Jesus in Judges

When we read in Luke 24 that the Resurrected Lord explained to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus how the whole Old Testament teaches concerning himself, one might be forgiven for assuming that Jesus glossed over the book of Judges pretty quickly. After all, how can such a dark book teach concerning the Light of the world? But if we are right to assume that all of the OT testifies concerning Christ, we must seek to find him even in Judges. Although it is not apparent at first, what we find is that the entire book, not just discrete scenes, shows us concerning Christ’s person and work.

The first places I think we ought to look to find Jesus in Judges are those episodes where the Angel of the Lord appears. After reading of each scene where this mysterious figure appears and hearing how he speaks and how people respond to him, we are lead to assume that this figure is much more than just an ordinary angel. Indeed, many scholars are right to conclude that these are theophanies or appearances of a divine figure in the likeness of a man. What we have here are pre-incarnate appearances of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Divine Logos. We see him in chapter 2 bring forth the covenant lawsuit against unfaithful Israel (Law). And in chapters 6 and 13, he brings announcements of future deliverance from their enemies (Gospel).

But it is not just in these places that we find Christ. Indeed, as I already said, the whole book is about him. But how? To answer that, we must first ask when Judges may have been written. If we can get an idea of the original intent of the author and the expectations of its original audience, we can better understand how it speaks of the One who was to come.

Judges never tells us who wrote it, nor does it say when, so we are left to speculate a bit. Judges tells us of the time in Israel’s history “when there was no king” (17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25), suggesting that its final composition took place in a time when there was a king. Also, it speaks of this time as a very dark and chaotic era, where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” We also see much focus upon the fact that Israel lacked unity and strong centralized leadership like that of Moses or Joshua. The tribes are always bickering and fighting like little children. So Judges clearly argues for the need for a good king to rule over the people, to establish law and order, promote pure worship, and unite them as one people of God with faithfulness to his covenant. It is these sorts of expectations and desires that lead me to believe that Judges was written during the life and times of king David. It is easy to see David as the original answer to the problem of godly leadership because he, more than any other king in Israel’s history, fulfilled the description given above.

You may be wondering at this point, “I thought you said the book was about Jesus? Why so much speculation about David?” The beauty of a Redemptive Historical interpretation is that you can appreciate a portion of Scripture from many different vantage points. We can seek to read the book the way the original audience may have, but then also consider how the book may have been viewed throughout Redemptive History. The reigns of David and Solomon represent the golden age in Israel’s monarchy, after them the gold gets really dim, really fast. You can see how these readers would start to think that maybe David wasn’t God’s final solution to Israel’s problems and then begin to look for another One who is to come who would finally and ultimately offer salvation. So as we read of all the shortcomings of the judges, Christ’s presence can be felt in his absence. Reading of the failures of these men reminds of the success of the one Man, Jesus Christ.

A judgement on Judges

If I had to choose a favorite book from the Old Testament, it would have to be Judges… but probably for all the wrong reasons. No other book seems to be so lurid and sordid in content, especially for its relative brevity. It’s a book of violence and gore. It’s full of scandal and indecency. This is pulp fiction at its best. Time and time again we read of men and women who are used to further Redemptive History while committing foolish, disgraceful, or even heinous acts. Scholars are agreed that this represents the darkest era of Israel’s history.

But to dismiss the people we read of in Judges as pure barbarians, incapable of any refined culture or saving graces, would be the height of folly. Even the literary composition of the book sheds some light on their capabilities. The book contains poems, fables, riddles, intrigue, irony, etc. The stories told here rival that of any others from various cultures. And let’s us not forget that the writer to the Hebrews names Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah among the likes of Abraham and Moses, men of faith and virtue.

But how do we make sense of the book? What is the book of Judges all about and why is such a book contained in the OT canon?

First, we should look at it in context. Judges, both canonically and chronologically, comes right on the heels of the book of Joshua. The book of Joshua is a book that describes the largely successful conquest of the land of Canaan. It describes what OT scholars term harem warfare. From the Hebrew word which means, “to devote to destruction,” it describes how the Israelites were to deal the inhabitants within the land of Canaan, namely, total annihilation. In other words, there were to be no survivors. Since the land was a typological representation of heaven, there was to be nothing in the land that would defile it. Canaan was to be a heavenly sanctuary like the Garden of Eden; nothing impure could be tolerated. As the new possessors of Canaan, the Israelites were to be agents of God’s wrath, the very same wrath that He has stored up for the wicked on the Last Day.

As I mentioned above, Joseph was pretty successful at this. No less than 15 times in his book we read that the Israelites “devoted [their enemies] to destruction.” As for the Israelites in Judges… not so much. It mentions them devoting their enemies to destruction in 1:17, but not again till the very end of the book and there its not one of the indigenous peoples, but the tribe of Benjamin, their fellow Israelites!

So Judges details the downward spiral of the children of Israel and their fall into disobedience to God’s law, perversion of worship and utter depravity. The last two stories included in the book show that the Israelites were no better than the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. And this is all presented in a circular fashion. The typical cycle one encounters in Judges is as follows: the people do what is evil – God sends their enemies to oppress them – the people of Israel cry out to God – God raises up a judge to deliver them – they have a time of peace. But the frustrating part is that this cycle keeps repeating itself and it keeps getting worse and worse. This is seen clearly in 2:19 where we read that Israel grew “more corrupt” each and every time they rebelled after God delivered them.

This failure on Israel’s part becomes even more striking when one considers the nature of the Mosaic covenant that it was under. While individual Israelites were always saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (just like us), on a national level, as a corporate entity, regarding their tenure in the land of Canaan, they were under a covenant of works. The terms were pretty simple: if you obey my laws and worship only YHWH, then you will be blessed in the land, but if you disobey and go after other gods, then you will be cursed in the land (e.g. oppressors, wild animals, and ultimately, expulsion). Judges, therefore, represents a very shaky start for the Israelites upon their dwelling in the land, which was supposed to be flowing with milk and honey.

Ascension assumptions...

It's been noted that recent treatments of the Ascension of Christ view it as little more than a dazzling exclamation point on the Resurrection.* After all, Jesus had to get to heaven somehow. Unfortunately, this failure to recognize the Ascension as a unique Redemptive-Historical act renders it little different from Christ just "passing away." For a concise, yet detailed, treatment of the Ascension one can turn to the Heidelberg Catechism (HC). Ironically, while the HC only gives one question to explain the Resurrection of Christ, it devotes four to the Ascension (#46-49)! This is due, in part, to the Lutheran controversy regarding the ubiquity of Christ and how it is he makes good on his promise to be with us always (Matthew 28:20), but it also serves to show the importance and far-reaching implications of that doctrine.

The HC lists three "benefits" that we have from the Ascension: first, he is our Advocate before the Father. This is a legal term which denotes one who appears on behalf of another. He pleads our cause before the Father on the basis of his obedience and sufferings for us (I John 2:1-2). Hebrews speaks of the fact that Christ is our High Priest, "who ever lives to make intercessions for us" (7:25).

Second, the HC goes on to say that "we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge" that we will one day join him. In the '60's we put a man on the moon; many are confident that in the near future, we can do the same on Mars... but what is really impressive, is that we have a Man, one of our own flesh and blood, in heaven! And the fact that he's there, is a guarantee that we, as his members, will be taken up to himself at the resurrection. Because, as the old adage goes: "As Christ, so the Church."

Third, we learn that because of the Ascension, Christ sends us his Holy Spirit through whom he fills and empowers the Church. This is made especially clear in Luke's second account of the Ascension in Acts 1. Here Christ instructs his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until he sends them the Spirit, so that they may become witnesses of him throughout the world. Thus we see that the Ascension and resulting session of Christ is the current Redemptive-Historical event that we experience. While we look back at Christ's death and resurrection, and we anticipate his return, it is to our Ascended Lord that we look now for grace and help.

*This point is made by Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), and expounded upon by Michael Horton, People and Place (Louisville: WJK, 2008).

The purpose of prayer

One of the most comforting things about prayer is that our requests are being made known to an all-powerful and sovereign God. We can have absolute confidence that our prayers will not go unanswered and that God will accomplish his own purposes because he is in control of everything. A great example of this is seen in Acts 4 where the early believers, praying in the face of persecution, addressed God as "Sovereign Lord, who made heaven and earth...." They were recalling God's absolute power in order to assure themselves that they had nothing to fear, and that God was in control of every factor of life (cf. v.28). In fact, if God is not absolutely sovereign, if he doesn't control everything that comes to past, then what's the point of praying in the first place? I think it was B.B. Warfield who once said, "Every Christian is a Calvinist when they're on their knees." But, if God is in control of everything, and his purposes will be accomplished no matter what we do, we also are tempted to ask the same question. What is necessary is a proper Biblical perspective on prayer:

Prayer is commanded.

The first and most important reason why we as Christians should continue in prayer is because it is explicitly commanded in Scripture. That this alone is reason enough for us to pray can go without saying. Even if praying makes absolutely no sense to us whatsoever, we still should do so because God said so. Growing up, I always vowed that I'd never say to my future kids, "Do it cause I said so!" Sadly, now that I have two of my own, I find myself saying those very words. But I don't think this is how Scripture presents the command for prayer. Indeed, there are many good reasons given for us to pray.

Prayer is part of our gratitude.

When the Heidelberg Catechism asks in question #116, "Why is prayer necessary for Christians?" it first answers by saying, "Because it is the chief part of our thankfulness which God requires of us...." Prayer is how we respond to God's initial, unsolicited saving actions for us. Like the one out of ten lepers who actually came back to thank Jesus for the healing (Luke 17), prayer is our way of saying "thank you" to Christ for his total and complete salvation.

Prayer is necessary.

The Heidelberg Catechism goes on in its answer in #116 by saying regarding prayer: "God will give his grace and Spirit only to those who earnestly and without ceasing ask them of him and render thanks unto him for them." In other words, if we do not ask, we will not receive (Matthew 7:7-11; James 4:2). This is not meant to imply that God is somehow dependent on us to accomplish things, but rather, that he is pleased to use prayer as a means to do so. So prayer is not equivalent to thinking good thoughts or visualizing our potential... it actually works. Of course, the only way that this is possible is through the mediating prayer of Christ our intercessor (Hebrews 7:25) and the Spirit (Romans 8:26).

Prayer is mysterious.

When everything has been said and done; after all the reasons have been given, there still remains in prayer an element of mystery. This is, of course, because prayer involves speaking to God. God is transcendent, that is, he is above all of our highest thoughts; he cannot be comprehended. His ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). We as finite, temporal beings cannot even begin to fathom the depths of God's actions, but we can trust his word, and know that he is for us and not against us.

A unique inheritance

In the ancient world, obtaining an inheritance was crucial to maintaining wealth and prosperity. This was not a time like ours where individuals were encouraged to go out and strike their own fortunes. Thus we see, for example, the utter heinousness of the prodigal son's request to his father in Christ's parable. Taking this common social custom as a very apt metaphor, Biblical writers often mention the inheritance which God has promised to give to his people. The apostle Paul, for example, continues his litany of Spiritual blessings available only through union with Christ in Ephesians 1:11 by saying, "In him we have obtained an inheritance..." The word he uses here is the passive verb form of the same word used in verse 14. Taken generally, it could just mean that we were simply "chosen" by God as the NIV seems to suggest, but since Paul has already discussed individual election in verse 4, and the fact that he continues to discuss the issue of inheritance in verse 14, I think the idea of inheritance should be brought out. But then another translational option presents itself when we consider the fact that the verb is indeed, passive. So rather than saying "we have obtained an inheritance," I think it also can be rendered, "we have been chosen as an inheritance." If this is the case, then the one getting an inheritance here, is not us as the people of God, but God choosing us, his people, as his inheritance. This falls in line with a rich OT motif where God chooses Israel as his own special possession (Exo 15:16; 19:5; Deut 7:6; Ps 33:12; cf. I Pet 2:9). So we see in vivid detail a reciprocal promise summarized by the covenantal formula: "I will be your God, and you will be my people."

But then in verse 12, Paul says something that (for us Gentiles anyway) may throw a whole wrench in this interpretation. He says, "So that we who were first to hope in Christ..." What Paul does here, is distinguish between himself and his present company, and those to whom he is writing. When he designates himself and others as "those who first hoped in Christ," he no doubt is referring to Jewish believers who received the gospel first as opposed to the Gentile believers who were told about it later. The question to ask at this point is: is the "we" in verse 12 the same as the "we" in verse 11? In other words, are only Jewish believers God's special possession and inheritance? There are some who suggest this. The facts, however, emphatically state the opposite.

In verse 13 Paul goes on to speak specifically of the Gentile converts by saying that after they heard the gospel, they believed it, and believing, they were sealed by the Holy Spirit. A seal in the ancient world (as in our day) was a mark of ownership. Whether it was a brand mark on cattle or slaves, or whether it was an insignia imprinted on a piece of wax or clay, they were a clear way of letting others know that something belonged to you. When Paul told his audience that the Holy Spirit seals them, he was stating in a vivid and emphatic manner, that they belonged to God. Further, the way in which Paul writes these two verbs: "believing " and "sealing," suggests that they happen simultaneously, that is, the moment one believes in Christ is also the same moment that they are sealed by the Spirit, there is no time delay.

Paul further elaborates on the role of the Spirit in the believers life by calling the Spirit the "guarantee" of our inheritance. The word used here (arrabon) was commonly used in commerce when someone wanted to purchase something but didn't have enough money to pay for it all at once. What he would do is leave an arrabon which would serve as a type of down payment or earnest money to show that he was serious about coming back with the full sum to purchase the item. In most cases, this deposit was non-refundable, so if the person changed his mind, he wasn't getting any of the arrabon back. Here Paul tells us that God has given us his Spirit to show how serious he is about redeeming us, and he's never going to take that away!

Finally, to further ensure his readers that all the benefits of inheritance were theirs, Paul designates the inheritance in verse 14 as "ours." Did you notice what the apostle did? First he distinguishes between himself and fellow Jewish believers (v.11-12) and his audience of predominantly Gentile believers (v.13). Then he unites them all together in verse 14 by saying "our" inheritance. The distinction is not an ethnic one, between national Israel and the church, rather it's chronological or Redemptive Historical. That is to say, in the past, God worked with Israel, but now the covenant community has broadened to include all types of people. There is but one people of God (Eph 2:11-22).

Was it really necessary?

The atonement of Christ is rightly viewed as a central aspect of the Christian religion. Its true significance and even its necessity, however, has been debated throughout church history and it still continues to this day. Here are some of the traditional views that have been held throughout the history of the church:

Christus victor - this view, held by many of the early church fathers, saw fallen humanity in bondage to Satan. In order to redeem us, Christ agreed to give his life as a ransom by dying on the cross. Satan took the bait, as it were, and agreed to the trade. However, in so doing, he sealed his defeat, because the power of Christ’s death and subsequent resurrection actually destroyed the powers of darkness. Readers of C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe may find this depiction familiar in his story of Aslan giving his life for Edmund and in so doing, defeating the White Witch.

Satisfaction theory – in the eleventh century, a bishop by the name of Anselm wrote a book entitled, Cur Deus homo? (lit. “Why the God man?”). In this work, Anselm spoke of the necessity of the incarnation of Christ as well as the purpose and intent of the atonement. He spoke of humanity’s estrangement and hostility with God being the result of having offended his honor. Instead of a ransom being paid to Satan, Christ was to offer his life to an offended God; his death was a payment for humanity’s debt in order to restore the honor due his name. This view has been criticized in contemporary discussions due to its heavy reliance upon Anselm’s own social assumptions of the feudal system.

Moral influence theory – Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm, did not view God as needing any sort of appeasement in order to reconcile humanity to him, but rather placed the blame upon human hostility that they have towards God and each other. Thus, he spoke of the atonement as God’s ultimate demonstration of love towards his creatures. The purpose of the atonement, therefore, is to serve as an example of selfless love, which then changes people’s hearts to no longer want hostility, but reconciliation. This view, unlike the others, is purely subjective, that is, the atonement does not accomplish anything outside of people’s lives (e.g. satisfying God’s justice or defeating the powers of darkness), but only has effect in the hearts of people. Also, the atonement is not strictly necessary, since it was merely a demonstration of God’s love and a free act of his will.

Feminist theory – in contemporary discussions of the atonement, perhaps the most radical and blunt theory is that which says the atonement is nothing more than a case of divine child abuse. For God the Father to have his Son die on the cross is cruel and unusual, they say. Further, they suggest that the doctrine of the atonement has been used to exploit people (women especially), by suggesting that humble submission in the face of suffering has redemptive value. Despite all of this theory’s obvious faults, I do not think that we should so easily dismiss it. If a view does not see the atonement as absolutely necessary in order to satisfy God’s justice, then I believe that it is subject to the feminist critique.

Reformed view - the atonement, according to this view, is of “consequent absolute necessity,” that is, since God has determined to redeem fallen humanity, the cross of Christ was the only way. It is not a case of divine child abuse since, according to the pactum salutus (“covenant of peace”), the Son voluntarily agrees to give his life for the people whom the Father has chosen. Like Anselm’s theory, this was done in order to make satisfaction towards God (cf. Heidelberg Catechism #12-17), but unlike his view, this was to meet his justice, not some other arbitrary standard. Christ also defeated the powers of darkness on the cross and though his Spirit, he applies the benefits of his death and resurrection towards all of the elect.

Direction concerning election

Election is perhaps one of the most difficult and contentious doctrines in Christianity. To be told that, in the final analysis, we did not choose Christ, but that he chose us (John 15:16) is insulting to our self-determinative, individualistic mentalities. In our society we are lead to believe that it is our power to choose that makes us who we are (typically this is by marketing campaigns that want us to "choose" their product). Human autonomy does not like to have things out of its control. Despite all this, however, as Christians we must have a doctrine of election because it is so clearly taught in Scripture. Furthermore, I would argue that a proper understanding of election affords the Christian with unspeakable comfort as well as gratitude for godly living.

Contrary to those who think that election is a doctrine we should believe but not talk about all that much, the apostle Paul opens up his famous "blessing" (berakah) in Ephesians 1 extolling our heavenly Father first and foremost for the blessing of election. Neither does he stop talking about God's eternal purposes throughout the book (cf. 1:11; 2:10; 3:11). Clearly, this is something that we should not shrink from proclaiming, even if its not that popular. At this point, I'd like to answer some questions that will help us better understand the doctrine of election.

Who chose whom? Surely the credit for the decision making in election goes to God and God alone. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that Christians are "elect" because of decisions that they made. In all of our endeavors to protect the free will of mankind, we must be careful not to deprive God of his free will. This is, I suggest, what the vast majority of Evangelicals do when they seek to explain how it is that God chose the elect and speak as if God "looked down the corridors of time, and saw who would believe in him, and then, chose those people." In this very rational scenario, who is it that is making the crucial decision? Who chooses the deciding factor? Is not God's choice relegated to a mere confirmation of a "good decision"?

This is why Reformed theology seeks to understand Scripture by saying that election is "unconditional," that is, there were no conditions found in the elect (e.g. making a decision) that caused or even influenced God's choice. Surely this is Paul's intent when he tells us in Eph 1:4 that God's choice took place "before the foundation of the world." I don't know about you, but I certainly wasn't around at that time.

Why did God choose? This is a very important question to ask because if God did not choose us because we were the brightest and the best or because we possessed good decision-making capabilities, then why on earth would he elect us, filthy, rotten sinners that we are? I don't think we will ever even begin to comprehend ultimately why God chose us because it is due to the unfathomable riches of his grace, but we can see what God's attitude was towards his decision to do so. First of all, Paul tells us in Eph 1:4-5 that God chose us because he loved us. Contrary to the notion that God's election was completely arbitrary and capricious, we find here the notion that election was based upon a personal and affective choice of individuals that God loves. This is the true meaning of the Biblical notion of "foreknowledge." In the Old Testament, to "know" someone, was to have a personal and intimate relationship with someone. In the New Testament, we are told that God "knew" us even before we were born (Rom 8:29)! Another thing that Paul says concerning election is that it was according to "the good pleasure of his will" (Eph 1:5; NKJV). The Greek word used here is eudokia, which means, "that which pleases someone." In other words, God decided to choose us because it was pleasing to him; it made him happy to do it!

How did God choose? When discussing the blessing of election (as well as all the other Spiritual blessings) in Eph 1, Paul never ceases to tell us that it comes to us "in Christ." This term, which is so prevalent in Paul's writings, speaks of the union that a believer has with Christ as his or her covenantal head. So, in a real sense, Christ is the location in which we receive all the blessings of God, election being one of them. Paul tells us that we have been blessed "in the Beloved" (Eph 1:6). The only way that we can obtain the status of being elect and beloved, is because of the Elect and Beloved one, Jesus Christ. This notion should not lead us to deny individual election in favor of an indeterminate, corporate election (a nameless, faceless mass of people termed: "elect"), but rather, is the source and bedrock for every elect individual. Because we are in Christ by faith, we share in all of his blessings; as Christ, so the church.