Judges

Judges

This name is applied to fifteen persons who at intervals presided over the affairs of the Israelites during the 450 years which elapsed from the death of Joshua to the accession of Saul. The station and office of these 'rulers of the people,' as the original literally signifies, are involved in great obscurity, partly from the want of clear intimations in the history in which their exploits and government are recorded, and partly from the absence of parallels in the history of other nations, by which our notions might be assisted. They may be briefly described as faithful men, who acted for the most part as agents of the Divine will, regents for the Invisible King of the chosen people; and who, holding their commission directly from Him, or with His sanction, would be more inclined to act as dependent vassals of Jehovah than kings, who, as members of royal dynasties, would come to reign with notions of independent rights and royal privileges, which would draw away their attention from their true place in the theocracy. In this greater dependence of the judges upon the Divine King we see the secret of their institution. The Israelites were disposed to rest upon their separate interests as tribes; and having thus allowed the standing general government to remain inoperative through disuse, they would in cases of emergency have been disposed to forget that Jehovah had taken upon Himself the function of their Supreme Ruler, and 'to make themselves a king like the nations,' had their attention not been directed to the appointment of officers whose authority could rest on no tangible right apart from character and services, which, with the temporary nature of their power, rendered their functions more accordant with the principles of the theocracy than those of any other public officers could be. And it is probably in this adaptation to the peculiar circumstances of the Hebrew theocracy that we shall discover the reason of our inability to find any similar office among other nations.

With regard to the nature of the office held by these judges, it is usual to consider them as commencing their career with military exploits to deliver Israel from foreign oppression; but this is by no means invariably the case. Eli and Samuel were not military men; Deborah judged Israel before she planned the war against Jabin; and of Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, it is at least uncertain whether they ever held any military command. The command of the army can therefore be scarcely considered the distinguishing characteristic of these men/ or military exploits the necessary introduction to the office. In many cases it is true that military achievements were the means by which they elevated themselves to the rank of judges; but in general the appointment may be said to have varied with the exigencies of the times, and with the particular circumstances which in times of trouble would draw the public attention to persons who appeared suited by their gifts or influence to advise in matters of general concernment, to decide in questions arising between tribe and tribe, to administer public affairs, and to appear as their recognized head in their intercourse with their neighbors and oppressors.

In nearly all the instances recorded the appointment seems to have been by the free unsolicited choice of the people. The only cases of direct Divine appointment are those of Gideon and Samson, and the last stood in the peculiar position of having been from before his birth ordained 'to begin to deliver Israel.' Deborah was called to deliver Israel, but was already a judge. Samuel was called by the Lord to be a prophet, but not a judge, which ensued from the high gifts which the people recognized as dwelling in him; and as to Eli, the office of judge seems to have devolved naturally, or rather ex-officio, upon him; and his case seems to be the only one in which the high-priest appears in the character which the theocratical institutions designed for him.

The following clear summary of their duties and privileges is given by Jahn:—'The office of judges or regents was held during life, but it was not hereditary, neither could they appoint their successors. Their authority was limited by the law alone; and in doubtful cases they were directed to consult the Divine King through the priest by Urim and Thummim . They were not obliged in common cases to ask advice of the ordinary rulers; it was sufficient if these did not remonstrate against the measures of the judge. In important emergencies, however, they convoked a general assembly of the rulers, over which they presided and exerted a powerful influence. They could issue orders, but not enact laws; they could neither levy taxes nor appoint officers, except perhaps in the army. Their authority extended only over those tribes by whom they had been elected or acknowledged; for it is clear that several of the judges presided over separate tribes. There was no income attached to their office, nor was there any income appropriated to them, unless it might be a larger share in the spoils, and those presents which were made them as testimonials of respect . They bore no external marks of dignity, and maintained no retinue of courtiers, though some of them were very opulent. They were not only simple in their manners, moderate in their desires, and free from avarice and ambition, but noble and magnanimous men, who felt that whatever they did for their country was above all reward, and could not be recompensed; who desired merely to promote the public good, and who chose rather to deserve well of their country than to be enriched by its wealth. This exalted patriotism, like everything else connected with politics in the theocratical state of the Hebrews, was partly of a religious character, and those regents always conducted themselves as the officers of God; in all their enterprises they relied upon Him, and their only care was, that their countrymen should acknowledge the authority of Jehovah, their invisible king ( sq.; comp. Hebrews 11). Still they were not without faults, neither are they so represented by their historians; they relate, on the contrary, with the utmost frankness, the great sins of which some of them were guilty. They were not merely deliverers of the state from a foreign yoke, but destroyers of idolatry, foes of pagan vices, promoters of the knowledge of God, of religion, and of morality; restorers of theocracy in the minds of the Hebrews, and powerful instruments of Divine providence in the promotion of the great design of preserving the Hebrew constitution, and, by that means, of rescuing the true religion from destruction.'

The times of the judges would certainly not be considered so turbulent and barbarous, much less would they be taken, contrary to the clearest evidence and to the analogy of all history, for a heroic age, if they were viewed without the prejudices of a preconceived hypothesis. It must never be forgotten that the book of Judges is by no means a complete history. This no impartial inquirer can ever deny. It is, in a manner, a mere register of diseases, from which, however, we have no right to conclude that there were no healthy men, much less that there were no healthy seasons; since the book itself, for the most part, mentions only a few tribes in which the epidemic prevailed, and notices long periods during which it had universally ceased. Whatever may be the result of more accurate investigation, it remains undeniable that the condition of the Hebrews during this period perfectly corresponds throughout to the sanctions of the law and they were always prosperous when they complied with the conditions on which prosperity was promised them; it remains undeniable that the government of God was clearly manifested, not only to the Hebrews, but to their heathen neighbors; that the fulfilling of the promises and threatenings of the law were so many sensible proofs of the universal dominion of the Divine King of the Hebrews; and, consequently, that all the various fortunes of that nation were so many means of preserving the knowledge of God on the earth. The Hebrews had no sufficient reason to desire a change in their constitution; all required was, that they should observe the conditions on which national prosperity was promised them.

The chronology of the period in which the judges ruled is beset with great and perhaps insuperable difficulties. There are intervals of time the extent of which is not specified; as, for instance, that from Joshua's death to the yoke of Chushan-rishathaim that of the rule of Shamgar that between Gideon's death and Abimelech's accession and that of Israel's renewal of idolatry previous to their oppression by the Ammonites . Sometimes round numbers seem to have been given, as forty years for the rule of Othniel, forty years for that of Gideon, and forty years also for the duration of the oppression by the Philistines. Twenty years are given for the subjection to Jabin, and twenty years for the government of Samson; yet the latter never completely conquered the Philistines, who, on the contrary, succeeded in capturing him. Some judges, who are commonly considered to have been successive, were in all probability contemporaneous, and ruled over different districts. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to fix the date of each particular event in the book of Judges; but attempts have been made to settle its general chronology, of which we must in this place mention the most successful.

The whole period, of the judges, from Joshua to Eli, is usually estimated at 299 years, in order to meet the 480 years which are said to have elapsed from the departure of the Israelites from Egypt to the foundation of the temple by Solomon. But St. Paul says , 'God gave unto the people of Israel judges about the space of 450 years until Samuel the prophet.' Again, if the number of years specified by the author of our book, in stating facts, is summed up, we have 410 years, exclusive of those years not specified for certain intervals of time above mentioned. In order to reduce these 410 years and upwards to 299, events and reigns must, in computing their years of duration, either be entirely passed over, or, in a most arbitrary way, included in other periods preceding or subsequent. This has been done by Archbishop Usher, whose system, here peculiarly faulty, has been adopted in the Authorized Version of the Scriptures. He excludes the repeated intervals during which the Hebrews were in subjection to their enemies, and reckons only the years of peace and rest which were assigned to the successive judges. For example, he passes over the eight years of servitude inflicted upon the Hebrews by Chushan-rishathaim, and, without any interruption, connects the peace obtained by the victories of Othniel with that which had been conferred on the land by the government of Joshua; and although the sacred historian relates in the plainest terms possible that the children of Israel served the king of Mesopotamia eight years, and were afterwards delivered by Othniel, who gave the land rest forty years, the archbishop maintains that the forty years now mentioned began, not after the successes of this judge, but immediately after the demise of Joshua. Nothing certainly can be more obvious than that in this case the years of tranquility and the years of oppression ought to be reckoned separately. Again, we are informed by the sacred writer, that after the death of Ehud the children of Israel were under the oppression of Jabin king of Hazor for twenty years, and that afterwards, when their deliverance was effected by Deborah and Barak, the land had rest forty years. Nothing can be clearer than this; yet Usher's system leads him to include the twenty years of oppression in the forty of peace, making both but forty years. All this arises from the obligation which Usher unfortunately conceived himself under of following the scheme adopted by the Masoretic Jews, who, as Dr. Hales remarks, have by a curious invention included the four first servitudes in the years of the judges who put an end to them, contrary to the express declarations of Scripture, which represents the administrations of the judges, not as synchronizing with the servitudes, but as succeeding them. The Rabbins were indeed forced to allow the fifth servitude to have been distinct from the administration of Jephthah, because it was too long to be included in that administration; but they deducted a year from the Scripture account of the servitude, making it only six instead of seven years. They sank entirely the sixth servitude of forty years under the Philistines, because it was too long to be contained in Samson's administration; and, to crown all, they reduced Saul's reign of forty years to two years only.

The necessity for all these tortuous operations has arisen from a desire to produce a conformity with the date in , which, as already cited, gives a period of only 480 years from the Exode to the foundation of Solomon's temple. As this date is incompatible with the sum of the different numbers given in the book of Judges, and as it differs from the computation of Josephus and of all the ancient writers on the subject, whether Jewish or Christian, it is not unsatisfactory to find grounds which leave this text open to much doubt and suspicion. We cannot here enter into any lengthened proof; but that the text did not exist in the Hebrew and Greek copies of the Scripture till nearly three centuries after Christ, is evident from the absence of all reference to it in the works of the learned men who composed histories of the Jews from the materials supplied to them in the sacred books. This might be shown by reference to various authors, who, if the number specified in it had existed, could not fail to have adduced it.

It only remains to arrange the different systems of the chronology of this period so as to exhibit them in one view to the eye of the reader. It has been deemed right, for the better apprehension of the differences, to make the table embrace the whole period from the exode to the building of Solomon's temple. The headings are taken from Hales, simply because, from being the most copious, they can afford a framework within which all the explanations may be inserted.

The authorities for this table are: Josephus, Antiquities, v. 1-10; Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch (A.D. 330), Epist. ad Autolycum, iii.; Eusebius (A.D. 330), Praeparatio Evangelica, x. 14; Usher (1650), Chronologia Sacra, p. 71; Jackson (1752), Chronological Antiquities, p. 145; Hales (1811), Analysis of Chronology, i. 101; Russell (1827), Connection of Sacred and Profane History, i. 147.

Exodus to death of Moses	40	1648	40	1593	40	40	40	40	40	1491
Joshua (and the) Elders	26	1608	27	1553	25	25	27	27	..	1451
First Division of Lands	..	1602
Second Division of Lands	..	1596	..	..	..	..	6y. 4m.	1444
Anarchy or Interregnum	10	1582	2
I. Servitude, Mesopotamia	8	1572	8	1526	8	18	8	8	40	1413
1. Othniel	40	1564	40	1518	40	40	40	40	1405
II. Servitude, Moab	18	1524	18	1478	..	..	18	18	80	1343
2. Ehud (and)	80	1506	80	1460	80	80	80	80	1323
3. Shamgar	1	1	omitted
III. Servitude, Canaanite	20	1426	20	1380	20	20	20	20	40	1285
4. Deborah and Barak	40	1406	40	1360	40	40	40	40	1265
IV. Servitude, Midian	7	1368	7	1320	7	7	7	7	40	1252
5. Gideon	40	1359	40	1313	40	40	40	40	1245
6. Abimelech	3	1319	3	1273	3	3	3	3	9y. 2m.	1236
7. Tola	23	1316	22	1270	22	22	22	23	48	1232
8. Jair	22	1293	22	1248	22	22	22	22	1210
V. Servitude, Ammon	18	1271	18	1226	18	18	18	18	6	1206
9. Jephthah	6	1253	6	1208	6	6	6	6	1188
10. Ibzan	7	1247	7	1202	7	7	7	7	25	1182
11. Elon	10	1240	10	1195	10	10	10	10	1175
12. Abdon	8	1230	8	1185	8	8	8	1165