DRA in the Book of Judges
Judg 2:2), God now refuses to expel the Canaanites from the land which inevitably brings about two results. First, the remaining Canaanites will become a source of pain to the
Israelites (“they will become thorns in your sides”; cf. Num 33:55), possibly by leading them into sin (cf. Exod 23:33; 34:12). Second, the pagan gods that litter the land will entice Israel into idolatry (cf. Exod 23:33; 34:11–16; Deut 7:16; Josh 23:13). Both scenarios described suggest that, as a penalty for their disobedience, God would now allow the Canaanites to remain in order to lead Israel towards apostasy.
53Furthermore, given the consequences of forsaking YHWH delineated elsewhere (Judg 2:11–15; cf.
Deut 6:14–15; 7:3–4; 8:19–20; 11:16–17; 29:21–27), God’s verdict in 2:3 seems to push Israel closer towards experiencing the covenant curses.
54Thus, God’s dealings with Israel in Judges 2:3 fit the definition of DRA offered in this study.
55Moreover, the author of
52 As I have already argued, one could hold this position even while viewing 2:3 as referring to a warning given formerly. For those who hold to a punitive reading of 2:3, see Moore, Judges, 59; Block, Judges, Ruth, 117; Lindars, Judges 1–5, 78; Martin, Judges, 30; Fausset, Judges, 38; Schneider, Judges, 27;
Younger, Judges and Ruth, 75; Jordan, Judges, 23; Eslinger, Into the Hands, 62–63; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 68; Assis, Self-Interest, 183; Hamilton, God’s Glory, 154; House, Old Testament Theology, 216.
53 As Martin rightly comments, “The Israelite tribes have disobeyed God’s commands, and verse 2 implies that they had entered into relationships with the local population and had adopted some of their religious practices. As a punishment for this, God refuses to drive out the local population and promises that both they and their gods will lead the Israelites far from him.” Martin, Judges, 30. Schreiner puts the matter poetically when he states, “If Israel lives among the Canaanites, it likely will not be long before Israel begins to live like the Canaanites.” Schreiner, The King in His Beauty, 119.
54 I agree with Bluedorn when he argues that the punishments inflicted on Israel in the book of Judges correspond to the covenant curses. See Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 67.
55 One might quibble with this interpretation on the basis of later statements in Judges to the effect that God left the Canaanites in the land in order to test his people’s faithfulness (cf. Judg 2:20–23;
3:4), and to teach them how to wage war (3:2). At face value, these descriptions of God’s motives seem to conflict with the reading of Judg 2:3 that I have presented. However, two factors mitigate the apparent
136
Judges provides details that allow readers to infer the kind of DRA involved. First, since Judges 2:3 speaks of God’s response to Israel’s sin, his influence on Israel ought to be characterized as retributive. Second, since the passage describes God’s decision not to drive out the remaining Canaanites, the text in question seems to intimate a passive rather than active form of DRA.
56Third, Judges 2:3 does not present God as directly involved in luring Israel towards their demise. Instead, he employs the Canaanites and their gods to function as a trap for his people. Because another agent is depicted as the means through which God would influence Israel, YHWH’s agency here is best described as mediated.
Lastly, since there are no suggestions in the context that the author had Israel’s eternal state in mind, the verse should be read as depicting a non-eternal form of DRA.
In addition to the opening chapters, the author of Judges also invokes the concept of DRA in the story of Abimelech. In the ninth chapter of the book, readers are told that Abimelech and the people of Shechem conspired against Gideon’s sons so that Abimelech might be made king (Judg 9:1–3). With the help of the Shechemites,
Abimelech murdered most of the sons of Gideon and then returned to Shechem for his coronation (Judg 9:4–6). When Jotham, Gideon’s lone surviving son, hears about the crowning of Abimelech, he responds by delivering a speech denouncing the actions of the
contradiction. First, it is probable that Judg 2:20–23 and 3:1–4 refer to the immediate period after Joshua’s death, while the situation in Judg 2:3 refers to a time after Israel failed their period of testing. So, on the one hand, Judg 2:20ff provides an explanation for why God did not wipe out the Canaanites during Joshua’s time (i.e., YHWH left the nations to test Israel’s fidelity); so also Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading, JSOTSup 46 (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1987), 113–15. On the other hand, Judg 2:1–3 asserts that God’s people had failed the test and would thereafter be led into greater measures of apostasy. Second, a canonical reading of the passage would suggest that YHWH foreknew how Israel would respond to his testing (cf. Deut 4:25–26; 30:1; 31:16–22; 32:1–43). In other words, God allowed Joshua’s conquest to remain partially unfulfilled because he desired to test and train Israel, though he already understood that they would be enticed by the remaining locals as a result (see Eslinger, Into the Hands, 78–80, though I disagree with his understanding of Judg 2 as a whole). Thus, the reading of Judg 2:3 proposed above is consistent with other passages that deal with the reasons why God left the Canaanites in the land.
56 While YHWH’s verdict does move Israel towards apostasy, this effect is had through decided inaction rather than a positive exercise of divine agency.
137
Shechemites and their newly appointed king. While Jotham’s words hint at YHWH’s attitudes towards the two guilty parties (Judg 9:7–21),
57the narrator goes on to openly describe the Lord’s response to the atrocities committed by the co-conspirators (Judg 9:23–24). In 9:23, God is said to have sent an evil spirit “between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem,” with the result that leaders of Shechem “dealt treacherously” ( ו ד ג ב י ו ) with Abimelech. Verse 24 reveals that God acted this way “so that the violence against the seventy sons of Jerubaal might come upon, and their blood might be set upon, Abimelech, their brother who slayed them, and upon the lords of Shechem, who strengthened his hands to slay his brothers.” In other words, as a repayment for the murder of Gideon’s sons, YHWH sent an evil spirit to influence the Shechemites to deal treacherously with Abimelech
58; this betrayal would then lead the co-conspirators to turn against one another, thus ensuring that both the Shechemites and Abimelech would receive the penalty for the evil they perpetrated against Gideon’s sons.
59Such a
57 Block correctly suggests that Jotham functioned as “a true spokesman for God” and as “the alter ego of the narrator.” Block, Judges, Ruth, 316, 320–22.
58 Hamori rightly describes the relationship between the sending of the evil spirit and the treachery of the Shechemites as a clear case of cause and effect. See Esther J. Hamori, “The Spirit of Falsehood,” CBQ 72, no. 1 (2010): 21. See also Block, Judges, Ruth, 324; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 233; Christopher T. Begg, “Abimelech, King of Shechem, According to Josephus,” ETL 72, no. 1 (1996): 152.
59 See Chisholm, Judges and Ruth, 316; Fausset, Judges, 175; Schneider, Judges, 143; Block, Judges, Ruth, 322–25; Butler, Judges, 244–45; Assis, Self-Interest, 155; Begg, “Abimelech according to Josephus,” 152; Klein, Triumph of Irony, 73; Hamori, “Spirit of Falsehood,” 21; T. A. Boogaart, “Stone for Stone: Retribution in the Story of Abimelech and Shechem,” JSOT 10, no. 32 (1985): 49; Linda A. Dietch, Authority and Violence in the Gideon and Abimelech Narratives: A Sociological and Literary Exploration of Judges 6–9, Hebrew Bible Monographs 75 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 127–28.
Contrary to most interpretations of the passage, Bluedorn proposes that YHWH was punishing Abimelech and the Shechemites for the crime of replacing Yahwism with Baalism, and that their fate “shows that idolatry leads to mutual destruction and needs to be condemned, while YHWH worship leads to peace, as demonstrated in the Gideon narrative.” Bluedorn, Yahwism Versus Baalism, 229–30. Bluedorn’s reading of the text seems unwarranted however, as the narrator gives every indication that YHWH judged Abimelech and the Shechemites for their conspiracy against the sons of Gideon (cf. Judg 9:24, 56–57). Moreover, Bluedorn fails to demonstrate his claim that the theological theme of the Abimelech episode is “YHWH’s superiority over Baal” (33–34).
138
description of God’s response indicates the use of retributive, mediated, active DRA.
60This conclusion is supported by the remainder of the account, which details how God’s plan of action came to pass.
61The people of Shechem turned on Abimelech (presumably on account of the activity of the evil spirit),
62which resulted in a conflict that led to the loss of many Shechemite lives (Judg 9:26–49). Finally, Abimelech himself meets a violent and shameful end, as he is mortally wounded by a woman before having to beg his own servant to kill him (Judg 9:50–55). In order to stress the theme of divine retribution, the narrator ends this sad chapter in Israel’s history by saying, “And God repaid the evil of Abimelech, which he committed against his father by slaying seventy of his brothers, and God repaid all the evil of the men of Shechem unto their own heads.
And the curse of Jotham, the son of Jerubaal, came upon them” (Judg 9:56–57). The conclusion harkens back to 9:23–24 in order to emphasize God’s orchestration of all the events that transpired between Abimelech and the Shechemites.
63Moreover, the narrator posits that God brought to pass Jotham’s curse against Abimelech and Shechem out of a desire repay them for their sins––a desire which YHWH satisfied by turning the two
60 Bluedorn suggests that Gaal was also raised up by YHWH in order to bring about the mutual destruction of Abimelech and the Shechemites. See Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 235, 248; see also Block, Judges, Ruth, 325–27. If he is correct, the narrative would include another instance of retributive, mediated, active DRA. However, the text does not itself provide enough evidence to confirm Bluedorn’s proposal.
61 Chisholm rightly describes this section as “tell[ing] how the Lord providentially brought about Abimelech’s demise and Shechem’s destruction.” Chisholm, Judges and Ruth, 309.
62 Dietch sees evidence of the evil spirit’s work in “the civic assembly’s attempt to enrich themselves at Abimelech’s expense” and in their favorable response to Gaal. Dietch, Authority and Violence, 174. She also believes the spirit’s influence is behind Abimelech’s “sudden outbursts of violence” (177).
63 So also Assis, Self-Interest, 170; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 263. Begg makes the interesting observation that Josephus departs from his source material when he eliminates all references to God’s personal involvement in events that led to the downfall of Abimelech and the Shechemites. Instead, Josephus replaces any notion of DRA with “the impersonal forces of ‘misfortune’ and ‘righteous doom.’”
Begg believes that this is part of Josephus’s strategy to make the biblical story more palatable to a Gentile audience. Begg, “Abimelech according to Josephus,” 163–64.