Back into the History section again and we have to adjust to a change of pace. Whereas Exodus to Joshua covers a period of maybe sixty, seventy years, Judges deals with several hundred. And it is a totally different style to what we’ve read so far. Flitting here and there, re-telling the legends of old, never quite saying anything but often implying much, we’re found laughing, crying and, much of the time, staring blankly in confusion at why such a large section of Israel’s history would be remembered this way.

What I like about Judges is the brutal honesty about the state of life after Moses and Joshua. Ever since Exodus we’ve been reading Israelite experience through the lens of its leadership as they desperately work to create a Yahweh-identity among the wandering community. Now they’re settled and their leaders have gone we see the uncertainty this giant family has in their Suzerain. Only one generation need pass and he is forgotten.

We shouldn’t forget how much was established for Israel since Egypt. An entire national constitution was written, but more than that: the radical National Covenant with Yahweh for the Promised Land. Nowhere prior to Exodus 20 do we see evidence for any demand from the ‘God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ for exclusivity. The Patriarchs followed the God who had appeared to them and promised descendants and land, but their response need only be ‘faith’. Yet in the legal code of Sinai through to the Covenant call east of the Jordan, Moses develops a way of no compromise for the Israelites that demands absolute and exclusive allegiance to Yahweh. It is quite possible they had not even heard the name Yahweh till Sinai!

Amidst all this change it is quite understandable that the Israelites were not sold on the Yahweh Covenant. Despite Moses most passionate exhortations, the average Israelite had clearly not ‘impressed [the Law] upon their children’ (Deut 6:7 contra Jud 2:10). When these little ones grew up in a land they would call home, they had no reason to reject their neighbours in the way their parents had. Indeed not only were this invading people more amenable, they had also lost their momentum.

The stories of the Judges are stories of tribal loyalties and disorganised leadership. Heroes with their ‘adventurers’ litter the pages, strange or power-hungry warriors who would keep the enemies at bay, yet do little more for the people. Without spiritual leadership the faith of Yahweh suffers; mixed with its local Baals there is little hope for faith a la Moses.

Thus the people of Israel would live for several hundred years in perpetual insecurity. Surrounding kingdoms waxed and waned and the fortunes of the People of God followed suit. Without a king, the people would simply do as they pleased (21:25).

We must appreciate that Judges appears to be written from the perspective of a monarchist. Indeed the whole of the Old Testament history revolves around the establishment of Israel as a nation in its own right. That Judges is a brief interlude between the invasion (Joshua) and the set-up of the Kingdom (1 Samuel) is reflected in the conclusion of the book which rounds up this extensive period with tart reference to this notably ‘king’-less debacle.

Judges tells us as much about a later Israel, therefore, as it does about its own time. Stories of the disastrous situation precipitated by anarchy reinforce the belief that the Monarchy must be preserved. And as we follow the flow of the Old Testament into the New, the role of the king and the rule of the kingdom will remain fundamental themes for a beleaguered Israel.

For 21st Century Christian readers our perspective is not concerned with land or ritual or kings and priests. But we do need to know how to follow God in a land of differing beliefs and ideas. Can we remain faithful to Jesus without driving out our enemies or withdrawing to the shadows? Is it possible to be clear without being exclusive and involved without becoming tainted?

And do we need a king? Not for our national constitution, but for our spiritual life – our life in the Kingdom of God. Has the notion of singular authority had its day? Are we really worse off without commands? Is Phillip Pullman right: would we be better serving in the Republic of Heaven?

Questions for reflection:

1. Who leads you?

2. Who do you lead? Why? Where?