Three Things
In the reading plan I’m using I’ve just finished Luke and started reading Judges. Three things have struck me again, none of them new.
(1) First glance seems to be that there’s a sharp divide, the gospel account contrasting greatly with the record of the judges. However, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” And after Jesus was known to them, the two believers talked about their hearts burning within them as Jesus “opened to us the scriptures”. And back in Jerusalem Jesus shows himself to the disciples and says, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” All of Jesus’s work was foretold in the Old Testament, sometimes in types and shadows—and once we’re tipped off it’s pretty easy to see that the judges were among the types. By the way, in Judaism the “former prophets” are the historical books including Judges. When Jesus spoke of “the Prophets” it would have included these. The point: We must not dismiss or discount or diminish the earlier scriptures. Jesus certainly did not! If it seems to us that there is a contrast or even conflict, then the issue must lie within ourselves, not in the scriptures. Jesus unswervingly presented himself as a continuation and culmination of the earlier scriptures, not a break from them.
(2) The period of the Judges shows Israel’s failure to obey God. The angel of the Lord therefore tells them that the idolatrous inhabitants will be left, “they shall become thorns in your sides”. (Judges 2:3) That phrase ought to ring a bell. It is God keeping the word He spoke in Numbers 33:55, but I’m referring to a New Testament bell. The apostle Paul says “a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me”. (2 Corinthians 12:7) Where did that figure come from? The only place I’m aware of is Judges 2, based on Numbers 33. Why does Paul say this was given? “To keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations.” So, he seems to be saying that his proneness to conceit (the cause of his thorn) is equivalent to Israel’s failure to drive out the idolaters (the cause of their thorn). In other words, he came to understand that he had a weakness, one he apparently succumbed to, that was just as serious as Israel’s weakness. This is instructive, because we humans do have a proneness to pride and conceit! And then, taking it one step further, we note that the “thorn” for Israel was outside enemies being allowed to oppose them. Paul’s equivalent he calls “a messenger of Satan”. Who or what is Satan here? In some other places Paul seems to use the term to describe Jewish opposition to his preaching, occasionally Roman opposition. So what was Paul’s “thorn”? He doesn’t say, but it seems to me that this outside opposition is a good fit for the parallel with Israel’s experience. Other suggestions such as eye problems don’t seem to fit as well. If it was in fact the outside opposition, then Paul is confessing that he repeatedly begged the Lord to make his preaching less perilous. But the Lord said, “No, you need this opposition. You’re getting too cocky. You need to be shown just how weak you are. So this opposition isn’t ever going away, and eventually it will kill you. But my grace will be sufficient to bring you through.”
(3) In Judges 4 Deborah conveys to Barak the Lord’s command to raise an army and deliver Israel from the Moabites. Barak replies, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” (v 8) This is widely interpreted as reluctance or lack of faith in Barak, and Deborah’s response is often taken as rebuke, maybe even punishment: “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” (v 9) I would suggest, though, that in light of the fact that Barak is specifically mentioned in the catalog of the faithful in Hebrews 11, I think we should exercise caution in ascribing less than faithful motives to him. Also, bear in mind that Barak actually does what Deborah commands, at great peril to himself. And, Deborah and Barak collaborate to co-write the song commemorating the event, so there doesn’t appear to be any tension between them. It strikes me that what Barak does is acknowledge the need for co-leadership. He will be the military commander, but she is the one who is inspired and is the one all Israel comes to for judgment. I don’t see that what she says bothers him. The important thing to him is obeying the Lord’s commands, and delivering Israel. The song repeatedly gives credit to Deborah, highlight’s Jael’s role, and it also talks about Barak’s leadership. I could be off base, but what I see in Barak is someone willing to lead, and to go into danger, without regard to whether it brings him glory. He’s willing to humble himself, and the result is that he is exalted to be mentioned among the all-time faithful. An example for any of us, and a result that we all hope for!
Love, in hope,
Paul
If you have any feedback, please contact me at: paul.zilmer@gmail.com