Original Meaning

“Who Will . . . Go Up?” (1:1–2a)

SECTION A (1:1–2A) opens with an important phrase “after the death of Joshua.” Most commentators claim that this phrase is a later addition. The phrase, however, can be compared with the beginning of the book of Joshua: “after the death of Moses.”7 Thus it may be “a stylistic way of recapitulating briefly the previous book before interpreting it further.”8 In this case, Judges recapitulates the position of Joshua (how much of the land Israel would occupy) before going on to the central question of Judges: Why could they not completely occupy the land?9

The phrase “the Israelites asked the LORD” (šʾl byhwh) expresses the idea of obtaining a declaration of the divine will and is substantially the same as (lit.) “inquire of the judgment of the Urim” (sʾl bmšpṭ hʾwrym) in Numbers 27:21, in which the divine will is obtained through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest. Thus at the beginning of the narrative, the Israelites seek divine guidance in the proper manner as to “Who will be the first to go up [ʿālâ] and fight for us against the Canaanites?” The idea contained in the term “first” is that of time, not rank. Hence, the question is who will be the first chronologically? While a series of campaigns by individual tribes is envisioned, the concept of a united Israel remains (“who will go up first for us!”).

Bridging Contexts

PRIMARY MESSAGE. Judges 1:1–2:5 is a complex passage with a primary message and a number of secondary or subsidiary messages. In bridging the ancient context with the modern, it is critical to recognize that the fundamental message of the passage is conveyed through its literary structure. In spite of some initial successes, especially by the tribe of Judah, the overall effect is an increasingly negative pattern.41 Israel’s failure to obey Yahweh’s word concerning the ḥērem (see the introduction) produces the military failure recorded in this chapter. The four stages of increasing failure document the beginning of the “Canaanizing” of Israel.

Disobedience breeds disastrous failure. Why is Israel’s disobedience to implement the ḥērem so devastating? Perhaps because of the ḥērem’s link to the issue of covenantal love of God (Deut. 7). Perhaps because God really does know what’s best for his people, and the implementation of the ḥērem would have brought the material and spiritual prosperity that God intended for Israel (cf. the specific blessings of Deut. 28). Had Israel implemented it consistently, the negative influence of the Canaanites would likely have been eliminated.

There can be no doubt concerning the difficulty in implementing the ḥērem. But this was God’s commandment to Israel, specific to their historical context and specific to Israel’s physical and spiritual situation. The lack of implementation can be directly attributed to a lack of belief and trust in God’s commandments.

This lack of implementation of God’s Word in the lives of the believing community because of a failure to believe and trust in God’s commandments transcends all ages. In many instances throughout the two millennia of the church’s history, the church as a whole has not realized some of Christ’s most basic commandments: to love God, to love one another, to go and make disciples of all nations, and so on. Often the church has been content to be “Canaanized,” to live as the world dictates.

It is important to note that a misapplication of this passage concerning the ḥērem and others like it is the teaching that makes this primarily apply to the issue of culture, as though this is simply an issue of Christian culture versus pagan culture. This often manifests itself in opinionated conflicts about particular cultural issues that the biblical text may be silent about. While culture is an issue (esp. as it may manifest ungodly worldviews) as it concerns the implementation of the ḥērem, it is secondary to the religious or spiritual issue. The ḥērem was not designed by God to eliminate the Canaanite culture per se but to eliminate the Canaanite religious influence. While it may be readily recognized that it is difficult in many instances to separate the two, there is nonetheless a distinction. The Israelite ḥērem commandments had close links to the issues of idolatry and the breaking of the second commandment (Ex. 22:20[19]; Deut. 7:26; 13:16–18[17–19]). That this is the case in Introduction 1 of Judges (1:1–2:5) is reinforced by Yahweh’s confrontation of the nation in 2:1–5, where it is their failure on the religious front that is of primary concern.

In other words, the ḥērem was not concerned with the eradication of Canaanite clothing fashions, pottery styles, music, diet, and other types of particular cultural preferences. But it was deeply concerned with the eradication of the Canaanite religion: its gods/idols, altars, rituals, divinatory practices, uses of magic, worldview, and so on.

While the overall message concerns the increasing failure of Israel to obey Yahweh’s word concerning the ḥērem and its resultant moral and spiritual degeneration, fortunately the passage also records the initial successes in the first stage of the four stages presented within the passage.

The basic successes in the beginning of the narration start with an inquiry of God. This is true in all ages. Without God’s guidance any endeavor is doomed to failure. Since the inquiry is in accordance with God’s will (i.e., that the Israelite tribes subjugate their allotments), there is explicit direction by God with the assurance that success will follow. This is an example of what the apostle John states: “This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him” (1 John 5:14–15).

Subsidiary messages. The vignettes that follow the inquiry describe the tribe of Judah’s general success in occupying its allotment. All of these vignettes provide short lessons in themselves that bridge between the ancient and contemporary contexts.

(1) The segment about the lord of Bezeq (Adoni-Bezek) demonstrates that God is answering the Israelites’ prayer for direction. God fulfills his promise in giving the Judahites victory over a harsh king who embodies the evil of Canaanite monarchy. God’s fulfillment of his promises is a confidence that transcends the ages. Moreover, the theme of God’s righteous retribution on evil is a message that transcends the ages.42 It provides hope in a fallen world where evil seems to constantly prevail.

In fact, in the judgment on the lord of Bezeq (Adoni-Bezek), Yahweh’s grace toward Israel is heightened, for the people do not deserve such a victory43 (they have already sown the seeds of failure by having made an unnecessary treaty between Judah and Simeon). Thus, from the beginning, they seem prone to do things their way, not God’s way. Judah’s treaty with Simeon, while explicable from a certain human standpoint, is not God’s will. Therefore, all of the victories that they achieve are the results of God’s grace toward them.

(2) The narration concerning Judah contains three vignettes: the conquest of Hebron, the conquest of Debir, and the movement of the Kenites. In the second and third vignettes, Yahweh’s grace is bestowed on individuals like Caleb, Othniel, Acsah, and the Kenites. In each instance, this grace is specially given to non-Israelites (see comments above). This theme—namely, that God gives grace to non-Israelites—is developed throughout the Old and New Testaments. Those who are not expected to evince faith do, and those who should show faith do not (cf. Rahab contrasted with Achan [Josh. 6–7], Elijah and the widow of Zarephath [1 Kings 17:7–24], Elisha and Naaman [2 Kings 5:1–19]; cf. also Luke 4:16–30). Such a lesson is a great encouragement to “Gentiles,” especially in the church age.

In the first vignette, God’s faithfulness to Judah is documented through the conquest of the city of Hebron, the very hub of the gigantic Anakites, the very ones who had discouraged the Israelite spies in Numbers 13. Such a victory is encouraging to God’s people in every generation who may face what appear to be insurmountable obstacles.

The story of the capture of Debir with a gift given in exchange for its conquest anticipates the story of David’s conquest of Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 5:6–15. In both instances, the military commander promises a special reward to the warrior who captures the town. In 2 Samuel 5, David is based in Hebron and moves to Jerusalem. Hence, David may be trying to duplicate the Judges 1:11–13 account (cf. Josh. 15:15–17) by describing the capture of another town from a base at Hebron. In both cases, the captured town becomes the inheritance of those who captured it.44

Once again, it is important to remember that the concept of the “land” in the Old Testament carried spiritual overtones. This is true here with the story of Acsah’s request for land and springs as well as in the story of the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–13; Josh. 17:3–6). The actions of all these women are strongly commended and serve as examples of faith.

In addition, Acsah’s request for springs is parallel to Rebekah’s meeting with Isaac (Gen. 24:61–67). Both accounts include:

• the female riding on an animal

• descent from the animal

• making a request

• receiving the desired result from the person who has authority or power in relationship to her

Both accounts also involve an inheritance of the blessing (“land”) that God had promised Abraham.

Acsah’s request is also analogous in certain ways to that of Ruth. Both are non-Israelite women who have been “grafted” into the community of faith. Both have men who are outstanding in their personal qualities. Both make requests that involved God’s blessings of inheritance (as connected to the land). Both received their requests.

(3) While there is relative success in Judah’s endeavors at conquering its allotment, the other tribes fall into the second, third or fourth stages of the less than successful tribes in their application of God’s directives (see Fig. 3 above). This culminates in Dan’s complete and utter failure to possess its allotment (Stage 4).

The only vignette given in Stage 2 is the story of the capture of Bethel. While it records a successful conquest, the passage obviously contrasts with the previous vignettes of Stage 1, since the capture is accomplished through compromise and deceit. The end does not justify the means.

The phraseology of the two middle stages (i.e., Stages 2 and 3) is revealing. In Stage 2, it documents that the Israelites failed to drive out the Canaanites and that the Canaanites lived among the respective Israelite tribes. In Stage 3, the Israelites failed to drive out the Canaanites, and the respective Israelite tribes live among the Canaanites. These statements demonstrate the increasing lack of faith and commitment to the Lord on the part of God’s people.

The failures in Stages 2 and 3 include either a lack of obedience (“not dispossessing/driving out”) or compromise (“living among”) or both. This can also be true in the modern context. If we examine our lives, the bulk of our failures—especially in spiritual matters, but not exclusively—are the results of outright disobedience to God’s explicit, straightforward commandments, or of attempting to live in such a way that we blend into the world. Believers are under constant pressure to conform to the world’s standards, and the desire not to be different is pronounced. Yet God has called us to different standards. To compromise is to endanger our very lives. Even on the corporate level this may be evident. Churches feel the pressure to conform to what other churches are doing (even though what these other churches are doing may not be scriptural).

(4) At the end of the day, Israel has broken the covenant. This is the indictment of the Lord in 2:1–5. God is especially angry with the people because they have not destroyed the Canaanite altars (even in the areas that they occupy). This is a direct violation of the ḥērem commandment. Moreover, God specifically indicts the Israelites for having entered into covenants (treaties) with the Canaanites. Having made peace with the enemy, they have jeopardized the conquest of the land. Such an indictment of God’s people bridges to many generations (cf. some of Christ’s indictments against the churches in the book of Revelation).

In conclusion, in bringing this section into our modern world, the recognition of the passage’s overall message as conveyed through its literary structure is vital. While the vignettes in the first portion of the passage provide some positive examples and encouragements, the remainder of the passage records the spiritual/moral declivity of the Israelites that culminates in the confrontation of the Israelites by the Lord in 2:1–5.

Contemporary Significance

WHILE THE OVERALL message of this passage resonates in significant ways in the modern context, it is wrong to apply it on a national level (i.e., by equating either the United States of America or some other modern political entity with ancient Israel) and to interpret the national history of the United States or some other political entity as parallel to that of the nation of Israel in the period of the judges. No contemporary nation equates with the Israel of the Old Testament, who represents the people of God.45

Commonly, passages like Judges 1:1–2:5 are used to critique and criticize modern American culture as a degeneration from the godly Christian culture of America’s beginnings. But this is a misreading of the basic political history of the United States and its founding fathers. This is most acute in the quoting of men like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in such a way as to give the impression that these men were “Christians” in the biblical sense of this term. In terms of their religious convictions as well as in their morals, both men were distinctly not Christians!

Thus, it is important that the proper correspondence to the passage is maintained. The church as God’s people is the proper correspondence to biblical Israel. Yet this too raises problems of application, for there are distinctions between the two entities that must be maintained; otherwise the very nature of the church may be blurred.46

It would seem that the best application of the passage is first on the individual level, then on a more limited corporate level. In other words, how does the primary message of 1:1–2:5 about the lack of faith and disobedience regarding the implementation of the ḥērem and the consequent spiritual/moral degeneration speak to us about our own commitments and obedience to the Lord and his commandments to us? In what ways does the passage challenge us? If God’s people failed in their allegiance to the Lord, how are we failing, and what are the consequences of our failures? These same questions can and should be asked on the corporate level with reference to local churches, to a denomination, or to the church as a whole.

Like ancient Israel, Christians also are in covenant relationship to God, albeit through a “better” covenant. Nevertheless, the stipulations of that covenant—“the law of love,” as Paul puts it—require obedience. While the warfare in which Christians are engaged is not physical but spiritual, the necessity of walking by faith in loyalty to Christ’s covenant is the only hope of victory.

Ḥērem. The natural question will likely arise: How are we to apply a passage like this one that centers around the implementation of the ḥērem? While it may seem obvious that we are not called to implement the ḥērem on our unbelieving neighbors, unfortunately many of the passages concerning the ḥērem have been misapplied by “Christians” throughout history to annihilate their enemies (the Crusades are a prime example of this type of misapplication).

The fact that must be remembered is conveyed in Ephesians 6:12: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”47 In other words, Christian warfare is spiritual, not physical. In the Old Testament, it was both physical and spiritual. But just because it is spiritual, not physical, does not mean that the warfare in the New Testament context is no less real. Thus, we are commanded to put on the full armor of God (Eph. 6:10–20) and engage in this spiritual warfare. The New Testament is replete with the use of military metaphors to describe our spiritual warfare. As Israel, in an overall sense, failed to implement the ḥērem because of a lack of faith and obedience, how are we failing in the implementation of Christ’s commandments because of unbelief and disobedience? How are we failing to implement Ephesians 6:10–20 in our daily lives? In many ways, this is how Judges 1:1–2:5 applies to Christians today.

Many Christians become so consumed with the world that they simply do not believe they are really in a spiritual confrontation. They have compromised with the world and have forgotten the apostle’s admonition “do not love the world or anything in the world” (1 John 2:15). Judges 1:1–2:5 warns us of the dangers of not trusting in God’s Word and heeding this admonition.

Subsidiary messages. The pragmatism of Judah’s alliance with Simeon (1:2, 17) serves as a warning to Christians. The natural way is not necessarily God’s way, for it can undercut his plan and lessen our dependence on him. Each tribe was responsible to conquer its own allotment, depending on God for the results. Note that Judah, because of its size, hardly needed Simeon to ensure the conquest of its allotment, and Simeon really did not need Judah to guarantee what God had promised he would do for them.

Fortunately, this passage also provides some good examples through the vignettes relating Judah’s successes. The story about the defeat of the lord of Bezeq (Adoni-Bezek) shows that God answers prayer, fulfills his promises, and brings retribution on evil. Such stories engender confidence that God will do these same things in our own contexts.

The stories of the conquests of Hebron and Debir emphasize God’s faithfulness and grace. The fact that Caleb and Othniel are non-Israelites only heightens this. The reality that God works “outside the circle” should encourage and challenge us. God often grafts into the community of faith individuals who become outstanding leaders.

For the Christian, Acsah represents a woman who will not be denied her full inheritance. She is a model resembling the women of the Gospels, who sought out Jesus and refused to be turned back by the crowds and by Jesus’ own disciples. As a result, they found salvation, healing, and blessing for themselves and their families (see Matt. 9:20–22; 15:21–28; 26:7–13; Mark 7:24–30; 14:3–9; Luke 2:36–38; 7:11–15, 36–50; 8:43–48; 13:10–17; 18:1–5).48

Yet in spite of these few positive vignettes, the overall pattern of moral and spiritual failure prevails in Judges 1:1–2:5. Disobedience and compromise dominate the remainder of the passage and signal important warnings to the modern context. Ultimately, to apply this passage is to heed its warnings.

Original Meaning

“Who Will . . . Go Up?” (1:1–2a)

SECTION A (1:1–2A) opens with an important phrase “after the death of Joshua.” Most commentators claim that this phrase is a later addition. The phrase, however, can be compared with the beginning of the book of Joshua: “after the death of Moses.”7 Thus it may be “a stylistic way of recapitulating briefly the previous book before interpreting it further.”8 In this case, Judges recapitulates the position of Joshua (how much of the land Israel would occupy) before going on to the central question of Judges: Why could they not completely occupy the land?9

The phrase “the Israelites asked the LORD” (šʾl byhwh) expresses the idea of obtaining a declaration of the divine will and is substantially the same as (lit.) “inquire of the judgment of the Urim” (sʾl bmšpṭ hʾwrym) in Numbers 27:21, in which the divine will is obtained through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest. Thus at the beginning of the narrative, the Israelites seek divine guidance in the proper manner as to “Who will be the first to go up [ʿālâ] and fight for us against the Canaanites?” The idea contained in the term “first” is that of time, not rank. Hence, the question is who will be the first chronologically? While a series of campaigns by individual tribes is envisioned, the concept of a united Israel remains (“who will go up first for us!”).

Bridging Contexts

PRIMARY MESSAGE. Judges 1:1–2:5 is a complex passage with a primary message and a number of secondary or subsidiary messages. In bridging the ancient context with the modern, it is critical to recognize that the fundamental message of the passage is conveyed through its literary structure. In spite of some initial successes, especially by the tribe of Judah, the overall effect is an increasingly negative pattern.41 Israel’s failure to obey Yahweh’s word concerning the ḥērem (see the introduction) produces the military failure recorded in this chapter. The four stages of increasing failure document the beginning of the “Canaanizing” of Israel.

Disobedience breeds disastrous failure. Why is Israel’s disobedience to implement the ḥērem so devastating? Perhaps because of the ḥērem’s link to the issue of covenantal love of God (Deut. 7). Perhaps because God really does know what’s best for his people, and the implementation of the ḥērem would have brought the material and spiritual prosperity that God intended for Israel (cf. the specific blessings of Deut. 28). Had Israel implemented it consistently, the negative influence of the Canaanites would likely have been eliminated.

There can be no doubt concerning the difficulty in implementing the ḥērem. But this was God’s commandment to Israel, specific to their historical context and specific to Israel’s physical and spiritual situation. The lack of implementation can be directly attributed to a lack of belief and trust in God’s commandments.

This lack of implementation of God’s Word in the lives of the believing community because of a failure to believe and trust in God’s commandments transcends all ages. In many instances throughout the two millennia of the church’s history, the church as a whole has not realized some of Christ’s most basic commandments: to love God, to love one another, to go and make disciples of all nations, and so on. Often the church has been content to be “Canaanized,” to live as the world dictates.

It is important to note that a misapplication of this passage concerning the ḥērem and others like it is the teaching that makes this primarily apply to the issue of culture, as though this is simply an issue of Christian culture versus pagan culture. This often manifests itself in opinionated conflicts about particular cultural issues that the biblical text may be silent about. While culture is an issue (esp. as it may manifest ungodly worldviews) as it concerns the implementation of the ḥērem, it is secondary to the religious or spiritual issue. The ḥērem was not designed by God to eliminate the Canaanite culture per se but to eliminate the Canaanite religious influence. While it may be readily recognized that it is difficult in many instances to separate the two, there is nonetheless a distinction. The Israelite ḥērem commandments had close links to the issues of idolatry and the breaking of the second commandment (Ex. 22:20[19]; Deut. 7:26; 13:16–18[17–19]). That this is the case in Introduction 1 of Judges (1:1–2:5) is reinforced by Yahweh’s confrontation of the nation in 2:1–5, where it is their failure on the religious front that is of primary concern.

In other words, the ḥērem was not concerned with the eradication of Canaanite clothing fashions, pottery styles, music, diet, and other types of particular cultural preferences. But it was deeply concerned with the eradication of the Canaanite religion: its gods/idols, altars, rituals, divinatory practices, uses of magic, worldview, and so on.

While the overall message concerns the increasing failure of Israel to obey Yahweh’s word concerning the ḥērem and its resultant moral and spiritual degeneration, fortunately the passage also records the initial successes in the first stage of the four stages presented within the passage.

The basic successes in the beginning of the narration start with an inquiry of God. This is true in all ages. Without God’s guidance any endeavor is doomed to failure. Since the inquiry is in accordance with God’s will (i.e., that the Israelite tribes subjugate their allotments), there is explicit direction by God with the assurance that success will follow. This is an example of what the apostle John states: “This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him” (1 John 5:14–15).

Subsidiary messages. The vignettes that follow the inquiry describe the tribe of Judah’s general success in occupying its allotment. All of these vignettes provide short lessons in themselves that bridge between the ancient and contemporary contexts.

(1) The segment about the lord of Bezeq (Adoni-Bezek) demonstrates that God is answering the Israelites’ prayer for direction. God fulfills his promise in giving the Judahites victory over a harsh king who embodies the evil of Canaanite monarchy. God’s fulfillment of his promises is a confidence that transcends the ages. Moreover, the theme of God’s righteous retribution on evil is a message that transcends the ages.42 It provides hope in a fallen world where evil seems to constantly prevail.

In fact, in the judgment on the lord of Bezeq (Adoni-Bezek), Yahweh’s grace toward Israel is heightened, for the people do not deserve such a victory43 (they have already sown the seeds of failure by having made an unnecessary treaty between Judah and Simeon). Thus, from the beginning, they seem prone to do things their way, not God’s way. Judah’s treaty with Simeon, while explicable from a certain human standpoint, is not God’s will. Therefore, all of the victories that they achieve are the results of God’s grace toward them.

(2) The narration concerning Judah contains three vignettes: the conquest of Hebron, the conquest of Debir, and the movement of the Kenites. In the second and third vignettes, Yahweh’s grace is bestowed on individuals like Caleb, Othniel, Acsah, and the Kenites. In each instance, this grace is specially given to non-Israelites (see comments above). This theme—namely, that God gives grace to non-Israelites—is developed throughout the Old and New Testaments. Those who are not expected to evince faith do, and those who should show faith do not (cf. Rahab contrasted with Achan [Josh. 6–7], Elijah and the widow of Zarephath [1 Kings 17:7–24], Elisha and Naaman [2 Kings 5:1–19]; cf. also Luke 4:16–30). Such a lesson is a great encouragement to “Gentiles,” especially in the church age.

In the first vignette, God’s faithfulness to Judah is documented through the conquest of the city of Hebron, the very hub of the gigantic Anakites, the very ones who had discouraged the Israelite spies in Numbers 13. Such a victory is encouraging to God’s people in every generation who may face what appear to be insurmountable obstacles.

The story of the capture of Debir with a gift given in exchange for its conquest anticipates the story of David’s conquest of Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 5:6–15. In both instances, the military commander promises a special reward to the warrior who captures the town. In 2 Samuel 5, David is based in Hebron and moves to Jerusalem. Hence, David may be trying to duplicate the Judges 1:11–13 account (cf. Josh. 15:15–17) by describing the capture of another town from a base at Hebron. In both cases, the captured town becomes the inheritance of those who captured it.44

Once again, it is important to remember that the concept of the “land” in the Old Testament carried spiritual overtones. This is true here with the story of Acsah’s request for land and springs as well as in the story of the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–13; Josh. 17:3–6). The actions of all these women are strongly commended and serve as examples of faith.

In addition, Acsah’s request for springs is parallel to Rebekah’s meeting with Isaac (Gen. 24:61–67). Both accounts include:

• the female riding on an animal

• descent from the animal

• making a request

• receiving the desired result from the person who has authority or power in relationship to her

Both accounts also involve an inheritance of the blessing (“land”) that God had promised Abraham.

Acsah’s request is also analogous in certain ways to that of Ruth. Both are non-Israelite women who have been “grafted” into the community of faith. Both have men who are outstanding in their personal qualities. Both make requests that involved God’s blessings of inheritance (as connected to the land). Both received their requests.

(3) While there is relative success in Judah’s endeavors at conquering its allotment, the other tribes fall into the second, third or fourth stages of the less than successful tribes in their application of God’s directives (see Fig. 3 above). This culminates in Dan’s complete and utter failure to possess its allotment (Stage 4).

The only vignette given in Stage 2 is the story of the capture of Bethel. While it records a successful conquest, the passage obviously contrasts with the previous vignettes of Stage 1, since the capture is accomplished through compromise and deceit. The end does not justify the means.

The phraseology of the two middle stages (i.e., Stages 2 and 3) is revealing. In Stage 2, it documents that the Israelites failed to drive out the Canaanites and that the Canaanites lived among the respective Israelite tribes. In Stage 3, the Israelites failed to drive out the Canaanites, and the respective Israelite tribes live among the Canaanites. These statements demonstrate the increasing lack of faith and commitment to the Lord on the part of God’s people.

The failures in Stages 2 and 3 include either a lack of obedience (“not dispossessing/driving out”) or compromise (“living among”) or both. This can also be true in the modern context. If we examine our lives, the bulk of our failures—especially in spiritual matters, but not exclusively—are the results of outright disobedience to God’s explicit, straightforward commandments, or of attempting to live in such a way that we blend into the world. Believers are under constant pressure to conform to the world’s standards, and the desire not to be different is pronounced. Yet God has called us to different standards. To compromise is to endanger our very lives. Even on the corporate level this may be evident. Churches feel the pressure to conform to what other churches are doing (even though what these other churches are doing may not be scriptural).

(4) At the end of the day, Israel has broken the covenant. This is the indictment of the Lord in 2:1–5. God is especially angry with the people because they have not destroyed the Canaanite altars (even in the areas that they occupy). This is a direct violation of the ḥērem commandment. Moreover, God specifically indicts the Israelites for having entered into covenants (treaties) with the Canaanites. Having made peace with the enemy, they have jeopardized the conquest of the land. Such an indictment of God’s people bridges to many generations (cf. some of Christ’s indictments against the churches in the book of Revelation).

In conclusion, in bringing this section into our modern world, the recognition of the passage’s overall message as conveyed through its literary structure is vital. While the vignettes in the first portion of the passage provide some positive examples and encouragements, the remainder of the passage records the spiritual/moral declivity of the Israelites that culminates in the confrontation of the Israelites by the Lord in 2:1–5.

Contemporary Significance

WHILE THE OVERALL message of this passage resonates in significant ways in the modern context, it is wrong to apply it on a national level (i.e., by equating either the United States of America or some other modern political entity with ancient Israel) and to interpret the national history of the United States or some other political entity as parallel to that of the nation of Israel in the period of the judges. No contemporary nation equates with the Israel of the Old Testament, who represents the people of God.45

Commonly, passages like Judges 1:1–2:5 are used to critique and criticize modern American culture as a degeneration from the godly Christian culture of America’s beginnings. But this is a misreading of the basic political history of the United States and its founding fathers. This is most acute in the quoting of men like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in such a way as to give the impression that these men were “Christians” in the biblical sense of this term. In terms of their religious convictions as well as in their morals, both men were distinctly not Christians!

Thus, it is important that the proper correspondence to the passage is maintained. The church as God’s people is the proper correspondence to biblical Israel. Yet this too raises problems of application, for there are distinctions between the two entities that must be maintained; otherwise the very nature of the church may be blurred.46

It would seem that the best application of the passage is first on the individual level, then on a more limited corporate level. In other words, how does the primary message of 1:1–2:5 about the lack of faith and disobedience regarding the implementation of the ḥērem and the consequent spiritual/moral degeneration speak to us about our own commitments and obedience to the Lord and his commandments to us? In what ways does the passage challenge us? If God’s people failed in their allegiance to the Lord, how are we failing, and what are the consequences of our failures? These same questions can and should be asked on the corporate level with reference to local churches, to a denomination, or to the church as a whole.

Like ancient Israel, Christians also are in covenant relationship to God, albeit through a “better” covenant. Nevertheless, the stipulations of that covenant—“the law of love,” as Paul puts it—require obedience. While the warfare in which Christians are engaged is not physical but spiritual, the necessity of walking by faith in loyalty to Christ’s covenant is the only hope of victory.

Ḥērem. The natural question will likely arise: How are we to apply a passage like this one that centers around the implementation of the ḥērem? While it may seem obvious that we are not called to implement the ḥērem on our unbelieving neighbors, unfortunately many of the passages concerning the ḥērem have been misapplied by “Christians” throughout history to annihilate their enemies (the Crusades are a prime example of this type of misapplication).

The fact that must be remembered is conveyed in Ephesians 6:12: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”47 In other words, Christian warfare is spiritual, not physical. In the Old Testament, it was both physical and spiritual. But just because it is spiritual, not physical, does not mean that the warfare in the New Testament context is no less real. Thus, we are commanded to put on the full armor of God (Eph. 6:10–20) and engage in this spiritual warfare. The New Testament is replete with the use of military metaphors to describe our spiritual warfare. As Israel, in an overall sense, failed to implement the ḥērem because of a lack of faith and obedience, how are we failing in the implementation of Christ’s commandments because of unbelief and disobedience? How are we failing to implement Ephesians 6:10–20 in our daily lives? In many ways, this is how Judges 1:1–2:5 applies to Christians today.

Many Christians become so consumed with the world that they simply do not believe they are really in a spiritual confrontation. They have compromised with the world and have forgotten the apostle’s admonition “do not love the world or anything in the world” (1 John 2:15). Judges 1:1–2:5 warns us of the dangers of not trusting in God’s Word and heeding this admonition.

Subsidiary messages. The pragmatism of Judah’s alliance with Simeon (1:2, 17) serves as a warning to Christians. The natural way is not necessarily God’s way, for it can undercut his plan and lessen our dependence on him. Each tribe was responsible to conquer its own allotment, depending on God for the results. Note that Judah, because of its size, hardly needed Simeon to ensure the conquest of its allotment, and Simeon really did not need Judah to guarantee what God had promised he would do for them.

Fortunately, this passage also provides some good examples through the vignettes relating Judah’s successes. The story about the defeat of the lord of Bezeq (Adoni-Bezek) shows that God answers prayer, fulfills his promises, and brings retribution on evil. Such stories engender confidence that God will do these same things in our own contexts.

The stories of the conquests of Hebron and Debir emphasize God’s faithfulness and grace. The fact that Caleb and Othniel are non-Israelites only heightens this. The reality that God works “outside the circle” should encourage and challenge us. God often grafts into the community of faith individuals who become outstanding leaders.

For the Christian, Acsah represents a woman who will not be denied her full inheritance. She is a model resembling the women of the Gospels, who sought out Jesus and refused to be turned back by the crowds and by Jesus’ own disciples. As a result, they found salvation, healing, and blessing for themselves and their families (see Matt. 9:20–22; 15:21–28; 26:7–13; Mark 7:24–30; 14:3–9; Luke 2:36–38; 7:11–15, 36–50; 8:43–48; 13:10–17; 18:1–5).48

Yet in spite of these few positive vignettes, the overall pattern of moral and spiritual failure prevails in Judges 1:1–2:5. Disobedience and compromise dominate the remainder of the passage and signal important warnings to the modern context. Ultimately, to apply this passage is to heed its warnings.