Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
150
Book Reviews / Pneuma 32 (2010) 123-175
Lee Roy Martin, The Unheard Voice of God: A Pentecostal Hearing of the Book of Judges. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 32 (Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2009). xiv + 289 pp., $26.95/£22.95, paper.
The Book of Judges has been a hermeneutical quagmire. From the earliest, pre-critical biblical commentators, through Reformation and post-Reformation analysis, and into critical and post-critical studies, Judges remains a problematic book. Few would disagree that although its narratives are riveting (how many men would Gideon take into battle?), its morals are deeply disturbing and many interpersonal interactions within the story are barbarous. Thus scholars and laypeople alike have resorted, more often than not, to reading only selected passages while ignoring major portions of the book that they fi nd disturbing.
Lee Roy Martin’s The Unheard Voice of God: A Pentecostal Hearing of the Book of Judges pursues a diff erent approach. Clearly written and compelling in its analysis, Martin high- lights what heretofore has been overlooked or only superfi cially addressed in earlier work on Judges, namely, the three passages in which God speaks directly to the people of ancient Israel (2:1-5; 6:7-10; 10:6-16) and specifi cally the oft-repeated phrase “you have not heard my voice.” Martin’s survey of previous work on Judges (chapter 2) demonstrates that with- out exception, earlier scholars simply could not “get past” the off ensive passages in the text in order to “hear” the message of the book, and yet these passages serve as the narrative core of the story. To choose but one example (and Martin off ers many), Cheryl Exum’s article “The Center Cannot Hold” ( Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 [1990]: 410-31), which high- lights the ambiguous role of God in Judges via a survey of important passages, devotes less than two pages to the combined three speeches of God in the book and fails to discern the rhetorical role of the divine messages. Since other issues take precedence over the divine oracles in her read of Judges, she misses the central narrative core of Judges. Martin, however, has chosen to listen afresh to this ancient story and has discerned a disturbing narrative fl ow. As the story progresses, the ancient Israelites off er only perfunctory attempts to listen to divine directives and then with shocking alacrity turn away from them. In like fashion, God slowly withdraws from his people and chaos ensues in the second half of the book (for example, Jephthah’s daughter, Samson, and the near annihilation of the tribe of Benjamin).
Pentecostals, Martin claims, are no diff erent from earlier biblical hermeneuts, selectively focusing, for example, on the presence of the Spirit as the Judges are empowered to deliver the Israelites from oppression, while ignoring other “hard passages” in Judges. He suggests that this may be because the personal lives and moral defi ciencies of several judges are repulsive to most Pentecostals, who emphasize the importance of purity and holiness in service to the Lord. T us little is said about the wayward judges other than to say that some of them were mighty people of God who ventured astray. Martin’s book remedies this over- sight by placing the disparate stories of Judges into a narrative sequence that demonstrates how, over the course of the book, the people move away from God and the phrase “you have not heard my voice” echoes in the reader’s ears.
Martin writes as a Pentecostal and for the Pentecostal community, yet this commitment does not preclude him from substantial interaction with previous scholarly work on Judges. He deftly moves through centuries of textual examination and is convinced that (1) in the
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/027209610X12628362888270
1
Book Reviews / Pneuma 32 (2010) 123-175
151
post-critical era, Pentecostal hermeneuts should pursue their work in dialogue with other biblical scholars, and (2) their work should be accorded the same scholarly attention that other “specialist interpretations” have received (for example, womanist, liberation, Muje- rista, rhetorical, feminist, or sociological hermeneutics).
Since Martin maintains that “there is no distinctive Pentecostal methodology for biblical studies” (59), he draws upon various schools of hermeneutical thought as he works through Judges. He also draws upon his “Pentecostal worldview” that has shaped his presupposi- tions as he “hears” Judges. Without a Pentecostal methodology for his work, however, he proceeds like most historical-critical scholars working in dialogue with modern “specialist interpretations.” Indeed, he posits yet another specialist hermeneutic — a Pentecostal one without an explicit methodology. In so doing, his work is subject to the same critique of all like-minded interpretative schemas that privilege selected vantage points when reading the Bible. Martin is quite clear from the very first page of his work that he is writing as a Pen- tecostal, but beyond this presuppositional disposition, I could not discern how his position informed his scholarly work. Martin’s exegesis of Judges is trenchant and certainly tacks closely with the text, but presuppositionally driven hermeneutics can be hazardous — it establishes a precedent in which any and all interpretations may be viable. Martin’s buff er against this is the believing community, which serves as a watch dog of sorts against herme- neutical excesses. However, are there not numerous examples of entire communities through history that wandered astray following a wayward leader? Who watches the community? Pentecostal biblical scholars have much to ponder as we struggle with the biblical text and serve our communities of faith, and Martin has off ered us a wealth of exegetical insight. Lest we fall subject to the same critiques of other “specialized hermeneutics,” I think it is vitally important that in our deliberations we are vigilant in distinguishing between “hear- ing” our own voice and hearing the “voice” of the text.
Reviewed by William L. Lyons
Assistant Professor of Religion
School of Undergraduate Studies, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
2
