AFTER THE DEATH of Joshua, the Israelites asked the LORD, “Who will be the first to go up and fight for us against the Canaanites?”
2The LORD answered, “Judah is to go; I have given the land into their hands.”
3Then the men of Judah said to the Simeonites their brothers, “Come up with us into the territory allotted to us, to fight against the Canaanites. We in turn will go with you into yours.” So the Simeonites went with them.
4When Judah attacked, the LORD gave the Canaanites and Perizzites into their hands and they struck down ten thousand men at Bezek. 5It was there that they found Adoni-Bezek and fought against him, putting to rout the Canaanites and Perizzites. 6Adoni-Bezek fled, but they chased him and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and big toes.
7Then Adoni-Bezek said, “Seventy kings with their thumbs and big toes cut off have picked up scraps under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them.” They brought him to Jerusalem, and he died there.
8The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire.
9After that, the men of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negev and the western foothills. 10They advanced against the Canaanites living in Hebron (formerly called Kiriath Arba) and defeated Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai.
11From there they advanced against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher). 12And Caleb said, “I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath Sepher.” 13Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it; so Caleb gave his daughter Acsah to him in marriage.
14One day when she came to Othniel, she urged him to ask her father for a field. When she got off her donkey, Caleb asked her, “What can I do for you?”
15She replied, “Do me a special favor. Since you have given me land in the Negev, give me also springs of water.” Then Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs.
16The descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, the Kenite, went up from the City of Palms with the men of Judah to live among the people of the Desert of Judah in the Negev near Arad.
17Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their brothers and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed the city. Therefore it was called Hormah. 18The men of Judah also took Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.
19The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots. 20As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. 21The Benjamites, however, failed to dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.
22Now the house of Joseph attacked Bethel, and the LORD was with them. 23When they sent men to spy out Bethel (formerly called Luz), 24the spies saw a man coming out of the city and they said to him, “Show us how to get into the city and we will see that you are treated well.” 25So he showed them, and they put the city to the sword but spared the man and his whole family. 26He then went to the land of the Hittites, where he built a city and called it Luz, which is its name to this day.
27But Manasseh did not drive out the people of Beth Shan or Taanach or Dor or Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that land. 28When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor but never drove them out completely. 29Nor did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, but the Canaanites continued to live there among them. 30Neither did Zebulun drive out the Canaanites living in Kitron or Nahalol, who remained among them; but they did subject them to forced labor. 31Nor did Asher drive out those living in Acco or Sidon or Ahlab or Aczib or Helbah or Aphek or Rehob, 32and because of this the people of Asher lived among the Canaanite inhabitants of the land. 33Neither did Naphtali drive out those living in Beth Shemesh or Beth Anath; but the Naphtalites too lived among the Canaanite inhabitants of the land, and those living in Beth Shemesh and Beth Anath became forced laborers for them. 34The Amorites confined the Danites to the hill country, not allowing them to come down into the plain. 35And the Amorites were determined also to hold out in Mount Heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim, but when the power of the house of Joseph increased, they too were pressed into forced labor. 36The boundary of the Amorites was from Scorpion Pass to Sela and beyond.
2:1The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, 2and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? 3Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be └thorns┘ in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you.”
4When the angel of the LORD had spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud, 5and they called that place Bokim. There they offered sacrifices to the LORD.
Original Meaning
SECTIONS 1 (1:1–2:5) and 2 (2:6–3:6) of Judges are parallel and form a double introduction to the main section of the cycles (3:7–16:31). The first section narrates matters from the point of view of the Israelites, while the second does so from the point of view of Yahweh. The first section narrates the foreign wars of subjugation with the ḥērem being applied (see the introduction, pp. 30–31).
Judges 1 recapitulates, recasts, and extends the story of the process of Israel’s taking possession of the land of Canaan.1 While it is a complex narrative, this chapter utilizes material from the book of Joshua (esp. Josh. 13–19) to make explicit what is only implicit in Joshua.2 Along with some expansions, it reflects the general success of Judah and the increasing failure of the other Israelite tribes, especially Dan, in the process of dispossessing the Canaanites from the individual tribal allotments.
There are two major structural techniques used in the portrayal (augmented by some short narratives): (1) the use of a concentric layout that parallels the roles of the tribes of Judah and Joseph, and (2) a geographically arranged narration that presents the moral degeneration of Israel. The latter technique employs a four-stage pattern that builds to a literary climax and moral nadir in the Dan episode.
Figure 1. The Concentric Structures of Judges 1
The concentric design of this section can be seen in Figure 1. The Israelite assembly in A (1:1–2a) anticipates the activities described in the larger units of B (1:2b–21) and B′ (1:22–36). By contrast, the Israelite assembly of A′ (2:1–5) reviews and evaluates the activities of B and B′.3 In both instances, as Webb has observed, the key word is ʿālâ (“to go up”). It unifies this segment of text and demarcates the units of which it is composed.
The structure of Section B also follows a concentric design. In the first instance there is a prologue (a) in which Yahweh promises victory (1:2b). The codicil4 (a′), in contrast to the prologue, confirms Yahweh’s presence with Judah, but with qualifications both positive and negative (1:18–21). In the second instance, there is the alliance of Judah and Simeon (b), in which the Judahites obtain their allotment (1:3), and the alliance of Judah and Simeon (b′), in which the Simeonites obtain their allotment (1:17). In the third instance and the center of the entire section (×), Judah’s successful wars are narrated (1:4–16). This unit is subdivided into an “up” movement (1:4–8) and a “down” movement (1:9–16).
Like Section B, the structure of Section B′ follows a concentric design. In the first instance, there is a prologue (a) (implied by ellipsis) and a codicil (a′), in which a modification to the promise is noted (1:36). In the second instance, the beginning activities of the house of Joseph (b) are narrated positively (1:22), and the final activities of the house of Joseph (b′) are narrated negatively (1:35). In the third instance and the center of the entire section (×), the wars of the house of Joseph are narrated (1:23–34). This unit is subdivided into the assessments of the other Cisjordanian (west bank) tribes.
Both sections B and B′ narrate initial successes that are followed by failures. Moreover, B and B′ serve to exegete the indictment of Israel by the messenger of Yahweh in 2:1–5.5 The compositional parallel between the Judah and Joseph sections (B and B′) within chapter 1 throws the treatment of the Canaanite informer in the Bethel campaign (first item in the Joseph section) into sharp relief against the treatment of the Canaanite “lord of Bezeq”6 (Adoni-Bezek) in the Bezeq campaign (first item in the Judah section). This comparison helps us to perceive more clearly the basic shift that has already begun to take place at this point in the relationship between Israelites and Canaanites in spite of the fact that the second section, like the first, begins with a notable victory. With this overview of the chapter, it is now possible to expound the individual sections.
“Who Will . . . Go Up?” (1:1–2a)
SECTION A (1:1–2A) opens with an important phrase “after the death of Joshua.” Most commentators claim that this phrase is a later addition. The phrase, however, can be compared with the beginning of the book of Joshua: “after the death of Moses.”7 Thus it may be “a stylistic way of recapitulating briefly the previous book before interpreting it further.”8 In this case, Judges recapitulates the position of Joshua (how much of the land Israel would occupy) before going on to the central question of Judges: Why could they not completely occupy the land?9
The phrase “the Israelites asked the LORD” (šʾl byhwh) expresses the idea of obtaining a declaration of the divine will and is substantially the same as (lit.) “inquire of the judgment of the Urim” (sʾl bmšpṭ hʾwrym) in Numbers 27:21, in which the divine will is obtained through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest. Thus at the beginning of the narrative, the Israelites seek divine guidance in the proper manner as to “Who will be the first to go up [ʿālâ] and fight for us against the Canaanites?” The idea contained in the term “first” is that of time, not rank. Hence, the question is who will be the first chronologically? While a series of campaigns by individual tribes is envisioned, the concept of a united Israel remains (“who will go up first for us!”).
Judah Goes Up (1:2b–21)
SECTION B (SEE Fig. 1) opens with a prologue (1:2b)10 that contains Yahweh’s promise through an oracle of victory: “I have given the land into their hands.” This is the same phrase that Yahweh used when he promised Joshua victory in the land (e.g., Josh. 6:2; 6:2; 10:8; 11:6). So far, so good.
The Judahites, however, immediately make a deal with the Simeonites (1:3). The alliance (b in Fig. 1) is a “natural” one since Judah and Simeon are full blood brothers. Moreover, in certain ways it is pragmatic. Since Simeon’s allotment of the Promised Land falls within Judah’s allotment (Josh. 19:1–9), the practical advantages of Judah’s proposal are obvious. But on a purely military level, it is utterly unnecessary: the largest tribe numerically (Judah) does not need one of the smallest tribes (Simeon) in order to defeat the Canaanites within its allotted area. It was God’s intention that each tribe trust him in the process of conquering its allotment. Thus, by making this treaty, the two tribes undercut this process. Klein has eloquently expressed the moral or spiritual decline that is evident in Judah’s proposal:
Yahweh tells Israel (here Judah) specifically what to do, but Israel only partially heeds Yahweh’s command: Judah immediately establishes a battle pact with his brother Simeon. Thus, from the outset, Israel exerts self-determination, evidencing automatic trust in human perception. These verses may be regarded as introducing the ironic configuration of the book—implicit difference in perception between Yahweh and Israel and Israel’s insistence on following human perception.11
Even so, the Judahites and Simeonites will see general success in their campaigns since they are willing “to go up” and “fight” the Canaanites.
The campaigns of this section are divided into two major movements: “up” (“Judah went up [ʿlh],” (1:4–8) and “down” (“after that, the Judahites went down [yrd],” 1:9–16). In the upward movement the campaigns against Bezeq and Jerusalem are related, and in the downward movement those against Hebron, Debir, and Zephath/Hormah are reported.
The first episode in the “up” movement is that of the victory at Bezeq. In fulfillment of Yahweh’s oracle above, the Canaanites and Perizzites12 are given into the hands of the Judahites (1:4). The next three verses are devoted to a description of the lord of Bezeq’s capture, mutilation, and death. The humiliation of the Canaanite ruler is dwelt upon with apparent relish. The climax is most certainly in the direct speech of verse 7: “Seventy kings with their thumbs and big toes cut off have picked up scraps under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them.” The lord of Bezeq admits that he has suffered only what he deserved. The brutality is justified (from the victim’s own mouth!) as divine retribution.
Amazingly this is an enemy king, the embodiment of evil, and a Canaanite who has a limited comprehension of God (note that he uses ʾ elōhîm [God], not Yahweh). Ironically, if the same measure of justice were placed on Israel, Israel would face a similar fate as the “lord of Bezeq.” Therefore, in God’s judgment on the lord of Bezeq, his grace towards Israel is heightened. The last statements of verse 7 (“They brought him to Jerusalem, and he died there”) are the links to the second episode in the “up” movement. The implication is that the Israelites brought him with them as they marched on Jerusalem.
The Judahites have great success in conquering Jerusalem too. Using the stereotypical statements characteristic of conquest accounts,13 they capture and destroy it like Jericho, Ai, and Hazor in the book of Joshua.
The “down” movement contains three reports (1:9–10, 11–15, 16). It begins with another victory: the conquest of Hebron (see parallels in Josh. 11:21–22; 14:6–15; 15:13–14).14 In that Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai are Anakites (see Josh. 15:14),15 this heightens the success attributed to Judah.
The second report in the “down” movement is about the capture of Debir, though the narration centers on Caleb, Othniel, and Acsah (in contrast to the three Anakites in the previous verse?). Caleb performs his traditional role as a “leader” (naśîʾ ) of Judah (Num. 13:1–2, 6; 34:18; cf. Josh. 14:6).16 Othniel, closely related to Caleb (both were Kenizzites [1:13a]17), is the champion of Judah capturing Debir. He is rewarded with marriage to Acsah.18
Hardly passive, Acsah grasps the opportunity to get more of “the land” (something neither her father nor her husband have considered). She has already received from her father “land in the Negev” as a dowry. Now she strengthens its value by obtaining adequate water rights. It is likely that a wife in ancient Israel retained some potential rights over her dowry, even though the dowry became part of the husband’s property.19 Ancient Near Eastern laws and marriage contracts support this.20 However, Acsah’s request is for additional land that especially includes springs. So her initiative is still extraordinary.
It is important to remember that the notion of “land” in the Old Testament carries spiritual connotations as God’s blessing on the recipient of the land. The “inherited estate” (naḥalâ) was not simply a tract of turf but a gift from God, an evidence of his grace, and therefore should not, under normal conditions, be sold. It was to be highly prized, and its alienation was to be voided if at all possible (cf. Naboth’s concerns 1 Kings 21).
Acsah is the first woman mentioned in Judges, and her exceptional spiritual qualities are greatly extolled. She will take the initiative twice in this short narration. (1) She takes the initiative in relation to Othniel: “She urged him to ask her father for a field.”21 (2) She takes the initiative with Caleb. When Caleb asks her, “What’s the matter?” he gives her the context and incentive to speak. Acsah does not wait on Othniel but rather takes up the matter directly with her father, procuring an enhancement for her land: springs of water—“the upper and lower springs.”22 These sources of water were important in the Negev desert (see Ps. 126:4).
Once again, it is important to remember that the land in the Old Testament carried spiritual overtones. This is true here as well as in the story of the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–13; Josh. 17:3–6). The actions of all these women are strongly commended. The story demonstrates that the claim of the descendants of Othniel and Acsah to this land is based on a legal bequest by the original recipient of the territory. Acsah’s request is not transitory but generational in its impact. She emerges as “an image of ideal Yahwist womanhood.”23
In the more extended context of the book of Judges, Acsah serves as a contrast in two important ways. (1) As a positive paradigm of a daughter being given to an ideal hero, she is juxtaposed to the notice of Israel’s apostasy of intermarriage with the inhabitants of the land (3:6). These Israelite daughters (in contrast to Acsah) are, in a sense, dispossessed since the gift of the land will never be theirs because of their intermarriages.24
(2) The contrast between Acsah and Delilah could not be more stark! Acsah was the wife of Othniel (who will be described later in the book as the ideal judge). She took the initiative to procure greater blessing for her husband and progeny through her request for more land and springs. In contrast, Delilah was the consort of Samson (the worst of the judges). She used her initiative to bring down her man, all for filthily gained money.
The third report in the “down” movement is the notice concerning the movement of the Kenites into the Negev of Arad (1:16). The phrase “the descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, the Kenite” refers the reader back to Numbers 10:29–32, where Moses entreats Hobab, the son of Moses’ father-in-law, to join the Israelites in the blessings of the land. Judges 1:16 is the fulfillment of the promise of Moses. Thus the Kenites went up (or perhaps syntactically better “had gone up”) from the City of Palms (i.e., Jericho, cf. Deut. 34:3) with the men of Judah to live (yāšab) among the people in the Negev near Arad. The phrase “to live among” will play an important role in the narration that follows. Here it seems to have positive (or at least neutral) connotations. Later in the narrative it has negative nuances. Moreover, the mention of the Kenites in Judges 1:16 will serve to anticipate the role they will play in 4:11, 17 (in the days of Deborah, Barak, and Jael).
Just as there was irony in the “up” movement (i.e., Yahweh’s divine punishment is conveyed through the mouth of the Canaanite “lord of Bezeq”), so too there is irony in the “down” movement. Here Yahweh’s grace is bestowed on Caleb, Othniel, Acsah, and the Kenites. Ironically, this grace of Yahweh is specially given to non-Israelites!25
On the heels of unit x (see Fig. 1) with its various stories in up and down movements, comes the reoccurrence of the alliance of Judah and Simeon (b′). In this case it is the Simeonites who obtain their allotment (1:17). They attack the city of Zephath and “totally destroy” it (lit., ḥrm, see discussion in the introduction, pp. 28–30). The city is renamed Hormah (derived from ḥērem).26 It is ironic that the Simeonites, a numerically insignificant tribe, are the only tribe in the narration of the occupation of the land (1:1–2:5) who obey Yahweh and implement the ḥērem thoroughly (1:17). Yet they will not be mentioned in the book of Judges again.
The codicil (a′) confirms Yahweh’s presence with Judah, since 1:19 states that “the LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country” (a direct reference back to 1:2b). While the victory seems complete with even Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron falling to the Judahites, the unit emends this with the last statements “but they were unable to drive [yāraš] the people from the plains [ʿēmeq], because they had iron chariots.”27 In light of this general success of the Judahites, the Benjamite failure in 1:21 contrasts starkly.
The House of Joseph (1:22–36)
THE PARALLEL JOSEPH section (B′ in Fig. 1) depicts an ironic relationship to Yahweh. In the story of the capture of Bethel (1:23–26), the success of the Joseph tribes is marked by failure. Ironically, the Israelites show covenant loyalty (ḥesed) to the man of Bethel instead of loyalty (ḥesed) to Yahweh’s will according to the covenant. Even in executing the ḥērem, the Joseph tribes, in effect, produce another Canaanite city. The exposition of the tribal allotments in this section will be given in more detail below.
Finally, in the scene at Bokim (A′) (2:1–5), the “messenger of Yahweh” (NIV, “angel of the LORD”) touts the disobedience and failure of the Israelites. The difference between Israelites and Canaanites is the difference in serving Yahweh or other gods. Yet Yahweh shows ironically his ḥesed (excess) toward Israel instead of the divine retribution (equity) that was measured out for the “lord of Bezeq.”
JUDGES 1
(Literary and Moral Movements)
Figure 2
A second technique in the structuring of Judges 1:1–2:5 is the use of geographic arrangement. Judges 1 utilizes its south-to-north geographic arrangement of the tribal episodes in order to foreshadow the geographic orientations of the judges cycle in 3:7–16:31. This arrangement builds the literary and moral movements that find their climax and nadir in the Dan episode (see Fig. 2).28
In like fashion, the cycles of the judges (3:6–16:31) have their climax and nadir in the person of Samson.29 In fact, the “cycles” themselves in 3:6–16:31 are arranged in such a way as to point to the decline in the character of the judges as illustrative of the chaos of the time (see the discussion of the structure of Judges in the introduction).
| The Four Stage Moral Decline in Judges 1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| (with special reference to yāraš, yāšab, and mas) | |||
1 | Judah (1:2–20) + | INITIAL SUCCESS BOTH TRIBAL AND INDIVIDUAL. | |
Simeon (1:17) | (yāraš) Judah drove out the Canaanites But did not drive out in the plains (ʿēmeq) because they had iron chariots | ||
(yāšab) Kenites (descendents of Moses’ father-in-law) live among the Judahites. (yāšab) No statement concerning Canaanites living among Judah or Simeon. | |||
2 | Benjamin (1:21) | (yāraš) Did not drive Jebusites out (lōʾ hôrîš) | |
(yāšab) Jebusites live with the Benjaminites in . . . | |||
House of Joseph (1:22–26) | INITIAL “ARRANGEMENT” (AT BETHEL) THROUGH TRICKERY. | ||
Manasseh (1:27) | (yāraš) Did not drive Canaanites out (lōʾ hôrîš) | ||
(yāšab) Canaanites determined to live in . . . | |||
When Israel was strong, C+A (mas) they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor; (yāraš) but they never drove them out completely. | |||
Ephraim (1:29) | (yāraš) Did not drive Canaanites out (lōʾ hôrîš) | ||
(yāšab) Canaanites live among them | |||
Zebulun (1:30) | (yāraš) Did not drive Canaanites out (lōʾ hôrîš) | ||
(yāšab) Canaanites live among them | |||
(mas) but became forced labor | |||
3 | Asher (1:31–32) | (yāraš) Did not drive Canaanites out (lōʾ hôrîš) | |
(yāšab) Asherites live among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land. | |||
Naphtali (1:33) | (yāraš) Did not drive Canaanites out (lōʾ hôrîš) | ||
(yāšab) Naphtalites live among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; | |||
(mas) but two cities became forced labor | |||
4 | Dan (1:34) | (yāraš) No statement concerning driving out. | |
(yāšab) No statement concerning Canaanites living among Danites. Instead, Danites are oppressed/confined (lāḥaṣ) and not even allowed to come into the plains (ʿēmeq) | |||
House of Joseph (1:35) | (yāšab) Amorites determined to live in . . . C+B (mas) The hand of the House of Joseph bore down heavily and the Amorites became forced labor. | ||
Ironic conclusion (1:36) | Only border description is Amorite | ||
A = “drive out” (yāraš) | |||
B = “live” (yāšab) | |||
C = “forced labor” (mas) | |||
* = (Parenthesis: Commentary) | |||
Figure 3
The process of subjugation is observable in a four-stage decline in Israelite spirituality. This is particularly evident in the use of the terms: yāraš, yāšab, and mas (see Fig. 3). Judges 1:1–36 states that in many cases the subjugating tribe “did not drive out [lōʾ hôrîš]” the local population (vv. 19, 21, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33). In only one case is the excuse for this failure to drive out the Canaanites attributed to inferior Israelite armament (v. 19). Rather, the impact of the formula is to state that this was an intentional failure to wipe out the population. In fact, this point is explicitly made in the somewhat parenthetical statement of verse 28: “When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor [mas] but never drove them out completely.”
Thus the writer/editor explains the failure to completely subjugate the Promised Land as “the deliberate violation of older injunctions which commanded the removal of the nations of Canaan.”30 This failure to drive out the nations climaxes in the case of the Danites through the ellipsis of this formula (lōʾ hôrîš). Not only do the Danites fail to drive out the inhabitants of their allotment; they are instead oppressed/confined by the Amorites and not allowed to come down into the plain (ʿēmeq)! Note that the only place where Judah could not drive out the Canaanites was the plain (ʿēmeq).
Additionally, in 1:1–36 the use of the verb “to live” (yāšab) illustrates this four-stage decline in Israelite spirituality. Beginning with Judah there is an absence of any statement concerning Canaanites living among Judah. Next, however, it is stated that the Canaanites live among the tribes of Benjamin, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Zebulun (although Zebulun subjects them to forced labor). But then it is stated that the tribes of Asher and Naphtali live among the Canaanites (although Naphtali subjects them to forced labor). Finally, the Danites are oppressed (lāḥaṣ,31 within the same semantic field as mas [“forced labor”], cf. Ex. 3:9) by the Amorites. Note that the only border description given (1:36) is that of an Amorite border. Whose land is this? Webb correctly observes:
By the time this note is introduced the focus of the narrative has shifted from conquest to co-existence. When the whole process of conquest and settlement has run its course, Israel dwells within “the border of the Amorite.” The Amorites/Canaanites are still the inhabitants of the land among whom Israel dwells (see esp. 32a 33b). This note provides a final sardonic comment on the chapter as a whole, and on verses 22–35 in particular. Formally it is parallel to the notes appended to the Judah section.32
That Judges 1 emphasizes this moral decline is evident from a comparison with the narration in Joshua 13–19 of the tribal allotments and their allusions to lōʾ hôrîš and yāšab. Both accounts testify to the moral decline in Israel through the imposition of the tribal, geographic arrangement. A comparison of the amount of detail devoted to each tribe in Joshua 13–19 and in Judges 1 clearly demonstrates a similar pattern of declivity of description in both. Thus the account in Judges 1 corresponds in significant ways to the narration in Joshua 13–19 in both perspective (the moral degeneration of Israel) and content (the geographic tribal descriptions).33
The Messenger of Yahweh (2:1–5)
THE FINAL SECTION (A′) is Judges 2:1–5. This unit clearly is connected with the preceding through the use of the verb “to go up” (ʿālâ) in 2:1 (cf. 1:1b, 2a, 3b, 4a, 16a, 22a). At the same time the unit serves as the thematic transition to Introduction 2 (2:6–3:5), with its emphasis on the Israelites’ apostasy from Yahweh worship. This section essentially provides both a thematic and structural counterpart to 1:1–2a, which began Introduction 1 by asking Yahweh, “Who will be the first to go up and fight for us against the Canaanites?” (1:1b). Yahweh’s reply was, “Judah is to go.” Judges 2:1–5 confronts the Israelites with a comparable claim, “I brought you up out of Egypt” (2:1b), which implicitly rebukes the tribes for failing to dispossess the Canaanite nations and for worshiping their idols by alluding to Yahweh’s covenant stipulations. Deuteronomy 7:7–24 correlates Yahweh’s conquest of Egypt with his assurance that Israel can conquer Canaan with his help. Moreover, Deuteronomy 7:1–5, 16, 25–26 specifically commands the Israelites to avoid treaties with the Canaanites and to destroy both the people and their idols.34
“The angel of the Lord35 [went] up” (ʿālâ) from Gilgal. It is possible that Gilgal is the point from which all the “goings up” of Introduction 1 (i.e., ch. 1) have originated (cf. 1:16).36 In 2:1, it is the angel of the Lord who goes up in order to give his verdict on the Israelites’ “goings up.” This repetitive “going up” (ʿālâ) in chapter 1 raises high expectations. Ironically, these expectations are dashed by Yahweh’s reprimand, with the result that the Israelites weep at Bokim. The introduction of the name “Bokim” (lit., “weeping”) in 2:1 is anticipatory of its explanation in verse 5. Thus these two verses function as a literary frame for this unit.
The indictment brought against the Israelites is that they have broken Yahweh’s covenant (berît, treaty). They have ignored his prohibition against making any covenant (treaties) with “the people of this land” and his order to “break down their altars” (2:2a).37 What seems especially offensive to Yahweh is the fact that Canaanite altars have been left standing, not only in those Canaanite enclaves with whose inhabitants the Israelites have entered into treaty, but also in areas that the Israelites themselves have occupied (see 6:25–32). This early disobedience of the Israelites to the covenant stipulations leads to the apostasy of Introduction 2 (2:6–3:6), as well as all of the apostasies throughout the accounts in the cycles section of 3:7–16:31. This continuity of the theme of apostasy should not be minimized.38
Interestingly, the Israelites are not indicted in 2:2 with failing to expel all the Canaanites but with entering into covenant (treaty) with them. In other words, the process of dispossession and occupation would have been completed in due course if the Israelites had fulfilled their obligations to Yahweh, but now their disobedience has put the completion of the Conquest in jeopardy (2:3). The question at the end of 2:2 is rhetorically loaded: “Why have you done this?” (i.e., “What in the world have you done?”). No answer is forthcoming, and the question emphatically stresses the Israelites’ guilt (cf. Gen. 3:13 for the same grammatically constructed question).
Yahweh appeals to another of his earlier declarations: “Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be └thorns┘ in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you.” Yahweh simply reminds his audience of what he has said he would do in the kind of situation that has now materialized: He will not drive out the Canaanites. Thus, the Israelites may have to share the land indefinitely with these Canaanites. Moreover, these Canaanites will become thorns39 in their sides.
Yahweh’s decision to implement this threat is not narrated until 2:21. The speech of the angel of Yahweh in 2:1–5 is anticipatory of the divine speech of 2:20–22. Between these two speeches Israel lapses into apostasy (2:11–19), and this apostasy is anticipated by the final words of verse 3: “Their gods will be a snare [môqēš] to you.” A passage from the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 23:32–33) forms the legal background for Judges 2:2–3 in general and 2:3d in particular: “Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare [môqēš] to you.” The Canaanite snare here, in turn, later becomes the snare (môqēš) of Gideon’s ephod (8:27).
The reaction of the Israelites, as if to repudiate Yahweh’s declarations in verse 3, is to weep and offer sacrifices to Yahweh (2:4–5). They may have failed in their obligations to Yahweh, but they have not yet forsaken him for other gods. The place is named Bokim (“weepers”) by virtue of what happens there.40
Bridging Contexts
PRIMARY MESSAGE. Judges 1:1–2:5 is a complex passage with a primary message and a number of secondary or subsidiary messages. In bridging the ancient context with the modern, it is critical to recognize that the fundamental message of the passage is conveyed through its literary structure. In spite of some initial successes, especially by the tribe of Judah, the overall effect is an increasingly negative pattern.41 Israel’s failure to obey Yahweh’s word concerning the ḥērem (see the introduction) produces the military failure recorded in this chapter. The four stages of increasing failure document the beginning of the “Canaanizing” of Israel.
Disobedience breeds disastrous failure. Why is Israel’s disobedience to implement the ḥērem so devastating? Perhaps because of the ḥērem’s link to the issue of covenantal love of God (Deut. 7). Perhaps because God really does know what’s best for his people, and the implementation of the ḥērem would have brought the material and spiritual prosperity that God intended for Israel (cf. the specific blessings of Deut. 28). Had Israel implemented it consistently, the negative influence of the Canaanites would likely have been eliminated.
There can be no doubt concerning the difficulty in implementing the ḥērem. But this was God’s commandment to Israel, specific to their historical context and specific to Israel’s physical and spiritual situation. The lack of implementation can be directly attributed to a lack of belief and trust in God’s commandments.
This lack of implementation of God’s Word in the lives of the believing community because of a failure to believe and trust in God’s commandments transcends all ages. In many instances throughout the two millennia of the church’s history, the church as a whole has not realized some of Christ’s most basic commandments: to love God, to love one another, to go and make disciples of all nations, and so on. Often the church has been content to be “Canaanized,” to live as the world dictates.
It is important to note that a misapplication of this passage concerning the ḥērem and others like it is the teaching that makes this primarily apply to the issue of culture, as though this is simply an issue of Christian culture versus pagan culture. This often manifests itself in opinionated conflicts about particular cultural issues that the biblical text may be silent about. While culture is an issue (esp. as it may manifest ungodly worldviews) as it concerns the implementation of the ḥērem, it is secondary to the religious or spiritual issue. The ḥērem was not designed by God to eliminate the Canaanite culture per se but to eliminate the Canaanite religious influence. While it may be readily recognized that it is difficult in many instances to separate the two, there is nonetheless a distinction. The Israelite ḥērem commandments had close links to the issues of idolatry and the breaking of the second commandment (Ex. 22:20[19]; Deut. 7:26; 13:16–18[17–19]). That this is the case in Introduction 1 of Judges (1:1–2:5) is reinforced by Yahweh’s confrontation of the nation in 2:1–5, where it is their failure on the religious front that is of primary concern.
In other words, the ḥērem was not concerned with the eradication of Canaanite clothing fashions, pottery styles, music, diet, and other types of particular cultural preferences. But it was deeply concerned with the eradication of the Canaanite religion: its gods/idols, altars, rituals, divinatory practices, uses of magic, worldview, and so on.
While the overall message concerns the increasing failure of Israel to obey Yahweh’s word concerning the ḥērem and its resultant moral and spiritual degeneration, fortunately the passage also records the initial successes in the first stage of the four stages presented within the passage.
The basic successes in the beginning of the narration start with an inquiry of God. This is true in all ages. Without God’s guidance any endeavor is doomed to failure. Since the inquiry is in accordance with God’s will (i.e., that the Israelite tribes subjugate their allotments), there is explicit direction by God with the assurance that success will follow. This is an example of what the apostle John states: “This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him” (1 John 5:14–15).
Subsidiary messages. The vignettes that follow the inquiry describe the tribe of Judah’s general success in occupying its allotment. All of these vignettes provide short lessons in themselves that bridge between the ancient and contemporary contexts.
(1) The segment about the lord of Bezeq (Adoni-Bezek) demonstrates that God is answering the Israelites’ prayer for direction. God fulfills his promise in giving the Judahites victory over a harsh king who embodies the evil of Canaanite monarchy. God’s fulfillment of his promises is a confidence that transcends the ages. Moreover, the theme of God’s righteous retribution on evil is a message that transcends the ages.42 It provides hope in a fallen world where evil seems to constantly prevail.
In fact, in the judgment on the lord of Bezeq (Adoni-Bezek), Yahweh’s grace toward Israel is heightened, for the people do not deserve such a victory43 (they have already sown the seeds of failure by having made an unnecessary treaty between Judah and Simeon). Thus, from the beginning, they seem prone to do things their way, not God’s way. Judah’s treaty with Simeon, while explicable from a certain human standpoint, is not God’s will. Therefore, all of the victories that they achieve are the results of God’s grace toward them.
(2) The narration concerning Judah contains three vignettes: the conquest of Hebron, the conquest of Debir, and the movement of the Kenites. In the second and third vignettes, Yahweh’s grace is bestowed on individuals like Caleb, Othniel, Acsah, and the Kenites. In each instance, this grace is specially given to non-Israelites (see comments above). This theme—namely, that God gives grace to non-Israelites—is developed throughout the Old and New Testaments. Those who are not expected to evince faith do, and those who should show faith do not (cf. Rahab contrasted with Achan [Josh. 6–7], Elijah and the widow of Zarephath [1 Kings 17:7–24], Elisha and Naaman [2 Kings 5:1–19]; cf. also Luke 4:16–30). Such a lesson is a great encouragement to “Gentiles,” especially in the church age.
In the first vignette, God’s faithfulness to Judah is documented through the conquest of the city of Hebron, the very hub of the gigantic Anakites, the very ones who had discouraged the Israelite spies in Numbers 13. Such a victory is encouraging to God’s people in every generation who may face what appear to be insurmountable obstacles.
The story of the capture of Debir with a gift given in exchange for its conquest anticipates the story of David’s conquest of Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 5:6–15. In both instances, the military commander promises a special reward to the warrior who captures the town. In 2 Samuel 5, David is based in Hebron and moves to Jerusalem. Hence, David may be trying to duplicate the Judges 1:11–13 account (cf. Josh. 15:15–17) by describing the capture of another town from a base at Hebron. In both cases, the captured town becomes the inheritance of those who captured it.44
Once again, it is important to remember that the concept of the “land” in the Old Testament carried spiritual overtones. This is true here with the story of Acsah’s request for land and springs as well as in the story of the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–13; Josh. 17:3–6). The actions of all these women are strongly commended and serve as examples of faith.
In addition, Acsah’s request for springs is parallel to Rebekah’s meeting with Isaac (Gen. 24:61–67). Both accounts include:
• the female riding on an animal
• descent from the animal
• making a request
• receiving the desired result from the person who has authority or power in relationship to her
Both accounts also involve an inheritance of the blessing (“land”) that God had promised Abraham.
Acsah’s request is also analogous in certain ways to that of Ruth. Both are non-Israelite women who have been “grafted” into the community of faith. Both have men who are outstanding in their personal qualities. Both make requests that involved God’s blessings of inheritance (as connected to the land). Both received their requests.
(3) While there is relative success in Judah’s endeavors at conquering its allotment, the other tribes fall into the second, third or fourth stages of the less than successful tribes in their application of God’s directives (see Fig. 3 above). This culminates in Dan’s complete and utter failure to possess its allotment (Stage 4).
The only vignette given in Stage 2 is the story of the capture of Bethel. While it records a successful conquest, the passage obviously contrasts with the previous vignettes of Stage 1, since the capture is accomplished through compromise and deceit. The end does not justify the means.
The phraseology of the two middle stages (i.e., Stages 2 and 3) is revealing. In Stage 2, it documents that the Israelites failed to drive out the Canaanites and that the Canaanites lived among the respective Israelite tribes. In Stage 3, the Israelites failed to drive out the Canaanites, and the respective Israelite tribes live among the Canaanites. These statements demonstrate the increasing lack of faith and commitment to the Lord on the part of God’s people.
The failures in Stages 2 and 3 include either a lack of obedience (“not dispossessing/driving out”) or compromise (“living among”) or both. This can also be true in the modern context. If we examine our lives, the bulk of our failures—especially in spiritual matters, but not exclusively—are the results of outright disobedience to God’s explicit, straightforward commandments, or of attempting to live in such a way that we blend into the world. Believers are under constant pressure to conform to the world’s standards, and the desire not to be different is pronounced. Yet God has called us to different standards. To compromise is to endanger our very lives. Even on the corporate level this may be evident. Churches feel the pressure to conform to what other churches are doing (even though what these other churches are doing may not be scriptural).
(4) At the end of the day, Israel has broken the covenant. This is the indictment of the Lord in 2:1–5. God is especially angry with the people because they have not destroyed the Canaanite altars (even in the areas that they occupy). This is a direct violation of the ḥērem commandment. Moreover, God specifically indicts the Israelites for having entered into covenants (treaties) with the Canaanites. Having made peace with the enemy, they have jeopardized the conquest of the land. Such an indictment of God’s people bridges to many generations (cf. some of Christ’s indictments against the churches in the book of Revelation).
In conclusion, in bringing this section into our modern world, the recognition of the passage’s overall message as conveyed through its literary structure is vital. While the vignettes in the first portion of the passage provide some positive examples and encouragements, the remainder of the passage records the spiritual/moral declivity of the Israelites that culminates in the confrontation of the Israelites by the Lord in 2:1–5.
Contemporary Significance
WHILE THE OVERALL message of this passage resonates in significant ways in the modern context, it is wrong to apply it on a national level (i.e., by equating either the United States of America or some other modern political entity with ancient Israel) and to interpret the national history of the United States or some other political entity as parallel to that of the nation of Israel in the period of the judges. No contemporary nation equates with the Israel of the Old Testament, who represents the people of God.45
Commonly, passages like Judges 1:1–2:5 are used to critique and criticize modern American culture as a degeneration from the godly Christian culture of America’s beginnings. But this is a misreading of the basic political history of the United States and its founding fathers. This is most acute in the quoting of men like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in such a way as to give the impression that these men were “Christians” in the biblical sense of this term. In terms of their religious convictions as well as in their morals, both men were distinctly not Christians!
Thus, it is important that the proper correspondence to the passage is maintained. The church as God’s people is the proper correspondence to biblical Israel. Yet this too raises problems of application, for there are distinctions between the two entities that must be maintained; otherwise the very nature of the church may be blurred.46
It would seem that the best application of the passage is first on the individual level, then on a more limited corporate level. In other words, how does the primary message of 1:1–2:5 about the lack of faith and disobedience regarding the implementation of the ḥērem and the consequent spiritual/moral degeneration speak to us about our own commitments and obedience to the Lord and his commandments to us? In what ways does the passage challenge us? If God’s people failed in their allegiance to the Lord, how are we failing, and what are the consequences of our failures? These same questions can and should be asked on the corporate level with reference to local churches, to a denomination, or to the church as a whole.
Like ancient Israel, Christians also are in covenant relationship to God, albeit through a “better” covenant. Nevertheless, the stipulations of that covenant—“the law of love,” as Paul puts it—require obedience. While the warfare in which Christians are engaged is not physical but spiritual, the necessity of walking by faith in loyalty to Christ’s covenant is the only hope of victory.
Ḥērem. The natural question will likely arise: How are we to apply a passage like this one that centers around the implementation of the ḥērem? While it may seem obvious that we are not called to implement the ḥērem on our unbelieving neighbors, unfortunately many of the passages concerning the ḥērem have been misapplied by “Christians” throughout history to annihilate their enemies (the Crusades are a prime example of this type of misapplication).
The fact that must be remembered is conveyed in Ephesians 6:12: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”47 In other words, Christian warfare is spiritual, not physical. In the Old Testament, it was both physical and spiritual. But just because it is spiritual, not physical, does not mean that the warfare in the New Testament context is no less real. Thus, we are commanded to put on the full armor of God (Eph. 6:10–20) and engage in this spiritual warfare. The New Testament is replete with the use of military metaphors to describe our spiritual warfare. As Israel, in an overall sense, failed to implement the ḥērem because of a lack of faith and obedience, how are we failing in the implementation of Christ’s commandments because of unbelief and disobedience? How are we failing to implement Ephesians 6:10–20 in our daily lives? In many ways, this is how Judges 1:1–2:5 applies to Christians today.
Many Christians become so consumed with the world that they simply do not believe they are really in a spiritual confrontation. They have compromised with the world and have forgotten the apostle’s admonition “do not love the world or anything in the world” (1 John 2:15). Judges 1:1–2:5 warns us of the dangers of not trusting in God’s Word and heeding this admonition.
Subsidiary messages. The pragmatism of Judah’s alliance with Simeon (1:2, 17) serves as a warning to Christians. The natural way is not necessarily God’s way, for it can undercut his plan and lessen our dependence on him. Each tribe was responsible to conquer its own allotment, depending on God for the results. Note that Judah, because of its size, hardly needed Simeon to ensure the conquest of its allotment, and Simeon really did not need Judah to guarantee what God had promised he would do for them.
Fortunately, this passage also provides some good examples through the vignettes relating Judah’s successes. The story about the defeat of the lord of Bezeq (Adoni-Bezek) shows that God answers prayer, fulfills his promises, and brings retribution on evil. Such stories engender confidence that God will do these same things in our own contexts.
The stories of the conquests of Hebron and Debir emphasize God’s faithfulness and grace. The fact that Caleb and Othniel are non-Israelites only heightens this. The reality that God works “outside the circle” should encourage and challenge us. God often grafts into the community of faith individuals who become outstanding leaders.
For the Christian, Acsah represents a woman who will not be denied her full inheritance. She is a model resembling the women of the Gospels, who sought out Jesus and refused to be turned back by the crowds and by Jesus’ own disciples. As a result, they found salvation, healing, and blessing for themselves and their families (see Matt. 9:20–22; 15:21–28; 26:7–13; Mark 7:24–30; 14:3–9; Luke 2:36–38; 7:11–15, 36–50; 8:43–48; 13:10–17; 18:1–5).48
Yet in spite of these few positive vignettes, the overall pattern of moral and spiritual failure prevails in Judges 1:1–2:5. Disobedience and compromise dominate the remainder of the passage and signal important warnings to the modern context. Ultimately, to apply this passage is to heed its warnings.