Don't Judge me...

This week, I have accepted the challenge of working with Judges. Nope, I'm not a paralegal; I'm not a lawyer either (although my husband would say my arguing skills may say otherwise!). I'm not talking about a judge in a court of law, but rather the book of Judges. Judges is part of the Deuteronomistic History (which I'll refer to as DtrH from here on out....because really, who can spell Deuteronomistic more than twice?!), which is believed by some scholars to be written by the hand of one person/one group of people.  The DtrH includes Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings. In the book of Judges, we see many people -- often groups of people (a.k.a - "tribes") -- who defend the Israelites from "powerful, often superior, forces" (Bandstra 222). Rarely do these groups work together in the book of Judges; this is in contrast to the book of Joshua, where we see much success on the part of the tribes as they work together! Within the selected passage of Judges 19:1 - 21:25, we see a narrative unfold that shows the Israelites falling/failing, being thus punished, crying out to God for help, and then a judge being sent by God to deliver the people. The Deuteronomists' hand is seen strongly in the book of Judges.

The central theme of this story, I believe is a call by the editors of Judges (as it is part of the DtrH) for readers to realize that during this pre-monarchical period, the people Israel did whatever they wanted because they didn't have a king.  In the Judges period, there was no true settled area for the people. They didn't work together (often), and this caused them troubles. Had they worked together, we would probably see more success from them. As much as this narrative seems to be a call for us to work together, it would have been probably even more so for the people of ancient Israel.

One of the most offensive pieces of the plot of this passage is the Levite man giving his secondary wife (the term "secondary wife" is also a bit off to me as well) and the Gibeon giving his daughter to the naughties in the town of Gibeah to "abuse them and do whatever you want to them" (Judges 19:24). Um...what?! Who does that? There's not a social context in which I can imagine this is not offensive. When the Israelites inquired about his *secondary* wife's death (nope, doesn't get any better), the Levite doesn't offer up that he in fact pushed her out the door to the wolves, but rather puts the blame on the men who were outside waiting.  Now I'm not saying the men outside (the Gibeons) were not to blame, but the Levite didn't take any of the blame. He then (here's the next place modern readers may be should be offended) cuts his wife, limb-by-limb into twelve pieces and sends them to each of the tribes to call them to fight with Benjamin.

In Judges 20:1, we read that "Then all the Israelites from Dan to Beer-sheba, as well as from the area of Gilead, marched out, and the group assembled as one body in the Lord's presence at Mizpah." While this is the first time *all* the Israelites did something together, it wasn't a joining together or united front they presented; instead, they engaged in Civil War.

I think these elements that are offensive to the modern reader would have been perceived by an ancient audience as a warning of what not to do when there is not a leader. Bandstra writes

In the era of the judges, Israel is cowering in the forests, hiding in the hills, afraid of being wiped out by Canaanites and other assorted opponents (223).

So these elements of plot which show disorganization and disengagement of these agricultural people may seem reasonable when we understand that the Israelites are scared in the period that follows the leadership of Joshua.

The narrative story of Judges begins in Judges 19:1 by saying "In those days when there was no king in Israel" (CEB). For the people Israel, they are without a leader.  In the absence of leadership, it's as though the people don't know how to act or behave, and they certainly can't figure out how to work together and be successful. Much like this passage began ("no king in Israel"), the passage ends with "In this days there was no king in Israel; each person did what they thought to be right" (Judges 21:25 CEB). By beginning and ending with pointing out that the people Israel had no leader and acted willy-nilly, the modern reader sees that we can not each act however we want.  We have a Leader and King in the Lord -- by following the leadership of the Lord, we are innately working together, unlike the Israelites during the Judges era.

Where else in history have we seen the people act without leadership?

T-OOTLE-oo!

Melissa