From Judges 3
And Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” And he arose from his seat. And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out. Then Ehud went out into the porch and closed the doors of the roof chamber behind him and locked them.
Background: Ehud was a judge of Israel. He led them out of captivity by killing King Eglon of the Moabites in this graphic scene. He was able to do so because he was left-handed. The king’s guards would check the left hip of people coming into the chambers, which is where most (right-handed) people kept their weapons.After deceiving the guards and gaining the king’s trust. He delivered his secret message, a swift thrust to the gut!
Over the years we lefties (yes I’m one of them if you didn’t know) have had to endure many hardships. The Greek for left, sinister, has come to mean evil. The devil is left handed. All sorts of nonsense. My grandfather was punished in school for writing with his left hand, and forced to be a righty.
Fortunately, today we have grown into acceptance, not that ours was ever a great civil rights issue. But I believe we can learn a lesson from Ehud. God can use things that man sees as hindrances or defects for good. A righty would have been captured by the guards, but God used Ehud because he was a lefty, he was sinister. Learn to accept what makes you different: height, weight, skin color, IQ. God made you that way for a reason. You never know how He’ll use you.
to fail to speak of Ehud apart from the wider theology of Judges is to miss the point of the story. Ehud's status as a "man ____________ on the left hand" (אטר being the word in question; not widely attest in CH) is immediately connected to the fact that he is a Benjamite ("son of my right hand"), who are consistently painted as the problem in the book of Judges (why? they are Saul's ancestors – the "bad guy" – however, David's ancestors, the Judahites, are the heroes; Judges is, in part, a polemic for a Davidic monarchy!). That Ehud is "godly" is never a point of the story (for example, his status before yahweh does not even come up until after his escape (the "message from God" should really be translated "a divine message/message of the gods"…Eglon is not a monotheist!); until that point in the story Ehud is painted as a sinister assassin with no solid connection to Yahweh) – in fact, more important is the fact that the land had rest for 80 years in spite of Ehud's sinister moves. The real point is that Yahweh is staying true to the covenant continually, and even exercises his dominion through the violence of the worst people (in this case, Ehud). In fact, the story of Shamgar is paired with this story is further proof of this. why? shamgar is probably an elite soldier (a בן אנת) based out of Egypt, a servant of *Anath, the goddess of war (*Lindars, chapter 3, *ABD "Anath", *Block "Judges and Ruth, NAC"). The idea here is analogous to that of Ehud in that Shamgar is an individual not focused on Yahweh's covenant, but out for personal gain, whatever that might be. Yahweh is the real hero of the story! while much of what you say might be true, it is sort of "the right doctrine from the wrong text", ie, this passage of Judges has nothing to do with our disabilities, etc.
I won’t shy away from criticism. And I don’t claim to be any Biblical scholar. I simply try to share what I am taught by what I observe and read. I’m sure this often results in “right doctrine from wrong text.” I hope that at least one person can gain something useful despite my theological shortcomings.
I won't shy away from criticism. And I don't claim to be any Biblical scholar. I simply try to share what I am taught by what I observe and read. I'm sure this often results in "right doctrine from wrong text." I hope that at least one person can gain something useful despite my theological shortcomings.
uhh…Tom….paragraphs buddy.
There's pretty good consensus that Ehud was a good guy…I like your interpretation.
and I am similarly left handed, awesome sauce.
A couple of things… (in paragraphs no less, haha)
Zach, I realized after I wrote this earlier that I should have been more explicit and more clear (thanks Stephen for pointing out my clear lack of organization!). I should have put more emphasis on the fact that I appreciate that you come to the text with a humble attitude in a way that all of us should, but do not. Thanks for that. Truly. Your response to my rather off-hand comment spoke volumes about your sincerity and personal commitment to the Lord. Wonderful! That should make my comment helpful (if it is parsed out correctly, which I apologize that I did not do so earlier).
My commitment to Scripture is that if we read with "lenses" on that include things such as observation and humility (which includes listening to each other, and especially giving heed to those who have spent their lives making observations about the text professionally), we will receive great reward.
This commitment immediately goes hand in hand with knee-jerk reactions against "learning from the text" when it is really not the text we are listening to. That is what I see as the problem here. Reading the text with moral lenses on (ex: "Be like Ehud!") misses the point of the story, and, more importantly, the bigger story of the whole cosmic story of redemption (which has Christ at its center)!
In direct contrast to Stephen, I have yet to see any consensus that Ehud was "a good guy" (even though he was a judge, i realize that. for more, see Block, NAC, "Judges and Ruth" on this section). As I said before, there is good indication of a lack of consensus (by the narrator himself!) in the fact that the narrator of Judges intentionally pairs the Ehud narrative with the Shamgar "episode". That narrative, by its terseness, and pagan deity reference (בן אנת), gives good indication that Yahweh's usage of rogue leaders as "judges" is the way he is setting to rights the situation in Israel. Yahweh is the hero!
There is no reason to jump to "God uses lefties" from this episode anymore than is there to say that "God likes women leaders more than men leaders" in the Barak/Deborah narrative. The problem, and the reason for my lengthy comment, is that "theological shortcomings" will quickly become a problem here if things are not slowly parsed out…
I am sure that Zach would not want to teach his readers to read a text in the way he does here because of the immediate (negative) implications that will arise. This sort of reading flows out of a strict dichotomy between Old and New Testament that fails to take into account the unity, and yet uniqueness, of God's epic plan. This reading (as espoused by Zach's example) smells strongly of a post-fundamentalist hermeneutic that has long ago been put to rest (and for good reason!).
Now please don't take me wrong. I am not saying that this should end this blog or end anyone's reading of the text. There is a mysterious way in which the Spirit does work with the Word to move in our hearts. For that, we ALL (including myself!) should be grateful. However, let us not thank God for feeding us (by his own mercy!) with rice cakes when there is a feast before us in a careful reading of His word (WHEN joined by faith, which is one of the great things I am encouraged by in Zach's attitude!)
So…keep writing Zach! "Theological perfection" is not what I am asking for; just a more careful reading of the text that avoids moralistic tendencies which will fail your readers at the end of every day. I look forward to seeing what you continue to write….though I assure you that I have no intention of setting myself up as a sort of theological "judge" over your blog…
Tom, couple of questions:
1) Where's your blog?
2) Do you know Zach?
3) Do you understand that this is not a religious or a theological blog?
4) Do you understand that he is on a program to try to read the Bible in 90 days?
Zach is a renaissance man who has varied interests and this blog reflects them. This is not very deep on purpose; it would make a decent devotional book for new Christians. I've had plenty of Bible training, and I'd rather see a blog like this that encourages people to look into Scripture that might not otherwise than to read a dissection like yours that basically tells the common man that he cannot understand the Bible (which means I prefer post-fundamentalism to Dark Ages if I have to choose an extreme).
Zach,
I would encourage you to do some studying on hermeneutics, more specifically: prolegomena study. In case you are not familiar with theology, prolegomena is a category that includes categories like: inspiration, revelation, inerrancy, cannon etc.. Now, if you have studied theology, then you are probably looking down your nose at this advice because you have already considered this, right? Wrong! It is becoming more and more evident today that post-Enlightenment, fundamentalist, autonomous, individualist, Cartesian rationality through platonic thought is currently still effecting the way todays Christians interpret scripture. Here I would have to agree with Tom. You are most definitely misreading this text. Don't be discouraged or defensive, that is the exact attitude that fosters an arrogance that does respect the authors intention. Unfortunately, unless one has asked some serious questions regarding how one interprets the text through the lens of humility and faith, with the Spirit working with the word. Any interpreter will fall wayside of imposing his thoughts onto the text.
(Paragraphs lol)
Let us hypothetically consider the fact that you may have interpreted the passage correctly. Does this makes sense of the rest of Judges, the OT cannon, and the NT? Furthermore, do you have the right to apply this reading to your life in the way you have done? I respect your humility in attempting to describe a Spiritual truth for the sake of your audience, but are you considering the sake of the author? In modern and post-modern climates (post-fundamental as well)- the shift has been to that of the reader. In pre-modernity it was a more metaphysical discussion with men like Augustin and Aquinas, but the Enlightenment gave rise to the text and subjective criticism. Now, in a modern/post-modern culture we have shifted so far from the author that any interpretation becomes just as relative as the others. The only way to get back to truth is to humbly come back to the author. If you believe that love is the opposite of indifference and has care and concern for the other. Then why is your care and concern only for that of your audience and not for that of the author who wrote judges?
Now, I am fully aware that that is not what you intended, so may I not make the same mistake that you are making in regards to the OT author and impose myself onto you. But sadly, as you meant it for good, Satan meant it for harm. We at times have good intentions and motives for interpreting passages, just like many aspects to life, but when sin entered the picture things get muddy. I believe sin has entered into Enlightenment, fundamental, post-fundamental, post-modern dogmatic autonomous post-Kantian/Cartesian rationality in interpretation of Scripture within the Church. I further believe that your interpretation reflects striking similarity to a “thin” description of what the author was really trying to get at in light of Judges and the grander Cannon of Scripture. It is because of this that some of the most evil violent sins have been committed in the name of God due to misinterpretations. He who has an ear let him hear- you are contradicting yourself in comparison to your fellow brothers and sisters, harvesting violence, not love! Love cares for the other and comes to the text in faith.
The other here is the author (if you can even figure out who the author is) of Judges. Until, you come to grips with this, you will simply be applying disembodied interpretations. Where God is either a pantheistic God whom you can play with at your own accord, throwing around interpretations like it is no ones business, or he is a deistic God who is so far off that we better make up our own interpretations since he has left the world in a mess. However, I think your interpretation falls more in line with that of the Gnostic's. You are ironically close to Bultmann's existentialism when you demythologize the book of Judges to a right hand left hand story. You lost touch with reality and the relative reader has become the queen of exegesis, not authorial intent. In dealing with literature, instead of being literal you have become illiterate. In contradicting yourself you have advocated a mystical higher knowledge that has no grounding in a embodied God who is close to us for he loves us!
You must labor my brother! You must grapple with the text and do your best with authorship intention. You must examine the Church's history of interpretation to make sure you yourself are not falling into some serious ditches. Do you want to be a heretic? Do you have the love of God? Do you have Faith? Then labor for your labor is not in vain. Because, the good new is that God is not a deistic, existential, God who is far of in the gnostic mess. He is close therefore pursue him and ethically respect the author who has written the text, for he is the agent God has used! Do your homework then write your blogs, and believe me when you do your homework it will be evident in your blogs. Granted you may not ever fully get the “thick” meaning, but it is worth the perseverance for the faithful, loving, and ethical sake of the author fostered by the Spirit working with the word.
I have written with a Pastoral concern. I do hope you will take my advice and repent. Your response will reflect your next hermeneutical move. Love perhaps?
Scottie,
While I respect your concern for Zach I hope you will not attack me in the way you have attacked Tom. Why? Here is what I perceive to be your logic: misinterpreted scripture-> thats okay for a novice Christian -> therefore, don't encourage or counsel the novice.
So, if a man is living in sin and I do not take the time to help him out does, what is the greater wrong? I am not assuming that I am better than him, nor am I assuming that he does not have good intentions. I am Pastorally concerned about the logic that gives into relativism and does not fight for truth. Such, has become our post-modern world, and the solution is not to sit back. Therefore, I agree with Tom. I also commend Zach for his humble response. I hope his response may be of the same tone to my post. I do not claim to have all theology figured out. I am simply observing a problem in Christianity and not sitting back and allowing it to be okay. Note my exhortation to Zach and the end of my post. Is that not love? I am genuinly conerned for Zachs spiritual well being and encouraging him to keep on with the blog. I am also not assuming (nor do I think Tom is either) that Christians can not attain truth.
All I believe Tom and I are trying to say is that Zach's methods for attaining truth as portrayed in this blog seem to be tainted from sin, and he may want to rethink his approach to the text. As Paul noted, we see through a glass darkly. So let us rethink somethings through before buying into what the western world view of mainstream Christianity is telling us.
But you would say that is not the intent of his blog. Well let me ask you this question: when you mention the word God from your lips are you not theologizing, and when you theologize are you not practicing religion with religious purposes and goals in mind? You see you can not get around it- this blog concerns God and therefore it is theological and religious. Whether Zach intends it to be and a you like it or not. Therefore, when we deal with God do we not have a moral obligation to be stewards with truth? Yes. Granted, he is a novice and he is not trying to be a deep theologian. But there are other ways to discus spiritual application rather than to tamper with author of Gods holy word. So, may he take a word of caution and humbly submit to the word (author) and not the reader. Just because new Christians set the bar at a certain place, don't expect Christianity to leave you at that bar. When God takes the individual he takes all of him. (As C.S. Lewis notes in Mere Christianity). We are to be fully submitted unto to him, not to rest with half truths read unto a holy text.
If Zach has some advice for me I would take it, and I am not going to make the claim that the Spirit did not work despite the blogs shortcomings, but do not expect those of us who have suffered at the hands of false interpretation to take lightly the abuse of God's word. Therefore, here I stand and I will have to hold to the subversion I have placed before Zach. If there is truth in it, even 1% truth the Spirit will affirm this both in his heart and in yours.
My humble blessings to you both.
Pete, Tom…WOW!
I think Zach was trying to say, God can use what others may see as a limitation, being left handed, to His glory. I don’t think he will be using his blog as his doctorial dissertation. Though if he does, I’m sure he will use your diatribes as food for thought.
Dichotomy, post-fundamentalist hermeneutic, post-Enlightenment, fundamentalist, autonomous, individualist, Cartesian rationality through platonic thought…blah, blah, blah. Give me a break! I’m sure when you were his age, your thoughts were on all of these things. I just enjoy the blog and try not to get bogged down in the “dichotomy, post-fundamentalist hermeneutic, post-Enlightenment, fundamentalist, autonomous, individualist, Cartesian rationality through platonic thought”…stuff.
Charles…. well forget the big words since they seem to bother you. Though rest assured I have good reason for using them, I am not just droping those terms to look cool are because they sound intelegent. What I pointed out is a serious problem in Christinity. If you remember, I also mentioned that God still works in the midst of all this as well. However, that does not give us an excuse to be lackadaisical in these mannors. I am glad you enjoy Zach's blog- good! Thats not my conern my conern is handling God's word with delicacy. It is not to be thrown around- sorry man! Keep in mind, at any liberal school the Spirit working with the word is considered very conservative. If anything my post was extremly conservative in comparision to some of the left wing liberals.
All this aside…. do you really see any big words here… or am I bashing Zach…. am I not exhorting him to keep up the work: note the end of my post:
"You must labor my brother! You must grapple with the text and do your best with authorship intention. You must examine the Church's history of interpretation to make sure you yourself are not falling into some serious ditches. Do you want to be a heretic? Do you have the love of God? Do you have Faith? Then labor for your labor is not in vain. Because, the good new is that God is not a deistic, existential, God who is far of in the gnostic mess. He is close therefore pursue him and ethically respect the author who has written the text, for he is the agent God has used! Do your homework then write your blogs, and believe me when you do your homework it will be evident in your blogs. Granted you may not ever fully get the “thick” meaning, but it is worth the perseverance for the faithful, loving, and ethical sake of the author fostered by the Spirit working with the word."
The lazy free spirited western American mind thinks they got something figured out that gives them the right to sit back and say blah, blah, blah… But God calls us to be stewards of truth.
O yeah and by the way… I am 22 and attend a conservative school working on my M. Div. so, 1) I am not far from Zach in age 2) I am not a pastor 3) Age is beside the point.
Just thought you might want to know that….
Apparently, people on this blog are looking past the advice I posted at the end of my blog and think they got Christianity figured out, I guess you don't need to work out your faith with fear and trembling then- that is if Christ really does work in you? Good for you guys. The point of my post was that you don't assume things. You must labor and work at them. Theological assumptions like Zach's have no place outside the garden where there is thorns and thistles and we must till the land.
As I preach in various locations, I have had my fair share of seminary students attempt to correct some fine point here or there, so I know from whence you come, my friend, Pete. From your own admission, you are also a novice, yet your initial posting smacked of academic and spiritual elitism. You claim to have genuine pastoral care for Zach, yet you’ve sought publicly criticize him here, even claiming he’s propagating violence and heresy. You must keep studying, but get your hands dirty in real ministry, too. A pastor’s heart is a heart of love for his sheep. It’s a heart that doesn’t seek to impress with his educational merits, but to exhibit a humble, servant-like example. It’s a heart that has felt the hard-knocks of life, and hurts for his people when they suffer those same pains. Is biblical accuracy important? Absolutely! Does your post come off with a condescending tone and hints of spiritual pride? I’m afraid the answer to that is also “yes”. Accusing others of thinking they have Christianity figured out is tantamount to claiming the same for yourself. I beg of you please find some humility in your spiritual life before you move out into your vocational ministry where the damage will be real. While I also prize education, don’t assume that all of Scripture requires an advanced degree to understand and apply. Some things are hard, but others are blindingly simple. Scripture is perspicuous. In fact, the perspcuity of the Scriptures is the basis for giving the laity a Bible in their own language. Let us not discourage the reading of the Word by tearing down the readers for their lack of theological training, rather let us exhort one another to good works. Whether or not I agree, I understand your arguments above, but the overall condescending tone with which you wrote drowns out any points you may have made. Perhaps, it is the written word that is failing to capture your true intent, but alas, that is all we have to go on here. Take care that your criticisms do not discourage those you think to help. Remember THE identifying mark of a Christian is to Love one another as Christ loves us and gave Himself for us. The truth must ALWAYS be spoken in Christ-like love to our fellow believers. Blessing, Scott
Scott and all who are following this dialogue,
Here is the definition of a straw man argument from Wikipedia: straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Granted I need to be put in my place as the Spirit works in other individuals. I also may need to recheck my motives from time to time. Rest assured I struggle with pride like the rest of the world. So in those respects thank you Scott. However, to address a persons spiritual state on a personal level is a straw man argument that is ignoring the subject matter: authorship intention. What is that? Do you know what that is? Do you know how to deal with that issue in the Church's interpretation of scripture?
Note that I never addressed anyones Spiritual state. Even when I responded to Scottie and mentioned sin and correction, I was specifically referring to the fact that misinterpretations of authorship intention in the Church is a result of sin. By no means was I calling Zach a sinner or trying to put him down personally. What I have argued for does not qualify to make one Spiritual elite or not, that is beside the point and completely off topic. Those observations begin by comparing one another with each other which is a sure tail sign of Spiritual pride. What I am trying to address is his method. It is this method that no one has yet addressed, it is this method that is the subject matter of my argument. Looking back at my argument I can see how it came off prideful and arrogant. But as the Spirit bears witness with me, I tell you I have legitimate concerns for the Church in this area, and I apologize if I offended anyone, or hurt anyone in this blog. The last thing I want to do is shake peoples faith.
So, do I accept your critiques Scottie, yes. Does it change the subject matter of my argument, no. Do we have a moral obligation as Christians to address these questions that I posed, yes. Are we skirt tailing around them in this blog, yes.
So please… please…. if someone wants to address authorship intention and morality of interpretation in a loving manner through dialogue then respond and I would love to engage in that topic. However, if we are going to side step these issues and begin comparing each other spiritually then I will have to part ways.
Just for the record- here is a list of resources that I have used in research on the interpretation of Scripture. If it gives any weight to the seriousness of my argument here are my sources (These men are pastors and scholars. They are leaders of todays Church. So if I have accurately represented some of them your beef is not just with me but with them as well):
Westminster Confession of Faith
Critical Realism by Ben Myer
Divine Discourse by Nicholas Wolterstorff
The Two Horizons by Anthony Thiselton
New Horizons in Hermeneutics by Anthony Thiselton
Is There a Meaning in This Text? By Kevin Vanhoozer
New Testament and the People of God by N.T. Wright
Inerrancy and Hermeneutic by Harvey Conn
The Art of Reading Scripture by Davis and Hays
God's Word in Human Words by Kevin Sparks
Eteral Word and Changing Worlds by Harvey Conn
Coveanant and Eschatology by Michael Horton
The Hermeneutics of Doctrine by Anthony Thiselton
Thiselton on Hermeneutics by Anthony Thiselton
The Drama of Doctrine by Kevin Vanhoozer
The Instittues of The Christian Religion by John Calvin
The Last Word by N.T. Wright
This is about all right now off the top of my head. I can get you more if you would like and exhaustive list.
Like I said, if we can get back on track and address authorship intention and the morality of interpretation then I would love to continue. Here are my sources, you have my points in the first post, I think all my cards are on the table. I would gladly engage in a response that is addressing this issue. However, like I said, if we are going to side step the issue and talk about other things then it is time for me to depart ways.
Pete,
Please note that I am Scott, not Scottie. That said, I know Scottie Mac, and he is one of the most intelligent people I know.
1) I had no intention of arguing the authorship of Judges or hermeneutical philosophy with you . I get enough stimulation in my full-time ministry and in my Ph.D. program (at an accreditted institution). Consider me to be equally well-read. No need to define logical fallacies for me.
2) My ONLY intent was to point out that your initial and subsequent postings were unnecessarily harsh and did not show the pastoral concern/compassion that you claimed in passing.
3) FWIW, I personally accept the tradition view of Samuel as the author, but if you would like to discuss this in depth, might I suggest SharperIron.com A place for self-avowed fundamentalists to discuss such things. I am sure your input would be valued and welcome over there. Here, almost anything you post will look like your are "beating up" on a single individual and your message will be lost in the fray.
Blessing, Scott
Whew!!! This is a tired old lady . . . i.e. my eyes are tired of reading all these comments just because I wanted to read Zach's blog! Reminds me of when Festus told Paul "You are out of your mind, Paul. Your great learning is driving you insane." (NIV) (I probably murdered that verse hermeneutically!) Anyway, I just wanted to tell you I enjoy your blogs, Zach."
By the way, I meant to add a quote I read the other day which said "Wisdom is knowledge with gray hair." (submitted to Guideposts by one of their readers).
I am baffled. I can't post a comment that is longer that a few lines without getting a message telling me to split it, but others here post half a full screen of text. Why am I being discriminated against.