to merit the loss of blessing.
Pericope 2
Paradigm and Exemplar
Judges 2:6—3:11
[Israelites’ Infidelity; Spiral of Failure; Othniel’s Example]
REVIEW, SUMMARY, PREVIEW
Review of Pericope 1: In Jdg 1:1—2:5, the background of sociopolitical decline for the rest of the book of Judges is set. The people of God fail to live in uncompromising godliness, and to trust God for success. As a consequence, there is a progressively worsening state of coexistence with the native Canaanites, drawing an indictment from God.
Summary of Pericope 2: The second pericope of Judges (2:6—3:11) comprises Prologue II of Judges and the Othniel story. It details the religious decline of the Israelites, the unfaithfulness of the new generation after Joshua who did not know or experience God firsthand. Their infidelity spirals downward with each iteration of the judge stories, creating a paradigm for these failures, as well as for the divine punishment that ensues. Othniel, the first judge, is the parade example of a godly leader: his story follows the paradigm precisely and, with divine aid, he deliverers Israel.
Preview of Pericope 3: The next pericope, Jdg 3:12–31, depicts the second major judge in the series, Ehud. His duplicitous words and deceptive actions are subtly deprecated in his story. Finally, the cameo of Shamgar makes this minor judge a foil for the major judge who lacks integrity. With the implicit disapproval of Ehud’s actions and the approval of Shamgar’s, integrity in leadership forms the thrust of this pericope
2. Judges 2:6—3:11
| THEOLOGICAL FOCUS OF PERICOPE 2 | |||
| 2 | Personal experience of God produces unwavering commitment to him, with minimizing of self so as to give him glory (2:6—3:11). | ||
| 2.1 | Failure of uncompromising obedience to divine commands precludes the enjoyment of divine blessing. | ||
| 2.1.1 | Failure to experience God firsthand dilutes commitment to him. | ||
| 2.1.2 | Forsaking the true God and following other idols have disastrous consequences. | ||
| 2.2 | Faithful commitment to God gives him the glory and minimizes self (3:7–11). |
OVERVIEW
Judges 1:1—3:6 constitutes the Prologue of the book of Judges, comprising Prologue I (Pericope 1: Jdg 1:1—2:5) and Prologue II (part of Pericope 2: Jdg 2:6—3:11, that also includes the Othniel story, 3:7–11). This corresponds to the two-part epilogue of the book: Epilogue I (Pericope 12: Jdg 17:1—18:31) and Epilogue II (Pericope 13: Jdg 19:1–30 and Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1—21:25).
O’Connell observes that “[t]he high concentration in 2:11—3:6 of phraseological parallels to biblical passages that focus upon covenantal adherence (particularly Josh 23–24, Deut 4–11 and 31:14–29)” are indicators of the narrator’s concern in this pericope to view Israel’s conduct as essentially covenantal malfeasance (i.e., religious decline), as opposed to the primary interest of Pericope 1 (1:1—2:5) which was to depict Israel’s failure to conquer the land (i.e., socio-political decline).122 There is concern for the conquest of the land in Pericope 2 (2:6, 21, 23; 3:1, 3), but that does not appear to be its focus; rather, the failure to occupy the land and the continuing presence of the enemy in Canaan seem to be symptoms of a disease: covenant disloyalty. Unfortunately, under the leadership exhibited by the various judges in this book, a strong commitment to Yahweh’s covenant will never materialize—the calamitous story of Judges. Indeed, a glance at Prologues I and II clue us in to the reason: Prologue I begins with the cult: 1:1–2, Israel seeking Yahweh’s guidance; Prologue II ends with the cult: 3:5–6, but unfortunately with Israel serving other gods.
In sum, while Pericope 1 reports events from a human point of view–socio-political decline—most of Pericope 2 relates matters from a divine point of view—religious decline. The first is more linear in arrangement and historical in nature; the second, more cyclical in arrangement and theological in nature, particularly 2:11–19, that creates a repeatable paradigm that resonates through the rest of the book.123 In Pericope 2, the story shifts back to Joshua’s demise already noted in 1:1 (and reported in Josh 24:28; see Jdg 2:6–10). From this starting point, 2:6—3:6 paints “a panoramic temporal overview of the entire period covered by the Book of Judges. In sweeping temporal terms, a cyclical sequence is presented [2:11–19] which explains not only the incidents of Judges 1 but all the events to follow in the book.”124 After this flashback to Joshua’s death and burial (2:6–10),125 there is a description of the cycle of disobedience, discipline, and deliverance (2:11–19, the paradigm), followed by the report of Yahweh’s censure (2:20–23), and a narratival summary reflecting the divine diatribe and the people’s covenantal failure (3:1–6). The text then provides the account of the first judge in the book, Othniel (3:7–11), that precisely fulfills all the elements of the paradigmatic cycle of 2:11–19.126 In any case, the outlook is bleak for the Israelites and this period of the judges.
2.1. Judges 2:6—3:6
| THEOLOGICAL FOCUS 2.1 | |||
| 2 | Personal experience of God produces unwavering commitment to him, with minimizing of self so as to give him glory (2:6—3:11). | ||
| 2.1 | Failure to experience God firsthand and forsaking him have disastrous consequences (2:6—3:6). | ||
| 2.1.1 | Failure to experience God firsthand dilutes commitment to him. | ||
| 2.1.2 | Forsaking the true God and following other idols have disastrous consequences. |
NOTES 2.1
2.1.1 Failure to experience God firsthand dilutes commitment to him.
The narrative could easily have moved from 2:5 to 2:11, from repentance to regression, from contrition to corruption. Instead, we have a sort of detour in 2:6–10 to establish a theological point. Judges 2:6–10 is almost identical to Josh 24:28–31, but it weaves the story in its own way for a different theological purpose—a case of the author doing things with what he is saying. The death of Joshua had already been noted in Jdg 1:1, to introduce the military failures of the Israelite conquest. Now the restatement of the hero’s demise in Pericope 2 explores the theological underpinnings of these Israelite debacles.
As seen above, Joshua 24:31 is shifted forwards in the Judges report (making it Jdg 2:7), to which 2:10 is added (that has no parallel in Joshua 24).127 This distinguishes the generation before (2:7) the death of Joshua (2:8–9)128 from the generation after (2:10). Another change worthy of note: Josh 24:31 uses the verb “know” to describe the generation before Joshua’s death—they knew the deeds of Yahweh.129 Judges 2:7 changes that to “see”—this earlier generation did not just know the “great deeds of Yahweh,” they had actually seen them!130 Judges 2:6 also has “the sons of Israel went each to his inheritance to possess the land” (Josh 24:28 simply has “each to his inheritance”). These additions in Jdg 2:6 underscore the responsibility of the Israelites: they had to go and possess the land—that was the intent of Joshua’s dismissal and, indeed, the goal of the entire conquest.
Unfortunately, as was detailed in Pericope 1, the post-Joshua generation went but did not possess the land for, as Jdg 2:10 declares, they did not “know Yahweh, or the deeds which he had done.” This is the