The Hebrew term shofet, which is translated into English as “judge,” is closer in meaning to

“ruler,” a kind of military leader or deliverer from potential or actual defeat. In a passage
from the so-called Ras Shamra tablets (discovered in 1929), the concept of the judge as a
ruler is well illustrated:

The main feature of this period was the emergence of individuals who delivered their fellow
countrymen from these oppressors. The word “judge,” which suggests a preoccupation with
legal affairs, is misleading, for besides judicial functions they exercized a saving, liberating
activity that was conceived to be the result of a direct endowment from Yahweh. This has led
to this company being described as “charismatic” individuals, i.e. they were the recipients of
the divine grace. Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson are
rightly accounted judges because of their spectacular exploits against Israel’s oppressors.
Some of these appear to have ruled subsequently over the people almost like local kings. The
anointing of the Spirit was also revealed in the display of exceptional wisdom (as in the case
of Solomon, 1 Kings 3:3ff.). This may have been the reason why the so-called minor, or
pacific, judges—Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon—were accounted judges, although the
brevity of the records may account for the absence of any warlike exploits. Indeed there is a
hint of unrecorded exploits in the case of Tola, who “arose to deliver Israel” (Judg 10:1).
Deborah herself judged Israel before leading Israel against the Canaanites (4:4). The high
priest would also be regarded as a judge (cf. 1 Sam 4:18) as the central sanctuary was,
traditionally, the place of arbitration. High priest, wise man, and warrior—from these three
classes came Israel’s judges. Their conduct frequently fell far below that of the great
characters of the OT period, but they were men of faith (cf. Heb 11:32, 33) who fulfilled a
vital role in a time of crisis.

The importance of the period

a. Division and disunity in Israel. The ideal picture of the twelve tribes of Israel, each
settled in its own tribal portion, with an amphictyonic shrine that acted as the focal point of
all aspects of the national life was hardly ever realized. Political and geographic conditions
combined to destroy effective unity. This was due largely to the failure to complete the
Conquest, particularly in such strategic areas as the Esdraelon valley (Judg 1:27, 28), Gezer,
the Aijalon valley, Jerusalem (1:21, 29, 35), and the northern coastal plain (1:31). Israelite
control was limited to three separate areas—Judah, the central highlands, and a portion of
Galilee. Only Ephraim appears to have completed the occupation of its designated area,
1
which accounts for its preeminence during the period (8:1-3; 12:1). The remainder of the
tribes were hard pressed to maintain their positions and often were involved in conflict with
neighboring countries. In the case of Dan, the pressure was so great that the survivors had to
migrate northward to win new territory (1:34; 18). The tribe of Judah, effectively isolated for
the major part of the period, never again achieved a full unity with the northern tribes. Even
during the reigns of David and Solomon, the division between N and S was pronounced
(e.g. 2 Sam 19:11, 41-20:2, etc.).

b. The rise of the monarchy. The breakdown in the amphictyonic structure is evident from
the small number of tribes involved in each of the successive crises. Frequently a tribe was
cast back on its own resources, and the maximum number of the tribes found cooperating at
any one point, is six (Judg 5:14, 15, 18). Leadership became an acute problem, i.e. the
desperate expedient of the elders of Gilead in electing the brigand Jephthah to be their ruler
(11:4ff.). This situation led to the rise of the monarchy. Inevitably, the Israelites compared
their own organization with those of the surrounding nations, whose kings appeared to
organize their subjects into effective military units. This led to a desire for an Israelite king,
and Gideon, following his success against the Midianites, was offered the kingly office
(8:22). The events of Judges 9 also show the inclination toward the monarchy. However, it
was not until the Philistine crisis threatened the very existence of Israel, and the renewed
Ammonite threat (1 Sam 11; 12:12), that the traditional reluctance to replace amphictyonic
government by a monarchy was overcome (8:4-22; 12:13).

Conclusion

Majorly the judges performed priestly duties such as offering sacrifices, they led
the Israelites to war against their enemies, they acted as religious leaders and led
the Israelites in worship, some of the judges acted as God’s prophets. Indeed this
period is very important in the history of Israel because it tells most especially
of their struggles towards and in the promise land and how God using the judges
as instruments came to their aid.

Bibliography R. K. Harrison, A History of Old Testament Times (1957), 121-140; J.

Bright, A History of Israel (1960), 142-166; M. Noth, The History of Israel, 2nd ed. (1960),
141-168; W. F. Albright, Archaeology ofPalestine (1960), 87-120.