of one-upmanship, he does something and the Philistines get their revenge and a bit more, then Samson gets his revenge and a bit more, and so it goes. Daniel Block observes: “When enemies with this kind of morality meet, there is no hope of resolution, only a final solution.”
Verse 15.12 makes it clear that Judah is not going to challenge the rule of the Philistines, they would rather hand Samson over to the Philistines than risk a confrontation with their oppressors. Judah makes no effort to hide their intentions from Samson – they have come to take Samson captive and hand him over to the Philistines.
Verses 15:12b-13 reveal an odd fact: Samson is afraid that the Judahites will kill him. It seems strange in the fact that Judahites told Samson that they only came to get him, to hand him over to the Philistines. Samson does not seem to trust his own people any more than he trusts the Philistines. Perhaps Samson thinks that death at the hands of his own people is more shameful or embarrassing than death at the hands of his enemies, but after asking them to reaffirm their intentions, he surrenders himself to the Judahites and allows himself to be bound with “new ropes.”
Samson’s Victory
(15.14-19)
The Judahites bring Samson back to Lehi where the Philistines are camped and the Philistines upon being alerted of the arrival of the Judahites with Samson in tow charged out to meet them, shouting as if they were going into battle. As if the shouting woke Yahweh up, the Spirit of the Lord comes upon Samson and the new ropes that bound him became like “charred flax” and dropped from his hands (verse 14).
Verse 15 describes the carnage as Samson, grabbing the jawbone of a donkey, slaughters a thousand Philistines soldiers. This is reminds us of Shamgar’s victory over the Philistines using an ox goad. The writer’s mention that Samson grabs a “fresh” is interesting. Afresh jawbone would not be as useful a weapon as one that had been bleached and hardened. But more importantly, as Block points out, “being fresh it was still considered part of a corpse, in which case we witness another violation of the Nazirite vow.”
15:16 shows us again the immature side of Samson as he composes a song immortalizing his victory over the Philistines. Samson, writing his own song, takes all the credit for his victory. There is not even a hint of a mention of Yahweh in this couplet and we cannot but help ask ourselves if Samson has a clue about who is really in control and who is ultimately responsible for all that is happening in his life.
“With a donkey’s jawbone, I have mad donkeys of them;
With a donkey’s jawbone I have killed a thousand men.”
15:17 tells us that the place where this battle took place was renamed from Lehi to Ramath-Lehi, which means “Jawbone Hill.” Some commentators suggest or believe that Samson himself was responsible for the name change and that it was just another example of Samson trying to immortalize his victory. Regardless, Jawbone Hill as a name, acts as an appropriate reminder of what took place here.
Verses15:18-19 would seem to form the natural conclusion to this chapter, with v20 being added to serve as a concluding bracket for chapters 14 and 15. The writer’s mention of Samson’s thirst is surprising and unexpected. We are drawn back from thoughts of a miraculous victory to the realization of the necessity of satisfying basic needs, in this case the need for water to satisfy our thirst. It is because of Samson’s physical need for water that he cries out to God. We would like to recognize that Samson has admitted his dependence upon Yahweh in his prayer but that would be giving Samson more credit that he is due. Even in attempting to give God the glory, Samson shines the light upon himself. Consider:
First, it was Samson’s personal need that made him cry out to Yahweh and while it could be understood as an acknowledgement of God’s role in his victory, it seems more likely that it is an example of Samson whining to God that God hasn’t done enough for him. This would be in keeping with Samson’s on-going, self-centered, approach to life.
Second, it is almost laughable that he calls himself God’s servant. Where does that come from? There is little if any evidence that we have be given that would suggest that Samson understood himself to be a servant of Yahweh, in his thinking, his attitude, or his actions. One has the impression that this is another attempt at self-aggrandizement, that he is anointing himself as God’s servant rather than just recognizing that God’s has anointed him His servant.
Third, look at who Samson is concerned about in his prayer to Yahweh. Does he mention his parents, his people, or Israel? Is there any concern for God’s glory, for God’s purposes being accomplished? No, even his prayer is all about him. He wants God to not let him die and he wants God not to let him be captured by the Philistines.
Lastly, think of the number of times that Samson has violated his Nazerite vows concerning defilement. Samson’s stated concern about being defiled if he falls into the hands of the “uncircumcised” touches on the unbelievable. Did he all of a sudden “get religion?” Even in prayer it seems that Samson is consistent, his motives are purely selfish.
The shocking part of these two verses is not Samson’s prayer or its content but in 15:19 we are told that Yahweh answered Samson’s prayer. Not only did Yahweh answer Samson’s prayer but look at the miraculously way He answers it. Elohim, the generic term for God, split open a rock, releasing water that revived Samson’s spirit. Even in this Samson cannot drop the self-promotion. Daniel Block explains it this way: “Not one to miss an opportunity to leave his signature on the map, Samson named this spring near Lehi, En Hakkore, a name it still bore at the time this account was written. The name is ambiguous. It may be interpreted either as “the spring of the caller” or “the spring of the namer.” In either case it focuses on him and memorializes the power of this man to manipulate and move the hand of God rather than the gracious action of God on his behalf.
Verse 15:20 marks the conclusion of the narrative of Samson’s
Timnite affairs, with the comment that Samson judged Israel twenty years. In contrast to earlier notes we have read after
the accounts of the deliverers,” there is no reference to rest for the land.” In
fact the mention of the phrase “in the days of the Philistines” reminds us that
this period bears the stamp the Philistines rather than the Israelites. Block
point out: “The narrative leaves the reader wondering how this egotistical and
self-centered man could have governed Israel for two decades. The fact that he
did must be seen as a fulfillment of 14:4. Samson was Yahweh’s agent, beginning
the work of delivering the Israelites from the Philistines.”
Conclusion
The account of Samson in chapter 15 continues the writer’s developing portrait of Samson the Judge. Like chapter 14 we find little if anything positive or attractive in the man or his personality. We come away with a distinct impression that he is ruthless, self-centered, and no one we would particularly care to be associated with at any level. Yet in spite of everything Yahweh continues to work. The writer has again demonstrated that God does not always operate on the basis of obedience and disobedience, blessing or curse. Here, Samson, a type of Israel, deserves nothing, and yet we see Yahweh hearing, seeing and delivering him time after time. The message of the writer to us is one of hope, that God’s “agenda for his people cannot fail, despite the people’s seeming determination to commit national suicide.”
