An examination of “the LORD was with the judge” (Judges 2:18)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

In verse 18, the author briefly mentions in passing that God was with the judges. This peculiar phrase is somewhat ambiguous and indefinite and requires further thought and investigation. Initially, this reality would seem to be linked with the judges’ function and success; and therefore, the meaning of this brief phrase likely has significant implications for understanding the office of judge in ancient Israel. What exactly does this phrase mean, and what does this presence indicate about these judges? Although few commentators care to investigate these questions to any significant degree (or at all), I suggest that the exegete does well to sort out the meaning and implications of this phrase.

First, this presence indicates God’s validation of the judges. This is assumed by God being “with” the judges and is explicitly mentioned in the preceding phrase: “YHWH raised up judges for them” (2:18). עִם serves to indicate an accompanying relationship (Arnold and Choi, 124-125), a special or particular (not general or common) relationship between God and His judges. Therefore, primarily, this presence also indicates God’s favor and blessing upon the judges with accompanying real, concrete results in terms of the socio-political and hopefully religious state of Israel. As Block notes, this presence indicates the “secret” to the judges’ success (129). For example, Butler observes, “God’s presence, not the judge’s leadership or military skills, brings victory” (48). This is clearly indicated by the phrase immediately following וְהָיָ֤ה יְהוָה֙ עִם־הַשֹּׁפֵ֔ט. “And He saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge (2:18). “They [the judges] represented agents of the divine presence” (Block, 129). Given this apparent relationship between God’s presence and superhuman victories worked through the judges, this presence likely entails charismata. This is clearly exemplified in the subsequent narratives throughout the book (e.g., Samson’s superhuman strength, etc.) Moreover, this presence also indicates God’s tangible compassion for His people; such victories resulting ultimately from God’s presence with His appointed judges demonstrate His maintained compassion for His people. Finally, that God’s presence is with those whom He appoints indicates that YHWH is fundamentally faithful to His judges despite whether or not Israel herself is (cf. 2:17) (Butler, 48).

In conclusion and summary, this presence seems to indicate, imply, or result in the following realities: (1) God’s appointment, (2) a special, particular relationship, (3) God’s faithfulness to the judges despite Israel’s wavering faithfulness, (4) God’s blessing and favor, (5) God’s compassion, (6) God’s working through these agents, specifically in terms of success in deliverance, (7) and conversely, that these victories are due to God’s power, not the military strength of the judges, and finally (8) a charismatic gifting.

An investigation of “they whored after other gods” (Judges 2:17)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

In 2:17 the author states that Israel whored (זָנ֗וּ) after gods other than YHWH. The question for the exegete is multi-faceted. What theological implications does this language carry? What does it mean for Israel to “whore” in this seemingly metaphorical sense? What does this language imply about Israel’s relationship to God? Might a more thorough evaluation of the word זָנ֗וּ or its semantic range provide any assistance in wading through these questions? Most assuredly, rich interpretive insight is bound up with answers to these questions. The exegete does well to investigate this matter for clarity and perception.

As Holladay (90) notes, זָנ֗וּ can denote the literal action of fornication, adultery, whoring, having illicit sexual encounters, cult prostitution, etc. (Gen 38:24; Num 25:1; Isa 23:17; Ezek 16:17, 24; Hos 4:13) (Holladay, 90). Such actions of course connote an extreme level of faithlessness. Consequently, Biblical authors at times use such language to express Israel’s faithlessness to God (as Holladay says, to “wantonly turn from” e.g., Hos 1:2; 4:12; Holliday, 90). However, Soggin claims that this word is a “generic term for prostitution” and is not that which is used for cultic prostitution (39). This faithlessness, placed in terms of adultery, would seem to assume a level of commitment, specifically the commitment involved in Israel’s covenantal relationship. As Soggin notes, this relationship was often understood in terms of and parallel to a marriage bond (39). Implied is the equation of Israel with God’s unfaithful spouse (Niditch, 49). In other words, because of Israel’s covenantal relationship with God, Israel’s act of worshiping other gods besides YHWH was a violation of that covenant relationship, an act of infidelity and spiritual whoredom far more severe than the violation of any human marriage relationship. In concrete terms, this “whoredom” meant polytheism and idolatry. Boling believes that this theological metaphor arose “from the early clash of Yahwism with the commonly assumed fertility rites of sub-Mosaic religion” (75). Likewise, Block adds that adultery serves as an appropriate metaphor for Israel’s unfaithfulness because (1) YHWH’s relationship with Israel is often placed in terms of marriage (hence adultery) and (2) “the gods competing with Yahweh for the allegiance of his people are lusty young fertility gods, who seduce the Israelites with promises of prosperity and security” accompanied with erotic cultic rituals (129). And as a final note, this theme is not unique to Judges, but is in fact picked up by various authors across redemptive history. Throughout scripture, God often describes his relationship to his people in terms of a marriage covenant (e.g., Eph 5:32; Rev 19:6-9); and likewise, His people’s infidelity is expressed in terms of unfaithfulness to that relationship (e.g., Ex 34:15-16; Deut 31:16; Hos 2; Jer 2; Ezek 16).

In conclusion, this author believes that the metaphor indicated by זָנ֗וּ is most likely adultery (assuming a covenantal relationship) rather than prostitution. Whether or not זָנ֗וּ carries the semantic range of “prostitute,” in the given context, in which Israel has an established relationship with God, it assumes faithlessness to that relationship, not pure erotic and/or cultic indulgence. Conversely, this metaphor assumes a covenant marriage relationship with God, one explicitly mentioned in 2:20, a relationship that demands absolute faithfulness.

The Office of Judge

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

As indicated by the book’s title, the office of judge serves as a key component of the book’s storyline. Therefore, it goes without saying that a solid comprehension of this office and its function(s) is necessary to understand the book well. However, this ancient near eastern position is likely quite foreign to many contemporary readers and interpreters. Consequently, the astute exegete of any text in Judges, but particularly of 2:11-23, does well to thoroughly investigate this office of judge.

שׁפט is traditionally rendered “judge.” However, this translation can be misleading to the modern reader for several reasons. Interestingly, none of the characters typically identified as judges (e.g., Samson, Gideon, Ehud, etc.) are ever identified as “judges” in the book itself. On the other hand, “judge” serves as a general description for leaders, of course including those traditionally considered judges, during this time in Israel (2:16-19) (Block, 21-22). As a verb, שָׁפַט describes the action of many of these so-called judges (e.g., Othniel [3:10], Deborah [4:4], Tola [10:2], Jair [10:3], Jephthah [12:7], Ibzan [12:8, 9], Elon [12:11], Abdon [12:13, 14], and Samson [15:20; 16:31]). But only Deborah actually demonstrates a judicial function of sorts (4:4-5). On the contrary, these judges function more so as socio-political delivers (Block, 23). For example, in 2:16, the author specifies the judges as leaders who had the following characteristics. (1) They were God’s agents of Israel’s deliverance from oppressors. (2) They were to be listened to, implying some sort of instructive-exhortative role. As Niditch says, the judge was “to be a leader who models proper covenantal behavior, inspiring Israel to maintain loyalty to Yhwh.” Note that Deborah is called a prophetess (4:4), implying this exhortative function. (3) They had YHWH’s presence with them, designating that, if nothing else, God worked through these individuals. And as Niditch points out, this latter characteristic is intimately related to the first; this charisma leads to military success. However, if their function was primarily soteriological rather than judicial (Block, 23), then why were they called “judges” in 2:16-19? Fundamental to answering this question is recognizing the semantic range of שָׁפַט. It appears that שָׁפַט carries the general sense of seeking justice. At times, this might imply a judicial function. However, at other times it might mean executing justice through deliverance. Block provides the following helpful semantic diagram (23):

This non-judicial sense is also attested to in other Old Testament texts (e.g., 1 Sam 8:5; 2 Kgs 15:5; Isa 40:23; Amos 2:3; Pss 2:10; 94:2; 96:13; 148:11. Niditch notes that Ruth 1:1 seems to assume that this era of the judges demarcates a particular time period defined by a certain type of government, namely, a time in which so-called judges ruled (2). In like vein, Block suggests “tribal rulers” as an accurate interpretation/translation (25).

In conclusion, although retaining the traditional translation of “judges” is preferred, this author suggests that these so-called judges should be understood to be tribal leaders appointed and anointed by God with a special charisma to rule Israel (potentially including a judicial function), deliver her, and exhort her to repentance and obedience.

The Significance of 1 Peter 2:9’s Use of Exodus 19 Language Concerning the Relationship between the Church and Israel

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

In 1 Peter 2:9, Peter lathers Christian (Gentile) believers with descriptions once used exclusively of the nation of Israel (cf. Ex 19:5-6; Deut 7:6; Isa 43:20; Hos. 1:6, 9, 10; 2:23; Mal 3:17). Regarding Exodus 19 specifically, Peter quotes exactly from the LXX—βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον (“a royal priesthood, a holy nation”; Ex 19:6)—and alludes to וִהְיִ֨יתֶם לִ֤י סְגֻלָּה֙ (“and you will be to me a treasured possession”) with the words λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν (“a people for possession”; Ex 19:5). The application of such language to the Church has resulted in no little debate regarding the relationship between Israel and the Church. An investigation of Peter’s use of this language will help shed some light on this discussion.

Many scholars conclude that Peter’s application of Israel-designations to the Church indicates a level of continuity (often seen as typological and/or supersessionistic) between Israel and the Church. By using appellations of Israel in reference to the Church, Peter shows “how he understands the true line of continuity to run from the people of God under the old covenant to the people of God under the new covenant” (Carson, 1032; cf. Woudstra, 234; Grudem, 113). However, dispensationalists, whose theological presuppositions include the absolute separation of the Church and Israel (Ryrie, Kindle Locations 705-706), often understand Peter’s use as analogical. In other words, Peter is applying spiritual realities in Israel to similar spiritual realities present in the Church. Due to dispensationalists’ belief in a distinct future for national Israel apart from the Church, they are necessarily uncomfortable with applying “Israel” language to the Church or acknowledging a supersessionistic typological relationship between Israel and the Church. But as Progressive Dispensationalist, Robert Saucy, states, “The application to the church of these descriptions formerly used exclusively for Israel does not mean that the church now assumes that position exclusively for herself” (Continuity and Discontinuity, 241; emphasis mine). Elsewhere he argues that an initial typological fulfillment or application does not necessarily negate a future, ultimate fulfillment with national Israel (Progressive Dispensationalism, Kindle Locations 7035-7037). In other words, this relationship says something more than the OT texts, but not less (cf. complementary hermeneutics).

In conclusion, surely analogy is fundamental to Peter’s use of this OT language. But the lavishing of designations once used for Israel (Grudem, 113), as well as the specific type of designations, indicate something more. For example, what use is it to call the Church, a multi-ethnic community, a nation? Peter’s point is certainly not the Church’s national composition (hardly), but the realization of this special position once held by Israel. Or further, Peter does not merely apply one or two OT themes to the Church, but applies several designations for and descriptions of Israel to the Church in 2:9-10. And this Church, Peter has argued, is the people of God who has become the recipients of all the promises previously anticipated by the Old Testament people of God (1:3-12). In other words, Peter’s use of the language of Exodus 19 (as well as other OT texts) in application to the Church assumes an implied typological relationship between the Church and Israel. This doesn’t necessitate that the Church and Israel are indistinct and there’s no discontinuity between eschatological Israel (i.e., the Church; Gal 6:16) and Old Testament Israel; nor does it mean that the Church has “replaced” Israel (rather, believing Israelites are included) and ethnic Israel has no future in God’s redemptive purpose (cf. Rom 9-11). But this relationship does imply that all of God’s promises are realized in the Church, the eschatological people of God, of which all the true children of promise (Rom 9:8; Gal 4:28; cf. Rom 2:25-29; Gal 3:14, 29), Jew or Gentile, are a part.

The Meaning of “Kingdom of Priests” (Exodus 19:6)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

In Exodus 19:6, as conditioned on Israel’s obedience, God marks Israel’s special position with three descriptions. The second of these is מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים (“kingdom of priests”) Since an understanding of this phrase is central to an understanding of the immediate text, Israel’s calling in the subsequent Biblical drama, as well as various New Testament passages that employ language from this passage, the exegete does well to investigate this phrase.

In Exodus 19:6, YHWH identifies Israel’s intended position as a result of keeping God’s covenant as being מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים (“a kingdom of priests”). The syntax of this phrase allows itself to be interpreted two ways: (1) a kingdom (domain or realm) of priests over whom God rules. Or (2), a kingly (royal) priesthood, “the exercise of royal office by those who are in fact priests” (Gentry, 319). Nonetheless, Israel is specified with this collective priestly function. Hamilton presents two possible theological meanings (or emphases) for this idea. The question is whether this phrase addresses Israel’s relationship to God or to the nations. On the one hand, מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים may express Israel’s privileged position in relationship to God. To Israel alone has God revealed Himself in this way through His Exodus-redemption and this nation-covenant. And just as priests alone were privileged to enter the holy place, only Israel has this special access to His mediated presence through the tabernacle (and eventual temple). But, on the other hand, מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים may refer to a mediatorial role to which YHWH has called Israel (Hamilton, 304). Just as priests mediated between God and the worshiper, so Israel was to be God’s priests unto the nations. Stuart advocates the latter position: “they [Israelites] were to represent him to the rest of the world and attempt to bring the rest of the world to him,” and thereby bring to fruition the responsibility inherent in God’s words to Abraham to be a blessing and that all nations would be blessed through him (Gen 12:2-3; Stuart, 423). Stuart provides four ways in which Israel might have served as priests to the nations:

(1) Israel would be an example to the people of other nations, who would see its holy beliefs and actions and be impressed enough to want to know personally the same God the Israelites knew. (2) Israel would proclaim the truth of God and invite people from other nations to accept him in faith as shown by confession of belief in him and acceptance of his covenant. . . . (3) Israel would intercede for the rest of the world by offering acceptable offerings to God (both sacrifices and right behavior) and thus ameliorate the general distance between God and humankind. (4) Israel would keep the promises of God, preserving his word already spoken and recording his word as it was revealed to them so that once the fullness of time had come, anyone in the whole world could promptly benefit from that great body of divinely revealed truth, that is, the Scriptures. (423)

As Sarna well summarizes, “the priest’s place and function within society must serve as the ideal model for Israel’s self-understanding of its role among the nations” (104; cf. Childs, 367).

So does מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים refer to Israel’s privileged position before God or her mediatorial relationship to the nations? This author suggests a both/and solution. Certainly, the immediate context deals with Israel’s relationship to God; the pericope contains no direct reference to Israel’s obligations to the nations. Nonetheless, Israel’s mediatorial relationship to the nations is a passive one, not an active one as in the case of modern missionaries; they are called, not necessarily to witness, but to be a witness. By being who they are called to be in relationship to God, they serve as priests unto the nations.

Notes:

Gentry argues that מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים וְג֣וֹי קָד֑וֹשׁ (“a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”) should be taken as one description, rather than two. These two parallel terms share a hendiadys relationship in which both descriptions consider the same topic from a variant perspective (318). Contrary to this perspective, Childs claims that apart from a brief parenthetical remark (כִּי־לִ֖י כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ) three distinct descriptions are provided, which nonetheless ought “to be interpreted in relation to one another” (367). Childs claims that while סְגֻלָּה specifically addressed Israel’s relationship to God, מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים  defines her relationship to her neighbors (367). Either way, for the sake of this brief paper, מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים will be examined on its own terms.