In the story of Gideon (Judges 6-8), near the end it talks about Gideon building an ephod out of the gold earrings from the spoils of the battle against the Midianites. What is an ephod, and why did gideon build one. Is it significant?

Suppose for the sake of this question that Jephthah really did burn his daughter, and did not dedicate her as a virgin. Now I am guessing that Jephthah sinned at the moment when he made his oath, but did he sin at the moment he burned her? Or did he not sin at that moment, because he was merely following the oath he had previously made? Should Jephthah have refused to carry out his oath to God?

Ruth is famously one of the two books named after a woman. It comes in our standard 21st century Bibles immediately after the book of Judges. A book that ends with some not very nice or Godly things happening, including to unnamed women. But let us not get carried away with ourselves! One of the key questions of this idea is: When did Ruth start becoming immediately after the book of Judges*? Is this a later novelty of the Church, or does it precede Jesus? * In some recognizable sense, not necessarily appearing one after another in some single codex.

In Judges 6:11-12 we read: > The angel of the Lord came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, he said, “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior.” In Judges 6:14 we read: > 14 The Lord turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?” The Angel of the Lord appears to speak God's mind, and is interchangeable (by the writer) with the Lord himself. He doesn't speak as a messenger (as Gabriel does to Mary). One might conclude then that the person who knows the mind of God, and who the writer treats as interchangeable with God would be a pre-incarnation of Jesus. My question is: **What is the evidence that the Angel of the Lord in the old Testament is probably Jesus?** Clarification: This is asking generally across the whole old Testament - and is not limited to this passage.

At Judges 16: 289-30 (NRSVCE) we see the account of death of Samson: >Then Samson called to the Lord and said, “Lord God, remember me and strengthen me only this once, O God, so that with this one act of revenge I may pay back the Philistines for my two eyes.” And Samson grasped the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and he leaned his weight against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other. Then Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines.” He strained with all his might; and the house fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life. One is inclined to refer to the death of Samson as one akin to death at wartime. But then, he was also aware that he would kill himself if he brought down the structure. My question therefore is: Does the Catholic Church put the death of Samson in the category of suicide ?

In Judges 3 we find an interesting story about Israel's left-handed assassin and his hit on Moab's obese king, Eglon. > **Judges 3:15-22 ESV** Then the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, and the Lord raised up for them a deliverer, **Ehud**, the son of Gera, the Benjaminite, **a left-handed man**. The people of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab. And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes. And he presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man. And when Ehud had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who carried the tribute. But he himself turned back at the idols near Gilgal and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” And he commanded, “Silence.” And all his attendants went out from his presence. And Ehud came to him as he was sitting alone in his cool roof chamber. And Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” And he arose from his seat. And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out. Is there a historical/cultural/spiritual/sensible reason we're explicitly told he was left-handed? It doesn't seem to make a bit of difference to the outcome.

A Levite's concubine is raped to death by a Benjamite. In revenge the rest of Israel kills 25,000 Benjamite swordsmen. How can this be justified? Isn't this a clear violation of the law of Moses?

While some people are interested in where the generations are different, my problem comes from where they are the same, to wit: Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David Now Rahab is listed as the mother of Boaz. My understanding is that this is the same Rahab mentioned in the book of Joshua as the harlot of Jerico. If true, then both Matthew and Luke list only four generations covering the approximately 400 year period of the judges. There is no way (under normal circumstances) you get only four generations over that period of time unless you want to claim people were still regularly living 200-300 years during this time. In fact, my NKJV claims there were 11 generations during this time. So my question is: why would both Matthew and Luke fail to mention the 6-8 missing generations that must have occurred during the period of the judges? Small thing I know, but it has bugged me for years and I have never seen it addressed anywhere. TIA

I am confused why God stopped Abraham from murdering his son in Genesis 22 but not Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11 - 12. I also find it especially weird because in the _KJV_, Jephthah made the vow while under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord in verse 29 to 30 (I assume it is the Holy Spirit?). Why would Jephthah be allowed to sacrifice his child when human sacrifices were banned ever since Leviticus?

In Judges 11, Jephthah vows to give whatever comes out of the door of his house as a burnt offering. > [**Judges 11:30-40 (ESV)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011:30-&version=ESV) [emphases mine] > > 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, "If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then **whatever comes out from the doors of my house** to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the LORD’s, and **I will offer it up for a burnt offering**." > 34 Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, **his daughter came out** to meet him with tambourines and with dances. >39 And at the end of two months, **she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made.** 1. Did Jephthah really sacrifice his daughter? This clearly couldn't be the will of God (e.g. <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3DJeremiah%25207%3A31%26version%3DESV" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Jeremiah 7:31 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>, <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3DJeremiah%252019%3A5%26version%3DESV" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">19:5 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>, <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3DJeremiah%252032%3A35%26version%3DESV" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">32:35 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>). 2. What did Jephthah mean by his vow? 3. Surely he knew who lived in his house, and had some expectations on what could come out of the door?

In the Old Testament, an army of some 15,000 Midianites invaded Israel for the purpose of "hijacking" their food supplies. A judge named Gideon called the Israelis "to the colors." Some 30,000 showed up to form an army that was probably large enough to defeat the Midianites. Gideon was told by God to "downsize" his army by telling the volunteers that anyone who was afraid or "indisposed" to fight could go home. About two-thirds, or 20,000 did so, leaving Gideon with about 10,000 men, a smaller, but more "select" army than the Midianites had, because it had "sluffed" its weakest men. God further told Gideon to take his remaining troops to the river to drink. Most drank by burying their face in the water, but a few knelt, and used their hands to lift water to their mouths. Gideon was told to use only the latter few, some 300 in all. These were supposedly the equivalent of "special forces" picked by God. When they went to battle, they used unusual "shock and awe" tactics, blowing trumpets, flashing torches, and throwing stones noisily, rather than standard assault tactics using sword and spear. Were these tactics, and the selection of 300 "picked" troops (1% of the original 30,000, 2% of the 15,000 Midianites, 3% of the later 10,000) at the heart of a "faith based" military operation? Gideon won, of course, but what was God's plan in using the special methods that He did?

> One of the core beliefs of Judaism and Christianity is that God is > omnipotent, able to do anything that is logically possible. But > surprisingly, the Bible does not consistently support this idea ... > there’s the following little-known Bible verse: *“And the Lord was with > Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not > drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of > iron.”* — **Judges 1:19** Source I think the quotation is self-explanatory. How is this verse understood by Christian apologists?

One of the most influential works which convinced people to support the American Revolution was a pamphlet by Thomas Paine called "Common Sense". (I first heard about it on Liberty's Kids!) "Common Sense" is famous for Paine's first-principles account of the purpose of government, and how the British monarchy has fallen short of that ideal. Less well-known, however, is chapter 2 of the pamphlet, where Paine lays out a Biblical case against monarchy: > Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to. > >The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory thro' the divine interposition decided in his favour. The Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, "Rule thou over us, thou and thy son, and thy son's son." Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one; but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, "I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you. THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU." Words need not be more explicit: Gideon doth not decline the honour, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of Heaven. > >About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were intrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, "Behold thou art old, and they sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations." And here we cannot observe but that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be LIKE unto other nations, i. e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory lay in being as much UNLIKE them as possible. "But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, give us a King to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other Gods: so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and show them the manner of the King that shall reign over them," i.e. not of any particular King, but the general manner of the Kings of the earth whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. "And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a King. And he said, This shall be the manner of the King that shall reign over you. He will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots" (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) "and he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, will set them to clear his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots, And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers" (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the oppression of Kings) "and he will take your fields and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants" (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favouritism, are the standing vices of Kings) "and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work: and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shell have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY." This accounts for the continuation of Monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium of David takes no notice of him OFFICIALLY AS A KING, but only as a MAN after God's own heart. "Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles." Samuel continued to reason with them but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, "I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain" (which was then a punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) "that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING." These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. **That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is false.** And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public in popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the popery of government. My question is, how well-accepted is Thomas Paine's interpretation of these Biblical passages? Is it a minority view among scholars, or is the mainstream view that the Bible is speaking out against monarchy in these passages?

In the books of Joshua and Judges the leaders of the Hebrews are old men like Joshua himself or Judah. In particular the following verse made me wonder something: Judges 1:3 (ESV): > And Judah said to Simeon his brother, “Come up with me into the territory allotted to me, that we may fight against the Canaanites. And I likewise will go with you into the territory allotted to you.” So Simeon went with him. When I first read this verse I understood that Judah himself went to battle against the Canaanites, but he should have been very old at this time. Then I realized that Judah was also very old when leading the Hebrews. The Hebrews battled against a lot of countries at this time and I had always thought that the leaders engaged themselves in battle. Now I want to try to understand this and looking at different versions of the bible I found that the same verse of the NIV version is very different: > The men of Judah then said to the Simeonites their fellow Israelites, "Come up with us into the territory allotted to us, to fight against the Canaanites. We in turn will go with you into yours." So the Simeonites went with them. Reading this, I understand that Judah and Simeon didn't fight but instead the (presumably younger) members of their tribes were the ones who battled against the Canaanites. How do Catholic Christians explain this? Did the older men fight themselves or were they just the leaders of the Hebrews, but didn't engage in battle?

My choir is singing a spiritual called _Witness for my Lord_ which tells several stories of men who proclaimed God in some manner or other: * Methuselah who lived a long life. * Daniel who survived the lion's den in defiance of the king. * Nicodemus who visited Jesus in the dead of night and learned that he needed to be born again through public baptism. But one of the verses stands out to me: > You read in the Bible and you understand Samson was the strongest man. Samson went out at-a one time And he killed about a thousand of the Philistine. Delilah fooled Samson, this-a we know For the Holy Bible tells us so. She shaved off his head just as clean as your hand And his strength became the same as any natural man. (There are other variations of this verse, but all assert that Samson was a witness on the basis of Delilah defeating his strength through trickery.) How does the Samson story fit with the other examples and in what way is Samson a witness?