When a vacancy for an office in the church opens, what do we do? Do we shove just anyone who is willing into that position? If you attended my church’s annual business meeting this year and were a close observer, you might have noticed that a few of our church boards moved from having five elected members to four. Why was it decided to make the board smaller rather than fill the open slot? Well, there is a fable told by Jotham in the book of Judges that is helpful in answering this question.
Jotham was the youngest of Gideon’s seventy sons (Judg 9:5). Gideon was an unlikely choice to save Israel, but God chose him to deliver Israel from the oppressive Midianites (Judg 6:11-16). You probably know the story well. Gideon was the judge who tested God with the fleece, and the one who led an army of 300 against Midian with only some trumpets, empty pitchers, and torches (Judg 6:36-40; 7:16-22). Gideon was not perfect, and by the end of his story, we find out that he had a son by a concubine from another town (Judg 8:31). This son from the concubine, whom Gideon named Abimelech, ends up being the source of all the trouble in Chapter 9 and the reason why Jotham tells his prophetic fable.
Although Gideon formally denied kingship, it was clear that he still acted as king (Judg 8:22-23; cf. Judg 8:24, 27, 31, 33; 9:2). So, after Gideon’s death, Abimelech sought to take power for himself. Abimelech saw an opportunity, and he persuaded his relatives to make him king in his father’s absence rather than having all of Gideon’s seventy sons rule (Judg 9:1-3). With their financial support (money given to him from the city’s Baal temple), he tried to cement his kingship by killing Gideon’s seventy sons (Judg 9:4-6). But, by the grace of God, the youngest son, Jotham, escaped – which brings us to the fable that Jotham told.
From a safe distance, Jotham tells the fable you can find in Judg 9:8-15. In the story he tells, there is a group of trees, and the trees are looking for someone to reign over them (cf. Judg 8:22). They ask the olive tree, the fig tree, and the grapevine to rule over them. But in turn, each declines the offer. For them to rule would mean that they would have to give up the task God created them for, a task that brought joy to God and men. The olive tree would have to leave its fatness, the fig tree its sweetness, and the vine its new wine. Finally, the trees turn to the thornbush and ask it to reign over them. What an absurd request! But this bramble accepts the offer, yet with one requirement. If it is to be king, it truly must be king, and the trees of the forest must take refuge in its shade. If they fail to uphold their end of this impossible task, the thornbush will self-destruct: fire will come out of it and burn up even the cedars of Lebanon, the greatest of the trees.
It is clear that Jotham intends the trees to represent Israel (specifically Shechem) and the thornbush to represent Abimelech. There is some debate over the exact meaning of the fable. Some pose that Jotham is anti-king and that this text represents an Israel that is opposed to monarchy (also Judg 8:23). But this line of thinking is flawed for a few reasons. [1] The fable itself does not teach that a king is necessarily bad, just that a bramble-like king is bad. The olive tree, fig tree, and vine all refuse kingship not because they believe it is wrong for a tree to sway over other trees, but because they were all created for a different purpose. [2] The book of Judges specifically points out the need for a king. The book ends by highlighting the chaos that has ensued because of Israel’s lack of a king (Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). It would be strange for a book so devoted to showing Israel’s need for a good king to have a narrative all about how Israel should never have a king. [3] It was prophesied that Israel would eventually have a king when they made it to the promised land. Moses gives clear instructions about what this king should be like (Deut 17:14-20). On top of that, the promised Messiah was to be king (Gen 49:8-12; Num 24:3-9, 15-19). The point is that Jotham’s fable is not anti-king, it is anti-Abimelech-as-king.
There is one last reason we could give for why Jotham’s fable is not anti-king; Jotham explains his fable (Judg 9:16-21). Usually, when you read Jesus or one of the prophets explain their parable or sign act, it’s best to just go with the explanation given, and not extrapolate far from that. Jotham tells us the problem is with Abimelech and the treatment of Gideon’s family, not with a monarchy. It was obviously wrong to murder Gideon’s seventy sons, and to choose the son of Gideon’s maidservant to be king (Judg 9:17-18). The men of Shechem are like the stupid trees that thought it was a good idea to make a thornbush their source of shade and protection. Abimelech is arrogant, unqualified, and thirsty for power, a toxic brew that will produce destruction. And this is exactly where Jotham goes. Just like the self-destructive thornbush, Abimelech and all those around him will be consumed (Judg 9:20).
So, what does this all have to do with choosing church leaders? Well, Jotham’s fable of the trees is about choosing a leader that is qualified, someone who is created for the task. An olive tree is great, but even an olive tree is not qualified to wave over the other trees; it just was not created for that purpose. The olive tree should not even have even been considered for the job. There is a temptation to fill church leadership positions with just about anyone, as long as they are willing. But this is how you end up with a thornbush. We must look at the qualifications for a leadership position. The two offices of the church, the office of elder/pastor/overseer and the office of deacon, both have qualifications to be met (1 Tim 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). What’s amazing about these qualifications is that they are predominately moral; it is mostly about the character of the man. Yes, an elder needs to be able to lead the church and teach, but he also cannot be quick-tempered or in love with money or multiple women, and he should be hospitable, sensible, and self-controlled. We could go on, but the point is that this is a mature Christian man, one who clearly evidences the work of the Lord in his life (cf. Gal 5:13-26).
When choosing new leadership, we need to not be like the trees in Jotham’s fable. The goal should never be only that a position is filled. We should seek to fill the position with a qualified man, someone who God has made for that position. And that means taking seriously the qualifications for both elder and deacon found in the Scriptures (1 Tim 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Dale Davis, commenting on Judg 9:1-21, went so far as to say that if there is no one qualified in your local church, then you should borrow men from another local church until there are men from your church who are qualified (Davis, pg. 122). At our last business meeting, my local church went from five deacons to four. We did not have anyone qualified and willing to fill the fifth spot. But did we really need exactly five deacons? The answer was no; four was sufficient. There was wisdom in moving from five to four, because if we had forced ourselves to fill a fifth seat, we might have ended up with an Abimelech.
Work Cited: