judges

The Bible is a difficult book. Or so at least most modern people seem to think. I am always interested to see what people make of being given a Bible to accompany them to their mythical desert island. Mostly it is completely ignored. Personally I do not find the Bible difficult. Certainly there are parts that make me scratch my head, or make me feel uncomfortable, or lure me into long and rambling meditations. But I enjoy this uncomfortableness. I enjoy my engagement with this ancient and strange book. It is so different from my day-to-day life and yet so often seems to engage, stimulate and force me to think again. It constantly challenges me to reassess my modern world view and look at things from the point of view of people who lived entirely different lives. It helps of course that I know it so well, that it has resonated throughout my whole life from when my mother read it with me in bed as a little boy to this very day when I read in Leviticus of the ancient Israelite's practice of sacrifice. And it is a sacred text, it has a certain authority and a vast history of interpretation which echoes through our whole culture. When I read it I feel myself engaged not only with God but also with a vast, rich seam of human life. I think the problem people have with the Bible is that they feel it is bullying them and telling them how to live their lives. But once you begin to understand the history of its interpretation it becomes less like a bully and more like a rumbustious and warmhearted family arguing amongst the themselves, exasperating the neighbours but full of life and fun. The only way to deal with such families is to enter into relationship with them and then the music will cheerfully be turned down, the obstructing van moved without a murmur and good turns done with happy grace.

This seems to me the way to approach the Bible. It appears intimidating but at heart it is a story. A story which turns many ways and has many voices. Surely the fact that its key narrative (the Gospels) has four different narratives, three similar and one highly eccentric should give us the key for how to approach it. And it is rich not only because it is a fascinating story in its own right but also because of many centuries of reading and interpretation. These both give it a certain coherence, as in the doctrine of the Trinity, which gives us a key to understanding what the Bible is saying about God and at the same time a vast array of different readings -- allegorical, literal, demythologized, canonical, Catholic, Protestant, Liberal etc etc. Finally the fact that it is authoritative gives it added zest and life, for how we read it is important, it makes a difference to how we live our lives. Small wonder that the powers that be have often try to restrict access to it. And of course I do not have to accept it as authoritative, it is a personal choice. But if I do not engage with it I cannot hope to understand the culture and history of Britain whose empire once ruled the world and whose language still does. Certainly the Bible is less important in Britain than it once was. Our culture increasingly considers it to be a bully which needs to be shown the door but I, at least, still find there is much to be gained from befriending this voluble and engaging personality. I discovered this once again in rereading that most rumbustious of biblical books -- Judges, and in considering what light it had to shed on contemporary urban mission.

Judges - a foundational story

Judges has become a 'hot book' according to a recent influential study (Brettler 2002). Previously it has been one of the least regarded biblical books, appearing to have little theological significance and containing several distasteful stories which make 'modern' people feel distinctly uneasy. Gottwald's influential book The Tribes of Yahweh seems to have increased interest in Judges through its development of a liberationist perspective which sees the tribes of Israel more as a liberating movement of outsiders and outcasts than an army of conquest. Feminist critics such as Mieke Bal have also taken an interest in the book because of the prominence of female characters such as Deborah and Jephthah's daughter. Bal 'foregrounds' these female characters and seeks to develop an alternative reading of the book which she doesn't claim to be the truth about Judges but an alternative perspective which highlights the stories of women. She challenges the view which imposes a coherence on Judges based on male dominated politics, seeking to give voice to the unheard domestic voice of women whose daughters are sacrificed for the sake of male politics. Bal is thus operating within a literary perspective which is more interested in the ambiguities of the text than reconstructing history. This is much more where Marc Brettler is coming from in his desire to bring together literary perspectives on Judges with more traditional concerns for discerning the connection between biblical texts and historical reality. Brettler is sceptical about the connections between the stories of Judges and historical reality - he tends rather to see it as political propaganda for the Davidic monarchy.

The stories of Judges can therefore be read in many different ways. I tend to find the construction of new stories (e.g. that Israel was a liberation movement of outsiders, or that Judges is Davidic propaganda) playfully interesting but scarcely convincing. Gottwald's liberationist perspective is seductive for urban mission but it seems tendentious. Literary approaches are appealing to a graduate in Religion with Literature like myself: Bal is particularly helpful in illustrating how a coherence has been imposed on Judges which can be subverted by asking questions about the role of marginalised figures (i.e. women) in the story; I find Brettler helpful in looking at Judges as a Judean critique of the failings of Northern Israelite leadership... but more than anything the literature leaves me feeling sceptical about Judges and the academic project of biblical criticism. On the other hand I find Judges itself stimulating and intriguing and suggestive of new ways of engaging with urban mission. I therefore find myself drawn to the approach of Walter Bruggeman in seeking to discern the theology of the text but without being innocent in regard to historical issues. In my reading of Judges I will therefore attempt to read it in a straightforward way without attempting historical reconstruction. Nonetheless my reading will be affected by my personal viewpoint and a concern to read urban mission through its eyes - thus attempting to let the text read me and my urban context. I will also read it from a Christian perspective seeing its ultimate fulfillment and resolution in the life of Jesus in a way that Bruggeman would perhaps not altogether agree with!

The shadow of Caleb

On re-reading Judges I was struck by the significance of Caleb in the narrative. This is not a perception which seems to be shared with any other commentators that I have come across who pass over the role of Caleb at the beginning of Judges with slight regard. I believe that Caleb performs the role of the idealized strong man leader under whose shadow all the subsequent leaders appear inadequate. Not until his fellow Judean David appears is there anyone to match him in all round heroism.

Caleb really belongs to a previous generation and a previous book. We first meet him as Joshua's companion on the spying trip into the Promised Land:

And they came to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the Israelites in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh; they brought back word to them and to all the congregation, and showed them the fruit of the land. And they told him, `We came to the land to which you sent us; it flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there. The Amalekites live in the land of the Negeb; the Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live by the sea, and along the Jordan.' But Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, `Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it.' Then the men who had gone up with him said, `We are not able to go up against this people, for they are stronger than we are.'

Because of the negative report of the other ten spies the Israelites are afraid to go into the Land so they are rebuked by God but Caleb gets a special mention:

But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me wholeheartedly, I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it.

Caleb has a Churchillian spirit which is not afraid of conflict when all around are scared and timorous. As I am writing (Feb.2003) he reminds me of Tony Blair playing the warmonger to George Bush's Joshua!

When it actually comes to the invasion Caleb proves himself as a warrior, as well as a warmonger, when in Joshua 14 he is given Hebron and proceeds to drive from it some of the sons of Anak - the forbidding giants who had so intimidated his fellow spies. Caleb then achieves his most significant success - he manages to pass on the mantle of leadership to the next generation, something all subsequent Judges are unable to do. By using his daughter Achsah as the prize Caleb persuades Othniel to establish his leadership credibility as a successful military commander:

According to the commandment of the Lord to Joshua, he gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh a portion among the people of Judah, Kiriath-arba,+ that is, Hebron (Arba was the father of Anak). And Caleb drove out from there the three sons of Anak: Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak. From there he went up against the inhabitants of Debir; now the name of Debir formerly was Kiriath-sepher. And Caleb said, `Whoever attacks Kiriath-sepher and takes it, to him I will give my daughter Achsah as wife.' Othniel son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him his daughter Achsah as wife. When she came to him, she urged him to ask her father for a field. As she dismounted from her donkey, Caleb said to her, `What do you want?' She said to him, `Give me a present; since you have set me in the land of the Negeb, give me springs of water as well.' So Caleb gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.

But Caleb is given a final challenge in the person of his daughter who confronts him with a request for springs to make the dry land of the Negeb viable. Bal points out that the phrase "she dismounted from her donkey" is one of those phrases in the Bible which no one really knows what they mean, she suggests that this traditional rendering would be better replaced by something like "she clapped her hands" signalling her confrontation with her father. Whatever we think about this, it is clear that this is a critical moment for Caleb, if he stands on his paternal authority and refuses Achsah's request the smooth transition of authority from him to Othniel will be broken. Caleb is wise enough to see this and gives in to Achsah's challenge.

Othniel's credibility is established so when the northern tribes begin to suffer from the persecution of Cushan-rishathaim of Aram-naharaim (the dark double wicked one from Syria) a Judean hero is on hand to defeat him. Never again will the Israelites find it so easy to defeat their enemies. From now on they will live in a state of anxiety: threatened by external foes, unable to cooperate together and corrupted by immorality and greed. They will live in a chaotic world where every individual does as he sees fit, far removed from the peace established by Joshua's orderly distribution of the land and Caleb's decisive enforcement. Only the unpredictable appearance of gifted individual leaders will save them from complete disintegration. These leader's inability to pass on the mantle of effective leadership to the next generation will prove their greatest weakness. Israel still lives in the shadow Caleb, they follow his example of the ruthless strong man but are unable to turn that into a reliable, consistent defence policy.

In Judges I find an echo of the disordered world of the inner city where change, resistance and development is often dependent on the energy and inspiration of an individualistic leader. Coherent democratic organisation is difficult both because of lack of resources and because of a culture which values the strong individual above the consistent institution. This inherent culture is more and more being reinforced by government driven support for entrepreneurs and troubleshooters rather than long-term consensus builders. As I continue my exploration of Judges the problems of this form of leadership will become more and more apparent.

Ehud the Joker

The first judge whose story is told in any detail is Ehud. Ehud saves Israel from Moab by assassinating Eglon the Moabite king and using this daring act to mobilise Israel for a crushing military campaign against Moab. Read through urban eyes Ehud seems like a classic East End wide boy who becomes an effective leader through a daring act of outrageous cheek. You can just imagine him embellishing the story for his mates back at the Rose and Crown:

"So I went up to pudding face, creeping up to him all servile, like and said 'Your majesty, I have a secret message for you, which is only for your most glorious royal ears'. And you could see old pudding face's little piggy eyes all go twinkly and light up as if he was going to hear something saucy. So he waved his fat little fingers and all his minions and soldiers scuttled out and he beckoned me up to his throne - the silly old sap - his ears twitching with curiosity. Then quick as a flash I reached down for the blade I'd hidden down me trousers and skewered the old bastard like a shish kebab right through the guts. He gurgled and spewed, his blubber folding down over the blade like he was a great mountain of lard. God, he was disgusting. But I just wiped myself down. Lifted the keys from off his belt. Locked the door behind me. And walked right through the palace saying nothing to no one. All the while his minions chattering among themselves about what secret message I'd brought to his glorious majesty's royal ears: ignorant as shit of the six inches of iron that had delivered a message straight into his royal sap-head's large intestine! By the time the idiots had realised the king was dead and not having a crap on the khazi I was long gone, getting the lads together down in Ephraim so we could kick the crap out of those Moabite bastards once and for all!"

Brettler provides an interesting discussion of the Ehud story as a satire on the Moabites and its use of sexual innuendo and toilet humour, fully aware of the difficulties with knowing what ancient Israelites found amusing. Certainly the story has a playful quality to modern ears, once you get past the serious context of political assassination, but in the age of the Sopranos (not to mention Tom and Jerry) the mixing of violence and humour is not something unknown to us. The physical violence of Judges serves to make explicit and obvious the conflicts between people and ethnic groups in a way which is similar (if more extreme) to the common phenomenon of the inner city being experienced as more real because it's people are more expressive and emotionally honest[1]. In Judges, and in the urban, performance and action are more important than words. Ehud has to use words in order to set up the situation where he is alone with Eglon but what really counts is his daring and successful performance of the assassination. As with Othniel it is the success of a task which creates the credibility he needs in order to be a judge. That this is done with humour and audacity is all for the better.

Courage and humour are foundational to grassroots urban leadership. Thus Ehud is a paradigm of the streetwise leader who gains credibility by acts of physical courage and maintains control and dominance with a quick tongue and cutting wit. To the outsider the Ehud-leader may come across as a bit of a joker but beneath the flash exterior is a will of iron. This kind of leader can be very successful in situations which remain essentially chaotic because s/he doesn't in anyway seek to transform the chaos but rides it like a skilled urban surfer. But when the context becomes more organised, requiring more sophistication - as when a church grows or a community experiences regeneration - then the quick-witted, streetwise Ehud can find himself out in the cold.

Mother Deborah

Deborah is a remarkable biblical character. In a dominantly patriarchal narrative she stands out as the only unambiguous female leader. Niditich believes that characters such as Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20) indicate a tradition of female prophetesses which has been suppressed in the biblical record but in the Bible as we have it Deborah certainly 'leaps off the page'. As ever Matthew Henry states the straightforward reality plainly:

Deborah was herself of the weaker sex, and the sex that from the fall had been sentenced to subjection, and yet the Lord authorised her to rule over the mighty men of Israel, who willingly submitted to her direction, and enabled her to triumph over the mighty men of Canaan

Bal, with a feminist perspective, sees Deborah as the most complete of the Judges combining religious, military, juridical and poetical leadership

Characteristic of Deborah's role is the ordering function of the judge. Where chaos reigns, a judge is raised to establish order. When chaos is caused by external threat - war or occupation - the first task of a judge is to liberate the people from its enemies. When no external enemy but internal chaos threatens, the actual work is different, but the idea remains the same: to create order in chaos.

How did Deborah manage to get through the patriarchal editors? The answer may be, as Brettler believes, that the story was really seen as being about Barak - a weak judge who needed a woman to support him. Certainly the later biblical record talks about Barak rather than Deborah but for the modern reader Deborah remains as a beacon of female leadership - and very effective leadership at that. For urban readers this is less surprising for we are well used to effective female leaders supporting their rather ineffective and feckless men folk. Deborah reminds me of the West Indian matriarchs that are such an important part of church and community life in London:

O yes, Barak - e good boy. Big an strong I alway know e go do sumting wid is life. But e shy - O yes – e shy boy no ambition. No confidence, so I alway need encourage im. I love im, e me boy. O no not me own flesh an blud but e alway call me mudder an I alway call im son. Never could do nutting widout me. Jus a little baby, but den aren't all men like dat? Underneath all de braggin an de talking, little babies need dem mudders ...

When we beat Sisera? O yes - e evil man, wicked. We could all live in peace when e gone. Well all de people were comin to me. Yes from all over: Zebulon, Issachar - everywhere dey cum to me wid dem problems. 'Go to Deborah' dey say, so dey cum, all of dem from ev’ry tribe. So many of dem! An all wid de same problem - Sisera. E a wicked man. A devil man. So I say to dem. "I ‘ad enough your complainin an your worryin. Tings are not right. Someting need to be done. When de shepherd lose de sheep e must kill de lion before e bury de carcass". So of course I tink of Barak. This de time for Barak. E de strongest of dem boys. Time for him to show what e can do.

So dey cum. All de big men an Barak wid dem, big an strong - head an shoulder above de rest of dem. An I tell dem what to do. Dat God would deliver Sisera into dem ‘ands. Dat dey weren't to worry about is iron chariots. God is stronger than dem iron chariots. E is de God who rescue us from Egypt, drownin de Egyptians in de Red Sea wid de mighty wave crashin down on dem heads an all dem pride an self-righteousness drowned in de sea. O yes our God iz a mighty God! ... but I'm preachin an you want hear de story of Sisera. So I tell dem not to worry. But dey look anxious an shuffle dem feet an look down at de ground. So I say "What de matter big men? Are you men or are you babies?". Den Barak spoke up "Mudder you must cum wid us. We need you. De Lord is wid you". So I look at me son, deep into his eyes an I feel de Spirit comin upon me an I see de hand of a woman killin Sisera wid a hammer an a tent peg crushin his head like a cracked egg, an I say to him "Yes my son I will cum wid you. But you will not av de honour of dis victory. Dat will go to a woman." So those little boys were all happy again an smilin an boastin an sayin dey were gwan kill Sisera. But Barak e quiet. E don't say noting. E know dat his mudder tell no lie. But e go off an e fight Sisera an e lick him real good an dey all praise him an call him de big man.

But me an Barak we know de truth. Dat e ain't no big man but a baby lik all of dem. An I sing a song which tell de story like it wuz: how not all de tribes cum when dey needed, how some ‘old back an let other men do de work, how Jael she kill Sisera just lik I see before it happen an Sisera's mudder waitin for him to cum home to his mummy lik all de big boys. But e don't because e dead. An dat happen to us all one day. Even me Deborah de Mudder of Israel - ain't dat de truth. But what are dey gwan to do widout me, eh? Dat what I want know.

Deborah is therefore the paradigm of the urban matriarch. A powerful presence providing leadership where men seem weak and ineffective. In particular Deborah demonstrates the ability to bring together the tribes in order to defeat an apparently superior enemy. She seems to have a motherly charisma which draws together the Israelites even if she isn't completely successful in gathering the whole of Israel. Her gender also means that she doesn't go it alone. It isn't possible for her as a woman, to be the military commander like the other judges so she has to include Barak within the 'leadership team'. This, in turn, allows room for the participation of Jael in the victory over Sisera. Deborah's female leadership begins to move Israel out from under the shade of the Calebite strong man.

Female leadership is very evident in the urban church. Often it has a Deborah/Barak quality where there is a male figurehead but it is really women who hold everything together. But we have also seen a flowering of ordained female leadership. The reasons for this are not clear. Maybe the history of matriarchs in urban communities has made it easier for churches to accept female leadership, maybe it is just that urban churches are perceived as less desirable pastorates and so have received more women by default. Nonetheless there is an observable trend of successful female ministry in the inner city which often has a different quality than male leadership - tending to emphasise relationships alongside the achievement of tasks.

Yet for all Deborah's success she also suffered from the recurrent problem of the judges. When she was gone there was no one to take her place. This problem is emphasised in the next story of Gideon - the little man who became the big man, but couldn't quite believe it.

King Gideon

There is reason to view the Gideon/Abimelech narratives as the central story of Judges. Certainly they take up the most space and seem to mark a transition from stories about resisting external enemies to ones which involve internal conflict. Gooding (1982) regards Gideon as the central narrative of a chiastic structure for Judges. They also raise the issue of kingship which is not to be fully resolved in the narrative of biblical history until David, and it is this shift in political organization which strikes me as most significant in a reading of Judges within the modern urban context. The other significant theme which I will be exploring is Gideon's self-reflective doubting of himself and his calling, which is so unusual in a book where men (and women) of action dominate. But what of Gideon himself? He reminds me of the thoughtful, anxious urban leader - often, but not necessarily, an incomer, who finds the strength to act but is constantly needing to justify his actions.

Friends. You have done me an immense honour. To ask me to become your king is an honour I never dreamed would be proffered me. Before I give you my answer let me attempt to rehearse with you the thought processes which have brought me to my conclusion. I hope you will bear with me in my cogitation upon your deeply humbling proposition.

Who are we? This question has been the locus centralis of my reflection. This people which is us. These tribes Manasseh, Ephraim, Issachar, Zebulon et al, what makes us distinct from the Midianites, the Moabites, the kings of Canaan? What mark is it we bear which provides the discriminating focus between us and our cohabiting antagonists? This and only this. Quite simply this. We owe our allegiance to a divine entity without form, or appearance, or shape. This divine being is the excentric centre, the sacred mystery, the ground of our being, and to Him we owe an absolute loyalty, a groundless faith, a leap into the certainty of unknowing. This divine word is nothing other than what is and what is not, of himself he says only that 'I am'. This is the Lord of the heavens and the earth. The King of all kings. The one God of Abram, Moshe and Yeshua. And yet this God comes close to us. I know for I have had ocular evidence of his power and have tangibly experienced his immanence clothing me as a man might wrap a cloak about himself. This mystery of mysteries makes himself known to human consciousness.

Everything begins and ends here. This is why I was led to destroy the altar of Baal. The gods of the Canaanites are anthropomorphic abominations, the constructions of carnal minds and obscene machinations. They deny our very identity as children of the universal I am. People have criticised me for a fidestic rejection of religious plurality and denial of our shared human impulses. But if we for one moment accept the validity of an intra-subjective divinity of fertility we cease to exist. We who the One has made a people become nothing, a people without identity, purpose or history.

I cannot pretend to understand the God we worship. He is a God who defies all our attempts at iconostasis and philosophical reductionism. He leaves us only wonder and questions and the peregrinations of the faithful. Yet we see our God acting. How else can we explain the defeat of the Midianites? In years to come people will not believe our victory, will call it myth and fable and the materialisation of wishful thinking. But as Moses saw the might of Egypt destroyed, so we saw the might of Midian destroyed. In that moment everything became clear. We could doubt no more. The unknown God became known in the death, destruction and annihilation of our enemies. Nothing could stand in its way. That is why the opposition of Succoth could not be tolerated and our rejection by the men of Peniel punished. It was not my will but the Spirit of God living within me. The vengeance of God is absolute. Let no man challenge it.

That is why I cannot be your king. There is only one King. The great I am. The eternal unknown. Fierce in judgement. Absolute in power. I cannot presume to acquire the proto-divine status of the monarchical hierarch. Sometimes the Spirit clothes me but I have no assurance of a divinely ordained anointing - who could so inhabit the divine mystery and live? Who could be so close to the heart of the infinite unknown? Not me, my friends. I am but Gideon a Judge of Israel. Let God raise up a judicial authority as the divine fiat determines - outside and beyond the human cravings for assured temporal governance.

But I know fellow Israelites that it can be hard to trust this awesome and unknown God. Therefore give to me a share of the treasure of the Midianites and I will make for you an ephod, an instrument by which you may enquire of God and know his will for your lives. It will be a reminder for you of the God whose Spirit entered me, giving me the power of divine judgement to liberate Israel, restore true worship and chastise all who would reject God's will.

Gideon is unique amongst the judges for seriously addressing the idolatry of the Israelites. His vocation is rooted in the destruction of an altar of Baal and he seems to be uniquely aware of the religious heritage of his people - when he meets the angel of God he challenges him with the disjunction between the history of God's saving action and His present inaction. Gideon's whole approach is unusually thoughtful and reflective. Whilst Gideon is a man of action he is also a man of doubts and strategy. Ehud possessed a streetwise cunning and Deborah a calm wisdom but Gideon is subtle and thoughtful at every point - his response to the Ephraimites (8:1-3) is astute, his punishment of Succoth is carefully planned (8:14-16) and the only mention of writing in Judges, and his response to the offer of the kingship theological and reasoned (8:23). Gideon is tough and clever but beneath this competent exterior there is a critical lack of confidence. In fact he seems caught in the dilemma of Hamlet; where his very thoughtfulness makes it more difficult for him to act decisively. I will explore the consequences of this below in more detail.

The fascinating thing about Gideon's story is despite his great success and acclaim - no other Judge was offered the kingship, the aftermath of his life was unmitigated disaster. Why was this the case? Three critical factors can be identified:

The story of the ephod is slightly strange for us, as no one seems very confident about saying what an ephod is, in this particular context. It clearly isn't a idol and it seems to be rooted in the worship of Yahweh but no one knows how. Some scholars are tempted to reject the criticism of the ephod as a later interpolation (Peake). My instinct is to see it as some kind of mediatory device between the people and their invisible God. Maybe it is the lavish wealth that the ephod displays which is the root of its destructive influence. Clearly it is a means to placate the people which goes badly wrong.

But other reasons for the disastrous aftermath of Gideon's life can be discerned. His vengeance against Succoth and Peniel is the first instance of a judge punishing fellow Israelites for not working together. Deborah regrets the lack of cooperation but takes no action. Gideon's example sets a terrible precedent.

Lastly Gideon creates the possibility for an Israelite king. Here was a man of action who was also thoughtful and spiritually mature, he was able to defeat the enemies of Israel like Ehud and Barak but he also had a leadership potential and stature unknown elsewhere in Judges. Deuteronomy 17 creates the option to have a king, here is someone who could make kingship work for the Israelites, but it is a dangerous legacy.

The dangerous legacy finds all too real form in Abimelech. He is a classic man of action, grasping his opportunity with utter ruthlessness and protecting his position with great success until stopped in his tracks by a woman and her millstone. He is able to take the idea of kingship which Gideon's remarkable abilities had created and turn it into something corrupt and dreadful. We have to wait until David to see what could be made of the kingship - alien idea that it was.

Kingship may have been an alien idea but times were changing and the old model of occasional charismatic judges was passing. Enemies like the Midianites and the Philistines couldn't be combated by the old structures, only kingship offered a way forward. Gideon's greatest failing was his own lack of confidence in taking on the challenge of kingship, he was uniquely equipped amongst the Judges to take on the role, for like David he was a spiritual man deeply concerned with his relationship to the God of Israel. Gideon created the possibility of a new way for the Israelites but stepped back at the crucial moment preferring a quiet retirement where he could enjoy the benefits of his fame and power. He is the paradigm of all those successful incomers to the inner city who leave behind more problems than they initially solved, precisely because they don't address the issue of succession. The challenge of setting up sustainable, forward looking structures which bring an indigenous order to situations of complex disorder is as pressing for us now as it was in the time of the Judges.

Jephthah the Outsider

Jephthah was a thug. There has been a long history of making accuses for Jephthah and depicting him as a tragic character but fundamentally he is a warlord who did not hesitate to practice infanticide and bloody retribution against his enemies. Yet there is a tragic side to his story and a sad poignancy in recognising that his fate as an outsider brought into the mainstream has many echoes in modern urban life. But perhaps above all Jephthah reminds me of a modern British gangster movie where the lead is played by someone like Vinnie Jones...

A derelict piece of wasteland overlooking the river. Jephthah appears wounded, but not seriously. He startles his girl who is looking out anxiously over the river. She runs to him and tries to hug him but she is shrugged off. They sit tensely apart until the girl speaks

Jephthah: Yes he's dead. The bastard. Good and fucking dead. Like all the rest of the bastards.

Girl: But is it over Jephthah? Is it all finally over? The killing, the murder is it all over?

Jephthah: Over? How can it ever be over? The killing doesn't finish. It just carries on until everyone's fucking dead - men, women and children...

Girl:(Coming closer) Forget it Jephthah. Just for one moment forget. Forgive ...

Jephthah: Forgive! What's forgiveness got to do with it? They kicked me out. What could I do but learn to kill? And when they need some muscle who did they turn to. Jephthah. He can handle it. He can always handle it. No one messes with Jephthah Jones. You've got problems with Ammonites. Jephthah will sort it out. That's what he's there for. And when the Ephraimites start trying to muscle in on our turf there's always someone who will sort it out with the minimum of fuss in the old-fashioned way. Good old bloody Jephthah. (Turning to the girl and holding her before turning away). I kill people. That's what I fucking do.

Jephthah: I fucking told you. How many times do I need to tell you bitch! (He hits her) That hasn't got anything to do with you. That's my business. No one. No one has got any right to say anything to me about my ... business. O fuck! Fuck. (He kneels down beside the girl kissing her where he hit her, weeping). I kill people. I fucking kill people. That's what I do. You've got to understand that. I fucking kill people.

His big hands close around her slowly moving to her throat. He throttles her. When she is dead he tenderly picks her up and carries her to the river, where kissing her gently he lets her fall into the river as if offering her up as a sacrifice. The camera tracks him as he turns and walks away towards the camera. The final shot is of his face: flinty, firm and with eyes dry.

This final murder is not justifiable from the text but illustrates symbolically (in true cinematic tradition!) the way in which post Gideon Israel gets locked into a cycle of violence. As I have previously said Jephthah is essentially a thug. His understanding of the religious tradition of Israel is severely limited. He gives an equal authority to Chemosh - the god of the Ammonites (11:23) and his promising to sacrifice a person in return for his victory is entirely without foundation in the religious tradition. It makes him treat the God of Israel like Molech who demanded child sacrifice and as Bal points out he must have known very well that his daughter was likely to greet him on return from a victory. Furthermore he inflames a disagreement with the Ephraimites (which Gideon deals with without violence) into a major internal conflict. The romanticisation of Jephthah does, nonetheless, reach fairly remarkable heights, especially in the treatment of his daughter where Peake comments

the heroism of his daughter, who gave herself, without a murmur, to her people and her God; who was led to the altar, not as a bride adorned for her husband, but as a virgin-martyr; whose love of life was less than her love of country and its freedom. Did not Byron rightly divine that she smiled as she died?

Feminist writers such as Bal and Phyllis Trible have rightly seen this infanticide as an act of terror rather than a romantic self giving. It is the sign of a society that has degenerated into a sad state. Perhaps it is sympathy for Jephthah as the outsider which has moderated criticism of him.

The use by institutions seeking to work in chaotic situations of people who are outsiders to the institution but can operate effectively in chaos is easily observable in the modern inner city. Community reps on the boards of regeneration agencies are one example. Similarly churches often recruit youthworkers from within urban communities to do work which would otherwise be beyond them. A key contemporary issue has been the recruitment of black clergy into the mainstream denominations. There have been undoubted successes but also much pain as black ordinands have been subjected to the alien, oppressive culture of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. As with Jephthah it is often the families of outsiders who pay the price when they are brought into the institution. There is in this perspective a real tragedy to Jephthah where at one level he is able to operate successfully in his own violent way but on the other hand he is completely at sea - disastrously ill-equipped to understand the religious culture he should be operating in. Small wonder there is no suggestion of Jephthah being made king!

Leaders like Jephthah can be necessary in very chaotic situations but they should not be romanticized. They won't operate within civilised codes of behaviour because they just don't know how to. There's is a world of aggressive direct action and if you want to make use of them be prepared for some unpleasant consequences.

Samson the Hero

So we come to Samson. Perhaps the must extraordinary character in the whole of the Bible. He is the ultimate hero: lusty and virile he launches uncoordinated attacks upon the Philistines keeping them permanently on the back foot during his life time. But it is Samson alone who does this, he is the great individualist of the Judges. Whilst the chief role of the other judges is to gather the people of Israel together in effective military order this is completely irrelevant to Samson who relies solely on his Spirit-inspired strength. This leaves everyone - friend and foe alike, confused as he pursues his anarchic career seemingly uninterested in anything other than having sex with any unsuitable woman who takes his fancy. A more inappropriate judge it would be hard to imagine. And yet there is something about Samson; something innocent and holy; something necessary and fitting. In a situation where traditional order has broken down and Israel is being dominated by a new and superior regional power only a heroic character like Samson can resist domination. Samson is the bringer of a holy chaos, combining sexual energy, outrageous virility and an utter reliance on spiritual inspiration - he rather reminds me of the classic urban figure of the Pentecostal demagogue.

Brethren I come before you tonight as a sinner. I have fallen short of the mark. I have strayed from the narrow path. I have been enticed from the way of wisdom. God, as it were, put a thorn in my flesh. A weakness to remind me of my sinful nature, my original depravity ... he made my flesh weak, that my eye might wander and be ensnared by the wiles of woman. But I do not ask for your forgiveness tonight. O no. I do not ask that of you, I have betrayed the trust given me as your judge and leader, but above all I have betrayed the vow given to God at my birth. So I do not ask your forgiveness, I seek only the forgiveness of the One who alone has power to judge and forgive, the One who holds all things in his hands and bestows His Spirit upon his chosen ones. The Lord God Almighty. Awesome is His name.

From a young age God bestowed his Spirit upon me. As I wandered in a vineyard a young lion, fierce and hungry, its teeth terrible as the gates of hell leapt upon me with deafening roar. But God's Spirit is stronger than the spirit of the lion and with these bare hands I wrestled with that lion, man and beast locked in mortal combat upon the bare earth. And God's almighty power triumphed for I wrenched that wretched beast socket from joint, skin from flesh and left it dead upon the ground. Praise be to God!

And by the mysterious agency of this dead lion God led me into conflict with the Philistines that I might try them by fire, strength and the awful vengeance of God. Many times they tried to thwart me. Once they pursued me into the hills of Judea and the Judeans fearful lest those godless men ravage their land, came to me distraught and anxious begging that my freedom might be sacrificed for the salvation of many. So I consented to be bound by two fresh ropes tied firmly about the wrists, but as those men of Judah brought me to the Philistines, once more the Spirit of God descended upon me and the ropes fell from me like charred flax. Facing my enemies, now a free man but unarmed I looked around me and saw lying at my feet, by divine providence, the jawbone of a humble ass. Clasping it in the same hands which slew the lion I set upon the Philistines and they fell before me like wheat falls before the scythe of the skilful harvester. Glory be to God for this liberation from the hands of our enemies!

At a later time God again used that weakness of the flesh which He had caused to dwell within me. I was enticed into a town of the Philistines by a harlot, a seductress in league with our enemies and as I lay in her poisoned embrace through the dark night, they gathered their strength and closed the city gates that they might slay me in the morning. But again God's Spirit was with me. I woke in the depths of that dark night and as my adversaries slept I made my way to those great, heavy gates behind which they believed they slumbered in safety. And standing before those immense beams again I felt the Spirit of God descend, then wrapping these arms around those posts I lifted them as easily as a child might lift and cast aside an unwanted toy. But those gates were more than a toy to me, they were a symbol of the great power of the Philistines - all that mechanical might which has held us in oppression these long years - so lifting them upon my shoulders I carried them to the hill by Hebron. There to remain as a sign of the victory of God over his enemies.

So now I stand before you. Chained. Blind. The captive of our enemies. I was led astray, once more, by the God-ordained weakness which drew me into the honeyed embrace of the treacherous Deliah. There my vow was broken and my strength vanquished. I was bound and beaten and led here, to this place, eyeless in Gaza at the mill with slaves ... but I feel, I feel even now the Spirit descending upon me, once more, yes, once more the Spirit inhabits my flesh ... the great power runs in my veins, embracing me with the kisses of God ... freedom is at hand, the final liberation beckons ... beware all ye enemies of God!

It is important to set Samson in the context which Judges provides for him. Firstly he is a successor to Abimelech and Jephthah - the thuggish strong men who ruled the roost after Gideon's death. Samson is almost a caricature of this kind of strong arm warlord, for his strength does not reside in the band of thugs which he has gathered around him but in his own physical strength. He brings the tradition to its ultimate expression. Secondly Judges portrays Samson's aftermath to be a society without leaders, where people are brutalized and everyone does as he sees fit. It is as if without the strong man leader everything descends into a chaotic barbarism. Within this context we see the emergence of the Philistines. They had previously been engaged with by Shamgar, a kind of prototype Samson, who used an ox goad rather than a jawbone, but the threat they posed to Israel is first detailed in the Samson narratives. The nature of their threat is detailed by Hamlin:

1: their efficient political organization which made it possible for their five cities to act as one.2: their military discipline and 3: their superiority in military technology including chariots and a monopoly on iron weapons which gave them an advantage over the bronze weapons of the Israelites

In the face of this superior organization the divided and under resourced Israelites needed a Samson figure as their 'lethal weapon' to resist Philistine domination.

But who was Samson? His character is full of paradoxes. The narrative engine which drives all stories about him is his disorderly sexuality, he seems to be inevitably drawn into dangerous sexual liaisons with women who are either Philistines or sympathetic to the Philistine cause. This is symbolically underlined by Samson's association with fire - even his name probably means "sun". He is a red hot character who is always playing with fire. This playing with fire leads him into direct confrontation with the Philistines, not in direct military engagements so much as guerrilla or terrorist activities. No decisive victory is won but their control is constantly being challenged and their economic infrastructure and military incursions thrown into chaos. But the chaos does not stop there. Samson is not containable by his own people - his family is scandalized by his marital intentions and the Judeans are so unsettled by him that they turn him over to the Philistines. Everywhere he goes he causes chaos, the more I think about it the more he seems like an Al-Qaida operative!

But there is more to Samson than the wild bringer of chaos. This is indicated from the beginning of the story where his birth is brought about by the visitation of an angel. Some commentators believe that Samson's mother was impregnated by this divine agent which is the cause of his miraculous strength (Brettler 2000), but whatever way we look at it his birth is unusual and with the Nazirite vow it sets him apart as different and holy. In the light of this the references to Samson's being filled with the Spirit take on extra resonance, even though this Spirit-anointing is shared with other judges. We can see how the anointing is particularly individualised in Samson's case empowering him with magical strength rather than enabling him to galvanise an army. We also see Samson resorting to prayer as he asks for strength to pull down the temple at the end of his life (16:28) and when he is thirsty (15:18). Only Samson and his father are described as praying in the whole of Judges. Thus despite the wild and chaotic nature of Samson's personality he is also described as being uniquely spiritual. Thus we come to the riddle of the bringer of holy chaos.

The enigmatic nature of Samson is, of course, highlighted in his posing of the riddle at his wedding feast and it sets the tone for any contemplation of the story of this most individual of Judges. Why is this so obviously spiritual a man so sexually ill-disciplined? Why is so disorderly a personality viewed as a Judge? How can so wild and chaotic a man be used by God in the formation of the nation of Israel? Reflection on urban narratives does something to make sense of these paradoxes. Firstly the type of the charismatic leader with a strong sense of sexual energy is familiar and something I have observed on numerous occasions. At times it feels distinctly uncomfortable but it can also be a refreshing change from the sexual repression of the reformed tradition in Protestantism. My characterisation of Samson above as the Pentecostal demagogue had this type of leader in mind. Secondly the chaotic leader can have a critical role in resisting domination by an oppressive and highly organised outside force. Thus the Brixton riots/uprising did focus attention on the neglect of Brixton and the institutional racism of the Metropolitan police in the way that nothing else could. No one could say that it is the best way of going about things but sometimes it is necessary. Finally there is a dimension to Samson which any Christian cannot miss - the extent to which he prefigures Christ, some have even seen the gospel of Matthew as purposefully written to echo the Samson story. But as ever Matthew Henry makes the parallels clear:

Now herein Samson was a type of Christ 1: As a Nazirite to God, a Nazirite from the womb. For, though our Lord Jesus was not a Nazirite himself, yet he was typified by the Nazirites, as being perfectly pure from all sin, not so much as conceived in it, and entirely devoted to his Father's honour. 2: As a deliverer of Israel for the is Jesus a Saviour, who saves his people from their sins. But with this difference: Samson did only begin to deliver Israel (David afterwards raised up to complete the destruction of the Philistines), but our Lord is both Samson and David too, both the author and finisher of our faith.

This provides us with a helpful springboard for an urban reading of the Bible, from the perspective of Judges, finding fulfilment in Christ. But first let us review what we have found from this urban reading of the Book of Judges.

Judges - an urban perspective

I would not wish to claim that the Judges give a comprehensive description of leadership styles to be found in urban communities but it does seem to me that they provide interesting paradigms of the kinds of leadership found in particularly chaotic situations. Below I go on to analyse and summarize contemporary relevance the examples of the Judges, characterising the leadership styles and describing their strengths and weaknesses:

Ehud - the streetwise operator characterised by humour, opportunism, cunning and bravado.

Strengths: responding to immediate crises. Taking advantage of situations. Mobilising short-term action.

Weaknesses: lack of long-term perspective. Loses out when the situation becomes more organised and legal.

Deborah - the matriarch characterised by strongly centralised leadership with shared leadership roles.

Strengths: bringing people together. Making people feel safe and held. Galvanizing joint concerted action

Weaknesses: creates over reliance on strong central leader. Tends to be conservative and find change difficult.

Barak - the lieutenant characterised by practical abilities but reluctance to assume leadership responsibilities

Strengths: team player. Reliable implementer of policy. Not looking for personal glory

Weaknesses: lack of confidence. Uncomfortable with responsibility. Unable to galvanize people into action

Gideon - the exceptional individual characterised by strength with intelligence, self-reflection and deliberation.

Strengths: strategic. Works with and develops tradition. Articulates reasons and policy. Flexible organization

Weaknesses: self doubt. Creates unrealizable expectations. Can leave behind worse problems.

Abimelech - the thug characterised by naked pursuit of power and willingness to do whatever is necessary.

Weaknesses: brutalizing. Doesn't allow dialogue or reform. Ultimately destructive.

Jephthah - the outsider characterised by streetwise understanding of context but ongoing vulnerability and marginalisation.

Strengths: addresses immediate problem. Gives quick access to new skills. Brings new perspectives.

Weaknesses: cost to individual outsider and family. Lack of understanding of tradition. Can be disruptive and costly in long-term.

Samson - the wild one characterised by resistance to authority and exceptional charisma.

Strengths: resists domination. Makes something happen when situation looks hopeless. Can bring a holy chaos.

These styles of leadership are further illustrated in the narrative below which tells the story of an imaginary urban church

A great community and spiritual leader named Moses from a distant country had two lieutenants: Joshua and Caleb. Caleb founded a church which grew and flourished under the leadership of his son-in-law Othniel.

Some years later people from that country came to the city. Life was hard for them and they experienced prejudiced and exploitation but there arose a leader from amongst them called Ehud. Ehud was a popular charismatic figure who inspired his people with his daring and courage. Often sailing close to the wind he nevertheless managed to gather together a church which helped meet the spiritual and social needs of the people.

After Ehud died at a comparatively young age the church struggled. They had no building and had relied heavily on his charisma and entrepreneurial skills. But there arose among them a second generation of leaders. A man called Barak became the pastor of the church but the real leader was Deborah a strong matriarchal figure who gathered the people together and made the church the centre of the community - a place where people could experience the security of being 'back home'. At this time they acquired their own building and developed many social projects for the community. Deborah's funeral was a huge public event attracting many civic and religious leaders.

After Deborah's death the church struggled to come to terms with a changing context and a new generation who had been born in the city and weren't interested in the church being a reminder of 'back home'. But there emerged a brilliant young leader called Gideon, he was able to interpret the tradition of Moses and Caleb in a way which inspired the new generation and the church grew to a great size. Gideon also proved himself a skilled politician and was able to win important victories for the community against prejudice and state indifference. Many people encouraged Gideon to enter politics or begin an international ministry but he resisted these calls enjoying the security of his own church and his established ministry. As he grew older, however, the church rather lost direction and failed to meet the new challenges which were emerging. After Gideon's death his son Abimelech assumed charge, despite the opposition of a reforming group. But Abimelech was a skilled operator in church politics and he crushed any opposition; but not without cost. The church became increasingly fossilized, alienated from the community and reliant on Abimelech's dictatorial leadership. Many people were glad when he died prematurely.

The church was in a bad way: a far cry from the warm nurturing fellowship of Deborah's time. There were factions in the church whose feuding made it difficult for a new leader to be appointed. The size of the congregation had shrank significantly since Gideon's time although the church still had sizeable resources. Eventually the church decided to go outside of itself and its community and chose a new leader called Jephthah. Jephthah was a brilliant young preacher who was in many ways like the pastors of old - a strong, confident, up front leader but he was from outside the Moses/Caleb tradition (although he had attended the church as a child) and he found it difficult to understand some of the practices of the church. Nonetheless he did reinvigorate the church, attracting new members and neutralizing opposition (a significant group left the church) by working every hour God gave. But his work ethic had a cost. He was able to spend little time with his family and was shocked when his young teenage daughter died of a drug overdose. Jephthah blamed himself for this and was never quite the same again. He died of a heart attack a few years later.

The church continued to struggle. The factions had never really been reconciled - only held in check by Jephthah's personality and forceful manner. Then there emerged from the church a brilliant new personality. He was like nothing they had experienced before. Miracles seemed to happen whenever he was around. He had a healing ministry which attracted thousands. When he prayed the atmosphere was electric. People were drawn to the church who had given up on God for good. Samson was indeed a phenomenon. He was eventually made pastor of the church but many people were unsure of him. He had a reputation for liking the company of pretty young women and more than one disappeared from the church only to be observed a year later pushing a buggy. Nonetheless Samson did reinvigorate the church. Gone for good was the longing for life 'back home'. The factions, despite retaining their differences had a new sense of common identity. Even the authorities were forced to take the church seriously and included it in local partnerships. Eventually, however, during an investigation of the church finances by a government agency Samson was found guilty of fraud - using church money to support his illegitimate children, and he was sent to prison (where, so we are told, he exercised a remarkably successful ministry).

Taken as a whole the Judges offer immediate solutions to pressing problems. In very chaotic situations order is found through the genius of exceptional leaders who emerge from within the community. Gradually the system unravels because of the weaknesses of the Judges: their setting up of patterns of internal conflict and failure to provide continuity of leadership. These weaknesses make it difficult for the Israelites to cope with the increasing threat of the better organised, technologically superior Philistines. Their struggle reflects the struggle of urban communities and churches to find ways to organise for effective long-term development in the midst of complex disorder - how can the necessary order emerge from within communities in a way which enhances rather than suppresses their spirit and genius? We will go on to examine how David and Jesus provide some solutions to these well established urban problems.

An urban reading of the biblical story

Starting from Judges we can continue to read the biblical story as a quest for an order and continuity which provides the context for keeping alive the fire of God's Spirit.

Samuel, David and the Israelite monarchy

The story starts with Samuel who was both the last of the Judges and a fierce defender of the old ways and, paradoxically, the bridge into a new way of being. The reading of 1 and 2 Samuel by Joel Rosenberg in A Literary Guide to the Bible well expresses my own perspective on the stories of Samuel, Saul and David:

Israel's previous extraordinarily status among nations, its reliance on the genius of prophetic inspiration, on the sporadic efflorescence of the might of YHWH in its midst, had, in a sense, become a tiresome burden. The vertiginous swings of divine favour celebrated in Hannah's song were now - although the tradition could not say so directly - not conducive to the stability and continuity of national life

Samuel is a different kind of Judge as he anticipates the role of the prophet which is to be crucial during the time of the monarchy in reminding the people of the tradition and restraining the kings. He, under pressure from the people, anoints Saul as king but Saul finds the job of creating a new Israelite monarchy too demanding

We should, however, keep in mind that Saul's torments embody effectively the hybrid and transitional nature of his institutional role. From the start, Saul's kingship is but an extension of the idioms of judgeship - including most notably, his behaviour as a battlefield ecstatic. Although he anticipates be kingly style of David in certain important ways ... he never fully rises above the haphazard and ad hoc conditions of charismatic leadership

Saul is the transition figure. He breaks the mould but suffers for it. These transitional leaders are often required to initiate change in urban communities. But it requires the special skills of David to make full use of the foreign idea of kingship and transform it into something that will carry the Israelite nation into a new era - better organised and with a richer understanding of Yahweh:

Yet at no point, then or ever after in the narrative, does David manifest prophetic ecstasy... He remains a rational and far-sighted architect of kingly institutions long before his attainment of actual kingship

David refuses to take Saul's life - or even to fight against the king despite Saul's depressive persecution of him. This liberates David from the cycle of retaliation begun by Gideon and sets up the divine authority of the king which is to be crucial to the continuing existence of the monarchy. Once David gains power he clamps down on retribution when he rebukes Joab for slaying Abner thus "establishing the role of the monarch as one who will stand above and restrain the volatile and chaotic motions of tribal conflict" (p133). David acts in many other ways to organise and establish Israel as a regional power. He subdues the dangerous Philistines, he captures the strategically important Jerusalem and he establishes a succession. In the light of the problems in Judges this is particularly important, it is not without struggle and difficulty but ultimately power is handed on to Solomon, along with a clear agenda for action viz the building of the temple and the placing of Yahweh at the centre of national life.

David can thus be characterised as the paradigm of the institution-builder who is:

Confident: he is sure of his calling and is able to pursue it despite resistance and setbacks. He wants to be a leader

A builder of civil society: he creates a bureaucracy, army and national religion thus liberating Israel from the need for the emergence of charismatic leaders and, indeed, from having to do everything himself. He isn't afraid to organise

Spiritually mature: he understands the story of Yahweh and places himself within it, developing an absolute reliance on God, even to the extent of allowing Nathan the prophet to challenge and correct him. He makes sure the system doesn't rely on him but on the religious tradition inspired by the Spirit

Of course David hasn't got all the answers. He gets seduced by the power of the monarchy into adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah, after which his rule is never quite the same. But he does survive and hand on to Solomon, submitting to Nathan's correction and overcoming Absolom. He has fashioned a sustainable institution and created the dream of the ideal king and it is this messianism that forms the context in which the King of Kings can bring his vision of the loving order (and holy chaos) of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus - the King of Kings

Under the pressure of foreign power the monarchy declined and the religious institutions of temple and synagogue became fundamental to Jewish life but the messianic hope remained for a new king - a son of David. This provides the background for Jesus's proclamation of the Kingdom of God which was the keystone of his message. Present day scepticism about monarchy and feminist sympathies (Davey 2001) is revealing in its renaming the Kingdom as a 'New World Order'. Kingdoms are about order and structure and institution; they therefore require a prophetic counterbalance, reminding them of their purpose to create peace and justice, in order to prevent them from becoming the controlling dictatorships which we see developing under Solomon with his use of forced labour. In Jesus we see the coming together of the kingly with the prophetic. This is well illustrated in comparing the shocking bringer of holy chaos that we see in Mark with the more orderly account of Luke where Jesus joyfully includes women, the poor and the marginalised in the new kingdom of loving order.

Mark - gospel of urban radicals

Mark is generally recognised as the earliest of the gospels and Luke is thought to be dependent upon it, and although there is no conclusive proof of this it seems reasonable to accept this as foundational to the study of the New Testament. Mark has also been popular amongst urban radicals such as John Vincent and Ched Myers not simply, I would argue, because of the chronological priority of Mark but rather because its style is conducive to an attitude of urban confrontationalism. And yet, I will go on to argue, there is something missing in the Marcan approach him which needs the more rounded, sophisticated development we see in Luke. Which is not to say Luke makes Mark redundant but rather that we need to see the two gospels in dialectical tension.

Mark's language and grammar

Our translations obscure the fact that Mark was not a good writer of Greek. He was clumsy, ungrammatical and with a tendency to use foreign words. O'Hanlon seeks to reproduce Mark's style as he wrote it:

And immediately coming out, out of the synagogue, they went into the house of Simon and of Andrew with Jacob and John. But the mother-in-law of Simon was laid up being feverish and immediately they were saying to him concerning her and approaching, he raised her, taking the hand, and the fever left her and she was serving him (1:29-31)

To some extent the apparent clumsiness can be explained by the style of writing at the time - a string of letters without punctuation, capital letters or even gaps between words thus requiring the use of marker words (such as de) to indicate sentences. But nonetheless it is generally agreed that Mark's style is crude and functional[2]. It is a first stab at telling the story of Jesus, it will need refinement, but it has a raw power which speaks particularly into contexts which have a similar rawness and immediacy

Immediacy, action and folktale

Mark's is a narrative which moves along at pace without taking much time to pause, linger and reflect. It is thus the polar opposite of John's elegiac reflection on the person of Jesus. Mark is interested in action more than reflection. A few key theological themes give the keys to understanding the work - especially the opening declaration of Jesus as the Son of God. Attempts to develop sophisticated structures for the gospel have got nowhere and most people agree that the structure is at best simple and often it is pretty disorderly. Drury argues that the story has the character of a popular folktale rather than a religious myth:

His Jesus is a fitting hero for Christianity in its first and unofficial phase, housebased and taken by wayfaring missionaries to those whom the established faiths and cults did not satisfy; those who were glad to hear of the subversion and transgression of a religion which had never appealed to them p403

The humanity and secrecy of Jesus

Mark tells us that Jesus slept when he was tired (4:38); that he felt hungry (11:12]; that when confronted with suffering he was moved with compassion (1:41) and that Jesus experienced both anger and indignation (3:5, 10:14)

This has always been the aspect of Mark which has endeared the gospel most to me, Jesus isn't depicted as an angelic figure floating a couple of inches above reality but immersed in the mess and complexity of life. Here are the roots of the orthodox understanding of the Trinity with Jesus being completely God and completely human. Alongside this humanity of Jesus we find a man whose message even his followers find hard to understand. Certainly following Jesus is important to Mark and discipleship is a key concept which he introduces into the narrative, but that doesn't mean the disciples have a very satisfactory idea of what following Jesus really means: it is a hazy amalgam of popular ideas and assumptions filtered through their awe at Jesus's actions and respect for his authority.

The seriousness of following Jesus

If I want to bring anything original into this discussion of the gospels it is perhaps an appreciation of how serious a story Mark's is[3]. By serious I mean lacking in joy - and not merely lacking in joy but being positively suspicious of it.

Why is joy missing from Mark? For a start this can be put down to the lack of nativity and resurrection stories. Especially in Luke these stories account for a number of the occurrences of joy. Mark also lacks the parables of losing and finding, where joy is a predominant theme. The account of the mission of the seventy mentioned above in Luke 10 is also missing from Mark. This might lead us to conclude that the lack of references to joy in Mark is purely accidental. But there are two key passages where the other gospel writers use the word joy but Mark avoids so doing. The first is the story of the triumphal entry:

And as he went, they were spreading their garments in the highway. And as He was drawing near, already to the descent of the Mount of Olives, all the multitude of the disciples began rejoicing, to praise God with a loud voice concerning all the might works that they saw. Saying

Blessed is the one coming in the name of the Lord, the King. Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.

And many spread their garments on the highway, and others were cutting branches from the trees and were spreading them on the highway. And those going before, and those following after, were crying out

Hosanna! Blessed is the one coming in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!

In Luke we have the picture of a happy crowd of disciples rejoicing and praising God. The Markan picture is subtly different. The people are not disciples, just those going before and after. There is no praising of God, just a rabble rousing focus on the anointed one coming to re-establish the Kingdom of David. There is no rejoicing amongst the people - just a mutilation of the trees! In Mark there is clear evidence of a focusing, almost desperate in its vehemence, on Jesus as their coming saviour - certainly no sense of joy.

The second passage is the account of the women at the tomb after the resurrection. Here transliteration brings out the slight changes between Matthew and Mark.

And going away quickly from the tomb with fear and joy great they ran to announce to the disciples of Him

And going away quickly they fled from the tomb and having them trembling and ecstasy and no one nothing they told for they were afraid

In Matthew we have a mixed picture. The women are both joyful and fearful. It is a dramatic experience for them but they are still sufficiently under control to go and tell the disciples what has happened. In Mark the account begins with the same four words but we begin to sense a different tone when Mark adds that the women do not merely go away but flee away. This prepares us for the most dramatic difference in the accounts, any sense of joy is absent; the women are traumatised by their experience. The word translated ecstasy can be more fully rendered as 'a displacement of the mind from its ordinary state and self possession'. This is emphasised by the failure of Mark's women to tell anyone about their experience. In the Markan account any idea of joy is swept away by a description of a far more traumatic and uncomfortable experience.

So we have seen that Mark seems to deliberately avoid making use of the experience of joy when describing religious experience. We might therefore conclude that it was an experience alien to his particular Christian culture, or even that the word was not part of his limited Greek vocabulary. This however is not the case for there are two mentions of joy in Mark.

Others, like seeds sown on rocky places, hear the word and at one receive it with joy. But since they have no root they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away.

Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve went away to the chief priests, that he might betray Him to them. And hearing, they rejoiced and promised to give him silver.

These two passages finally confirm our suspicions that Mark was deeply sceptical about the value of joy as a Christian experience. Those who respond with joy to the gospel are shallow and do not last. Joy is a characteristic of the enemies of Jesus. The writer of Mark had a very serious notion of what discipleship was about.

The cursing of the fig tree

Finally I want to look at a passage which seems to typify the unruly character of Mark's narrative

He saw in the distance a fig tree covered with leaves, so he went to see if he could find any figs on it. But when he came to it, he found only leaves, because it was not the right time for figs. Jesus said to the fig tree, "No one shall ever eat figs from you again!" And his disciples heard him. ...

Early next morning, as they walked along the road, they saw the fig tree. It was dead all the way down to its roots. Peter remembered what had happened and said to Jesus, "Look, Teacher, the fig tree you cursed has died!"

There is no passage in the Bible which I find more perplexing. Commentaries are full of words like 'difficult' and 'perhaps' but generally can't explain why Jesus seems to be so arbitrary and destructive. The context is certainly instructive - the cleansing of the temple fills the gap between the beginning and end of the story. From the perspective of Judges it makes Jesus look like Samson - a wild man bringing a holy chaos into a situation where oppression has created an unchallenged equilibrium. Watch out everyone! The tornado of the Spirit is about to descend ...small wonder that the orderly Luke quietly leaves this story out of his gospel of joy and the new community.

Luke/Acts - story of a new community

So much does the long historical perspective matter to Luke that beginnings and endings are shaped to find their places within it. They punctuate but never disrupt it. Mark was different. He rejoiced darkly in the disruptive power of the Christian gospel. His work was framed by the vertical descent of power and authority at the outset, and by the twin disturbances of torn veil and empty tomb at its conclusion. "And suddenly" is a favourite a catch phrase of his, as "And it came to pass" is of Luke's.

This seems to me an accurate characterisation of the difference between Mark and Luke. The question I will address, arising from it, is what implications it might have for those who seek not merely to interpret the complex stories of the four gospels but use them as the guide to living faithfully within our complex world.

Luke's language

Luke is a considerable stylistic improvement on Mark. Studying the two alongside each other you get the real sense of an educated Luke tutting to himself as he improves the linguistic crudity of Mark, of course, because our Mark has been spruced up in the process of translation we don't immediately appreciate this[4]. Much of the 'orderliness' of Luke must have consisted, for him, of this stylistic improvement. Luke's gospel tells the story of Jesus in such a way that it can hold up its head amongst all sections of society. But it also seems to be about making coherent sense of the story - outlining the process which led to Jesus, how the mission of Jesus unfolded and how that was made universal through the mission of the early church. It is this concern with process, which requires a more sophisticated use of language, that seems to me crucial to understanding the significance of Luke's gospel.

The prologue and setting the scene

Luke's nativity stories are often regarded as being historically questionable, perhaps being entirely a creation of Luke based on Old Testament models. This approach is typically taken by those scholars who believe that Mark is the gospel that is closest to the historical reality of Jesus, but just because Mark is used as a source by Luke and Matthew it doesn't mean he is closer to the truth. Maybe Luke used other sources which were much more accurate than Mark to improve the historical reliability of his gospel! Of course it is all hypothesis and will largely depend on whether we believe it is likely that an angel might appear to a young virgin to tell her that she has miraculously conceived.

What the nativity stories do illustrate is that Luke was concerned to ground the story of Jesus within its historical context. His references to Herod and Quirinius etc. put Jesus into a specific time and place rather than just have him erupt into history. They are critical for Luke in his attempt to describe the process by which Jesus brought salvation into the world.

Lucan radicalism - women, the poor and unmasking Pax Romana

Luke has often been seen as toning down the radicalism of Mark, particularly through writing a gospel which puts the Romans in a better light. I will go on to question this belief but first we need to examine Luke's often noticed emphasis on women and the poor.

Luke's emphasis on the role of women in the story of Jesus is as remarkable as it is obvious. From the openness of Mary to the angel, in comparison to Zechariah's doubts, through the story of Mary and Martha, on to the role of women in the resurrection, Luke introduces stories about women into his narrative. We don't know why Luke does this but it does make an impact, especially in the blatantly patriarchal atmosphere of Hebrew, Roman and Greek culture of the time. It has its limits - there are no female apostles, as such, but he pushes the role of women as far as he can - as Mary Evans says:

Men and women alike are capable of making decisions and are responsible for the results of those decisions. Men and women alike are capable of a spiritual understanding. Men and women alike could talk to Jesus, could follow him, could be friends with him, could serve him, could love him

Jesus is inclusive of everyone. This is particularly important for often a concern for order becomes exclusive and totalitarian, but Luke's order is a loving order which upsets preconceptions and stereotypes. This is further emphasised by his special concern for the poor and, more especially, his attitude of suspicion towards the rich. Luke repeatedly gives warnings of the dangers of wealth. Again this is important for so often the move to tell the story in a more sophisticated way places more power in the hands of the rich and significant. Luke seems to be saying 'yes we need to tell this story in a more sophisticated way, with more structure and order - showing the process and logic of salvation but we mustn't forget that the poor and the marginalised are at the centre of Jesus's concerns. It's not the powerful who understand the gospel but the poor’. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in his subtle critique of Roman power.

Hans Conzelmann's Theology of St. Luke was one of the most influential studies of the gospel. He developed a theory that Jesus was in harmony with and subservient to worldly power and that Luke's gospel was written as a political apologetic to show that Christianity was not a danger to the Roman empire. This theory has become widespread despite the attempts of writers like Richard Cassidy to demonstrate the "powerful threat that Jesus was to the political and social structures of his time". Perhaps the crux of Conzelmann's argument is that Pilate is given an increased role by Luke and is clearly shown as believing that Jesus is innocent. Thus it is believed that Luke was trying to minimize Roman guilt for his death and shift responsibility on to the Jews. This seems to me to demonstrate a rather touching political naivety. So the Roman governor thought that Jesus was innocent but was manipulated by the Jews into having him executed - and this is meant to make the Romans feel good? If I was a Roman censor I would have been horrified both at the injustice of Pilate - allowing an innocent man to die and at the weakness of Roman power being so easily manipulated by the local leaders. Luke far from offering an apologetic for the Roman empire portrays it as being cruel, corrupt and (worst of all for a totalitarian regime) weak. The rhetoric of Pax Romana was that the empire brought peace and justice through strong, ruthless authority. The weak, indecisive Pilate is a terrible advert for the empire - as Jesus himself would have it, he is no benefactor, but another self serving tyrant exposed for what he is by the subtility of Luke's narrative. It is a narrative which is subtle enough to deceive Conzelmann in his Lutheran ivory tower - a narrative which demonstrates an order which is based on inclusion and love not military might.

Disciples and apostles

Luke's concern for process is nowhere better shown than in the way Jesus is seen gathering, training and sending out his disciples. Luke shows us the way a community of love is formed in such a way as to have a significant impact on the surrounding society.

Luke expands Mark's minimal description of the call of Peter, Andrew, James and John giving it both drama and theological resonance (5:1-11). Right from the start we see the disciples are not just to be hangers-on but significant actors in their own right - they are to be fishers of men. Their distinctiveness is then emphasised at v33 when they are contrasted with the disciples of John and of the Pharisees - they do not fast and pray but enjoy the fruits of creation.

Jesus then moves quickly (he compresses Mark) to the calling of the 12 disciples and the naming them as apostles (6:13f). This is part of the tradition which he inherited from Mark but he makes far more use of the designation of disciples (those who follow) as apostles (those who are sent) and, as we will see, reminds us of their apostolic calling at key moments. Furthermore the calling of the apostles leads straight into a major block of teaching where the priority of love and the dangers of wealth are emphasised. Jesus is gathering together a group of people who will have the ability to carry on his work, it is notable that Luke adds a group of women to the twelve (8:1f) who support him practically. Luke has a down-to-earth sense of the real needs of the disciple band (although as the Mary and Martha story reminds us he doesn't relegate women simply to a role of practical support).

A key event in the development of the 12 is the mission recorded in 9:1ff. Luke largely follows Mark: he empowers the disciples, commands them to preach and heal and orders them to travel light. The story is broken up by more information about John and his murder by Herod which emphasises the fact that Jesus is creating an alternative community of love at odds with the brutality of civil society. But when the disciples return Luke calls them apostles, giving a strong indication that the disciple band is being formed into a missionary organization sent out by him to heal and evangelize the world. This is reinforced, after the pivotal experience of the Caesarea Phillipi confession and the Transfiguration, by the Mission of the 70 which is unique to Luke (10:1ff). This precipitates, on their return, an outpouring of joy and a remarkable affirmation by Jesus of the authority of his followers:

Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

This seems to mark a critical point in Jesus's careful development of his disciples as we see his joy in recognising that God's power is being manifested through this disparate band of followers. The hope of Deborah, David and Isaiah is finally coming to fruition:

Then Jesus turned to the disciples and said to them privately, "How fortunate you are to see the things you see! I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see, but they could not, and to hear what you hear, but they did not."

The joy is important. Mark's Jesus erupting into history with dissonant energy has no place for joy but orderly Luke concerned with the rhythms of history and the melodies of the Spirit brings us a Jesus of overflowing joy. Order creates joy because it creates a safe place where things are in harmonious relationship. Reading Luke is like listening to Mozart, there are deep themes and profound emotions but it is communicated through a harmonious language which brings joy and peace. To extend the musical metaphor Mark is like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring shattering the complacency of a decadent society - it's an invigorating liberation but like Stravinsky himself, we find the need to return, in due time, to something more harmonious and classical.

The Mission of the 72 marks the beginning of Luke's special section which contains material not found in Mark. It includes the famous Good Samaritan and Prodigal Son parables and a sense of journey towards the final confrontation with the totalitarian power of Rome and the religious establishment. It is peppered with teaching about the nature of discipleship - the nature of prayer (11:1), the dangers of wealth (12) and the costs of discipleship (14:28 -35). It is an important time of learning and growth for the disciples. One final thing is needed to weld the disciples into the apostolic church - the last supper. Here a ritual is created which will be the focus of the new community; here, significantly, Judas separates himself from the disciple band; here, emerging out of the centuries old Jewish tradition, a new practice which will ensure the continuity of Jesus's patiently formed new Israel. Small wonder that Luke reminds us of the disciples apostolic identity (22:14). They are to be called disciples once more - as they sleep in the garden of Gethsemane, but after the Resurrection (24:10) they fully assume their apostolic calling as active agents of the new order.

Conclusion

The gospels provide us with a complex story of Jesus - four interrelated narratives. Different gospels come to prominence in different contexts and different ages, I'm suggesting that Luke should be taken more seriously as a gospel for the contemporary urban context because it presents a picture of a loving, alternative order emerging out of history. In our present situation of increasing complexity and ever proliferating solutions being imposed from on high, creating ever more disorder, this has much to recommend it. This Lucan emphasis does not, however, rule out the holy chaos bringer of Mark or the various styles of leadership that we have seen illustrated by the Judges and David. In fact because of Luke's concern for emergence and historical development these can all be seen as part of the process of developing an order which emerges out of the urban context rather than is imposed upon it. I believe that these narratives can be a useful guide for the church as it seeks to understand what urban mission is about, and is it too much to believe that these ancient stories might contain some wisdom that more secular activists and thinkers might do well to ponder on? I rather think it is but we will all be the poorer for it.

Bibliography

Drury, John Mark and Luke in A Literary Guide to the Bible. ed. Robert Alter & Frank Kermode Fontana 1989

Franklin, Eric Luke in The Oxford Bible Commentary ed. Barton and Muddiman Oxford 2001

Gunn, David Joshua & Judges in A Literary Guide to the Bible. ed. Robert Alter & Frank Kermode Fontana 1989

Henry, Matthew Commentary on the Whole Bible in One Volume ed. Lesley Church. Marshall Morgan & Scott 1960

Niditich, Susan Judges in The Oxford Bible Commentary ed. Barton and Muddiman Oxford 2001

Rosenberg, Joel 1 & 2 Samuel in A Literary Guide to the Bible. ed. Robert Alter & Frank Kermode Fontana 1989

Tuckett CM Mark in The Oxford Bible Commentary ed. Barton and Muddiman Oxford 2001

[1] See for instance the middle-class car thief Steve who finds himself drawn to working-class life in Paul Abbott's Shameless

[2] This is very well illustrated in Anthony King's recent translation of the New Testament

[3] This analysis was first published in Third Way 199_

[4] Again Anthony King is useful in this regard

The Bible and modern culture