Judges. Abraham Kuruvilla

The Kenaz in Jdg 1:13 was another individual—Caleb’s brother.

97. The maintenance of covenantal purity through endogamy was an established tenet of Israelite life (Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3–4; Josh 23:12).

98. Ibid., 45.

99. Ibid., 42–45. In another parallel, Achsah “descends” from a donkey (1:14); the raped concubine “ascends” one (19:28)—these are the only two women in Judges on donkeys. Both women, for different reasons, leave their husbands and go to their fathers. One is blessed; the other raped and murdered. The father of one is benevolent, that of the other is malevolent (see Pericope 13: Jdg 19:1–30).

100. Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 26.

101. In fact, the formulation “do ds,x, unto . . . ” is found only in these two accounts in Joshua and Judges (Josh 2:12 [×2], 14; Jdg 1:24), making the construction of this text in Judges a deliberate allusion to the one in Joshua.

102. Again, there is verbal correspondence in the “sending” away of Rahab and her family after the city was destroyed “with the edge of the sword” (Josh 6:21, 23), and the “sending” away of the anonymous Bethelite and his family after their city was struck “with the edge of the sword” (Jdg 1:25).

103. Wong, Compositional Strategy, 152–53. Table modified from Webb, Judges, 117.

104. Block, Judges, Ruth, 109.

105. The verbs for “drive out” are different: vrn, grsh, in 2:3 and vry, yrsh, in 2:21. But Wong notes that they are synonymous; see Exod 33:2 and Josh 3:10; Josh 24:18 and Jdg 11:23; and Pss 44:3 and 80:9 (Compositional Strategy, 148n22).

106. While it is not certain what Yahwistic covenant is referred to in 2:1, it is likely to have been a promise to the nation to give them the Promised Land (Lev 26:42–44; and see Gen 24:7; 26:3; Exod 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Deut 6:10, 18). While binding upon Yahweh, the extent of the takeover of the land, how much, when, and in what manner, were all contingent on the behavior of the human partners to the covenant (see Jer 11:4–5, as well as the various iterations of the promises to the patriarchs in Genesis, that see a ratcheting up of the items of fulfillment with obedience, especially in Gen 22:16–18) (see Kuruvilla, Genesis, 261–62).

107. “What is this you have done?” is formulaic in the OT and indicates “a major breach of proper relations between parties” (see Gen 3:13; 12:18; 26:10; 29:25; Exod 14:11; Jdg 8:1; 15:11) (Niditch, Judges, 47).

108. In fact, that place was called “Gilgal” because Yahweh had “rolled away” (llg, gll) the reproach/disgrace of Egypt and changed the fortunes of Israel (Josh 5:9). Was another change of fortunes on the way here?

109. It is possible that Bokim is a pseudonym for Bethel: an “oak of weeping [tWkB', bakuth]” was located near Bethel (Gen 35:8). In fact the LXX at Jdg 2:1 has the angel coming “to Bokim and Bethel, that is, the house of Israel.” In Judges 20–21, the final part of the book (Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1–21:25), weeping takes place at Bethel (20:26). Besides, Gilgal and Bethel are often linked: see Hosea 4:15; Amos 4:4, 15; 5:5. Bethel also has the status of a place of rebuke in prophetic literature (1 Kgs 13:1–3; 2 Kgs 23:15–20; Amos 7:10–17). Though why the real name of the place should be camouflaged in this pericope is unclear; perhaps Bethel in the narrator’s day was a holy city, prompting the writer to soften the blow of indictment. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 112; Spronk, “A Story to Weep About,” 91–92; and Amit, Hidden Polemics, 119–28.

110. Spronk, “A Story to Weep About,” 87. In between these two lachrymal events, there is also weeping in 11:37; 14:16; 20:23, 26.

111. The accusation that Israel had not torn down the altars of the Canaanites (2:2) is rather unexpected; we had not heard any mention of cultic activity in Judges 1. Presumably all this anti-Yahwism was concurrent with the failed conquest.

112. Younger, Judges, Ruth, 74. Yahweh expands the apostasy of the Israelites and the intensity of his threat in the next pericope.

113. Robert B. Chisholm, personal communication.

114. In the view of preaching espoused in this commentary, the exposition of the theology of the pericope (represented as a statement by the “Theological Focus”), with all the power and potency of the text, is the critical task of the homiletician. Needless to say, the preacher must also provide the congregation with specifics on how the theological thrust of each pericope may be put into practice so that lives are conformed to Christlikeness in the power of the Spirit, for the glory of God.

115. One must see the points in these outlines as “moves,” rather than static chunks of information dumped on the unwary listener. See Kuruvilla, Vision for Preaching, 71–89. The outlines provided are deliberately skimpy; they are intended merely to be suggestions for further thought—rough-hewn stones to be polished by the preacher. It is nigh impossible to prescribe an outline without knowing the particular audience it is to be used for, and therefore this commentary will refrain from micromanaging homiletics for the preacher. Some equally abbreviated suggestions for development are provided below each main point.

116. Since this is the first pericope/sermon on Judges, reviewing the background state of affairs is helpful, including a statement of the overall theme of the book: leadership, and how this impacts the people of God.

117. Moves-to-relevance are critical in every major move of the sermon, relating the theological thrust (or portions thereof) to the listeners and their circumstances.

118. Outlines in this commentary will have an imperative of some sort as a major outline point—the application. The specificity and direction of that imperative is between the Holy Spirit, the preacher, and the audience.

119. Corporate repentance may be a good first step of commitment to live in uncompromising godliness.

120. This age-old rhetorical scheme is easy to organize and manipulate; perhaps the reason is because we tend to think that way. There might very well be a hardwiring in our brains for a Problem–Solution–Application sequence.

121.