The judge model

A judge, unlike a king, does not implement but enables whilst preserving the framework of progress.

A good analogy of what I wish to say about judges, is the African Lion. The male lion tends to just eat, sleep and have lots of sex. Sound familiar? But hey, the use of this example has no gender implication and indeed a female judge of Israel (Deborah), once assumed a similar role of leadership.

Lionesses work together to get food. They diversify their skills into runners, ambushers, fellers and decoys, yet work in perfect concert. They seem to just sense what to do and when, whilst preserving perfect radio silence. When a fast and powerful “feller” gets to the quarry, the fastest runners come up in support to help her get the prey down, whilst she clamps on to its windpipe and avoids dangerous counter-measures.

The females also hold the team together, regularly grooming other pride members. They raise and train the young, equipping them for their future roles in the pride.

It might seem that the males are somewhat superfluous. I once saw a Giles cartoon of female nuclear non-proliferation protesters sitting outside Greenham Common airbase. They had a single male tethered to a post, which they ostensibly kept “for breeding purposes only”. That could be the limited role of the African Male Lion, but it isn’t.

As a lumbering haystack he may be a limited hunter, but he performs a vital role in preserving the social integrity of the pride. He maintains order and preserves the balance of power. He is a powerful role model for the next generation. But above all, he is the defender of the pride. He patrols the borders of the pride and keeps out interlopers and hyenas. Recent research shows that the male lion is the supreme cat, slightly smaller than the tiger, but a consummate fighter of immense power. He needs to be to keep his pride intact else his place will be taken by another.

The judges of Israel kept social order for their tenures. Judges 2 shows that after Joshua had brought them rest from their enemies and war, (Josh 11:23, 14:15; 21:44), the people regressed into syncretistic religion and everyone did what was right in their own eyes (Joshua 21:25).

Then Judges 2 shows that they cried to God and he delivered them. He sent elders to judge the land and for as long as the judges lived, Israel had peace. Judges 2:20-23 reveals that complete peace would never be assured: it was God’s way of keeping them on their toes and vigilant to their ethos.

So, neither the judges, nor the kings that succeeded them, had any real chance of ensuring a lasting stating of settlement in Israel: a misconception of divine peace. The kings may well have been progressive, but they were also regressive. However, the judges did maintain stability whilst enabling the tribes to progress autonomously.

I will define the judges more in subsequent articles, but suffice to say for now that the judges did what the male lion does for his pride.

They interpreted, defined and clarified the moral and physical boundaries of Israel; they patrolled the borders to preserve territorial integrity; they patrolled the ethical boundaries to preserve Israel’s values and cultural traditions through due process of law; and they preserved a context for unity within diversity. The people were able to find their own niche’s and develop autonomous sub-cultures whilst still standing together as one nation.

That is a powerful theocratic model for biblical leadership.

Detractors will reflect on the era of kings from a humanistic perspective and argue that iconic leaders were progressive and unifying: that argument is moot. God preferred the judge model and deemed the people to have rejected Him when they rejected that model: for the judge model enabled God to lead His own people through human proxies, whilst the kings eclipsed His rule with their own self-determination.

The potential of the judge model was preempted by the cry for a king, which should have been limited to a cry for their real need: a centre that would define them as a nation amongst nations.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com