No King in Israel (52)

Polygamy was a problem very early for Israel. Jacob, the father of the nation, married a pair of sisters, also siring children by both their handmaids. If his household had been a shining example to his descendants, we would probably have seen much more of this, but a careful reading of the Genesis text shows how many problems, great and small, were a product of the perpetual bickering and factional jealousies within Jacob’s family, including one near-murder.

Despite the lasting impression of sexual excess that David and Solomon left behind, polygamy in Israel was relatively rare. It could be that Jacob’s cautionary tale left a lasting impression.

Later examples certainly exist. Samuel’s life and ministry was the result of the invariable jealousies characteristic of polygamous households. But apart from a few kings of Israel who took advantage of the opportunity to multiply wives, we find few instances of polygamy in the historical books of the Old Testament. For the average man throughout Israel’s history, multiplying wives was simply too costly. It should also be obvious that only rich men would be likely to attract multiple women in the first place. The major appeal of polygamy, from the woman’s side at least, was security at a time and in a place where that was rare indeed.

When it became necessary to find wives for the remaining 200 soldiers of Benjamin, nobody was worried about getting any of them two or more. Even one would do just fine. Benjamin would have wives, in the words of the text, “according to their number”.

III. Two Historical Vignettes from the Period (continued)

b. Benjamin becomes Sodom (continued)

Judges 21:16-24 — Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink

“Then the elders of the congregation said, ‘What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?’ And they said, ‘There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe not be blotted out from Israel. Yet we cannot give them wives from our daughters.’ For the people of Israel had sworn, ‘Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin.’ So they said, ‘Behold, there is the yearly feast of the Lord at Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.’ And they commanded the people of Benjamin, saying, ‘Go and lie in ambush in the vineyards and watch. If the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come out of the vineyards and snatch each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. And when their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, “Grant them graciously to us, because we did not take for each man of them his wife in battle, neither did you give them to them, else you would now be guilty.” ’ And the people of Benjamin did so and took their wives, according to their number, from the dancers whom they carried off. Then they went and returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and lived in them. And the people of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family, and they went out from there every man to his inheritance.”

To say the elders of Israel lacked foresight is understating the case. As the cause of Benjamin’s near-extermination, they now became deeply concerned to undo the situation their own haste, rash oaths, and lack of prayer and self-judgment had produced. It would be funny if it weren’t so human and the consequences so tragic.

Serendipitous But Logical

The choice of Shiloh as a solution was serendipitous but logical. If you pull out a map of Israel during this period, you’ll quickly see Bethel, Shiloh and Mizpah were all within a day’s march of one another (and the territory of Benjamin), and Israel was still gathered en masse in the area. Also, Shiloh, being the site of the tabernacle for most of this period, featured an annual feast at which the local gals would come out and dance. A little friendly kidnapping became the easiest way for Israel to solve a major problem. Isn’t it amazing how sins multiply?

I don’t think I’m out of line to think here’s also an implicit threat here toward the fathers and brothers of Shiloh in the words “Grant them [your sisters and daughters] graciously to us, because we did not take for each man of them his wife in battle.” Were the elders of Israel really mulling over the prospect of yet another massacre at Shiloh if the locals were unwilling to part with their virgin daughters? One hopes not, but I can’t see another way to read it.

It is sometimes said that it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission. I’m not sure about that, but in this case it was probably necessary. Again, we don’t find them consulting the Lord.

A Couple of Ironies

I’m indebted to Gary Inrig for pointing out how the first and last chapters of Judges connect. Inrig writes:

“This is an amazing irony that Israel had failed to utterly destroy the pagans (Jdg 1:1-36) but they almost succeed in utterly destroying their brothers because of the foolish vow they had made. In their perverted thinking they vowed not to have a daughter marry a Benjaminite, thus treating him like a Canaanite with which they were forbidden to intermarry! This is fruit basket turnover. Wrong is now right and right is wrong. How could they have regressed so far so fast after Joshua and the elders died? Remember these events although placed in Judges at the ‘end’ of the book, in fact probably occurred at the very beginning of the 300-350 years of apostasy!”

Israel’s failure of obedience in conducting its war of extermination against the Canaanites documented in Judges 1 contrasts sharply with the wholehearted fury they poured out on their own brothers only a few years later. To be fair, losing more than forty thousand of their own soldiers on the way to that sordid victory probably contributed to the bloodlust and resulting overkill.

Inrig is also one of more than a few commentators who agree with my conviction that the events of the last three chapters of Judges actually took place much earlier.

Every Man to His Inheritance

Judges closes with the twelve tribes leaving Benjamin to return to their own tribes and families. If we are correct that these events occurred “at the very beginning of 300-350 years of apostasy”, they also returned to their own problems described earlier in the book, to idolatry, fractiousness and forgetfulness of the law. No lasting lessons were learned here. The folly of rash vows never seems to have rubbed off on Jephthah.

Judges 21:25 — No King in Israel

“In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

Kings are not a perfect answer, nor do they come close to solving every problem that may arise in a nation. The books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles demonstrate that unequivocally. However, they do provide some measure of restraint and order, whether they are good kings or bad kings. Oppression, taxation and the injustice of arbitrary, self-interested rulers are difficult things to bear, but the alternative is always worse. 

One of the dominant themes of 1 Peter is subjection. “Be subject,” he writes, “to every human institution.” In between those two phrases are these words, “for the Lord’s sake”. The believer has a higher motive for obedience than fear or duty. He goes on to describe how submission to authority ought to characterize those who claim to follow Christ: servants submitting to their masters, wives to husbands, younger men to their elders.

There is good reason for these commands. Why should my conscience be subject to the instructions of another fallen human being? Because God says so, and because the Lord Jesus himself modeled that behavior. Christ, who Peter says suffered and was glorified, is our example.

The alternative to Peter’s call for subjection is anarchy, every man doing what pleases him. The alternative is Judges. No other historical book in scripture makes that point more effectively.