href="#ulink_a10c2b45-984e-520b-a8c1-2c4fb88324f9">152 This was a wholesale defection from Yahweh to harlotry! Talking of which, we are also surprised to spot another new datum regarding the apostasy of the Israelites: their intermarriage with the inhabitants of the lands (along with a repeated affirmation that they served other gods, 3:6)—the first time such an accusation of exogamy is brought against God’s people in Judges. That was a clear violation of warnings given in Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3–4; and Josh 23:12–13. By these unsanctioned unions, societal structures would be destroyed, religious affections diluted, and Yahwistic passions adulterated. According to Chisholm, this is “the missing piece in the puzzle that explains how the compromises of Jdg 1:1—2:5 led to the outright paganism of 2:6—3:6 . . . for close alliances of this type pollute the covenant community and inevitably lead to compromise and sin.”153 One might picture the causal relationships that link Prologues I and II this way.154
Intermarriage is thus the “middle term” that demonstrates the sequence: living → intermarrying → serving. This particular sin had not been mentioned thus far; instead, what we found was the endogamous marriage of Othniel and Achsah, the former being the first and exemplar judge of the book (3:7–11). But the Israelites fail to follow that perfect model and lapse into harlotry, in more ways than one (2:2, 11–13, 17, 19; 3:6).
Thus Prologue I/Pericope 1 (Jdg 1:1—2:5) appears to take place before the apostasy of the Israelites. The consequence of living with the Canaanites was intermarriage, that led to the Israelites’ subsequent infidelity to Yahweh. So Prologue II (2:6–3:6) is a “narrative abstract, an outline” of this progressively increasing unfaithfulness that is detailed in the remainder of the book and is contemporaneous with the accounts of the judges (Body: Jdg 3:7—16:31).155 All that to say, forsaking God has its consequences.
2.2. Judges 3:7–11
| THEOLOGICAL FOCUS 2.2 | ||
| 2 | Personal experience of God produces unwavering commitment to him, with minimizing of self so as to give him glory (3:7–11). | |
| 2.2 | Faithful commitment to God gives him the glory and minimizes self (3:7–11). |
NOTES 2.2
2.2 Faithful commitment to God gives him the glory and minimizes self.
The final part of Pericope 2 is the narrative of the first judge, Othniel (3:7–11). His story is launched with a formulaic report, “And the sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh” (3:7; also seen in the paradigm in 2:11, replicated at the beginning of the narratives of each of the major judges: 3:12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). It is likely that Othniel is part of the post-Joshua generation; his label as the son of Caleb’s “younger brother” (in 1:13 and 3:9), emphasizes this generational distinction.156 And thus the stories of the judges begin, with a new generation on stage.
In its details, Othniel’s account corresponds precisely with the paradigm set up in 2:11–19:
All of the stereotypical language is closely followed; there is no indication of any heroic personal action on the part of Othniel. Othniel’s account does not resemble a narrative as much as it does a “pattern-fulfillment description.”157 No other account will follow the paradigm of 2:11–19 as closely and as unambiguously as does the Othniel narrative, the shortest one of the stories of the major judges. Othniel is depicted as an ideal judge in a far-less-than-ideal age—when the post-Joshua generation did “what was evil in the sight of Yahweh” (3:7).
Othniel, as far as we are told, has no flaws, no character deficiencies, and no idiosyncrasies that cripple him, unlike the judges who follow. In the other judge accounts, there is always mention of a personal detail of the judge in question that appears to render that individual an unlikely choice for leader: Ehud’s left-handedness, Barak’s timidity, Gideon’s indecision, Jephthah’s pedigree, and Samson’s promiscuity. But not for Othniel—he, apparently, is blemishless, unless one counts his Kenizzite status: he is of foreign blood, but becomes firmly entrenched in the tribe of Judah.158 “[A]lthough for the first time there is a particular enemy and a particular judge, there are no plot expansions or developments: no dialogue, no reported speech of any kind, no dramatization of events, no scenic presentations, no descriptions of any character flaws, and so on. . . . Nothing distracts the reader from the clear message of God’s intervention through the deliverer . . . he raises up.”159 Thus any future deviation from the paradigm and its parade example, Othniel’s account, will be significant. “It is almost as if the narrative immediately presents us with an example of what the coming story about the judges will not look like.”160 So all we have in 3:1–7 is a verbally frugal, narrativally skeletal story of a man faithful to his God, bringing about good for his people. Perhaps that is the best kind of leader, the one without flashy pyrotechnics or glaring flaws. If only all the judges had been like Othniel, responsibly setting things straight, zealously striving for Yahweh, warring in the might of Yahweh’s Spirit, and bringing about rest for the land. But, alas, 3:12 shows us what happens after this worthy judge: “And the sons of Israel continued to do evil in Yahweh’s sight.” After Othniel, each judge account seems to be disintegrating, at least from the perspective of the paradigm, losing elements therefrom or, as in most cases, adding more insalubrious details of the evildoing of the Israelites, the turpitude of the judge, the oppression of the enemies, and the deplorable state at the demise of the particular leader.
Despite the strict adherence to the paradigm, 3:7 does introduce yet another new facet of the Israelites’ evildoing: “they forgot Yahweh their God.” This failure of memory, of which they had been warned in Deut 6:12 and 8:11, seems to have been the cause of all their transgressions—evildoing and serving Baals and the Asheroth (hinted also in Jdg 2:10–11: this new generation did not know Yahweh or his deeds, and that led them to evildoing and serving Baals). “To forget the Lord involves neglect of his covenant demands, ingratitude for his blessings, and a self-sufficient attitude. This in turn opens the door to idolatry.”161 It seems that forgetting Yahweh made them remember Baals! Because the Israelites “served” the Baals and Asheroth (3:7), they were made to “serve” the king of Mesopotamia, Cushan-rishathaim (3:8).162 The impact of his name and its etymology echoes in this brief narrative: “Cushan-rishathaim” occurs twice in 3:8 and twice in 3:10 (also repeated is “king of Mesopotamia,” 3:8, 10); “Othniel,” too, occurs only twice in the cameo (3:9, 11). But one notices that “Yahweh” occurs seven times in just five verses. So this narrative turns out to be primarily not about Othniel, but about Yahweh, himself. Indeed, in no other judge narrative is the role of God so clearly depicted; no other story does Yahweh permeate as fully as he does this one.
Yahweh’s support, an element of the paradigm, also shows up in an unusual way for the first time: “And Yahweh’s Spirit came upon him” (3:10). In the paradigm, this is reflected in the notice that “Yahweh was with the judge” (2:18), but the coming of the Spirit upon Othniel (and on some of the other judges) indicates a dramatic and dynamic involvement of Yahweh with his chosen deliverer.163 Underlining this support are textual clues: Othniel’s actions (in wayyiqtol verbs) is three times preceded by God’s primary action:
