Why the Commentators are Wrong About the Judges (sic)

[No Other Name]

I came across this article on perusing Biblical topics before Biblical kings.

I am a huge fan of Daniel Block and I have now been introduced to others who disagree.

I think the author puts too much stock on the "Spirit of Yahweh" as if one operates in the Spirit they - by default - must contain no flaws?

EDIT: https://knowingscripture.com/articles/why-the-commentaries-are-wrong-about-the-judges

Need more coffee I guess

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What article?

 

[iainduguid]

I'm with Block on this one, although it would take a lengthy article to point out all the problems with the article's positions. Or simply Block's commentary, which earns its commendations.

The position of the article is certainly a minority one in contemporary scholarship, even in Reformed circles. It is based, as the article notes, on Gordon Hugenberger's approach, which is followed by RTS' Miles van Pelt. But it ignores a lot of details in the text that highlight the problematic nature of the judges, especially as you progress toward the end. And as you say, the operation of the Spirit of Yahweh in the Old Testament does not always mean commendation of the subsequent acts: Saul is possessed by the Spirit three times to David's once.

 

[No Other Name]

I'm with Block on this one, although it would take a lengthy article to point out all the problems with the article's positions. Or simply Block's commentary, which earns its commendations.

The position of the article is certainly a minority one in contemporary scholarship, even in Reformed circles. It is based, as the article notes, on Gordon Hugenberger's approach, which is followed by RTS' Miles van Pelt. But it ignores a lot of details in the text that highlight the problematic nature of the judges, especially as you progress toward the end. And as you say, the operation of the Spirit of Yahweh in the Old Testament does not always mean commendation of the subsequent acts: Saul is possessed by the Spirit three times to David's once.

I am honored by your reply here, sir. Obviously, I found the author's treatment of Block's work as unfair to be inadequate.

One point he made that I remember I thought Block was too harsh was the point about "Ehud's treachery".

I remember thinking as I read Block that God sanctioned deception beforehand with Samuel not telling the full truth to Saul etc, but why would deception be necessarily negative in and of itself?

I do not agree with the author's defense of Ehud being "raised up" by Yahweh to be a "deliverer" as evidence that Ehud's action were sanctioned by Yahweh. The rest of the book of Judges makes it clear that any judge can be raised up to be a deliverer and come at the deliverance completely in the wrong. I distance myself from the author there.

I may be forgetting Block's rationale for not condoning Ehud's action, but right now without my copy of his NAC on Judges-Ruth, I lean towards the author of the article on this point of deception not being enough to disapprove of Ehud. Am I forgetting an obvious detail here?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would never consult this as a resource to understand a Biblical text if that is the standard of Biblical theology being employed throughout.

Hebrews doesn't commend them as paragons of virtue but as those who had faith and were not disappointed.

Robert Godfrey points out that most Jewish Synagogues don't read Samson because, in the words of a Rabbi: "Samson was a bum."

It takes more than trying to reconstruct all their failings to make them all examples of good moral conduct. The point of including them in halls of faith is not because they were consistently upright and the attempt in this article is very strained.

 

[No Other Name]

I still have the Ehud question I would ask Block if I could.

Hebrews doesn't commend them as paragons of virtue but as those who had faith and were not disappointed.

I 100% agree. I am uncomfortable with the idea of using Hebrews 11 as sanctions on the whole of all their lives. I imagine the thief on the cross could be counted on the list of those who had faith and were not disappointed yet would it not be true that only one single act of faith in the entirety of his life should be treated as exemplary? With the point being that only one extreme act of faith born by the Spirit of Yahweh is what it takes to be one who was not disappointed by the faithfulness of God.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I recommend getting the most you can--more than your tank can hold, I'm certain--from Dr.Duguid. I don't always agree, but my reasons are surely less well-grounded than his.

One should read and study the judges of Israel with the Torah (Pentateuch) and Joshua as law and precedent. You don't simply regard the persons and their actions as praiseworthy because of their position or because they are in the Bible or because they are commended as men of faith (ala Heb.11). You are supposed to judge the judges as you would the kings--even apart from the general prophetic evaluations included in the text--by the standard of God and his holiness.

Some of the kings who are commended for following David's path still clearly act sinfully and foolishly (as did David) in their capacity as kings. We don't read every word concerning their reign as if one commendation colored all their works with a saintly sheen. Likewise with the judges. One thing the Scriptures do consistently is show the reader how flawed are God's people--even the heroic figures. The "big names" in the Bible are there primarily to point us toward the One true Israelite, the flawless Holy One. They do this not by approximating his perfection and being outstanding for virtue; but as signs pointing beyond themselves. Their successes pale in comparison to his; their failures are the polar opposite of his fulfillments.

I might actually take an interpretive line that finds more to commend in this or that judge than other esteemed interpreters. But just to focus for a moment on Samson: he IS a bum! The story of Samson challenges us to sift through the mess of contradictions that mark his life and ministry, that we may penetrate to the truth of how this one man stands alone--entirely apart from all them that should have stood with him--and defeats Israel's foe for them! They do not deserve deliverance, any more than Samson deserves his role as deliverer.

But let me tell you about a people who do not deserve their Savior. Let me tell you about a Savior who always obeyed his Father, who is the Nazarite/Nazarene, who more than anyone deserves his role as Deliverer and who has defeated our foe for us, standing alone, when all forsook him. When it seemed to all ordinary observation that even God forsook him.

I feel only grief for worshipers who studiously avoid Samson's story, or those who can only see him (and other judges) as national heroes. I also feel sorry for Christians who have to see Samson as some kind of virtuous-but-misunderstood paladin; or reckon their interpretive task is to mine Judges for object lessons, good and bad. I had the high privilege of preaching through Judges right toward the end of my last pastorate. I truly rejoiced to see the book come alive for me as it never had in all my years of reading it, and to present Judges as a Christ-centered narrative to the flock.

 

[No Other Name]

I had the high privilege of preaching through Judges right toward the end of my last pastorate. I truly rejoiced to see the book come alive for me as it never had in all my years of reading it, and to present Judges as a Christ-centered narrative to the flock.

1) Thank you as always for your engagement.

2) I agree with everything you wrote and as always, you say it better than I could.

3) Are these sermons available via any platform like sermonaudio?

4) Was it difficult presenting Judges 18 - 21 as a Christ-centered narrative?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

3) Are these sermons available via any platform like sermonaudio?

4) Was it difficult presenting Judges 18 - 21 as a Christ-centered narrative?

The sermons are currently listed at the sermon link in my signature, scroll down toward the bottom of the page to January 24, 2021, PM message to start.

I preached Judges 18-21 between Nov28 and Jan16 of the following year (2022, higher on the page), with Jan23 included as a concluding message for the series. Titles for these messages include: "Prodigal Tribe," "Men of This World," "Hospitality," "Maximum Self-Regard," "Proper Church Discipline? (this was a two-part message for which only the second is recorded, on the latter part of ch.20 ), "Poor Decisions by Committee," and "Samuel: the Last Judge." I did not think I, as a minister of Christ, was having a hard time with the material, but that's more for those present to judge.

--edit-- Inclusion of Judges 17 is probably relevant to the subject. That message was 2wks prior to the first above, Nov.14, titled "Mischief Making."

Whenever sin is the subject, it doesn't seem difficult to get to Christ. Furthermore, as all these things were written for our instruction (on whom the final age of the world has come, 1Cor.10:11), and they were composed not for any other concern in the world but for the church's sake, 1Cor.9:10; if one approaches the text as containing express directions and warnings for the church, and not guidance for life in the world or political organization or things like that, there is plenty in these chapters that serve for our kingdom nurture and admonition under the Lordship of Christ.

 

[py3ak]

I think the thesis of "progressive Canaanization" is a little too neat, and although Block's commentaries always repay engagement, he does come across at times as though chastising the judge for moral failures were part of the job.

We shouldn't read Scripture history as though it's there for us to figure out who is wrong and who is right in each story. While there is a place for ethical reflection on the conduct of Scripture characters, the answer can sometimes be that no one does anything right. Especially in Judges 17-21 there seems to be a lot of that. I found that material quite rich for preaching.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I appreciate the contributions to this thread. I think, in general, "tidy" exegetical approaches where the Judges are filled with the Spirit and we need to look for moral exemplars or they are scoundrels and we need to focus on their failings are flawed approaches.

I think the older (and hopefully wiser) I get, the more I realize how it's not possible to divide up the world into white hats and black hats. It's not to say that there aren't real scoundrels, but that we have a paragraph or two about an entire life and it may include the time when a person did something really sinful or dumb.

I know we're dealing with Judges, but I've always sort of suspected that Jehosophat was trying to be a good king but might have had a really low IQ. He not only covenants with Ahab but then agrees to go into battle while Ahab disguises himself. Worse yet, he brings idolatry into his family through a marriage arrangement.

Is the point of a character's failings only to underline the sin and say: "See this Judge as bad and Jesus is the better Judge!"

I don't think so.

I think we should study the failures and try to think through not only what may have motivated it but also how God was somehow faithful through it for some He commends.

If you don't simply flatten out the reports but think about how/why people were complaining and even the common patterns that sinners like us fell into, then we might not learn as much about ourselves.

In fact, the more I've been exposed to human suffering, the more I've related to not only the seemingly "unfaithful" complaints of persons in Scripture but also how God was faithful to watch over them and bless them.

Thus, I'd probably treat Gideon a lot differently than the author of that article. Rather than forcing the story into the Procrustean bed that Gideon was blameless in the things he asked for, I wouldn't use the repeated requests as some sort of scientific "trigger" that one request is good but two or three represents unfaithfulness. I would also point out the pattern of patience and hesed of God toward His people. You can envision God stooping down as a father to a child, bearing with repeated questions and requests because the child is frightened.

This doesn't fit "neat and tidy" Yes or No questions of the text but I believe it's the path to true wisdom when delving into these texts.

 

[No Other Name]

I preached Judges 18-21 between Nov28 and Jan16 of the following year (2022, higher on the page), with Jan23 included as a concluding message for the series. Titles for these messages include: "Prodigal Tribe," "Men of This World," "Hospitality," "Maximum Self-Regard," "Proper Church Discipline? (this was a two-part message for which only the second is recorded, on the latter part of ch.20 ), "Poor Decisions by Committee," and "Samuel: the Last Judge." I did not think I, as a minister of Christ, was having a hard time with the material, but that's more for those present to judge.

For anyone following with interest, this means Judges 18 starts at Nov 28 of 2021 which you have to scroll down to see (and note it is the PM Services not AM), and then scroll way back up to Jan 2022 for the concluding messages Rev. Buchanan is referencing.

 

[TheInquirer]

If you are reading through the Bible from the beginning and you get to the book of Judges, you will notice a stark contrast between many of the Judges and their behavior (to varying degrees) and the law of God you read in previous chapters. In other words, don't read Judges without comparing it both with the prior context (the law) and the rest of Scripture.

"There was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes" - including the Judges to varying degrees.

One other thing - Rich's point is wisely made. No man is 100% pure but Jesus. Take an evaluation of David's life for instance. He is the man after God's own heart and called blameless. But was he without sin? Of course not. We wouldn't want to take an all or nothing approach to evaluating David's life and ignore the ways he violated God's law.