No King in Israel (50)

At dinner with Christian friends a few days ago, we discussed the subject of how we should best apply New Testament principles to a situation outside regular local church meetings. Nowhere in the NT do we have either precept or example concerning how to conduct a series of Bible teaching meetings of women gathering from multiple local churches. Whose authority are they under? Which normal church practices should they observe in such a context and which are they free to ignore? Inquiring minds wanted to know, including the men.

Unsurprisingly, despite most of us being relatively mature in the faith, we quickly found we disagreed.

Freedom and Responsibility

What was the problem? We were trying to fit apostolic rules and principles into modern situations God did not design them to address. The discussion left me questioning the wisdom of many common extra-scriptural evangelical practices. Do we need them all? Do we need any of them? How much added value do these really provide to the people of God? There are times when the long-term negatives of exercising our Christian freedom may outweigh any positives that come with them.

In the last chapter of Judges, a similar problem arose for Israel involving antecedent questions nobody had thought to ask. Israel had taken two oaths at Mizpah when the tribes first gathered to discuss how to deal with the outrageous criminality in Benjamin. Because oath taking was technically a lawful practice, nobody in that gathering stopped to ask the obvious antecedent question: Sure, we can do these things, but should we? Are these solemn promises a good idea? Yes, of course they were free to taking whatever oaths they wanted provided they fulfilled the promises with which they were binding themselves. But what might those promises produce down the road?

All actions have consequences, but not all consequences are desirable. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but it needs to be enjoyed with foresight and good judgment. In Israel during the time of the Judges, these were in notoriously short supply.

III. Two Historical Vignettes from the Period (continued)

b. Benjamin becomes Sodom (continued)

Judges 21:1-7 — Two Oaths

“Now the men of Israel had sworn at Mizpah, ‘No one of us shall give his daughter in marriage to Benjamin.’ And the people came to Bethel and sat there till evening before God, and they lifted up their voices and wept bitterly. And they said, ‘O Lord, the God of Israel, why has this happened in Israel, that today there should be one tribe lacking in Israel?’ And the next day the people rose early and built there an altar and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. And the people of Israel said, ‘Which of all the tribes of Israel did not come up in the assembly to the Lord?’ For they had taken a great oath concerning him who did not come up to the Lord to Mizpah, saying, ‘He shall surely be put to death.’ And the people of Israel had compassion for Benjamin their brother and said, ‘One tribe is cut off from Israel this day. What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since we have sworn by the Lord that we will not give them any of our daughters for wives?’ ”

A Bit Too Hasty

In our discussion of chapter 20, we pointed out that when Israel gathered to Mizpah to deal with the gang rapists and murderers in Gibeah of Benjamin, the leaders of Israel made a number of moves prior to first consulting the Lord. That’s rarely a good idea. The first mention of inquiring of God comes in verse 18, after Israel had already decided on a strategy for attacking Benjamin and had already challenged the tribe to bring out its offenders peacefully in order that they might mete out justice. Now we find out they did a couple of other things at Mizpah without consulting God, including the aforementioned two vows, both of which these seven verses describe.

First, anticipating they would fight Benjamin, they all promised that no Israelite would give his daughter in marriage to a Benjamite. Then, having eventually obtained the blessing of God on their plans and his help in battle, they destroyed every woman in Benjamin, ensuring the tribe would become extinct once the remaining 600 soldiers hiding at the rock of Rimmon inevitably died off. Now they began to question the wisdom of the oath they had taken.

Second, it struck somebody that there ought to be some very serious punishment for anyone in Israel who had refused the command to gather at Mizpah to deal with pressing family business. This suggestion was accepted enthusiastically by all present and duly endorsed. Accordingly, the twelve tribes bound themselves with the solemn obligation to annihilate anyone who had unilaterally exempted themselves from the obligation to stand in judgment on Benjamin for its crimes.

Two oaths with potentially far-reaching, even deadly consequences, neither taken with a great deal of forethought and certainly no prayer. When they asked the Lord, “Why has this happened in Israel?” it’s amazing nobody present could come up with any strong possibilities.

Where Did the Practice Come From?

We discussed the consequences of taking unnecessary oaths in an earlier post on Jephthah, so we won’t revisit all that here. Suffice it to say the Law of Moses did not require such oaths and actually warned against making promises to God that one might later regret. Rape and murder are terrible sins urgently in need of justice. When we contrast them with lesser evils, we may be inclined to dismiss the latter. But self-confidence, lack of forethought and ignorance of God’s law are sins too, and all sins have consequences. Most of the time, we fail to anticipate these.

Whenever we read about a persistent sin that caused trouble in Israel, we are wise to ask ourselves where the practice came from. Because we are Christians and familiar with the Law of Moses, we may assume the practice of taking oaths originated there. In fact, oath taking was a practice common in all the cultures of the ancient world, including two nations with which Israel was exceptionally familiar: Mesopotamia, where the father of the nation was born, and Egypt, where Israel sojourned 400 years. Hundreds of years before the time of the Judges, the Code of Hammurabi formalized oath taking in Mesopotamia. Elaborate ceremonies including the drinking of wine and eating of herbs accompanied oath taking, and were part of all legal proceedings. Bringing the gods into human decision-making showed everyone how seriously a man took his obligations. Egypt enacted similar laws many hundreds of miles south long before Israel ever institutionalized them.

Responsive Law

The Law of Moses was largely responsive, a subject discussed in detail here. God did not saddle his people with a whole spate of new customs, conventions and practices. Rather, he specified how those features of Israelite society already in common practice were to take place in a manner more pleasing to him.

This fact explains numerous otherwise-confusing passages in Leviticus and elsewhere. Why not boil a kid in its mother’s milk? Because it was a common Canaanite ritual in their idolatrous worship. Why not cut and disfigure yourself for the dead? Another heathen practice. Why are there so many rules in the law about how to treat slaves? Because everybody in the ancient world enslaved others, and the practice was not going to stop. Why the rules about taking oaths? Because everybody in the ancient world took oaths, and God knew Israel would continue to make them. He therefore warned Israelite men to think long and hard before taking vows. The Law of Moses made most vows taken elsewhere in the ancient world possible but unnecessary.

In short, we should not blame the Lord when practices we have copied from our unbelieving neighbors don’t work out for the best. Chances are we would have been better off not engaging in them in the first place.