Prolegomena
THE AUTHORSHIP IS UNCERTAIN. JOHN MAYER: Who wrote this book is uncertain. Some think it was Samuel, some Ezra, some different writers successively, as the time span that this history covers is very long (that is, 299 years), in which God stirred up thirteen judges whose years, if summed up together, amount to at least as many. COMMENTARY ON JUDGES, THE PREFACE.1
THE LORD CHOSE NOT TO NAME THE AUTHOR. LUDWIG LAVATER: Nothing can be stated with certainty about the writer of this book. Some think that Samuel wrote it, while others have different candidates. It is very likely that it was compiled by several prophets. For no one prophet lived as many years as the account of which this book contains. We should not be too concerned to find out because Scripture does not expressly give the authorās name. If it were of use to us to know such things it is sure that God, who hides nothing at all of those things that relate to our salvation, would have absolutely made it clear to us. It is enough for us to know that this book is one of the canonical books that God has preserved through so many great persecutions, in so many centuries. The author of this book is the Holy Spirit; but to know what instrument he used in writing it, as I said above, has nothing to do with our salvation. HOMILY 1 ON JUDGES, PROLEGOMENA.2
WHOEVER THE AUTHOR, THE SPIRIT GUIDED THE WRITING. ARTHUR JACKSON: Who it was who wrote this book is nowhere expressed. It suffices us to know that it has always been kept in the church among the oracles of God, whose penmen were guided by the infallible inspiration of his Spirit, and indeed one passage of this book, to wit, that concerning Samson is, by the judgment of many learned expositors, what Matthew had in view when he cites as a prophecy of the Messiah fulfilled in Matthew 2:23 . . . āhe shall be called a Nazarene.ā ANNOTATIONS ON JUDGES 1:1.3
THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THIS BOOK. PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI: The Hebrews affirm that Samuel put these things in writing, but they speak that without testimony of the Scriptures. Others also think that every judge wrote such things as were done in his own time; this record of theirs took the form of pamphlets, which Samuel afterward compiled into one volume. Again, there are some who ascribe all this to Esdras, or Hezekiah the king, whom the book of Proverbs mentions to have gathered together some of the sayings (or as some call them) the parables of Solomon. But I think it is not proper for me to take a position about this matter, for there is no reason why we should search out those things that God will not reveal in his oracles. Wherefore, I will return to declare the principal efficient cause of this book. We must ascribe all whatsoever it is to the Spirit of God. For Paul, writing to Timothy, says that the Scriptures were revealed by God, and there is no doubt but that he spoke then of the books of the Old Testament. COMMENTARY ON JUDGES, THE PREFACE.4
THE JUDGES ARE MINISTERS OF GODāS JUSTICE. THE ENGLISH ANNOTATIONS: Now these were called judges because they were Godās ministers appointed by him to execute his righteous judgments, both in subduing, punishing, and destroying the wicked enemies of his church. And when his people were delivered from tyranny and oppressions, [judges were] to administer justice to them according to his laws, and preserve to them Godās true religion in purity and sincerity, without any taint of idolatry and superstition. ANNOTATIONS ON JUDGES, THE ARGUMENT.5
THE MEANING OF THE TERM. PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI: But for the better understanding of the title thereof we must know that this word shaphat in the Hebrew tongue signifies sometimes to execute the law, and to judge the causes between those who are at controversy, which office yet is not proper to those judges of which we now inquire. . . . Furthermore, the word signifies āto avengeā and āto set at liberty,ā which these excellent men performed, whose noble acts are declared in this volume. COMMENTARY ON JUDGES, THE PREFACE.6
THE DEFINITION OF āJUDGES.ā DAVID CHYTRAEUS: Properly speaking, judges were those who affirmed the law, and pronounced someoneās case just as if it was congruent with the commands and law of God, and unjust if it was not. For law, it is said by Apocapes,ā is as a command from God, or from his laws. In Greek, it is equally divided into two words, dike a dicha. But in this title, ājudgesā are the same as leaders, or heroic princes, divinely moved, and armed with virtue and blessedness so that they may deliver their people who are oppressed by the bondage of their enemies. For God instituted among his people the form of a republic similar to that of an aristocracy in which the elders of the singular tribes were preferred, and the law of God was the right mistress of the people who regarded the one and only God as the highest and perpetually right leader, who immediately excites blessed leaders from other tribes, and adorned them with successive and salutary victories so that they should know to seek help and deliverance in dangers from God himself alone. These leaders or avengers of the people were immediately excited by God against oppression by their enemies. In this book they are named ājudges.ā COMMENTARY ON JUDGES.7
HOW WAS A JUDGE DIFFERENT FROM A KING? JOHN MAYER: If it is demanded, how does a judge differ from a king, and what was the office of a judge, it is easily answered. The judgeās office was first to fight against the enemy and to deliver the people of Israel from their oppression. Second, [the judge was] to decide the cases brought before them, as did Deborah, Eli, and Samuel. Wherefore they had the supreme place and authority over others in civil things, and an authoritative power to call the people after them to war, and to punish offenders, and to enforce the execution of their judgments. The difference between a judge and a king was yet great, because the judge ruled only by the laws of God, and made no other laws, or constitutions, but in weightier matters stood to the decrees of the great Sanhedrin or council of seventy-two; whereas kings had power to make other new ordinances (though not opposed to the laws of God), so that in the time of the judges, God and his laws served as the only king. But when they desired to have a king, they are censured as rejecting the Lord, that he should no longer reign over them, because although all good kings would rule according to Godās laws, he knew that being puffed up by so high a dignity, they would for the most part play the tyrants and do contrary to Godās laws, and so bring the people to a more miserable condition, as is foretold. Second, kings were anointed, wore crowns of gold, and went forth and lived in great pomp, having a guard of men and officers about them, but judges did not. Third, many kings came to their kingdom as the inheritance of their fathers, but judges [came to office] by election, God appointing one of one tribe, then another of another, as seemed good to him. . . . Fourth, kings took tribute of their subjects . . . but judges did not. And yet as the word ākingā may be taken in a large sense for the supreme magistrate, a judge may be called a kind of king, as Moses is. COMMENTARY ON JUDGES, THE PREFACE.8
JUDGES VERSUS PRINCES. PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI: Between foreign nations and the Israelites in this similarity, this difference is to be marked. Emperors and dictators were appointed and chosen of men. But the judges of the Hebrews were not declared by the voices of men, but by the ordinance and inspiration of God. They could not be properly called captains or kings or lords, posterity or succession was here of no force, neither was there a regard to one particular tribe or family, neither was there required the election of man or the common assent of the people. COMMENTARY ON JUDGES, THE PREFACE.9
THE PEOPLE OBEYED NO SINGLE JUDG...
