In this chapter, the eponymous Ruth follows her mother-in-law back to Israel.
There's a lot of things I want to say about this chapter, since I think it's a very interesting chapter. First of all, note the famine. Famines are a recurring theme in Israel's history, beginning with the several famines in Genesis (Gen 12, 26, 41) that afflicted Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's generations. During their lives, Abraham and Jacob both traveled to other lands to escape the famine, and Elimelech and Naomi do the same thing here.
Even though Moab and Israel have mutual enmity, Elimelech seems to settle down; both of his sons get married to Moabite women, and they make a life for themselves. Perhaps not a good life, but a life. Of course, we are told in verses 3-5 that Naomi's husband and both of her sons died, so perhaps it was not a very good life at all. We don't know how they died, but there is an implicit hardship that they must have been facing such that they all died before bearing any children.
Next, note that after Naomi's husband and sons died, she no longer had anyone supporting her. Sons are particularly important for an older woman because they provide both food and physical protection for you in your old age. There is no social security in Israel; your children provide for you in old age. There is also no police force; your sons and relatives protect you and avenge you if anyone tries to harm you. For an earlier example, see Gen 38. In fact, Naomi tells the two women to return to Moab because she would not be able to provide husbands for them, which I think is an implied reference to levirate marriage, that Naomi would raise up sons to give to them in marriage.
Verses 16-17 contain one of the most beautiful passages of devotion in the bible. Naomi is urging Ruth to return to her family and to Moab, because Naomi simply has nothing to give her, nothing but pain. But Ruth insists on staying with her to the end, no matter what happens. As with so many other stories, I find myself wondering how Ruth got to this place. What happened to Ruth such that she desired to follow Naomi, contrary to her own self interest? What made Ruth want to serve the LORD, rather than the gods of her youth?
In this chapter, Ruth is behaving like Abraham. Abraham left his family, his home and his gods in order to follow the LORD, travel to the promised land, and to become "the father of many nations." Ruth does much the same, giving up her family, her land and her gods in order to follow the LORD and Naomi, traveling into a hostile country. Also remember that this is during the judges period, when "there was no king in Israel" and everyone "did what was right in his own eyes". Not only is Ruth a foreigner and a widow, but she's also in a hostile and lawless country. She is following Naomi at considerable risk of both starvation and being raped or murdered.
I marveled at the faith of Abraham, how he was inspired to follow the LORD, and I marvel at Ruth as well. Abraham did it as a man with many servants; Ruth does it as a single woman. What hope could they have had? Naomi changes her own name to Mara, bitterness, as an expression of the bitterness she feels her life has become. Naomi clearly had no hope. What hope could Ruth have had for anything good to come into her life, following Naomi into a barren and hostile land? In what did Ruth have faith? What promise of goodness inspired her to cling to her mother-in-law, seeking the LORD and refusing to go back to the gods of her people?
When Naomi and Ruth return to Bethlehem in Judah, the people are surprised to see Naomi return without husband and in destitution. This is the nadir of the story; things are about to turn around.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Bible Commentary - Ruth Introduction
Ruth is the last book from the judges period, before there was a king in Israel. Much like the stories in Judges chapters 17 through 21, the story of Ruth is a sort of vignette, telling us about the lives of individuals but also painting a picture of the chaos and danger that reigned during this period.
Thematically, the book of Ruth serves as a bridge between the stories in Judges and the stories that follow in Samuel. The book of Ruth opens by telling us that the events occurred "in the days when the judges governed", and ends by telling us that the future King David was a descendant of Ruth. I believe that Ruth (much like Judges) was written with the knowledge and context of the later histories of Israel's kingdom. It only mentions the future king at the very end of the book, which could be a later edit. However, there are thematic similarities between Ruth and Judges that imply they had a common author, or at least common knowledge.
The entire book of Judges is devoted to showing us why we needed a king; every story points to the anarchy and sinfulness that filled Israel before they had a king. The book of Ruth really only has one purpose: to show us part of the history of how that king was brought into the world. Like I said, it forms a bridge between the period of the judges and the period of the kingdom. As such, Ruth would not make any sense without the former or the latter. Without a kingdom to lead us to, Ruth has no purpose. And without Judges as the context, Ruth doesn't explain why we need a king.
I believe this answers some of the questions about authorship and dating for Ruth as well. It is likely that it was authored by the same person or group that wrote Judges, and around the same time. Since the dating of Judges itself is disputed, it's hard to get more specific than that. I think it is strongly likely that they were written during the kingdom period, but more than that is hard to say. The authors of all these books leave themselves anonymous. Tradition says that this book was authored by Samuel, but there isn't any textual support for that. In my opinion, it's as good a theory as any, because the truth is that we just don't know, and probably never will.
I think these books, like Ruth and Judges, don't tell us who wrote them because we aren't supposed to focus on the author. I think it's interesting to try to figure out who might have written them, but I don't think it detracts much from our understanding to leave this question unanswered.
Apart from understanding the anarchy of the judges period, we also have to understand the mutual hostility that has formed between Israel and Moab. These two nations are related through Abraham and his cousin Lot, but from the very beginning when Israel passed near to Moab in the book of Numbers, Moab resisted Israel (beginning, but by no means ending, in Num 22). More recently, Moab was one of Israel's many oppressors during the judges period (Judges 3:12-14), so they have also been in open conflict.
We should also remember Israel's prohibition against intermarriage. That, plus the hostility against Moab, makes this entire book a somewhat awkward note. I want that awkwardness and the latent hostility to be in their minds as they read about Ruth and her journey into Israel with Naomi. I would say more, but Ruth is a short book so I want to save myself things to say when I write about the individual chapters.
We are on the cusp of something new. The judges are coming to a close, the kingdom is at hand, and Ruth is the book that ushers it in.
Thematically, the book of Ruth serves as a bridge between the stories in Judges and the stories that follow in Samuel. The book of Ruth opens by telling us that the events occurred "in the days when the judges governed", and ends by telling us that the future King David was a descendant of Ruth. I believe that Ruth (much like Judges) was written with the knowledge and context of the later histories of Israel's kingdom. It only mentions the future king at the very end of the book, which could be a later edit. However, there are thematic similarities between Ruth and Judges that imply they had a common author, or at least common knowledge.
The entire book of Judges is devoted to showing us why we needed a king; every story points to the anarchy and sinfulness that filled Israel before they had a king. The book of Ruth really only has one purpose: to show us part of the history of how that king was brought into the world. Like I said, it forms a bridge between the period of the judges and the period of the kingdom. As such, Ruth would not make any sense without the former or the latter. Without a kingdom to lead us to, Ruth has no purpose. And without Judges as the context, Ruth doesn't explain why we need a king.
I believe this answers some of the questions about authorship and dating for Ruth as well. It is likely that it was authored by the same person or group that wrote Judges, and around the same time. Since the dating of Judges itself is disputed, it's hard to get more specific than that. I think it is strongly likely that they were written during the kingdom period, but more than that is hard to say. The authors of all these books leave themselves anonymous. Tradition says that this book was authored by Samuel, but there isn't any textual support for that. In my opinion, it's as good a theory as any, because the truth is that we just don't know, and probably never will.
I think these books, like Ruth and Judges, don't tell us who wrote them because we aren't supposed to focus on the author. I think it's interesting to try to figure out who might have written them, but I don't think it detracts much from our understanding to leave this question unanswered.
Apart from understanding the anarchy of the judges period, we also have to understand the mutual hostility that has formed between Israel and Moab. These two nations are related through Abraham and his cousin Lot, but from the very beginning when Israel passed near to Moab in the book of Numbers, Moab resisted Israel (beginning, but by no means ending, in Num 22). More recently, Moab was one of Israel's many oppressors during the judges period (Judges 3:12-14), so they have also been in open conflict.
We should also remember Israel's prohibition against intermarriage. That, plus the hostility against Moab, makes this entire book a somewhat awkward note. I want that awkwardness and the latent hostility to be in their minds as they read about Ruth and her journey into Israel with Naomi. I would say more, but Ruth is a short book so I want to save myself things to say when I write about the individual chapters.
We are on the cusp of something new. The judges are coming to a close, the kingdom is at hand, and Ruth is the book that ushers it in.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Bible Commentary - Judges 21
In this final chapter of Judges, the Israelites plunder wives for the surviving men of Benjamin.
We've been going through about 5 chapters now of things that happened "when there was no king in Israel", and this chapter is the grim conclusion to all these stories.
Having murdered all the women and children of Benjamin and sworn to not give them their daughters in marriage, Israel is now mourning because Benjamin will disappear as a tribe if they cannot marry and bear children. At this point, Israel is trying to figure out how to keep Benjamin from dying out, so they begin by wiping out Jabesh-Gilead and taking 400 virgins from that clan to give to Benjamin.
Israel concludes the best way to solve this "problem" is to have the men of Benjamin go and kidnap women who are dancing in a feast to the LORD that year in Shiloh, in the hill country of Ephraim. This solves the "problem" of getting wives for Benjamin because the women were not given by their fathers voluntarily, so nobody had to break their vow, and then the other tribes protected Benjamin from the (obviously angry) fathers.
Even though I think Israel did the right thing in the last chapter, in this chapter they obviously drift back into sinful behavior. The author reminds of us of his disapproval in the last verse, saying that in this time "everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
To some extent, the events of this chapter look wrong to us because of cultural differences. It was common in the ancient world to take surviving women as plunder after defeating other nations. For instance, Deuteronomy 21:10-13 discusses how Israel should behave when they see "among the captives a beautiful woman" that they want to take for a wife. Obviously the woman doesn't get a choice in this arrangement. Israel behaves similarly towards Jabesh-Gilead, slaughtering all the men and married women and taking the virgins as plunder to give to Benjamin. On the other hand, Israel is once again destroying their own brothers, the men of Manasseh, in order to find women for Benjamin.
They go even further, encouraging Benjamin to kidnap women from Shiloh, and this has no justification, nor does it represent cultural differences. It is a violation of the law. Exodus 21:16 says, "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death". Deuteronomy 24:7 repeats this command in a more detailed way: "If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you." This is a metaphorical extension of the commandment against stealing, because kidnapping is like "stealing people".
This is exactly what happens to the young women of Shiloh, and the entire congregation of Israel explicitly assents to this behavior. This is what the author is condemning when he says "there was no king in Israel." Like I called it before, it is a grim conclusion to a period of anarchy, when Israel behaved as they saw fit and did not regard the Law or the covenant. I can understand why they wanted to preserve Benjamin as a tribe, but the way they went about it seemed so wrong. We know it and the author knows it, and that's what the author was trying to show us, how Israel behaves when they don't have a king to unite the tribes together and bind them under the Law of Moses. The situation that they create by killing nearly all of Benjamin they try to "fix" by encouraging the survivors to go kidnap women from Ephraim. The author concludes, this is why we need a king, to prevent things like this from happening again.
I also hope my readers see the strong tribal divisions that are revealed by this story. Benjamin stands with their brothers of Gibeah, resulting in the other tribes nearly destroying Benjamin altogether. This is another reason why they need a king, to help bring unity to the tribes so that they might stop fighting each other. This is the second time this has happened in Judges, the first being when Jephthah and the Gileadites (men of Manasseh) fight against and slaughter men of Ephraim in Judges 12, but this time is far more severe, nearly destroying an entire tribe.
Back when we were reading through the Pentateuch, I tried to point out multiple times how different expressions and patterns were designed to emphasize the unity and equality of the twelve tribes. Things like the pattern of precious stones on the high priests garments (Ex 28), amongst many other things. The book of Judges is a demonstration of why that was necessary. Even with the encouragement of the law, the tribes of Israel are still fractious and in periodic conflict. With a king, it is possible that Israel might finally be unified and work together as a nation. That's certainly what the author of Judges has in mind, I think.
We've been going through about 5 chapters now of things that happened "when there was no king in Israel", and this chapter is the grim conclusion to all these stories.
Having murdered all the women and children of Benjamin and sworn to not give them their daughters in marriage, Israel is now mourning because Benjamin will disappear as a tribe if they cannot marry and bear children. At this point, Israel is trying to figure out how to keep Benjamin from dying out, so they begin by wiping out Jabesh-Gilead and taking 400 virgins from that clan to give to Benjamin.
Israel concludes the best way to solve this "problem" is to have the men of Benjamin go and kidnap women who are dancing in a feast to the LORD that year in Shiloh, in the hill country of Ephraim. This solves the "problem" of getting wives for Benjamin because the women were not given by their fathers voluntarily, so nobody had to break their vow, and then the other tribes protected Benjamin from the (obviously angry) fathers.
Even though I think Israel did the right thing in the last chapter, in this chapter they obviously drift back into sinful behavior. The author reminds of us of his disapproval in the last verse, saying that in this time "everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
To some extent, the events of this chapter look wrong to us because of cultural differences. It was common in the ancient world to take surviving women as plunder after defeating other nations. For instance, Deuteronomy 21:10-13 discusses how Israel should behave when they see "among the captives a beautiful woman" that they want to take for a wife. Obviously the woman doesn't get a choice in this arrangement. Israel behaves similarly towards Jabesh-Gilead, slaughtering all the men and married women and taking the virgins as plunder to give to Benjamin. On the other hand, Israel is once again destroying their own brothers, the men of Manasseh, in order to find women for Benjamin.
They go even further, encouraging Benjamin to kidnap women from Shiloh, and this has no justification, nor does it represent cultural differences. It is a violation of the law. Exodus 21:16 says, "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death". Deuteronomy 24:7 repeats this command in a more detailed way: "If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you." This is a metaphorical extension of the commandment against stealing, because kidnapping is like "stealing people".
This is exactly what happens to the young women of Shiloh, and the entire congregation of Israel explicitly assents to this behavior. This is what the author is condemning when he says "there was no king in Israel." Like I called it before, it is a grim conclusion to a period of anarchy, when Israel behaved as they saw fit and did not regard the Law or the covenant. I can understand why they wanted to preserve Benjamin as a tribe, but the way they went about it seemed so wrong. We know it and the author knows it, and that's what the author was trying to show us, how Israel behaves when they don't have a king to unite the tribes together and bind them under the Law of Moses. The situation that they create by killing nearly all of Benjamin they try to "fix" by encouraging the survivors to go kidnap women from Ephraim. The author concludes, this is why we need a king, to prevent things like this from happening again.
I also hope my readers see the strong tribal divisions that are revealed by this story. Benjamin stands with their brothers of Gibeah, resulting in the other tribes nearly destroying Benjamin altogether. This is another reason why they need a king, to help bring unity to the tribes so that they might stop fighting each other. This is the second time this has happened in Judges, the first being when Jephthah and the Gileadites (men of Manasseh) fight against and slaughter men of Ephraim in Judges 12, but this time is far more severe, nearly destroying an entire tribe.
Back when we were reading through the Pentateuch, I tried to point out multiple times how different expressions and patterns were designed to emphasize the unity and equality of the twelve tribes. Things like the pattern of precious stones on the high priests garments (Ex 28), amongst many other things. The book of Judges is a demonstration of why that was necessary. Even with the encouragement of the law, the tribes of Israel are still fractious and in periodic conflict. With a king, it is possible that Israel might finally be unified and work together as a nation. That's certainly what the author of Judges has in mind, I think.
Bible Commentary - Judges 20
In this chapter, all Israel unites together to destroy the men of Gibeah, but Benjamin rallies to defend their clansmen.
In general, I think the tribes of Israel are doing the right thing here. The phrase we saw over and over in Deuteronomy is "you shall purge the evil from your midst", and that's exactly what they decide to do. The entire town of Gibeah collaborated to commit this atrocity, so now the tribes of Israel align to destroy the men responsible. I don't think the Levite man did anything good, and in fact I'm pretty disgusted with him, but as he says in verse 5, the men of Gibeah would have killed him if he tried to stop them.
This chapter continues with the theme of "there was no king in Israel". The men of Benjamin rally to defend Gibeah, sticking to their tribal allegiances rather than justice and the Law. Benjamin is severely outnumbered, but win the battle on the first two days. The battle eventually goes in favor of the 11 tribes, in a way that reminds me of the battle against Ai in Joshua 8. In Joshua 7 and 8, Israel is defeated by the men of Ai after Achan sins against the LORD. The people kill Achan and then attack Ai, defeating it. Israel sets men in ambush, draw the men of Ai out of the city by feigning defeat, and then surrounding them and attacking on two sides.
This is exactly what happens here against Benjamin, who on the third day are drawn out of the town of Gibeah by the men of Israel feigning defeat, and then having an ambush destroy the city with fire. The men of Benjamin are terrified when they see that their retreat is cut off, and they attempt to flee but are nearly all slaughtered. What started as retribution against Gibeah ended in almost total destruction to the entire tribe of Benjamin, with only 600 survivors.
Unlike the battle of Ai, this results in the destruction of a tribe of Israel rather than an idolatrous nation of Canaan, so it's a Pyrrhic victory in that sense, but it's a battle that I feel they must have waged in order to fulfill the Law's demands for justice. Indeed, their war against Benjamin seems to have divine favor as they inquire of the LORD three times to ask whether they should attack Benjamin, and all three times the answer is yes.
Apart from the parallels to Ai, I think one of the interesting parts of this chapter is how Israel (i.e. all of the tribes except for Benjamin) is defeated by Benjamin twice even when they have the assent of the LORD. This is unusual because I don't think we saw Israel defeated by any of the Canaanites except for when Achan sinned and they were defeated by Ai. I've thought a lot about why the sons of Israel get defeated twice, and I can't really think of a theological explanation. We know that the Benjamites are skilled warriors, and they are renowned for their left-handed slingers both here and in other parts of the bible. Interestingly, Ehud from Judges 3 is also a left-handed Benjamite. A later example is 1 Chronicles 12:2 where the tribe of Benjamin fields ambidextrous slingers.
So even though Benjamin was outnumbered by 400,000 to 26,000, they win on the field through sheer prowess. In the end, the larger Israelite army has the LORD's support and they defeat Benjamin by laying an ambush and taking advantage of Benjamin's overconfidence. To us, I suppose this is a lesson about persistence. Even if the LORD is with us, and in favor of us doing something, it still might not work out at first. We have to avoid getting discouraged and continue to seek the LORD's guidance. After every time they are defeated, the men of Israel go back to the LORD weeping and asking if they are doing the right thing, attacking their brother Benjamin. Every time the answer is yes, and every time they go back out to fight against Benjamin again. They are doing a hard thing, attacking their fellow tribe, and that's why they continue to petition the LORD, because I'm sure they began doubting whether their path had the LORD's blessing. Perhaps they felt they were doing wrong, attacking their own brother, even though they knew that Benjamin had sinned by protecting Gibeah.
Israel began doubting, but they did the right thing and turned to inquire of the LORD every day whether they should attack Benjamin, and with his affirmative, they did so. So I believe that Israel did the right thing in this chapter, and Benjamin did the wrong thing by putting tribal affiliation and a desire to protect "their people" above justice and the Law of Moses. In the end, Benjamin is nearly destroyed because of it.
In general, I think the tribes of Israel are doing the right thing here. The phrase we saw over and over in Deuteronomy is "you shall purge the evil from your midst", and that's exactly what they decide to do. The entire town of Gibeah collaborated to commit this atrocity, so now the tribes of Israel align to destroy the men responsible. I don't think the Levite man did anything good, and in fact I'm pretty disgusted with him, but as he says in verse 5, the men of Gibeah would have killed him if he tried to stop them.
This chapter continues with the theme of "there was no king in Israel". The men of Benjamin rally to defend Gibeah, sticking to their tribal allegiances rather than justice and the Law. Benjamin is severely outnumbered, but win the battle on the first two days. The battle eventually goes in favor of the 11 tribes, in a way that reminds me of the battle against Ai in Joshua 8. In Joshua 7 and 8, Israel is defeated by the men of Ai after Achan sins against the LORD. The people kill Achan and then attack Ai, defeating it. Israel sets men in ambush, draw the men of Ai out of the city by feigning defeat, and then surrounding them and attacking on two sides.
This is exactly what happens here against Benjamin, who on the third day are drawn out of the town of Gibeah by the men of Israel feigning defeat, and then having an ambush destroy the city with fire. The men of Benjamin are terrified when they see that their retreat is cut off, and they attempt to flee but are nearly all slaughtered. What started as retribution against Gibeah ended in almost total destruction to the entire tribe of Benjamin, with only 600 survivors.
Unlike the battle of Ai, this results in the destruction of a tribe of Israel rather than an idolatrous nation of Canaan, so it's a Pyrrhic victory in that sense, but it's a battle that I feel they must have waged in order to fulfill the Law's demands for justice. Indeed, their war against Benjamin seems to have divine favor as they inquire of the LORD three times to ask whether they should attack Benjamin, and all three times the answer is yes.
Apart from the parallels to Ai, I think one of the interesting parts of this chapter is how Israel (i.e. all of the tribes except for Benjamin) is defeated by Benjamin twice even when they have the assent of the LORD. This is unusual because I don't think we saw Israel defeated by any of the Canaanites except for when Achan sinned and they were defeated by Ai. I've thought a lot about why the sons of Israel get defeated twice, and I can't really think of a theological explanation. We know that the Benjamites are skilled warriors, and they are renowned for their left-handed slingers both here and in other parts of the bible. Interestingly, Ehud from Judges 3 is also a left-handed Benjamite. A later example is 1 Chronicles 12:2 where the tribe of Benjamin fields ambidextrous slingers.
So even though Benjamin was outnumbered by 400,000 to 26,000, they win on the field through sheer prowess. In the end, the larger Israelite army has the LORD's support and they defeat Benjamin by laying an ambush and taking advantage of Benjamin's overconfidence. To us, I suppose this is a lesson about persistence. Even if the LORD is with us, and in favor of us doing something, it still might not work out at first. We have to avoid getting discouraged and continue to seek the LORD's guidance. After every time they are defeated, the men of Israel go back to the LORD weeping and asking if they are doing the right thing, attacking their brother Benjamin. Every time the answer is yes, and every time they go back out to fight against Benjamin again. They are doing a hard thing, attacking their fellow tribe, and that's why they continue to petition the LORD, because I'm sure they began doubting whether their path had the LORD's blessing. Perhaps they felt they were doing wrong, attacking their own brother, even though they knew that Benjamin had sinned by protecting Gibeah.
Israel began doubting, but they did the right thing and turned to inquire of the LORD every day whether they should attack Benjamin, and with his affirmative, they did so. So I believe that Israel did the right thing in this chapter, and Benjamin did the wrong thing by putting tribal affiliation and a desire to protect "their people" above justice and the Law of Moses. In the end, Benjamin is nearly destroyed because of it.
Bible Commentary - Judges 19
In this chapter, a Levite's concubine is raped by Benjamites of Gibeah.
This is another story of how things went "when there was no king in Israel". As with the stories about Micah, this is a key phrase to us indicating that this is a story about the anarchy that existed before a centralized authority came in to bring law and order to Israelite society.
This story begins with the concubine was in some way unfaithful to him. I don't know if that implies adultery or what. I've looked at a couple different translations, and they use phrases like "was unfaithful to him", "quarreled with him", "was untrue to him". The NASB is the most explicit, saying that she "played the harlot", suggesting that she possibly engaged in prostitution.
Either way, the man goes to collect his concubine from her father's house, and he doesn't seem to be holding her behavior against her. When he's there, there is an interesting anecdote about how the woman's father seems to be trying to delay him from leaving. To paraphrase, he says in the morning, "it's too early, have some breakfast and stay a while," and in the evening, he says "it's too late, you should rest here and leave in the morning." I don't exactly know why the woman's father was trying to delay him, maybe he wanted to keep his daughter around longer, or maybe it was a demonstration of hospitality. Something like that.
Eventually they leave, and start to go back north from Judah towards the land of Ephraim. They spend the night in Gibeah, which is in Benjamin. To remind my readers, Benjamin's inheritance was placed inbetween Judah (in the south) and Ephraim (in the north). When he gets there, he begins to camp in the town square before an old man comes by and agrees to lodge him in the old man's house. (P.S. I apologize for the ambiguous pronouns, but we aren't actually told the names of any person in this entire story.) The old man was himself an Ephraimite, so he was not a native to the town of Gibeah where they were staying.
Towards evening, a bunch of "worthless fellows" come and demand to rape the visiting man, when the old man offers both his daughter and the man's concubine to suffer their abuses. More than anything else, this reminds me of Lot offering his two daughters to the men of Sodom when the two angels visit his house in Genesis 19. It's even similar in how the old man is himself a visitor to the town and not a native Benjamite, just as Lot was a foreigner to the town of Sodom.
The big difference is that in this story, there is no angel to save the man's concubine, so when she is brought out the men rape her all night. She stumbles to the doorstep and dies there. The men, heroic as they are, soundly sleep until full daylight, and only know her fate when they go out in the morning and see her lying on the ground. Probably the worst verse in this entire chapter is verse 28, when the man looks down on his concubine and says "get up, let's go." After suffering a night of atrocities and literally dead on the ground, and this man who came to get her has no compassion whatsoever. I am utterly disgusted by his behavior in this chapter, just like I was disgusted by Lot in Gen 19. Unlike the story of Lot, in this case the abusers are themselves Israelites, men of Benjamin. In Gen 19, the men of Sodom were destroyed by fire from heaven. In this chapter, the Levite cuts up his concubine into pieces and sends those pieces into all the tribes of Israel, in order to rile up the anger of Israel against the men of Gibeah who did this.
The story continues in the next chapter, but I wonder if this chapter is meant to recall Lot and Sodom. It shows us the depth that Israel is sinking into, as they progress from theft and idolatry (in the last story) to rape and murder (in this story). Unless something changes, Israel is heading towards God's wrath and destruction like how Sodom was destroyed.
This is another story of how things went "when there was no king in Israel". As with the stories about Micah, this is a key phrase to us indicating that this is a story about the anarchy that existed before a centralized authority came in to bring law and order to Israelite society.
This story begins with the concubine was in some way unfaithful to him. I don't know if that implies adultery or what. I've looked at a couple different translations, and they use phrases like "was unfaithful to him", "quarreled with him", "was untrue to him". The NASB is the most explicit, saying that she "played the harlot", suggesting that she possibly engaged in prostitution.
Either way, the man goes to collect his concubine from her father's house, and he doesn't seem to be holding her behavior against her. When he's there, there is an interesting anecdote about how the woman's father seems to be trying to delay him from leaving. To paraphrase, he says in the morning, "it's too early, have some breakfast and stay a while," and in the evening, he says "it's too late, you should rest here and leave in the morning." I don't exactly know why the woman's father was trying to delay him, maybe he wanted to keep his daughter around longer, or maybe it was a demonstration of hospitality. Something like that.
Eventually they leave, and start to go back north from Judah towards the land of Ephraim. They spend the night in Gibeah, which is in Benjamin. To remind my readers, Benjamin's inheritance was placed inbetween Judah (in the south) and Ephraim (in the north). When he gets there, he begins to camp in the town square before an old man comes by and agrees to lodge him in the old man's house. (P.S. I apologize for the ambiguous pronouns, but we aren't actually told the names of any person in this entire story.) The old man was himself an Ephraimite, so he was not a native to the town of Gibeah where they were staying.
Towards evening, a bunch of "worthless fellows" come and demand to rape the visiting man, when the old man offers both his daughter and the man's concubine to suffer their abuses. More than anything else, this reminds me of Lot offering his two daughters to the men of Sodom when the two angels visit his house in Genesis 19. It's even similar in how the old man is himself a visitor to the town and not a native Benjamite, just as Lot was a foreigner to the town of Sodom.
The big difference is that in this story, there is no angel to save the man's concubine, so when she is brought out the men rape her all night. She stumbles to the doorstep and dies there. The men, heroic as they are, soundly sleep until full daylight, and only know her fate when they go out in the morning and see her lying on the ground. Probably the worst verse in this entire chapter is verse 28, when the man looks down on his concubine and says "get up, let's go." After suffering a night of atrocities and literally dead on the ground, and this man who came to get her has no compassion whatsoever. I am utterly disgusted by his behavior in this chapter, just like I was disgusted by Lot in Gen 19. Unlike the story of Lot, in this case the abusers are themselves Israelites, men of Benjamin. In Gen 19, the men of Sodom were destroyed by fire from heaven. In this chapter, the Levite cuts up his concubine into pieces and sends those pieces into all the tribes of Israel, in order to rile up the anger of Israel against the men of Gibeah who did this.
The story continues in the next chapter, but I wonder if this chapter is meant to recall Lot and Sodom. It shows us the depth that Israel is sinking into, as they progress from theft and idolatry (in the last story) to rape and murder (in this story). Unless something changes, Israel is heading towards God's wrath and destruction like how Sodom was destroyed.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Bible Commentary - Judges 18
In this chapter, men from Dan come by and steal Micah's idols and priest, and then go on to raze Laish.
This is another crazy chapter, lots of really questionable behavior from the Danites. Basically what happens is the men of Dan send out spies looking for a place to conquer, because "an inheritance had not been allotted to them" (v. 1). The inheritances were divided back in Joshua and Dan was assigned its land in Joshua 19. Possibly that means the events in this chapter happened before the land was divided by Joshua, or possibly it means they were assigned their land but couldn't take it and were now looking for an alternative. We don't really have any indication of the chronology of this chapter. With Samson and the other judges, it seemed like they were structured linearly so that one judge followed another. With the stories of Micah, that might not be the case because Micah isn't a judge. In fact, there aren't any more judges in this book. After the story of Micah is going to be another story of how the Israelites are harming each other and doing wrong. So it's possible this story (and the story in the next chapter) take place some time during or even before the judges started to rule over Israel.
Either way, the Danites seem to be pretty far out of where they should be, because their inheritance was given to them in the land of Canaan, near modern-day Gaza. This would be between Judah and Ephraim, to the west. Instead, we see them going up north of Ephraim to conquer Laish, which is near Sidon in the far north. In particular, the Danites are targeting a people who are "living in security", "quiet and secure", with only Sidon as their ally and no other allies. I.e. a peaceful land that would be unlikely to offer much resistance. Unlike Caleb, who asked to be given Hebron, which was populated by giants and large walls, the Danites are taking the path of least resistance, looking for a lightly armed and isolated city to butcher and take for their inheritance. And that is exactly what they do. Although they were conquering territory within the promised land, and to that extent were behaving properly, the Danites are hardly a model of faith like we saw in Caleb.
Verse 1 reminds us that there was no king in the land, and it is apparent that the Danites are not model citizens. After passing near Micah's house, they decide the best course of action is to steal Micah's idols and his priest and by inference, the LORD's blessing. In this, we can see that the Danites share Micah's attitude towards faith and God, which I talked about in the last chapter. They think that by stealing his ornaments of religiosity that God would bless them, and they couldn't be more wrong.
The priest seems to take a similar attitude. For him, joining Micah's family was an excellent job opportunity, but now came an even better offer, and so "the priest's heart was glad" (v. 20). In all of this, Micah, Dan and the priest all seem to treat religion as primarily a business interest. Micah and Dan sought God's blessing over their affairs, and the priest sought compensation in exchange for "providing" that blessing.
Basically the short version is that everybody in this story is doing something (or many things) wrong. That's why I called this chapter crazy, because so much of the stuff going on here is just wrong. Interestingly, the author of Judges does not explicitly condemn their behavior. His condemnation is implied through the phrase "In those days there was no king in Israel", but that is the extent that the author writes any personal commentary on what he is otherwise simply describing. But I don't think there can be any doubt that the Danites are being incredibly sinful, both stealing and worshiping an idol, both contrary to the ten commandments, and the author of Judges would have certainly been deeply familiar with the commandments. A while ago I wrote about how the OT does not always explicitly condemn things that are wrong, and that sometimes people mistakenly believe that implies assent. As we can see in this chapter, it does not.
After his priest is stolen, Micah goes to recover his belongings and is promptly threatened by the Danites. Lacking military force, Micah goes back home to mope. And with that, we won't see Micah in the rest of this book.
I think this story (and the story in the previous chapter) is really interesting because it gives us a view into "what life was like when there was no king". Most of Judges is writing about the exploits of these great heroes, like Gideon or Deborah, or less heroic figures like Samson. This chapter is about a man who isn't a judge at all, he's just an ordinary Ephraimite trying to make a living in their newly conquered home. It provides an interesting perspective because it shows us how some of the Israelites were living at that time. Of course, these stories were selected by the author to prove a point, so it might not be representative of what all Israel was like. But I think the author is trying to say, "before there was a king, people would do all kinds of crazy stuff, steal from each other by force, lie, make idols, steal idols, and they thought God would bless them for it." And as I said, they couldn't be more wrong in this attitude.
This is another crazy chapter, lots of really questionable behavior from the Danites. Basically what happens is the men of Dan send out spies looking for a place to conquer, because "an inheritance had not been allotted to them" (v. 1). The inheritances were divided back in Joshua and Dan was assigned its land in Joshua 19. Possibly that means the events in this chapter happened before the land was divided by Joshua, or possibly it means they were assigned their land but couldn't take it and were now looking for an alternative. We don't really have any indication of the chronology of this chapter. With Samson and the other judges, it seemed like they were structured linearly so that one judge followed another. With the stories of Micah, that might not be the case because Micah isn't a judge. In fact, there aren't any more judges in this book. After the story of Micah is going to be another story of how the Israelites are harming each other and doing wrong. So it's possible this story (and the story in the next chapter) take place some time during or even before the judges started to rule over Israel.
Either way, the Danites seem to be pretty far out of where they should be, because their inheritance was given to them in the land of Canaan, near modern-day Gaza. This would be between Judah and Ephraim, to the west. Instead, we see them going up north of Ephraim to conquer Laish, which is near Sidon in the far north. In particular, the Danites are targeting a people who are "living in security", "quiet and secure", with only Sidon as their ally and no other allies. I.e. a peaceful land that would be unlikely to offer much resistance. Unlike Caleb, who asked to be given Hebron, which was populated by giants and large walls, the Danites are taking the path of least resistance, looking for a lightly armed and isolated city to butcher and take for their inheritance. And that is exactly what they do. Although they were conquering territory within the promised land, and to that extent were behaving properly, the Danites are hardly a model of faith like we saw in Caleb.
Verse 1 reminds us that there was no king in the land, and it is apparent that the Danites are not model citizens. After passing near Micah's house, they decide the best course of action is to steal Micah's idols and his priest and by inference, the LORD's blessing. In this, we can see that the Danites share Micah's attitude towards faith and God, which I talked about in the last chapter. They think that by stealing his ornaments of religiosity that God would bless them, and they couldn't be more wrong.
The priest seems to take a similar attitude. For him, joining Micah's family was an excellent job opportunity, but now came an even better offer, and so "the priest's heart was glad" (v. 20). In all of this, Micah, Dan and the priest all seem to treat religion as primarily a business interest. Micah and Dan sought God's blessing over their affairs, and the priest sought compensation in exchange for "providing" that blessing.
Basically the short version is that everybody in this story is doing something (or many things) wrong. That's why I called this chapter crazy, because so much of the stuff going on here is just wrong. Interestingly, the author of Judges does not explicitly condemn their behavior. His condemnation is implied through the phrase "In those days there was no king in Israel", but that is the extent that the author writes any personal commentary on what he is otherwise simply describing. But I don't think there can be any doubt that the Danites are being incredibly sinful, both stealing and worshiping an idol, both contrary to the ten commandments, and the author of Judges would have certainly been deeply familiar with the commandments. A while ago I wrote about how the OT does not always explicitly condemn things that are wrong, and that sometimes people mistakenly believe that implies assent. As we can see in this chapter, it does not.
After his priest is stolen, Micah goes to recover his belongings and is promptly threatened by the Danites. Lacking military force, Micah goes back home to mope. And with that, we won't see Micah in the rest of this book.
I think this story (and the story in the previous chapter) is really interesting because it gives us a view into "what life was like when there was no king". Most of Judges is writing about the exploits of these great heroes, like Gideon or Deborah, or less heroic figures like Samson. This chapter is about a man who isn't a judge at all, he's just an ordinary Ephraimite trying to make a living in their newly conquered home. It provides an interesting perspective because it shows us how some of the Israelites were living at that time. Of course, these stories were selected by the author to prove a point, so it might not be representative of what all Israel was like. But I think the author is trying to say, "before there was a king, people would do all kinds of crazy stuff, steal from each other by force, lie, make idols, steal idols, and they thought God would bless them for it." And as I said, they couldn't be more wrong in this attitude.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Bible Commentary - Judges 17
In this chapter, a Levite joins the household of Micah to minister to his idol.
This is a pretty crazy chapter, and the first chapter that contains the expression, "there was no king in Israel, every man did what was right in his own eyes." This is an important verse to Judges, which both foreshadows the future kingdom and also tries to explain why the kingdom is necessary. This phrase, and even this entire book, point out the sinful tendencies of the Israelites in a bunch of ways.
Already we have seen Samson sin in several ways, like eating unclean food and sexual immorality. Now in this chapter we have Micah stealing money from his parents, but then returning it out of fear of a curse. His mother celebrates the occasion by asking Micah to construct an idol, to which he complies. Lastly, Micah consecrates one of his sons as a priest, which again contradicts the Law, because the Law demands that every priest must be a son of Aaron.
When a wandering Levite passed by, Micah realizes that a Levite would be an upgrade over his son, so he hires the Levite to serve as his priest instead. The Levite is perfectly happy to offer sacrifices at Micah's idol, so he agrees. This indicts the Levite, because every sacrifice is supposed to be made before the bronze altar in front of the tent of meeting.
Nearly everything in this chapter is a sin, from beginning to end. This is what it means by "right in his own eyes"; that people are behaving as they see fit, rather than following the covenant or the principles of the LORD. It implies a sort of wild godlessness, akin to the notion of moral relativism.
The reason why this relates to the kingdom is that the king is a unifying figure in Israelite society. When Israel gains a king, he will lead the people and direct them to all behave in the same way and with the same standards. In theory, the king is supposed to espouse the law and direct the people to obey the covenant, bringing unity to the nation and directing the people so that they do what is good, not "what is good in their own eyes".
In practice, we will see that a few of the kings are good and many of the kings are bad. The good kings direct the people to follow the law, and the bad kings direct them into idolatry. Either way, much of Israelite history is dictated by the moral standards of whoever was king at the time. So it's definitely true that the kings ended the lawless period of their history, but it's not true that the kings ended their sinful period.
I once heard someone teach out of this passage, and more than anything else what he criticized was the notion that Micah could buy himself a priest and that as a result, "the LORD will prosper me". Micah seems to have the notion, popular with many, that by purchasing or constructing various trappings of religiosity, that God would bless him. He built his own idol, made his own ephod, and then hired his own priest to minister to him, and he thinks that's enough to draw the LORD's blessing. This is a very individualistic notion of faith and it runs contrary to the strongly communal covenantal structure. It's also a very materialistic notion, and it assumes that God cares more about the appearance of devotion than the heart reality of it.
As it relates to individualism, the covenant was centralized by design, with three national feasts every year where all the males were required to appear before the LORD. Sacrifices had to be made before the LORD, and the LORD was only found in one place, the tent of meeting (a.k.a. the Tabernacle). Trying to maintain his own idol and priestcraft runs contrary to the principles of the covenant.
But this is not just Micah having a personal faith. In fact, in some ways Micah's faith is very impersonal because he expects that money is going to buy him blessings, when what the LORD wants from him is devotion. That is the materialism side. Micah is cutting his own way forward, doing what is right in his own eyes. But there is a big difference between ignoring human standards in your pursuit of God and ignoring God's own standards in your pursuit of him. In my opinion, human standards are flexible. The social or cultural expectations for how people are supposed to pray or worship have changed many times and in many ways over the years, and that's generally okay. In my opinion, a certain amount of drifting away from those standards is okay.
This is what it means to have a personal faith, to pursue God in a way that is your own, praying in your own way or worshiping in your own way, but always within the broader concepts of how God desires to be worshiped. To disregard God's standards, how he tries to structure human interactions with himself, is not any kind of faith at all. If you know how God wishes for you to approach him, and you disregard that way, how can it even be considered approaching God? God does not bargain over blessings, he does not sell them in exchange for worship, because that cannot be real worship if it is done for a price. And it just doesn't make sense to construct an idol and pretend that God is okay with that when the Law clearly says that he is not.
It's like trying to buy a friend. Money cannot ever buy a real friendship. In the same way, offerings cannot buy God's blessing. God's blessing comes upon the hearts that seek him.
This is a pretty crazy chapter, and the first chapter that contains the expression, "there was no king in Israel, every man did what was right in his own eyes." This is an important verse to Judges, which both foreshadows the future kingdom and also tries to explain why the kingdom is necessary. This phrase, and even this entire book, point out the sinful tendencies of the Israelites in a bunch of ways.
Already we have seen Samson sin in several ways, like eating unclean food and sexual immorality. Now in this chapter we have Micah stealing money from his parents, but then returning it out of fear of a curse. His mother celebrates the occasion by asking Micah to construct an idol, to which he complies. Lastly, Micah consecrates one of his sons as a priest, which again contradicts the Law, because the Law demands that every priest must be a son of Aaron.
When a wandering Levite passed by, Micah realizes that a Levite would be an upgrade over his son, so he hires the Levite to serve as his priest instead. The Levite is perfectly happy to offer sacrifices at Micah's idol, so he agrees. This indicts the Levite, because every sacrifice is supposed to be made before the bronze altar in front of the tent of meeting.
Nearly everything in this chapter is a sin, from beginning to end. This is what it means by "right in his own eyes"; that people are behaving as they see fit, rather than following the covenant or the principles of the LORD. It implies a sort of wild godlessness, akin to the notion of moral relativism.
The reason why this relates to the kingdom is that the king is a unifying figure in Israelite society. When Israel gains a king, he will lead the people and direct them to all behave in the same way and with the same standards. In theory, the king is supposed to espouse the law and direct the people to obey the covenant, bringing unity to the nation and directing the people so that they do what is good, not "what is good in their own eyes".
In practice, we will see that a few of the kings are good and many of the kings are bad. The good kings direct the people to follow the law, and the bad kings direct them into idolatry. Either way, much of Israelite history is dictated by the moral standards of whoever was king at the time. So it's definitely true that the kings ended the lawless period of their history, but it's not true that the kings ended their sinful period.
I once heard someone teach out of this passage, and more than anything else what he criticized was the notion that Micah could buy himself a priest and that as a result, "the LORD will prosper me". Micah seems to have the notion, popular with many, that by purchasing or constructing various trappings of religiosity, that God would bless him. He built his own idol, made his own ephod, and then hired his own priest to minister to him, and he thinks that's enough to draw the LORD's blessing. This is a very individualistic notion of faith and it runs contrary to the strongly communal covenantal structure. It's also a very materialistic notion, and it assumes that God cares more about the appearance of devotion than the heart reality of it.
As it relates to individualism, the covenant was centralized by design, with three national feasts every year where all the males were required to appear before the LORD. Sacrifices had to be made before the LORD, and the LORD was only found in one place, the tent of meeting (a.k.a. the Tabernacle). Trying to maintain his own idol and priestcraft runs contrary to the principles of the covenant.
But this is not just Micah having a personal faith. In fact, in some ways Micah's faith is very impersonal because he expects that money is going to buy him blessings, when what the LORD wants from him is devotion. That is the materialism side. Micah is cutting his own way forward, doing what is right in his own eyes. But there is a big difference between ignoring human standards in your pursuit of God and ignoring God's own standards in your pursuit of him. In my opinion, human standards are flexible. The social or cultural expectations for how people are supposed to pray or worship have changed many times and in many ways over the years, and that's generally okay. In my opinion, a certain amount of drifting away from those standards is okay.
This is what it means to have a personal faith, to pursue God in a way that is your own, praying in your own way or worshiping in your own way, but always within the broader concepts of how God desires to be worshiped. To disregard God's standards, how he tries to structure human interactions with himself, is not any kind of faith at all. If you know how God wishes for you to approach him, and you disregard that way, how can it even be considered approaching God? God does not bargain over blessings, he does not sell them in exchange for worship, because that cannot be real worship if it is done for a price. And it just doesn't make sense to construct an idol and pretend that God is okay with that when the Law clearly says that he is not.
It's like trying to buy a friend. Money cannot ever buy a real friendship. In the same way, offerings cannot buy God's blessing. God's blessing comes upon the hearts that seek him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)