{"id":10,"date":"2017-09-04T13:55:02","date_gmt":"2017-09-04T11:55:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=10"},"modified":"2017-10-13T19:52:27","modified_gmt":"2017-10-13T17:52:27","slug":"the-book-of-judges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2017\/09\/04\/the-book-of-judges\/","title":{"rendered":"The Book of Judges"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

ONE<\/em><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

A. Title<\/p>\n

The Hebrew title Shophtim<\/span> means \u201cjudges.\u201d The Hebrew root is from the word shaphat<\/span>, and it has three basic meanings: first, \u201cto judge,\u201d second, \u201cto govern,\u201d and, third, \u201cto exercise leadership.\u201d In the Book of Judges, the word Shophtim<\/span> is used in a double sense. One usage is \u201cto deliver,\u201d and this refers to the judge\u2019s leading in external affairs. The second usage is \u201cto judge,\u201d which deals with the ability to lead in internal affairs. The Hebrew title is based upon the type of leadership that Israel experienced between the times of Joshua and King Saul; during this interim period, judges were the leaders of the nation of Israel; their external policy was to deliver, and their internal policy was to judge.<\/p>\n

The office of judge was first mentioned by Moses (Deut. 16:18<\/a>, 17:9<\/a>, and 19:17<\/a>). The shophet<\/span>, the judge, was to stand by the side of the High Priest as the supreme judge or leader in Israel. The judge\u2019s function included much more than just civil services. It also included responsibilities of leadership, in both military and religious affairs. The office of judge carried the judicial sense of administrating justice but also included assuming the role of a military leader. The shophet<\/span> was imbued by the Holy Spirit and summoned directly for his work by divine appointment (3:15<\/a>, 4:6<\/a>, and 6:12<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The nature of a judge in the Book of Judges, then, was not just civil, but military and religious as well. The usual order as found in this book is as follows: A judge would first serve as a military leader and deliver Israel from some foreign occupation. Only after the military deliverance would the judge then serve as a civil leader. These judges, therefore, should not be confused with those appointed by Moses in Exodus 18:21\u201326<\/a>. Those were civil judges, appointed to decide issues of case law. However, the ones in the Book of Judges were to deliver Israel from foreign oppression, usually by war, and then to rule the people in the following era of peace.<\/p>\n

The Greek title, as found in the Septuagint<\/span>, is Kritai<\/span>, meaning \u201cjudges.\u201d The Greek name is simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew word.<\/p>\n

The Latin Vulgate gave the book the title Judicum<\/em>, which is the Latin word for \u201cjudges.\u201d Also in Latin, there is a secondary name, Liber Iudicum<\/em>, meaning the \u201cBook of Judges.\u201d<\/p>\n

The English title, Judges<\/em>, is based upon the Hebrew title and the meaning of the word.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Table 1. The Judges of Israel in the Land: Between Joshua and King Saul<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

*<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Judges\/Leaders<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Dates (<\/strong>b.c.)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Deliverer?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Othniel<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1373\u20131334)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ehud<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1316\u20131237)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Shamgar<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1265\u20131252)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

He falls within the period of Ehud.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Barak and<\/p>\n

Deborah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1237\u20131198)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Concurrent<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gideon<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1198\u20131151)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Abimelech<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1151\u20131149)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Self-appointed over a tribe. Not actually a judge.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N\/A<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Tola<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1149\u20131126)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jair<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1126\u20131105)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Eli<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1107\u20131067)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Not included in the Book of Judges<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N\/A<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jephthah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1087\u20131081)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ibzan<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1081\u20131075)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Elon<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1075\u20131065)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Samson<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1069\u20131049)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Samuel<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1067\u20131020)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

He overlaps with the period of Samson; but he is not included in the Book of Judges.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N\/A<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Abdon<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1065\u20131058)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

He falls within the period of Samuel.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Under seven of these twelve judges, a deliverance is recorded: Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson. The other five (Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon) are said to have judged Israel for so many years, but no actual record was made of deliverance.<\/p>\n

The Book of Judges covers the period of transition, archaeologically speaking, from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age\u2014the period of the arrival and the settlement of the Sea Peoples, or the Philistines. The actual period of the Judges includes not only what is found in the Book of Judges, but also what is found in the Book of Ruth, and in the first twelve chapters of First Samuel.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Date of Composition<\/p>\n

The question is: What was the date of the composition of the Book of Judges itself? When was all of this finally written in the form as it now exists? The history within the book covers a period of 350 years, and so whoever wrote the book in its final form had to put together a history that covered three and one-half centuries.<\/p>\n

The first clue in dealing with the date of the book is the phrase: In those days there was no king in Israel<\/em>, which appears four times in the last five chapters: Judges 17:6<\/a>, 18:1<\/a>, 19:1<\/a>, and 21:25<\/a>. What this phrase shows is that the Book of Judges was written when there was a king in Israel. Each case contextually tends to give a different reason why a king was necessary. But by the time the book was written, there was a king in Israel; hence the contrast with those days<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The second clue concerning the date of the composition is that, according to 1:29<\/a>, the city of Gezer was still in Canaanite hands. This shows that this book was written before the time of Solomon, because Solomon received Gezer in 1 Kings 9:16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The third clue, according to Judges 1:21<\/a>, is that Jerusalem was still in Jebusite hands. This shows that the book was written before David\u2019s capture of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

The fourth clue is the statement that Sidon was the chief city of the Phoenicians. Before the twelfth century b.c., Sidon had priority over Tyre; after the twelfth century, Tyre had priority over Sidon.<\/p>\n

The fifth clue is that the Book of Judges contains a series of explanatory parenthetical notes showing that the final form derives from a time chronologically distant from the event described. In other words, several times in this book the author makes a statement, but then the statement has to be explained for his audience, who might not understand how things were done in earlier times. These special notes show that the book in its final form was written much later than when the particular statements would have been common knowledge (cf. Judges 1:11<\/a>, 1:23<\/a>, 3:1\u20132<\/a>, 19:10<\/a>, and 20:27\u201328<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The sixth clue is that the book contains seven chronological notes that conclude unto this day<\/em>, meaning until the time of the writing. It does not mean any particular statement was still true after the writing of the book, but at the time the Book of Judges was being written down, these things were still true (1:21<\/a>, 1:26<\/a>, 6:24<\/a>, 10:4<\/a>, 15:19<\/a>, 18:12<\/a>, and 19:30<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The last clue is that it had to have been written after the year 1051 b.c. because that was the year Samson died. Samson is the last person named and dealt with in the chronological sequence of the Book of Judges.<\/p>\n

Putting all those clues together, the Book of Judges was written approximately 1000 b.c. It was written in the early days of David, when he was king over the Tribe of Judah only, before he became the king over all Israel.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

2. Egyptian Historical Background<\/p>\n

During the early period of the Judges, Egypt remained under the weak leadership of the last few kings of the eighteenth dynasty (Akhenaton, Tutankhamun, and Ay) who were active during the period from 1377 to 1345 b.c. Eventually, Horenheb was able to consolidate some of Egypt\u2019s forces, and the real military revival took place during the nineteenth dynasty (1318 to 1222 b.c.), especially during the Ramesside Period.<\/p>\n

The pharaohs of the nineteenth dynasty reestablished Egyptian garrisons in Canaan that were lost during the latter days of the eighteenth dynasty. Three Egyptian archaeological findings, all three in the form of writings, relate to the Book of Judges because they are from the same period. The first one is from the Pharaoh Merneptah (1234 to 1222 b.c.), in which he describes an invasion he made in the Land of Canaan. He is the first known writer outside of Scripture to mention Israel, and he states in his inscription, \u201cIsrael is laid waste. His seed is not.\u201d While not literally true, of course, the reference clearly shows that Israel was in the Land by 1222 b.c.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Table 3. The Tribes of Israel and Their Territories in the Land During the Time of Judges<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Tribe Names<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Settled West of the Jordan<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Settled East of the Jordan<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Reuben<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

From the north end of the Dead Sea southward.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Simeon<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

In the South (Negev).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Levi<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

As the priestly tribe, did not receive an allotment of land in Canaan, although they were allowed to live in forty-eight cities of other tribes and pasture their flocks.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Judah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Southerly location, including the hill-country and going as far north as Bethlehem, almost to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Zebulun<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

South of Asher, north of Manasseh.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Issachar<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

South of Asher, north of Manasseh.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Dan<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Begins in the Books of Judges to the west of Benjamin\u2019s inheritance in a small tract towards the seacoast, but east of Philistia.<\/p>\n

Judges 18<\/a> records the northward migration of the Danites to the north of the Sea of Galilee.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Gad<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

South of the half-tribe of Manasseh, to the north end of the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Asher<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Along the Mediterranean to the far north from Carmel.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Naphtali<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

A northern tract east of Asher.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Manasseh*<\/a><\/p>\n

(a half-tribe, part of the Tribe of Joseph)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

A large tract north of the inheritance of Ephraim, extending from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River and to Megiddo in the north.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

South of the Sea of Galilee and above the territory of Gad; the territory of Manasseh spanned the Jordan River.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ephraim*<\/a><\/p>\n

(a half-tribe, part of the Tribe of Joseph)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Territory above Dan and Benjamin\u2019s inheritance reaching north to the River Kanah and Shechem.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Benjamin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

A narrow tract immediately north of Judah\u2019s territory bordering the Jordan River on the east.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Figure. Map of the Tribes of Israel in the Land<\/p>\n

During the Time of the Judges<\/p>\n

\"Israel<\/p>\n

Israel Map \u00a9 by Joan Prinjinski 2007; used by permission.<\/p>\n

Hand-drawn tribal boundaries \u00a9 Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum.<\/p>\n

The second archaeological artifact is called Papyrus Anastasia I<\/em>. This satirical letter, which dates from the second half of the thirteenth century b.c., describes the journey of an Egyptian envoy through Syria and Canaan. It describes the roads of Canaan as being overgrown with cypresses, oaks, and cedars that were very tall and thereby made travel difficult. The letter mentions the fact that lions were numerous in the Land, indirectly confirming some of the details in the Samson account. The envoy in this letter twice encounters thieves, showing the likelihood of hindered travel, as described in Judges 5:5\u20137<\/a>. The envoy details how thieves stole his horse and clothing one night, and stole sheath, knife, and quivers on another. The letter also evidences knowledge of the geography of the Land, and the unsettled conditions in the Land. All this reflects the stories in the Book of Judges, including the fact that \u201cevery man did that which was right in his own eyes.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. Canaanite Pantheon<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(1) El<\/p>\n

El<\/em> was the head of the Canaanite pantheon, and the father of the gods and mortals. However, he tended to be weak in comparison to Baal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(2) Asherah<\/p>\n

Asherah<\/em> was the wife of El, and the mother of the gods, and the Goddess of the Sea. Her role in the Bible is mentioned in 1 Kings 15:13<\/a> and 18:19<\/a>; 2 Kings 21:7<\/a> and 23:4<\/a>; and 2 Chronicles 15:16<\/a>. Also mentioned are the wooden Asherah poles (Deut. 16:21<\/a>; 2 Kg. 23:6<\/a>; and Judg. 6:25<\/a> and 18:30<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(3) Baal<\/p>\n

Baal,<\/em> the Storm God, became the most powerful god in the pantheon because of his connection with fertility. He was the dying and rising god of the Canaanites and is mentioned frequently throughout the Bible.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(4) Astarte or Ashtoreth<\/p>\n

Astarte<\/span> was the female Goddess of Fertility, and the Goddess of Love and War, closely associated with Baal and becoming his female consort. References to her are found in Judges 10:6<\/a> and 1 Samuel 7:4<\/a> and 12:10<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(5) Anath<\/p>\n

Anath<\/em> was Baal\u2019s sister and wife, and the Goddess of Love and War, and she tended to be rather bloodthirsty. She does not appear in the Bible, except in a person\u2019s name (3:31<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. Attraction and Danger for Israel<\/p>\n

The fertility of the land still held by the Canaanites compared with the less productive part of the land held by Israel would give the impression that the gods of the Canaanites were better to their worshippers than the God of Israel. In the Book of Judges, the Jewish people hold the high ground, the mountainous rocky regions, but the soil was a lot less productive. The Canaanites were able to hold on to the fertile valleys because of their chariot force. The Jewish people looked upon the fertility of the holdings and could logically conclude that the gods of the Canaanites were better to their people than the God of Israel was to His.<\/p>\n

A second attraction was the practice of temple prostitution, which provided a very strong temptation. Prostitution as part of worship contrasted sharply with the sexual strictness of the Law of Moses.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

4. Continuity Between Joshua and Judges<\/p>\n

The continuity between Joshua and Judges is evident in five ways. First: the Tribe of Benjamin was unable to conquer Jerusalem (Josh. 15:63<\/a>; Judg. 1:21<\/a>). Second: Caleb gave his daughter to Othniel (Josh. 15:15\u201319<\/a>; Judg. 1:11\u201315<\/a>). Third: Caleb drove out the sons of Anak (Josh. 15:14<\/a>; Judg. 1:20<\/a>). Fourth: Ephraim was unable to drive out the Canaanites (Josh. 16:10<\/a>; Judg. 1:29<\/a>). Fifth: both record the death of Joshua (Josh. 24:28\u201331<\/a>; Judg. 2:6\u201310<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

5. Chronology<\/p>\n

The basic chronology, both sequential and contemporaneous, can be charted out as shown in table 4<\/a> on the next page.<\/p>\n

All this corresponds nicely with the 480 years given in 1 Kings 6:1<\/a>. Judges 11:26<\/a> states that 300 years passed from the capture of Heshbon2<\/a> to the judgeship of Jephthah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Table 4. Chronology of Rulers of Israel from Exodus to Solomon\u2019s Temple<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Period of Israel\u2019s History\/Ruler<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

# Years<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

From the Exodus and the Wilderness Wanderings<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

The Conquest<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

From the Division of the Land to the Conquest by Cushan<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

The Oppression by Cushan<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Othniel and Rest<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Oppression by Moab<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ehud and Rest<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Oppression by Jabin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Barak and Rest<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Oppression by Midian<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Gideon and Rest<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

The Rule of Abimelech<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Tola<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Jair<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

TWO SIDES OF THE JORDAN RIVER*<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

THE WEST\u2014The Philistines<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

THE EAST<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(1) Loss of the Ark<\/p>\n

(2) Samson\u2019s deeds and Samuel<\/p>\n

(3) Defeat of the Philistines; rule of Samuel<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(1) Ammonite oppression<\/p>\n

(2) Jephthah<\/p>\n

(3) Ibzan<\/p>\n

(4) Elon<\/p>\n

(5) Abdon<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

The Reign of Saul<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

David in Hebron<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

David in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Solomon until the Temple is begun<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total # of years (compare with 1 Kings 6:1<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

480<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The chronological figures given in the Book of Judges add up to a total of 410 years. However, when balanced out between the co-judgeships, plus the forty years of the Wilderness Wanderings, twenty-five years for Joshua, forty years for Eli, forty years for both Samuel and Saul, forty years for David, and four years for Solomon, the adjusted figure would be 480, right in line with 1 Kings 6:1<\/a>: And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon\u2019s reign over Israel, in th<\/em>e month Ziv, which is the second month, that he<\/em> [Solomon] began to build the house of Jehovah<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

F. Structure<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Prelude<\/p>\n

The Prelude covers 1:1<\/a> to 3:6<\/a>. It is a summary record of the incomplete conquest of the Land.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Cycles<\/p>\n

The cycles of oppression and deliverance under the Judges cover the section of 3:7<\/a> to 16:31<\/a>. This section is built around a five-part cycle as follows: rest, rebellion, retribution, repentance, and restoration.<\/p>\n

Rest: Consists of a period when Israel is obedient and enjoying rest, usually during the rule of a judge, beginning with the last years of Joshua.<\/p>\n

Rebellion: With the rise of a new generation, there is apostasy and disobedience to the Law, usually by means of idolatry.<\/p>\n

Retribution: A divine judgment comes to Israel by means of subjugation to their enemies.<\/p>\n

Repentance: Retribution is followed by Israel\u2019s cry to the Lord for help.<\/p>\n

Restoration: God raises up a judge to deliver Israel with a successful war. Restoration begins a new period of rest, and a new cycle begins.<\/p>\n

The book describes a total of seven cycles, each with these five parts. (See table 5<\/a>.) The first cycle is the oppression by the Mesopotamians under Cushan-Rishathaim, and deliverance through Othniel in 3:7\u201311<\/a>. The second cycle is the oppression by Moab under Eglon, and deliverance by Ehud in 3:12\u201330<\/a>. The third cycle is the oppression by the Philistines and deliverance by Shamgar in 3:31<\/a>. The fourth cycle is the oppression by the Canaanites under Jabin, and deliverance through Deborah and Barak in chapters 4<\/a> to 5<\/a>. The fifth cycle is the oppression of the Midianites and deliverance through Gideon, followed by the rule of Abimelech, with short notices of the judgeships of Tola and Jair in 6:1<\/a> to 10:5<\/a>. The sixth cycle is the oppression of the Ammonites and deliverance through Jephthah, with brief notices about the judgeships of Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon in 10:6<\/a> to 12:15<\/a>. The seventh cycle is the oppression by the Philistines and deliverance through Samson in chapters 13<\/a> to 16<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

3. The Appendices<\/p>\n

There are two appendices in chapters 17<\/a> to 21<\/a> that serve to illustrate the tribal disorder of the period covered by the Book of Judges. The first appendix describes the migration of the Tribe of Dan, and the second appendix describes Israel\u2019s war against the Tribe of Benjamin. The Book of Ruth serves as the third appendix to the book of Judges and is considered separately in Part II<\/a> of this volume. However, the two appendices are not necessarily chronological. The events described in the appendices may have occurred much earlier within the Book of Judges. Probably the Danite migration occurred after the time of Samson, but the Benjamite war occurred much earlier in the book, especially if Judges 20:28<\/a> is compared with Joshua 22:13<\/a> and 24:33<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

G. Systematic Theology<\/p>\n

Every book of the Bible makes certain contributions to Systematic Theology, and the Book of Judges is no exception. The following are some examples.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Table 5. Seven Cycles of Oppression and Deliverance in the Book of Judges<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Cycle<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Oppressing Nation<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Enemy Leader<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Israel\u2019s Deliverer<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Script. Ref.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mesopotamians<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Cushan-Rishathaim<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Othniel<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3:7\u201311<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Moab<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Eglon<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ehud<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3:12\u201330<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Philistines<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u2014<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Shamgar<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3:31<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Canaanites<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jabin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Deborah and Barak<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Chap. 4\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Midianites<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u2014<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gideon<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6:1<\/a> to 10:5<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ammonites<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u2014<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jephthah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10:6\u201312:15<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Philistines<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u2014<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Samson<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Chap. 13\u201316<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Theology Proper: Doctrine of God<\/p>\n

First, there is no single hero in this book, as was the case in the Book of Joshua. God alone is the principle hero. Second, concerning the names of God, God\u2019s four-lettered name, the Tetragrammaton, YHVH<\/span>, appears 178 times. The word Elohim<\/span>, meaning \u201cGod,\u201d appears sixty-two times.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Christology: Doctrine of the Son<\/p>\n

From the viewpoint of Messianic Christology, Malach YHVH<\/span>, or the angel of Jehovah<\/em>, appear a total of fifty-nine times in the Bible as a whole, with nineteen occurrences in the Book of Judges (2:1<\/a>, 2:4<\/a>, 5:23<\/a>, 6:11<\/a>, 6:12<\/a>, 6:20<\/a>, 6:21<\/a> [twice], 6:22<\/a> [twice], 13:3<\/a>, 13:13<\/a>, 15<\/a>; 13:16<\/a> [twice], 13:18<\/a>, 13:20<\/a>, and 13:21<\/a> [twice]). Furthermore, the Malach Ha-Elohim<\/span>, or the An<\/em>gel of God<\/em>, appears nine times in the Bible, three of those times in the Book of Judges (6:20<\/a>, 13:6<\/a>, and 13:9<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

3. Pneumatology: Doctrine of the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n

In Judges, the Holy Spirit came upon four people to accomplish various specific tasks. First, He came upon Othniel for the purpose of defeating Cushan (3:10<\/a>). Second, He came upon Gideon to defeat the Midianites (6:34<\/a>). Third, He came upon Jephthah to defeat the Ammonites (11:29<\/a>). Fourth, He came upon Samson to defeat the Philistines: The Spirit of the Lord began to stir him in 13:25<\/a>, and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power in 14:6<\/a> and 14:9<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In each case, when the Spirit came upon these people, the purpose was to empower their physical activity. It was never in reference to salvation and never based upon the spiritual condition of the recipient. It was based upon the person accomplishing a specific task for the Lord.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

4. Demonology: Doctrine of the Fallen Angels<\/p>\n

This book has only one demonic reference, 9:23\u201324<\/a>, where God sent an evil spirit to bring about the death of Abimelech.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

5. Hamartiology: Doctrine of Sin<\/p>\n

Six times Judges states that Israel did that which is evil in the sight of the Lord, which was followed by judgment and servitude. This shows the principle of the Mosaic Covenant: Curses for disobedience.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

6. Soteriology: Doctrine of Salvation<\/p>\n

The book reveals at least four lessons on the spiritual life: (1) God\u2019s people lived far below their privileges because of their failures, (2) God is the One who gives the victory, (3) God uses the weak things of the world to accomplish great things, and (4) God\u2019s people need to influence<\/em> society and not be influenced by<\/em> the rest of the world.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

7. Israelology: Doctrine of Israel<\/p>\n

Israel\u2019s conquest and inheritance of the Land was the result of the fulfillment of the promises of God in the Abrahamic Covenant, which made ownership of the Land unconditional. The failure to take all the Promised Land was a result of breaking the Mosaic Covenant, which taught that enjoyment of the Land was conditioned on obedience.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

H. Purpose<\/p>\n

There were two basic purposes at play in the compilation of Judges. The first purpose was to demonstrate that Israel was in need of a king, for reasons stated below. But more specifically, the second purpose was to support the claims of David against the claims of the House of Saul. Thus, in this book, Gibeah, which later became the home of Saul, is shown in a negative light, whereas Bethlehem, the home of David, is shown in a positive light. This comparison will be brought out as the exposition continues.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

I. Key Verses<\/p>\n

The three key verses of the Book of Judges are chapter 2<\/a>, verses 16<\/a> to 17<\/a>, and chapter 17, verse 6<\/a>:<\/p>\n

2:16And Jehovah raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those that despoiled them. 2:17And yet they hearkened not unto their judges; for they played the harlot after other gods, and bowed themselves down unto them: they turned aside quickly out of the way wherein their fathers walked, obeying the commandments of Jehovah; but they did not so.<\/p>\n

17:6In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

J. Judges and the New Testament<\/p>\n

The only reference to the Book of Judges in the New Testament is found in Hebrews 11:32<\/a>, which mentions four of the Judges: Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

K. Theme<\/p>\n

There are at least three basic themes in the book: Israel\u2019s struggle, Israel\u2019s Canaanization, and God\u2019s faithfulness through it all. The first theme is that of the military and spiritual struggles of the people as they try to settle the Promised Land.<\/p>\n

The second theme is \u201cthe Canaanization of Israelite society during the period of settlement,\u201d3<\/a> or how they became more and more Canaanized and less and less Israelite. The Book of Joshua ended on a positive note, when things were going well and there was rest for all the families of the nation settling in their inheritance. But the Book of Joshua also states that not all the Land had been taken. That failure now becomes a full-blown crisis, and the warnings against religious entanglements with the inhabitants of the Land and worshipping their gods are all ignored in the period of the Judges. The high spiritual level seen in Joshua collapses. Instead, the Book of Judges begins in the Land with conflict with enemies that already should have been destroyed and closes with Israel\u2019s apostasy and idolatry that already should have been obliterated.<\/p>\n

A third theme is the contrast between God\u2019s covenantal faithfulness and Israel\u2019s covenantal unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

TWO<\/em><\/p>\n

The Prelude: Israel\u2019s Failure to Conquer the Land\u2014<\/em>1:1\u20133:6<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

A. Incomplete Conquest\u20141:1\u201336<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Judah\u20141:1\u201320<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. War Against Adoni-Bezek\u20141:1\u20137<\/a><\/p>\n

1And it came to pass after the death of Joshua, that the children of Israel asked of Jehovah, saying, Who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them? 2And Jehovah said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand. 3And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with you into your lot. So Simeon went with him. 4And Judah went up; and Jehovah delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: and they smote of them in Bezek ten thousand men. 5And they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek; and they fought against him, and they smote the Canaanites and the Perizzites. 6But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. 7And Adoni-bezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their food under my table: as I have done, so God has requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died there.<\/p>\n

Verse 1<\/a> begins with Israel\u2019s inquiry after the death of Joshua<\/em>. This verse begins the very same way as Joshua 1:1<\/a>, with the death of a great leader. The death of Joshua mentioned here is cited again in 2:6\u20139<\/a>, which may indicate that the events of 1:1b<\/a> to 2:5<\/a> actually took place during the lifetime of Joshua, verifying what the Book of Joshua itself says, that the conquest and occupation of the Land was still incomplete. These events helped to provide the background to the rest of the Book of Judges that took place after Joshua\u2019s death. Joshua began the conquest and assigned the tribal territories. Now each tribe had to finish the conquest of the territory assigned to them and settle in the Land allotted to them. The inquirers were the children of Israel<\/em>. This was probably done through the Urim<\/em> and Thummim<\/em>.4<\/a> With the Tabernacle permanently erected in Shiloh, there was a place to have the inquiry. The inquiry is, Who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them?<\/em> The question is a response to Joshua 24<\/a>. It also presupposes Joshua 23:4\u20135<\/a>, which states the territory is yet to be taken.<\/p>\n

The response by God to the inquiry is given in verse 2<\/a>: And Jehovah said<\/em>, Judah shall go up<\/em>. The tribal wars against the Canaanites were responses to Joshua\u2019s last address, encouraging them to finish taking the Land. Judah was not merely to conquer the territory assigned to them, but they were to conquer the whole Land on behalf of the other tribes. This was why Judah took Jerusalem, a city that belonged to the Tribe of Benjamin, but Benjamin was unable to hang on to it. Judah was chosen to spearhead the attack because, in Jacob\u2019s blessings, Judah was appointed to be the champion of his brothers (Gen. 49:8\u201312<\/a>). The promise the Lord makes is Behold, I have delivered the land into his hand<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Judges 1:3<\/a> deals with the alliance between Judah and Simeon: And Judah said unto Simeon his broth<\/em>er<\/em>. Judah<\/em> and Simeon<\/em> were full brothers, who were both sons of Leah. The request is: Come up with me into my lot<\/em>. The Tribe of Simeon was invited to join Judah since they shared the same territory. The Tribe of Simeon settled in the southern portion of the territory allotted to Judah. The purpose was: that we may fight against the Canaanites<\/em>; and the promise was: And I likewise will go with you in<\/em>to your lot<\/em>. This is a promise of mutual assistance. The result was agreement: So Simeon went with him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verses 4<\/a> to 7<\/a> give the description of the war. Verse 4<\/a> presents a summary statement. Judah\u2019s role was: And Judah went up<\/em>. God\u2019s role was: and Jehovah delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand<\/em>. Judah had a role, which was to obey God by initiating the military campaign, which in turn caused God to fulfill His role with the result that they smote of them in Bezek ten thousand men<\/em>. The only other mention of this town is in 1 Samuel 11:8<\/a>. Following this summary statement, verses 5<\/a> to 7<\/a> (in Judges chapter 1<\/a>) provide the details. Verse 5<\/a> describes the attack on Adoni-Bezek<\/em>. It begins with the battle: And they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek<\/em>. Since Adoni-Bezek<\/em> means \u201cthe Lord of Bezek,\u201d the name was probably a dynastic title for the King of Bezek. They fought against him with the result that they smote the Canaanites and the Perizzites<\/em>. Next, in verse 6<\/a>, the flight of the enemy was followed by the capture: But Adoni-bezek fled<\/em>; and they pursued after him, and caught him<\/em>. The punishment was to cut off his thumbs and his great toes<\/em>. This action would render him militarily useless; he would not be able to carry a weapon or to flee. Verse 7a<\/a> records the response of Adoni-Bezek: And Adoni-bezek said<\/em>, Threescore and ten<\/em> [seventy] kings, having their thumbs and their great toe<\/em>s cut off, gathered their food under my table<\/em>. This was a figurative phrase, representing some of the most shameful treatment and humiliation, like the dogs of Matthew 15:27<\/a>. Now Adoni-Bezek<\/em> recognizes God\u2019s justice: As I have done, so God has requited me<\/em>. He recognized the principle of lex taliones<\/em>: The cruelty he suffered was only due to the fact that he had committed this same cruelty to seventy other city-kings. Judges 1:7b<\/a> concludes with Adoni-Bezek\u2019s<\/em> disposition, which came in two stages. The first stage was his imprisonment: And they brought him to Jerusalem<\/em>. Judah\u2019s capture of Jerusalem at this time will be discussed in the very next verse, but the point for now is this: Letting Adoni-Bezek<\/em> live out his life in Jerusalem violated God\u2019s command as found in Deuteronomy 7:1\u20132<\/a> and 20:16\u201317<\/a>. The second stage was his death, not due to execution but from natural causes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. War for Jerusalem\u20141:8<\/a><\/p>\n

And the children of Judah fought against Jerusalem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire<\/em>.<\/p>\n

However, this capture of Jerusalem was temporary, because it was lost again according to verse 21<\/a>, and later in 19:11\u201312<\/a>, Jerusalem was considered a foreign city. In Joshua 10<\/a>, Joshua had killed the king of Jerusalem, but he did not capture the city. It was Judah who took the city, but since Jerusalem belonged to Benjamin, Judah did not settle there. However, Benjamin failed to settle there; and the Jebusites came back and rebuilt Jerusalem, and it remained Jebusite until the days of David.<\/p>\n

Here is one of the early distinctions made in the book between the Tribe of Judah, from which David would arise, and the Tribe of Benjamin, from which Saul would arise. Judah is successful against the Canaanites, but Benjamin is not.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

c. War for the Judean Territory\u20141:9\u201310<\/a><\/p>\n

9And afterward the children of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites that dwelt in the hill-country, and in the South, and in the lowland. 10And Judah went against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron (now the name of Hebron beforetime was Kiriath-arba); and they smote Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai.<\/p>\n

Verse 9<\/a> deals with the three basic regions that Judah conquered: in the hill-country<\/em>, meaning the hill-country of Judah in the north; in the south<\/em>, meaning the Negev, and in the lowlands<\/em>, meaning the Shephelah in the west.<\/p>\n

Verse 10<\/a> focuses on the war for Hebron<\/span>, a key city in the hill-country of Judah: And Judah went against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron (now the name of Hebron beforetime was Kiriath-arba)<\/em>. Hebron<\/span> was actually taken by means of Caleb according to Joshua 15:13\u201314<\/a>; but Caleb was part of the Tribe of Judah; and so the author credits the conquest of Hebron<\/span> to the Tribe of Judah. The result was: and they smote Sheshai, and <\/em>Ahiman, and Talmai<\/em>, three prominent members of the Anakim.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

d. Conquest by Caleb and Othniel\u20141:11\u201315<\/a><\/p>\n

11And from thence he went against the inhabitants of Debir. (Now the name of Debir beforetime was Kiriath-sepher.) 12And Caleb said, He that smites Kiriath-sepher, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife. 13And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb\u2019s younger brother, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife. 14And it came to pass, when she came unto him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she alighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What would you? 15And she said unto him, Give me a blessing; for that you have set me in the land of the South, give me also springs of water. And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the nether springs.<\/p>\n

Verse 11<\/a> gives the goal of the war, which was Debir: And from t<\/em>hence he went against the inhabitants of Debir<\/em>, a city that was previously known as Kiriath-sepher<\/em>. While Caleb took the City of Hebron<\/em> directly, he chose not to do so with Debir, but in verse 12<\/a>, he made an offer: And Caleb said<\/em>, He that smites Kiriath-sepher, and takes it<\/em>, the reward will be: to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife<\/em>. In verse 13<\/a>, a member of Caleb\u2019s own family responded: An<\/em>d Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb\u2019s younger brother, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verses 14<\/a> to 15<\/a> record the request of Achsah after the marriage, a request that came in two stages. First, Achsah approached her new husband, Othniel. The timing is given: And it came to pass, when she came unto him<\/em>, meaning at the time of the marriage. The content was: that she moved him to <\/em>ask of her father a field<\/em>. Apparently Othniel for one reason or another did not follow through; and so she made the request directly to Caleb. When she went to see her father, Caleb initiated the inquiry: and Caleb said unto her, What would you?<\/em> Her request was: she said unto him, Give me a blessing<\/em>; meaning, give me a material gift. The problem was: for that you have set me in the land of the Sou<\/em>th<\/em>, or the Negev. She does not mean that the City of Debir was in the Negev, for it was in the hill-country of Judah, directly south of Hebron<\/span>. What she meant was that the land had Negev<\/em>-type qualities in that the soil was good, but it lacked water. She was not asking for more fertile land\u2014the land itself could be fertile\u2014but the water necessary to make it fertile. And so she said: give me also sp<\/em>rings of water<\/em>. He granted the request and gave Achsah two springs, the upper springs and the nether<\/em> [lower] springs<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

e. Migration of the Kenites\u20141:16<\/a><\/p>\n

And the children of the Kenite, Moses\u2019 brother-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the s<\/em>outh of Arad; and they went and dwelt with the people<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Kenites were descendants of the father-in-law and the brother-in-law of Moses. The city of palm-trees<\/em> refers to Jericho (Deut. 34:3<\/a>; Josh. 3:13<\/a>; and 2 Chron. 28:15<\/a>). This did not violate the curse of Joshua (Joshua 6:26<\/a>), which had to do with the refortification of the city, not with habitation of the city. They moved farther south: which <\/em>is in the south of Arad<\/em>, or the Negev of Arad, in the southeast section of the Negev Desert. And the result was: and they went and dwelt with the people<\/em>. So the Tribe of the Kenites, who were a branch of the family of the Midianites, now settles in this particular area. They will reappear in the war of Deborah and Barak.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

f. War of the Cities\u20141:17\u201320<\/a><\/p>\n

17And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they smote the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah. 18Also Judah took Gaza with the border thereof, and Ashkelon with the border thereof, and Ekron with the border thereof. 19And Jehovah was with Judah; and drove out the inhabitants of the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. 20And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses had spoken: and he drove out thence the three sons of Anak.<\/p>\n

Verse 17<\/a> records the destruction of Hormah. It begins with the alliance: And Judah went with Simeon his brother<\/em>. The alliance is mentioned here since Hormah was in that part of the tribal territory of Judah that would be settled by the Tribe of Simeon. This fulfills the promise of Judges 1:3<\/a>. First came the destruction: and they smote the <\/em>Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it<\/em>. Then came the naming: And the name of the city was called Hormah<\/em>, meaning, \u201ca city destined for destruction.\u201d<\/p>\n

Verse 18<\/a> deals with the Philistine Plain: Also Judah took Gaza with the border thereof, and As<\/em>hkelon with the border thereof, and Ekron with the border thereof<\/em>. At this time, the inhabitants had been Canaanites; but with the Philistine invasion, Israel would again lose these territories.<\/p>\n

Verse19<\/a> deals with the hill-country. There was initial success because of divine aid: And Jehovah was with Judah<\/em>. As a result of God\u2019s being with Judah, he drove out the inhabitants of the hill-country<\/em>. Then, there came a point of failure: for he<\/em> [Judah] could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley<\/em>. The reason was because they<\/em> [the Canaanites] had chariots of iron<\/em>. This shows that Judah had sufficient faith to fight the Canaanites in those places where Judah had the military advantage but not when the advantage was on the side of the enemy.<\/p>\n

Verse 20<\/a> concludes with the account of Judah acquiring the City of Hebron<\/span>. The inheritance was: they gave Hebron unto Caleb<\/em>. The basis was: as Moses had spoken<\/em>. Then the accomplishment was: and he drove out thence the three sons of Anak<\/em>. These were the three sons previously named in 1:10<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Benjamin\u20141:21<\/a><\/p>\n

And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day<\/em>.<\/p>\n

With the Tribe of Benjamin comes a statement of failure: And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem<\/em>. In Judges 1:8<\/a>, Judah had captured Jerusalem for Benjamin, but Benjamin failed to settle it or to keep the Jebusites from returning to it. This is a continuation of the contrast mentioned earlier between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took Jerusalem, but Benjamin could not hang on to it, and the result was that the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day<\/em>. The Canaanites dwell with<\/em> the Benjamites because Jerusalem belonged to Benjamin, and it is located within Benjamin\u2019s tribal territory. This co-inhabitation, in turn, influenced Benjamin both morally and religiously, thus setting the stage for the role of the Tribe of Benjamin at the end of the Book of Judges. As mentioned earlier, this statement also shows that the book was written before David\u2019s capture of Jerusalem, because at the time it was written, Jerusalem was still under Jebusite control.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

3. House of Joseph\u20141:22\u201329<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. Conquest of Bethel\u20141:22\u201326<\/a><\/p>\n

22And the house of Joseph, they also went up against Beth-el; and Jehovah was with them. 23And the house of Joseph sent to spy out Beth-el. (Now the name of the city beforetime was Luz.) 24And the watchers saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, Show us, we pray you, the entrance into the city, and we will deal kindly with you. 25And he showed them the entrance into the city; and they smote the city with the edge of the sword; but they let the man go and all his family. 26And the man went into the land of the Hittites, and built a city, and called the name thereof Luz, which is the name thereof unto this day.<\/p>\n

Verse 22<\/a> provides a summary statement of the conquest. It begins with the human role: And the house of Joseph, they also went up ag<\/em>ainst Beth-el<\/em>. The house of Joseph<\/em> could refer to both the Tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph\u2019s two sons, or to one son specifically. Since Beth-el<\/em> was on the southern border with Ephraim, it could mean that only Ephraim is meant. Beth-el<\/em> was actually given to Benjamin, according to Joshua 18:22<\/a>, but since Beth-el<\/em> was situated on the southern border of Ephraim, Ephraim could not tolerate the Canaanites in this border town, especially considering that Ephraim was to defend its own territory against the Canaanites. So, just as Judah took Jerusalem for Benjamin, Ephraim took Beth-el<\/em> for Benjamin. Thus, the author again shows Benjamin\u2019s failure to do what other tribes succeeded in doing. Then comes the statement of the divine role: and Jehovah was with them<\/em> [Ephraim].<\/p>\n

Verses 23<\/a> to 26<\/a> proceed to give the details of the deliverance following the summary statement in verse 22<\/a>. Verse 23<\/a> begins with the sending of the spies: And the house of Joseph sent to spy out Beth-el<\/em>. (Now the name of <\/em>the city beforetime was Luz)<\/em>. Verses 24<\/a> to 25<\/a> record the account of the betrayal of the city. Verse 24<\/a> describes the circumstance and the spies\u2019 offer. The circumstance was: And the watchers saw a man<\/em> come forth out of the city<\/em>, apparently from a secret entry, which the spies could not see. The spies then made this man who was exiting the city an offer. The condition is: Show us, we pray you, the <\/em>entrance into the city<\/em>. The reward is: and we will deal kindly with you<\/em>. In return for the information, the man is going to be allowed to live in much the same way that Rahab5<\/a> was.<\/p>\n

As a result of the spies gaining information from recruiting this man, in verse 25<\/a> the capture of Beth-el<\/em> comes in three stages. The first stage: And he showed them the entrance into the city<\/em>. The second stage: and the<\/em>y smote the city with the edge of the sword<\/em>. The third stage: but they let the man go and all his family<\/em>. Verse 26<\/a> goes on to give the rest of the story of the man: And the man went into the land of t<\/em>he Hittites<\/em>. The Hittites<\/em> were a people of Indo-European origin based in what is now Turkey. They established a great empire that ruled from the period of 1800 until 1200 b.c. But even after it declined as an empire, many remnants of Hittites persisted throughout the Middle East, including in the Land of Canaan. So Abraham, for example, bought the cave in which to bury Sarah from a Hittite. There the Hittite man built a city, and called the name thereof Luz, which is the name thereof unto this day<\/em>. So, once again, a Canaanite escapes the sword by helping the Jews. The difference is that Rahab had already become a believer in the God of Israel. There is no indication that this man became a believer. He betrayed his city only to survive, and there is nothing spiritual about that.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. Failures of Manasseh\u20141:27\u201328<\/a><\/p>\n

27And Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its towns, nor of Taanach and its towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and its towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and its towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and its towns; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. 28And it came to pass, when Israel was waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to taskwork, and did not utterly drive them out.<\/p>\n

Here the author points out two failures on the part of Manasseh. First, the tribe failed to drive the Canaanites out of the Land (v. 27<\/a>). This meant that the fertile Jezreel Valley stayed in Canaanite hands. Second, they failed to destroy the Canaanites within the Land (v. 28<\/a>). What they did instead was: they put the Canaanites to taskwork<\/em>. What they did not do is: and did not utterly drive them out<\/em>. The Hebrew is more intensive, \u201cAnd drive them out, they surely did not drive them out,\u201d because this is the key problem that sets the stage for the whole book.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

c. Failure of Ephraim\u20141:29<\/a><\/p>\n

And Ephraim drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This same failure to drive out and destroy the Canaanites in the Land was also noted back in Joshua 16:10<\/a>. The phrase but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them<\/em> shows the Book of Judges was written before the time of Solomon, when this statement was no longer true.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

4. Zebulun\u20141:30<\/a><\/p>\n

Zebulun drove not out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became subject to taskwork<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Again, failure to conquer the Land is followed by the same result: but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became subject to taskwork<\/em>. Instead of destroying the Canaanites or driving them out, the House of Zebulum allowed them to remain in the Land of Israel.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

5. Asher\u20141:31\u201332<\/a><\/p>\n

31Asher drove not out the inhabitants of Acco, nor the inhabitants of Sidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob; 32but the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out.<\/p>\n

Verse 31<\/a> again records failure; but when stating the result in verse 32<\/a>, there is a change in the wording. In 1:29\u201330<\/a>, it stated that the Canaanites lived among the Israelites, but here it is the Asherites who lived among the Canaanites<\/em>. This statement reveals that the Canaanites had the upper hand; and for that reason the phrase \u201cand became subject to taskwork\u201d is omitted from this verse.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

6. Naphtali\u20141:33<\/a><\/p>\n

Naphtali drove not out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants<\/em> of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to taskwork<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The failure of Naphtali is followed by two results. First, he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land<\/em>. So what was true about Asher was also true of Naphtali; the Canaanites had the upper hand. Second, nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to taskwork<\/em>, implying that eventually things did go the opposite way.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

7. Dan\u20141:34\u201336<\/a><\/p>\n

34And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the hill-country; for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley; 35but the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became subject to taskwork. 36And the border of the Amorites was from the ascent of Akrabbim, from the rock, and upward.<\/p>\n

Verses 34<\/a> to 35a<\/a> show failure on the part of Dan to conquer the fertile valleys. Three valleys existed in Danite territory: the Valley of Sorek, the Valley of Ayalon, and the Valley of Elah. These were fertile valleys, but the Danites could not take them. This verse sets the stage for the migration of Dan reported later in this same book. In contrast to Dan\u2019s failure, verse 35b<\/a> records the success of the House of Joseph: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed<\/em>, in the same territory in which Dan had failed. As a result, much of the territory allotted to Dan was taken over by Ephraim, the House of one of Joseph\u2019s sons, after Dan left the territory. Verse 36<\/a> concludes the story by describing the border of the Amorites. The ascent of Akrabbim<\/em> or Maaleh Akrabbim<\/em> marks the southern border. The Hebrew word for rock<\/em> means \u201ccliff,\u201d which fits the geography of the area. The phrase and upward<\/em> means northward, describing the gradual rise of the land in the hill-country.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

8. Observations on Chapter One<\/p>\n

Chapter 1<\/a> of Judges can be summarized in four points concerning the practical outcomes of Israel\u2019s failure to secure the Land:<\/p>\n

(1) The Canaanites firmly remained in the Land because Israel could not drive them out; and as a result, Israel moved from attempting conquest and destruction of the Canaanites to co-existing with them.<\/p>\n

(2) Because of Canaanite strongholds throughout the Land of Israel, Israel could not move freely.<\/p>\n

(3) Canaanite idolatry remained intact, which would serve to tempt Israel into apostasy.<\/p>\n

(4) Instead of rejecting and removing the Canaanites from the Land, Israel began to develop relationships with them.<\/p>\n

The second level of observations concerns the divine reasons for Israel\u2019s failure to conquer the Land. Originally God allowed some of the Canaanite tribes, as city-states, to escape the conquest, in order that the Land in those parts would not suddenly be left unattended and become desolate, as Israel was to drive the enemy out only little by little (Deut. 7:20\u201324<\/a>). The presence of the enemy was a daily test for Israel as to whether they would obey the commands of the Lord to drive them out and have nothing to do with them and their gods, or whether they would choose the way of least resistance and yield to the temptation of intermarriage and syncretism (Judg. 2:21\u201323<\/a> and 3:4<\/a>). Every time Israel disobeyed concerning these nations, God used those same nations to punish and plunder Israel. Even here there is a good by-product, namely that Israel learns the art of warfare to prepare them for the kingdom conquests under Saul and David. There were more reasons than one from God\u2019s perspective for Israel\u2019s failure to conquer the Land.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

B. The Divine Rebuke\u20142:1\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n

Verses 1<\/a> to 5<\/a> contain the story of the first of three confrontations between God and Israel found in Judges\u2014the second one is found in 6:7\u201310<\/a>, and the last one is in 10:1\u201316<\/a>. They all show that Israel\u2019s failure to take the Land, as described in chapter 1<\/a>, was not God\u2019s fault, but Israel\u2019s own fault due to disobedience.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Rebuke\u20142:1\u20133<\/a><\/p>\n

1And the angel of Jehovah came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I swore unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you: 2and ye shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall break down their altars. But ye have not hearkened unto my voice: why have ye done this? 3Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.<\/p>\n

The Rebuker is named in verse 1a<\/a>: And the a<\/em>ngel of Jehovah came up from Gilgal to Bochim<\/em>. The angel of Jehovah<\/em> is always the Second Person of the Trinity, and Gilgal<\/em> was the last place He appeared historically, in Joshua 5:13\u201315<\/a>, before this passage. But now, He went up from Gilgal to Bochim<\/em>. This was not merely a geographical migration but also a spiritual one. Gilgal<\/em> was where He appeared to Joshua, where God was with the Israelites due to their obedience in circumcision and keeping of the Passover. Bochim<\/em> is not an actual place name, but a commemorative name based upon a specific event. It may even be a pseudonym for Beth-el<\/em>, since that is where the Tribes of Israel were going to inquire of the Lord (Judg. 4:5<\/a>). It was also the place of the Oak of Weeping (Gen. 35:4<\/a>), which is what Bochim<\/em> means. The rabbis, trying to get around the obvious problem here, claim that the term malach<\/span> (translated angel<\/em>) should be translated here as \u201cmessenger,\u201d and that the messenger was really Phinehas, the High Priest. However, that is not what the text literally means.<\/p>\n

The words of the rebuke itself are found in verses 1b<\/a> to 3<\/a>. Verse 1b<\/a> deals with what God did for Israel, which included three things. First: I made you to go up out of Egypt<\/em>. Second: and have brought you unto the land which I swore unto your fathers<\/em>. Third: and I said, I will never break my covenant with you<\/em>. This is possibly a reference to the Land promise in the Abrahamic Covenant, but it could also be in reference to the Mosaic Covenant, which stated that enjoyment of the Land was conditioned on obedience. The angel of Jehovah<\/em> is clearly speaking as if He were God, because He was God.<\/p>\n

In verse 2a<\/a>, in light of what God had just said, Israel had two obligations: first, to make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land<\/em>; second, to break down their altars<\/em>. But as verse 2b<\/a> shows, Israel failed in these obligations. Hence, the accusation is: But ye have not hearkened unto my voice<\/em>, which is followed by the question, why have ye done this?<\/em> The question is a rhetorical question, with a note of indignation. The sense is, \u201cHow could you have done this after everything I have done for you?\u201d<\/p>\n

The result in verse 3<\/a> was the judgment: Wherefore I also said, I will<\/em> not drive them out from before you<\/em>. This judgment will lead to two results: they shall be as thorns in your sides; and their gods shall be a snare unto you<\/em>. Israel failed to rid themselves of two things that will now become a problem to them. They failed to get rid of the Canaanites, and now the Canaanites will become thorns to their sides. Moreover, since they failed to break down the pagan altars, these will become snares to draw them into idolatry. As a result of this judgment, God will first cease working on Israel\u2019s behalf to drive out the Canaanites, and, second, He will allow the Canaanites and their gods to have their way with Israel. This judgment was a fulfillment of the threat found in Exodus 23:20\u201333<\/a> and 34:1\u201311<\/a>. Here God warned Israel that, if they did not obey God, He would not drive out the Canaanites. Instead, they would face an increasingly hostile Canaanite population.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Response\u20142:4\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n

4And it came to pass, when the angel of Jehovah spoke these words unto all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voice, and wept. 5And they called the name of that place Bochim: and they sacrificed there unto Jehovah.<\/p>\n

Israel responded in three ways. The first response was that of the weeping (v. 4<\/a>). The second response was naming the place (2:5<\/a>). They named the place Bochim<\/em>, which means, \u201cweeping.\u201d Third, they responded with sacrifices. The fact that they sacrificed unto God at Bochim<\/em> does not mean that is where the Tabernacle was at this time. Normally the Tabernacle would have been the place of sacrifices. However, since the angel of Jehovah<\/em> was a Theophany, the Shechinah<\/em> Glory, the visible manifestation of God\u2019s presence, it was permissible to sacrifice here. This action will be repeated in Judges later (6:20<\/a>, 6:26<\/a>, 6:28<\/a>, and 13:16\u201320<\/a>), and also in 2 Samuel 24:25<\/a>. Any place where a Theophany, a visible manifestation of God appeared, it was permissible to perform a sacrifice at that place. This further shows that the angel of Jehovah<\/em> is indeed God Himself. However, Israel\u2019s revival was very short-lived.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

C. The Joshua Generation\u20142:6\u201310<\/a><\/p>\n

6Now when Joshua had sent the people away, the children of Israel went every man unto his inheritance to possess the land. 7And the people served Jehovah all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work of Jehovah that he had wrought for Israel. 8And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Jehovah, died, being a hundred and ten years old. 9And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-heres, in the hill-country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Gaash. 10And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, that knew not Jehovah, nor yet the work which he had wrought for Israel.<\/p>\n

Verses 6<\/a> to 10<\/a> are a repetition of the closing verses of Joshua 24:28\u201331<\/a>. This passage forms a link between Joshua 24<\/a> and Judges 2:11<\/a>, and thus resumes the history from Joshua, which was interrupted by Judges 1:1<\/a> to 2:5<\/a>. The purpose of the interruption was to provide a summary of the results of the wars with the Canaanites, and to make a sharp contrast with the age that had just passed with the one that was about to come. From the high spiritual content of the Book of Joshua, things progress to the apostasy evident throughout the Book of Judges; from the generation of Joshua and the elders who knew the Lord, things move to the generation that did not know the Lord, either in a salvation sense or the sense of seeing His mighty works.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Sin: Idolatry\u20142:11\u201313<\/a><\/p>\n

11And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, and served the Baalim; 12and they forsook Jehovah, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the peoples that were round about them, and bowed themselves down unto them: and they provoked Jehovah to anger. 13And they forsook Jehovah, and served Baal and the Ashtaroth.<\/p>\n

In verse 11<\/a>, Baalim<\/em>, a plural form, is used because it is a general term to denote all the Canaanite deities. It is synonymous with the expression other gods<\/em>. The term Baal<\/em> in its basic secular sense means \u201clord,\u201d \u201cmaster,\u201d or \u201cowner.\u201d It has a derived meaning of \u201chusband.\u201d But, when it is applied to a god, it functions as a title meaning, \u201cdivine lord\u201d or \u201cmaster.\u201d Baal appears as a divine title more than seventy times in the Old Testament. It refers to the storm weather god who, in the Canaanite mythology, goes by the name of Hadad and several other titles, such as the Victor Baal, the Rider of the Clouds, the Son of Dagon, the Prince, and the Lord of the Earth. In Canaanite mythology, he was one of the seventy children of El and Asherah along with his (Baal\u2019s)<\/em> opposites, including Mot, the god of death and the netherworld, and Yam, the god of the sea. For the Canaanites, Baal was the sun god and the fertility god, who rode upon the clouds and was responsible for the rains, which brought life. In Ugaritic mythology, Baal was the son of Dagon. Hence, when the plural Baalim<\/em> is used, it does not necessarily refer to a multiplicity of gods but, sometimes, to numerous manifestations of the one weather god, upon whose blessing the fertility of the land depends. So, sometimes it is equivalent to \u201cother gods,\u201d but sometimes it is used of the various expressions of the one god, Baal. Here, Baalim<\/em> takes the former meaning of \u201cother gods.\u201d<\/p>\n

Verse 12<\/a> records the Israelites\u2019 forsaking God and following after other gods. The expression following ot<\/em>her gods<\/em> is derived from the context of cultic processions, in which the devotees of a divinity would follow the image of the deity, carried by priests to a place of religious celebration. Here it is used more generally as any expression of spiritual commitment: They followed other gods, of the gods of the peoples that were round about them, and bowed themselves down unto them<\/em>. The verse refers to the physical gesture of prostration before a superior and thus expresses the posture of the Israelites bowing down before foreign gods, expressing subjection to them. They ceased to be servants of the God of Israel as Joshua had been. They became servants of these other gods and: they provoked Jehovah to anger<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 13<\/a> specifies their sin: And they forsook Jehovah<\/em> by serving other gods. Whereas earlier they served Jehovah<\/em>, they now directed the same activity towards these other gods: Baal and the Ashtaroth<\/em>. The name of the latter appears in both the singular and plural forms. The singular isAshtoreth<\/em>; the plural is Ashtaroth<\/em>. She was the Athtart of Ugaritic mythology, and the Sidonian Astharte, the female deity of Baal and the moon goddess. She entered Greek mythology by way of Cypress and became known as Astarte. She was the Ishtar of Assyrian and Babylonian mythologies. She was the Canaanite goddess of generation and fertility and war. She resembles the Aphrodite of classical mythology. The worship of both Baal<\/em> and Ashtaroth<\/em> would have included temple prostitution but did not require the rejection of Jehovah. It was an addition of Canaanite nature worship to the worship of Jehovah. It was a syncretism that would naturally lead to idolatry. In Canaanite fertility cults, Baal<\/em> was represented by an upright stone, the Matzeibah<\/em>, and Ashtaroth<\/em> was represented by carved female figurines with exaggerated female breasts and prominent genitals. The two appear together in four passages: Judges 2:13<\/a> and 10:6<\/a>, and 1 Samuel 7:4<\/a> and 12:10<\/a>.<\/p>\n

All this worship of other gods was in violation of the Israelites\u2019 commitment recorded in Joshua 24:14\u201324<\/a>. This passage (Judg. 2:11\u201313<\/a>) shows the beginnings of the process of Canaanization. It is described as a chiasm7<\/a> using an A B C C B A format:<\/p>\n

A: They served the Baalim<\/p>\n

B: They forsook Jehovah<\/p>\n

C: They pursued other gods<\/p>\n

C: They worshipped other gods<\/p>\n

B: They forsook Jehovah<\/p>\n

A: They served the Baalim and Ashtaroth.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Result: The Divine Judgment\u20142:14\u201315<\/a><\/p>\n

14And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that despoiled them; and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. 15Whithersoever they went out, the hand of Jehovah was against them for evil, as Jehovah had spoken, and as Jehovah had sworn unto them: and they were sore distressed.<\/p>\n

On the divine side, the result for God was: And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel<\/em>. Literally, the Hebrew means, \u201chis nose burned.\u201d It is an expression of divine fury.<\/p>\n

On the human side, apostasy led to two results for Israel. First: God gave them over into the powers of the plunderers. Second: God sold them into the power of their enemies, and Israel could no longer stand strong against them as they did in the days of Joshua.<\/p>\n

From the divine side, the key reason for the events of verses 14<\/a> to 15<\/a> is that God had become Israel\u2019s enemy. On the human side, there are five reasons for the recorded religious failure. First, the fragmentation of the tribes led to an abandonment of Shiloh as the only center of worship. Second, as the tribes moved into new territories, rather than defeating and destroying their enemies, they tried to establish peaceful coexistence with them, thus exposing themselves to Canaanite religions and cultural influences. Third, worshiping Baal, the god of fertility, began to look increasingly attractive as Israel tried to farm the rocky mountains while the Canaanites retained the fertile valleys (cf. Jer. 44:17\u201319<\/a>). Fourth, proximity empowered the always-sensuous appeal of temple prostitution. And finally, fifth, political association led to religious syncretism.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

3. Deliverance: By the Judges\u20142:16\u201318<\/a><\/p>\n

16And Jehovah raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those that despoiled them. 17And yet they hearkened not unto their judges; for they played the harlot after other gods, and bowed themselves down unto them: they turned aside quickly out of the way wherein their fathers walked, obeying the commandments of Jehovah; but they did not so. 18And when Jehovah raised them up judges, then Jehovah was with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented Jehovah because of their groaning by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.<\/p>\n

Verse 16<\/a> correlates the divine and the human in the role of the judges. God was the One who raised up judges<\/em>. A judge was one who saved them out of the hand<\/em> of those that despoiled them<\/em>. The word saved,<\/em> in this context, refers to physical salvation, not spiritual.<\/p>\n

Verse 17<\/a> then records the response of Israel to these divine provisions of human rescuers. First, they refused to listen to their judges<\/em>. In the context of the Book of Judges, Israel tended to respond when the judge first appears but they quickly fell into apostasy and idolatry when the judge died. Second, Israel acted like a prostitute. This is a valid metaphor for two reasons: Israel is the Wife of Jehovah; and the gods of their new worship were lusty fertility gods, whose worship included erotic, cultic rituals. Israel\u2019s enthusiasm is portrayed in that they turned aside quickly<\/em>, as if they could hardly wait to settle in the Land so that they could attach themselves to these exciting gods.<\/p>\n

Verse 18<\/a> describes the deliverance of the judges. Rescuing the people was not only the beginning of the judge\u2019s role, for as long as the judge judged, God kept Israel safe. The reason was: f<\/em>or it repented Jehovah because of their groaning by reason of them that oppressed them<\/em>. The Hebrew word for oppressed<\/em> is lachatz<\/span>, which means \u201cto squeeze\u201d or \u201cto pressure.\u201d The Israelites were squeezed and pressed upon, and hence oppressed<\/em>. Then the text adds, and<\/em> [the oppressor] vexed them<\/em>. The Hebrew word is dachak<\/span>, used only here and in Joel 2:8<\/a>, where it describes a crowd jostling for space. But here it has the meaning of being vexed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

4. Reversion to Idolatry\u20142:19<\/a><\/p>\n

But it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they turned back, and dealt more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down u<\/em>nto them; they ceased not from their doings, nor from their stubborn way<\/em>.<\/p>\n

With the death of the judge, they turned back<\/em>, from the previous repentance and commitment, and dealt more corruptly than thei<\/em>r fathers<\/em>. Each generation outdid the previous generation in their sinfulness.<\/p>\n

This verse sets the stage for interpreting the following narratives. Israel is depicted as increasingly Canaanized, spiraling downward into ever worsening apostasy. There is indeed a cyclical pattern in the period of the judges of decline and rise, but the cycles themselves devolve on a downward pattern. The patterns repeat themselves, but, the behavior of the Israelites intensifies so that each new repentance does not reach the spiritual level of the previous ones. Over the course of time, the apostasy grew worse until the judges, such as Jephthah and Samson, themselves become part of the problem if not the cause of the problem, as with Gideon. The judges, then, represent a stop-gap intervention by God into the unending process of Canaanization. They temporarily put up a dam to stop the apostasy, but each time the dam breaks and the iniquity rushes forth with greater force than before. For the author of Judges, the ultimate solution is a good king and a central government.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

5. Result: The Wrath of God\u20142:20a<\/a><\/p>\n

And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel; \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

This completes the full cycle that began with verse 14<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

6. Means of God\u2019s Wrath: The Canaanites and Other Nations\u20142:20b\u20133:6<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2026 2:20band he said, Because this nation have transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice; 2:21I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations that Joshua left when he died; 2:22that by them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of Jehovah to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not. 2:23So Jehovah left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua.<\/p>\n

3:1Now these are the nations which Jehovah left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan; 3:2only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as beforetime knew nothing thereof: 3:3namely, the five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in mount Lebanon, from mount Baal-hermon unto the entrance of Hamath. 3:4And they were left, to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of Jehovah, which he commanded their fathers by Moses. 3:5And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites: 3:6and they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons and served their gods.<\/p>\n

Verses 20b<\/a> to 22<\/a> record the divine declaration: and he said<\/em>. Verse 20b<\/a> points out Israel\u2019s sin. The accused is this nation<\/em>. Here, God calls Israel ha-goy ha-zeh<\/span>, a term that shows God\u2019s alienation from Israel. The term goy<\/span>, (nation, Gentile) is seldom used of Israel, but when it is, it often (not always) carries the concept of reprimand for becoming like a Gentile8<\/a> nation. God accuses Israel of violating the Law of Moses: they have transgressed my covenant<\/em> (i.e.<\/em> the Mosaic Covenant), which I commanded their fathers<\/em>. So, verse 21<\/a> notes the cessation of God\u2019s preemptive assault on Israel\u2019s enemies: I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations that Joshua left when he died<\/em>. God has now placed a moratorium on His own involvement in the execution of the holy war against the Canaanites. Hence, in none of the wars in the Book of Judges is there a conquest of totally new territory. With the overthrow of an oppressor or the occupation of territory, there is a regaining of an area Joshua had already gained. Any \u201cnew territory\u201d taken is only a part within a denoted tribal territory, which the tribe had failed to capture, like the Jezreel Valley. But there is no expansion of Israel\u2019s borders anywhere in this whole book. This is not a contradiction of Exodus 23:29\u201330<\/a> or Deuteronomy 7:22<\/a>. There is a difference between not exterminating the Canaanites all in one year and not exterminating them at all. Earlier, God said He would not clear the land right away, but step by step, so the land would not become despoiled. So one motive has to do with the well-being of the land; but the other has to do with the provision of divine discipline. All this shows the conditional nature of the Mosaic Covenant. In verse 22<\/a>, the reasoning articulated for God\u2019s moratorium is that by them<\/em> (enemy nations) I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of Jehovah to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, o<\/em>r not<\/em>. Thus, there were two reasons for God\u2019s not driving the Canaanites out. The first reason was to punish Israel for her sin. And the second reason was to test Israel: Will they repudiate idolatry and keep the Law of Moses?<\/p>\n

Verse 23<\/a> gives the result of God\u2019s judgment of Israel: So Jehovah left those nations, without driving them out hastily<\/em>. The threat of verse 21<\/a> was not the suspension of wrath, but of any further extermination. The implication here is that the Lord will not exterminate any more of these nations in the Land, as long as Israel persists in idolatry. But, if Israel repents, the program of extermination will continue. It reaffirms the fact that the enjoyment of the Land was conditioned on obedience. Neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua<\/em>. This shows God\u2019s control over the destiny of nations. If Joshua<\/em> did not finish the task of driving out the enemy, it was because God had not delivered them into his hand. And the reason for this was given back in verse 22<\/a>, that by them<\/em> [God] may prove Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In Judges 3:1\u20133<\/a>, the author lists the nations left behind: Now these are the nations which Jehovah left<\/em>. Judges 3:1\u20132<\/a> reiterates the two reasons given above. The first reason listed here is to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan<\/em>. Again, the third generation occupying the Land did not know about these things experientially. The new reason is to learn the art of war (3:2<\/a>): only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as beforetime knew nothing thereof<\/em>. This does not contradict 2:22<\/a>. The distinction is between learning the art of war for the future and the wars of Canaan<\/em>. During the wars of Canaan<\/em>, Israel, under Joshua, had experienced and learned the power to conquer its foes. This power did not consist in multitudes or bravery of the fighting men, but solely in the might of its God, which was available only when Israel was obedient. Joshua did not win by his own strength, but by the works of God. Success was based on keeping the terms of the Mosaic Covenant. That is what is meant by the wars of Canaan<\/em>. But now there is a second segment called \u201clearning war,\u201d specifically by those who were not living in the days of Joshua and who therefore had not learned to make war upon the nations of the Canaanites. The new generation had forgotten the true basis for victory, and so it was necessary to teach the Israelites that they cannot defeat the Canaanites by their own strength, but only by obedience to God. God left the Canaanites in the Land to teach them how to fight a holy war. The people of Jehovah could only fight and conquer in the power of their God. Disobedience would not only bring defeat, but also subjugation by those same Canaanites. In 3:3<\/a>, God names the specific nations, beginning with the five lords of the Philistines that will be left in the Land. The Hebrew word for lords<\/em> is seren<\/em>. This Hebrew word is only used of the kings of the Philistines, except once. Seren<\/em> corresponds to the Greek word tyrannos<\/span>, well known in Greek classical writings. This shows that the Philistines had a Greek-Aegean origin. This declaration also shows that the Philistines had recaptured the cities that they lost in 1:18<\/a>. Though it might be that in 1:18<\/a>, Judah drove out the Canaanites from these cities, with the Philistine conquest, these now became Philistine cities. The statement about the Philistines remaining refers to the southwest part of the Promised Land. Then God adds, all the Canaanites<\/em>, and this would cover the southeast part of the Promised Land; next the Sidonians<\/em>, who correspond with the Phoenician coastline and the northwest part of the Promised Land; and finally the Hivites that dwelt in mount Lebanon<\/em>. The borders for this area are identified as from mount Baal-hermon unto the entrance of Hamath<\/em>, Mevo-Hamath, and contain the northeast part of the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The divine purpose for the continued presence of these opposing people groups is reiterated in Judges 3:4<\/a>: And they were left, to prove<\/em> (to test) Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of Jehovah, which he commanded t<\/em>heir fathers by Moses<\/em>, i.e.<\/em> the Law of Moses. The test was not for God, Who sees all things, but rather for Israel to give them an objective standard that would measure the level of their obedience or the depth of their disobedience, which deserved the justice of God. The question for the new generation of Israelites was whether they would obey the commandments of God given by the hand of Moses. This presumes the availability of the knowledge of the Law of Moses, knowledge that was obtained through the priesthood, and which included the command to drive out all the Canaanites. Learning how the congregation of the Lord was to fight against the enemies of God and of His kingdom was one of the means appointed by God to test whether Israel would listen to the commandments of God and would walk in the ways of the Lord. If Israel was to learn the art of war successfully, they would, at the same time, have to learn to keep the commandments of God.<\/p>\n

However, verses 5<\/a> to 6<\/a> record Israel\u2019s failure. First, in verse 5<\/a>, there was a failure of social interaction: And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jeb<\/em>usites<\/em>. The only Canaanite tribe not mentioned here is the Girgashites. No reason is given for why they are missing. In the rabbinic tradition, this Canaanite tribe had moved to Africa in response to Joshua\u2019s threat. But what 3:5<\/a> does show is a failure to obey Deuteronomy 7:1\u20132<\/a>, the command to conquer and destroy these enemies. The second failure, in Judges 3:6<\/a>, was intermarriage: and they took th<\/em>eir daughters to be their wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods<\/em>. This was a failure to obey Deuteronomy 7:3\u20135<\/a>. The result of intermarriage was that they served their<\/em> gods<\/em>. Judges 3:5\u20136<\/a> provides the theme of the whole Book of Judges: the Canaanization of Israelite society in the areas of religion, ethics, and morality.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Before moving on to the next major division, four introductory observations are in order. First, the definition of apostasy in the Book of Judges is \u201cabandoning Jehovah in favor of other gods\u201d; that is, they claim to be the people of Jehovah while acting as if they belonged to Baal. The apostasy is described in several ways, such as, transgressing the terms of the covenant, not walking in God\u2019s ways, not listening to His voice, not heeding His commands\u2014especially the one of exclusive allegiance since, unlike other gods, Israel\u2019s God tolerates no rivals. Second, in turn Israel\u2019s failures teach two lessons. The first lesson is that seeing miracles is not a guarantee against apostasy. These people saw miracles and they apostatized anyway. The second lesson is that spiritual and theological apostasy is a subtle process; merely being in possession of a correct theology does not guarantee freedom from apostasy. Third, the seven cycles now begin, and the cycles are described on two levels. The first level is Israel\u2019s cycle, involving four basic steps of spiritual apostasy: foreign oppression, groaning, Israel\u2019s repentance, and deliverance by divinely appointed judges. The second level is God\u2019s cycle, which is anger, punishment, change of mind, and deliverance. Fourth, the author picks seven cycles to illustrate his historical record. This may be for the purpose of corresponding with the seven waves of judgment in Leviticus 26<\/a>. The basic formula for the seven cycles is sevenfold. First was the evaluation: Israel had done that which was evil, a statement that appears six times (3:7<\/a>, 3:12<\/a>, 4:1<\/a>, 6:1<\/a>, 10:6<\/a>, and 13:1<\/a>). Second came the divine judgment: The Lord gave, or sold, them into the hand of the enemy, which also appears six times in the six passages just listed. Third came the cry for help: Israel cries out to the Lord, found five times (3:9<\/a>, 3:15<\/a>, 4:3<\/a>, 6:6<\/a>, and 10:10<\/a>). Fourth comes the raising up of the judge: The Lord raised up, He delivered to save them, found twice (3:9<\/a> and 3:15<\/a>). Fifth comes the subjugation of the enemy: The oppressing nation was made subject to Israel, found in 4:23<\/a> and implied in 3:30<\/a> and 8:28<\/a>. Sixth comes the time of rest: The Land had rest of a number of years, found four times (3:11<\/a>, 3:30<\/a>, 5:31<\/a>, and 8:28<\/a>). Seventh comes the death of the judge, found four times (3:11<\/a>, 4:1<\/a>, 8:33<\/a>, and 12:7<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

THREE<\/em><\/p>\n

The Twelve Judges and the Seven Cycles\u2014<\/em>3:7\u201316:31<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Earlier, seven cycles were mentioned, but actually, a total of twelve judges are dealt with in this book. Seven are detailed, while five are mentioned only in passing. With a total of twelve judges, there were actually twelve cycles, but the author does not detail all twelve cycles; he details only seven cycles.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

A. First Cycle: Othniel\u20143:7\u201311<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Sin\u20143:7<\/a><\/p>\n

And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, and forgot Jehovah their God, and served the Baalim and the Asheroth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The first cycle begins with the negative fact: And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, and forgot Jehovah their God<\/em>. The means of Israel\u2019s abandonment follows: and<\/em> [they] served the Baalim and the Asheroth<\/em>. The Asheroth<\/em> is the plural of Asherah and is equivalent to the Ashtaroth mentioned earlier. There is more than one way that this particular name is spelled or referred to (cf. Judg. 10:6<\/a>; 1 Sam. 7:4<\/a> and 12:10<\/a>). These Asherah groves (Deut. 16:21<\/a>; Judg. 6:26<\/a>; 2 Kg. 13:6<\/a>, 17:10<\/a>, 23:6<\/a>, and 23:15<\/a>) were probably regarded as a dwelling place of the deity. The name was transferred to the deity itself from the idols of this goddess, which consisted of wooden columns called the Asherim, hence Asherah or the Asherah Poles or the Asherah Groves\u2014wooden poles, or tree trunks\u2014which were set up beside the pagan altar, and used as an object of worship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Oppression: Cushan-Rishathaim of Mesopotamia\u20143:8<\/a><\/p>\n

Therefore the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia: and the children<\/em> of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The author begins with the cause of Israel\u2019s oppression, the divine attitude: Therefore the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel<\/em>. Then came the result: and he sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia<\/em>: The name, Cushan-rishathaim<\/em>, means \u201cdoubly-wicked Cushan.\u201d This title was probably given to him by Israel on account of their experience with him. The name Cushan<\/em> itself implies that he was a Cushite, a Mesopotamian one.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

As for the identity of Cushan<\/em>, there were two groups of Cushites: Mesopotamian and Ethiopian. The name Cushan<\/em> corresponds to the ancient Kassites, mentioned in ancient documents, who overran Babylon and ruled for four centuries, until the twelfth century b.c. Two of the Kassite kings had the name of Kashtiliash, a name that very closely corresponds to the name here in the Hebrew text.<\/p>\n

As for Cushan\u2019s king\u2019s domain, the Hebrew name for Mesopotamia is Aram Naharayim<\/span>, literally, \u201cSyria of the Two Rivers,\u201d and it refers to the very fertile land that lies between the Orontes River and the Euphrates River. More specifically, it refers to the fertile land east of the Orontes River, covering the upper and middle Euphrates, and lands watered by the Habur and the Tigris Rivers. Only after the fourth century b.c. was the name Aram Naharayim<\/span> used for the whole Tigris-Euphrates River or valley. Before that, it was limited to that portion just described. The duration of the oppression under Cushan<\/em> was: and the children of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

3. Israel\u2019s Cry\u20143:9a<\/a><\/p>\n

And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

It took eight years before Israel realized that continuing to worship Baal and Asherah was of no benefit to them and would not free them from the oppression.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

4. Deliverance\u20143:9b\u201310<\/a><\/p>\n

9bJehovah raised up a savior to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb\u2019s younger brother. 10And the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, and he judged Israel; and he went out to war, and Jehovah delivered Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand: and his hand prevailed against Cushan-rishathaim.<\/p>\n

The Hebrew word for savior<\/em> is moshi<\/span>a<\/span>, a word used in three different ways. In the Book of Judges, it is used of heroic men who save the nation in time of war. They were saviors, because they saved the nation in times of war. Second, mo<\/span>shia<\/span> is used of God (Isa. 43:11<\/a>; 45:15<\/a> and 45:21<\/a>). And finally, it was also used by Isaiah of the Messiah in Isaiah 19:20<\/a>. The name of the savior<\/em>-judge here was: Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb\u2019s youn<\/em>ger brother<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Othniel\u2019s ability to be a savior<\/em> was the result of the Spirit of Jehovah<\/em>, which came upon him<\/em>. This phrase is used several times in this book (6:34<\/a>, 11:29<\/a>, 13:25<\/a>, 14:6<\/a>, 14:19<\/a>, and 15:14<\/a>).<\/span> It is always used in the context of being empowered to accomplish a specific task or mission. The result of Othniel\u2019s empowerment and mission was twofold. First, he judged Israel<\/em>; and second, and he <\/em><\/span>went out to war, and Jehovah delivered Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand: and his hand prevailed against Cushan-rishathaim<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>5. Rest\u20143:11<\/a><\/p>\n

And the land had rest forty years. And Othniel the son of Kenaz died<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The rest lasted just about a generation. What is obvious is that the repentance of the generation failed to transmit <\/span>to the next generation. Only once did peace last for eighty years, and in that instance, the peace extended for two generations. Otherwise, peace lasted for either forty years or even less: in 3:11<\/a>, f<\/span>orty years; 3:30<\/a>, eighty years; 5:31<\/a>, forty years; 8:28<\/a>, forty years; 10:2\u20133<\/a>, forty-five years; 12:7\u201314<\/a>, thirty-one years; and 16:31<\/a>, twenty years.<\/p>\n

The cycle ends with death: And Othniel the son of Ke<\/em><\/span>naz died<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>B. Second Cycle: Ehud\u20143:12\u201330<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. Sin\u20143:12a<\/a><\/p>\n

And the children of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah: \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Oppression: Eglon of Moab\u20143:12b\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2026 12band Jehovah strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah. 13And he gathered unto him the children of Ammon and Amalek; and he went and smote Israel, and they possessed the city of palm-trees. 14And the children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 12b<\/a> introdu<\/span>ces Israel\u2019s new oppressor: And Jehovah strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel<\/em>. It was God who energized Eglon<\/em> to be the oppressor against Israel<\/em> even though they were His people. The reas<\/span>on was: because they had done that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah<\/em>. Verse 13a<\/a> lists the allies of the oppressor: he<\/em> [Eglon] gathered unto him the children of Ammon and Amalek<\/em>. Verse 13b<\/a> records<\/span> the conquest: and he went and smote Israel, and they possessed the city of palm-trees<\/em>, a reference to Jericho (1:16<\/a>). Jericho had been destroyed by Joshua about sixty years earlier, and had been rebu<\/span>ilt, but not as a fortified city, and therefore it did not violate the curse of Joshua (Joshua 6:26<\/a>). Verse 14<\/a> states the duration of the oppression: And the children of Israel served Eglon the king o<\/em><\/span>f Moab eighteen years<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>3. Israel\u2019s Cry\u20143:15a<\/a><\/p>\n

But when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>4. Deliverance\u20143:15b\u201329<\/a><\/p>\n

Israel\u2019s deliverance comes in the two stages.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. Assassination of Eglon\u20143:15b\u201326<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2026 15bJehovah raised them up a savior, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed. And the children of Israel sent tribute by him unto Eglon the king of Moab. 16And Ehud made him a sword which had two edges, a cubit in length; and he girded it under his raiment upon his right thigh. 17And he offered the tribute unto Eglon king of Moab: now Eglon was a very fat man. 18And when he had made an end of offering the tribute, he sent away the people that bore the tribute. 19But he himself turned back from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said, I have a secret errand unto you, O king. And he said, Keep silence. And all that stood by him went out from him. 20And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting by himself alone in the cool upper room. And Ehud said, I have a message from God unto you. And he arose out of his seat. 21And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his body: 22and the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, for he drew not the sword out of his body; and it came out behind. 23Then Ehud went forth into the porch, and shut the doors of the upper room upon him, and locked them.<\/p>\n

24Now when he was gone out, his servants came; and they saw, and, behold, the doors of the upper room were locked; and they said, Surely he is covering his feet in the upper chamber. 25And they tarried till they were ashamed; and, behold, he opened not the doors of the upper room: therefore they took the key, and opened them; and, behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth.<\/p>\n

26And Ehud escaped while they tarried, and passed beyond the quarries, and escaped unto Seirah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 15b<\/a> introduces the savior: Jehovah raised them up a savior, Ehud the son of Gera,<\/em><\/span> the Benjamite<\/em>. He is described as a man left-handed<\/em>. The Hebrew literally reads, \u201ca man bound in his right hand,\u201d because he was only able to freely use his left hand. This idiom is used only here an<\/span>d in Judges 20:16<\/a>, which makes the same point about the Benjamites being left-handed and notes left-handedness seemed to be rather common among the Benjamites, which is rather ironic, since the name i<\/span>tself means \u201cthe son of my right hand.\u201d According to 1 Chronicles 12:2<\/a>, the Benjamites were also known to be ambidextrous. So, they tended to be left-handed and often ambidextrous as well, good in bot<\/span>h hands. The advantage to Ehud is that he would bind his dagger on the opposite side to that on which it was usually carried, therefore concealing the weapon. They would have searched the left side rather than the right side, which is where they would have expected the sword or knife to be. The verse concludes by providing the o<\/span>ccasion for deliverance: and the children of Israel sent tribute by hi<\/em><\/span>m unto Eglon the king of Moab<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Judges 3:16<\/a> describes the dagger-sword: And Ehud made him a sword which had two edges, a cubit in length<\/em>. If cubit<\/em> is correct, it would be about eighteen inches long. Th<\/span>e Hebrew word is gomed<\/em>, which is a hapax-legomenon<\/span>, meaning it is a term used only here and nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. A gomed<\/em> would be about a foot long. This dagger was without a cross-shaft,<\/span> which is why it would disappear into the fat of the body. Then the text describes Ehud\u2019s concealment of the weapon: and he girded it under his raiment upon his right thigh<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verses 17<\/a> to 18<\/a> describe E<\/span>hud\u2019s occasion for deliverance: And he offered the tribute unto Eglon king of Moab<\/em>. Three things should be noted here. First, the occasion of paying tribute provided the timing. In such circumstances,<\/span> seeing strangers in the palace would not be abnormal. Second, the text notes that now Eglon was a very fat man<\/em>, which provides the explanation for the account that follows. Third, the text states, An<\/em><\/span>d when he had made an end of offering the tribute, he sent away the people that bore the tribute<\/em>. All the other tribute-bearers were sent back to their homes, leaving Ehud alone to carry out his plan.<\/span><\/p>\n

Verses 19<\/a> to 22<\/a> give the details of the assassination. Verse 19<\/a> deals with the return of Ehud: But he himself turned back from the quarries that were by Gilgal<\/em>. The Hebrew word for quarries<\/em> is psilli<\/span><\/span>m<\/span>, which means, \u201csculptured statues.\u201d In this case, they were sculptured statues of Canaanite gods, which illustrates the spiritual problem that Israel had, and why the servitude came in the first pla<\/span>ce. These sculptured statues of Canaanite gods were in Gilgal<\/span>, which means they were erected in the very same place where Joshua erected the memorial stones in honor of what the true God had done for <\/span>Israel. They were also erected in the place from whence the Angel of Jehovah had already departed, and may have been the cause of His departure from Gilgal<\/span>. Ehud, after leaving Jericho, went as far as<\/span> Gilgal<\/span>, and then returned. Then comes the trap: and<\/em> [he] said, I have a secret errand unto you, O king<\/em>. The king responded: And he said, Keep silence<\/em>. Obviously believing Ehud, the king dismisses his<\/span> attendants: And all that stood by him went out from him<\/em>. By so doing, the king set the trap for himself. Verse 20<\/a> describes the circumstance further: and he<\/em> [Eglon] was sitting by himself alone in th<\/em><\/span>e cool upper room<\/em>. The Hebrew is aliyah<\/span>, and literally reads \u201cthe upper chamber of cooling.\u201d This was the higher room that would allow the cool afternoon breezes to come through. This would have been <\/span>a one-room apartment built on the corner of a flat roof, fitted on all sides with latticed windows, which shut out the sun in the heat of the day, but allowed for free ventilation during the cool breezes of the afternoon. So it allowed for some privacy. In the heat of the summer, it would be the coolest part of the house. This kind of upper room also tended t<\/span>o serve as a guest room of a private house (<\/span>1 Kg. 17:19<\/a> and 17:23<\/a>; 2 Kg. 4:10\u201311<\/a>) or as a guest room of a palace (2 Kg. 1:2<\/a>). Often it was a very large room (Jer. 22:13\u201314<\/a>). When Ehud said, I have a message from God<\/em>, he used the generic te<\/span>rm Elohim<\/span>, and so it is not known what exactly the king understood. However, according to rabbinic tradition, the Moabite king understood Ehud to be speaking of the God of Israel, and so he stood up a<\/span>s a mark of respect. As reward for this action, God gave him a daughter, Ruth, who became a mother of Jewish kings. But because of his wickedness, he also had another daughter, Orpah, who became the mother of Goliath.<\/span>9<\/a> This is rather imaginary rabbinic exegesis, and there is no real foundation for these teachings.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Judges 3:21\u201322<\/a> describes the Moabite king\u2019s execution. Verse 21<\/a> details the stabbing<\/span>, spelled out in three specific stages: first, And Ehud put forth his left hand<\/em>; second, and took the sword from his right thigh<\/em>; and third, and thrust it into his body<\/em>. Then verse 22<\/a> describes what h<\/span>appened with the sword, also in three stages. First: and the haft also went in after the blade<\/em>; since there was no cross-shaft to stop it, the whole dagger went into his body. Second: and the fat clos<\/em><\/span>ed upon the blade<\/em>; since the king was so very fat, it took in the whole sword, including the handle. Third: and it came out behind<\/em>. The Hebrew word is parshedona<\/span>, another hapax-legomenon<\/span> (word used on<\/span>ly once in the Hebrew Bible). In other cognate, Semitic languages, it is used of the cavity or the opening of the anus. So the downward motion of the dagger was with such force that it passed completely through the<\/span> abdomen and projected from the anus. The very one whom God had earlier strengthened against Israel<\/em> now became reduced to a pile of fat and excrement.<\/p>\n

Verse 23<\/a> describes Ehud\u2019s escape: T<\/em><\/span>hen Ehud went forth into the porch<\/em>. The Hebrew word for porch<\/em> is misderonah<\/span>, another hapax-legomenon<\/span> (word used only once in the Hebrew Bible), and it is not really clear what it means, but it was the<\/span> way by which Ehud escaped from the palace. Before leaving, Ehud shut the doors of the upper room upon him, and locked them<\/em>. The doors could be locked from the inside without a key, but not from the o<\/span>utside without a key. This would cause a delay in discovering the body.<\/p>\n

Then in verses 24<\/a> to 25<\/a>, the assassination is discovered. The timing was: Now when he was gone out, his servants came; and they <\/em><\/span>saw, and, behold, the doors of the upper room were locked; and they said, Surely he is covering his feet in the upper chamber<\/em>. To cover your feet<\/em> was a euphemism for responding to the call of nature. <\/span>In essence, they were saying, \u201cHe must be sitting on the toilet, and that is why everything is closed.\u201d Thus, they tarried until they were ashamed; and behold, he opened not the doors of the upper roo<\/em><\/span>m: therefore, they took the key<\/em>. The key was a flat piece of wood that was fitted with pins corresponding to the holes in a hollow bolt. The hole in the door gave access to the bolt, which was on the <\/span>inside. The insertion of the key into the bolt pushed out the pins of the lock and enabled the bolt to be withdrawn from its sockets in the doorpost. The door could be locked without a key, but it could not be unlocked without a key. Having done all this, the servants <\/span>opened them<\/em>; and then came the discovery, and behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 26<\/a> further details Ehud\u2019s<\/span> escape: And Ehud escaped while they tarried, and passed beyond the quarries, and escaped unto Seirah<\/em>. This was the same route he took earlier but this time he went beyond the quarries<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>b. Defeat of Moab\u20143:27\u201329<\/a><\/p>\n

27And it came to pass, when he was come, that he blew a trumpet in the hill-country of Ephraim; and the children of Israel went down with him from the hill-country, and he be<\/span>fore them. 28And he said unto them, Follow after me; for Jehovah has delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. And they went down after him, and took the fords of the Jordan against the Moab<\/span>ites, and suffered not a man to pass over. 29And they smote of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, every lusty man, and every man of valor; and there escaped not a man.<\/p>\n

In verses 27<\/a> to 28a<\/a>, ther<\/span>e is the call to arms, with verse 27<\/a> being the call of the trumpet: he blew a trumpet in the hill-country of Ephraim<\/em>. The Hebrew word for trumpet<\/em> is shofar<\/span>, often referring to the horn of an animal, p<\/span>articularly a ram\u2019s horn. The geography is the hill-country of Ephraim<\/em>, which included the tribal territory of Benjamin. The people of Israel recognized that it was the time to rebel against the Moabi<\/span>tes.<\/p>\n

In verse 28b<\/a>, the Israelites also recognized Ehud\u2019s leadership. Under Ehud\u2019s leadership, they captured the fords of the Jordan<\/em> which accomplished two strategic things: It prevented the enemy from<\/span> escaping into their own territory on the east side of the Jordan to find sanctuary or to regroup; and it also created a wedge within the Moabite army so that no reinforcements could come from Moab to help the army now trapped on the west bank of the Jordan.<\/span><\/p>\n

Verse 29<\/a> summarizes the slaughter of the Moabites: And they smote of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, every lusty man, and every man<\/em><\/span> of valor; and there escaped not a man<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>5. Rest\u20143:30<\/a><\/p>\n

So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest eighty years<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This was the longest period of rest found in the entire Book of Judges.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>C. Third Cycle: Shamgar\u20143:31<\/a><\/p>\n

And after him was Shamgar the son of Anath, who smote of the Philistines six hundred men with an ox-goad: and he also saved Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This is one of the five cycles that is <\/span>not detailed, but spells out three basic facts. The first concerns the person: And after him was Shamgar the son of Anath<\/em>. Shamgar<\/em> is a Hurrian name, used of a people known in the Bible as the Horites<\/span>. The name shows Canaanite influence on the Jews. Furthermore, Shamgar was a Jew who was the son of Anath,<\/em> a name dedicated to the goddess Anath<\/em>. Among the Canaanite deities, Anath<\/em> was the Canaanite g<\/span>oddess of sex and war.<\/p>\n

The second fact is Shamgar\u2019s action: who smote of the Philistines six hundred men with an ox-goad<\/em>. The six hundred<\/em> may be Shamgar\u2019s lifetime total, and not the result of a one-t<\/span>ime battle. The Hebrew for ox-goad<\/em> is malmad<\/span>, another hapax-legomenon<\/span> (word used only once in the Hebrew Bible), used to urge oxen to move forward, and was as much as eight feet long. It was pointed a<\/span>t one end with a metal tip, and had a chisel-shaped blade on the other end for scrapping a plowshare, and so it could effectively be used in place of a spear.<\/p>\n

The third fact concerns Shamgar\u2019s judgesh<\/span>ip: he also saved Israel<\/em>. The word also connects Shamgar with Ehud. He is referred to as a moshia<\/span> and not as a shophet<\/span>: a savior, not a judge. His judgeship may have transpired after Ehud\u2019s deliveranc<\/span>e, but before Ehud\u2019s death, which is why the historical notation in Judges 4:1<\/a> continues after the death of Ehud, not Shamgar. So it might very well be that Shamgar\u2019s actions occurred within the perio<\/span>d of Ehud\u2019s judgeship. The next section shows that he was a contemporary of Barak and Deborah and so may have appeared about the same time that the Philistines were beginning to settle in the coastal plain. Thus, Deborah and Barak are viewed as following Ehud, not Shamgar.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>D. Fourth Cycle: Barak and Deborah\u20144:1\u20135:31<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Sin\u20144:1<\/a><\/p>\n

And the children of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, when Ehud was dead<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Not when Shamgar was dead, but when Ehud was dead<\/em>, again implying that the Shamgar \u201csaviorhood\u201d was within the period of Ehud<\/em>. This circumstantial clause means that it was Ehud<\/em> who kept them from idolatry, but now that he was dead<\/em>, all restraints were gone.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

2. Oppression: Jabin the King of Hazor\u20144:2<\/a><\/p>\n

And Jehovah sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, who dwelt in Harosheth of the Genti<\/em><\/span>les<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Jabin<\/em> was a dynastic name for the king of Hazor;<\/em> and, for that reason, the same name appears in the Book of Joshua. Hazor<\/em> was located north of the Sea of Galilee at the south end of the Hulah Val<\/span>ley, a strategic city along the Via Maris<\/em>, which was the most important trade route of ancient times. Hazor<\/em> was the leader of the northern alliance against Joshua (Josh. 11:1\u201315<\/a>). Joshua had destroyed<\/span> the city, but Israel did not occupy it. Consequently, the Canaanites had come back and rebuilt this very strategic city.<\/p>\n

While Jabin was the king, the Commander-in-Chief was Sisera<\/em>, the captain<\/em> of hi<\/span>s host<\/em>. Sisera<\/em> is not a Canaanite name, but a Hurrian or a Hittite name. Either he was a Canaanite with a Hurrian or a Hittite name, or he was a mercenary of that nationality in the service of Hazor. <\/span>His palatial residence was in Harosheth of the Gentiles<\/em>, located in the Galilee.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>3. Israel\u2019s Cry\u20144:3<\/a><\/p>\n

And the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Eventually, the children of <\/em><\/span>Israel cried unto Jehovah<\/em>, and the reason was due to the strength of the Canaanites: for he [Sisera] had nine hundred chariots of iron<\/em>. The mention of nine hundred chariots<\/em> is not out of character for<\/span>, in the inscriptions of Thutmose III, he states that he captured nine hundred twenty-four chariots from the Canaanites in the Battle of Megiddo, and Megiddo plays a role in the battle of Judges as recorded in chapters <\/span>4<\/a> and 5<\/a>. The duration of the oppression is recorded: twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel<\/em>. On the human side, the Canaanite ability to oppress Israel for so lon<\/span>g was due to their chariot strength. On the divine side, it was God\u2019s discipline due to Israel\u2019s apostasy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>4. Deliverance\u20144:4\u201324<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. Calling of Deborah and Barak\u20144:4\u201310<\/a><\/p>\n

4Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, she judged Israel at that time. 5And she dwelt under the palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in the hill-country of Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. 6And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-naphtali, and said unto him, Has not Jehovah, the God of Israel, commanded, saying, Go and draw unto mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun? 7And I will draw unto you, to the river Kishon, Sisera, the captain of Jabin\u2019s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into your hand. 8And Barak said unto her, If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go. 9And she said, I will surely go with you: notwithstanding, the journey that you take shall not be for your honor; for Jehovah will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh. 10And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali together to Kedesh; and there went up ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him.<\/p>\n

Verse 4<\/a> introduces the key person: Now Deborah, a prophetess<\/em>. The Hebrew ishah neviah<\/span> literally means \u201ca woman of prophecy.\u201d It is used of two other women: Miriam, the sister of Moses (Exod. 15:20<\/a>) and Huldah the prophetess (2 Kg. 22:14<\/a>). Deborah was the wife of Lappidoth<\/em>, meaning \u201clamps.\u201d In rabbinic tradition, she was the wife of Barak, which means \u201clightning,\u201d and is analogous to Lappidoth<\/em>. She was so called because of her inflammatory speeches and war-like spirit. Her degree of divine inspiration was so intense as to create sparks and flames during the moments of its reception, and she earned this designation by preparing wicks for the lamps of the Tabernacle. Again, it is purely rabbinic tradition, and not actually found in history or in the text of Scripture. Her role was: she judged Israel at tha<\/em>t time<\/em>, but this raises the question: Who was the one who delivered Israel? Was she a judge in that sense? Is the word judge<\/em> here being used in the sense of being the one who delivered Israel?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

There a<\/span>re five possible arguments in favor of Deborah (rather than Barak) being the one who delivered Israel. First, the text says that she judged Israel, and that should be taken as Deborah having led Israel, or d<\/span>elivered Israel, or saved Israel. Second, in Judges 5:6\u20138<\/a>, she is connected with the security of Israel. Third, she is involved in marshaling the troops. Fourth, in 5:1<\/a>, her name appears before<\/span> Barak\u2019s, which suggests the primary credit for victory goes to her. Fifth, the parallels with Sisera, who sits or rules, (in Hebrew, yashav<\/span>), with Deborah who sits and rules, (again yashav<\/span>), under a <\/span>palm tree suggests that she is the counterpart to Sisera. These five arguments may support the fact that she was actually delivering Israel; and, in that sense, she was the judge.<\/p>\n

But there are some a<\/span>rguments against the view that Deborah was Israel\u2019s deliverer. First, the word shophet<\/span>, as noted in the introduction, allows for a variety of meanings and even within the Book of Judges, it is used mo<\/span>re than one way. Second, Deborah is not introduced as the one \u201cwhom God raised up.\u201d Third, there is no reference to her being empowered by the Holy Spirit. Fourth, she needed Barak to accomplish the deliverance. Fifth, the verb <\/span>yashav<\/span> is never really applied to her in the sense of ruling. Sixth, she states that God will deliver Sisera into the hand of a woman, but she does not say \u201cinto my hands.\u201d<\/span> Seventh, the text states that she went up with Barak, but does not state that she was the head of the troops. Eighth, she states that \u201cthis day God has delivered Sisera into your<\/em> hands (meaning Barak<\/span>\u2019s), not into \u201cmy\u201d hands (meaning Deborah\u2019s). Ninth, she is totally absent from the description of the actual battle, and she never meets up with Jabin or Sisera. Tenth, she is referred to as the moth<\/em><\/span>er<\/em> in Israel, never as the \u201csavior\u201d of Israel. Eleventh, the author does not use the term kum<\/span> (to raise up) or state that God is the cause of the subject when it talks about Deborah\u2019s rise. Twelfth, i<\/span>n later lists of deliverers of Israel, it is Barak\u2019s name that appears, not Deborah\u2019s name (1 Sam. 12:9\u201311<\/a>; Heb. 11:32<\/a>). Finally, in this passage, she functions in the traditional role of a judge in s<\/span>ettling disputes, not in the sense of delivering Israel. The word is lamishpat<\/span>, which was not a role assigned to the other judges where the role is defined as \u201cdeliverers.\u201d For them, the word carries <\/span>the meaning of to govern<\/em>. She does not function in the same role as the other judges, and so no duration of her judgeship is given. It does not say she judged Israel for so many years as it does with <\/span>all the other judges. The forty years in Judges 5:31<\/a> is attributed to God and Israel\u2019s collective power in Judges 4:23\u201324<\/a>, not to Deborah. So, Deborah is a judge<\/em> in its traditional role of helping to <\/span>settle disputes. She was a prophetess<\/em>, and so received direct revelation from God, but she was not the moshia<\/span>; she was not the savior of Israel, as was the case with the other judges. The savior, in t<\/span>his case, was actually Barak.<\/p>\n

Judges 4:5<\/a> reveals Deborah\u2019s location and role. As to her home: she dwelt under the palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in the hill-country of Ephraim<\/em>. As to h<\/span>er role: the children of Israel came up to her for judgment<\/em>. Here the Israelites come to her for judgment, hamishpat<\/span>. They were not coming to her asking her to save Israel from the enemy; they were co<\/span>ming to her asking her to solve their legal disputes. They were asking for divine answers to their cries, which are described in the following verses. They came to her because she was a prophetess, not because she was a judge. This shows that people had lost confidence in the priesth<\/span>ood to provide spiritual direction and answers. So while she was in the role of a judge in the traditional sense of settling disputes, in their specific case they did not come to her merely to settle their legal disputes between fellow Israelites, but they also came asking for <\/span>divine answers, because they recognize<\/span>d her to be a prophetess. Again, this shows that instead of going to the priesthood to receive a divine answer, they went to her.<\/p>\n

Verses 6<\/a> to 7<\/a> present the call to arms. The call is in verse 6a<\/a>: And s<\/em><\/span>he sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam<\/em>. The focus now shifts away from Deborah, the medium through whom the divine response to the Israelites\u2019 distress was sought and received, to Barak to solve <\/span>the crisis. Barak is both commissioned to attack and is promised success. He came out of Kedesh-naphtali<\/span>, and there are two possible options as to where this was. One option is that this is Kedesh-Nap<\/span>htali in Upper Galilee, which was in close geographical proximity to Hazor, the Canaanite capital of Jabin. However, he could have been from Khirbet-quedish<\/span>, which is one mile west of the southern end<\/span> of the Sea of Galilee and which has a close geographical proximity to Mount Tabor. Among historical geographers, there is a debate as to which one of these two localities is meant. Either location has arguments both pro and con.<\/p>\n

Verses 6b<\/a> to 7<\/a> go on to give the content of Barak\u2019s calling: Has not Jehovah, the God of Israel, commanded, saying, Go and draw unto mount Tabor, and take with you ten th<\/em><\/span>ousand men of the children of Naphtali.\u2026 Naphtali<\/em> was Barak\u2019s tribe and was the tribe in whose tribal territory the City of Hazor was located. Then Deborah adds: and of the children of Zebulun<\/em>. The Va<\/span>lley of Jezreel is located in the tribal territory of Zebulun, and it was the key valley they were fighting for in this battle. When Barak fulfills the human condition of responding to the call to arms, then <\/span>God\u2019s role will be: And I will draw unto you, to the river Kishon, Sisera, the captain of Jabin\u2019s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into your hand<\/em>. This is God\u2019<\/span>s sovereignty in action without eliminating human responsibility.<\/p>\n

Verse 8<\/a> records Barak\u2019s response: If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go<\/em>. The plea of B<\/span>arak is not due to cowardice, for he was not a coward as the context proves. The plea of Barak is due to his desire to be assured of the presence of God in the war; Barak also recognizes Deborah\u2019s prophetic status.<\/span><\/p>\n

Verse 9<\/a> gives Deborah\u2019s twofold response. First, her verbal response is given, which contains both a promise and a prophecy. The promise was: I will surely go with you<\/em>. But then comes t<\/span>he prophecy: notwithstanding, the journey that you take shall not be for your honor; for Jehovah will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman<\/em>. The assumption may have been that Deborah was that woman<\/em>, bu<\/span>t it will turn out to be another woman<\/em> altogether. Second, we see Deborah\u2019s physical response: And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 10<\/a> describes the gathering of the army. Barak\u2019s r<\/span>ole is mentioned first: And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali together to Kedesh, and there went up ten thousand men at his feet<\/em>. Then Deborah\u2019s role is described: and Deborah went up with him<\/em>. She wi<\/span>ll be present as promised though she does not take part in the battle nor lead the troops.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n

b. Movement of Heber the Kenite\u20144:11<\/a><\/p>\n

Now Heber the Kenite had separated himself from the Kenites, even from the children of Hobab the brother-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far as the oa<\/em>k in Zaanannim, which is by Kedesh<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Kenites<\/em> were a branch of the Midianites that had sided with the Israelites. From that tribe came Moses\u2019 wife, brother-in-law, and father-in-law; and this was the clan that had settled in Arad in the Negev in Judges 1:16<\/a>. The Kenites<\/em> were normally pro-Israel, but Heber,<\/em> himself, had become pro-Canaanite. Therefore, he separated himself from the rest of the Ke<\/em>nites<\/em>. He moved to the oak in Zaanannim<\/em>, which the author states is by Kedesh<\/em>, and this will put him in close proximity with Hazor. The purpose of this verse is to set the stage for the death of Sisera. But the point is that Heber<\/em> had separated himself from the rest of the Kenites<\/em>. He moved far north, and while the others were pro-Israel, he became pro-Canaanite. His position would allow him to both observe the troop movements of Barak and report them to Jabin and Sisera of Hazor. Heber<\/em> would have assumed he was doing the Canaanites a favor; whereas, in reality, he was, by God\u2019s working, to bring about the Canaanites\u2019 defeat.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

c. Defeat of the Canaanites\u20144:12\u201316<\/a><\/p>\n

12And they told Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam was gone up to mount Tabor. 13And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron<\/span>, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles, unto the river Kishon. 14And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which Jehovah has delivered Sisera into your h<\/span>and; is not Jehovah gone out before you? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him. 15And Jehovah discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of<\/span> the sword before Barak; and Sisera alighted from his chariot, and fled away on his feet. 16But Barak pursued after the chariots, and after the host, unto Harosheth of the Gentiles: and all the host o<\/span>f Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; there was not a man left.<\/p>\n

Verse 12<\/a> records the report that came to Sisera concerning Israel\u2019s troop movement. The connection with verse 11<\/a> indicates that the re<\/span>port came from Heber, since his tent was near enough to Kedesh to know the movement of Barak\u2019s army.<\/p>\n

Verse 13<\/a> describes the gathering of the Canaanite army and the armory of nine hundred chariots of i<\/em><\/span>ron<\/em>. They proceeded: from Harosheth of the Gentiles<\/em>, the exact location unknown, and arrived at the destination: unto the river Kishon<\/em>. The movement was from north to south. Sisera was totally unconsc<\/span>ious of the fact that it was God who was bringing him to the River Kishon<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 14a<\/a> records Deborah\u2019s admonition: Up; for this is the day in which Jehovah has delivered Sisera into your hand<\/em>. The rhe<\/span>torical prophetic declaration was intended to give Barak the encouragement: is not Jehovah gone out before you?<\/em> The answer obviously was \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Verses 14b<\/a> to 16<\/a> describe the battle. Sisera and the Can<\/span>aanites were by the River Kishon, located at the western end of the Valley of Jezreel. Mount Tabor<\/em>, where Barak and Israel mustered, was at the eastern end of the same valley. God\u2019s role is then spell<\/span>ed out: And Jehovah discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host<\/em>; and the means God employed was the edge of the sword before Barak<\/em>. What else God did and what other means He used will b<\/span>e revealed in chapter 5<\/a>. The effect on Sisera was that he alighted from his chariot, and fled away on his feet<\/em>. The result for the Canaanite Army was: But Barak pursued after the chariots, and after t<\/em><\/span>he host, unto Harosheth of the Gentiles<\/em>. They were pursued<\/em> to the very place from whence the army came to fight Israel. The victory was total: and all the host of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword;<\/em><\/span> there was not a man left<\/em>. Chapter 5<\/a>, however, will point out a couple of minor exceptions.<\/p>\n

d. Flight and Death of Sisera\u20144:17\u201322<\/a><\/p>\n

17Howbeit Sisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite; for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Hebe<\/span>r the Kenite. 18And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And he turned in unto her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. 19And he said u<\/span>nto her, Give me, I pray you, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him. 20And he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, an<\/span>d it shall be, when any man does come and inquire of you, and say, Is there any man here? that you shall say, No. 21Then Jael Heber\u2019s wife took a tent-pin, and took a hammer in her hand, and went soft<\/span>ly unto him, and smote the pin into his temples, and it pierced through into the ground; for he was in a deep sleep; so he swooned and died. 22And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to me<\/span>et him, and said unto him, Come, and I will show you the man whom you seek. And he came unto her; and, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the tent-pin was in his temples.<\/p>\n

Verse 17<\/a> picks up from where verse <\/span>15<\/a> left off: Howbeit Sisera fled away on his feet<\/em>. He was obviously on his way back to Hazor, and on the way would pass by the place where Heber had pitched his tent: the tent of Jael the wife of Hebe<\/em><\/span>r the Kenite<\/em>. The Kenites were nomadic, and the nomadic tradition was that whenever a stranger was admitted into the tent as a guest, his claim to be defended or concealed from his pursuers was establ<\/span>ished. This would be one reason why Sisera would seek access into her tent specifically. Another reason Sisera felt safe in her tent was that there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor, and the h<\/em><\/span>ouse of Heber the Kenite<\/em> (4:18<\/a>). There was apparently a covenant of peace between Jabin<\/em> and Heber<\/em>. These statements reinforced that Heber<\/em> actually posed a double threat to Israel: First, he separated <\/span>himself from the main body of the Kenite clan that was pro-Israel; and second, he had bound himself by treaty to Jabin<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 18<\/a> records Jael\u2019s actions. She took the initiative: And Jael went out to m<\/em><\/span>eet Sisera<\/em>, and then issued an invitation: and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not<\/em>. Sisera\u2019s response was: And he turned in unto her into the tent<\/em>. Then came her action: and she c<\/em><\/span>overed him with<\/em> a rug<\/em>. The Hebrew word for rug is smichah<\/span>, a hapax-legomenon<\/span> (word used only once in the Hebrew Bible).<\/p>\n

Verse 19<\/a> records Sisera\u2019s request: And he said unto her, Give me, I pray you, a <\/em><\/span>little water to drink; for I am thirsty<\/em>. Another point concerning nomadic tradition is that, whoever has eaten or drunk anything in the tent is received into the peace of the tent; therefore, he is se<\/span>cure in the tent. Sisera may have asked for just a little water<\/em> in order to establish this bond. Jael\u2019s response was twofold. First, she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink<\/em>. Second, she covere<\/em><\/span>d him<\/em>. According to rabbinic tradition, she seduced him seven times, and after seven seductions, he finally fell into a very deep sleep. This is, again, purely rabbinic imagination.<\/p>\n

In verse 20<\/a>, Siser<\/span>a made a further request: And he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man does come and inquire of you, and say, Is there any man here? that you shall say, No<\/em>. With <\/span>all the nomadic customary rituals in place and this added request, Sisera felt secure enough to fall asleep.<\/p>\n

Verse 21<\/a> records the death of Sisera: Then Jael Heber\u2019s wife took a tent-pin, and took a ha<\/em><\/span>mmer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the pin into his temples, and it pierced through into the ground<\/em>. Her ability to do this deed corresponds with the fact that, among the nomads, th<\/span>e erection of tents was work done by the tribal women. So she was well-trained in the use of the hammer and the tent peg. Thus Deborah\u2019s prophecy about Sisera\u2019s falling at the hands of a woman was fulfilled. Because Sisera <\/span>was in a deep sleep<\/em>, he therefore never realized what was happening until the very last minute. First, he swooned<\/em>; there was initial consciousness, which was followed by his dea<\/span>th.<\/p>\n

Verse 22<\/a> records Barak\u2019s discovery. The circumstance was as Barak pursued Sisera<\/em>. Barak\u2019s pursuit ended with Jael\u2019s invitation: Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will show <\/em><\/span>you the man whom you seek<\/em>. What Barak saw is described: behold, Sisera lay dead, and the tent-pin was in his temples<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>e. Defeat of Jabin\u20144:23\u201324<\/a><\/p>\n

23So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel. 24And the hand of the children of Israel prevailed more and more against Jabin the king <\/span>of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.<\/p>\n

Verse 23<\/a> presents God\u2019s role: So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel<\/em>. Verse 24<\/a> gives Israel\u2019s role:<\/span> And the hand of the children of Israel prevailed more and more against Jabin the king of Canaan<\/em>. The defeat of Sisera in the Valley of Jezreel did not mean the immediate defeat of Hazor or the other <\/span>cities still held by the Canaanites. There were several smaller victories. Israel grew stronger and stronger, the Canaanites grew weaker and weaker, and finally the Israelites accomplished the whole conquest: <\/span>until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>5. Deborah\u2019s Song of Deliverance\u20145:1\u201331a<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>a. Singers\u20145:1<\/a><\/p>\n

Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day, saying, \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

This phrase does not mean that they composed the song together; it means only that they sang it together. The song <\/span>they sang was composed by Deborah, as verses 3<\/a>, 7<\/a>, and 12<\/a> in chapter 5<\/a> clearly show. The phrase on that day<\/em> links the song chronologically with the defeat of Sisera and suggests that it was composed a<\/span>s a spontaneous and instantaneous response to the victory. The word saying<\/em> in 5:1<\/a> is an historical introduction that takes the place of the song\u2019s heading. Basically, this verse is the song\u2019s preamble<\/span>. The song itself has nine specific stanzas.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. First Stanza: The Praising of God\u20145:2\u20133<\/a><\/p>\n

2For that the leaders took the lead in Israel,<\/p>\n

For that the people offered themselves willingly<\/em>,<\/p>\n

Bless ye Jehovah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

3Hear, O ye kings; give ear, O ye princes;<\/p>\n

I, even I, will sing unto Jehovah<\/em>;<\/p>\n

I will sing praise to Jehovah, the God of Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 2<\/a> focuses on the role of the leaders and the people: the leaders took the lead in Israel:<\/em> and the people off<\/em>ered themselves willingly<\/em>. When leaders<\/em> were willing to lead<\/em>, and people were willing to follow their lead<\/em>, then there was victory along with the resultant opportunity to praise God: Bless ye Jehovah<\/em>. This verse is a summons to praise God for the willingness and the joyful rise of His people. Hence, God is to be praised because both the leaders and the common people took up weapons to fight this war, and the call to praise God is expressed in the plural imperative.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 3<\/a> issues a call to the Gentile rulers, both kings<\/em> and princes<\/em>. The content of what the men heard was: I, even I, will sing u<\/em><\/span>nto Jehovah; I will sing praise to Jehovah, the God of Israel<\/em>. Four things should be noted here. First, this is a call to kings<\/em> and princes<\/em> of the earth to hear what Deborah has to proclaim to the pra<\/span>ise of the true God. Second, these kings<\/em> and princes<\/em> would be Gentiles, since Israel had neither kings nor princes at this point of her history. Third, this verse is the response of the lyricist (Debo<\/span>rah), and thus it is expressed in the first person. Fourth, this is a praise<\/em> to God<\/em>, and not a praise of any particular human hero.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>c. Second Stanza: Jehovah\u2014Commander-in-Chief\u20145:4\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n

4Jehovah, when you went forth out of Seir,<\/p>\n

When you marched out of the field of Edom<\/em>,<\/p>\n

The earth trembled, the heavens also dropped<\/em>,<\/p>\n

Yea, the clouds d<\/em><\/span>ropped water<\/em>.<\/p>\n

5The mountains quaked at the presence of Jehovah,<\/p>\n

Even yon Sinai at the presence of Jehovah, the God of Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 4a<\/a> portrays God as a divine warrior, marching forth from Mount Seir <\/span>in Edom to the aid of His people. Then verses 4b<\/a> to 5<\/a> picture the results of the presence of God among His people: the result on the earth: The earth trembled;<\/em> the results in the heavens: the heavens <\/em><\/span>also dropped;<\/em> and the result in the weather: Yea, the clouds dropped water<\/em>. Keeping in mind that Baal was viewed as the storm god, here the God of Israel was using what should have been Baal\u2019s stronge<\/span>st weapons. The storm imagery emphasizes that it is Jehovah who is God, not Baal. The following mention of Sinai and Edom recalls the beginning and the end of the Wilderness Wanderings, both portrayed<\/span> as witnesses to the mighty acts of God: The mountains quaked at the presence of Jehovah, Even yon Sinai at the presence of Jehovah, the God of Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

d. Third Stanza: Emergence of Deborah\u20145:6\u20138<\/a><\/p>\n

6In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath,<\/p>\n

In the days of Jael, the highways were unoccupied<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And the travelers walked through byways<\/em>.<\/p>\n

7The rulers ceased in Israel, they ceased,<\/p>\n

Until that I Deborah arose<\/em>,<\/p>\n

That I arose a mother in Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

8They chose new gods;<\/p>\n

Then was war in the gates:<\/em><\/p>\n

Was there a shield or spear seen<\/em><\/p>\n

Among forty thousand in Israel?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Vers<\/span>e 6<\/a> describes the situation in the Land prior to the battle. The timing was: In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, In the days of Jael<\/em>. Shamgar<\/em> and Jael<\/em> are viewed as contemporaries, which further <\/span>demonstrates that Shamgar\u2019s judgeship came within the period of Ehud. From this verse, the rabbis conclude that Jael also judged Israel, but being a non-Jewish Kenite, that is hardly likely. The situation was that of a total destruction of commu<\/span>nication and trade: the highways were unoccupied, And the travelers walked through byways<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 7<\/a> then describes the total lack of leadership in Israel: T<\/em><\/span>he rulers ceased in Israel, they ceased<\/em>. But a change came with the rise of Deborah: Until that I Deborah arose, That I arose a mother in Israel<\/em>. The use of the singular shows that Deborah<\/em> was the com<\/span>poser of the song.<\/p>\n

Verse 8a<\/a> describes the religious situation: They chose new gods<\/em>. In violation of the Law of Moses, Israel again degenerated into idolatry.<\/p>\n

Verse 8b<\/a> describes the military situation:<\/span> Then was war in the gates<\/em>; implying that Israel had lost control of the countryside and, therefore, that agricultural production was disrupted. The question: Was there a shield or spear seen among fo<\/em><\/span>rty thousand in Israel?<\/em> shows that there was a total lack of weaponry among the Jewish people.<\/p>\n

Three observations can be made concerning this particular stanza on Israel\u2019s status before Deborah\u2019s judg<\/span>eship.<\/p>\n

First, as Deborah describes the context of her own rise as God\u2019s agent, she reveals the prevailing state of Israel at the time in six statements:<\/p>\n

(1) The roads were deserted, and the caravan ro<\/span>utes that crisscrossed the country, especially across the Jezreel Valley, linking the Jews of the north with the Jews of the south, were disrupted so that the Jewish caravaners ceased to travel on their normal trade routes for fear of attack b<\/span>y Canaanites or to avoid the heavy tolls that they would have to pay to the Canaanites.<\/p>\n

(2) Instead of taking direct routes to their destinations, they had t<\/span>o take evasive side roads that were much harder to travel.<\/p>\n

(3) The villagers in Israel held back because they were afraid of attack by the enemy; and therefore they would not go out to the fields, wit<\/span>h the result that trade among the tribes of Israel came to a complete standstill.<\/p>\n

(4) With the arrival of Deborah there was a break in the crisis, for she was a mother in Israel<\/em>; if this was a technic<\/span>al term, it refers to her status as a prophetess; if this was a non-technical term, it means that she was a Jewish mother, in contrast to the Canaanite mother of Sisera, who plays a role in this song.<\/span><\/p>\n

(5) With the rise of new leaders, it was time to go on the offensive.<\/p>\n

(6) Finally, Israel lacked all the necessary weapons of war; and this lack of arms was another sign of their depressed state.<\/p>\n

Sec<\/span>ond, this third stanza of Deborah\u2019s song reminds that as greatly as Israel had been exalted at Mount Sinai by God, nevertheless, Israel just as deeply fell into bondage because of sin until she, Deborah,<\/span> rose up.<\/p>\n

Third, by way of summary, the third stanza of Deborah\u2019s song shows that Israel had forsaken the true God and chosen new gods, and the results were war, weakness, and servitude.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

e. Fourth Stanza: Praise of God\u20145:9\u201311<\/a><\/p>\n

9My heart is toward the governors of Israel,<\/p>\n

That offered themselves willingly among the people: Bless ye Jehovah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

10Tell of it, ye that ride on white asses,<\/p>\n

Ye <\/em>that sit on rich carpets<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And ye that walk by the way<\/em>.<\/p>\n

11Far from the noise of archers, in the places of drawing water,<\/p>\n

There shall they rehearse the righteous acts of Jehovah<\/em>,<\/p>\n

Even the righteous acts<\/em> of his rule in Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Then the people of Jehovah went down to the gates<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 9<\/a> extols the response of the new leaders: My heart is toward the governors of Israel, that offered themselves willingly<\/em> among the people<\/em>. The result was: Bless ye Jehovah<\/em>. The focus now is on the glorious change that took place in the situation in Israel just after Deborah appeared. As in verse 2<\/a>, she praises the leaders and the people for their response despite all the disadvantages.<\/p>\n

Verse 10<\/a> issues the call to all classes of Israelite society: the wealthy class\u2014ye that ride on white asses, ye that sit on rich ca<\/em>rpets<\/em>; and the poor classes\u2014ye that walk by the way<\/em>. In 5:3<\/a>, she had called upon the Canaanite kings to hear, but now she calls upon the whole of Jewish society to hear as well.<\/p>\n

In verse 11<\/a>, Deborah looks forward to recounting the righteous acts of God. The location for such a recounting is Far from the noise of archers<\/em>, meaning away from the battlefield, at a time when the war was over. It is in <\/em>the places of drawing water<\/em>, meaning at the watering places, where travelers gather for news and information. Then will come the act of recounting: There shall they rehearse the righteous acts of Jeho<\/em>vah, even the<\/em>righteous acts of his rule in Israel<\/em>. The introduction to the act of recounting is: Then the people of Jehovah went down to the gates<\/em>. This was the first step in actions taken by the people that showed the change. Initially they were afraid to go out to the gates<\/em>, but now they go down to the gates<\/em>. This serves as introduction to the more detailed account in the following verses. Only here in Judges is Israel called the people of Jehovah<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

f. Fifth Stanza: Response of the Tribes\u20145:12\u201318<\/a><\/p>\n

12Awake, awake, Deborah;<\/p>\n

Awake, awake, utter a song:<\/em><\/p>\n

Arise, Barak, and lead away your captives, you son of Abinoam<\/em>.<\/p>\n

13Then came down a remnant of the no<\/span>bles and the people;<\/p>\n

Jehovah came down for me against the mighty<\/em>.<\/p>\n

14Out of Ephraim came down they whose root is in Amalek;<\/p>\n

After you, Benjamin, among your peoples<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Out of Machir came down governors<\/em>,<\/p>\n

A<\/em><\/span>nd out of Zebulun they that handle the marshal\u2019s staff<\/em>.<\/p>\n

15And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah;<\/p>\n

As was Issachar, so was Barak<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Into the valley they rushed forth at his feet<\/em>.<\/p>\n

By the watercours<\/em><\/span>es of Reuben<\/em><\/p>\n

There were great resolves of heart<\/em>.<\/p>\n

16Why sat you among the sheepfolds,<\/p>\n

To hear the pipings for the flocks?<\/em><\/p>\n

At the watercourses of Reuben<\/em><\/p>\n

There were great searchings of heart<\/em>.<\/p>\n

17Gilead ab<\/span>ode beyond the Jordan:<\/p>\n

And Dan, why did he remain in ships?<\/em><\/p>\n

Asher sat still at the haven of the sea<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And abode by his creeks<\/em>.<\/p>\n

18Zebulun was a people that jeoparded their lives unto the death,<\/p>\n

And Naph<\/em><\/span>tali, upon the high places of the field<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 12<\/a> introduces the two leaders: Deborah, Awake, awake, Deborah; Awake, awake, utter a song<\/em>; and Barak, Arise, Barak, and lead away your captives, you son <\/em><\/span>of Abinoam<\/em>. This verse serves as an introduction to the second part of the song. Deborah<\/em> calls upon herself to strike up a song and calls upon Barak<\/em> to lead away his prisoners of war. It is Barak<\/em> who <\/span>is called to arise because he is the deliverer. But Deborah<\/em> plays the most important role, not as the deliverer, but as the prophetess; for as the prophetess, she represents the presence of the voice <\/span>of God.<\/p>\n

Verse 13<\/a> records the response of Israel and of God to the call to war. Concerning Israel: Then came down a remnant of the nobles and the people<\/em>. Concerning God: Jehovah came down for me agains<\/em><\/span>t the mighty<\/em>. God is viewed here as summoning the enemies of Israel for this war. This marks the turning point in the struggle with the oppressor.<\/p>\n

In verses 14<\/a> to 18<\/a>, Deborah describes the specific tr<\/span>ibal responses both positively and negatively. She begins with Ephraim: Out of Ephraim came down they whose root is in Amalek<\/em>. The Masoretic Hebrew Text10<\/a> literally reads, \u201cFrom Ephraim their root in<\/span> Amalek,\u201d and as such would carry the meaning, \u201cFrom Ephraim came those whose root was in Amalek.\u201d This does not coincide with the rest of Scripture. This may have been a scribal error. Perhaps Amalek<\/span><\/span> should read Emek<\/span>, meaning \u201cvalley,\u201d which would make the most sense in this context. The intent of the Hebrew, then, would be that from Ephraim they sprang forth into the valley. It is a reference to<\/span> the brave descent of the Ephraimites into the Valley of Jezreel to engage the forces of Sisera. Ephraim was Deborah\u2019s own tribe.<\/p>\n

The recounting of the tribes continues in verses 14<\/a> to 18<\/a>. Benjamin is<\/span> mentioned next: After you, Benjamin, among your peoples<\/em>; followed by Manasseh: Out of Machir came down governors<\/em>. Machir<\/em> here does not just stand for the family of Machir<\/em>, but for the Tribe of Manass<\/span>eh, because Machir<\/em> was Manasseh\u2019s only son. More specifically, Machir<\/em> stands for that part of the Tribe of Manasseh located on the west side of the Jordan. Zebulun: And out of Zebulun they that handle<\/em><\/span> the marshal\u2019s staff<\/em>. This tribe contributed the military leaders and was assigned territory in the Jezreel Valley where the battle took place. Then Issachar is mentioned: And the princes of Issachar <\/em><\/span>were with Deborah<\/em>. The leaders of this tribe were a protective escort for Deborah<\/em>. As was Issachar, so was Barak: Into the valley they rushed forth at his feet<\/em>. The soldiers of this tribe stayed close<\/span> to Barak<\/em> in the attack. The Tribe of Issachar<\/span> had also been given territory in the Jezreel Valley. Deborah then comments on Reuben: By the watercourses of Reuben There were great resolves of heart. W<\/em><\/span>hy did you sit among the sheepfolds, to hear the pipings for the flocks? At the watercourses of Reuben There were great searchings of heart<\/em>. Reuben<\/span> was resolute, but resolute in his refusal to partici<\/span>pate. He is pictured as sitting around the campfire entertained by musicians, indifferent to the plight of his brethren. Toward the end, Reuben\u2019s tribe had second thoughts but still ended up doing nothing. Similarly: <\/span>Gilead abode beyond the Jordan<\/em>; they did not participate either. This might be a reference to Eastern Manasseh, or it might be a reference to the Tribe of Gad, or both. Regarding Dan,<\/span> the text asks, And Dan, why did he remain in ships?<\/em> This may imply that the migration of Dan<\/em> took place before Deborah, and the Danites had amalgamated somewhat with the sea-faring Phoenicians. But m<\/span>ore likely Dan<\/em> was still in the south, too entrenched in the shipping industry with the Phoenicians, as their clients, to participate in an anti-Canaanite war, since the Phoenicians were Canaanites. O<\/span>f Asher it is recorded: Asher sat still at the haven of the sea, and abode by his creeks<\/em>. Asher<\/em> preferred the beaches and harbors to the battlefields. Regarding Zebulun, Zebulun was a people that jeop<\/em><\/span>arded their lives unto the death<\/em>. This tribe is now mentioned for the second time in Deborah\u2019s song and is given a special place of honor for their bravery. Zebulun<\/em> had the most to gain since their te<\/span>rritory was in the Jezreel Valley. Naphtali concludes Deborah\u2019s roll call: And Naphtali, upon the high places of the field<\/em>. This was Barak\u2019s tribe, and they did participate in the battle.<\/p>\n

The Tribes o<\/span>f Judah and Simeon are not mentioned as participants in the war or chastised for staying away. This might imply that they were busy fighting the Philistines and therefore could not send a fighting for<\/span>ce for Barak. If so, since they were already fighting the enemies of Israel, they would not be chastised for not sending a force.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>g. Sixth Stanza: Defeat of the Canaanites\u20145:19\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n

19The kings came and fought;<\/p>\n

Then fought the kings of Canaan<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In Taanach by the waters of Megiddo:<\/em><\/p>\n

They took no gain of money<\/em>.<\/p>\n

20From heaven fought th<\/span>e stars,<\/p>\n

From their courses they fought against Sisera<\/em>.<\/p>\n

21The river Kishon swept them away,<\/p>\n

That ancient river, the river Kishon<\/em>.<\/p>\n

O my soul, march on with strength<\/em>.<\/p>\n

22Then did the horsehoofs stamp<\/p>\n

By <\/em><\/span>reason of the prancings, the prancings of their strong ones<\/em>.<\/p>\n

23Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of Jehovah.<\/p>\n

Curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof<\/em>,<\/p>\n

Because they came not to the help of Jehovah<\/em>,<\/p>\n

To th<\/em><\/span>e help of Jehovah against the mighty<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 19<\/a> describes the Canaanite forces: The kings came and fought; Then fought the kings of Canaan. In Taanach by the waters of Megiddo: They took no gain of mon<\/em><\/span>ey<\/em>. The text means that these were not mercenary troops, but ethnic Canaanite armies. The cities of Taanach<\/em> and Megiddo<\/em> were at the western end of the Jezreel Valley. This shows that Barak\u2019s forces cr<\/span>ossed the whole valley from the eastern side. Also at the western end flowed the Kishon River, which would prove to be an enemy to the Canaanites.<\/p>\n

Verse 20<\/a> describes the role of the stars: From heaven<\/em><\/span> fought the stars, From their courses they fought against Sisera<\/em>. If this refers literally to the heavens and to literal stars, it would mean that the weather was in Israel\u2019s favor. But, if the \u201cheave<\/span>n\u201d and \u201cstars\u201d are being used symbolically, it would refer to angels engaged in a war on behalf of Israel in the heavenly realms. In context, both statements could be true.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Deborah\u2019s song continues (v<\/span>. 21<\/a>) by describing the role of the River Kishon: The river Kishon swept them away, That ancient river, the river Kishon<\/em>. The likely meaning is that Kishon<\/em> overflowed its banks, causing the field of b<\/span>attle to become muddy, and rendering the Canaanites\u2019 chariots useless. This flood neutralized the chariot force, which was the principle main military advantage the Canaanites had over Israel. The occurrence of a flood also would explain why Sis<\/span>era fled on foot, since normally he could escape faster if he had a chariot but not if his chariot were stuck in the mud. Hence the refrain: O my soul, mar<\/em><\/span>ch on with strength<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 22<\/a> describes the flight of the Canaanite cavalry: Then did the horsehoofs stamp By reason of the prancings, the prancings of their strong ones<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 23<\/a> records the failure <\/span>of Meroz, beginning with the curse: Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of Jehovah, Curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof<\/em>. The reason given is: Because they came not to the help of Jehovah, To the help<\/em><\/span> of Jehovah against the mighty<\/em>. This is the only mention of the town of Meroz<\/em> in Scripture. It was an Israelite city that failed to do its duty. They sided with the Canaanites and let those fleeing th<\/span>rough Meroz escape when they should have blocked their path and put them to death. As mentioned earlier, they were all killed with a few exceptions, as detailed below.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

h. Seventh Stanza: Praise of Jael\u20145:24\u201327<\/a><\/p>\n

24Blessed above women shall Jael be,<\/p>\n

The wife of Heber the Kenite<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Blessed shall she be above women in the tent<\/em>.<\/p>\n

25He asked water, and she gave him milk;<\/p>\n

She <\/em>brought him butter in a lordly dish<\/em>.<\/p>\n

26She put her hand to the tent-pin,<\/p>\n

And her right hand to the workmen\u2019s hammer<\/em>;<\/p>\n

And with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote through his head<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Yea, she pierced <\/em>and struck through his temples<\/em>.<\/p>\n

27At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay;<\/p>\n

At her feet he bowed, he fell<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Where he bowed, there he fell down dead<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verse 24<\/a> pronounces the blessing of Jael: Blessed above<\/em><\/span> women shall Jael be, The wife of Heber the Kenite; Blessed shall she be above women in the tent<\/em>. While the Israelite city Meroz failed to do its duty, the Gentile Jael<\/em> did not fail. While the Israeli<\/span>te city Meroz took the side of the Canaanites, the Gentile Jael<\/em> took the side of Israel, going against even her husband. It should be observed that there is no condemnation of Jael\u2019s actions whatsoeve<\/span>r, only praise. There are many commentaries that condemn her for her actions of deception; totally ignoring that at wartime, deception of the enemy is part of the rules of war. However, there are no words of condemnation of her actions in the text. The text praises her, and one should not let his or her own subjective misjudgment color<\/span> their thinking about certain biblical characters.<\/p>\n

In verse 25<\/a>,<\/span> Deborah describes the entrapment of Sisera: He asked water, and she gave him milk<\/em>. The milk<\/em> may have been yogurt or curds, but the word can refer to any milk product: She brought him butter in a lord<\/em><\/span>ly dish<\/em>, a magnificent bowl, showing that she was treating him as royalty.<\/p>\n

Verse 26<\/a> describes the slaying of Sisera: She put her hand to the tent-pin, And her right hand to the workmen\u2019s hammer; And w<\/em><\/span>ith the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote through his head; Yea, she pierced and struck through his temples<\/em>. The Hebrew text uses four different, but similar-sounding words for striking. In Hebrew th<\/span>ey sound as follows: chalmah<\/span>, machakah<\/span>, (a hapax-legomenona<\/span>, or word used only once in the Hebrew Bible), machatzah<\/span>, and chalphah<\/span>. The English reads \u201csmote, smote, pierced, and struck.\u201d<\/p>\n

Deborah procla<\/span>ims the death of Sisera in verse 27<\/a>: At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay; At her feet he bowed, he fell: Where he bowed, there he fell down dead<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

i. Eighth Stanza: Mother of Sisera\u20145:28\u201330<\/a><\/p>\n

28Through the window she looked forth, and cried,<\/p>\n

The mother of Sisera cried through the lattice<\/em>,<\/p>\n

Why is his chariot so long in coming?<\/p>\n

Why tarry the wheels of his chariots?<\/p>\n

29Her wise ladies answered her,<\/p>\n

Yea, she returned answer to herself,<\/p>\n

30Have they not found, have they not divided the spoil?<\/p>\n

A damsel, two damsels to every man<\/em>;<\/p>\n

To Sisera a spoil of dyed garments,<\/p>\n

A spoil of dyed garments embroidered,<\/p>\n

Of dyed garments embroidered on both sides, on the necks of the spoil?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 28<\/a> describes the concern of Sisera\u2019s mother. Sisera was the Canaanites\u2019<\/span> Commander-in-Chief. His mother\u2019s sense of anxiety is pictured as follows: Through the window she looked forth, and cried, The mother of Sisera cried through the lattice<\/em>. What follows is the content o<\/span>f her cry: Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why tarry the wheels of his chariots<\/em>?<\/p>\n

Verses 29<\/a> to 30<\/a> record the response of the ladies of the Canaanite court: Her wise ladies answered her<\/em> (v. 29<\/a>). T<\/span>he phrase: Yea, she returned answer to herself<\/em>, means she convinced herself that what they said was true. The reason they gave her is expressed in the very next verse (v. 30<\/a>): Have they not found, hav<\/em><\/span>e they not divided the spoil? A damsel, two damsels to every man<\/em>. The Hebrew literally reads: \u201cA womb, a pair of wombs for each man.\u201d These are sexual expressions. They reflect the realities of war fo<\/span>r the victorious soldiers. The women of vanquished foes were used primarily for sexual gratification\u2014for rape or to become sex slaves. This woman\u2019s loyalty to her son and her people overshadowed her loyalty to her gender as a group. And then: <\/span>To Sisera a spoil of dyed garments, A spoil of dyed garments embroidered, Of dyed garments embroidered on both sides, on the necks of the spoil?<\/em> The Hebrew t<\/span>ext has two different expressions for garments<\/em>: first, a colorful garment as plunder, and second, a garment, double-embroidered, for the neck of the spoiler. The reason given to the mother as to why h<\/span>er son had not yet returned is that they are gathering the spoils, and they are gathering the women. She will eventually realize that the real reason is that her son is dead.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

j. Ninth Stanza: Conclusion\u20145:31a<\/a><\/p>\n

So let all your enemies perish, O Jehovah:<\/em><\/p>\n

But let them that love him be as the sun when he goes forth in his might<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deborah\u2019s song concludes with two petitions addressed to God. First: So let all your enemies perish, O Jehovah<\/em>. This assumes that those who fight against Israel also fight against God and is in keeping with the cursing aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, \u201cI will curse them that curse you.\u201d Second: But let them that love him be as the sun when he goes forth in his might<\/em>. Deborah prays for vindication and victory for those who love God; that is, for those who are covenantally committed to God in keeping with Exodus 20:5\u20136<\/a> and who express their commitment by obedience. May they be like the sun when it rises in its full force.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>6. Rest\u20145:31b<\/a><\/p>\n

And the land had rest forty years.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>E. Fifth Cycle: Gideon\u20146:1\u20139:57<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. Sin\u20146:1a<\/a><\/p>\n

And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah: \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Oppression: The Midianites\u20146:1b\u20136<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2026 1band Jehovah delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years. 2And the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel; and because of Midian the children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains, and the caves, and the strongholds. 3And so it was, when Israel had sown, that the Midianites came up, and the Amalekites, and the children of the east; they came up against them; 4and they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the earth, till you come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance in Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass. 5For they came up with their cattle and their tents; they came in as locusts for multitude; both they and their camels were without number: and they came into the land to destroy it. 6And Israel was brought very low because of Midian; and the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah.<\/p>\n

Verse 1b<\/a> spells out the divine judgment against Israel and the means: and Jehovah delivered them into the hand of Midian<\/em>. The Midianites were descendants of Abraham and Keturah (Gen. 25:2<\/a>), and they were involved in the sale of Joseph to Egypt (Gen. 37:25\u201336<\/a>). They were defeated by Israel in Numbers 25:6\u201318<\/a>. But now, two centuries later, they had renewed their strength. One branch of the Midianites was the Kenites; Moses found shelter with them and married one of them; and the Kenites journeyed with Israel into the Promised Land. But the other clans of Midian<\/em> were not pro-Israel. The duration of the oppression by Midian<\/em> was seven years<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Judges 6:2<\/a> describes the severity of the oppression. The Hebrew word used is minh<\/span><\/span>arot<\/span>, a hapax-legomenon<\/span> (word used only once in the Hebrew Bible), of mountainous ravines, hollowed out by wadis<\/span>, which Israel would use to hide themselves or their possessions and necessary supplies.<\/span> The Midianites were more interested in plundering rather than exterminating the residents. Because the Midianites were nomadic, or Bedouin by nature, they had no desire for permanent settlement in the Land. They came after the produce of the land, not after the land itself or the inhabi<\/span>tants. In the face of these raids, the Israelites hid their produce in the caves and the strongholds.<\/p>\n

Verses 3<\/a> t<\/span>o 5<\/a> detail the Midianites\u2019 method of oppression. Verse 3<\/a> gives the timing: And so it was, when Israel had sown, that the Midianites came up, and the Amalekites, and the children of the east<\/em>. With the <\/span>Midianites<\/em> came the Amalekites<\/span>, who had already been a problem in 3:13<\/a>, where they were also described as allied with Eglon. Another allied group is listed: the children of the east<\/em>. These were Bedoui<\/span>n raiders whose use of camels enabled them to take waterless journeys of several days, which early nomads on donkeys simply could not do. Verse 4<\/a> describes their strategy: and they encamped against th<\/em><\/span>em, and destroyed the increase of the earth, till you come unto Gaza<\/em>. Gaza<\/span> marked the southern end of the Land. What they could not take with them as plunder, they destroyed: and<\/em> [they] left no susten<\/em><\/span>ance in Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass<\/em>. Their method, according to verse 5<\/a>, was to swarm the land: For they came up with their cattle and their tents; they came in as locusts for multitude; bo<\/em><\/span>th they and their camels were without number<\/em>. The purpose of the Midianite migration was clear: they came into the land to destroy it<\/em>, by sheer force of numbers.<\/p>\n

Verse 6<\/a> concludes with two results: Is<\/em><\/span>rael was brought very low because of Midian<\/em>; and, the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

3. Israel\u2019s Cry and the Prophetic Response\u20146:7\u201310<\/a><\/p>\n

7And it came to pass, when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah because of Midian, 8that Jehovah sent a prophet unto the children of Israel: and he said unto them, Thus says Jehovah, the God of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you forth out of the house of bondage; 9and I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all that oppressed you, and drove them out from before you, and gave you their land; 10and I said unto you, I am Jehovah your God; ye shall not fear the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell. But you have not hearkened unto my voice.<\/p>\n

Following the cry of verse 7<\/a> came a prophetic response in verses 8<\/a> to 10<\/a>. In rabbinic tradition, this prophet<\/em> was Phinehas the High Priest, which, if true, would mean that he would have lived a very long time! The message of the unnamed prophet<\/em> was a reminder of what God did for Israel in the Exodus and the Conquest. Israel\u2019s obligation was faith, loyalty, and obedience, but the prophet concluded by pointing out Israel\u2019s failure: But you have not hearkened unto my voice<\/em>. The point of the prophet\u2019s message was this: In light of all that God did for Israel, it was simply not too much to ask for exclusive allegiance to this God. All this set the stage for the call of Gideon.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. Call of Gideon\u20146:11\u201324<\/a><\/p>\n

11And the angel of Jehovah came, and sat under the oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites. 12And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him, and said unto him, Jehovah is with you, you mighty man of valor. 13And Gideon said unto him, Oh, my lord, if Jehovah is with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where are all his wondrous works which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not Jehovah bring us up from Egypt? but now Jehovah has cast us off, and delivered us into the hand of Midian. 14And Jehovah looked upon him, and said, Go in this your might, and save Israel from the hand of Midian: have not I sent you? 15And he said unto him, Oh, Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is the poorest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father\u2019s house. 16And Jehovah said unto him, Surely I will be with you, and you shall smite the Midianites as one man. 17And he said unto him, If now I have found favor in your sight, then show me a sign that it is you that speaks with me. 18Depart not hence, I pray you, until I come unto you, and bring forth my present, and lay it before you. And he said, I will tarry until you come again.<\/p>\n

19And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of meal: the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it. 20And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so. 21Then the angel of Jehovah put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there went up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and the angel of Jehovah departed out of his sight. 22And Gideon saw that he was the angel of Jehovah; and Gideon said, Alas, O Lord Jehovah! forasmuch as I have seen the angel of Jehovah face to face. 23And Jehovah said unto him, Peace be unto you; fear not: you shall not die. 24Then Gideon built an altar there unto Jehovah, and called it Jehovah-shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 11<\/a> gives the circumstance: the appearance of the Angel of Jehovah: And the angel of Jehovah came, and sat under the oak, <\/em><\/span>which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite<\/em>. It was Ophrah<\/em>, and not the oak<\/em>, which pertained unto Joash<\/em>. Abiezer was a small family of the Tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 17:2<\/a>; Judg. 6:15<\/a>; 1<\/span> Chron. 7:18<\/a>). Joash<\/em> was the head of the family at that time, and as such was the lord or the owner of Ophrah<\/em> (Judges 6:24<\/a>), called Ophrah of the Abiezrites<\/em> to distinguish it from the Ophrah of Benjam<\/span>in located further south (Josh. 18:25<\/a>). After introducing the father and the clan, the text introduces the son, Gideon: and his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the winepress<\/em>. The name Gideon<\/em> means<\/span> \u201chacker\u201d or \u201chewer.\u201d The purpose of his threshing in the winepress<\/em> was: to hide it from the Midianites<\/em>. Normally, wheat is threshed on a slightly elevated flat area, so that the wind can blow the cha<\/span>ff away. The fact that Gideon\u2019s threshing took place in a wine press illustrated two aspects of the context of Judges 6:2<\/a>. First, threshing in a wine press would keep it out of view from the Midianite<\/span>s. Second, a wine press would provide very little room for a lot of wheat to be threshed, which shows the scarcity of the crop. Gideon also had a second name, which is revealed later.<\/p>\n

Judges 6:12<\/a> reve<\/span>als the angel\u2019s message: Jehovah is with you<\/em>. In light of the context, how can the Theophany11<\/a> claim that God is with him? The Theophany at this point is speaking prophetically, for He describes Gide<\/span>on as: you mighty man of valor<\/em>. Calling Gideon a mighty warrior is paradoxical, since he is trying to hide his activity of threshing the grain. But, again, the Theophany here is speaking prophetically<\/span> of what will be true of Gideon. He will prove to be a mighty man of valor<\/em>, and thus it will be shown that God was with him. In the Book of Judges, this term mighty man of valor<\/em> is used only of two pe<\/span>ople: Gideon, here, and Jephthah in 11:1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Verse 13<\/a> reveals Gideon\u2019s response, which began with a denial: Oh, my lord, if Jehovah is with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where are all his won<\/em><\/span>drous works which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not Jehovah bring us up from Egypt?<\/em> Gideon\u2019s perspective of the truth follows: but now Jehovah has cast us off, and delivered us into the hand of <\/em><\/span>Midian<\/em>. What Gideon said was true. God did deliver Israel into the Midianite hands; but he blames God for it, not Israel, to whom the blame belongs.<\/p>\n

Verse 14<\/a> presents God\u2019s response and commission: An<\/em><\/span>d Jehovah looked upon him<\/em>. This same Person, earlier, called the angel of Jehovah<\/em>, is now called Jehovah<\/em>, showing that this is a Theophany. The rabbis have had to deal with this, and the way they get <\/span>around this obvious problem, for them, of this angel of Jehovah<\/em> speaking as if he is indeed God, is as follows:<\/p>\n

The moment the angel uttered these words, the Spirit of God entered him. That is what is<\/span> meant by the words, \u201cGod turned to him.\u201d Even though Gideon still did not realize that it was an angel standing in front of him, he knew the words he was hearing came from God.12<\/a><\/p>\n

Gideon\u2019s response to<\/span> God\u2019s commission is given in verse 15<\/a> and begins with a rejection: Oh, Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel?<\/em> Only at this point did Gideon begin to perceive that the Speaker was really God, for he cha<\/span>nged the way he addressed the Speaker. In verse 13<\/a>, he called Him Adoni<\/em>, which does not by itself imply deity. But, now in verse 15<\/a>, Gideon called Him Adonai<\/em>, which clearly does mean deity. Here again<\/span>, the rabbis have to explain this away and do so as follows:<\/p>\n

Although Gideon still thought the angel was fully a prophet, he now realized that God was speaking through him. So he addressed his answer <\/span>to God. He uses almost the same words he used earlier. But now he used the holy form of the word \u201cLord,\u201d rather than the common one.13<\/a><\/p>\n

Gideon went on to give two reasons why he was not qualified to fu<\/span>lfill the commission. First, he states, behold, my family is the poorest in Manasseh<\/em>; and, second, he notes, I am the least in my father\u2019s house<\/em>. How then, he asks, could he be Israel\u2019s savior? It is <\/span>bad enough that his family is the poorest<\/em> family in the whole Tribe of Manasseh<\/em>. But, to make it even worse, Gideon himself happens to be the least<\/em> in his father\u2019s house.<\/p>\n

Verse 16<\/a> presents God\u2019s answe<\/span>r to him. God\u2019s role is to be with Gideon: And Jehovah said unto him, Surely I will be with you<\/em>. Gideon\u2019s role follows: and you shall smite the Midianites as one man<\/em>; that is, as if he were facing an <\/span>enemy of one, rather than a swarm of enemies.<\/p>\n

Verses 17<\/a> to 18a<\/a> record Gideon\u2019s request, which ends up being a request for a sign, the first of several such requests: then show me a sign that it is you<\/em><\/span> that speaks with me<\/em>. Gideon\u2019s request for a sign is driven by two things. The first is his desire to confirm God\u2019s favor on him, as expressed in the opening conditional clause. This request for confi<\/span>rmation reflects Gideon\u2019s uncertainty about his own relationship with the One speaking to him, the One Who is doing the commissioning. Second: Gideon wants to confirm God\u2019s presence with him in this venture. This relates to his commission, as he seeks confirmation that God will be with him and that he will receive the strength to defeat Midian as if they were one single man. Th<\/span>e lack of confidence that Gideon displays here will continue until verses <\/span>36<\/a> to 40<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Verse 18b<\/a> presents the speaker\u2019s agreement: And he said, I will tarry until you come again<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 19<\/a> describes the offering: a kid, and <\/em><\/span>unleavened cakes of an ephah of meal<\/em>, which would make the weight of it somewhere between 34 and 45 pounds, depending on which ephah<\/em> measure Gideon used. Either way, it is a rather large offering, mor<\/span>e so since the context is a time of great scarcity. All this was presented to the Person: and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 20<\/a>, the Angel of Jehovah instructed Gide<\/span>on what to do with the offering: And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth<\/em>. Gideon obeyed this command: And he di<\/em><\/span>d so<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 21<\/a>, the angel of Jehovah<\/em> fulfills the request for the sign: Then the angel of Jehovah put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes<\/em><\/span>, and there went up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes<\/em>. That God consumed<\/em> the meal that the worshipper brought shows that Gideon did find favor in the sight of the L<\/span>ord, thus addressing his personal concern. At that point, the angel of Jehovah departed out of his sight<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verse 22<\/a> records that these confirming events led to Gideon\u2019s fear. The basis of the fear was:<\/span> And Gideon saw that he was the angel of Jehovah<\/em>. He now realized that he had been talking to God. Consequently, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord Jehovah! forasmuch as I have seen the angel of Jehovah face t<\/em><\/span>o face<\/em>. All this shows that Gideon recognized that Jehovah<\/em> and the angel of Jehovah<\/em> were the same Person, since merely seeing an angel would not cause this kind of response on the part of a Jew.<\/p>\n

In ve<\/span>rse 23<\/a>, Gideon received God\u2019s assurance: positively, Peace be unto you<\/em>; and negatively, fear not<\/em>. This was followed by a promise: you shall not die<\/em>. In other words, Gideon had a commission to fulfill,<\/span> and he was immortal until that commission was fulfilled.<\/p>\n

This section concludes in verse 24<\/a>, with the memorial altar: Then Gideon built an altar there unto Jehovah, and called it Jehovah-shalom<\/em>. (Ado<\/em><\/span>nai Shalom<\/em>, meaning \u201cJehovah is Peace\u201d): unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abiezrites<\/em>. This means that it was still visible at the time the Book of Judges was written.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>b. Destruction of the Altar of Baal\u20146:25\u201332<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(1) Destruction\u20146:25\u201327<\/a><\/p>\n

25And it came to pass the same night, that Jehovah said unto him, Take your father\u2019s bullock, even the second bullock seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is by it; 26and build an altar unto Jehovah your God upon the top of this stronghold, in the orderly manner, and take the second bullock, and offer a burnt-offering with the wood of the Asherah which you shall cut down. 27Then Gideon took ten men of his servants, and did as Jehovah had spoken unto him: and it came to pass, because he feared his father\u2019s household and the men of the city, so that he could not do it by day, that he did it by night.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In verses 25<\/a> to 26<\/a>, Gideon was given a further command, which came to pass the same night<\/em>, meaning, the f<\/span>irst night after the call of Gideon. The divine command was to destroy the false altar. He was told: Take your father\u2019s bullock, even the second bullock seven years old<\/em>. The question here is: Is this <\/span>referring to a second animal, or the second-oldest animal in his father\u2019s possession, to account for the seven years of the subject? The Hebrew reads, \u201cThe bull of the bullocks,\u201d and this is an unusual construction in Hebrew, which <\/span>may intend to express a superlative, and therefore the prime bullock. The phrase, the second bullock<\/em>, comes from the root shanah<\/span>, which has a secondary root, meaning \u201ct<\/span>o be exalted\u201d or \u201cto be of high rank.\u201d So, it is not that there are two animals here, but one animal, which is a very superior animal. The fact that it is seven years old means that it is a very mature bull, again showing that only one anim<\/span>al is involved. Gideon was to use the bull to tear down the altar, which means it would have to be a mature and strong bull. The mission stated in Judges 6:23<\/a>, <\/span>that the animal was to be sacrificed, meant the animal had to be of the highest quality, the prize bull. The fact that it was seven years old<\/em> connects it with the seven years of oppression, since, nor<\/span>mally for sacrificial purposes, no animal was more than three years old. Thus, he was told to take a bull whose age was the same length of time as the oppression. He was to use the bull to destroy two things: first, to <\/span>throw down the altar of Baal that your father has<\/em>, showing that his own family had become idolatrous; second, and<\/em> [to] cut down the Asherah that is by it<\/em>. If God was going to use Gi<\/span>deon to deliver Israel, he must first remove from his own house the very element that brought on the divine judgment to begin with, which was idolatry. Then after destroying the false altar, Gideon was to build an altar to the t<\/span>rue God: and build an altar unto Jehovah your God upon the top of this stronghold, in the orderly manner, and take the second bullock, and offer a burnt-offering with the w<\/em><\/span>ood of the Asherah which you shall cut down<\/em>. All together there were four indignities against Baal<\/em> here: first, his altar was to be thrown down; second, an altar to the true God was to be built over t<\/span>he destroyed altar; third, a prime bull, the sacred animal in Baalism, was to be offered on this altar, being sacrificed, not to Baal<\/em>, but to the God of Israel; and, fourth, the Asherah<\/em> poles, which r<\/span>epresent Baal\u2019s consort, were to be used as the firewood for the sacrifice.<\/p>\n

Verse 27<\/a> records Gideon\u2019s obedience, which came in two stages: Then Gideon took ten men of his servants<\/em>, and, did as Jehovah<\/em><\/span> had spoken unto him<\/em>. He thus fulfilled all the requirements of verses 25<\/a> to 26<\/a>. He chose to do the deed by night: because he feared<\/em> his own family, his father\u2019s household<\/em>, and his own society, and th<\/em><\/span>e men of the city<\/em>. For that reason, so that he could not do it by day, that he did it by night<\/em>. He is still not the mighty man of valor predicted of him by the Angel of Jehovah. But that is coming.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n

(2) Response\u20146:28\u201332<\/a><\/p>\n

28And when the men of the city arose early in the morning, behold, the altar of Baal was broken down, and the Asherah was cut down that was by it, and the second bullock was offered upon the altar that was built. 29And they said one to another, Who has done this thing? And when they inquired and asked, they said, Gideon the son of Joash has done this thing. 30Then the men of the city said unto Joash, Bring out your son, that he may die, because he has broken down the altar of Baal, and because he has cut down the Asherah that was by it. 31And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye contend for Baal? Or will ye save him? he that will contend for him, let him be put to death while it is yet morning: if he be a god, let him contend for himself, because one has broken down his altar. 32Therefore on that day he called him Jerubbaal, saying, Let Baal contend against him, because he had broken down his altar.<\/p>\n

Verse 28<\/a> records the discovery of Gideon\u2019s actions.The men of the city arose early in the morning<\/em>, and discovered three things: first, the altar of Baal was broken down;<\/em> second, and the Asherah was cut down that was by it;<\/em> third, and the second bullo<\/em>ck was offered upon the altar that was built<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 29<\/a>, this was followed by the discovery of the person responsible for the act. First came the investigation: And they said one to another, Who has<\/em> done this thing?<\/em> And then came the discovery: And when they inquired and asked<\/em>, they said, Gideon the son of Joash had done this thing<\/em>. Note that Gideon had taken ten of his servants to help him in the act. But a secret known to ten men does not stay a secret very long.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 30<\/a> records the demand of the townsmen for Gideon to be put to death on two counts: first, because he has broken down the a<\/em><\/span>ltar of Baal<\/em>, and second, and because he has cut down the Asherah that was by it<\/em>. The fact that it was Jews who wanted to execute Gideon for tearing down the altar of Baal shows how far the Canaanizat<\/span>ion process of the people had progressed.<\/p>\n

Verse 31<\/a> presents Joash\u2019s refusal in two rhetorical questions he asks to show them the illogicality of their demand. First, he asked, Will you contend for Baa<\/em><\/span>l?<\/em> That is, are you going to plead (riv<\/span>) Baal\u2019s cause? Does Baal<\/em> need a defense attorney? Second, Joash continues, or will you save him<\/em>? Will you save (hoshia<\/span>) or shield Baal? Joash used the very same<\/span> word that is used in the Book of Judges of the judges who saved Israel. Men could save Israel, but this god could not even save his own altar. Instead of the people needing deliverance from a hostile god, this god <\/span>(Baal)<\/em> requires deliverance by the people. Joash\u2019s conclusion was: he that will contend for him, let him be put to death while it is yet morning<\/em>. In other words, if Baal is truly a god,<\/span> then he needs no human defense; but for one to defend a false god is to bring the death penalty upon himself: If he be a god, let him contend for himself, because one has broken down his altar<\/em>. Joash<\/span> seems to have been won over by his son\u2019s actions.<\/p>\n

In verse 32<\/a>, Gideon\u2019s new reputation led to Gideon\u2019s new name: Therefore on that day he called him Jerubbaal<\/em>. The new name was a combination of two H<\/span>ebrew words, yariv<\/span> and Baal<\/em>, meaning \u201cLet Baal fight\u201d or \u201cLet Baal argue.\u201d It carried the meaning of \u201cThe Baal Fighter,\u201d since he fought against Baal. From this point on in the narrative, the narrator<\/span> will refer to Gideon by both names. In 2 Samuel 11:21<\/a> he is called Jerubbesheth, since later, Bosheth<\/span>, meaning \u201cshame,\u201d became a nickname for Baal. Another example is how Eshbaal in 3 Chronicles 8:33<\/a><\/span> and 9:39<\/a> became Ishbosheth in 2 Samuel 2:8<\/a>. The reason Joash gave his son this name, Jerubbaal, is to reinforce his defense of his son against the men of the city. Basically Joash is saying, Let Baal<\/em><\/span> contend against him, because he has broken down his altar<\/em>.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n

c. Call to Arms\u20146:33\u201335<\/a><\/p>\n

33Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the children of the east assembled themselves together; and they passed over, and encamped in the valley of Jezreel. 34But the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Gideon; and he blew a trumpet; and Abiezer was gathered together after him. 35And he sent messengers throughout all Manasseh; and they also were gathered together after him: and he sent messengers unto Asher, and unto Zebulun, and unto Naphtali; and they came up to meet them.<\/p>\n

Verse 33<\/a> reveals the occasion, which is the next Midianite raid: Then all the Midianites and th<\/em>e Amalekites and the children of the east assembled themselves together<\/em>. By stating that they passed over<\/em>, the text means that they had crossed over the Jordan and encamped in the valley of Jezreel<\/em>. This was the largest and the most fertile valley in Israel. Ophrah, the home of Gideon, was at the very edge of this valley.<\/p>\n

Verse 34a<\/a> describes the divine empowerment: But the Spirit of Jehovah came u<\/em>pon Gideon<\/em>. The Hebrew word is lavash<\/em>, which means \u201cto clothe.\u201d So literally, Gideon was \u201cclothed\u201d with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit descended upon him and laid Himself around Gideon as if He were a coat of mail or armor, so that Gideon became invulnerable and invincible in his might (cf. 1 Chron. 12:18<\/a>; 2 Chron. 24:20<\/a>; Luke 24:49<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verses 34b<\/a> to 35<\/a> present Gideon\u2019s call to Israel, which came <\/span>in two stages. The first stage was the sounding of the trumpet in verse 34b<\/a>: and he blew a trumpet<\/em>. In Hebrew, the trumpet<\/em> is the shofar<\/span>, the ram\u2019s horn. The result was that Abiezer was gathered toget<\/em><\/span>her after him<\/em>. Abiezer<\/em> was Gideon\u2019s own clan. The second stage, in verse 35<\/a>, was the sending of the messengers, of which he sent out two groups. The first group went to Gideon\u2019s own tribe: And he sent<\/em><\/span> messengers throughout all Manasseh<\/em>. The result was that they also were gathered together after him<\/em>. The second group of messengers went to three more tribes of Israel: unto Asher, and unto Zebulun, a<\/em><\/span>nd unto Naphtali<\/em>. The result, again, was that they came up to meet them<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

d. Sign of the Fleece\u20146:36\u201340<\/a><\/p>\n

36And Gideon said unto God, If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have spoken, 37behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing-floor; if there be dew on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the ground, then shall I know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you have spoken. 38And it was so; for he rose up early on the morrow, and pressed the fleece together, and wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowlful of water. 39And Gideon said unto God, Let not your anger be kindled against me, and I will speak but this once: let me make trial, I pray you, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew. 40And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.<\/p>\n

Gideon actually requested two separate signs, with the first sign recorded in verses 36<\/a> to 38<\/a>. The basis for the request for these signs was Gideon\u2019s need for assurance: If you will sav<\/em>e Israel by my hand, as you have spoken<\/em>. He was still not the mighty man of valor<\/em> he had been prophesied to be. The first sign was to be as following: behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the thresh<\/em>ing-floor; if there be dew on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the ground<\/em>. The result would then be: then shall I know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you have spoken<\/em>. The miraculous nature of the sign lay in the fact that, normally, the moisture in the fleece would be absorbed into the ground beneath it. The presence of dew shows that the rain season had ended and the dew season had begun, with April being the month of change. The fact that Gideon was threshing wheat would put the event in the month of June. Gideon\u2019s request was fulfilled: And it was so<\/em>. In fact, the evidence was abundant: for he rose up early on the morrow, and pressed the fleece together, and wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowlful of water<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The second sign is recorded in verses 39<\/a> to 40<\/a>. After promis<\/span>ing I will speak but this once<\/em>, Gideon asked God for only one more sign of confirmation: let me make trial, I pray you, but this once with the fleece<\/em>. Gideon was seeking further assurance from God in <\/span>a moment of grave crisis. It may have occurred to him that since the threshing-floor was made up of bedrock, it therefore would not have absorbed the dew. Instead, he will now ask for a more striking <\/span>sign: let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew<\/em>. The miracle here was that, under ordinary circumstances, the ground would dry up more quickly than the saturated<\/span> wool. This request was also fulfilled: And God did so that night<\/em>, for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Although often used for that purpose, this passage is not a<\/span>n encouragement to use tests to find out the will of God. Believers often say that they had \u201cput out a fleece\u201d for the purpose of determining what the will of God is in their decision-making, but that is a faulty conclusion from this passage. Gideon did not p<\/span>ut the fleece out to determine God\u2019s will, since he already knew it; God had already told him what He wanted him to do. Gideon\u2019s use of the fleece was not a sign of his spirituality, but a sign of his very weak faith. It was not the sign of a mature believer, but a mark of an immature believer who had trouble believing what God had already told him.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

e. Division of the Armies\u20147:1<\/a><\/p>\n

Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and encamped beside the spring of Harod: and the camp of Midian was on the north side<\/em> of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This verse shows the arrangement of the opposing armies. The army of Israel was to the south of a long pass, and the Midianites were located due north, by the Hill of Moreh. The army of Israel was located beside the spring of Harod,<\/em> which bubbles out at the foot of Mount Gilboa. The Beth Shean Pass runs between the Hill of Moreh on the north and Mount Gilboa on the south, connecting the Jezreel Valley to the Jordan Valley. The phrase in the valley<\/em> refers to the Valley of Jezreel that had been won for Israel by Barak.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>f. Reduction of Gideon\u2019s Army\u20147:2\u20138<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>(1) First Reduction\u20147:2\u20133<\/a><\/p>\n

2And Jehovah said unto Gideon, The people that are with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine <\/span>own hand has saved me. 3Now therefore proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and trembling, let him return and depart from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twen<\/span>ty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.<\/p>\n

With the fleece, Gideon twice tested God; now God will test Gideon twice. The problem God identified was that: The people that are with you are to<\/em><\/span>o many for me to give the Midianites into their hand<\/em>. The reason was: lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, My own hand has saved me<\/em>. As 1 Samuel 14:6<\/a> teaches, it is no problem for God to s<\/span>ave by the many or by the few. So, in keeping with the law of Deuteronomy 20:8<\/a>, Gideon was to make the following declaration: Whosoever is fearful and trembling, let him return and depart<\/em>. The Hebrew <\/span>word for depart<\/em> is tzaphar<\/span>, a hapax<\/em>-legomenon<\/em> (word used only once in the Hebrew Bible), and they were to depart from mount Gilead<\/em>. This is probably a scribal error for Mount Gilboa, because that is a<\/span>ctually where they were. Ein Harod is at the foot of Mount Gilboa. The result was that twenty and two thousand<\/em> left and there remained ten thousand<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(2) Second Reduction\u20147:4\u20136<\/a><\/p>\n

4And Jehovah said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for you there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto you, This shall go with you, the same shall go with you; and of whomsoever I say unto you, This shall not go with you, the same shall not go. 5So he brought down the people unto the water: and Jehovah said unto Gideon, Every one that laps of the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, him shall you set by himself; likewise every one that bows down upon his knees to drink. 6And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, was three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.<\/p>\n

According to verse 4<\/a>, the remaining large numbers of men were still a problem. This led to the second test at the waters of Ein Harod, where God brought a separation between those who would stay to fight and those who would leave.<\/p>\n

The test in verses 5<\/a> to 6<\/a> is not always understood correctly. The text does not assume two conditions that represent two different groups of men, those who lap water like a dog and those who kneel to drink. The second clause is epexegetical of the first (explains the first clause). When He says, Every one that laps of the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, him shall you set by himself; likewise every one that bows down on his knees to drink, He is speaking of the same group of people. When these men go down to the stream to drink, they will have to get down on their knees, since it is not possible to drink any other way. The issue is not who kneels and who stands, but who will cup his hands and bring water to his mouth, and who will not. Those who bowed down on their knees to drink, but did not cup their hands to bring the water into their mouth, but put their faces into the water, were sent home. Those who lapped with their tongues as a dog laps, stayed. Thus, Gideon was given instruction on how to select men for his special cutting-edge forces. Those who were kept appeared to be the ones who bowed on their knees, but cupped their hands to bring up and drink the water from their hands, showing they were ready for any sudden attack. So Gideon was to divide the people by putting all those who lick the water with their tongues, as a dog licks, into one class, and all those who faced down to drink into another class. Those who knelt down and lifted the water to their mouths with their hands numbered three hundred. The rest put their faces down to drink. Those who lifted the water to their mouths with their hands represented the good soldiers who, upon reaching a brook before the battle, did not allow themselves time to fall down and satisfy their thirst in the most convenient manner. These good soldiers simply knelt, took up some water with their hands as they remained upright in their military armor to strengthen themselves for the battle, and then proceeded without delay against the foe. They remained watchful and prepared for any emergency. In conclusion, everybody knelt at Ein Harod. The difference was, upon kneeling, three hundred of them scooped up water with their hands. The rest put their faces in the water, and the latter were sent home. The first test (of voluntary release) eliminated the fearful. The second test (of readiness at the stream) eliminated the careless. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

(3) The Three Hundred\u20147:7\u20138<\/a><\/p>\n

7And Jehovah said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into your hand; and let all the people go every man unto his<\/span> place. 8So the people took victuals in their hand, and their trumpets; and he sent all the men of Israel every man unto his tent, but retained the three hundred men: and the camp of Midian was beneat<\/span>h him in the valley.<\/p>\n

God now declared: By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into your hand<\/em>. The rest were sent away: let all the people go every man unto hi<\/em><\/span>s place<\/em>. However, they were not sent home, but unto his tent<\/em>, meaning back to their base camp. They will be called in later to participate in the fighting, even though they will not participate in the<\/span> initial attack. This passage ends with the statement concerning the enemy: and the camp of Midian was beneath him in the valley<\/em>. This is a transitional statement setting the stage for what was about <\/span>to happen next.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>g. Spying Out of the Midianite Camp\u20147:9\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n

9And it came to pass the same night, that Jehovah said unto him, Arise, get you down into the camp; for I have delivered it into your hand. 10But if you fear<\/span> to go down, go you with Purah your servant down to the camp: 11and you shall hear what they say; and afterward shall your hands be strengthened to go down into the camp. Then went he down with Purah <\/span>his servant unto the outermost part of the armed men that were in the camp. 12And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like locusts for multitude;<\/span> and their camels were without number, as the sand which is upon the sea-shore for multitude. 13And when Gideon was come, behold, there was a man telling a dream unto his fellow; and he said, Behold, <\/span>I dreamed a dream; and, lo, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian, and came unto the tent, and smote it so that it fell, and turned it upside down, so that the tent lay flat. 14And hi<\/span>s fellow answered and said, This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel: into his hand God has delivered Midian, and all the host.<\/p>\n

Verses 9<\/a> to 11<\/a> record the sign to<\/span> Gideon that finally convinces him that he will defeat the Midianites. Here in verse 9<\/a>, God gave him both a command and a promise. The command was: Arise, get you down into the camp<\/em>. The promise was: <\/span>for I have delivered it into your hand<\/em>. Verses 10<\/a> to 11<\/a> provide for a circumstance: But if you fear to go down, go you with Purah your servant down to the camp<\/em>. The reason for this visit was: and you <\/em><\/span>shall hear what they say<\/em>. The result of the spying would be: and afterward shall your hands be strengthened to go down into the camp<\/em>. The fact that Gideon was fearful again shows that he was still not<\/span> a mighty man of valor. He is told to take his servant into the Midianite camp, and what he will hear will finally encourage him. Since he was afraid, this was exactly what Gideon did: Then went he do<\/em><\/span>wn with Purah his servant unto the outermost part of the armed men that were in the camp<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 12<\/a> records two reasons why Gideon might feel discouraged. The first was the sheer number of his enemy: A<\/em><\/span>nd the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like locusts for multitude<\/em>. The second was the resources and provisions of his enemy: and their camels wer<\/em><\/span>e without number, as the sand which is upon the sea-shore for multitude<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verses 13<\/a> to 14<\/a> record the account of the dream. Generally speaking, when God communicated with or through pagans, He would do <\/span>so by means of a dream. Only with Balaam did He use direct speech. But for people like Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Abimelech, He used dreams. The basic content of this dream was: lo, a cake of barley<\/em><\/span> bread tumbled into the camp of Midian<\/em>. The Hebrew word for cake<\/em> is tzilil<\/span>, another hapax-legomenon<\/span>. Barley<\/em> was the poor man\u2019s bread, and it represented Israel made poor by famine and the Midianites. <\/span>More specifically, it represented Gideon and his three hundred men. The cakes of barley came unto the tent<\/em>, which is the nomadic home of the Midianites, and smote it so that it fell, and turned it ups<\/em><\/span>ide down, so that the tent lay flat<\/em>. This symbolized the defeat of the Midianites by Gideon. Then came the interpretation: This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Isra<\/em><\/span>el: into his hand God has delivered Midian, and all the host<\/em>. The host<\/em> would also include the Amalekites and the Children of the East.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

h. Preparation for War\u20147:15\u201318<\/a><\/p>\n

15And it was so, when Gideon heard the telling of the dream, and the interpretation thereof, that he worshipped; and he returned into the camp of Israel, and said, Arise; for Jehovah has delivered into your hand the host of Midian. 16And he divided the three hundred men into three companies, and he put into the hands of all of them trumpets, and empty pitchers, with torches within the pitchers. 17And he said unto them, Look on me, and do likewise: and, behold, when I come to the outermost part of the camp, it shall be that, as I do, so shall ye do. 18When I blow the trumpet, I and all that are with me, then blow ye the trumpets also on every side of all the camp, and say, For Jehovah and for Gideon.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 15<\/a> describes the change in Gideon brought about by hea<\/span>ring the dream of the Midianite: And it was so, when Gideon heard the telling of the dream, and the interpretation thereof, that he worshipped<\/em>. He was now fully convinced that he would have victory ov<\/span>er the Midianites. Only now does he finally become the mighty man of valor. So, after he returned into the camp of Israel<\/em>, he issued the command: Arise; for Jehovah has delivered into your hand the ho<\/em><\/span>st of Midian<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 16<\/a> records the preparation for the attack. First came the division: And he divided the three hundred men into three companies<\/em>. Second came the military supplies. The Jewish Army ha<\/span>d to face the swarm of Midianites with just three things: trumpets<\/em>, and empty pitchers<\/em>, and torches<\/em>. The trumpets<\/em> were made of animal horns, which could be worn on the body, while the pitchers<\/em> and tor<\/em><\/span>ches<\/em> had to be carried. At the time the trumpets<\/em> were blown, the pitcher and the torch could be held temporarily in one hand. The empty pitchers<\/em> would be used to hide the light of the torches<\/em>. And fin<\/span>ally, the men were to go with torches within the pitchers<\/em>. The strategy was this: The sleeping enemy was to be surrounded on three sides, and the sudden exposure of light out of the darkness of the ni<\/span>ght, in conjunction with the loud sounds of three hundred trumpets<\/em>, would spread consternation and panic in the camp.<\/p>\n

Verses 17<\/a> to 18<\/a> begin: And he said unto them<\/em>, and contains Gideon\u2019s instructions, <\/span>which move from the general to the specific. The general instructions are in verse 17<\/a>: Look on me, and do likewise: and, behold, when I come to the outermost part of the camp, it shall be that, as I d<\/em><\/span>o, so shall ye do<\/em>. This led to the specific instructions in verse 18<\/a>, of which there are two. The first was: When I blow the trumpet, I and all that are with me<\/em> (i.e.<\/em>, the one hundred men with Gideon)<\/span>, then blow ye the trumpets also on every side of all the camp<\/em>. This instruction is to the two hundred not with Gideon. The second specific instruction was: and say, For Jehovah and for Gideon<\/em>. The ba<\/span>sic purpose was to make as much noise as possible (the trumpets sounded in surprise would have continued to sound). The goal was to confuse the enemy and convince them that they were surrounded by a very larg<\/span>e army. The basic sequence would be as follows: First, a blast of the trumpets; then, the crashing of the pitchers and exposing of the light in the darkness; followed by the battle cry; which was, in turn, followed by another blast of the trumpets; culminating with alternating shouts and trumpet blasts during the pursuit.<\/p>\n

i. Attack on Midian\u20147:19\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n

19So Gideon, and the hundred men that were with him, came unto the outermost part of the camp in the beginning of the middle watch, when they had but newly set the watch: a<\/span>nd they blew the trumpets, and broke in pieces the pitchers that were in their hands. 20And the three companies blew the trumpets, and broke the pitchers, and held the torches in their left hands, and<\/span> the trumpets in their right hands wherewith to blow; and they cried, The sword of Jehovah and of Gideon. 21And they stood every man in his place round about the camp; and all the host ran; and they s<\/span>houted, and put them to flight. 22And they blew the three hundred trumpets, and Jehovah set every man\u2019s sword against his fellow, and against all the host; and the host fled as far as Beth-shittah tow<\/span>ard Zererah, as far as the border of Abel-meholah, by Tabbath. 23And the men of Israel were gathered together out of Naphtali, and out of Asher, and out of all Manasseh, and pursued after Midian.<\/p>\n

Vers<\/span>e 19a<\/a> describes the Israelite approach on the enemy: So Gideon, and the hundred men that were with him, came unto the outermost part of the camp<\/em>. The timing of the attack was: in the beginning of the <\/em><\/span>middle watch<\/em>. The first watch went from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. The third watch extended from 2:00 to 6:00 a.m. The middle watch<\/em>, or second watch, went from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. They arrived at the begi<\/em><\/span>nning of the middle watch<\/em>, which would mean just about 10:00 p.m., at around the darkest time of the night. Furthermore, the Midianites had but newly set the watch<\/em>, meaning the sentries would have jus<\/span>t come on duty and their eyes were not fully adapted to the darkness as yet.<\/p>\n

Verses 19b<\/a> to 20<\/a> record the attack on the enemy, with verse 19b<\/a> giving the basics that they blew the trumpets, and broke in<\/em><\/span> pieces the pitchers that were in their hands<\/em>, followed by the five details of the attack in verse 20<\/a>. First, the three companies blew the trumpets;<\/em> second, and broke the pitchers<\/em>; and third, they hel<\/em><\/span>d the torches in their left hands<\/em>. Up to now, these torches had been hidden by the pitchers, but the torches are now revealed. Fourth, they held the trumpets in their right hands wherewith to blow<\/em>. An<\/span>d, fifth, they cried, The sword of Jehovah and of Gideon<\/em>. Sword<\/em> here was used figuratively for the battle because Israel, at this point, did not have swords. Only the Midianites had swords, which they<\/span> would now use against themselves. In this manner, when Israel comes upon the dead, they could take the swords from those who were slain. Adding his own name to God\u2019s Name: The sword of Jehovah and of<\/em><\/span> Gideon<\/em>, may have been the first step toward Gideon\u2019s own downfall, as will be seen as the story progresses.<\/p>\n

Verses 21<\/a> to 22<\/a> describe the battle, going again from the general to the specific. Verse 21<\/a><\/span> contains the general description: And they stood every man in his place round about the camp<\/em>, which concerns Israel. The Jewish Army stood still and did not enter the camp itself. There was no need b<\/span>ecause the confusion already caused was sufficient to win the battle. Hence, the text continues, concerning Midian, and all the host ran<\/em>. Concerning Gideon\u2019s men, they shouted<\/em>, and notes the resultant<\/span> effect on Midian, i.e.<\/em>, this put them to flight<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 22<\/a> then gives the detailed description of Israel\u2019s action: And they blew the three hundred trumpets<\/em>; and the result for Midian: Jehovah<\/em> set ever<\/em><\/span>y man\u2019s sword against his fellow, and against all the host<\/em>. The confusion and panic created by the surprise commotion from Gideon\u2019s men was divinely turned to massive infighting among Israel\u2019s enemies<\/span>. This self-destruction was followed by the flight: and the host fled<\/em>. They fled toward the southeast, down the Jordan Valley through the Beth Shean Pass, and eventually crossed to the east side of th<\/span>e Jordan River, as far as Beth-shittah toward Zererah, as far as the border of Abel-meholah, by Tabbath<\/em>. This incident was a biblical use of psychological warfare, and it resulted in bedlam. In this b<\/span>edlam the Midianites and their allies killed each other, ran, cried out, and fled.<\/p>\n

In verse 23<\/a>, the flight of the enemy led to the general call of Israel to arms: And the men of Israel were gathered t<\/em><\/span>ogether<\/em>, which included the three tribes of the original call: out of Naphtali, and out of Asher, and out of all Manasseh, and pursued after Midian<\/em>. There was now a general call to arms that may have <\/span>included the thousands who had left Gideon originally, since now this turned into a mopping-up operation, and so the fear was gone. Furthermore, the call definitely would have also included those who had recently been sent back to the camp\u2014those who, wh<\/span>ile not fearful, were not watchful.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The account of the gathering of the other reinforcements is temporarily interrupted by a parenthetical interlud<\/span>e in Judges 7:24<\/a> to 8:3<\/a>, and 8:4<\/a> will pick up from where 7:23<\/a> leaves off. So Judges 7:23<\/a> records the general call to arms, which calls back at least the men who were sent away earlier for drinking imp<\/span>roperly, and perhaps all those who were fearful earlier as well. Now, the fighting Jewish Army will be more than just the three hundred. However, what follows this call to arms will not be spelled out until <\/span>8:4<\/a>, which will continue the narrative. What immediately follows in 7:24<\/a> to 8:3<\/a> is a parenthetical interlude.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

j. Gideon\u2019s Call of Ephraim\u20147:24\u201325<\/a><\/p>\n

24And Gideon sent messengers throughout all the hill-country of Ephraim, saying, Come down against Midian, and take before them the waters, as far as Beth-barah, even the Jordan. So all the men of Ephraim were gathered together, and took the waters as far as Beth-barah, even the Jordan. 25And they took the two princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb; and they slew Oreb at the rock of Oreb, and Zeeb they slew at the winepress of Zeeb, and pursued Midian: and they brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon beyond the Jordan.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 24<\/a> records yet another call: And G<\/em><\/span>ideon sent messengers throughout all the hill-country of Ephraim<\/em>. The Tribe of Ephraim, which was not included in the original call, was now asked to join the fight, to Come down against Midian, and t<\/em><\/span>ake before them the waters, as far as Beth-barah, even the Jordan<\/em>, meaning the fords of the Jordan. The response was positive: So all the men of Ephraim were gathered together, and took the waters as <\/em><\/span>far as Beth-barah, even the Jordan<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 25<\/a> describes the slaughter of two Midianite princes. The first one was named Oreb<\/em>, which means \u201craven.\u201d The second was Zeeb<\/em>, which means \u201cwolf.\u201d They were exe<\/span>cuted in two different places: they slew Oreb at the rock of Oreb, and Zeeb they slew at the winepress of Zeeb<\/em>. The place names were obviously given after the execution to commemorate the fate of the <\/span>two Midianite leaders. This was still remembered many centuries later and mentioned in Psalm 83:11<\/a> and Isaiah 10:26<\/a>. The Ephraimites then delivered the heads to Gideon: and pursued Midian: and they br<\/em><\/span>ought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon beyond the Jordan<\/em>. As they pursued after the Midianites, they caught up to Gideon in the Trans-Jordan.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>k. Complaint of Ephraim\u20148:1\u20133<\/a><\/p>\n

1And the men of Ephraim said unto him, Why have you served us thus, that you called us not, when you went to fight with Midian? And they did chide with him sharply. 2And <\/span>he said unto them, What have I now done in comparison with you? Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer? 3God has delivered into your hand the princes of Midian<\/span>, Oreb and Zeeb: and what was I able to do in comparison with you? Then their anger was abated toward him, when he had said that.<\/p>\n

According to verse 1<\/a>, the Ephraimites were angry about three things: F<\/span>irst, they were not summoned in the original call of 6:35<\/a>; second, they were not involved in the primary rout of the Midianites; and third, they were called in at the last minute, when it was obvious <\/span>that the Midianites might escape through their territory. These actions were interpreted as a personal snub against the Tribe of Ephraim, which is why they complained so vehemently.<\/p>\n

In verses 2<\/a> to 3a<\/a>,<\/span> Gideon gave a soft answer: What have I now done in comparison with you? Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?<\/em> The contrast here is between the full grape ha<\/span>rvest and the gleanings of Ephraim\u2019s grapes. The full grape harvest was the initial victory at the Camp of Midian. The gleanings of Ephraim\u2019s grapes meant the mopping-up operations and the slaying of the two Midianite princes. The point was this: <\/span>The best that Abiezer<\/em> can produce is less than the scraps of Ephraim\u2019s table. The part played by Ephraim<\/em>, although less spectacular than the initial vict<\/span>ory of Abiezer<\/em>, was of decisive importance in the ultimate success of the campaign because if the fords of the Jordan had not been seized in time, the fruits of the initial success would have been los<\/span>t. Not only did they make sure that the campaign ended in success, it was they, and not Gideon, who captured the two key princes of the Midianites.<\/p>\n

Verse 3b<\/a> records their response: Then their anger wa<\/em><\/span>s abated toward him, when he had said that<\/em>. This is a good example of Proverbs 15:1<\/a>, which teaches: a soft answer turns away wrath<\/em>. The irony of the Gideon account is this: Some are so fearful that th<\/span>ey would rather not fight; while some are offended when they were not called to fight.<\/p>\n

The problem with Ephraim will arise again in Judges 12:1\u20136<\/a>, but then things will end up with far more tragic cons<\/span>equences. In the Book of Judges, the Ephraimites are presented as self-centered, factious, easily offended, and having an inflated estimation of their own importance within the nation itself.<\/p>\n

l. Mockery of Succoth\u20148:4\u20137<\/a><\/p>\n

4And Gideon came to the Jordan, and passed over, he, and the three hundred men that were with him, faint, yet pursuing. 5And he said unto the men of Succoth, Give, I pray y<\/span>ou, loaves of bread unto the people that follow me; for they are faint, and I am pursuing after Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian. 6And the princes of Succoth said, Are the hands of Zebah and Za<\/span>lmunna now in your hand, that we should give bread unto your army? 7And Gideon said, Therefore when Jehovah has delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into my hand, then I will tear your flesh with the thorns o<\/span>f the wilderness and with briers.<\/p>\n

Verse 4<\/a> picks up the narrative from Judges 7:23<\/a>, where there was the general call to arms: And Gideon came to the Jordan, and passed over, he, and the three hundred m<\/em><\/span>en that were with him, faint, yet pursuing<\/em>. They were tired from the fight and the pursuit, but still moving.<\/p>\n

Verse 5<\/a> records the request: And he said unto the men of Succoth, Give, I pray you, loaves<\/em><\/span> of bread unto the people that follow me<\/em>. Gideon gave two reasons. The first reason was, for they are faint<\/em>; his men were war-weary from the fight so far. Second, I am pursuing after Zebah and Zalmunn<\/em><\/span>a, the kings of Midian<\/em>; Gideon\u2019s troops needed strength for the pursuit still ahead.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verse 6<\/a>, in turn, records the response of Succoth: And the princes of Succoth said, Are the hands of Zebah and Zalm<\/em><\/span>unna now in your hand, that we should give bread unto your army?<\/em> In other words, they demand victory prior to providing the supplies, just in case Gideon fails and the Midianites would take vengeance <\/span>on Succoth<\/em>. This verse shows that the cohesiveness between the Cis-Jordanian and the Trans-Jordanian tribes found in the Book of Joshua has by now broken down; they do not see themselves as one people<\/span> anymore.<\/p>\n

In verse 7<\/a>, Gideon responds to the princes of Succoth with a threat: Therefore when Jehovah has delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into my hand, then I will tear your flesh<\/em>. The Hebrew word for te<\/em><\/span>ar<\/em> means, \u201cthresh,\u201d \u201cI will thresh your flesh\u201d with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers<\/em>. The threat may mean one of two things. One possibility is that he threatens to drag them over thorns<\/em> a<\/span>s a threshing sledge is dragged over grain. The second possibility is that Gideon intended to lay them upon thorns<\/em> and thresh them by drawing threshing sledges over them. Either way, the result would <\/span>be death.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

m. Mockery of Penuel\u20148:8\u20139<\/a><\/p>\n

8And he went up thence to Penuel, and spoke unto them in like manner; and the men of Penuel answered him as the men of Succoth had answered. 9And he spoke also unto the men of Penuel, saying, When I come again in peace, I will break down this tower.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 8<\/a> records another request by Gideon, followed by a refusal. He made the same request of Penuel as he did of Succoth f<\/span>or the same reasons, but this was followed by the same refusal for the same reason. As a result, there is another threat in verse 9<\/a>: When I come again in peace, I will break down this tower<\/em>. The tower<\/em><\/span> was the stronghold, which formed a refuge in time of danger for the inhabitants of an unwalled town.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

n. Capture of Zebah and Zalmunna\u20148:10\u201312<\/a><\/p>\n

10Now Zebah and Zalmunna were in Karkor, and their hosts with them, about fifteen thousand men, all that were left of all the host of the children of the east; for there fell a hundred and twenty thousand men that drew sword. 11And Gideon went up by the way of them that dwelt in tents on the east of Nobah and Jogbehah, and smote the host; for the host was secure. 12And Zebah and Zalmunna fled; and he pursued after them; and he took the two kings of Midian, Zebah and Zalmunna, and discomfited all the host.<\/p>\n

Verse 10<\/a> deals with the location and disposition of the Midianite Army. The place Zebah and Zalmunna<\/em> had retreated to was Karkor,<\/em> which is about one hundred miles east of the Dead Sea, very close to the Midianite homeland, and this shows just how far their pursuit went in spite of the lack of provisions from Succoth and Penuel. The number of the enemy was now about fifteen thousand men, all that were left of all the host of the children of the <\/em>east<\/em>. That there fell a hundred and twenty thousand men that drew the sword<\/em>, shows how many were slaughtered by fighting, by Gideon\u2019s army, or by the other tribes like Ephraim. This also confirms where and how (that is, at the initial battle with the Midianites) that the three hundred and others were able to get the swords they now fight with.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 11<\/a> records the defeat of the army by stating: An<\/em><\/span>d Gideon went up by the way of them that dwelt in tents<\/em>. This means he went by the road used by the nomads and the caravans: on the east of Nobah and Jogbehah<\/em>. This is followed by a statement of victo<\/span>ry: and smote the host<\/em>. The reason for success was, for the host was secure<\/em>, showing that this too was a surprise attack, since the Midianites did not expect Israel\u2019s pursuit to extend this far south,<\/span> so close to their own home territory.<\/p>\n

Verse 12<\/a> concludes with Gideon\u2019s capture of the kings of Midian: and he took the two kings of Midian, Zebah and Zalmunna<\/em>, and with the victory: and discomfited a<\/em><\/span>ll the host<\/em>. The Hebrew for discomfited<\/em> means \u201cto terrify.\u201d All this inspired new panic among the enemy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

o. Punishment of Succoth\u20148:13\u201316<\/a><\/p>\n

13And Gideon the son of Joash returned from the battle from the ascent of Heres. 14And he caught a young man of the men of Succoth, and inquired of him: and he described for him the princes of Succoth, and the elders thereof, seventy and seven men. 15And he came unto the men of Succoth, and said, Behold Zebah and Zalmunna, concerning whom ye did taunt me, saying, Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand, that we should give bread unto your men that are weary? 16And he took the elders of the city, and thorns of the wilderness and briers, and with them he taught the men of Succoth.<\/p>\n

Verse 13<\/a> records the return of Gideon: And Gideon the son of Joash returned from the battle from the ascent of Heres<\/em> or Maaleh-Heres.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 14<\/a> explains how Gideon was a<\/span>ble to get a list of all seventy-seven names of the elders of Succoth, the decision-making body of the city.<\/p>\n

In verse 15<\/a>, Gideon reminds the elders of their own words: concerning whom ye did taunt me,<\/em><\/span> saying, Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand, that we should give bread unto your men that are weary?<\/em><\/p>\n

Gideon then fulfills the threat of Judges 8:7<\/a>, the punishment of verse 16<\/a>: And he<\/em><\/span> took the elders of the city, and thorns of the wilderness and briers, and with them he taught the men of Succoth<\/em>. It was a literally painful object lesson, for this action led to their very painful d<\/span>eath.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>p. Punishment of Penuel\u20148:17<\/a><\/p>\n

And he broke down the tower of Penuel, and slew the men of the city<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Then Gideon fulfilled his threat to Penuel in Judges 8:9<\/a> by doing two things. First: he broke down the<\/em><\/span> tower of Penuel<\/em>, which is what he originally threatened to do. Second: he slew the men of the city<\/em>. Gideon\u2019s actions went beyond the original threat but would make it equal to what he did in Succoth.<\/span> The irony is that Gideon does to a Jewish city what should have by now been done to all the Canaanites.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

q. Execution of Zebah and Zalmunna\u20148:18\u201321<\/a><\/p>\n

18Then said he unto Zebah and Zalmunna, What manner of men were they whom ye slew at Tabor? And they answered, As you are, so were they; each one resembled the children of a king. 19And he said, They were my brethren, the sons of my mother: as Jehovah lives, if ye had saved them alive, I would not slay you. 20And he said unto Jether his first-born, Up, and slay them. But the youth drew not his sword; for he feared, because he was yet a youth. 21Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, Rise you, and fall upon us; for as the man is, so is his strength. And Gideon arose, and slew Zebah and Zalmunna, and took the crescents that were on their camels\u2019 necks.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 18<\/a> records Gideon\u2019s question to the kings of Midian: What manner of men were they whom ye slew at Tab<\/em><\/span>or?<\/em> What this question shows is that not only did the Midianites plunder Israel, they also committed murderous acts against the Jewish population. The kings\u2019 answer would lead to their execution: As y<\/em><\/span>ou are, so were they; each one resembled the children of a king<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Gideon\u2019s response is in verse 19<\/a>, where he confirms the identity of the Mount Tabor victims, saying, They were my brethren, the sons of<\/em><\/span> my mother<\/em>. Therefore, Gideon must become the avenger of the blood. In verse 20<\/a>, Gideon first offered the chance of vengeance to his firstborn son, since it would add to their humiliation to be killed<\/span> by a youth, inexperienced in war. However, the son did not respond: But the youth drew not his sword; for he feared, because he was yet a youth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 21a<\/a> came the request of the kings: Rise you, <\/em><\/span>and fall upon us, for as the man is, so is his strength<\/em>. This shows that the kings of Midian were not afraid to die, but also that they wished to avoid the agony of a protracted death due to an inexpe<\/span>rienced hand. So in verse 21b<\/a>, Gideon takes the offensive in two ways. First, he himself executed them: And Gideon arose, and slew Zebah and Zalmunna<\/em>. Second, he plundered them and took their crescent<\/em><\/span>s that were on their camels\u2019 necks<\/em>. The Hebrew word for crescents<\/em> is saharonim<\/span>, a word used only in this chapter and in Isaiah 3:18<\/a>. It refers to crescent-shaped jewelry, which adorned the necks of th<\/span>e camels. Gideon now takes these crescent, moon-shaped ornaments as spoils.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>5. Rest and the Judgeship of Gideon\u20148:22\u201332<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. Rejection of Kingship\u20148:22\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n

22Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule you over us, both you, and your son, and your son\u2019s son also; for you have saved us out of the hand of Midian. 23And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: Jehovah shall rule over you.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 22<\/a> records Israel\u2019s offer of kingship to Gideon. It was both a personal offer: Rul<\/em><\/span>e you over us<\/em>, and a dynastic offer: both you, and your son, and your son\u2019s son also<\/em>. The reason for the offer was you have saved us out of the hand of Midian<\/em>. The people are now beginning to see the <\/span>advantages of a king to provide a central, strong leadership to save them from their enemies.<\/p>\n

But in verse 23<\/a>, Gideon rejected the offer: I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you<\/em>. <\/span>Rather, he insisted, Jehovah shall rule over you<\/em>. Nevertheless, Gideon will begin to act like a king, and, in fact, one of his sons will be crowned a city king.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. Gideon\u2019s Ephod\u20148:24\u201327<\/a><\/p>\n

24And Gideon said unto them, I would make a request of you, that ye would give me every man the ear-rings of his spoil. (For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites.) 25And they answered, We will willingly give them. And they spread a garment, and did cast therein every man the ear-rings of his spoil. 26And the weight of the golden ear-rings that he requested was a thousand and seven hundred shekels of gold, besides the crescents, and the pendants, and the purple raiment that was on the kings of Midian, and besides the chains that were about their camels\u2019 necks. 27And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah: and all Israel played the harlot after it there; and it became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 24<\/a> r<\/span>ecords Gideon\u2019s request to the men of Israel. In spite of his claims, Gideon increasingly took on the trappings of royalty. By requesting that each one give him a gold earring from their share of the sp<\/span>oils of the war, he was demanding a symbolic gesture of submission. The passage notes that they had golden ear-rings<\/em>, because they were Ishmaelites<\/em>. The defeated foes were Ishmaelites<\/em>, but not becau<\/span>se they were descendants of Ishmael, since the Midianites were descendants of Abraham and Keturah. They were Ishmaelites<\/em> in the sense of being of the nomadic Children of the East, and it was character<\/span>istic of these nomads to wear gold earrings.<\/p>\n

In verses 25<\/a> to 26<\/a>, the people give their agreement, and do so willingly<\/em>. By gladly giving of their spoils to him, they acknowledged themselves to be his v<\/span>assals: And they spread a garment, and did cast therein every man the ear-rings of his spoil<\/em>. The total weight was: a thousand and seven hundred shekels of gold<\/em>. The amount of gold taken in had the ch<\/span>aracter of a royal treasury. Even that was not the total, for the uncounted included the crescents, and the pendants, and the purple raiment that was on the kings of Midian, and besides the chains tha<\/em><\/span>t were about their camels\u2019 necks<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 27<\/a> deals with the ephod: And Gideon made an ephod thereof<\/em>. There are three possibilities of what this may have been. First, it may have been a garment, after th<\/span>e pattern of the high-priestly ephod<\/em>, with an unusual degree of gold ornamentation. Second, it may have been a pure gold replica of the high-priestly garment. Third, it may have been a free-standing i<\/span>mage draped with the gold ephod<\/em>. Regardless of which of these three options it was, one thing is clear: For the first time in the Book of Judges, it was a judge who began to foster idolatry. Furthermo<\/span>re, Gideon put it in his city, even in Ophrah<\/em> with two disastrous results. First, the text states, all Israel played the harlot after it there<\/em>; Ophrah became the center of idolatrous worship. Second, <\/span>the ephod became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house<\/em>. It became a snare<\/em> because his sin consisted of two things: First, he took upon himself the role of a priest; and second, he established a worshi<\/span>p center away from the Tabernacle, which was in Shiloh. His sin consisted in his encroaching on the prerogatives of the Aaronic Priesthood and drawing the people away from the one chosen sanctuary. Gideon thereby not only undermine<\/span>d the theocratic unity of Israel, but also provided occasion for the relapse into the worship of Baal after his death. Gideon may have put on the ephod and worn it as a priest when he wished to inquire and learn the will of God, or perhaps when he sacrificed on the altar that was built in Ophrah back in <\/span>6:24<\/a>. The ephod became a snare unto Gideon<\/em>, for the above reason<\/span>s, and to his house<\/em>, because it would ultimately result in the slaughter of all of his sons, but two, with one dying in battle later.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>c. Rest\u20148:28<\/a><\/p>\n

So Midian was subdued before the children of Israel, and they lifted up their heads no more. And the land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The subduing of Midian<\/em> was such that <\/span>they lifted up their heads no more<\/em>. This shows the severity of their defeat. They never again play a major role in the biblical record. The duration of the rest was: And the land had rest forty years <\/em><\/span>in the days of Gideon<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

d. Judgeship of Gideon\u20148:29\u201332<\/a><\/p>\n

29And Jerubbaal the son of Joash went and dwelt in his own house. 30And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten; for he had many wives. 31And his concubine that was in Shechem, she also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech. 32And Gideon the son of Joash died in a good old age, and was buried in the sepulchre of Joash his father, in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.<\/p>\n

33And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and played the harlot after the Baalim, and made Baal-berith their god.<\/p>\n

Verse 29<\/a> records the return of Gideon to his own house<\/em>, which now became the base of his judgeship.<\/p>\n

Verse 30<\/a> describes Gideon\u2019s family: And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten; for he had many wiv<\/em>es<\/em>. This also indicates that he took on the prerogatives of a king.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Besides those many wives<\/em>, verse 31<\/a> adds a concubine to the legal wives: And his concubine that was in Shechem, she also bore him a s<\/em><\/span>on, and he called his name Abimelech<\/em>. Abimelech<\/em> will play a major role in the next segment.<\/p>\n

Verse 32<\/a> records the death of Gideon: And Gideon the son of Joash died in a good old age, and was buried in <\/em><\/span>the sepulchre of Joash his father, in Ophrah of the Abiezrites<\/em>. Gideon died and was buried where he had been born. Gideon went from poverty, to prosperity, to corruption. He rejected kingship, but he <\/span>lived like a wealthy king, with many wives, including a concubine in Shechem. He even named the son of the concubine Abimelech<\/em>, which means, \u201cMy father is king.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>6. Dictatorship of Abimelech\u20148:33\u20139:57<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. Prelude to Abimelech\u20148:33\u201335<\/a><\/p>\n

33And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and played the harlot after the Baalim, and made Baal-berith their god. 34And the children of Israel remembered not Jehovah their God, who had delivered them out of the hand of all their enemies on every side; 35neither showed they kindness to the house of Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, according to all the goodness which he had showed unto Israel.<\/p>\n

Verse 33<\/a> reveals Israel\u2019s reversion to idolatry. The timing for this was that it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead<\/em>. The act was: the children of Israel turned again<\/em> away from Jehovah. They did so as they played the harlot after the Baalim, and made Baal-berith their god<\/em>. The meaning of Baal-berith<\/em> is \u201cthe Covenant Baal,\u201d and it is equivalent to the El-Berith mentioned later in 9:46<\/a>. It does not signify Baal as the god of the covenants, but rather Baal in the covenant, that is, the god with whom they made the covenant. Baal, now, became the covenant-god instead of Jehovah. This may imply that several Canaanite cities united in a league to worship Baal in a central shrine, which would have been in Shechem, with the Israelites in the area also joining in this worship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Thus they forgot God and also forgot Jerubbaal, the Baal Fighter, as can be seen in 8:34<\/a>: And the children of Israel remembered not Jehovah their <\/em><\/span>God, who had delivered them out of the hand of all their enemies on every side<\/em>. And in verse 35<\/a>, the forgetting of God also led to the forgetting of Gideon: neither showed they kindness to the house o<\/em><\/span>f Jerubbaal, who is Gideon<\/em>. The Hebrew word for kindness<\/em> is chesed<\/span>, which carries the concept of covenant-loyalty. They failed to show covenant-loyalty to the House of Gideon. It implies that although<\/span> Gideon had formally rejected kingship, they had formalized some kind of official relationship with him, which was to extend to the entire household. This lack of covenant-loyalty will be detailed in the very next chapter. In that chapter, Gideon is only called by the name Jerubbaal, the Baal Fighter, while his son goes back to the <\/span>worship of Baal.<\/p>\n

At least four lessons can be deduced from the Gid<\/span>eon Cycle. First, if anything positive happens in the lives of the people of God, it is because of God\u2019s grace. Second, with God on Israel\u2019s side, no enemy is invincible, and so, three hundred could defeat 135,000. Third, the greatest obstacle to th<\/span>e work of God is the faithlessness of His own people. Fourth, those called to leadership in the divine program will face temptation to exchange the divine agenda for personal ambition. This happened to Gideon who rejected kingship but lived like a king and not only sinned by building a worship center in competition to Shiloh, he also caused and led Israel into sin.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. Conspiracy of Abimelech\u20149:1\u20136<\/a><\/p>\n

1And Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem unto his mother\u2019s brethren, and spoke with them, and with all the family of the house of his mother\u2019s father, saying, 2Speak, I pray you, in the ears of all the men of Shechem, Whether is better for you, that all the sons of Jerubbaal, who are threescore and ten persons, rule over you, or that one rule over you? Remember also that I am your bone and your flesh. 3And his mother\u2019s brethren spoke of him in the ears of all the men of Shechem all these words: and their hearts inclined to follow Abimelech; for they said, He is our brother. 4And they gave him threescore and ten pieces of silver out of the house of Baal-berith, wherewith Abimelech hired vain and light fellows, who followed him. 5And he went unto his father\u2019s house at Ophrah, and slew his brethren the sons of Jerubbaal, being threescore and ten persons, upon one stone: but Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left; for he hid himself. 6And all the men of Shechem assembled themselves together, and all the house of Millo, and went and made Abimelech king, by the oak of the pillar that was in Shechem.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verses 1<\/a> to 2<\/a> record the offer of Abim<\/span>elech to Shechem. The first stage in verse 1<\/a>, was Abimilech\u2019s approach to his mother\u2019s family. It began when Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem<\/em>. Jerubbaal<\/em> is the name used throughout this <\/span>chapter for Gideon, because Jerubbaal<\/em> was the \u201cBaal Fighter.\u201d In contrast, Abimelech<\/em> would gain power by both worshipping Baal and by using funds taken from the Baal-Berith Sanctuary. Besides the ment<\/span>ion of Jerubbaal<\/em>, there is also the mention of Shechem<\/em>. The Shechemites may have still have been primarily Canaanite, because the Book of Joshua does not mention a national conquest of Shechem<\/em>, merely<\/span> that there is no opposition to his arrival there. This may also account for the worship of Baal-Berith. Later, in 9:28<\/a>, they are also called the men of Hamor\u2014and Hamor was the Canaanite king of Shech<\/em><\/span>em,<\/em> previously mentioned in Genesis 34<\/a>. Being a Canaanite city and having a history of city-statehood may account for Shechem\u2019s<\/em> acceptance of Abimelech as the king of their city-state. Abimilech\u2019s fir<\/span>st step in verse 1<\/a> was to secure the support of his mother\u2019s relatives: [He went] unto his mother\u2019s brethren, and spoke with them, and with all the family of the house of his mother\u2019s father<\/em>. Abimelec<\/span>h\u2019s mother may have been a Canaanite herself, and therefore provided the blood tie. Verse 2<\/a> deals with the second stage of the offer: Speak, I pray you, in the ears of all the men of Shechem<\/em>. Abimelec<\/span>h enlisted his relatives to secure the support of the aristocracy of Shechem<\/em>. The phrase men of Shechem<\/em> in Hebrew is baalei shechem<\/span>, and for the first time, the term baal<\/em> is used in a non-theological <\/span>sense. Yet it will still be connected with Baal-Berith. In his address, Abimelech presented two arguments. First, he asked, Whether is better for you, that all the sons of Jerubbaal, who are threescor<\/em><\/span>e and ten persons, rule over you, or that one rule over you?<\/em> In other words, one<\/em> ruler is better than seventy rulers. However, there was no indication that any of the other sons had any such ambition.<\/span> Thus far in the Book of Judges, no Judge was succeeded by a son. Furthermore, Gideon himself had rejected such a dynastic rule. Second, Abimelech asked the men of Succoth to remember also that I am y<\/em><\/span>our bone and your flesh<\/em>. In other words, it is better to be ruled by an insider than an outsider. Through his mother he was half-Canaanite, and so, he was related to the men of Shechem<\/em> by blood throug<\/span>h his mother. This was not true of any of the other seventy sons that Gideon had.<\/p>\n

Verse 3<\/a> records the agreement of the Shechemites. At the instigation of his mother\u2019s brethren<\/em>, the Shechemites were co<\/span>nvinced: and their hearts inclined to follow Abimelech; for they said, He is our brother<\/em>. The Canaanite blood-tie was the most convincing argument, and Abimelech indeed will act more like a Canaanite <\/span>than a Jew.<\/p>\n

Verse 4<\/a> describes the gathering of Abimelech\u2019s mercenary army. The funds came from the Shechemites: And they gave him threescore and ten pieces of silver<\/em>, the same number as the sons of Gi<\/span>deon intended for execution. For Abimelech, the life of each of his half-brothers was worth only one piece of silver. The funds came out of the house of Baal-berith<\/em>, out of a sanctuary dedicated to Ba<\/span>al. Now this money will be used to kill the sons of the Baal Fighter, Abimilech\u2019s half-brothers. With these funds, Abimelech hired vain and light fellows, who followed him<\/em>. Two descriptions are used o<\/span>f the men he hired. The first one is vain<\/em>. The Hebrew word means \u201cempty,\u201d and denotes men with idle hands and empty stomachs, but with no desire to work or earn an honest living. These men were withou<\/span>t possessions, willing to sell themselves for any task. The same word will be used of the men that Jephthah will gather around him later in 11:3<\/a>. The second word used to describe these men is light<\/em>. T<\/span>he Hebrew word means \u201cto boil up\u201d or \u201cto be violent,\u201d and implies that these were reckless, licentious men. The type of men who followed him were idle and worthless and were devoid of wisdom and moral un<\/span>derstanding.<\/p>\n

Verse 5<\/a> summarizes Abimelech\u2019s assassination of the sixty-nine sons of Gideon: And he went unto his father\u2019s house at Ophrah, and slew his brethren<\/em>. The verse goes on to specify that t<\/span>he slaughter was all upon one stone<\/em>. The fact that they are all killed on one stone would have required the killing to take place one by one. This was not a quick slaughter of unsuspecting victims, bu<\/span>t a calculated brutal act of murder trying to foster terror. The stone<\/em> may be a reference to a sacrificial stone, as in 1 Samuel 14:33\u201335<\/a>, and if so, this would allow for the easy disposal of the bloo<\/span>d, since the matter of disposal of blood was of great consequence. In this ritual slaughter of his half-brothers, he may have been seeking to avoid any adverse consequences by carefully disposing of t<\/span>heir blood. However, one half-brother escaped: Jotham, the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left; for he hid himself<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verse 6<\/a> describes Abimelech\u2019s coronation. As for the king-makers: And all the men of <\/em><\/span>Shechem assembled themselves together<\/em>. These are the baalei shechem<\/span>, the aristocracy of Shechem; and all the house of Millo<\/em> or Beth-Millo, which was another segment of the nobility. The two groups wen<\/em><\/span>t and made Abimelech king<\/em>. Abimelech<\/em> was thus proclaimed king<\/em> by the aristocracy of Shechem. The kingdom of Abimelech, however, would be limited to four basic cities: Shechem, Beth-Millo, Arumah, and <\/span>Thebez. His three-year rule was secured by gall, maintained by force, and did not survive his death. He was never a judge, and never much of a king. The place of the coronation was by the oak of the p<\/em><\/span>illar that was in Shechem<\/em>. In Joshua 24:26<\/a>, this was the place of the renewal of the covenant ceremony. Now it became an idolatrous place, representing Baal in a Canaanite-cultic installation. The oak<\/span> was a sacred tree in the sanctuary area, and this reference to it highlights the religious significance of the event of Abimelech\u2019s coronation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

c. Parable of Jotham\u20149:7\u201321<\/a><\/p>\n

7And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood on the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you. 8The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive-tree, Reign over us. 9But the olive-tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honor God and man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? 10And the trees said to the fig-tree, Come you, and reign over us. 11But the fig-tree said unto them, Should I leave my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? 12And the trees said unto the vine, Come you, and reign over us. 13And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my new wine, which cheers God and man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? 14Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come you, and reign over us. 15And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon. 16Now therefore, if ye have dealt truly and uprightly, in that ye have made Abimelech king, and if ye have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have done unto him according to the deserving of his hands 17(for my father fought for you, and adventured his life, and delivered you out of the hand of Midian: 18and ye are risen up against my father\u2019s house this day, and have slain his sons, threescore and ten persons, upon one stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of his maid-servant, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your brother); 19if ye then have dealt truly and uprightly with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then rejoice ye in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you: 20but if not, let fire come out from Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and from the house of Millo, and devour Abimelech. 21And Jotham ran away, and fled, and went to Beer, and dwelt there, for fear of Abimelech his brother.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 7<\/a> describes the circumstance surrounding Jotham\u2019s pronouncement concerning Abimelech\u2019s self-appointed kingship: And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood on the top of mount Gerizim<\/em>. From the top of that mountain, it is easier to look down on Shechem. There is to this day a triangular platform projecting from the mountainside, which overlooks the city in the valley, and this would make a natural pulpit to proclaim the message. From this point Jotham issued a call: Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you<\/em>. This verse serves as a preamble to the speech itself, which is a fable, a short story told in poetic or prose form, which teaches a moral lesson and uses people, animals, plants, or inanimate objects that act like people.<\/p>\n

The fable is recorded in verses 8<\/a> to 15<\/a>. Verse 8a<\/a> provides the background: T<\/em>he trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them<\/em>. And in verses 8b<\/a> to 9<\/a>, these trees first come to the olive tree and they said unto the olive-tree, Reign over us<\/em>. But the olive-tree<\/em> rejected the offer by making a distinction between the greater and the lesser. The greater was represented in the statement: Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honor God and man?<\/em> The olive tree honors God and man<\/em>. It honors God<\/em> because olive oil was used for anointing the priesthood and used for the lampstand. It honors man<\/em> since its oil was used for anointing, as a refreshment of the skin and for food. The lesser course would be to go to wave to and fro over the trees<\/em>. In other words, why should the olive tree become king, reigning over the trees, and abandon the more useful purpose it already had? In verses 10<\/a> to 11<\/a>, the same offer is made to the fig tree. But the fig tree also rejected the offer, making a distinction between the greater and lesser. The greater was represented in the question: Should I leave my sweetness, and my good fruit?<\/em> The fig maintains its sweetness<\/em> either when fresh or dried. The Hebrew word for good fruit<\/em> means \u201cproduce.\u201d The yield of a fig tree is two or three crops a year, not just one as with most other trees. The lesser course would be to go to wave to and fro over the trees<\/em>. In verses 12<\/a> to 13<\/a>, they made the same offer to the vine, which also rejected the offer with a difference between the greater and the lesser. The greater was represented in the question: Should I leave my new wine, which cheers God and man?<\/em> The wine cheers God<\/em> because of the wine<\/em> offerings and oblations of the Mosaic Law. It cheers man<\/em> because, as Psalm 104:15<\/a> reveals, \u201cWine gladdens the heart of man.\u201d This is the greater course. So, why choose the lesser course and g<\/em>o to wave to and fro over the trees?<\/em> So, the olive tree, the fig tree, and the vine all rejected the offer of being king because they felt they had a more useful purpose.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Finally, in Judges 9:14\u201315<\/a>, t<\/span>he searching trees made the same offer to the bramble: Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come you, and reign over us<\/em>. The bramble<\/em> produces nothing of value and is worthless even as timber. Fur<\/span>thermore, it is dangerous and a menace to the farmer if it catches fire, because it can destroy the whole crop. Moreover, by catching fire, it would be a danger to the lofty trees all around it. Finally, it casts virtually no shadow, and lies very close to the gr<\/span>ound, and therefore is of no value for shade. Thus, the trees, having failed to tempt the useful trees to leave their usefulness for the sake of status, as a last resort, offered the kingship to the lowest grade of plant life, and therefore any other position would be an elevation to the bramble. And in verse <\/span>15<\/a> came the acceptance. An<\/em><\/span>d the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you<\/em>, then come and take refuge in my shade<\/em>. But the bramble<\/em> offers almost no shade<\/em>, and the little that it does produce cannot pro<\/span>vide needed shade for lofty trees. The story continues, if not, let fire come out of the bramble<\/em>, for the bramble<\/em> easily catches fire, and devour the<\/em> cedars of Lebanon<\/em>. Although the bramble<\/em> is so lowl<\/span>y, it can destroy the most noble tree of all, the cedar of Lebanon<\/em>. The point of all this is that Abimelech can offer no security or comfort to Shechem, and, in fact, he will be the source and cause o<\/span>f its destruction.<\/p>\n

In verses 16<\/a> to 20<\/a>, Jotham made the application of the parable. First, in verses 16<\/a> to 19<\/a>, he made the application in case of righteousness: Now therefore, if ye have dealt truly an<\/em><\/span>d uprightly<\/em>. If Shechem has done righteously in all that they did to Gideon, who had adventured his life<\/em> for them, then well and good. The literal reading of the Hebrew text is, \u201cMy father cast away h<\/span>is soul at a distance,\u201d meaning he did not consider his own life of any consequence to himself if it meant the saving of Israel, and delivered you out of the hand of Midian<\/em>. Even the Canaanite populat<\/span>ion still in the land, who also had suffered from the Midianite raids, benefited from Gideon\u2019s campaign. Jotham declares, if ye then have dealt truly and uprightly with Jerubbaal and with his house th<\/em><\/span>is day<\/em>, then the positive result should be: then rejoice [ye] in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you<\/em>. There is a tone of sarcasm here: \u201cMay you find much happiness in this bramble king of yours<\/span>.\u201d But, of course, the caveat is, they are wished happiness if they have acted rightly in what they did. In verse 20<\/a> comes the application in case of unrighteousness: but if not, let fire come out fro<\/em><\/span>m Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and from the house of Millo, and devour Abimelech<\/em>. If they have not done well, may th<\/span>is result in their judgment.<\/p>\n

Verse 21<\/a> records Jotham\u2019s escape: And Jotham ran away, and fled, and went to Beer, and dwelt there, for fear of Abimelech his brother<\/em>. Jotham went into hiding; probably fo<\/span>r the three years that Abimelech was still living.<\/p>\n

d. Conflict of Shechem\u20149:22\u201325<\/a><\/p>\n

22And Abimelech was prince over Israel three years. 23And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously wi<\/span>th Abimelech: 24that the violence done to the threescore and ten sons of Jerubbaal might come, and that their blood might be laid upon Abimelech their brother, who slew them, and upon the men of Shech<\/span>em, who strengthened his hands to slay his brethren. 25And the men of Shechem set liers-in-wait for him on the tops of the mountains, and they robbed all that came along that way by them: and it was t<\/span>old Abimelech.<\/p>\n

Verse 22<\/a> gives the duration of Abimelech\u2019s rule: And Abimelech was prince over Israel three years<\/em>. The author used the Hebrew word sar<\/span>, which means prince, captain,<\/em> or official<\/em>, and not<\/span> the word melech<\/span>, which means king<\/em>. By using this word, the author states that Abimelech governed, but the narrator does not accept him as a king, showing therefore that Abimelech did not fulfill Isra<\/span>el\u2019s need for a king. The term Israel<\/em> is not always used of the whole nation, but sometimes used more locally, as it is here. In this case, Israel<\/em> refers to Greater Shechem, with those four cities men<\/span>tioned earlier. In this case, the length of his rule is announced at the beginning rather than at the end, which is the norm in this book. This signified that his attempt to be king would not last as long as any of the oppressions or any of the periods o<\/span>f rest in the book.<\/p>\n

In verses 23<\/a> to 24<\/a>, the divine vindication of Jotham\u2019s judgment begins with the divine action: And God sent an evil spirit bet<\/em><\/span>ween Abimelech and the men of Shechem<\/em>. God<\/em> uses a demon to bring about the death of Abimelech, showing God<\/em> is able to use demons to carry out His own purposes. God will do this again in the case of Ah<\/span>ab. As a result of the demonic attack the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech<\/em>, as was predicted by Jotham three years earlier. This action is then justified, first against Abimelech: tha<\/em><\/span>t the violence done to the threescore and ten sons of Jerubbaal might come, and that their blood might be laid upon Abimelech their brother, who slew them<\/em>; and second, against the men of Shechem, who <\/em><\/span>strengthened his hands to slay his brethren<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 25<\/a> describes Shechem\u2019s treachery: And the men of Shechem set liers-in-wait for him on the tops of the mountains<\/em>, to warn others when Abimelech was ap<\/span>proaching, and they robbed all that came along that way by them<\/em>. As the caravans were coming to pay tribute to Abimelech, the men of Shechem robbed them. This highway robbery would bring the governmen<\/span>t of Abimelech into disrepute. The fact that it was told Abimelech<\/em> shows that the seat of government was not in Shechem, a point made again in 9:31<\/a>. The actions of the men of Shechem<\/em> achieved two ends<\/span>. First, they showed that Abimelech could not guarantee the safety of travelers in his own domain. Second, they deprived him of the tribute (duties) he would have reaped from the caravans.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

e. Challenge of Gaal\u20149:26\u201341<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(1) Defiance of Gaal\u20149:26\u201329<\/a><\/p>\n

26And Gaal the son of Ebed came with his brethren, and went over to Shechem; and the men of Shechem put their trust in him. 27And they went out into the field, and gathered their vineyards, and trod the grapes, and held festival, and went into the house of their god, and did eat and drink, and cursed Abimelech. 28And Gaal the son of Ebed said, Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem, that we should serve him? is not he the son of Jerubbaal? and Zebul his officer? Serve ye the men of Hamor the father of Shechem: but why should we serve him? 29And would that this people were under my hand! then would I remove Abimelech. And he said to Abimelech, Increase your army, and come out.<\/p>\n

The person who defies Abimelech in verse 26<\/a> was: Gaal the son of Ebed<\/em>, whose name means \u201cto loathe\u201d or \u201cto abhor.\u201d The name of his father, Ebed, means \u201cslave.\u201d Hence, he was \u201cthe abhorred one, the son of a slave,\u201d which may have been his nickname. He went over to Shechem<\/em>, resulting in the change of allegiance: and the men of Shechem put their trust in him<\/em>, to help them in their revolt against Abimelech.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 27<\/a> gives the occasion for these events; that is, harvest time: And they wen<\/em><\/span>t out into the field, and gathered their vineyards, and trod the grapes<\/em>. This was followed by the harvest feast: and<\/em> [they] held festival<\/em>. The Hebrew word here is hillulim<\/span>, used only twice, here and i<\/span>n Leviticus 19:24<\/a>. The place of celebration was the house of their god<\/em>, which would have been Baal-Berith. During the feast they: did eat and drink, and cursed Abimelech<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Judges 9:28\u201329<\/a> records Gaal\u2019s<\/span> boasting. He made two separate boasts. First, he asked, Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem, that we should serve him? Shechem<\/em> here does not refer to the city, but to Abimelech, the leader of the ci<\/span>ty. Gaal continued, is not he the son of Jerubbaal?<\/em> Whereas Abimelech connected himself with his Canaanite mother, Gaal connected Abimelech with his Jewish father. Gaal thus reminds the people that Ab<\/span>imelech was the son of the Baal Fighter, and therefore would have been opposed to the sanctuary of Baal-Berith in Shechem. Gaal set himself up as the defender of Baal, and of Shechem, against the son <\/span>of the Baal Fighter. Gaal argued that Abimelech should be regarded, not as flesh and blood, but as a contemptible person because he was the son of Jerubbaal<\/em>, the son of the man who destroyed the altar<\/span> of Baal and restored the worship of Jehovah, for which the Shechemites themselves would have desired to destroy him. Gaal then chides, is Zebul his officer?<\/em> The might of Shechem did not consist of th<\/span>e authority of its prefect, Zebul<\/em>, since he had been appointed by Abimelech. Hence, there is no need for the Shechemites to serve him either. Gaal added: serve ye the men of Hamor the father of Sheche<\/em><\/span>m: but why should we serve him<\/em> [Abimelech]? Hamor<\/em> was the Hivite prince who had founded Shechem (Gen. 33:19<\/a>; 34:2<\/a>; Josh. 24:32<\/a>). The men of Hamor<\/em> were the patricians of the city, who had origins from <\/span>the noblest and most ancient stock of the city\u2019s founder. Gaal placed the men of Hamor<\/em> in opposition to Zebul<\/em>. So the Shechemites should be serving the men of Hamor<\/em>, not Abimelech or his appointee, Ze<\/em><\/span>bul<\/em>. Gaal concludes in Judges 9:29<\/a> with his boastful call to reject Israelite rule and reinsert Canaanite rule by saying, And would that this people were under my hand! then would I remove Abimelech<\/em>. <\/span>Then came his second boast: And he said to Abimelech, Increase your army, and come out<\/em>. This was pure defiance.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

(2) The Report to Abimelech\u20149:30\u201333<\/a><\/p>\n

30And when Zebul the ruler of the city heard the words of Gaal the son of Ebed, his anger was kindled. 31And he sent messengers unto Abimelech craftily, saying, Beh<\/span>old, Gaal the son of Ebed and his brethren are come to Shechem; and, behold, they constrain the city to take part against you. 32Now therefore, up by night, you and the people that are with you, and l<\/span>ie in wait in the field: 33and it shall be, that in the morning, as soon as the sun is up, you shall rise early, and rush upon the city; and, behold, when he and the people that are with him come out <\/span>against you, then may you do to them as you shall find occasion.<\/p>\n

Verses 30<\/a> to 31a<\/a> give Zebul\u2019s report to Abimelech: And he sent messengers unto Abimelech craftily<\/em>, so that Gaal (the boaster) had no kn<\/span>owledge of what was happening. Zebul\u2019s message is recorded in verse 31b<\/a>, reporting on the rebellion, saying, Behold Gaal the son of Ebed and his brethren are come to Shechem;<\/em> and on the conspiracy, be<\/em><\/span>hold, they constrain the city to take part against you<\/em>. Verses 32<\/a> to 33<\/a> record Zebul\u2019s advice on arranging a surprise attack on Gaal and his men.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(3) Defeat of Gaal\u20149:34\u201341<\/a><\/p>\n

34And Abimelech rose up, and all the people that were with him, by night, and they laid wait against Shechem in four companies. 35And Gaal the son of Ebed went out, and stood in the entrance of the gate of the city: and Abimelech rose up, and the people that were with him, from the ambushment. 36And when Gaal saw the people, he said to Zebul, Behold, there come people down from the tops of the mountains. And Zebul said unto him, You see the shadow of the mountains as if they were men. 37And Gaal spoke again and said, See, there come people down by the middle of the land, and one company comes by the way of the oak of Meonenim. 38Then said Zebul unto him, Where is now your mouth, that you said, Who is Abimelech, that we should serve him? is not this the people that you have despised? go out now, I pray, and fight with them. 39And Gaal went out before the men of Shechem, and fought with Abimelech. 40And Abimelech chased him, and he fled before him, and there fell many wounded, even unto the entrance of the gate.<\/p>\n

41And Abimelech dwelt at Arumah: and Zebul drove out Gaal and his brethren, that they should not dwell in Shechem.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 34<\/a> describes Abimelech\u2019s d<\/span>eployment against Gaal\u2019s attack: And Abimelech rose up, and all the people that were with him, by night, and they laid wait against Shechem in four companies<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 35<\/a> lists initial developments on bo<\/span>th sides: Gaal arose and went out, and stood in the entrance of the gate of the city;<\/em> whereupon Abimelech rose up, and the people that were with him, from the ambushment<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verses 36<\/a> to 37<\/a>, Gaal make<\/span>s two observations. In verse 36<\/a>, he observes: Behold, there come people down from the tops of the mountains<\/em>. Zebul\u2019s answer to this was: You see the shadow of the mountains as if<\/em> they were men<\/em>, in oth<\/span>er words, he was looking at shadows, not people. Verse 37<\/a> gives Gaal\u2019s second observation: See, there come people down by the middle of the land<\/em>. The Hebrew reads \u201cthe navel of the land,\u201d a phrase use<\/span>d only in two places in the Hebrew Bible, here and in Ezekiel 38:12<\/a>. It probably refers to an elevated plateau rather than any external fortifications. Gaal further observed that one company comes by <\/em><\/span>the way of the oak of Meonenim<\/em>. The word means \u201cthe oak of the diviners.\u201d It was a sacred place to which the Canaanites turned for a decision from the gods.<\/p>\n

Gaal\u2019s observations lead to Zebul\u2019s mockery<\/span> in Judges 9:38<\/a>: Then said Zebul unto him, Where is now your mouth, that you said, Who is Abimelech, that we should serve him? is not this the people that you have despised? go out now, I pray, and fi<\/em><\/span>ght with them<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verses 39<\/a> to 40<\/a> record the resultant battle: And Gaal went out before the men of Shechem, and fought with Abimelech. And Abimelech chased him, and he fled before him, and there fell man<\/em><\/span>y wounded, even unto the entrance of the gate<\/em>. As the context shows, Abimelech was not able to penetrate into the city, and therefore could not capture the city at this stage. He therefore would seek <\/span>another opportunity to attack the citizens.<\/p>\n

Verse 41<\/a> gives the final disposition of the dispute between Gaal and Abimelech. As for Abimelech, he dwelt at Arumah<\/em>. Arumah<\/em>, not Shechem, was his capitol, <\/span>and this may have been a sore point with the Shechemites, since it was they who made him king, not Arumah<\/em>. As for Gaal, Zebul drove out Gaal and his brethren, that they should not dwell in Shechem<\/em>. So<\/span> much for Gaal\u2019s boastings. He is not heard of again.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>f. Destruction of Shechem\u20149:42\u201349<\/a><\/p>\n

42And it came to pass on the morrow, that the people went out into the field; and they told Abimelech. 43And he took the people, and divided them into three companies<\/span>, and laid wait in the field; and he looked, and, behold, the people came forth out of the city; And he rose up against them, and smote them. 44And Abimelech, and the companies that were with him, rus<\/span>hed forward, and stood in the entrance of the gate of the city: and the two companies rushed upon all that were in the field, and smote them. 45And Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and <\/span>he took the city, and slew the people that were therein: and he beat down the city, and sowed it with salt.<\/p>\n

46And when all the men of the tower of Shechem heard thereof, they entered into the strongho<\/span>ld of the house of Elberith. 47And it was told Abimelech that all the men of the tower of Shechem were gathered together. 48And Abimelech got him up to mount Zalmon, he and all the people that were wi<\/span>th him; and Abimelech took an axe in his hand, and cut down a bough from the trees, and took it up, and laid it on his shoulder: and he said unto the people that were with him, What ye have seen me do, make haste, and do as I have done. <\/span>49And all the people likewise cut down every man his bough, and followed Abimelech, and put them to the stronghold, and set the stronghold on fire upon them; so th<\/span>at all the men of the tower of Shechem died also, about a thousand men and women.<\/p>\n

With the defeat of Gaal, another problem remained for Abimelech, that of addressing the rebellion of the men of Sheche<\/em><\/span>m<\/em>. Verse 42<\/a> presents the circumstance: that the people went out into the field<\/em>, which exposed them in the open. This led to the deployment of Abimelech\u2019s troops in verse 43a<\/a>: and divided them into thr<\/em><\/span>ee companies, and laid wait in the field<\/em>, using the same strategy his father had against the Midianites.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

In verses 43b<\/a> to 44<\/a>, this led to the destruction of the Shechemites outside the city. One of th<\/span>e three companies ran to the gates and stood in the entrance of the gate of the city<\/em> in order to keep the people from escaping back into the city. The other two companies rushed upon all that were in <\/em><\/span>the field, and smote them<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Then in verse 45<\/a> came the destruction of the city of Shechem: Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city, and slew the people that were therein, an<\/em><\/span>d he beat down the city, and sowed it with salt<\/em>. Salty ground was a symbol of a barren desert (Deut. 29:23<\/a>; Job 39:6<\/a>; Ps. 107:34<\/a>; Jer. 17:6<\/a>). This was a symbolic act that the city was to be turned for<\/span>ever into a barren salt desert. This did not happen, but this was Abimelech\u2019s wish for the city in light of what they did against him.<\/p>\n

Next, verses 46<\/a> to 49<\/a> record the destruction of the Tower of Shec<\/span>hem. According to verse 46<\/a>, upon hearing of the slaughter of the Shechemites both outside and inside the city, the remaining people fled seeking sanctuary: they entered into the stronghold of the hous<\/em><\/span>e of Elberith<\/em>. The Hebrew word for stronghold<\/em> is tzriach<\/span>. It is used here, again in verse 49<\/a>, and in 1 Samuel 13:6<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In verse 47<\/a>, when Abimelech heard that all the men of the tower of Shechem were gath<\/em><\/span>ered together<\/em>, he went after them as well, as verse 48<\/a> shows. Abimelech first took an axe in his hand, and cut down a bough from the trees, and took it up, and laid it on his shoulder<\/em>. He then ordered<\/span> his men: What ye have seen me do, make haste, and do as I have done<\/em>.<\/p>\n

With verse 49<\/a> came the destruction. The people put them to the stronghold, and set the stronghold on fire upon them<\/em>. The result wa<\/span>s the slaughter: all the men of the tower of Shechem died also, about a thousand men and women<\/em>. In this way, the prophecy of Jotham was essentially literally fulfilled: Fire did come from Abimelech an<\/span>d destroyed the men of Shechem. In this manner, another Canaanite enclave had been eradicated from the Land.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>g. Death of Abimelech\u20149:50\u201357<\/a><\/p>\n

50Then went Abimelech to Thebez, and encamped against Thebez, and took it. 51But there was a strong tower within the city, and thither fled all the men and women, and all<\/span> they of the city, and shut themselves in, and got them up to the roof of the tower. 52And Abimelech came unto the tower, and fought against it, and drew near unto the door of the tower to burn it wit<\/span>h fire. 53And a certain woman cast an upper millstone upon Abimelech\u2019s head, and broke his skull. 54Then he called hastily unto the young man his armorbearer, and said unto him, Draw your sword, and k<\/span>ill me, that men say not of me, A woman slew him. And his young man thrust him through, and he died. 55And when the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead, they departed every man unto his place. 5<\/span>6Thus God requited the wickedness of Abimelech, which he did unto his father, in slaying his seventy brethren; 57and all the wickedness of the men of Shechem did God requite upon their heads: and upon<\/span> them came the curse of Jotham the son of Jerubbaal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 50<\/a> deals with the capture of Thebez: Then went Abimelech to Thebez, and encamped against Thebez, and took it<\/em>. In verse 51<\/a>, this led to the fl<\/span>ight of the inhabitants: But there was a strong tower within the city, and thither fled all the men and women, and all they of the city, and shut themselves in, and got them up to the roof of the towe<\/em><\/span>r<\/em>. In verse 52<\/a>, Abimelech attacked the tower, intending to destroy it the same way he destroyed the Tower of Shechem. So he drew near unto the door of the tower to burn it with fire<\/em>.<\/p>\n

However, in verse<\/span> 53<\/a>, a certain woman cast an upper millstone upon Abimelech\u2019s head<\/em>. An upper millstone<\/em> was between twelve and eighteen inches in diameter, and several inches thick, and could have weighed as much as t<\/span>wenty-seven pounds. It was quite a heavy object, and as a result, it broke his skull<\/em>. This incident will be remembered many years later by King David (2 Sam. 11:21<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Verse 54<\/a> describes how this incide<\/span>nt led to the death of Abimelech. Abimelech requested his armorbearer<\/em> to kill him so that men say not of me, A woman slew him<\/em>. To a warrior, the most ignoble death was that inflicted by a woman. But, <\/span>it was too late to change that fact now. He had used a woman, his mother, to claim kingship, but now a woman would take it away from him; a woman gave him life, now a woman would take it away. In accordance with the request, <\/span>his young man thrust him through, and he died<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 55<\/a> marks the end of the conflict, which occurred when the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead<\/em>. The narrator identifi<\/span>es these as the men of Israel, which indicates that, when Abimelech destroyed Shechem, he also got some Jewish allegiance. The words themselves show that the rebels against whom Abimelech fought were Canaanites, because <\/span>the men of Israel<\/em> were distinguished from those in the tower. In the end, after Abimelech\u2019s death: they departed every man unto his own place<\/em>. Their experiment in Canaanite-type, c<\/span>ity-state kingship ended in failure; and it was aborted, awaiting a future time of national kingship.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

According to verses 56<\/a> to 57<\/a>, Abimelech\u2019s demise was all divine retribution: Thus God requited the<\/em><\/span> wickedness of Abimelech, which he did unto his father, in slaying his seventy brethren<\/em>. God also paid back Shechem: and all the wickedness of the men of Shechem did God requite upon their heads<\/em>. This<\/span> marked the fulfillment of the curse of Jotham (Judges 9:14\u201320<\/a>), the son of Jerubbaal. It showed once again that Jehovah defeated Baal and that the true God of Israel is the Baal Fighter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

F. Judgeship of Tola\u201410:1\u20132<\/a><\/p>\n

1And after Abimelech there arose to save Israel Tola the son of Puah, the son of Dodo, a man of Issachar; and he dwelt in Shamir in the hill-country of Ephraim. 2And he judged Israel twenty and three years, and died, and was buried in Shamir.<\/p>\n

Tola is one of the judges for whom there is not a great deal of detail. While verse 1<\/a> states that Tola arose to save Israel<\/em>, there are no details given as to whom he saved Israel from. The name: Tola<\/em> means \u201cworm.\u201d His family and tribe was: the son of Puah, the son of Dodo, a man of Issachar<\/em>, which means that he and his father were named after the two sons of Issachar (Gen. 46:13<\/a>; Num. 26:23<\/a>). He is the only judge whose father\u2019s and grandfather\u2019s name is given. This implies something significant about his family or clan, but no details are given.<\/p>\n

Verse 2<\/a> gives the length of Tola\u2019s judgeship: And he judged Israel twenty and three years<\/em>. Although he did judge Israel for so long, only two verses, and seven basic facts, are given about him. There is no mention of wars, and so he probably ruled at a time of peace or mostly so. Later in the days of David, the Clan of Tola would be known for its valor (1 Chron. 7:1\u20132<\/a>). He died and was buried in his own hometown: in Shamir<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

G. Judgeship of Jair\u201410:3\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n

3And after him arose Jair, the Gileadite; and he judged Israel twenty and two years. 4And he had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass colts, and they had thirty cities, whic<\/span>h are called Havvoth-jair unto this day, which are in the land of Gilead. 5And Jair died, and was buried in Kamon.<\/p>\n

This is another judge about whom very little information is given. In verse 3<\/a>, the na<\/span>me of the judge, Jair, the Gileadite<\/em>, shows he was of the Tribe of Manasseh (Num. 32:41<\/a>; Deut. 3:14<\/a>; 1 Kg. 4:13<\/a>). The fact that he was a Gileadite<\/em> shows that he came from Eastern Manasseh in the Trans<\/span>-Jordan. The length of his judgeship of Israel was twenty-two years.<\/p>\n

Verse 4<\/a> describes Jair\u2019s family wealth and status. As to his family and wealth, he had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass colts<\/em>. T<\/span>hat he had thirty sons<\/em> shows that he was a polygamist, having several wives. That he had thirty ass colts<\/em> shows his rank and affluence. Asses were highly esteemed as riding animals and often carried s<\/span>pecial recognition (cf. Judg. 1:14<\/a>; 1 Sam. 25:20<\/a>). As to his status, his family had thirty cities, which are called Havvoth-jair unto this day, which are in the land of Gilead<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 5<\/a> records Jair\u2019s <\/span>death and burial. The key emphasis was on peace and prosperity, in contrast to the insecurity and danger characterized in the days of Shamgar and Jael back in verses 6<\/a> to 10<\/a>. However, in the next cycl<\/span>e, when this same territory was being threatened by the Amorites, none of these inhabitants could be called upon to lead a Jewish army, a situation that in turn led to the role of Jephthah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>H. Sixth Cycle: Jephthah\u201410:6\u201312:7<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Sin\u201410:6<\/a><\/p>\n

And the children of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, and served the Baalim, and the Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Sidon, and the gods of Mo<\/em>ab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines; and they forsook Jehovah, and served him not<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

This new section opens up with the statement of the rebellion: And the childre<\/em><\/span>n of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah<\/em>. The author then spelled out the means of rebellion. First, the people of Israel served<\/em> the two main gods of Canaan, the Baalim and th<\/em><\/span>e Ashtaroth<\/em>. Second, they served the gods of the neighboring countries, including the gods of Syria<\/em> (Hadoth, Baal, Moath, and Anath), the gods of Sidon<\/em> (same as previous gods plus the Phoenician Astar<\/span>te of 1 Kings 11:5<\/a>; the Sidonian religion also included syncretism), the gods of Moab<\/em>, (Chemosh of 1 Kings 11:33<\/a>), the gods of the children of Ammon<\/em>, (Molech of 1 Kings 11:7<\/a> and 11:33<\/a>), and the gods o<\/em><\/span>f the Philistines<\/em> (Dagon and Baal of Judges 16:23<\/a>).<\/p>\n

After forty-five years of peace under Tola and Jair, Israel rebelled again and worshipped seven categories of gods. All this shows full-scale Canaan<\/span>ization continuing. The spiritual results are summarized in two statements. First: and they forsook Jehovah<\/em>; and, second: they served him not<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Oppression: The Ammonites\u201410:7\u20139<\/a><\/p>\n

7And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the children of Ammon. 8And they vexed and oppressed the children of Israel that year: eighteen years oppressed they all the children of Israel that were beyond the Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which is in Gilead. 9And the children of Ammon passed over the Jordan to fight also against Judah, and against Benjamin, and against the house of Ephraim; so that Israel was sore distressed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 7<\/a> reads: And the anger of Jehovah was ki<\/em><\/span>ndled against Israel<\/em>. With this statement, Canaanization was now coming to a climax, since, for the first time it is stated that it is God\u2019s anger that is behind His selling the Israelites into the ha<\/span>nds of the enemy. For the first time since 3:8<\/a>, the narrator points out that this time God handed His people into the power of two different nations, the Philistines and the Ammonites. This serves as <\/span>a prelude to two judgeship cycles: that surrounding the judgeship of Jephthah, who will deal with the Ammonites on the east side of the Jordan; and that surrounding the judgeship of Samson, who will deal with the Philistines on the west side of the Jordan.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, in 10:8<\/a>, the narrator used two new verbs to describe the action of the enemy. First, he used vexed<\/em>, a Hebrew word that means \u201cshat<\/span>tered,\u201d used only here and in Exodus 15:6<\/a>. Second, he used the word oppressed<\/em>, which means, \u201ccrushed.\u201d In the Book of Judges, the word is used in only one other place, in 9:53<\/a>, in reference to the cru<\/span>shing of Abimelech\u2019s head by the millstone. The climax of Israel\u2019s apostasy is shown now with the description of the last two judges and in the two appendices to follow. The result of God\u2019s anger over the Israelites\u2019 apostasy<\/span> was twofold. First: he sold them into the hand of the Philistines<\/em> on the west side of the Jordan. Second: He sold them into the hand of the children of Ammon<\/em> on the east side<\/span> of the Jordan. And they<\/em> [Israel\u2019s oppressors] vexed and oppressed the children of Israel that year<\/em>. In Hebrew, the two words vexed<\/em> (vayiratz<\/span>) and oppressed<\/em> (vayertzetzu<\/span>) sound very similar. The durat<\/span>ion of the oppression was: eighteen years<\/em>. The main geographical focus was the Trans-Jordan: beyond the Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which is in Gilead<\/em>. He is focusing in this passage on the ea<\/span>st side of the Jordan.<\/p>\n

In 10:9<\/a>, the oppression extended to the Cis-Jordan: And the children of Ammon passed over the Jordan to fight also against Judah, and against Benjamin, and against the house of <\/em><\/span>Ephraim<\/em>. The result was that Israel was sore distressed<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

3. Israel\u2019s Cry and the Divine Response\u201410:10\u201316<\/a><\/p>\n

10And the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, saying, We have sinned against you, even because we have forsaken our God, and have served the Baalim. 11And Jehovah said unto the children of Israel, Did not I save you from the Egyptians, and from the Amorites, from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines? 12The Sidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites, did oppress you; and ye cried unto me, and I saved you out of their hand. 13Yet ye have forsaken me, and served other gods: wherefore I will save you no more. 14Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress. 15And the children of Israel said unto Jehovah, We have sinned: do [you] unto us whatsoever seems good unto you; only deliver us, we pray you, this day. 16And they put away the foreign gods from among them, and served Jehovah; and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.<\/p>\n

Verse 10<\/a> reports on the cry: And the chil<\/em>dren of Israel cried unto Jehovah,<\/em> followed by their confession, We have sinned against you<\/em>. They even confess the means of sinning: even because we have forsaken our God, and have served the Baalim<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verses 11<\/a> to 14<\/a> report the divine response. In verses 11<\/a> to 12<\/a>, God reminds Israel of seven previous deliverances: first, Did not I save you from the Egyptians<\/em>, which was at the time of the Exodus; se<\/span>cond, and from the Amorites<\/em>, found in Numbers 21:3<\/a>; third, from the children of Ammon<\/em>, which was along with the Moabites in Judges 3:12\u201314<\/a>; fourth, and from the Philistines<\/em> in Judges 3:31<\/a>; fifth, from<\/span> the Sidonians also<\/em>, under Jabin in Judges chapters 4<\/a> to 5<\/a>, 18:7<\/a>, and 18:28<\/a>; sixth, from the <\/em>Amalekites<\/span>, which happened in Sinai, in Exodus 17:8\u201316<\/a>, also earlier in Judges 3:13<\/a> and 6:3<\/a>; and seventh, a<\/em><\/span>nd the Maonites<\/em>. The Hebrew text has Maonites<\/em>, but the Septuagint has Midianites<\/em>, and is probably the correct reading in light of the context of the Book of Judges, where the Midianites were destroyed<\/span> by Gideon. After God reminded them of seven previous deliverances, He then laid out three basic historical facts of each deliverance: first, Israel\u2019s enemies did oppress you;<\/em> second, Israel cried unt<\/em><\/span>o me;<\/em> and, third, God saved you out of their hand<\/em>. So now, once again, Israel cried out for help, but what will they do with the gods and idols that they were worshipping? The point is that repentance<\/span> must be followed by action. God reminded them of seven great deliverances that the seven gods they worshipped could not deliver them from, and so they must put away their idols and their gods; for up until now, they had credited the seven deliverances to the other seven gods. The rabbinic view is that the seven deliverances are enumerated correspon<\/span>ding to the seven forms of idolatry associated with <\/span>their worship, and contextually this could be correct. In Judges 10:13<\/a>, God reminded them of Israel\u2019s failure: Yet, ye have forsaken me, and served other gods<\/em>. Now God\u2019s response was: wherefore I w<\/em><\/span>ill save you no more<\/em>. This is a conditional threat, depending upon how they will now respond. In Judges 10:14<\/a>, God concluded with a sarcastic challenge: Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; <\/em><\/span>let them save you in the time of your distress<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verses 15<\/a> to 16a<\/a> record Israel\u2019s response to God\u2019s pronouncement. In verse 15<\/a>, they responded in word by means of confession: And the children of Israel<\/em><\/span> said unto Jehovah, We have sinned<\/em>; and by means of submission: do [you] unto us whatsoever seems good unto you<\/em>. Then came their request: only deliver us, we pray you, this day<\/em>. In verse 16a<\/a>, they res<\/span>ponded in deed. First, they put away the foreign gods from among them<\/em>, and second they served Jehovah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Israel\u2019s repentance and plea for help resulted in God\u2019s response in verse 16b<\/a>: and his soul was g<\/em><\/span>rieved for the misery of Israel<\/em>. And when the soul<\/em> of God is grieved for the misery of Israel<\/em>, it will lead to divine intervention.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

4. Deliverance\u201410:17\u201311:33<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>a. The Occasion\u201410:17\u201318<\/a><\/p>\n

17Then the children of Ammon were gathered together, and encamped in Gilead. And the children of Israel assembled themselves together, and encamped in Mizpah. 18And the people<\/span>, the princes of Gilead, said one to another, What man is he that will begin to fight against the children of Ammon? he shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.<\/p>\n

Verse 17<\/a> describes two armies.<\/span> First was the army of Ammon<\/em>, the Ammonites, who mustered and encamped in Gilead<\/em>. Second was the army of Israel<\/em>, which also mustered: and encamped in Mizpah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 18<\/a>, this confrontation led to the<\/span> search for a leader. The one willing to take the lead and begin to fight against the children of Ammon<\/em>, his reward for victory will be: he shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead<\/em>. Here again<\/span>, the possibility of a king is raised within this book. These two verses serve as the introduction to Jephthah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. Rejection of Jephthah\u201411:1\u20133<\/a><\/p>\n

1Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valor, and he was the son of a harlot: and Gilead begat Jephthah. 2And Gilead\u2019s wife bore him sons; and when his wife\u2019s sons grew up, they drove out Jephthah, and said unto him, You shall not inherit in our father\u2019s house; for you are the son of another woman. 3Then Jephthah fled from his brethren, and dwelt in the land of Tob: and there were gathered vain fellows to Jephthah, and they went out with him.<\/p>\n

These three verses (1<\/a> to 3<\/a>) serve as a flashback, returning to a time that chronologically is prior to the events of 10:17\u201318<\/a>. The year is now 1089 b.c. Verse 1<\/a> introduces the key person: Now Jephthah the Gileadite<\/em>. This shows that he came from the very place now suffering from the Ammonite oppression. He is described as a mighty man of valor<\/em>. In the Book of Judges, that term is used only of Jephthah and Gideon (6:12<\/a>). As to his origin: he was the son of a harlot<\/em>. In one rabbinic tradition, she was a concubine. Other rabbis claim she was an innkeeper like Rahab, trying to avoid the status of a prostitute. But this word does mean prostitute<\/em>. The name Jephthah<\/em> means, \u201che will open.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judges 11:2<\/a> records Jephthah\u2019s expulsion. The background for this was that Gilead\u2019s wife bore him sons; and when his wife\u2019s sons grew up, they drove out Jephthah. The reason was to keep him from inheriting Gilead\u2019s wealth: You shall not inherit in our father\u2019s house; for you are the son of another woman. Normally the son of a prostitute would not inherit from his father any inheritance. This indicates that the father had adopted him and left him part of his inheritance. But the half-brothers, sons of the wife, legally challenge Gilead\u2019s will and had Jephthah disinherited; and the ones who were so deceived would have been the elders of the Land of Gilead.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 3<\/a> then describes Jephthah\u2019s career until the elders came seeking his help. Four basic points are noted about Jephthah\u2019s career in the passage. First, it <\/span>notes his flight: Then Jephthah fled from his brethren<\/em>. Second, it shares the place where he lived: in the land of Tob<\/em>. Third, it refers to his gang: and there were gathered vain fellows to Jephthah<\/em>. <\/span>The word gathered<\/em> in the Hebrew text is not the normal word asaph<\/em>, but lakat<\/span>, which is associated with gleaning. This conveys the idea of a slow recruitment, man by man, rather than a sudden mass foll<\/span>owing. These men were vain<\/em>, the same word was used of the hirelings of Abimelech back in 9:4<\/a>. Fourth, the text reveals Jephthah\u2019s raids: and they went out with him<\/em>. They lived by carrying out raids, w<\/span>hich gave them some fighting ability and experience in conflict.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

c. Call of Jephthah\u201411:4\u201311<\/a><\/p>\n

4And it came to pass after a while, that the children of Ammon made war against Israel. 5And it was so, that, when the children of Ammon made war against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to fetch Jephthah out of the land of Tob; 6and they said unto Jephthah, Come and be our chief, that we may fight with the children of Ammon. 7And Jephthah said unto the elders of Gilead, Did not ye hate me, and drive me out of my father\u2019s house? and why are ye come unto me now when ye are in distress? 8And the elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah, Therefore are we turned again to you now, that you may go with us, and fight with the children of Ammon; and you shall be our head over all the inhabitants of Gilead. 9And Jephthah said unto the elders of Gilead, If ye bring me home again to fight with the children of Ammon, and Jehovah deliver them before me, shall I be your head? 10And the elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah, Jehovah shall be witness between us; surely according to your word so will we do. 11Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and chief over them: and Jephthah spoke all his words before Jehovah in Mizpah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 4<\/a> returns<\/span> Jephthah\u2019s story to the present: And it came to pass after a while<\/em>. Literally, the Hebrew reads from days<\/em>. However, it has been eighteen years since the Ammonite oppression began according to 10:8<\/a>. T<\/span>herefore, the phrase refers to the time of Jephthah\u2019s expulsion from his home, and so verse 4<\/a> picks up the narrative from 10:17<\/a>, after the parenthetical interlude, and continues on with the recounting<\/span> of the Ammonite oppression, the children of Ammon made war against Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Judges 11:5\u20136<\/a> contains the elders\u2019 call of Jephthah, beginning with the timing: And it was so, that, when the children of Am<\/em><\/span>mon made war<\/em> against Israel<\/em>. Up until now Israel suffered Ammonite oppression, but now the Ammonites launched a military campaign of expulsion that had to be resisted. The emissaries to Jephthah were <\/span>the elders of Gilead<\/em>, and, as 11:7<\/a> shows, this would have included the head of the House of Jephthah\u2019s father. The purpose of the emissary was to fetch Jephthah out of the land of Tob<\/em>. Their offer was<\/span> to Come and be our chief<\/em>, and the purpose was that we may fight with the children of Ammon<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 7<\/a> records Jephthah\u2019s bitter response in which he made a contrast between the past and the present. Co<\/span>ncerning the past, he asked, Did not ye hate me, and drive me out of my father\u2019s house?<\/em> Among the emissary group would have been members of his father\u2019s family, who had done the actual driving out. As<\/span> for the other elders, they had the authority to prevent the expulsion, but failed to do so. They may even have legally had Jephthah disinherited. Concerning the present, Jephthah asked, why are ye co<\/em><\/span>me unto me now when ye are in distress?<\/em> These elders did not help him in his distress<\/em>; why should he help them in their distress<\/em>?<\/p>\n

In verse 8<\/a>, the elders responded with a promise to Jephthah: Therefore<\/em><\/span> are we turned again to you now<\/em>. By stating Therefore<\/em> they meant, \u201cBecause we have wronged you,\u201d they now want to make their amends to the mutual benefit of both parties. The request now is that you m<\/em><\/span>ay go with us<\/em> back to Gilead; and fight with the children of Ammon<\/em>. Jephthah is initially offered the position of Commander-in-Chief. Then, if he proves victorious, he will receive the reward: and you<\/em><\/span> shall be our head over all the inhabitants of Gilead<\/em>. The reward would be for Jephthah\u2019s benefit as well.<\/p>\n

In verse 9<\/a>, Jephthah lays down a pre-condition for his aid: If ye bring me home again to figh<\/em><\/span>t with the children of Ammon, and Jehovah deliver them before me, shall I be your head?<\/em> He demands a firm guarantee in light of their previous failure.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verse 10<\/a> records the agreement: And the elders o<\/em><\/span>f Gilead said unto Jephthah, Jehovah shall be witness between us<\/em>. The Hebrew word means listening<\/em>. \u201cJehovah shall be listening before us.\u201d God is listening and will punish them if they do not keep the<\/span>ir word to him. The content of the promise was: surely according to your word so will we do<\/em>.<\/p>\n

With verse 11<\/a>, Jephthah is appointed in three stages. First, the statement of the return: Then Jephthah wen<\/em><\/span>t with the elders of Gilead<\/em>. Second, the commissioning: and the people made him head and chief over<\/em> them<\/em>. Third, the oath: and Jephthah spoke all his words before Jehovah in Mizpah<\/em>. This ceremony adde<\/span>d a religious sanction to his appointment and also gave the campaign the element of a holy war.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>d. Negotiations with the Ammonites\u201411:12\u201328<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>(1) First Message of Jephthah\u201411:12<\/a><\/p>\n

And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What have you to do with me, that you are come unto me to fight against my land?<\/em><\/p>\n

Jephth<\/em><\/span>ah<\/em> immediately took charge of the whole situation and war concerning the Ammonites. He tried to avoid a war by negotiations first. The message was: What have you to do with me<\/em>? Literally, the Hebrew r<\/span>eads \u201cWhat to me and to you?\u201d That is, \u201cWhat do you want of me?\u201d that you are come unto me to fight against my land?<\/em> In other words, he is claiming that the Ammonites were the aggressors in this war. <\/span>There was a note of patriotism in his statement of my land<\/em>, the same land<\/em> that had earlier rejected him.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(2) Ammonite Response\u201411:13<\/a><\/p>\n

And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when he came up out of Egypt, from the Arnon even unto the<\/em> Jabbok, and unto the Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(3) Second Message of Jephthah\u201411:14\u201327<\/a><\/p>\n

14And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children of Ammon; 15and he said unto him, Thus says Jephthah: Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon, 16but when they came up from Egypt, and Israel went through the wilderness unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh; 17then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray you, pass through your land; but the king of Edom hearkened not. And in like manner he sent unto the king of Moab; but he would not: and Israel abode in Kadesh. 18Then they went through the wilderness, and went around the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and they encamped on the other side of the Arnon; but they came not within the border of Moab, for the Arnon was the border of Moab. 19And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray you, through your land unto my place. 20But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his border; but Sihon gathered all his people together, and encamped in Jahaz, and fought against Israel. 21And Jehovah, the God of Israel, delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country. 22And they possessed all the border of the Amorites, from the Arnon even unto the Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto the Jordan. 23So now Jehovah, the God of Israel, had dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and should you possess them? 24Will you not possess that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whomsoever Jehovah our God had dispossessed from before us, them will we possess. 25And now are you anything better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever fight against them? 26While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns, and in Aroer and its towns, and in all the cities that are along by the side of the Arnon, three hundred years; wherefore did ye not recover them within that time? 27I therefore have not sinned against you, but you do me wrong to war against me: Jehovah, the Judge, be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon.<\/p>\n

In verse 14<\/a>, Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king<\/em> of the children of Ammon<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verses 15<\/a> to 27<\/a> contain the content of Jephthah\u2019s message refuting the king\u2019s accusation against Israel. This, his second message began in verse 15<\/a> with a denial: Israel too<\/em><\/span>k not away the land of Moab<\/em>. The mention of Moab<\/em> was crucial, because the Moabites had an even stronger historical claim to the land than the Ammonites yet did not dispute Israel\u2019s control. Moab lost <\/span>the territory through the conquest by the Amorites. Israel gained the territory by conquering the Amorites. Furthermore, Jephthah denies that Israel took away the land of the children of Ammon<\/em>. In kee<\/span>ping with Numbers 21:24<\/a>, Israel made no claim to Ammonite territory. This was in keeping with Deuteronomy 2:9<\/a>, which told Israel to respect the borders of Moab, Edom, and Ammon.<\/p>\n

Jephthah presented fou<\/span>r arguments against the Ammonite claim. First, following the point of denial in Judges 11:16\u201322<\/a>, he presented the historical argument. In verse 16<\/a>, he summarized the forty-year period of the Israelite<\/span> wanderings and pointed out three things: first, they came up from Egypt<\/em>; second, Israel went through the wilderness unto the Red Sea;<\/em> and third, and came to Kadesh<\/em>, meaning Kadesh-Barnea. Then in ver<\/span>se 17<\/a>, Jephthah reported on the two requests for passage through lands en route<\/em> to the Promised Land. The first request had been of Edom: Let me, I pray you, pass through your land<\/em>, but the request ha<\/span>d been rejected: the king of Edom hearkened not<\/em>. The second request had been made of Moab: And in like manner he sent unto the king of Moab<\/em>. The result here was the same: but he would not<\/em> agree to the<\/span> request. This second request is not actually recorded in the Mosaic account, but it is implied in Deuteronomy 2:29<\/a>, where the sin of Moab is the same as the sin of Edom. The result of these rejection<\/span>s was that Israel abode in Kadesh<\/em>. In other words, Israel had not attacked either nation. Rather, according to Judges 11:18<\/a>, they had chosen an alternate route: Then they went through the wilderness, <\/em><\/span>and went around<\/em> [both] the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab<\/em>. Instead of crossing through, the Israelites had gone south through the Arabah, down to the<\/span> Red Sea and had made a wide circle and then began going north again, marching on the east border of both countries until they encamped on the other side of the Arnon; but they came not within the bor<\/em><\/span>der of Moab, for the Arnon was the border of Moab<\/em>. The point of verses 16<\/a> to 18<\/a> is that when Israel had come up from the land of Egypt, they had shown the highest respect for the territorial integrity<\/span> of Edom and Moab. Then in Judges 11:19\u201321<\/a>, Jephthah reviews the history of the war with Sihon. Verse 19<\/a> records the third similar request: And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, <\/em><\/span>the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray you, through your land unto my place<\/em>. But in verse 20<\/a> came the rejection: But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his border<\/em>, w<\/span>hich then led to war: but Sihon gathered all his people together \u2026, and fought against Israel<\/em>. Verse 21<\/a> records the three aspects of the war: First came the divine side: And Jehovah, the God of Israel<\/em><\/span>, delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel<\/em>; second came the human side: and they smote them;<\/em> and, third, the result was: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabit<\/em><\/span>ants of that country<\/em>. In verse 22<\/a>, Jephthah closed the historical argument by noting the possession of the land: And they possessed all the border of the Amorites, from the Arnon<\/em> (which was the southe<\/span>rn border) even unto the Jabbok<\/em> (which was the northern border), and from the wilderness<\/em> (which was the eastern border) even unto the Jordan<\/em> (which was the western border).<\/p>\n

To summarize the historical<\/span> argument, Jephthah made three points. First, originally, Israel had no interest in the territory the Ammonites were claiming; they only wanted to pass through, and it fell into Israel\u2019s hands only because the Amorites had chos<\/span>en to go to war with Israel. Thus, it belonged to Israel by right of conquest. Second, the Ammonites had no historical claim to this land, since that land had previously belonged to the Amorites and passed directly to Israel. This land had never belonged to the Ammonites to begin with. Third, the real issue was the border of the eastern frontier, labeled as <\/span>the wildernes<\/em><\/span>s<\/em>, and where this was in relationship to the Ammonite Kingdom. In other words, Israel did not take the land from the Ammonites, only from the Amorites.<\/p>\n

In verses 23<\/a> to 24<\/a>, Jephthah presented the secon<\/span>d argument, the theological argument. In verse 23<\/a> he referred to Israel\u2019s divine grant: So now Jehovah, the God of Israel, has dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel<\/em>. In other words, <\/span>it was God who drove out the Amorites from the land, leaving it naturally to Israel. Because Jehovah is the God of Israel, the land belonged to Israel and not to the Ammonites: and should you possess <\/em><\/span>them?<\/em> Should the Ammonites presume to undo the work of God? In verse 24<\/a>, Jephthah noted that since Israel only possesses what Israel\u2019s God has given her, so the Ammonites should be satisfied with what<\/span>ever they have received from their god: Will you not possess that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess<\/em>? However, the god of the Ammonites was not Chemosh<\/em> of Moab, but Milcom (1 Kg. 11:5<\/a> and 11:<\/span>33<\/a>). In the Moabite Stone, the king of Moab is mentioned, the same king of Moab found in 2 Kings 3:4\u20135<\/a>. On this stone, the king of Moab credits all victory to Chemosh<\/em>. On one hand, this may be a delib<\/span>erate error on the part of Jephthah to show his contempt for the Ammonites. On the other hand, there may not have been an error at all. The territory being claimed by the king of Ammon was territory originally belonging to both the Am<\/span>orites and the Moabites, and therefore it was proper to refer to the god of that territory as Chemosh<\/em>. The answer of Jephthah does imply some syncretism, since he see<\/span>ms to recognize another god. In rabbinic tradition, to avoid the syncretism, they interpreted Jephthah\u2019s answer as sarcasm, \u201cYou are demanding land which belonged to Moab, whose god was unable to save it from falling into the hands of the Amorites. So take then the<\/span> possession of the land which Chemosh does give you.\u201d The rabbis view it as a sarcastic statement rather than a misstatement or a deliberate error on Jephthah\u2019s part.<\/p>\n

In verse 25<\/a>, Jephthah presents his third argument, the personal argument. He began with a comparison: And now are you anything better than Balak the son of Zippor, king<\/em><\/span> of Moab<\/em>? Are you superior to him in military power? Did he ever strive against Israel?<\/em> These were challenging questions. The answer was \u201cNo.\u201d The point was that the Moabite king, at the very time of <\/span>Israel\u2019s occupation of the Land, did not lay claim to the territory that was formerly his. The implication is that if he had remained silent when he had had greater justification to intervene, the Ammonites were completely without justification in <\/span>their demands at this stage. The challenging question continued: did he<\/em> [Balak] ever fight against them<\/em> [Israel]? Again, the answer is \u201cNo.\u201d Balak did n<\/span>ot venture to meet Israel in battle. So, would the king of Ammon, who was weaker than the king of Moab, attempt to do what Balak did not even try to do?<\/p>\n

Finally, in verse 26<\/a>, came Jephthah\u2019s fourth ar<\/span>gument, the chronological argument; While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns, and in Aroer and its towns, and in all the cities that are along by the side of the Arnon, three hundred years; wherefo<\/em><\/span>re did ye not recover them within that time?<\/em> In other words, if there was any justice in the king of Ammon\u2019s claims, then why did he wait three hundred years<\/em> to make them?<\/p>\n

It is interesting to note th<\/span>at the mention of 300 years in 11:26<\/a> shows that the period of the Judges covers about 350 years total (300 years up to the time of Jephthah and 50 years from Jephthah to Samuel). If the 144 years cove<\/span>ring the period from the second year of Jephthah to the fourth year of Solomon are added to the 38 years from the Exodus to the conquest of Heshbon and to the 300 years noted in verse 26<\/a>, the total wo<\/span>uld be 482 years. This agrees with 1 Kings 6:1<\/a>, which states that 480 years had passed from the Exodus until the fourth year of Solomon. (See table 6<\/a>.) So the 300 years is very close to the figures st<\/span>ated in the Book of Judges for the judgeships and years of oppression given until this point. The actual total figure from Israel\u2019s entry into Canaan until the time in Judges 11:26<\/a> is 319 years, but s<\/span>ince Ammon\u2019s claim could be held to have commenced at the beginning of the 18 years of oppression, this would reduce the Ammonite King\u2019s claim to events that occurred 301 years previously to be very close to Jephthah\u2019s e<\/span>stimate of 300 years.<\/p>\n

Verse 27<\/a> outlines Jephthah\u2019s conclusion and makes two points. First, Jephthah\u2019s statement of denial is presented: I therefore have not sinned against you, but<\/span> you do me wrong to war against me. Second, he appeals to the Divine Judge, to Jehovah, the Judge, be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon.<\/p>\n

Table 6. Chronology of Jephthah\u2019s Timeline (11:26<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Events<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Years<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

From Exodus to Israel\u2019s conquest of Heshbon (a city of Moab)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

From Israel\u2019s conquest of Heshbon until Jephthah\u2019s message in 11:26<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

300<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/span>From Jephthah\u2019s second year as judge to Solomon\u2019s fourth year as king<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

144<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

482<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Compared to timeline from Exodus to Solomon\u2019s fourth year, in 1 King 6:1<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

480<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

To summarize, Jephthah presented four <\/span>arguments to the Ammonite king. The first argument was the historical argument: The land that Israel possessed originally belonged to the hands of the Amorites and not the Ammonites (Num. 21:21\u201330<\/a>; Jo<\/span>sh. 13:21<\/a>). Second, he presented the theological or religious argument: The God of Israel gave the land to Israel, and even pagans recognized that when a god gave victory, the people of that god had e<\/span>very right to possess the conquered land. Third, Jephthah gave a political argument: If Balak the king of Moab did not fight with Israel over the land rights, then why should the king of Ammon do so now? The fourth argument was a chronological one: Ammon had waited too long to claim the territory since it had been 300 years since Israel settled in Heshbon; if Israel did not have claim to <\/span>the land by right of conquest, why did no one lay claim to it much earlier?<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>(4) Ammonite Response\u201411:28<\/a><\/p>\n

Howbeit the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Jephthah\u2019s attempt to avoid war by negotiations failed. The Ammonites\u2019<\/span> rejection of Jephthah\u2019s envoy was the prelude to war.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>e. Jephthah\u2019s Vow and the Defeat of the Ammonites\u201411:29\u201333<\/a><\/p>\n

29Then the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of<\/span> Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon. 30And Jephthah vowed a vow unto Jehovah, and said, If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, 31then it shall be, that whatsoever<\/span> comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Jehovah\u2019s, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering. 32So Jephthah passed over unt<\/span>o the children of Ammon to fight against them; and Jehovah delivered them into his hand. 33And he smote them from Aroer until you come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto Abelcheramim, with a ver<\/span>y great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.<\/p>\n

In verse 29<\/a>, at this crucial moment: Then the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Jephthah<\/em>, which in turn caused him to <\/span>pass over unto the children of Ammon<\/em>, which means he took the war into enemy territory. It was a preemptive strike: Instead of waiting for the enemy to attack Israel, Jephthah launched the attack.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

In <\/span>verses 30<\/a> to 31<\/a>, Jephthah made a vow: And Jephthah vowed a vow unto Jehovah<\/em>. The content of the vow was: If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatsoeve<\/em><\/span>r comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Jehovah\u2019s, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering<\/em>. The reason for the vow was J<\/span>ephthah\u2019s recognition of the need for divine intervention. Jephthah had no sons and only one daughter. The only other person in that family would have been his wife if she were still living. So if Jephthah had intended a human sac<\/span>rifice from the doors of my house<\/em>, he would have used the feminine form and not the masculine. The use of the masculine implies he had an animal sacrifice in mind. The fi<\/span>rst floor of ancient Israelites had four rooms, and one such room was for housing animals.<\/p>\n

Verses 32<\/a> to 33<\/a> describe the war, beginning with a summary and followed by the details. The summary, in verse<\/span> 32<\/a>, identifies human and divine actions or roles: Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them<\/em>; then, Jehovah delivered them into his hand<\/em>. Verse 33<\/a> provides the details. By <\/span>destroying twenty cities<\/em>, victory was decisive, and the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

5. Jephthah\u2019s Fulfillment of the Vow\u201411:34\u201340<\/a><\/p>\n

34And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house; and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you are one of them that trouble me; for I have opened my mouth unto Jehovah, and I cannot go back. 36And she said unto him, My father, you have opened your mouth unto Jehovah; do unto me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth, forasmuch as Jehovah has taken vengeance for you on your enemies, even on the children of Ammon. 37And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions. 38And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. 39And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew not man. And it was a custom in Israel, 40that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 34<\/a> describes Jephthah\u2019s unfortunate circu<\/span>mstance: And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house; and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances<\/em>. It was a common practice for women to go out and welcome a victorious<\/span> army with music and dance (Exod. 15:20<\/a>; 1 Sam. 18:6<\/a>). The key issue was that she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter<\/em>. That meant that if she died childless, Jephthah would<\/span> have no descendants. This was viewed as a terrible curse in biblical times\u2014to die without leaving any descendants to continue the line. The word behold<\/em> calls for special appointment: To Jephthah\u2019s sh<\/span>ock, it was his daughter who was the first one out of the house, and obviously he was not expecting her to do what she did.<\/p>\n

In verse 35<\/a>, realization of the impact of his vow led to Jephthah\u2019s grieved <\/span>response: And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes<\/em>, a common action sign of grief (cf. Gen. 37:29<\/a> and 37:34<\/a>; 2 Sam. 13:19<\/a> and 13:31<\/a>; Job 1:20<\/a>). Then Jephthah declared the words o<\/span>f grief and said, Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low<\/em>. Literally, the Hebrew says caused me to kneel<\/em>. Figuratively, the idiom means, \u201cYou took the strength out of my legs so that I am forc<\/span>ed to my knees.\u201d Then he added, you are one of them that trouble me<\/em>. In the Hebrew text, the word you<\/em> is emphatic, literally meaning you<\/em> of all people. The reason Jephthah was so troubled is then give<\/span>n: for I have opened my mouth unto Jehovah, and I cannot go back<\/em>. This was not true if the vow entailed human sacrifice; this was not a valid vow, and an invalid vow could be canceled under Mosaic Law<\/span>. However, if the vow was a vow of dedication, it was valid. In the rabbinic tradition, the rabbis stated that Jephthah should have gone to Phinehas, the High Priest, who could have annulled the vow. But each one waited for the other to make the first move, and because of each other\u2019s stubbornness on both their parts, the daughter had<\/span> to suffer. So, eventually both suffered divine punishment. For Phinehas, the Divine Presence departed from him. For Jephthah, he was struck with leprosy. Again, this is purely rabbinic tradition and there is no indication of this in the text. What is true is that within the Mosaic Law, Jephthah could have had this vow canceled if it was an invalid vow (<\/span><\/span>Lev. 27:1\u20138<\/a>). But the fact that he felt it had to be kept shows that the vow was indeed valid.<\/p>\n

Verses 36<\/a> to <\/span>37<\/a> record the daughter\u2019s response. In verse 36<\/a>, she was in full agreement with her father\u2019s interpretation: My father, you have opened your mouth unto Jehovah; do unto me according to that which has p<\/em><\/span>roceeded out of your mouth<\/em>. She also recognized the validity of the vow and did not try to avoid it. She also understood the basis for the vow: forasmuch as Jehovah has taken vengeance for you on your<\/em><\/span> enemies, even on the children of Ammon<\/em>. But in verse 37<\/a>, she made a request: Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down upon the mountains, and bewail my vi<\/em><\/span>rginity<\/em>. She did not bemoan her coming death but because of her virginity, she would now die childless, and in ancient times this was a major source of grief. She also adds: I and my companions<\/em>; the e<\/span>xact meaning of this will be discussed below.<\/p>\n

In verse 38<\/a>, her request was granted: And he said, Go<\/em>. This was followed by the act itself: and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her vir<\/em><\/span>ginity upon the mountains<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 39a<\/a>, Jephthah fulfilled the vow, which came at the end of two months, when she returned unto her father<\/em>. The fulfillment is declared in two statements: first, who d<\/em><\/span>id with her according to his vow which he had vowed<\/em>; second, and she knew not man<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verses 39b<\/a> to 40<\/a>, this led to a new tradition: And it was a custom in Israel. The new custom was that the daughter<\/em><\/span>s of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite<\/em>. This celebration would last four days in a year<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The issue among interpreters is this: Did Jephthah offer his daughter up a<\/span>s a human sacrifice? Or was she dedicated to serve the Lord as a virgin for the rest of her life?<\/p>\n

Interpreters who favor the human sacrifice view use eight basic arguments:<\/p>\n

First, the Hebrew word used<\/span> here is olah<\/span>, which throughout the Old Testament is always used of a burnt offering, and there is no reason to take it any other way in this passage.<\/p>\n

Second, in the Septuagint version, the same word <\/span>is used of Jephthah\u2019s daughter that was used of Isaac\u2019s sacrifice, which initially was understood to be a human sacrifice.<\/p>\n

Third, if he had only dedication in mind, then he should have used the langua<\/span>ge of Hannah in her dedication of Samuel in 1 Samuel 1:11<\/a>, 1:22<\/a>, 1:25<\/a>, and 1:28<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Fourth, Jephthah was a son of a common prostitute since the word used here is zonah, which means a common prostitute, a<\/span>s over against a temple prostitute. He also spent much time with the peoples east of the Jordan (Judges 11:1\u20133<\/a>), where such practices as human sacrifices were common (2 Kg. 3:26\u201327<\/a>), practices followe<\/span>d by later Jewish kings such as Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:3<\/a>) and Manasseh (2 Kg. 21:6<\/a>); if later leaders of Israel engaged in such practices, it was possible that early leaders did as well.<\/p>\n

Fifth, the fact th<\/span>at he was a judge does not remove the possibility of his making a rash vow, and the common philosophy of his day was that every man did that which was right in his own eyes. This was in opposition to the Law of <\/span>Moses, as was the case earlier with Gideon and his golden ephod and even with Samson and his sins.<\/p>\n

Sixth, if Jephthah could slaughter 42,000 Israelites (cf. Judges 12:1\u20136<\/a>), he certainly had<\/span> the capacity to kill his own daughter.<\/p>\n

Seventh, his daughter\u2019s lament over her virginity implied that there was no hope for children because of her impending death.<\/p>\n

Eighth, the Hebrew word for lament<\/span> here is tavach<\/span>, which is used only one other time, in Judges 5:11<\/a>, where it can be best translated as \u201cto recount,\u201d not \u201ctalk to\u201d as if she were still alive.<\/p>\n

In response to those who argue against a <\/span>human sacrifice, the proponents of her being a human sacrifice would respond with the following six opposing arguments:<\/p>\n

First, as to the argument that Jephthah knew the Law of Moses and therefore woul<\/span>d not be ignorant of the prohibition against human sacrifice, they would answer that knowledge of the Law did not preclude disobedience to that Law. This was also true in the case of King David. Jephthah must have known that it <\/span>would be a human being coming out of his house, for if it was an animal coming out of his home, it would be too small to sacrifice for such a great victory.<\/p>\n

Second, in resp<\/span>onse to the argument that Jephthah\u2019s name appears as a man of faith in Hebrews 11:32<\/a>, they would answer that this does not mean he did not commit sin, since Rahab and Samson also appear, and both are <\/span>guilty of sins.<\/p>\n

Third, as to the argument that Jephthah could not have done this in light of the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon him, they would answer that the vow was not taken right after. Ther<\/span>e may have been a break of time between the Spirit\u2019s coming upon him and the vow itself. Furthermore, the same was true of Samson.<\/p>\n

Fourth, as to the argument that there were full-time women serving in<\/span> the Tabernacle (Exod. 38:8<\/a>; 1 Sam. 2:22<\/a>), and so his vow was that, if he had the victory, he would dedicate to the Tabernacle one member of his household, they would respond: It is not clear that the<\/span>se women served as permanent residents of the Tabernacle, and even so this argument is weak because there appears to be no order of perpetual virgins in the Mosaic order.<\/p>\n

Fifth, as to the argument tha<\/span>t claims that the conjunction in verse 31<\/a> should be translated as \u201cor\u201d and not as \u201cand,\u201d so that the vow would then be that \u201cwhatever comes from the door of the house to meet him shall be devoted to G<\/span>od\u2019s service if it was human, or if it was a clean animal, it would become a burnt offering,\u201d they would answer: it is doubtful if the vav<\/span> here is disjunctive, rather than conjunctive, and it should b<\/span>e \u201cand\u201d and not \u201cor.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sixth, as to the argument that the Hebrew word for lament<\/em> is translated as to talk to<\/em>, which indicates that they ought to remain alive, their answer is: but a better translation <\/span>would be to recount<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Interpreters who favor her being dedicated to full-time Tabernacle service for life do so for at least eleven specific reasons:<\/p>\n

First, there was an order of devoted women working <\/span>in the Tabernacle (Exod. 38:8<\/a>; 1 Sam. 2:22<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Second, the vow was made right after he was clothed with the Holy Spirit, and this mitigates against its being a human sacrifice. There is no indication th<\/span>at there was a gap of time between the coming of the Spirit and the making of the vow.<\/p>\n

Third, if it was clear that the vow was to include human sacrifice, and if God gave him victory, would God have h<\/span>onored such a vow? And the answer is obviously \u201cNo\u201d because it would go against His own law.<\/p>\n

Fourth, human sacrifice was clearly forbidden by the Law of Moses and understood to be an abomination again<\/span>st God (Lev. 18:21<\/a> and 20:2\u20135<\/a>; Deut. 12:31<\/a> and 18:10<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Fifth, there is no evidence that any Israelite offered human sacrifice until it was transplanted by unbelieving kings such as Ahab and Manasseh w<\/span>ho worshipped other gods. But Jephthah was a Jehovah-worshipper, and would not have performed such a crime and abomination. The fact that subsequent Jewish kings did so is not a valid argument here because they worshiped other gods but Jephthah did not.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sixth, there is a constant, strong emphasis on Jephthah\u2019s daughter\u2019s virginity, not on her death. If she were killed, there would be no point in e<\/span>mphasizing her virginity; and yet she bewailed her virginity, not her coming death. To mourn one\u2019s virginity does not necessarily mean to mourn because one has to die a virgin, but because one has to <\/span>live and die as a virgin, and therefore would produce no descendants. His daughter was allowed two months of mourning, not to bewail her approaching death, but her virginity. The final phrase in the story is: <\/span>and she knew not man<\/em>. This does not conform well with death, but it conforms well with dedicated virginity. This statement would add nothing to the issue of her dying since it was already sta<\/span>ted that she was a virgin. But, the statement follows, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed<\/em>, and he did so by the fact that she remained a virgin. In other words, when the text sta<\/span>tes he did according to his vow, which is then followed by the next phrase, she knew not man<\/em>, it means that he fulfilled the vow by her remaining a virgin. This statement does not harmonize with a phy<\/span>sical sacrifice, but it does harmonize with a spiritual sacrifice to full-time service in the Tabernacle, and therefore lifetime virginity. So Jephthah fulfilled the vow through the fact that she knew no man; i.e. he dedicated her life to the Lord as a spiritual burnt-offering in lifelong chastity.<\/span><\/p>\n

Seventh, the narrator never actually says that Jephthah killed or sacrificed his daughter. There was<\/span> no altar at that time for human sacrifice on either side of the Jordan to which he could bring her. Furthermore, no priest would perform such a sacrifice.<\/p>\n

Eighth, the word olah<\/span> or burnt offering<\/em> impl<\/span>ied \u201ctotally given to God,\u201d and the offerer received no portion of it back, and could not derive any benefit from it. With other offerings, the offerer often did receive some benefit or got part of it back<\/span>, but not with the burnt offering. So when a virgin was set apart as a spiritual olah<\/span>, she totally belonged to God and remained single. She remained a virgin for the rest of her life, and Jephtha<\/span>h derived no benefit, meaning no seed, from her. The result was the sure extinction of Jephthah\u2019s line since she was his only child. This was a stronger religious vow than the Nazirite Vow, which was <\/span>temporary, while this one was lifetime. Judges 11:39<\/a> states that Jephthah performed his vow, and then it is followed by the statement that she knew not man<\/em>. Again, this later phrase would be pointless<\/span> if she had been put to death. But it has relevance if she was devoted to the service of God at the door of the Tabernacle for the rest of her life. Jephthah\u2019s lament was based on her being an only child. They were not lamenting her dedication t<\/span>o God\u2019s service, rather they were lamenting over the sure extinction of Jephthah\u2019s line. Thus both he and she bewailed her virginity.<\/p>\n

Ninth, Jephthah was a<\/span>pproved by God in Samuel\u2019s address in 1 Samuel 12:11<\/a>, and by Hebrews 11:32<\/a>, which would not have been the case if he were guilty of such a gross idolatry as human sacrifice. To say, for example, that <\/span>Samson also sinned is irrelevant because Samson was not guilty of idolatry. His disobedience was to the laws of God as a Nazirite, but he did not fall into idolatry. For Jephthah to offer up his daughter would be an idolatrous act, which would not have been commended by Samuel or by the writer of Hebrews.<\/span><\/p>\n

Tenth, Jephthah\u2019s negotiations with the king of Ammon show Jephthah did not as a matter of ha<\/span>bit act rashly but instead thought things out first.<\/p>\n

Eleventh, the daughter\u2019s virginity and dedication was in the plan of God, as the chronology shows, and thus Jephthah\u2019s daughter would still be work<\/span>ing in the Tabernacle when Hannah brought Samuel there to be raised. Although, according to First Samuel, some of the women working in the Tabernacle were not chaste, Jephthah\u2019s daughter was. Therefore, Samuel would have been around a spiritual woman as he was growing up in the Tabernacle.<\/span><\/p>\n

So, the better view is that Jephthah did not offer his daughter as a human sacrifice but offered her in full-<\/span>time service.<\/p>\n

6. War with Ephraim\u201412:1\u20136<\/a><\/p>\n

1And the men of Ephraim were gathered together, and passed northward; and they said unto Jephthah, Wherefore passed you over to fight against the children of Ammon, and did <\/span>not call us to go with you? we will burn your house upon you with fire. 2And Jephthah said unto them, I and my people were at great strife with the children of Ammon; and when I called you, ye saved m<\/span>e not out of their hand. 3And when I saw that ye saved me not, I put my life in my hand, and passed over against the children of Ammon, and Jehovah delivered them into my hand: wherefore then are ye c<\/span>ome up unto me this day, to fight against me? 4Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim; and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye are fugitives <\/span>of Ephraim, ye Gileadites, in the midst of Ephraim, and in the midst of Manasseh. 5And the Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites. And it was so, that, when any of the fugitiv<\/span>es of Ephraim said, Let me go over, the men of Gilead said unto him, Are you an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; 6then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth; and he said Sibboleth; for he could not frame<\/span> to pronounce it right: then they laid hold on him, and slew him at the fords of the Jordan. And there fell at that time of Ephraim forty and two thousand.<\/p>\n

Verse 1<\/a> records the complaint of Ephraim and<\/span> begins, And the men of Ephraim were gathered together<\/em>. The term indicates that they gathered together with hostile intentions, for the basic meaning of the word is to muster<\/em>. The translation and pass<\/em><\/span>ed northward<\/em> is better rendered they crossed over to Zaphon<\/em>. It means they crossed the Jordan River and confronted Jephthah in the town of Zaphon<\/em>, mentioned in Joshua 13:27<\/a>. Then they issued their com<\/span>plaint: Wherefore passed you over to fight against the children of Ammon, and did not call us to go with you?<\/em> They considered themselves to be the most important tribe, and so the failure to call them<\/span> to war was taken as a deliberate insult. Their complaint was followed by a threat: we will burn your house upon you with fire<\/em>. The threat is to kill Jephthah by burning his house with him in it, as i<\/span>n Judges 14:15<\/a>. The tribesmen of Ephraim are viewed as complainers. First, when Joshua divided the Land, they were not happy with what they received (Josh. 17:14\u201316<\/a>). Second, earlier in this book (Jud<\/span>ges 8:1<\/a>), they were offended by Gideon because they were not invited earlier to help fight the Midianites. Third, they now found fault with Jephthah. Earlier, Gideon pacified them; but Jephthah did no<\/span>t pacify them; he instead killed 42,000 Ephraimites (12:6<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Judges 12:2\u20133<\/a> gives Jephthah\u2019s response to Ephraim. In verse 2<\/a>, he clarified the true state of affairs. The actual situation was: I and my p<\/em><\/span>eople were at great strife with the children of Ammon<\/em>. He continued: and when I called you, ye saved me not out of their hand<\/em>. This fact was not previously recorded. It may or may not have been true t<\/span>hat he had called for their help. If it were true, it would have come at the time when he was appointed leader and while he was negotiating with the king of Ammon. At that time he also issued a general call to arms, which would have included a call to Ephraim. Jephthah claim<\/span>s that they failed to answer the call. In verse 3<\/a>, he recounts the victory over the Ammonites. Relative to Ephraim, the timin<\/span>g was when I saw that ye saved me not<\/em>, meaning, when Jephthah realized there was no help coming from the Ephraimites. So, he took action without them: I put my life in my hand, and passed over against<\/em><\/span> the children of Ammon<\/em>. Then came the statement of victory: and Jehovah delivered them into my hand<\/em>; the results were the work of God, not man. Jephthah concluded with a rebuttal: wherefore then are y<\/em><\/span>e come up unto me this day, to fight against me?<\/em> To summarize Jephthah\u2019s response, he said five things. First, he pointed out that he and his own people had been in intense war with the Ammonites. Sec<\/span>ond, he accused the Ephraimites of failing to respond to his call to arms and claims he had issued them a call. Third, he lauded himself for his own initiative and courage; for in the critical moment when he realized that there would be no help coming from Ephraim, he risked his own life. Fourth, he noted that it was God who gave him the victory. Fif<\/span>th, he rebuked Ephraim for threatening him.<\/p>\n

In v<\/span>erse 4<\/a>, the dispute leads to tribal war. The disbanded army was now called back to arms to meet the threat from within: Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead<\/em>. Jephthah now had his seco<\/span>nd victory: the men of Gilead smote Ephraim<\/em>. This was vengeance for an insult: because they said, Ye are fugitives of Ephraim, ye Gileadites, in the midst of Ephraim, and in the midst of Manasseh<\/em>. The<\/span> taunt was such that the soldiers were willing to regroup for another major battle. By their taunt they were saying, \u201cYe Gileadites are a mob gathered together from Ephraim that have run away; you are an o<\/span>bscure group of men of no name, living in the midst of the two most noble and illustrious tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh; you Gileadites may think yourselves to be brave soldiers, but you are actually comparable with the most despicable of the Ephraimites, who desert in time of war, to be found in the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.\u201d The accusation of being a fugitive would touch a tender spot in Jephtha<\/span>h\u2019s own experience since he<\/p>\n

himself was a fugitive from his own family at one time.<\/span><\/p>\n

In verses 5<\/a> to 6<\/a> comes the slaughter of the Ephraimite fugitives. It begins with the capture of the crossi<\/span>ng points: And the Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites<\/em>. The purpose was to cut off the escape of the remnants of the Army of Ephraim that had escaped the field of battle. T<\/span>he irony is that, under Gideon, the Ephraimites captured the fords of the Jordan against the Midianites; now the same tactic is used against the fugitives of Ephraim<\/em>. Now it is the Ephraimites who hav<\/span>e become fugitives<\/em>; the very term they used with such contempt against Jephthah and the Gileadites now became applicable to them. If they denied being an Ephraimite<\/em>, there was a test. They were told, <\/span>Say now <\/em>Shibboleth<\/span>. Shibboleth<\/span> has two possible meanings: It could refer to an ear of corn or wheat, as in Genesis 41:5\u20136<\/a>; or it could refer to the flood of a stream as in Psalm 69:3<\/a>. The second optio<\/span>n fits the context here better. An Ephraimite would say: Sibboleth<\/em>, which shows that there was a dialectical difference between the tribes. They apparently could not pronounce the \u201csh\u201d sound, for he c<\/em><\/span>ould not frame to pronounce it right<\/em>, and so in place of Shibboleth<\/span>, they said Sibboleth<\/em>. If one failed the test, then they laid hold on him, and slew him at the fords of the Jordan<\/em>. The total killed <\/span>is recorded: And there fell at that time of Ephraim forty and two thousand<\/em>. This does not mean that 42,000 were slaughtered at the fords of the Jordan, but this was the total for the entire war. The E<\/span>phraimites are never again viewed as making such arrogant claims; and so, they did learn their lesson in the end.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>7. Judgeship of Jephthah\u201412:7<\/a><\/p>\n

And Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then died Jephthah the Gileadite, and was buried in one of the cities of Gilead<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Three statements are given to sum up Jephthah\u2019s jud<\/span>geship. First, concerning the duration: And Jephthah judged Israel six years<\/em>. Second, concerning his death: Then died Jephthah the Gileadite<\/em>. Third, with regard to his burial: He was buried in one of <\/em><\/span>the cities of Gilead<\/em>. The Hebrew reads in the cities of Gilead<\/em>, and not in \u201cone\u201d of the cities of Gilead. This reading gave rise to a rather unique rabbinic interpretation. The Midrash<\/span> to Genesis 24:1<\/span>3\u201314<\/a> states, \u201cBecause he was stricken with leprosy as a punishment, his death was lingering, and his limbs fell off one by one, and were buried in different cities where they happened to drop off.\u201d Ra<\/span>lbag states that the different parts of his body were, at his own request, buried in different cities where he had achieved victory over the Ammonites; and his purpose was to leave behind a memorial of his deeds, seeing that he had no children to perpetuate his memory.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

I. Judgeship of Ibzan\u201412:8\u201310<\/a><\/p>\n

8And after him Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel. 9And he had thirty sons; and thirty daughters he sent abroad, and thirty daughters he brought in from abroad for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years. 10And Ibzan died, and was buried at Bethlehem.<\/p>\n

This too is one of the judges for which there is not a lot of detail. Verse 8<\/a> introduces the judge: after him Ibzan o<\/em>f Bethlehem judged Israel<\/em>. The name occurs only here, and it means \u201cswift.\u201d In rabbinic tradition, Ibzan<\/em> is the same as Boaz in the Book of Ruth, although there is no real evidence of this. The Bethle<\/em>hem<\/em> here is probably the Bethlehem of Zebulun or northern Bethlehem, mentioned in Joshua 19:15<\/a>, because the Bethlehem of Judah is always connected with Judah in this book and always called Bethlehem of Judah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 9a<\/a> deals with the judge\u2019s family: And he had thirty sons; and thirty daughters<\/em>. This is in sharp contrast to Jephthah, who only had one daughter, and reveals polygamy on Ibzan\u2019s part. A<\/span>s for the thirty daughters he sent abroad<\/em>, meaning they were married outside the clan and outside the tribe. This would have cemented both clan ties and tribal ties and thus avoided inter-clan and int<\/span>er-tribal conflict and extended the scope of his political influence. As for the thirty sons: and thirty daughters he brought in from abroad for his sons<\/em>. He brought in wives for his sons from other c<\/span>lans and tribes. This shows that tribal identity was passed on through the father and not the mother.<\/p>\n

Verse 9b<\/a> records the duration of his judgeship: And he judged Israel seven years<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 10<\/a> notes h<\/span>is death and burial: And Ibzan died<\/em>, and was buried at Bethlehem<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

J. Judgeship of Elon\u201412:11\u201312<\/a><\/p>\n

11And after him Elon the Zebulunite judged Israel; and he judged Israel ten years. 12And Elon the Zebulunite died, and was buried in Aijalon in the land of Zebulun.<\/p>\n

No detailed information is given for Elon, but just three basic facts. First, his name and tribal affiliation are listed: And after him Elon the Zebulunite judged Israel<\/em>. The name appeared in the past, as the son of Zebulun (Gen. 46:14<\/a>; Num. 26:26<\/a>). Second, the duration is recorded: and he judged Israel ten years<\/em>. Third, the text describes his death and burial: And Elon the Zebulunite died, and was bur<\/em>ied in Aijalon in the land of Zebulun<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

K. Judgeship of Abdon\u201412:13\u201315<\/a><\/p>\n

13And after him Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite judged Israel. 14And he had forty sons and thirty sons\u2019 sons, that rode on threescore and ten ass colts: and he j<\/span>udged Israel eight years. 15And Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite died, and was buried in Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the hill-country of the Amalekites.<\/p>\n

Regarding Abdon\u2019s judgeship, the<\/span> author again does not give a detailed cycle but lists four basic facts. First, verse 13<\/a> identifies the person of the judge: And after him Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite judged Israel<\/em>. The na<\/span>me Abdon<\/em> appears as a name of a Benjamite in 1 Chronicles 8:23<\/a> and 8:30<\/a>. The name has the meaning of \u201cservice.\u201d He was a son of Hillel<\/em>, the only appearance of this name in Scripture, though much later<\/span> it became a very common rabbinic name. The town of Pirathon was in Ephraim, and so this shows that he was an Ephraimite.<\/p>\n

Second, concerning his family in Judges 12:14a<\/a>: He had forty sons and thirty s<\/em><\/span>ons\u2019 sons<\/em> or thirty grandsons, whose affluence is seen by the fact that they rode on threescore and ten ass colts<\/em>. This indicates two things: first, the practice of polygamy; and second, a time of pea<\/span>ce and prosperity as in Judges 5:10<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Third, the duration is recorded in Judges 12:14b<\/a>: and he judged Israel eight years<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Fourth, his death and burial are recorded in 12:15<\/a>. As to his death, the text n<\/span>otes, Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite died<\/em>. As to his burial, he was buried in Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the hill-country of the <\/em>Amalekites<\/span>. The name Amalekites<\/span> does not seem to fit <\/span>the geography, and so it may remember a temporary intrusion of the Amalekites into this area, probably about the time of the Midianites, since the two were allied in the wars of Gideon.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>L. Seventh Cycle: Samson\u201413:1\u201316:31<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. Sin\u201413:1a<\/a><\/p>\n

And the children of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah; \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Oppression: The Philistines\u201413:1b<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2026 and Jehovah delivered them into the hand of the Philistines forty years<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This time the judgment was that Jehovah delivered them into the hand of the Philistines<\/em>. The Philistines<\/em> were not a Semitic or Canaanite group, but originated from the Aegean area and arrived in Canaan from two directions: overland through Anatolia (Turkey), on down the coast; and by sea, via Crete and Cyprus. They were advancing toward Egypt until they were engaged in battle by Ramses III in 1194 b.c. in what is now Turkey. It was an indecisive victory, however. While Ramses III kept them from entering Egypt, the Philistines did settle on the coast between the Sorek River in the north and the Egyptian border at Raphia in the south. They would play a major role in Israel\u2019s history and become the main reason that Israel would start asking for a king (1 Sam. 8<\/a>). They display a Minoan-Greek civilization and customs, and, throughout biblical history, they definitely show elements of Greek thinking and culture. Now for the third time in the Book of Judges, the Philistines become a problem for Israel; the two preceding times were in 3:31<\/a> and 10:7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Samson Cycle represents a transition from the Philistines being dealt with by a judge to the Philistines being dealt with by a king. So, while the Ammonites were pressing Israel on the east side of the Jordan with Jephthah fighting against them, the Philistines were pressing Israel on the west side of the Jordan as Samson began his wars and his twenty years of judgeship during the Philistine oppression. The final breaking of Philistine power only came with David in 2 Samuel 5<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The duration of the Philistine oppression was: forty years<\/em>. The forty years<\/em> of Philistine oppression included the prediction of Samson\u2019s birth, <\/span>the birth and life of Samson, and the twenty years of Samson\u2019s judgeship, mentioned in Judges 15:20<\/a> and 16:31<\/a>. That would mean that he began his judgeship at a very young age, perhaps even before he w<\/span>as twenty years old. Twenty years before Samuel\u2019s defeat of the Philistines (1 Samuel 7<\/a>), the enemy had sent back the Ark of the Covenant after keeping it for seven months. Most of Samson\u2019s activities<\/span> took place during these following twenty years. His marriage to a Philistine woman took place a year or two before the Philistine victory at Shiloh. This means that Eli14<\/a> (another judge and contempo<\/span>rary of Samson) died shortly after the first of Samson\u2019s wars on the Philistines. All Samson\u2019s activities accrued within the forty-year period mentioned. The forty years<\/em> of Philistine oppression ended<\/span> when Israel defeated the Philistines under Samuel in 1 Samuel 7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Samson Cycle is unique within the Book of Judges, and its uniqueness can be seen in sixteen ways. First, the period of subjection <\/span>is twice as long as the longest previous oppression, forty rather than twenty years. Second, whereas Othniel, Ehud, Deborah and Barak, Gideon, and Jephthah all delivered Israel from the oppression of their enemies, Samson did not deliver them from the Philistines. His twenty years of judgeship was during their period of servitude, n<\/span>ot after. Third, while other judges were raised up at a time of crisis to rescue Israel, Samson was called to do so before his birth. Fourth, of the seven references to the Holy Spirit in this book, four of these are in connection with Samson. Fifth, of the twenty-three references to the Angel of Jehovah, thirteen of these are in connection with Samson. Sixth, only Samson was a Nazirite. Seventh, only of Samson is it said, \u201cThe Lord departed from him.\u201d Eighth, Samson alone, among the judges, entered into a fateful and fatal rela<\/span>tionship with the enemy. Ninth, only Samson died in captivity, and, upon death, still left Israel in servitude. Tenth, Samson\u2019s history connects directly with the judgeship of Eli and the story of Samuel. Eleventh, the wars of deliverance give way to a series of episodes in the deliverer\u2019s private life, and there is no record of Israel\u2019s response to the oppression of verse <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>1<\/a> nor a record of Samson\u2019s issuing a call to arms to defeat the Philistines. The focus is not on national deliverance but on the personal deliverance of Sam<\/span>son individually for the difficulties he gets himself into because of his escapades. Twelfth, Israel\u2019s attitude toward the oppression has changed; and in place of crying out because of the burden of o<\/span>ppression, they co-exist with the Philistines. Samson, the deliverer, freely fraternizes with the enemy. Judah resists any action that might upset the status quo, and God must be the One who creates the disturbances and causes the deliverer to act; otherwise he would not. Thirteenth, the<\/span> role of the Judge changes in that Samson fully becomes part of the problem rather than part of the problem\u2019s lasting solution. Fourteenth, there are more acts of moral and spiritual weakness ascribed to Samson than to any other judge. Fifteenth, women play a major role in Samson\u2019s life\u2014four specifically: his mother, his unnamed first wife, the unnamed prostitute of Gaza, and the Philistine woman Delilah. Sixteenth, what is missing from the Samson Cycle is Israel\u2019s cry for help. On t<\/span>he contrary, as the Tribe of Judah shows, Israel seems to be content living with Philistine oppression.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Samson can be also viewed as a type of Israel in at least nine ways. First, there was a supernatural element involved in<\/span> both their births. Second, both Samson and Israel are called to a high life of separation and devotion to God. Third, Samson has an immature personality as Israel had an immature faith. Fourth, he is drawn to foreign women just as Israel is drawn to foreign gods and plays the harlot. Fifth, both Samson and Israel expe<\/span>rienced oppression and bondage of the enemy. Sixth, Samson cried out to God from his oppression as Israel often did. Seventh, Samson was blinded physically as Israel was blinded spiritually. Eighth, Samson was abandoned by God and did not know it; and God hid His face from Israel, and Israel did not know it. Ninth, eventually the relationship between Samson and God was restored, and Samson\u2019s strength was renewed, just as Israel was strengthened with the rise of a new judge.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>3. Deliverance\u201413:2\u201315:19<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>a. Birth of Samson\u201413:2\u201325<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(1) The Angel of Jehovah and the Wife\u201413:2\u20137<\/a><\/p>\n

2And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bore not. 3And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, you are barren, and bear not; but you shall conceive, and bear a son. 4Now therefore beware, I pray you, and drink no wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing: 5for, lo, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. 6Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; and I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name: 7but he said unto me, Behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing; for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb to the day of his death.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 2<\/a> provides the circumstance, beginning with the husband: And there was a certain man of Zorah<\/em>. The location w<\/span>as Zorah<\/em>, a town in the Shephelah lying between the hill-country of Judah on the east and the Coastal Plain on the west. The Hebrew reads one man<\/em>, and this has led to some rabbinic speculations. One r<\/span>abbi said that by calling the husband one man<\/em>, it emphasizes his uniqueness and that no one in his generation could be compared to him.15<\/a> Another view is that since only he is said to be of the family<\/em><\/span> of Dan, and not the Tribe of Dan, it shows that only he was a Danite, while his wife was of the Tribe of Judah. A third rabbinic view based upon this verse states that this teaches that the father of<\/span> the Messiah will be of the Tribe of Judah, while the mother will be of the Tribe of Dan. Both were blessed with the strength of a lion, and for a person to be able to eradicate the evil in this world<\/span> and to overcome the enemies of God, both his paternal and maternal ancestors must possess the unique spiritual strength needed to subdue evil. However, while it is true that the Messiah will come from the Tribe of Judah, no passage of the Bible teaches that the mother will come from Dan. Verse <\/span>2<\/a> goes on to reveal Samson\u2019s father\u2019s tribal identity: of the family of the Danites<\/em>. Then finally the na<\/span>me is given: whose name was Manoah<\/em>. He is the only one in the Bible who had this name. The wife is introduced with a description of her state: and his wife was barren<\/em>, followed by the point of emphasi<\/span>s: and bore not<\/em>. The reason for the emphasis is that this would become the issue about to be resolved. She, not Manoah, becomes the key character. The Bible does not give her name. In rabbinic traditi<\/span>on, her name was Tzelalphonit.<\/p>\n

Verses 3<\/a> to 5<\/a> record the appearance and the message of the Angel of Jehovah, with verse 3a<\/a> giving the appearance: And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto the woman, and s<\/em><\/span>aid unto her<\/em>. The rabbis teach that this appearance shows how great this woman was. That she was able to speak to an angel means that she had reached the same level required to attain the Ruach Hakode<\/span><\/span>sh<\/span>, the Holy Spirit. The fact that the angel spoke to her shows that she had climbed the ten steps to holiness, and the fact that she is called the woman<\/em> and not his wife<\/em> shows that she merited this e<\/span>ncounter with an angel on the basis of her own virtue, not because she was Manoah\u2019s wife. In rabbinic theology, there were ten levels of holiness, which are as follows:<\/p>\n

First, is the Torah<\/em>, the law<\/em> wh<\/span>ich leads to zehirut<\/span>, meaning caution<\/em>,<\/p>\n

Second, zehirut<\/span> will lead to zerizut<\/span>, meaning diligence<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Third, zerizut<\/span> leads to nekiut<\/span>, meaning cleanliness<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Fourth, nekiut<\/span> leads to perushut<\/span>, which means absti<\/em><\/span>nence<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Fifth, perushut<\/span> leads to taharah<\/span> or purity<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Sixth, taharah<\/span> leads to chasiduk<\/span>, which means saintliness<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Seventh, chasiduk<\/span> leads to anavah<\/span>, meaning humility<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Eighth, anavah<\/span> leads to yarat chet<\/span>, m<\/span>eaning the fear of sin<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Ninth, yarat chet<\/span> leads to kedushah<\/span>, meaning holiness<\/em>; and<\/p>\n

Tenth, kedushah<\/span> finally leads to the Ruach Hakodesh<\/span>, the Holy Spirit<\/em>.<\/p>\n

According to rabbinic tradition, Manoah\u2019s wife <\/span>attained these ten levels of holiness, because only then did one have the right to be able to speak with an angel. This again shows the degree to which rabbinic innovations move well beyond the biblical text. Verses <\/span>3b<\/a> to 5<\/a> contain the message of the angel beginning with the prophecy of verse 3b<\/a>: Behold now, you are barren, and bear not; but you shall conceive, and bear a son<\/em>. In verse 4<\/a>, the ange<\/span>l spelled out her two obligations: first, drink no wine nor strong drink<\/em>; second, and eat not any unclean thing<\/em>. In verse 5a<\/a>, the angel gives the reason, after repeating the promise: for, lo, you shal<\/em><\/span>l conceive, and bear a son<\/em>; and gives her the instructions: and no razor shall come upon his head<\/em>. The reason is then identified: for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb<\/em>. All obligati<\/span>ons here are based on the Laws of the Nazirites found in Numbers chapter 6<\/a>. The only point missing is the prohibition against touching the dead, which, for a child, was not an immediate concern. In Ju<\/span>dges 13:5b<\/a>, the angel declared what the call of Samson was to be: and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines<\/em>. The phrase he shall begin to save<\/em> shows that Samson will only be<\/em><\/span>gin<\/em> the Philistine deliverance; it will be Samuel and David who complete it.<\/p>\n

So again, the twenty years of judgeship of Samson occurred within the forty years of the Philistine oppression, which conti<\/span>nued until 1 Samuel 4<\/a>. The forty years are from Judges 13:1<\/a> until 1 Samuel 7<\/a>. The forty years of Eli began with the judgeship of Jair, and his twenty years coincided with the Philistine oppression. El<\/span>i was not a judge in the strict sense of the term, since he was not the commander of an army or a civil judge but the High Priest; and in this capacity, he also happened to administer civil law. After Eli\u2019s death, Israel continued under the Philistine oppression for over twenty years. It was during this period that Samson <\/span>was active, when he began the deliverance. Samuel worked at the same time as a prophet, promoting the inward and spiritual strength of Israel and finally convinced Israel to put away the idols in <\/span>1 Samuel 7:2\u201311<\/a>, which, in turn, would lead to Israel\u2019s complete victory over th<\/span>e Philistines.<\/p>\n

The chronology of Israel\u2019s beginning until the Temple was built, then, would be as follows. First, from the oppression of Cushan to the death of Jair was 301 years. Second, the Philisti<\/span>ne oppression lasted forty years. Third, the judgeship of Samuel and the reign of Saul together were thirty-nine years. Fourth, David\u2019s reign was forty years. Fifth, Solomon\u2019s reign until the building<\/span> of the Temple was three years. The total thus far is 423 years. Adding to that figure the preceding wilderness wanderings of forty years, and seven years between the entrance into the Land until the division of the Land, an<\/span>d the ten years from the division to the oppression of Cushan produces a grand total of 480 years, which is in keeping with 1 Kings 6:1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Judges 13:6\u20137<\/a> gives the wife\u2019s report: <\/span>Then the woman came and told her husband<\/em>, and she told him two things. First, in verse 6<\/a>, she told him about the person: A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the <\/em><\/span>angel of God, very terrible<\/em>. Her response to his appearance was: and I asked him not whence he was<\/em>, and furthermore, neither told he me his name<\/em>. Second, in verse 7<\/a>, she told her husband about the mes<\/span>sage: Behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son<\/em>. The obligations in the message were to drink no wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing<\/em>. The reason was for the child shall be a Nazirite<\/em><\/span> unto God from the womb to the day of his death<\/em>. Four observations can be made by way of comparison between the narrator\u2019s account and her own report. First, she omitted what the Angel of Jehovah said<\/span> about her barrenness for this, by now, was painfully obvious. Second, she omitted the injunction to guard herself. Third, she omitted the prohibition of a razor to pass over his head. Fourth, after the message that the son was to be a Nazirite from the womb, she then added that these two vows are to be true until the day of his death. This was not ac<\/span>tually stated but a valid deduction from the fact that he was to be a Nazirite from the womb. This addition, combined with the omission about the razor, is rather ironic because it will be the violation of one that will lead to the other: the violation of the injunction against the razor will lead to Samson\u2019s death.<\/p>\n

(2) The Angel of Jehovah and Manoah\u201413:8\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n

8Then Manoah entreated Jehovah, and said, Oh, Lord, I pray you, let the man of God whom you did send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto <\/span>the child that shall be born. 9And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field: but Manoah her husband was not with her. 10And the woma<\/span>n made haste, and ran, and told her husband, and said unto him, Behold, the man has appeared unto me, that came unto me the other day. 11And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man,<\/span> and said unto him, Are you the man that spoke unto the woman? And he said, I am. 12And Manoah said, Now let your words come to pass: what shall be the ordering of the child, and how shall we do unto <\/span>him? 13And the angel of Jehovah said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware. 14She may not eat of anything that comes of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, no<\/span>r eat any unclean thing; all that I commanded her let her observe.<\/p>\n

Verse 8<\/a> records Manoah\u2019s prayer: let the man of God whom you did send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto the chil<\/em><\/span>d that shall be born<\/em>. The instructions have already been given to the woman, and so this may simply be a request for more details.<\/p>\n

Verse 9<\/a> provides the answer: And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah<\/em><\/span>. But here again, the two were not together: the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field: but Manoah her husband was not with her<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 10<\/a>, her response was: And the woman made<\/em><\/span> haste, and ran<\/em>. This time she did not stay to have her own conversation, but left quickly to inform her husband, saying, Behold, the man has appeared unto me, that came unto me the other day<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verses <\/span>11<\/a> to 12<\/a> give the account of Manoah and the Angel of Jehovah, beginning with their meeting in verse 11<\/a>: And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him, Are you the m<\/em><\/span>an that spoke unto the woman?<\/em> The answer was: I am<\/em>. In verse 12<\/a>, came Manoah\u2019s inquiry, beginning with the statement of hope: Now let your words come to pass<\/em>. Then he asked two questions. First, he as<\/span>ked, what shall be the ordering of the child?<\/em> In Hebrew, the word means judgment<\/em>. He was asking, \u201cWhat shall be the judgment of the child?\u201d or \u201cHow shall we act toward him?\u201d Second, he asked, and how <\/em><\/span>shall we do unto him?<\/em> Meaning, \u201cHow shall we raise him?\u201d<\/p>\n

In verses 13<\/a> to 14<\/a> comes the Angel of Jehovah\u2019s answer: Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware<\/em>. He then specified four things: first,<\/span> She may not eat of anything that comes of the vine<\/em>; second, neither let her drink wine or strong drink<\/em>; third, nor eat any unclean thing<\/em>; fourth, all that I commanded<\/em> her let her observe<\/em>. He did not <\/span>actually answer the question concerning how the child was to be raised, because for now the primary concern was that the mother obey all the rules that were already given to her.<\/p>\n

(3) Disappearance of the Angel of Jehovah\u201413:15\u201320<\/a><\/p>\n

15And Manoah said unto the angel of Jehovah, I pray you, let us detain you, that we may make ready a kid for you. 16And the angel of Jehovah said unt<\/span>o Manoah, Though you detain me, I will not eat of your bread; and if you will make ready a burnt-offering, you must offer it unto Jehovah. For Manoah knew not that he was the angel of Jehovah. 17And M<\/span>anoah said unto the angel of Jehovah, What is your name, that, when your words come to pass, we may do you honor? 18And the angel of Jehovah said unto him, Wherefore ask you after my name, seeing it i<\/span>s wonderful? 19So Manoah took the kid with the meal-offering, and offered it upon the rock unto Jehovah: and the angel did wondrously, and Manoah and his wife looked on. 20For it came to pass, when th<\/span>e flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of Jehovah ascended in the flame of the altar: and Manoah and his wife looked on; and they fell on their faces to the ground.<\/p>\n

Verse 15<\/a> <\/span>records Manoah\u2019s offer: let us detain you<\/em>, for the purpose: that we may make ready a kid for you<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 16a<\/a> gives the angel\u2019s twofold response. First, he said, Though you detain me, I will not eat of <\/em><\/span>your bread<\/em>, meaning, He will stay, but He will not eat. Second, he said, and if you will make ready a burnt-offering, you must offer it unto Jehovah<\/em>, meaning, in place of preparing a meal to be eaten,<\/span> it should be a burnt-offering, and it should be offered to Jehovah<\/em>, not to a foreign god.<\/p>\n

Verse 16b<\/a> explains the situation: For Manoah knew not that he was the angel of Jehovah<\/em>, that the angel of Jeh<\/em><\/span>ovah<\/em> is Jehovah Himself, and to Him the offering is to be made. But Manoah did not know that yet.<\/p>\n

In verse 17<\/a> comes Manoah\u2019s inquiry: What is your name<\/em>? The reason for the question was that, when your<\/em><\/span> words come to pass<\/em>, meaning, when they are fulfilled: we may do you honor<\/em>. The honor<\/em>, from Manoah\u2019s perspective, would be the honor<\/em> of a prophet.<\/p>\n

In verse 18<\/a> comes the Angel of Jehovah\u2019s answer: Wher<\/em><\/span>efore ask you after my name, seeing it is wonderful?<\/em> The Hebrew is peli<\/span>, and the kativ<\/span>, \u201cthat which is written,\u201d has an adjectival form, which shows that this was not the proper name of the Angel of J<\/span>ehovah but expresses the character of His Name. The root means, \u201cto be extraordinary\u201d or \u201cmarvelous.\u201d The main form of the word is not peli<\/span>, but pele<\/span>, a word that in the Hebrew Bible is only used of G<\/span>od; and so it must be understood in the absolute sense: absolutely and supremely wonderful<\/em>, as a predicate belonging to God alone. The only other place where this adjective appears is in Psalm 139:6<\/a> w<\/span>here it is found in the feminine form describing the marvelous knowledge of God. Included in the context in Psalm 139:13\u201316<\/a>, peli<\/span> is an expression of wonder at God\u2019s skill and skillful creation of a b<\/span>aby in its mother\u2019s womb. The fact that He refers to Himself as peli<\/span>, then, would again emphasize that the Angel of Jehovah is a Theophany, a visible manifestation of God Himself.<\/p>\n

In verse 19a<\/a> comes t<\/span>he offering. Manoah did two things: first, So Manoah took the kid with the meal-offering<\/em>; and second, he offered it upon the rock unto Jehovah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verses 19b<\/a> to 20<\/a> record the acceptance of the offering, <\/span>with verse 19b<\/a> giving the summary and verse 20<\/a> giving the details. The summary is in verse 19b<\/a>: and the angel did wondrously<\/em>. Here the Hebrew is maphli<\/span>, from the same root as pele<\/span>. And so the One call<\/span>ed Wonderful<\/em> now does something wonderful, a miracle: and Manoah and his wife looked on<\/em>. Then in verse 20<\/a> comes the details, beginning with the wonder: For it came to pass, when the flame went up towa<\/em><\/span>rd heaven from off the altar, that the angel of Jehovah ascended in the flame of the altar<\/em>. Then came their response: and Manoah and his wife looked on; and they fell on their faces to the ground<\/em>. Thi<\/span>s miracle showed that the offering was accepted.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Here again, the rabbis needed to get around the issue that this Angel of Jehovah was God Himself; and so in the rabbinic explanation, they claim that w<\/span>hen Manoah and his wife saw the angel ascend to heaven, together with the flame, then they understood that the Shechinah<\/em> had come down to accept the offering; and therefore they fell on their faces be<\/span>fore the Shechinah<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(4) Response of Manoah and His Wife\u201413:21\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n

21But the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Jehovah. 22And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. 23But his wife said unto him, If Jehovah were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt-offering and a meal-offering at our hand, neither would he have showed us all these things, nor would at this time have told such things as these.<\/p>\n

Verse 21<\/a> presents two basic facts. First, the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his wi<\/em>fe<\/em>. There were no more divine visits to them; from this point on, God worked through their son, Samson. Second, Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Jehovah<\/em>. When he saw Him ascend in the flame, Manoah knew<\/em> to Whom he was talking.<\/p>\n

This led to Manoah\u2019s fear in verse 22<\/a>: We shall surely die, because we have seen God<\/em>. This again shows Manoah realized at this point this was not a man he was talking to, but the Angel of Jehovah. But he also states that he knew the Angel of Jehovah was God Himself: we have seen God<\/em>. Here again the rabbis had to find a way out of the obvious, and so the rabbis teach as follows:<\/p>\n

Manoah said, \u2018We have seen God.\u2019 By that, he meant that they had seen the angel of God, since no one can see God Himself. The word Elohim is probably not God\u2019s holy name at all, but rather meant angels or powers as we find it used in other places in the Bible.<\/p>\n

The rabbis go a long way to avoid any implication of a plurality in the Godhead, and because they are so fixed on absolute unity against a compound unity, they have to stretch the text.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 23<\/a> records the wife\u2019s comforting response: If Jehovah were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt-offering and a m<\/em><\/span>eal-offering at our hand, neither would he have showed us all these things, nor would at this time have told such things as these<\/em>, things such as having a child. Throughout this narrative, one thing i<\/span>s obvious: Manoah\u2019s wife had greater spiritual insight than he did.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(5) Fulfillment of the Promise\u201413:24\u201325<\/a><\/p>\n

24And the woman bore a son, and called his name Samson: and the child grew, and Jehovah blessed him. 25And the Spirit of Jehovah began to move him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.<\/p>\n

Verse 24<\/a> deals with the fulfillment of the divine message: And the woman bore a son, and called his name Samson<\/em>. In Hebrew it is Shimshon<\/span>, from the intensive form of shim<\/span>sheim<\/span>, from the root shamein<\/span>, meaning \u201cto be strong\u201d or \u201cto be daring.\u201d This name combines the Hebrew word for sun<\/em>, shemesh<\/span>, with the diminutive ending on<\/em>, meaning \u201cdual sun,\u201d or \u201csunny boy.\u201d The City of Beth Shemesh was just across the valley from Zorah where there may have been a shrine to the sun god, but the parents of Samson were believers and would not have named him after a pagan god but only after the town across the valley. In rabbinic tradition, his mother named him Shimshon<\/span> in reference to the scriptural attribute of God found in Psalm 84:12<\/a>, which says Shemesh Umogen<\/span>, meaning \u201cfortification and shield,\u201d because she was divinely informed that her son would possess the quality of the protector of Israel: that is, \u201cRabbi Yohanan said, Just as God protects the entire world, so did Shimson protect the children of Israel in his generation.\u201d16<\/a> Then the writer summaries his development both physically and spiritually: and the child grew, and Jehovah blessed him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Then in verse 25<\/a> came his calling: And the Spirit of Jehovah began to move him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol<\/em>. The initiative began with God: the Spirit of Jehovah began to move him<\/em>. Left to himself, Samson would not have become involved in God\u2019s program against the Philistines; and left to themselves, the Israelites would have been satisfied to continue co-existing with the Philistines and would not have tried to free themselves from them. Because of Samson\u2019s and Israel\u2019s reluctance, it was necessary for God to start taking the initiative. The rabbis claim the mention of the Spirit of God shows that Samson, like his mother, attained the ten levels of holiness (see page 121<\/a>). He attained this as a young man, and only after attaining spiritual greatness did he allow himself to go down to live with the Philistines. The Scriptures present Samson as a spiritually weak person, fluctuating between acts of faith and acts of the flesh, but the rabbis find ways of explaining away every weakness to show that it was really a mark of great spiritual strength.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. Marriage of Samson\u201414:1\u201320<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>(1) Samson\u2019s Desire\u201414:1\u20134<\/a><\/p>\n

1And Samson went down to Timnah, and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines. 2And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a <\/span>woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife. 3Then his father and his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brethren, o<\/span>r among all my people, that you go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleases me well. 4But his father and his mother knew not th<\/span>at it was of Jehovah; for he sought an occasion against the Philistines. Now at that time the Philistines had rule over Israel.<\/p>\n

Verse 1<\/a> provides the circumstance leading to Samson\u2019s marriage, involvin<\/span>g two things. First, Samson went down to Timnah<\/em>. He went down<\/em> because Zorah was in the hills of the Shephelah while Timnah<\/em> was in the Valley of Sorek and so would take a descent to get to it. Timnah<\/em> w<\/span>as given to the Tribe of Dan in Joshua 19:43<\/a>, but this was a city that the Danites never took, and it was at this time maintained by the Philistines. This was due to the Philistine chariot force, whic<\/span>h was effective in the flat valley where Timnah<\/em> was located but not in the rocky hills where Zorah was located. This explains why the Danites had what they had and why they failed to get what they did<\/span> not have. Second, Samson saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines<\/em>. This statement sets the stage for Samson\u2019s coming wars against the Philistines.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 2<\/a> presents Samson\u2019s request f<\/span>or a wife. The timing was when he came up<\/em>; he went back up to Zorah and told his father and his mother<\/em>. This was necessary since the marriage was to be negotiated by the parents, and particularly by t<\/span>he father or brother (Gen. 21:21<\/a>; 24:4<\/a>; 34:8<\/a>; Exod. 21:9<\/a>). Samson began with a statement: I have seen a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines<\/em>. It should be noted that he only saw her, an<\/span>d so his desire for her was based on sight alone, a fact reaffirmed in Judges 14:3<\/a>. Then he made his request: now therefore get her for me to wife<\/em>. This was forbidden by the Mosaic Law and obviously n<\/span>ot part of God\u2019s will for his life. But the rabbis, not willing to find any fault with Samson, claim that Samson was not doing something shameful, but he understood that he was the one to fulfill Jacob\u2019s prophecy of the snake of Dan (<\/span>Gen. 49:17<\/a>). So they interpret this to refer to the method he had to employ while waging his battles, which was to blend into the terrain by going to live among the P<\/span>hilistines. He would then seek out opportunities to pick fights with them. His attacks would seem to be personal vendettas rather than efforts to save Israel from their enemies. The first step of this blending was for him to marry a Philistine woman. Before the marriage, she was secretly converted to Judaism, since it was inconceivable that a Nazirite wo<\/span>uld live with a foreign woman. The whole rabbinic focus is to get around the obvious, because to the rabbis, Samson was a spiritual giant.<\/span><\/p>\n

Verse 3a<\/a> records objections of the parents: Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brethren<\/em>, <\/span>meaning a fellow Danite, or among all my people<\/em>, meaning a fellow Israelite, that you go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines?<\/em> In other words, why not find a nice Jewish girl to marry? The <\/span>term uncircumcised<\/em> seems to be used in the Hebrew text exclusively of the Philistines, since the Canaanites, with the exception of the Shechemites, appear to have practiced circumcision.<\/p>\n

Verse 3b<\/a> reco<\/span>rds Samson\u2019s retort: Get her for me; for she pleases me well<\/em>. The Hebrew reads, \u201cshe is right in my eyes.\u201d The same phrase is used negatively in the Book of Judges and used in a condemnatory implicati<\/span>on later in 21:25<\/a> because the normal expression is to find favor<\/em> in one\u2019s eyes. But Samson used the term \u201cright in my eyes.\u201d The rabbis again find a way to get around this. They claim the Hebrew state<\/span>s, \u201cthat Samson found her upright in his eyes, and not that she was pleasing to his eyes.\u201d This means that he saw that it would be correct and proper for him to marry her. According to the rabbis, because Samson had reached such a high level of purification, where every act of looking at something became an act of service to God\u2014a lev<\/span>el necessary to attain the Holy Spirit\u2014this shows that he had attained a level of spirituality and all his emotions and desires were in concert with God\u2019s wishes. But his sin was in relying on his eyes, which was haughtiness; for he should <\/span>have inquired of a proph<\/span>et or the Sanhedrin before taking action. So, his motives were pure, but his actions were wrong because his actions were based on his eyes, and for that reason his eyes would eventually be put out. So, while they admit some <\/span>failure on Samson\u2019s part, it was rather minor; and they ignore the real issue altogether.<\/p>\n

Verse 4<\/a> reveals the fact of divine providence: But his father and his mother knew not <\/em><\/span>that it was of Jehovah<\/em>, for the divine purpose was: for he sought an occasion against the Philistines<\/em>. The reason was: Now at that time the Philistines had rule over Israel<\/em>. With these three statement<\/span>s, the writer points out that, providentially, God\u2019s hand arranged this connection. Since Samson would not move on his own, God will use a situation to get him to move against the Philistines.<\/p>\n

(2) The Lion and the Honey\u201414:5\u20139<\/a><\/p>\n

5Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnah, and came to the vineyards of Timnah: and, behold, a young lion roared against him. 6And the Spirit o<\/span>f Jehovah came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent a kid; and he had nothing in his hand: but he told not his father or his mother what he had done. 7And he went down, and talked <\/span>with the woman, and she pleased Samson well. 8And after a while he returned to take her; and he turned aside to see the carcass of the lion: and, behold, there was a swarm of bees in the body of the l<\/span>ion, and honey. 9And he took it into his hands, and went on, eating as he went; and he came to his father and mother, and gave unto them, and they did eat: but he told them not that he had taken the h<\/span>oney out of the body of the lion.<\/p>\n

Verse 5a<\/a> describes the circumstances of Samson and his parents\u2019 journey to Timnah: Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnah, and came to the vi<\/em><\/span>neyards of Timnah<\/em>. Partaking of the vine was forbidden to a Nazirite, and this indicates that he and his parents separated at the edge of the vineyard. Samson would take a longer route to Timnah<\/em> to av<\/span>oid walking through the vineyard. This would help to explain why the parents knew nothing about the attack by the lion. The way the rabbis deal with this passage is as follows: The parents took Samson<\/span> to the vineyards only to show how the Philistines planted wheat among the vineyards, a mixture forbidden by the Law of Moses. But the context shows that he did not actually enter the vineyards so as to avo<\/span>id breaking the Nazirite Vow and that his parents did not know about the lion. This shows that he had separated himself from his parents so as to avoid walking through the vineyard. This interpretation is correct, because in context, he was first with the parents, then alone with the lion, then with his parents again. What is not verified by Scripture is the statement concerning the sowing of wheat amon<\/span>g the vineyards.<\/p>\n

Verses 5b<\/a> to 6<\/a> record Samson\u2019s killing of the lion. Verse 5b<\/a> describes the attack: and, behold, a young lion roared against him<\/em>. The Hebrew word used is kephir<\/span>, which refe<\/span>rs to a full-grown cub. In Classical Hebrew, there are five different Hebrew names for the various stages of the development of the lion. First is gur<\/span>, which is the very small cub. Second is kephir<\/span>, w<\/span>hich is the full-grown cub. That is followed by the more common aryeh<\/span>, then the lavi<\/span>, and finally, the layish<\/span>. Furthermore, the text says that it roared against him<\/em>, not against \u201cthem,\u201d which again sh<\/span>ows that Samson was alone at this point in time. Verse 6<\/a> reveals the source of his strength: And the Spirit of Jehovah came mightily upon him<\/em>. The Spirit of Jehovah, and not Samson\u2019s hair, was always <\/span>the source of his strength. The result was: and he rent him as he would have rent a kid<\/em>. This indicates that he tore the lion in half, perhaps using the hind legs to tear it apart, because the same wo<\/span>rd is used of the sacrifice in Leviticus 1:17<\/a>. The text then states: and he had nothing in his hand<\/em>. Thus the whole thing was truly an act of God. The verse concludes with the secret: but he told not <\/em><\/span>his father or his mother what he had done<\/em>. This again shows that the parents were not present when this event occurred; and this, in turn, sets the stage for a subsequent event.<\/p>\n

Verse 7<\/a> deals with Sam<\/span>son\u2019s negotiations, looking towards marriage. Samson went down<\/em>, completing the journey to Timnah, and then, talked with the woman<\/em>. Previously he only saw her; now he talked to her and got to know her <\/span>even better, and the result was that she pleased Samson well<\/em>. This only confirmed his earlier desire for her.<\/p>\n

Verses 8<\/a> to 9<\/a> give the account of the honey, beginning with the timing: And after a while <\/em><\/span>he returned to take her<\/em>. This event would have occurred after the betrothal period, and so at least one year has passed, which was enough time to elapse for the carcass of the lion to have been totall<\/span>y dried up. The rabbis claim that there was one year between the betrothal and the marriage, and during this time, the bride-to-be took lessons necessary to convert to Judaism. When Samson went to tak<\/span>e her in marriage, he went by the place where he killed the lion, to keep the tradition of saying a blessing for a miracle in the place where the miracle took place. His direction is indicated: he tur<\/em><\/span>ned aside to see the carcass of the lion<\/em>. The fact that he had to turn aside<\/em> shows that the event took place away from the main road to Timnah. Literally, the text reads in Hebrew: he went to see that<\/em><\/span> which had fallen<\/em>, or the place where the lion had fallen<\/em>. Then came the discovery: and, behold, there was a swarm of bees in the body of the lion<\/em>. Normally, bees do not hive in a dead body<\/em>, in order <\/span>to avoid putrefaction. This could mean that by now the carcass had become a clean skeleton, due to the rotting of the flesh and the birds of prey eating it dry. However, the extreme heat of an Israeli summer cau<\/span>ses a carcass to become dehydrated quickly, and so keeps it from putrefaction, thus allowing bees to hive. By now, natural scavengers would have done their work, leaving a cavity in which the bees could hive. In the Arabian Desert, the heat of summer often dries up the moisture of dead bodies within twenty-four hours, turning the bodies into mummies, which do not give off a bad odor. Samson saw <\/span><\/span>a swarm of bees in the body of the lion<\/em>, and then he also saw the honey<\/em>. This led to the partaking of the honey: And he took it into his hands<\/em>. This act violated his Nazirite Vow against touc<\/span>hing a dead body. Furthermore, he went on, eating as he went<\/em>, eating something that had become unclean, which was a further violation of his Nazirite Vow. Then, he came to his father and mother<\/em>. This <\/span>again shows that they had been with him, but separated again from him at the edge of the vineyards, and now he met with them again, and gave unto them, and they did eat<\/em>. However, again there is a secr<\/span>et: but he told them not that he had taken the honey out of the body of the lion<\/em>. They would have refused to eat it, since it was considered unclean if it came out of a dead body<\/em>. But this secret, in <\/span>turn, sets the stage for a subsequent event.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

(3) The Wedding and the Riddle\u201414:10\u201320<\/a><\/p>\n

10And his father went down unto the woman: and Samson made there a feast; for so used the young men to do. 11And it came to pass, when they saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him. 12And Samson said unto them, Let me now put forth a riddle unto you: if ye can declare it unto me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty changes of raiment; 13but if ye cannot declare it unto me, then shall ye give me thirty linen garments and thirty changes of raiment. And they said unto him, Put forth your riddle, that we may hear it. 14And he said unto them,<\/p>\n

Out of the eater came forth food<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And out of the strong came forth sweetness<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And they could not in three days declare the ridd<\/em>le<\/em>.<\/p>\n

15And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson\u2019s wife, Entice your husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn you and your father\u2019s house with fire: have ye called us to impoverish us? is it not so? 16And Samson\u2019s wife wept before him, and said, You do but hate me, and love me not: you have put forth a riddle unto the children of my people, and have not told it me. And he said unto her, Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell you? 17And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted: and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she pressed him sore; and she told the riddle to the children of her people. 18And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion? And he said unto them,<\/p>\n

If ye had not plowed with my heifer<\/em>,<\/p>\n

Ye had not found out my riddle<\/em>.<\/p>\n

19And the Spirit of Jehovah came mightily upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and smote thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave the changes of raiment unto them that declared the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to his father\u2019s house. 20But Samson\u2019s wife was given to his companion, whom he had used as his friend.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 10<\/a> describes the wedding feast, beginning with the role of the father: And his father we<\/em><\/span>nt down unto the woman<\/em>, to finalize negotiations for the wedding itself. Then came the feast: and Samson made there a <\/em>feast<\/em>. The Hebrew word for feast<\/em> carries the connotation also of drinking; and if <\/span>Samson himself partook, it would be another violation of the Nazirite Vow. The text does not state that he actually partook of any alcoholic beverage. The author goes on to state the custom: for so us<\/em><\/span>ed the young men to do<\/em>, meaning, the custom of financing the wedding feast. This was probably referring to a Philistine custom, because it would not have been a normal Jewish custom.<\/p>\n

Verse 11<\/a> deals wi<\/span>th the groomsmen: And it came to pass, when they saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him<\/em>. These would be \u201cthe sons of the bride-chamber\u201d mentioned in Matthew 9:15<\/a>; Mark 2:19<\/a>; and L<\/span>uke 5:34<\/a>. They were used as a bodyguard to avoid an easy attack on the bridal party. But in this context, it could also mean that the Philistines were afraid of him; and not taking any chances, they s<\/span>urrounded him with bodyguards. The rabbis claim that this was all part of the camouflage: To all outward appearances, he had broken his ties with the Jewish people and had intermarried with the Philistines.<\/span><\/p>\n

In verses 12<\/a> to 13a<\/a> comes Samson\u2019s offer of the riddle: And Samson said unto them, Let me now put forth a riddle unto you<\/em>. The Hebrew reads \u201clet me riddle a riddle.\u201d The same word is used of th<\/span>e Queen of Sheba when she posed both questions and riddles to Solomon (1 Kg. 10:1<\/a>), and by Ezekiel when told to pose a riddle to the House of Israel (Ezek. 17:2<\/a>). The proposing of riddles at a wedding<\/span> was common practice among the ancient Greeks, and this action reflects the Aegean origin of the Philistines. In rabbinic tradition, the only purpose was to start a fight with the Philistines so that the war could begin. Obviously, this was<\/span> not a fair riddle since it would require knowledge only available to Samson. Samson offered a riddle, but he also made a wager: If ye can declare it unto me wi<\/em><\/span>thin the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you<\/em> \u2026 He wagered two things. First, thirty linen garments<\/em>. These were large rectangular pieces of fine linen, which were worn next t<\/span>o the body either by day or by night. Second, he wagered thirty changes of raiment<\/em>. These were festive garments such as those worn at a festival or for special occasions such as weddings, and the aver<\/span>age person would own only one such garment. He concluded the wager, saying, but if ye cannot declare it unto me, then shall ye give me thirty linen garments and thirty changes of raiment<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 13b<\/a><\/span>, the offer was followed by the agreement: And they said unto him, Put forth your riddle, that we may hear it<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 14a<\/a> records the riddle: Out of the eater came forth food, And out of the strong cam<\/em><\/span>e forth sweetness<\/em>. In the Hebrew text, six words are used based on assonance and repetition and translated literally, \u201cFrom the eater, out came eats; and from the strong, out came sweets.\u201d That was th<\/span>e riddle.<\/p>\n

Verse 14b<\/a> records their failure: And they could not in three days declare the riddle<\/em>. This was obviously not a fair riddle. Normally, a riddle should be such that it could be figured out by <\/span>the use of normal rules of logic; but in this case, that was not possible.<\/p>\n

In verse 15<\/a>, the difficulty of the riddle led to the threat to Samson\u2019s new wife. The timing for this was that it came to pas<\/em><\/span>s on the seventh day<\/em>. By the third day, the men already knew that they could not solve the riddle; but by the seventh day, they had become desperate. Thus, they approached the bride: Entice your husba<\/em><\/span>nd, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn you and your father\u2019s house with fire<\/em>. This was not an idle threat because shortly, in 15:6<\/a>, that is exactly what they did. The threat was foll<\/span>owed by the accusation: have ye called us to impoverish us? Is it not so<\/em>? Did you invite us to the wedding just to make us poor?<\/p>\n

So, in verses 16<\/a> to 17<\/a> comes Samson\u2019s revelation of the riddle\u2019s answer<\/span> to his wife. Verse 16a<\/a> begins with emotional pressure: And Samson\u2019s wife wept before him<\/em>. Then came the verbal pressure: You do but hate me, and love me not: you have put forth a riddle unto the chil<\/em><\/span>dren of my people, and have not told it me<\/em>. Verse 16b<\/a> describes Samson\u2019s response: And he said unto her, Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell you<\/em>? One has to wonder abo<\/span>ut their husband-wife relationship! In verse 17<\/a>, the tension continues until resolved with the revelation. The cause was the continual pressure: And she wept before him the seven days, while their fea<\/em><\/span>st lasted<\/em>. In other words, for the first six days she only asked out of curiosity, but now on the seventh day she was more urgent because of the Philistine threat. Finally comes the revelation: and it<\/em><\/span> came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her<\/em>, perhaps thinking that this was the last day of the feast so the secret could be kept. Again the reason was because she pressed him sore<\/em>. After Samso<\/span>n revealed the answer, his wife betrayed him: and she told the riddle to the children of her people<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 18a<\/a> records the declaration of the riddle. The timing was when the men of the city said unto <\/em><\/span>him on the seventh day before the sun went down<\/em>. The word used for sun<\/em> is not the normal word, but the word cheres<\/span>, which is used elsewhere in only two places (Judg. 8:13<\/a> and Job 9:7<\/a>). It serves to he<\/span>ighten the fact that they came to Samson on the seventh day<\/em> just before sundown. Then they declared the answer: What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion<\/em>? The men did not answer the<\/span> riddle forthrightly, but they also used the riddle form, in which there is a five-fold repetition of the Hebrew letter mem<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 18b<\/a>, Samson responded with an accusation: If ye had not plowed wit<\/em><\/span>h my heifer, Ye had not found out my riddle<\/em>, which basically means, \u201cYou cheated.\u201d Samson also puts his accusation in riddle form: \u201cIf ye had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have solved my ri<\/span>ddle.\u201d He realized the source of their knowledge was his wife.<\/p>\n

In verse 19a<\/a> comes the payment of the debt. The source was that the Spirit of Jehovah came mightily upon him<\/em>. The result of this was that<\/span> Samson went down to <\/em>Ashkelon<\/span>. Ashkelon<\/span> was a Philistine city, and therefore the Philistines themselves would end up paying off the debt: and smote thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave t<\/em><\/span>he changes of raiment unto them that declared the riddle<\/em>. Furthermore, Ashkelon was twenty-three miles away from Timnah, and so no connection would be made between thirty dead Philistines and the wedd<\/span>ing and the riddle over in Timnah.<\/p>\n

Verses 19b<\/a> to 20<\/a> record the two results of this betrayal. The first result, in verse 19b<\/a>, concerned Samson: And his anger was kindled<\/em>, against his wife who had betra<\/span>yed him, and he went up to his father\u2019s house;<\/em> he went back home. The second result, in verse 20<\/a>, concerned the wife: But Samson\u2019s wife was given to his companion, whom he had used as his friend<\/em>. This<\/span> was \u201cthe friend of the bridegroom,\u201d as in John 3:29<\/a>. He was the conductor of the bride and one of the thirty companions whom Samson had entrusted with this office at the marriage feast. But, although<\/span> Samson went home angry without his wife, he did not intend to dissolve the marriage, as the very next chapter shows. The actions of the father of the bride in giving her to another now made reconciliation impossible. So now Samson\u2019s war against the Philistines will begin in earnest. The rabbis teach that Samson\u2019s wife now gave up her Judaism and<\/span> returned to the religion of the Philistines.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>c. Destruction of the Philistine Crops\u201415:1\u20138<\/a><\/p>\n

1But it came to pass after a while, in the time of wheat harvest, that Samson visited his wife with a kid; and he said, I will go in to my wife into the c<\/span>hamber. But her father would not suffer him to go in. 2And her father said, I verily thought that you had utterly hated her; therefore I gave her to your companion: is not her younger sister fairer th<\/span>an she? take her, I pray you, instead of her. 3And Samson said unto them, This time shall I be blameless in regard of the Philistines, when I do them a mischief. 4And Samson went and caught three hund<\/span>red foxes, and took firebrands, and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between every two tails. 5And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing grain of th<\/span>e Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks and the standing grain, and also the oliveyards. 6Then the Philistines said, Who has done this? And they said, Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite, becaus<\/span>e he has taken his wife, and given her to his companion. And the Philistines came up, and burnt her and her father with fire. 7And Samson said unto them, If ye do after this manner, surely I will be a<\/span>venged of you, and after that I will cease. 8And he smote them hip and thigh with a great slaughter: and he went down and dwelt in the cleft of the rock of Etam.<\/p>\n

Verses 1<\/a> to 2<\/a> record Samson\u2019s return t<\/span>o his wife. The timing is noted first: But it came to pass after a while<\/em>. Just how long this period of separation was is unknown but the season was in the time of the wheat harvest<\/em>, which would make i<\/span>t about May or June. The fact that it was wheat harvest time is important for the context. His intention is summarized: Samson visited his wife with a kid<\/em>. This kid<\/em> may have been for the purpose of re<\/span>conciliation, but there is another possible option. It may have been the gift of a visiting husband in a sadika<\/em> marriage, which is a lover or mistress marriage. This is still followed by some Palestin<\/span>ian Arabs as a marriage custom among Arabs who have no permanent habitation. The woman is a mistress in her own home, while her husband, known as a joz musarrib<\/span> or a visiting husband, comes to his wif<\/span>e as a guest and brings a present. This would be reflected in Samson\u2019s goal: I will go in to my wife into the chamber<\/em>. At any rate, his approach was met first by the father\u2019s refusal: But her father w<\/em><\/span>ould not suffer him to go in;<\/em> and then a counteroffer. In the counteroffer the father\u2019s assumption was, I verily thought that you had utterly hated her<\/em>, because she revealed the riddle, and because Sa<\/span>mson went home angry without her. As a result, therefore I gave her to your companion<\/em>. So the father made a counteroffer: is not her younger sister fairer than she? Take her, I pray you, instead of he<\/em><\/span>r<\/em>. At least the father was trying to make good for what had taken place.<\/p>\n

Verse 3<\/a> records Samson\u2019s resolution: This time shall I be blameless in regard of the Philistines, when I do them a mischief<\/em>. Th<\/span>e Hebrew word means, \u201cto bring calamity upon them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Verses 4<\/a> to 5<\/a> describe the destruction of the wheat harvest in five specific steps. First, Samson went and caught three hundred foxes<\/em>. The Hebrew wo<\/span>rd for foxes<\/em> can also mean \u201cjackals.\u201d If it were jackals, it would have made for an easier catch because he caught a total of three hundred, and jackals, unlike foxes, travel in packs. According to ra<\/span>bbinic tradition, when a person approaches a fox, the fox does not turn tail and run but backs away. The Talmud concludes, \u201cWhy did he take foxes in particular?\u201d \u2026 \u201cLet this fox who walks backwards take revenge on the Philistines who went back on their oath.\u201d<\/span>17<\/a> The oath was that of Abimelech18<\/a> to Abraham in Genesis 21:23<\/a>, not to deal falsely by giving his wife to someone else, and the Philistines<\/span> were now breaking their oath. The second step was that Samson took firebrands<\/em>. These were pieces of wood that are wrapped in absorbent material and then soaked in oil before being lit. Third, he turn<\/em><\/span>ed tail to tail<\/em>; that is, he tied two jackals or foxes together by their tails, and this way they would run in one hundred fifty pairs. Fourth, he put a firebrand in the midst between every two tails<\/em>.<\/span> And finally, fifth, the text concludes: And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing grain of the Philistines<\/em>. He sent the jackals or foxes in pairs because Samson knew th<\/span>ey would zigzag trying to get loose and therefore cause even more damage. The result was that the fires: burnt up both the shocks and the standing grain, and also the oliveyards<\/em>. Samson struck deliber<\/span>ately against the Philistine economy. Just about the time these fields could have been harvested, they had been destroyed.<\/p>\n

Verse 6<\/a> describes the Philistines\u2019 revenge. They began with an investigation:<\/span> Then the Philistines said, Who has done this?<\/em> Then came the answer: And they said, Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite, because he has taken his wife, and given her to his companion<\/em>. To this there <\/span>came the response: And the Philistines came up, and burnt her and her father with fire<\/em>. What the wife had tried to avoid by revealing the riddle happened to her anyway precisely because she did reveal<\/span> the riddle, which is rather ironic.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

In verse 7<\/a>, the Philistines\u2019 murder of his wife and her family led to Samson\u2019s second resolution: And Samson said unto them, If ye do after this manner, surely I w<\/em><\/span>ill be avenged of you<\/em>; meaning, such an act of cruelty against their own kind will now justify Samson\u2019s war against them. They did not come after him but burned the house of his wife with the occupant<\/span>s in it. Then he said, and after that I will cease<\/em>, meaning, \u201cI will leave you alone.\u201d His assumption might have been that once he killed the ones directly responsible for killing his wife, he would r<\/span>emove himself from the conflict. But neither God nor the Philistines will allow this to happen. But now he will not limit himself to destroying their property only; now he will begin to attack their lives.<\/span><\/p>\n

Verse 8<\/a> describes the first such encounter, beginning with the slaughter: And he smote them hip and thigh with a great slaughter<\/em>. Literally, the Hebrew reads, \u201chip unto thigh.\u201d It was an idiom f<\/span>or a complete slaughter with viciousness. The description continues with the retreat: and he went down and dwelt in the cleft of the rock of Etam<\/em>. Samson intended to withdraw from the conflict and to <\/span>leave them alone, as he had said earlier. But such was not the purpose of his birth.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>d. Battle of Lehi\u201415:9\u201319<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(1) Binding of Samson\u201415:9\u201313<\/a><\/p>\n

9Then the Philistines went up, and encamped in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi. 10And the men of Judah said, Why are ye come up against us? And they said, To bind Samson are we come up, to do to him as he has done to us. 11Then three thousand men of Judah went down to the cleft of the rock of Etam, and said to Samson, Know you not that the Philistines are rulers over us? what then is this that you have done unto us? And he said unto them, As they did unto me, so have I done unto them. 12And they said unto him, We are come down to bind you, that we may deliver you into the hand of the Philistines. And Samson said unto them, Swear unto me, that ye will not fall upon me yourselves. 13And they spoke unto him, saying, No; but we will bind you fast, and deliver you into their hand: but surely we will not kill you. And they bound him with two new ropes, and brought him up from the rock.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verses 9<\/a> to 10<\/a> record the Philistine aggression: Then the Philistines we<\/em><\/span>nt up, and encamped in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi<\/em>. Both Lehi<\/em> and Etam<\/em> are in Judah, and this explains why they came to Judah, not to Dan, Samson\u2019s hometown. This aggression led to Judah\u2019s in<\/span>quiry: Why are ye come up against us<\/em>? The Philistines answered, To bind Samson are we come up, to do to him as he has done to us<\/em>. In other words, their intent was to kill Samson.<\/p>\n

In verse 11a<\/a>, the Phi<\/span>listines\u2019 pursuit of Samson leads to the actions of the Judean contingent: Then three thousand men of Judah went down to the cleft of the rock of Etam<\/em>. That they would go with such a large number show<\/span>s a great deal of respect for the strength of Samson. The irony is that instead of sending an army against the Philistines, they sent a large force against one Jew. The rabbis explain Judah\u2019s actions in this way: normally it is forbidden for Jews to <\/span>turn over a Jew to Gentile hands. But here Samson is viewed as a rodef<\/span>, one who is a pursuer or assailant. This term can be applied to a Jew who is a <\/span>criminal who has endangered the entire Jewish community through his misdeeds and must be stopped, even if it means a Jew killing a Jew.19<\/a> By Jewish law, if that were the case, the community is respons<\/span>ible to turn such a one over to the proper governmental authority. Then the men of Judah issued a call and said to Samson, Know you not that the Philistines are rulers over us?<\/em> Having said this, it wa<\/span>s all the more reason they should join Samson and fight the Philistines, but they seemed to want to maintain the status quo. So they asked, what then is this that you have done unto us<\/em>? The killing of<\/span> the Philistines is a threat to the Tribe of Judah.<\/p>\n

Verse 11b<\/a> gives Samson\u2019s explanation: As they did unto me, so have I done unto them<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 12a<\/a>, the Judeans explain their intent: We are come dow<\/em><\/span>n to bind you, that we may deliver you into the hand of the Philistines<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 12b<\/a>, Samson\u2019s request in response to the men of Judah is: Swear unto me, that ye will not fall upon me yourselves<\/em>. He <\/span>wanted a pledge that they would not try to kill him themselves, for then he would have to defend himself; and he had no desire to shed Jewish blood.<\/p>\n

Then in verse 13a<\/a>, Samson received Judah\u2019s promise:<\/span> No; but we will bind you fast, and deliver you into their hand: but surely we will not kill you<\/em>. Thus assured, Samson gives himself up. Verse 13b<\/a> describes the binding: And they bound him with two ne<\/em><\/span>w ropes, and brought him up from the rock<\/em>. The fact these were new ropes<\/em> means they were at full strength and would not easily break.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>(2) The Battle\u201415:14\u201317<\/a><\/p>\n

14When he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him: and the Spirit of Jehovah came mightily upon him, and the ropes that were upon his arms became as flax that w<\/span>as burnt with fire, and his bands dropped from off his hands. 15And he found a fresh jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and smote a thousand men therewith. 16And Samson said,<\/p>\n

With<\/em><\/span> the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps<\/em>,<\/p>\n

With the jawbone of an ass have I smitten a thousand men<\/em>.<\/p>\n

17And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking, that he cast away the jawbone out of his<\/span> hand; and that place was called Ramath-lehi.<\/p>\n

Verse 14<\/a> gives the circumstance of Samson\u2019s slaughter of his Philistine pursuers: When he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him<\/em>. They wo<\/span>uld have a good reason to shout: first, because he was bound without any effort of their own, and second, because Samson\u2019s own people were turning him over to them. The Philistines<\/em> now expected to be <\/span>able to put Samson to death. But then the divine enablement occurred: and the Spirit of Jehovah came mightily upon him<\/em>, with the results that the ropes that were upon his arms became as flax that was <\/em><\/span>burnt with fire, and his bands dropped from off his hands<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 15<\/a>, the slaughter itself and the means Samson employed are described: he found a fresh jawbone of an ass<\/em>. Being fresh<\/em> would make it <\/span>heavy and tough since once it became dry it would become light and brittle and less useful as a weapon. But being fresh<\/em> also meant it was still considered part of a corpse, and so this was another vio<\/span>lation of the Nazirite Vow. Upon finding the jawbone, Samson put forth his hand, and took it, and smote a thousand men therewith<\/em>. The rabbis teach that Samson should have used his hands and not the ja<\/span>wbone of an ass, a non-kosher<\/em> animal bone, to kill the Philistines. Some rabbis claim that the jawbone came from a three-day old donkey, and therefore was not needed since it was small and weak. Other<\/span> rabbis say that this was from Baalam\u2019s donkey, which had just recently died. If that were true, the donkey would have been centuries old.<\/p>\n

Verse 16<\/a> records Samson\u2019s song: With the jawbone of an ass, h<\/em><\/span>eaps upon heaps, With the jawbone of an ass have I smitten a thousand men<\/em>. In the Hebrew text, Samson\u2019s song is a play upon words, going back and forth between two words: the Hebrew words for donkey<\/em> a<\/span>nd heap<\/em>. Both were based upon the word chamor<\/span>. The following are three possible examples of how it can read. The first example reads: \u201cWith the jawbone of an ass (chamor<\/span>), a mass (chamor<\/span>), yea masses;<\/span> with the jawbone of an ass I slew a thousand men.\u201d The second example reads: \u201cWith a donkey\u2019s jawbone, I made a donkey of them; with a donkey\u2019s jawbone I killed a thousand men.\u201d The third example reads: \u201cWith a do<\/span>nkey\u2019s jawbone, I heaped two heaps; with a donkey\u2019s jawbone I killed a thousand men.\u201d The second line, which reads, \u201cI made donkeys out of them\u201d literally reads \u201cheaps, heaps.\u201d They indicate the manner in which he slew the Philistines. It appears that Samson pursued a number of Philistines and piled their bodies in a heap, then pursued and killed another group and piled their bodies in a heap. The poem may indi<\/span>cate several encounters, not just one.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verse 17<\/a> describes the conclusion of Samson\u2019s song: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking<\/em>, meaning reciting the vi<\/span>ctory poem, then came the act: that he cast away the jawbone out of his hand<\/em>, marking the end of the battle. Then came the naming of the battlefield: and that place was called Ramath-lehi<\/em>, literally, <\/span>\u201cthe hill of the jawbone.\u201d There are two options as to what this means. One option is that it might refer to a geographical location. The second option is that it might refer to a hill made up of Philistine corpse<\/span>s.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(3) Thirst of Samson\u201415:18\u201319<\/a><\/p>\n

18And he was sore athirst, and called on Jehovah, and said, You have given this great deliverance by the hand of your servant; and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised. 19But God clave the hollow place that is in Lehi, and there came water thereout; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived: wherefore the name thereof was called En-hakkore, which is in Lehi, unto this day.<\/p>\n

Verse 18<\/a> describes Samson\u2019s state of thirst following the battle: And he was sore athirst<\/em>. Then came his prayer: and<\/em> [he] called on Jehovah<\/em>. The content of his prayer began with the acknowledgement of the miracle: You have given this great deliverance by the hand of your servant<\/em>. By calling himself God\u2019s servant<\/em>, Samson shows that he did understand his calling. His problem was a lack of faithfulness to that calling. But now he expressed a new danger: and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised<\/em>. The point is that, as a consequence of thirst, he will become weak, and will not be able to withstand the Philistines. Thus he will fall into their hands and be killed by them. In the end, that is what will happen, but not just yet.<\/p>\n

Verse 19<\/a> records the divine provision for Samson\u2019s need: But God clave the hollow place that is in Lehi<\/em>. The Hebrew word is maktesh<\/span>, which refers to a round and deep basin. It is used only here and in Proverbs 27:22<\/a>, where it means mortar<\/em>. Here it refers to a seam in the rock, which when struck open released the water, which was trapped between the layers of limestone. As a result: there came water thereout<\/em>. This led to the quenching of his thirst: and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived<\/em>. This, in turn, led to another naming: wherefore the name the<\/em>reof was called En-hakkore<\/em>, meaning \u201cThe Spring of the Caller,\u201d or \u201cThe Spring of Him that Calls,\u201d which is in Lehi, unto this day<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

4. Judgeship of Samson\u201415:20<\/a><\/p>\n

And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Samson\u2019s judgeship covered the period from 1080 to 1060 b.c. The phrase, in the days of<\/em> does not mean \u201caf<\/span>ter\u201d but \u201cduring.\u201d So again, his judgeship was not after the Philistine oppression but during the Philistine oppression. He was probably a contemporary of both Abimelech and Jephthah. There is no mention of the land ha<\/span>ving rest since Samson\u2019s judgeship was during the Philistine rule over Israel.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

5. Samson and the Gates of Gaza\u201416:1\u20133<\/a><\/p>\n

1And Samson went to Gaza, and saw there a harlot, and went in unto her. 2And it was told the Gazites, saying, Samson is come hither. And they compassed him in, and laid wait for him all night in the gate of the city, and were quiet all the night, saying, Let be till morning light, then we will kill him. 3And Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight, and laid hold of the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and plucked them up, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of the mountain that is before Hebron.<\/p>\n

Verse 1<\/a> gives the circumstance for another conflict with the Philistines: And Samson went to Gaza<\/em>. This was about thirty miles from his home and as deep inside Philistine territory as it was possible to go from the north. Then came the escapade: and<\/em> [he] saw there a harlot, and went in unto her<\/em>, which records yet another violation of his Nazirite Vow. The way the rabbis deal with this is to claim that the word means an \u201cinnkeeper.\u201d So she was not a prostitute as such, even though she was still a woman of ill repute, and he should not have spent the night there. They also claim that he had no relationship with her but only stayed with her simply as another way of picking another fight with the Philistines. The Talmud<\/span>20<\/a> states that when a person repeats a sin, he no longer considers it a transgression but considers it permissible. That is, one will automatically continue on that sinning path until God jolts him with a harsh punishment. So, while most rabbis did not see any sin here in this one statement, a minority did see sin in his actions.<\/p>\n

Verse 2<\/a> records the Philistine report of Samson\u2019s presence and their trap. The report was: And it was told the Gazites, saying, Samson i<\/em>s come hither<\/em>. Whereupon the Philistines set a trap: And they compassed him in<\/em>, meaning they closed off or blocked off all possible exits; and laid wait for him all night in the gate of the city<\/em>, meaning they appointed men to watch the gates of the city so that Samson could not leave without being seen. While they knew he was in the city, they did not know what house he was in, and therefore had to lay this trap. They chose not to try to find him by going house to house at night, since they were quiet all the night, saying, Let be till morning light, then we will kill him<\/em>. In other words, they will watch the gates, making sure no one can escape, waiting until morning to then find him and kill him.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

But verse 3<\/a> records the escape of Samson. The timing for this was in the middle of the night:<\/span> And Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight<\/em>. In other words, contrary to their thinking, he was not going to wait until the morning. As for the closed gates; Samson laid hold of the doors of <\/em><\/span>the gate of the city, and the two posts, and plucked them up, bar and all<\/em>. The enormity of this feat can be seen in four ways. First, the two rings of the gate were flanked by posts and turned on pins<\/span>, which moved in their sockets in the sill and the lintel, which normally would make it impossible to tear them off with bare hands. Second, the bar itself was thick and heavy and ran across the whole length of the leaves of the gate, from post to post. Third, the width of a principle gate could be as much as 13 to 14 feet. F<\/span>ourth, despite all this, Samson was still able to pull it all up with his bare hands: He <\/span>put them upon his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of the mountain that is before Hebron<\/em>. This means that he carried the gates for about forty miles, all uphill, from sea leve<\/span>l to an altitude of about 2,500 feet.21<\/a><\/p>\n

This passage (Judges 16:1\u20133<\/a>) leads to three general observations. First, Samson continued, with no scruples, to fraternize with the enemy, this time not only wi<\/span>th a Philistine woman but with one who was also a prostitute. Second, this was Gaza, and Samson\u2019s activities were no longer limited to the area of Timnah and its surroundings. He was now hitting the Philistines as a whole<\/span>, which means he now viewed them as a national target. Third, by going to Gaza, Samson was now as far away as he could be from the spiritual home in which he was raised, a separation which will eventually set the stage for his death in this same City of Gaza.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>6. Samson and Delilah\u201416:4\u201322<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. The Plot\u201416:4\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n

4And it came to pass afterward, that he loved a woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah. 5And the lords of the Philistines came up unto her, and said unto her, Entice him, and see wherein his great strength lies, and by what means we may prevail against him, that we may bind him to afflict him: and we will give you every one of us eleven hundred pieces of silver.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ve<\/span>rse 4<\/a> provides the circumstance of Samson\u2019s fateful encounter with Delilah. The timing was: it came to pass afterward<\/em>, meaning, after the above events (16:1\u20133<\/a>). The occasion was that he loved a woman<\/em>.<\/span> The place was: in the valley of Sorek<\/em>. It is down on this valley that the town of Zorah looks. Zorah was in Jewish hands and Samson was now back near his home; but the valley was in Philistine hands.<\/span> The town of Timnah was in the very same valley, and so this event may have happened in the same town\u2014if not, then very close to it. The woman\u2019s name was Delilah<\/em>, and she is the only woman named in th<\/span>e Samson Cycle, and she is named seven times. Her name could either mean \u201cflirtatious\u201d or \u201cdevotee.\u201d If the intent was the meaning of devotee<\/em>, then her name could be linked to the fertility goddess Is<\/span>htar. It might also mean that Delilah was a temple prostitute. Here again the rabbis have to deal with this to avoid tarnishing their spiritual giant. They claim that when the Scripture used the term <\/span>ahav<\/span> for \u201clove\u201d to describe Samson\u2019s feelings for Delilah, it clearly indicates a purely spiritual love. In fact, she was a righteous woman, and Samson loved her because of her spiritual qualities. Th<\/span>at her qualities were exceptional is seen in her willingness to marry Samson, even though she knew that he was a fugitive; and she knew that the Philistines burned his first wife alive. Some rabbis believe that sh<\/span>e was a Jewess, and others that she was a convert to Judaism willing to be counted a traitor to her own people in order to marry him. Either way, she would always be in danger of torture and death. Her name actually means <\/span>poor<\/em>, because she impoverished his strength, heart, and deed. But this was an end result and did not start that way. At first, she believed that betraying him would <\/span>actually save his life, but the bribe is what actually corrupted her. This is how the rabbis basically rewrite the story.<\/p>\n

Verse 5<\/a> reveals the conspiracy to undo Samson\u2019s strength and humiliate him. Th<\/span>e source was the lords of the Philistines<\/em> [who] came up unto her<\/em>. The Hebrew word for lord<\/em> is seren<\/em>, which is the term used of the five Philistine kings. This was a conspiracy of the highest level of <\/span>the Philistine government. The goal was to Entice him, and see wherein his great strength lies<\/em>. In other words, they wanted to know the source and means<\/em> of his great strength; they assumed it was in s<\/span>ome magical cause. Samson is never described as a physical giant or an unusually big, muscular man, though he is often pictured this way in paintings and on the screen. But in the Bible he is never described that way, which makes his great strength<\/span> all the more remarkable. That is why they want to know wherein his great strength lies<\/em>. It is obviously not in his size and muscle. Then they add, find<\/span> out by what means we may prevail against him \u2026 to afflict him<\/em>. The goal was to take him alive. It would have been easier to kill him, since she betrayed him while he was sleeping, but they want him h<\/span>umiliated and tortured. The reward they offered Delilah was that they would: give<\/em> [her] every one of<\/em> [them] eleven hundred pieces of silver<\/em>. Being kings, they could each afford such a large sum; and s<\/span>ince there were five of them, the total would be 5,500 pieces of silver. Judas got only thirty.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

b. Delilah\u2019s First Attempt\u201416:6\u20139<\/a><\/p>\n

6And Delilah said to Samson, Tell me, I pray you, wherein your great strength lies, and wherewith you might be bound to afflict you. 7And Samson said unto her, If the<\/span>y bind me with seven green withes that were never dried, then shall I become weak, and be as another man. 8Then the lords of the Philistines brought up to her seven green withes which had not been dri<\/span>ed, and she bound him with them. 9Now she had liers-in-wait abiding in the inner chamber. And she said unto him, The Philistines are upon you, Samson. And he broke the withes, as a string of tow is br<\/span>oken when it touches the fire. So his strength was not known.<\/p>\n

Verse 6<\/a> describes Delilah\u2019s straightforward first approach to Samson: Tell me \u2026, wherein your great strength lies, and wherewith you might<\/em><\/span> be bound to afflict you<\/em>. Samson may have been suspicious of her motives, but he also had great self-assurance, and therefore he assumed he could amuse himself at her expense. But in the end, he tried<\/span> to do so once too often. With each attempt, Samson\u2019s answer was not always truthful, but carried a small hint of what the truth was.<\/p>\n

Samson\u2019s answer is in verse 7<\/a>: If they bind me with seven green wi<\/em><\/span>thes that were never dried<\/em>. These were seven tendons from an animal freshly slaughtered and therefore would not yet have dried up. In this condition, they would be tough and more firmly tied into knot<\/span>s. This is the first step toward Samson\u2019s fall, since the fact that the withes were fresh and not dried sinews means he is again trivializing his Nazirite Vow. Like the fresh jawbone, this would still be considered part of a corpse, and his contact with it would render him unclean. Furthermore, the number <\/span>seven<\/em> is significant, because his hair was tied in seven locks, and this was one small step i<\/span>n revealing the truth.<\/p>\n

Verse 8<\/a> records the attempted binding and result. The Philistine leaders were the source of materials: Then the lords of the Philistines brought up to her seven green withes whi<\/em><\/span>ch had not been dried<\/em>. Then came the binding: and she bound him with them<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 9<\/a>, the binding of Samson was followed by its failure. The trap is described: Now she had liers-in-wait abiding in th<\/span>e inner chamber. They did not come out, even after he was bound, but waited to see if the cords would hold. Then she cried out: The Philistines are upon you, Samson. That produced two results. First, he broke the withes, as a string of tow is broken when it touches the fire. The breaking of the tendons was immedia<\/span>te and easy. Second, his strength was not known.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

c. Delilah\u2019s Second Attempt\u201416:10\u201312<\/a><\/p>\n

10And Delilah said unto Samson, Behold, you have mocked me, and told me lies: now tell me, I pray you, wherewith you might be bound. 11And he said unto her, If they only bind me with new ropes wherewith no work has been done, then shall I become weak, and be as another man. 12So Delilah took new ropes, and bound him therewith, and said unto him, The Philistines are upon you, Samson. And the liers-in-wait were abiding in the inner chamber. And he broke them off his arms like a thread.<\/p>\n

Verse 10<\/a> records Delilah\u2019s second approach to Samson, making a contrast between the past: Behold, you have mocked me, and told me lies,<\/em> and the present: now tell me, I pray you, wherewith you might be bound<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Samson\u2019s answer to Delilah is in verse 11<\/a>: And he said unto her<\/em>, the condition is: If they only bind me with new ropes wherewith no work has been done<\/em>. The ropes must be both new and unused, thus never having come into contact with anything unclean. The implication against uncleanness in his answer again hints at his Nazirite Vow: Samson is again playing with the Nazirite Vow and coming another step closer to the truth.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 12<\/a> records the second attempt on Sam<\/span>son and its failure, beginning with the binding: So Delilah took new ropes, and bound him therewith<\/em>. This was followed by the cry, The Philistines are upon you, Samson<\/em>. The trap was still in place: An<\/em><\/span>d the liers-in-wait were abiding in the inner chamber<\/em>, but they did not come out, waiting to see if the ploy worked. Then came the failure: And he broke them from off his arms like a thread<\/em>. This was <\/span>a thread<\/em> used in sewing; the ropes were broken as easily as a sewing thread is broken.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

d. Delilah\u2019s Third Attempt\u201416:13\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n

13And Delilah said unto Samson, Hitherto you have mocked me, and told me lies: tell me wherewith you might be bound. And he said unto her, If you weave the seven locks of my head with the web. 14And she fastened it with the pin, and said unto him, The Philistines are upon you, Samson. And he awaked out of his sleep, and plucked away the pin of the beam, and the web.<\/p>\n

Verse 13a<\/a> records Delilah\u2019s third approach against Samson, again with a contrast between the past and the present: Hitherto you have mocked me, and told me lies: tell me wherewith you might be bo<\/em>und<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 13b<\/a>, Samson\u2019s answer was: If you weave the seven locks of my head with the web<\/em>. This reads like an incomplete sentence but the apodosis of the sentence is already understood from the context. The web<\/em> was the weaving cloth with which she could interweave his hair. Samson is getting a step closer to the truth, for now the figure seven<\/em> is mentioned again, but this time it is clearly connected with the hair.<\/p>\n

Verse 14<\/a> records Delilah\u2019s third attempt on Samson and the failure, beginning: And she fastened it with the pin<\/em>; that is, she fastened the piece of weaving in the loom to prevent it slipping out, and she wove his hair into her work as she would do with ordinary threads. Then came the cry, The Philistines are upon you Samson<\/em>. This was followed by the failure: And he awaked out<\/em> of his sleep, and plucked away the pin of the beam, and the web<\/em>. This time no mention is made of anyone hiding. With the first three failings, they apparently had left.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

e. Delilah\u2019s Fourth Attempt\u201416:15\u201317<\/a><\/p>\n

15And she said unto him, How can you say, I love you, when your heart is not with me? you have mocked me these three times, and have not told me wherein your great<\/span> strength lies. 16And it came to pass, when she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, that his soul was vexed unto death. 17And he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There has not c<\/span>ome a razor upon my head; for I have been a Nazirite unto God from my mother\u2019s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.<\/p>\n

In verse 15<\/a>, <\/span>Delilah begins with an accusation: How can you say, I love you, when your heart is not with me?<\/em> She then gives the evidence: you have mocked me these three times, and have not told me wherein your gre<\/em><\/span>at strength lies<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 16<\/a> records Delilah\u2019s persisting pressure on Samson to tell his secret: when she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him<\/em>. The Hebrew word for urged<\/em> comes from the word a<\/span><\/span>latz<\/span>. It is a hapax-legomenon<\/span> (used only here and nowhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures), and it means \u201cto press,\u201d \u201cto plague,\u201d \u201cto torment.\u201d The word means that she put him under tremendous emotional<\/span> pressure with the result: that his soul was vexed unto death<\/em>. He was finally emotionally exhausted. The rabbis teach that he should have divorced her, but instead he allowed her to pressure him to th<\/span>e point of a nervous breakdown.<\/p>\n

So, in verse 17<\/a>, Samson finally reveals the secret: And he told her all his heart<\/em>. He obviously did it in such a way that showed he was no longer playing with her but w<\/span>as deadly serious. Samson revealed two basic facts. First, There has not come a razor upon my head<\/em>. Second, the reason was: for I have been a Nazirite unto God from my mother\u2019s womb<\/em>. The secret then i<\/span>s: if I be shaven<\/em>, if all the hair is cut off, the result will be: my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man<\/em>. This was not because his strength was in his hair, b<\/span>ut because cutting it would visibly manifest disobedience to the Lord, disobedience that had begun earlier by his eating of the honey out of the body of the lion and that culminated in revealing the truth to Delilah, whom, by now, he had no good reason t<\/span>o trust. His hair was the most visible, continuous, and unbreakable symbol of the Nazirite Vow. He broke his Nazirite Vow several times before, but these were actions that came and went. However, with his visible hair cut off, all remnants of his separation <\/span>for<\/em> God disappeared, and he was now fully separated from<\/em> God.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

A possible comparison with<\/span> Hellenistic culture here is that the Aegean mighty warriors were known as \u201clong-haired\u201d in the Iliad<\/em>. The strength of Phoebus was associated with his uncut hair. The difference is that Samson\u2019s stren<\/span>gth came from the Spirit of God upon him, not from his long hair, which was only a symbol of his connection to the source. So, this does not fully correspond with the Greek concept.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

f. Capture of Samson\u201416:18\u201322<\/a><\/p>\n

18And when Delilah saw that he had told her all his heart, she sent and called for the lords of the Philistines, saying, Come up this once, for he has told me all his heart. Then the lords of the Philistines came up unto her, and brought the money in their hand. 19And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and shaved off the seven locks of his head; and she began to afflict him, and his strength went from him. 20And she said, The Philistines are upon you, Samson. And he awoke out of his sleep, and said, I will go out as at other times, and shake myself free. But he knew not that Jehovah was departed from him. 21And the Philistines laid hold on him, and put out his eyes; and they brought him down to Gaza, and bound him with fetters of brass; and he did grind in the prison-house. 22Howbeit the hair of his head began to grow again after he was shaven.<\/p>\n

Verse 18<\/a> records Delilah setting the trap for Samson, beginning with her realization: A<\/em>nd when Delilah saw that he had told her all his heart<\/em>. Having been his lover, she recognized the difference between how he said things then and how he said things now. Then came the call: she sent an<\/em>d called for the lords of the Philistines<\/em>, and gave them the message: Come up this once, for he has told me all his heart<\/em>. The response was positive: Then the lords of the Philistines came up unto her<\/em>;<\/em> and they came with the payment: and brought the money in their hand<\/em>. They, too, obviously were now expecting success.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 19<\/a> describes Delilah\u2019s betrayal of Samson, beginning with the trap: And sh<\/em><\/span>e made him sleep upon her knees<\/em>. Then came the shaving: she called for a man<\/em>. The Hebrew text has a definite article, the<\/em> man. This was a picked agent assigned to perform this specific task, probably <\/span>an expert in shaving so that Samson, in his sleep, would not feel the razor. Next came the act: and shaved off the seven locks of his head<\/em>. Finally, came the test: and she began to afflict him<\/em>. She di<\/span>d something to him physically that would test his strength before springing the final trap. The text states: and his strength went from him<\/em>. It was somehow obvious that he was not as strong as he was <\/span>before.<\/p>\n

In verse 20<\/a>, comes the final call: The Philistines are upon you, Samson<\/em>. Samson\u2019s response was twofold: first, And he awoke out of his sleep<\/em>; and second, he said: I will go out as at other tim<\/em><\/span>es, and shake myself free<\/em>. But there was a problem he was not aware of yet: he knew not that Jehovah was departed from him<\/em>. With God\u2019s departure, his strength had departed. God remained with him as lo<\/span>ng as he maintained the visible symbol of his Nazirite Vow; all the other times that he broke the vow, God was still with him. But, as soon as he broke away from this symbol, sacrificing his hair\u2014the visible symbol of his Nazirite Vow, which he kept in honor of the Lord\u2014then Go<\/span>d departed from him, and with God\u2019s departure went his strength. For the superhuman strength of Samson did not reside in h<\/span>is hair, as hair, but in the fact that the Lord was with him. God was with him as long as he maintained his condition, at least outwardly, as a Nazirite. Now, that was no longer true.<\/p>\n

In verse 21<\/a>, hav<\/span>ing been shaven led to Samson\u2019s enslavement, beginning with his capture: And the Philistines laid hold on him<\/em>; followed by his being blinded: and<\/em> [they] put out his eyes<\/em>. The Hebrew literally reads, \u201c<\/span>They bored out his eyes.\u201d It was a common form of mutilation in ancient times (1 Sam. 11:2<\/a>; 2 Kg. 25:7<\/a>). The rabbis say: \u201cSamson followed his eyes, and therefore the Philistines put out his eyes.\u201d The<\/span>n came the place of imprisonment: and they brought him down to Gaza<\/em>. They brought him deep inside Philistine territory so he could not easily be rescued, to the same city from which he had torn off th<\/span>e gates. Then he was bound: and bound him with fetters of brass<\/em>. The Hebrew has a dual form, which indicates that the fetters were fastened to his hands and feet. Finally, there is a summary of his la<\/span>bor: and he did grind in the prison-house<\/em>. This was work that did not require extra strength. It was also a further humiliation of Samson, for he was forced to do the kind of work that is normally res<\/span>erved for women (Exod. 11:5<\/a>; Isa. 47:2<\/a>).<\/p>\n

However, in verse 22<\/a>, a statement is made about Samson\u2019s hair: Howbeit the hair of his head began to grow again after he was shaven<\/em>. By itself, this would have<\/span> been obvious, since shaved hair does grow back, and so the inspired writer implies that there is more to it than that. It implies a re-examination of his relationship to God and his Nazirite Vow. The two together would permit f<\/span>or a return of God to Samson, and in turn, the return of his strength.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>7. Death of Samson\u201416:23\u201331a<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. The Philistine Feast\u201416:23\u201325a<\/a><\/p>\n

23And the lords of the Philistines gathered them together to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god, and to rejoice; for they said, Our god has delivered Samson our enemy into our hand. 24And when the people saw him, they praised their god; for they said, Our god has delivered into our hand our enemy, and the destroyer of our country, who has slain many of us. 25And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said, Call for Samson, that he may make us sport. And they called for Samson out of the prison-house; and he made sport before them.<\/p>\n

The Philistine feast is described in verses 23<\/a> to 24<\/a>, with verse 23<\/a> focusing on the lords of the Philistines: And the lords of the Philistines gathered them together<\/em> with a twofold purpose. First, they wanted to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god<\/em>. The name Dagon<\/em> is traced to two different Hebrew roots. The first root is dag<\/span>, the Hebrew for \u201cfish,\u201d and this would make him the fish-god, the male deity corresponding to the female Atargatis. This would make sense in light of the fact that the Philistines were on the coast and derived from the Sea People. The image of Dagon<\/em> had the body of a fish with the hands and head of a man. This is the god mentioned in 1 Samuel 5:4<\/a>. The second Hebrew root is Dagan<\/em>, which means \u201cgrain,\u201d and this would make him a fertility god, and Baal was considered his son. Second, they came to rejoice<\/em>, the reason being: for they said, Our god has delivered Samson our enemy into our hand<\/em>. What they did not understand is that it is Israel\u2019s and Samson\u2019s own God who delivered Samson to the Philistines. Verse 24<\/a> deals with the people of the Philistines: And when the people saw him<\/em>, the result was: they praised their god<\/em>. The reason was: for they said, Our g<\/em>od has delivered into our hand our enemy, and the destroyer of our country, who had slain many of us<\/em>. This is a song based on a fivefold repetition of the rhyme ending with nu<\/span>: eloheinu<\/span>, beyadeinu<\/span>, oy<\/span>veinu<\/span>, artzeinu<\/span>, and chalaleinu<\/span>. Thus a song was written praising a pagan god for the capture of Samson, the servant of the one true God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 25a<\/a> records the Philistine lords\u2019 mocking of Samson. The<\/span> timing for this was: it came to pass, when their hearts were merry<\/em>; by now they had had too much to drink and had lost their sense of propriety. So they made a request: Call for Samson, that he may m<\/em><\/span>ake us sport<\/em>, meaning \u201cto subject him to laughter and jeering.\u201d The Philistine kings were willing to comply: And they called for Samson out of the prison-house<\/em>. The result was he made sport before the<\/em><\/span>m<\/em>. Thus Samson\u2019s violation of the Nazirite Vow resulted in six things: (1) he did not know that his strength had gone and was ignorant of his spiritual powerlessness; (2) he was taken captive; (3) he <\/span>lost his eyesight; (4) he was enslaved; (5) he became a scandal and a means of glorifying a pagan god in the place of the God of Israel; and (6) he became the object of Philistine ridicule and was viewed as a religious clown.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. Samson\u2019s Vengeance\u201416:25b\u201330<\/a><\/p>\n

25bAnd they set him between the pillars: 26and Samson said unto the lad that held him by the hand, Suffer me that I may feel the pillars whereupon the house rests, that I may lean upon them. 27Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport.<\/p>\n

28And Samson called unto Jehovah, and said, O Lord Jehovah, remember me, I pray you, and strengthen me, I pray you, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes. 29And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house rested, and leaned upon them, the one with his right hand, and the other with his left. 30And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead that he slew at his death were more than they that he slew in his life.<\/p>\n

Verse 25b<\/a> sets the stage for the conclusion of the Samson Cycle: And they set him between the pillars<\/em>. These were the two middle pillars, which supported at least the main hall if not more. This was where the more prominent members of Philistine society were gathered together.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 26<\/a> records Samson\u2019s request: And Samson said unto the lad that held him by the ha<\/em><\/span>nd, Suffer me that I may feel the pillars whereupon the house rests<\/em>. The Hebrew literally reads: \u201ccause me to feel,\u201d meaning, he asked the lad to lead him and place him against the main pillars. The s<\/span>tated purpose was: that I may lean upon them<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 27<\/a> describes the circumstance and the context of the mocking. As for the population: Now the house was full of men and women<\/em>; the inside of the room<\/span> was heavily populated. As for the leaders: and all the lords of the Philistines were there<\/em>, meaning, all five Philistine kings were present; and it also meant that the Philistines would lose all five<\/span> of their kings in one day. As for the roof: and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women<\/em>. The hall opened to a great court, sheltered with a flat roof, and on the roof there was a <\/span>mass of people looking down into the hall itself where Samson stood. As for the group\u2019s activity: that beheld while Samson made sport<\/em>, all mocking and jeering Samson.<\/p>\n

Verse 28<\/a> quotes Samson\u2019s first pr<\/span>ayer, containing three statements: first, remember me, I pray you<\/em>; second: strengthen me, I pray you, only this once, O God<\/em>; and third, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes<\/em><\/span>. In this prayer, Samson used three names of God: Adonai<\/em>, YHVH<\/span>, and Elohim<\/span>. The focus was on the true God in place of the false god.<\/p>\n

Verses 29<\/a> to 30<\/a> describe the destruction of the temple of Dagon, wi<\/span>th verse 29<\/a> describing the position of Samson: And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house rested, and leaned upon them, the one with his right hand, and the other with his lef<\/em><\/span>t<\/em>. In verse 30a<\/a>, this led to Samson\u2019s second prayer: Let me die with the Philistines<\/em>. The man who was set apart by God and for God would now die with the uncircumcised Philistines. Verse 30b<\/a> details t<\/span>he destruction. The means was: And he bowed himself with all his might<\/em>. Standing between the pillars, he exerted all his strength and pushed them apart, leading to two results. First, and the house fe<\/em><\/span>ll<\/em> on two groups: upon the lords<\/em>, thus killing all five Philistine kings in one day; and, upon all the people that were therein<\/em>. The second result was that the dead that he slew at his death were more<\/em><\/span> than they that he slew in his life<\/em>. Previously, by combining 14:19<\/a>, 15:8<\/a>, and 15<\/a>, he killed at least 1,100 Philistines. But here he may have killed as many as three thousand.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

c. Burial of Samson\u201416:31a<\/a><\/p>\n

Then his brethren and all the house of his father came down, and took him, and brought him up, and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the burying-place of Manoah his fa<\/em>ther<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The people involved here included his brethren<\/em>, meaning, the members of the Tribe of Dan, and all the house of his father<\/em>, meaning, his own family members. Both groups came down<\/em> from the hills o<\/span>f the Shephelah to the Coastal Plain, and took him<\/em>. Apparently, out of respect for his deeds, the Philistines were willing to release the body. His family brought him up:<\/em> climbed back up the hills of <\/span>the Shephelah. They concluded with the burial: and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol<\/em>. He was buried in the same area where he was born and where his activities began in the burying-place of Manoah <\/em><\/span>his father<\/em>, the private family cemetery.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

8. Judgeship of Samson\u201416:31b<\/a><\/p>\n

And he judged Israel twenty years<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Judges 16:31b<\/a> is a repetition of 15:20<\/a>. The rabbis however, who could not accept that the Scriptures repeat themselves, interpreted this to mean that the fear and fury that Samson had aroused among the Philistines during the first twenty years lingered for another twenty years after his death. Thus, Samson provided security for his people for a total of forty years. However, there is no indication of this in the text.<\/p>\n

Some observations on the Samson cycle are in order. The first observation is that Samson represents a paradox, which can be seen in six ways. First, he could defeat the strongest of men but was defeated by the weakest of women. Second, he could ask God for a miracle on behalf of his eyes; but on the other hand, it was following his eyes that got him into trouble. Third, he would avoid going through the vineyard but took honey out of the body of a lion. Fourth, he prayed not to fall into the hands of the uncircumcised Philistines and yet had relations with at least three Philistine women. Fifth, he called himself God\u2019s servant but ignored his parents\u2019 plea not to marry a Philistine. Sixth, God performed mighty miracles through him and yet allowed him to be captured, blinded, jailed, and humiliated. These are the paradoxes of Samson\u2019s life.<\/p>\n

The second observation, as has been noted, is that the rabbis have always treated Samson in an entirely different, and always much more positive, perspective than what appears in the Scriptures themselves. Some of the rabbinic revisionisms of the Samson account include the following. Samson was the fulfillment of Jacob\u2019s prophesy in Genesis 49:17<\/a> concerning Dan being like a snake. A snake does not attack unless it feels threatened; Samson did not attack the Philistines until they oppressed his people. A snake does not derive any pleasure from killing its victims, and its poisonous fangs are only used as defensive weapons; Samson did not derive any pleasure from killing the Philistines, and he killed them only in defense of his people. A snake camouflages itself so as to blend in with its environment; Samson blended completely into the Philistine environment. The only way a single individual could wage war against the nation would be by resorting to guerrilla warfare of the most unique kind. So the rabbis conclude from this that one can perceive a true picture of Samson. They see him as a wise and holy tzaddik<\/span>, meaning \u201ca righteous person,\u201d a judge, a mentor, a representative of all Jewry\u2014in one word, a Messiah. Only after comprehending Samson\u2019s vast Torah<\/em> knowledge, high moral fiber, and selfless dedication to Jewish people can anyone embark upon the Scriptural account of Samson and read its true significance.22<\/a> While these are very flowery words, they only try to avoid the obvious: that Samson was a mixed character, showing both high points of spirituality and also low points of carnality. Called to be a Nazirite, he constantly rebelled against his Nazirite Vow.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

FOUR<\/em><\/p>\n

The Appendices\u2014<\/em>17:1\u201321:25<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>A. First Appendix: Micah\u2019s Levite and the Migration of Dan\u201417:1\u201318:31<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. Micah and the Levite\u201417:1\u201313<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. Micah and His Idol\u201417:1\u20136<\/a><\/p>\n

1And there was a man of the hill-country of Ephraim, whose name was Micah. 2And he said unto his mother, The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which you did utter a curse, and did also speak it in my ears, behold, the silver is with me; I took it. And his mother said, Blessed be my son of Jehovah. 3And he restored the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother; and his mother said, I verily dedicate the silver unto Jehovah from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image: now therefore I will restore it unto you. 4And when he restored the money unto his mother, his mother took two hundred pieces of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and it was in the house of Micah. 5And the man Micah had a house of gods, and he made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. 6In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.<\/p>\n

Verse 1<\/a> introduces Micah, the main person in this section. As to his origin, the text states, And there was a man of the hill-country of Ephraim<\/em>. It was in this territory that the Tabernacle at Shiloh was located, and yet the Tabernacle did not influence the man\u2019s spiritual life. If this was true for Ephraim, in whose tribal territory Shiloh was located, one can speculate how much more it might have been true for the more distant tribes. As for his name, it was Micah<\/em>, which means, \u201cWho is like God.\u201d The irony here is that Micah does not worship the God after whom he is named.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 2<\/a> records Micah\u2019s confession: And he said unto his mother, The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you<\/em> \u2026 According to rabbinic tradition, his mother was Del<\/span>ilah, and she received the 1,100 pieces of silver from the Philistine lords. However, there is no evidence of this, nor did Delilah live in Ephraim. Micah then made reference to her curse: about which<\/em><\/span> you did utter a curse<\/em>. The curse<\/em> was against the thief, if he did not return the money. The power of the curse was taken quite seriously in the pagan world, and a parent\u2019s curse was considered the mo<\/span>st potent of all. He then added that she did also speak it in my ears<\/em>, which is what put the fear into him. So he confesses, behold, the silver is with me; I took it<\/em>. Actually, he stole it, but he avo<\/span>ided using the stronger term; in place of stealing, he just took it<\/em>. There was no remorse on his part. He returned the money only as a result of fearing the curse she had uttered and realizing that th<\/span>is was a conditional curse. In response, the mother said, Blessed be my son of Jehovah<\/em>. Since the curse could not be unsaid, his mother neutralized it by her blessing; and she invoked the name of the <\/span>God of Israel in this blessing.<\/p>\n

Verses 3<\/a> to 4<\/a> record the restoration and the dedication of the silver. First came the restoration when he restored the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother<\/em>. Th<\/span>en came the dedication: his mother said, I verily dedicate the silver unto Jehovah from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image<\/em>. Micah responded verbally, now therefore I will re<\/em><\/span>store it unto you<\/em>, and actively, when he restored the money unto his mother<\/em>. Then again the dedication is described: his mother took two hundred pieces of silver, and gave them to the founder<\/em> (or silv<\/span>ersmith), who made thereof<\/em>, two things. First, he made a graven image<\/em>. The Hebrew word is pesel<\/span>, which means \u201cto hew out\u201d or \u201cto cut\u201d and speaks of the carving activity of the craftsman as he sculpts <\/span>a stone or a piece of wood into the desired shape. It also refers to an idolatrous image, whether it was made of wood, stone, or metal. Second, he made a molten image<\/em>. The Hebrew word is massechah<\/span> fro<\/span>m nasach<\/span>, which means \u201cto pour out,\u201d and this alludes to the melting down of precious metal with which the sculpture will be overlaid. When used elsewhere in the singular, the term is exclusively rest<\/span>ricted to the calf cast by Aaron or Jeroboam. Thus, this may have been a silver calf, in place of a golden calf, the representation of Jehovah in the form of a molten calf. One possibility is that this was actually one object with two parts, an image on a stand. But the phrases <\/span>carved image<\/em> and cast idol<\/em> actually imply two objects of worship. Judges 18:18<\/a> also implies two separate objects: an imag<\/span>e carved out of wood or stone and a cast idol made out of melted silver poured into a mold. Whatever the object, its placement was in the house of Micah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Four observations can be noted in Judges 17:3\u2013<\/span>4<\/a> regarding the spiritual climate of the times. First, several violations of the Law of Moses occurred: Micah violated the laws not to steal, to honor his mother, to have no other god, and to have no <\/span>images. Second, while his mother dedicated the silver to Jehovah, his mother did not donate the money to the Tabernacle in Shiloh. Instead she gave it back to her thieving son to turn it into an idol. Third, the passage shows syncretism, a mixing of religious beliefs; money that was dedicated to Jehovah was used to make idols, which, in turn, may have been used as a means to worship Jehovah, henc<\/span>e revealing a practice of pseudo-Jehovah worship. Fourth, the making of the images shows that this event took place in the latter days of the Judges, since the people were still obedient during the earlier period of the elders and the following generation.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Verse 5<\/a> describes Micah\u2019s temple: And the man Micah had a house of gods<\/em>. Micah\u2019s house of gods<\/em> was a domestic temple belonging to his house and <\/span>was not intended to serve the larger public. While this was common practice among pagans, it was not permitted for the Jews. But Micah, like Gideon, set up a cult center in violation of Deuteronomy 12<\/a><\/span>, which declared that Israel must only worship in the one place in the Land that God would choose, which, at this point, happened to be Shiloh. Furthermore, Micah made<\/em> two other things. First, he made<\/em><\/span> an ephod<\/em>, which was the symbol of priesthood, in imitation of the true priesthood. As in the case of Gideon, this ephod<\/em> would be draped over one of the images. Second, he made teraphim<\/span>; household god<\/span>s which were used for divining, and these would be the counterfeit Urim<\/em> and Thummim<\/em>.23<\/a> In addition, he also set up a priesthood: he consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest<\/em>. The Hebrew means<\/span>, \u201cto fill the hands,\u201d meaning to be installed into an office.<\/p>\n

Verse 6<\/a> gives the theme of the appendices to the Book of Judges: In those days there was no king in Israel<\/em>. This point is made more than <\/span>once, each time in a different context. Here it is in the context of proper worship. There was no king in Israel to enforce the law of one central shrine, and to remove counterfeit shrines; and the result was: <\/span>every man did that which was right in his own eyes<\/em> in the religious sphere. The author used Micah and his mother to typify Israel, so this is only one example of a general problem. In place <\/span>of a king enforcing pure Jehovah worship, what is developing is syncretistic Canaanization. A woman openly confesses devotion to Jehovah in cursing, blessing, and other occasions, but her actions go totally contrary to what that confession requires. The son has an orthodox name, but commits the ultimate sin against that name, establishing<\/span> a cult system in direct violation to the command not to worship other gods or idols. The two never seem to recognize their inconsistency. This is the nature of syncretism. Both are very religious, but have become Canaanized.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>b. Micah and His Priest\u201417:7\u201313<\/a><\/p>\n

7And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite; and he sojourned there. 8And the man departed out of the city, out of Bethl<\/span>ehem-judah, to sojourn where he could find a place, and he came to the hill-country of Ephraim to the house of Micah, as he journeyed. 9And Micah said unto him, Whence come you? And he said unto him, <\/span>I am a Levite of Bethlehem-judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place. 10And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give you ten pieces of silver<\/span> by the year, and a suit of apparel, and your victuals. So the Levite went in. 11And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons. 12And Micah consec<\/span>rated the Levite, and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah. 13Then said Micah, Now know I that Jehovah will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.<\/p>\n

Verse 7<\/a> introduce<\/span>s the second key man, an unnamed young man who is a Levite. As to his origin, the passage begins, And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah<\/em>, which distinguishes it from the Bethlehem in Galilee<\/span>. The phrase, of the family of Judah<\/em>, does not mean this was his actual tribal identity, since he was of the Tribe of Levi. His tribal identity is clearly stated: he was a Levite<\/em>. Thus, he was a Levit<\/em><\/span>e<\/em> living in the tribal territory of Judah. Since Bethlehem was not a Levitical city, his original home had to be elsewhere; and therefore, Bethlehem cannot be blamed for his failings, a key point to d<\/span>istinguish it from another city yet to play a role in this book. Furthermore, he was of the Mosaic line, which means he was of the Kohath Clan, and this clan was assigned to live in the Levitical Cities of Ephraim, Dan, and Western Manasseh (<\/span>Josh. 21:5<\/a>, 20\u201326<\/a>). He was not a Levite assigned to the Tribe of Judah. His connection to Bethlehem was: and he sojourned there<\/em>. This means he was a temporary<\/span> resident in Bethlehem, sojourning there. Again, Bethlehem was not his place of origin. Nor did Bethlehem provide this idolatrous priest any reason to remain in Bethlehem.<\/p>\n

Verse 8<\/a> describes the Levite<\/span>\u2019s sojournings: And the man departed<\/em>. Just as he had come into Bethlehem, he now traveled out of the city, out of Bethlehem-judah<\/em>. The purpose was: to sojourn where he could find a place<\/em>; meaning he w<\/span>as looking for a place of service. This reveals the extent apostasy in Israel, leaving the Tribe of Levi without a visible means of support. They were to be the spiritual teachers of the other tribes and receive su<\/span>stenance from them, but this was not now happening. This account also shows how the Tribe of Levi itself was contaminated with apostasy and syncretism. But Bethlehem did not provide him with the opportunity to practice this syncretism, and so he had to leave, showing a positive side to Bethlehem. The phrase: <\/span>as he journeyed<\/em>, shows he had no special destination but simply traveled aro<\/span>und waiting for an opportunity to present itself. Eventually, he came to the hill-country of Ephraim<\/em>, and, more specifically, to the house of Micah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 9<\/a> records an inquiry and the answer. The inqu<\/span>iry was from Micah: And Micah said unto him, Whence come you?<\/em> The answer was: I am a Levite of Bethlehem-judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 10<\/a>, Micah offers the Levite emplo<\/span>yment: And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me<\/em> two things. First, he asked him to become a father<\/em>. This was usually a title of respect (cf. Gen. 45:8<\/a>; 2 Kg. 6:21<\/a>), but here it is used i<\/span>n a religious sense. Second, he asked him to become to him a priest<\/em>, meaning a private priest<\/em>. The man was already a Levite, but not all Levites could be priests, only those who were direct descendant<\/span>s of Aaron. As will be seen later, this one was not a descendant of Aaron. But he was a Levite and now offered to become a private priest<\/em> to Micah. Micah offered him money plus room and board: ten pie<\/em><\/span>ces of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and<\/em> [his] victuals<\/em>. Then came the initial acceptance: So the Levite went in<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

In verse 11<\/a> comes the Levite\u2019s final acceptance: And the Levite was conte<\/em><\/span>nt to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 12<\/a> records the installation service: And Micah consecrated the Levite<\/em>. The Hebrew again says \u201cfilled the hand,\u201d the i<\/span>diom for the ordination ritual (Exod. 28:41<\/a>; 29:9<\/a> and 29:31\u201334<\/a>). The results were that the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 13<\/a> records Micah\u2019s faulty conclusion: Now k<\/em><\/span>now I that Jehovah will do me good<\/em>. This is an expression of superstition and not faith. He claimed to have Jehovah as his God, but the form of worship is totally contrary to this God\u2019s laws. This mea<\/span>ns that, in place of blessing, he will be subject to divine judgment, as the next chapter proves. The reason for his faulty conclusion was: seeing I have a Levite to my priest<\/em>. Earlier, his own son se<\/span>rved in this position, but his son was not of the Levites, whom Micah recognized to be the priestly tribe. Now that he had a Levite for a priest, he felt that the God of Israel would be certain to bless him. Micah treats the <\/span>Levite as a good-luck charm, possessing a tribal identity that his own son did not possess. This whole incident shows that Canaanization had affected the priesthood itself.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>2. Migration of Dan\u201418:1\u201331<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>a. The Danite Scouts\u201418:1\u201310<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(1) The Mission\u201418:1\u20132a<\/a><\/p>\n

1In those days there was no king in Israel: and in those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in; for unto that day their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel. 2And the children of Dan sent of their family five men from their whole number, men of valor, from Zorah, and from Eshtaol, to spy out the land, and to search it; and they said unto them, Go, search the land.<\/p>\n

Verse 1a<\/a> reiterates the theme of the appendices to the Book of Judges: In those days there was no king in Israel<\/em>. This time it is found in the context of the Danite migration. The point is that there was no king with a strong central government and one united army who could conquer the enemy and give the tribes their inheritance and finalize the conquest. There is a correlation between chapters 17<\/a> and 18<\/a>: Chapter 17<\/a> reveals the apostasy of the individual; chapter 18<\/a> shows the apostasy of the tribe.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 1b<\/a> presents the Tribe of Dan\u2019s problem: a<\/em><\/span>nd in those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in; for unto that day their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel<\/em>. In other words, it was the fa<\/span>ilure of the Danite, Samson, to free Danite territory from Philistine control that now led to the Danite migration. The land allotted to the Tribe of Dan is detailed in Joshua 19:40\u201348<\/a>, but it had not<\/span> come into their possession since they were repulsed by the Philistines, who forced them to limit their settlement to the hills of Zorah and Eshtaol.<\/p>\n

Verse 2a<\/a> records the Danites\u2019 sending out of their<\/span> scouts, beginning with the selection: And the children of Dan sent of their family five men from their whole number<\/em>. They came from different clans of the tribe, and thus they were representative of <\/span>the whole tribe. They were men of valor<\/em>, and therefore skilled in fighting. As to their origin, they were from Zorah, and from Eshtaol<\/em>, both of which were in the hills. Their purpose was to spy out th<\/em><\/span>e land<\/em>, to see what was available and to search it, meaning to see if it was worth the effort. The leaders of the Tribe of Dan gave them simple, but specific, instructions: they said unto them, Go, se<\/em><\/span>arch the land<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(2) Encounter with the Levite\u201418:2b\u20136<\/a><\/p>\n

2bAnd they came to the hill-country of Ephraim, unto the house of Micah, and lodged there. 3When they were by the house of Micah, they knew the voice of the young man the Levite; and they turned aside thither, and said unto him, Who brought you hither? and what do you in this place? and what have you here? 4And he said unto them, Thus and thus has Micah dealt with me, and he has hired me, and I am become his priest. 5And they said unto him, Ask counsel, we pray you, of God, that we may know whether our way which we go shall be prosperous. 6And the priest said unto them, Go in peace: before Jehovah is your way wherein ye go.<\/p>\n

Verse 2b<\/a> provides the circumstance of the Danites coming to Ephraim: And they came to the hill-country of Ephraim, unto the house <\/em>of Micah, and lodged there<\/em>. The intent was to spend only the night there on their way north, but this seeming chance encounter would lead to some long-term consequences. God has now begun the process of punishing Micah in place of blessing him.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 3<\/a> records the Danites\u2019 encounter with and their questioning of the Levite, beginning with the circumstance: When they were by the house of Micah<\/em>, the<\/em><\/span>y knew the voice of the young man the Levite<\/em>. The Hebrew word for knew<\/em> means \u201cto recognize,\u201d so they recognized the voice<\/em> of the Levite<\/em>. Apparently, in his sojournings from Bethlehem to Ephraim, the L<\/span>evite had passed through Danite territory where they got to know him, and therefore they now recognized his voice<\/em>. Because they knew him as a result of recognizing his voice<\/em>, of all the questions they<\/span> asked him, they never asked for his identity. The result was that they turned aside thither<\/em>. They asked him three questions: Who brought you hither? and what do you in this place? and what have you h<\/em><\/span>ere<\/em>? All the questions have to do with his purpose and circumstance of being there.<\/p>\n

Verse 4<\/a> gives the Levite\u2019s answer: And he said unto them, Thus and thus has Micah dealt with me, and he has hired me<\/em><\/span>, and I am become his priest<\/em>. He begins by giving them the history recorded in the previous chapter.<\/p>\n

In verse 5<\/a>, the Danites make a request of the Levite: Ask counsel, we pray you, of God<\/em>. This would <\/span>be made through the ephod,24<\/a> and they seemed unconcerned that the ephod was being used in an idolatrous way. The route they were taking would cause them to pass by Shiloh, but they made no plans to in<\/span>quire of the High Priest at the Tabernacle in Shiloh. They were content to inquire of a Canaanized Jewish Levite. The content of their request was: that we may know whether our way which we go shall b<\/em><\/span>e prosperous<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 6<\/a> presents the Levite\u2019s answer: Go in peace: before Jehovah is your way wherein ye go<\/em>. The Levite never actually said that God would prosper them, only that the course on which the<\/span>y are going is before Jehovah<\/em>. Such a statement could go either way, and so the Levite protected himself from being charged with a false prophecy. However, the Danites took it as a positive promise th<\/span>at they would succeed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(3) Success of the Mission\u201418:7\u201310<\/a><\/p>\n

7Then the five men departed, and came to Laish, and saw the people that were therein, how they dwelt in security, after the manner of the Sidonians, quiet and secure; for there was none in the land, possessing authority, that might put them to shame in anything, and they were far from the Sidonians, and had no dealings with any man. 8And they came unto their brethren to Zorah and Eshtaol: and their brethren said unto them, What say ye? 9And they said, Arise, and let us go up against them; for we have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good: and are ye still? be not slothful to go and to enter in to possess the land. 10When ye go, ye shall come unto a people secure, and the land is large; for God has given it into your hand, a place where there is no want of anything that is in the earth.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 7<\/a> details the Danites\u2019 spying out of Laish: Then the five men departed, and came to Laish<\/em>. Laish<\/em> was also known as Irshemesh in Joshua 19:41<\/a>. The Danites sp<\/span>ied out four things. First, they observed the people and saw the people that were therein;<\/em> and their security, how they dwelt in security, after the manner of the Sidonians, quiet and secure<\/em>. Second, <\/span>the Danites also discovered the reason for this people\u2019s peace: for there was none in the land, possessing authority, that might put them to shame in anything<\/em>. There was no central authority and no ex<\/span>ternal power near enough to threaten them. Third, they noticed the geographical fact: and they were far from the Sidonians;<\/em> so far that the Sidonians<\/em> could not or would not interfere. Fourth, they not<\/span>ed the isolation of the people, who had no dealings with any man<\/em>; they had no treaty with anyone who would immediately come to their aid. To summarize the historical frame of reference, Laish was unde<\/span>r the rule and umbrella of Sidon. At this point in history, Sidon had superiority over Tyre though later, by David\u2019s day, Tyre would have superiority. There was no one to humiliate the people, since the land lacked for nothing. No one exercised oppressive rule over the people at Laish; and they were prosperous. <\/span>They were far from the Sidonians<\/em> because Sidon and Laish were separated from each other<\/span> by the Lebanese mountains, and the Sidonians were preoccupied with their maritime trade and had no time or interest in exerting political control over the interior. Laish also existed in isolation from the Aramaean king, separated by the Anti-Lebanon Mou<\/span>ntains. All of these things pointed to both the security and the isolation of Laish.<\/p>\n

Verse 8<\/a> reports on the return of the Danite spies: And they <\/em><\/span>came unto their brethren<\/em>, their fellow Danites; to Zorah and Eshtaol<\/em>; which led the inquiry: and their brethren said unto them, What say ye<\/em>? That is, What have you found?<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verses 9<\/a> to 10<\/a> record the rep<\/span>ort of the spies: And they said<\/em>. In verse 9<\/a>, they issue a call to conquest: Arise, and let us go up against them<\/em>, and gave their reason: for we have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good<\/em>. This p<\/span>ositive description of the land they found led to another call to action: and are ye still?<\/em> Meaning, \u201care you inactive or dallying?\u201d Be not slothful to go and to enter in to possess the land<\/em>. Verse 10<\/a><\/span> gives the description: When ye go, ye shall come unto a people secure, and the land is large<\/em>. Literally, the Hebrew reads, \u201cbroad of hands,\u201d and it means that it stretches wide to the left and to the<\/span> right, not cooped up among the hills. They conclude with the assurance: for God has given it into your hand<\/em>. This conclusion was based on the spies\u2019 interpretation of what the Levite said. Since they<\/span> thought they were divinely prospered in finding it, they assumed they would have divine help in conquering it. Their theological conclusion was that God helped them find it; therefore, God will help them conquer it. Finally, the spies pointed out the fertility of the land:<\/span> a place where there is no want of anything that is in the earth<\/em>. Indeed, to this day that area of Dan has two key things impo<\/span>rtant for survival: plenty of water from the Dan Springs and a lot of flat fertile land to cultivate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. The Danite Migration\u201418:11\u201313<\/a><\/p>\n

11And there set forth from thence of the family of the Danites, out of Zorah and out of Eshtaol, six hundred men girt with weapons of war. 12And they went up, and encamped in Kiriath-jearim, in Judah: wherefore they called that place Mahaneh-dan, unto this day; behold, it is behind Kiriath-jearim. 13And they passed thence unto the hill-country of Ephraim, and came unto the house of Micah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 11<\/a> describes the Danite strike force. And there set forth from thence of the family of the Danites, out of Zorah and out of Eshtaol, six hundred men<\/em>. For some interprete<\/span>rs, the six hundred<\/em> indicates that only a portion of the tribe went north since this was a small number of the total Danite army. However, this was only the strike force to take the city, with the res<\/span>t of the tribe following later. In all subsequent biblical history, the Danites are never found in the south region again, but are only mentioned as being in the north, showing that the whole tribe migrated, not just a segment. According to Ezekiel\u2019s outlining of the territory in the Messianic Kingdom, even then Dan will end up being the most northern tribe. The verse concludes <\/span>with the armament of the force, <\/span>girt with weapons of war<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 12<\/a> records the warriors\u2019 first day\u2019s journey: And they went up<\/em>, from the Shephelah to the hill-country of Judah, and encamped in Kiriath-jearim, in Judah<\/em>. <\/span>Consequently, they called that place Mahaneh-dan, unto this day<\/em>; meaning until the day the Book of Judges was written. Mahaneh-dan<\/em> means the \u201ccamp of Dan,\u201d and so this one-night encampment of the Dani<\/span>te strike force made a very long-lasting impression. The location was behind Kiriath-jearim<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The second day\u2019s journey is outlined in verse 13<\/a>: And they passed thence unto the hill-country of Ephraim, <\/em><\/span>and came unto the house of Micah<\/em>, thus setting the stage for what was about to happen.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

c. Hiring of the Levite\u201418:14\u201320<\/a><\/p>\n

14Then answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish, and said unto their brethren, Do ye know that there is in these houses an ephod, and teraphim, and a graven image, and a molten image? now therefore consider what ye have to do. 15And they turned aside thither, and came to the house of the young man the Levite, even unto the house of Micah, and asked him of his welfare. 16And the six hundred men girt with their weapons of war, who were of the children of Dan, stood by the entrance of the gate. 17And the five men that went to spy out the land went up, and came in thither, and took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image: and the priest stood by the entrance of the gate with the six hundred men girt with weapons of war. 18And when these went into Micah\u2019s house, and fetched the graven image, the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image, the priest said unto them, What do ye? 19And they said unto him, Hold your peace, lay your hand upon your mouth, and go with us, and be to us a father and a priest: is it better for you to be priest unto the house of one man, or to be priest unto a tribe and a family in Israel? 20And the priest\u2019s heart was glad, and he took the ephod, and the teraphim, and the graven image, and went in the midst of the people.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 14<\/a> records the report of the Danite spies c<\/span>oncerning Micah\u2019s compound: Then answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish, and said unto their brethren, Do ye know that there is in these houses \u2026<\/em> The plural use of the term ho<\/em><\/span>uses<\/em> shows that more than one house was involved; the temple house was separated from the dwelling house. And in these houses are four things of significance: an ephod, and teraphim, and a graven imag<\/em><\/span>e, and a molten image<\/em>. Then came their suggestion: now therefore consider what ye have to do<\/em>, meaning, what do they think should be done about this situation?<\/p>\n

In verse 15<\/a> comes the approach to the Lev<\/span>ite: And they turned aside thither<\/em> to carry out the plan suggested by the five spies. When they came to the house of the young man the Levite, even unto the house of Micah<\/em>, then they asked him of his <\/em><\/span>welfare<\/em>. In this way, they began to win over the Levite to their cause.<\/p>\n

Verse 16<\/a> describes the position of the soldiers: And the six hundred men girt with their weapons of war, who were of the childre<\/em><\/span>n of Dan, stood by the entrance of the gate<\/em>. This would be the gate of the compound where the houses of Micah were located. Their position and their arms would create a sense of intimidation and thus <\/span>provide defense for the action of the five spies.<\/p>\n

Verse 17a<\/a> harks back to the five spies: And the five men<\/em>, who, in the past, went to spy out the land<\/em>, now, in the present: went up, and came in thithe<\/em><\/span>r, and took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image<\/em>. They were guilty of god-napping and yet never inquired as to how gods that could be stolen could be of any benefit <\/span>to them.<\/p>\n

Verses 17b<\/a> to 18<\/a> describe the position and the action of the priest: and the priest stood by the entrance of the gate with the six hundred men girt with weapons of war<\/em>. While the priest was e<\/span>ngaged in conversation with the six hundred men<\/em>, the five spies were robbing the temple house. In verse 18<\/a>, this led to the protest of the priest. The timing was: when these went into Micah\u2019s house, a<\/em><\/span>nd fetched the graven image, the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image<\/em>. Then came the protest: the priest said unto them, What do ye?<\/em> He obviously knew what they were doing but chooses a mild <\/span>protest.<\/p>\n

Verse 19<\/a> records the Danites\u2019 response. First, they gave him a command: Hold your peace<\/em>, meaning, \u201craise no objections,\u201d and lay your hand upon your mouth<\/em>, a gesture of one who forces himself<\/span> to remain silent (cf. Job 29:9<\/a>; 40:4<\/a>). Second, they made an offer: go with us, and be to us a father<\/em>, meaning a religious father, and a priest: is it better for you to be priest unto the house of one<\/em><\/span> man, or to be a priest unto a tribe and a family in Israel?<\/em><\/p>\n

Verse 20<\/a> records the acceptance of the offer. As to his emotions, the priest\u2019s heart was glad<\/em>. As to his actions, he took the ephod, and th<\/em><\/span>e teraphim, and the graven image<\/em>; he now actively participated in the robbing. Finally, he left and went in the midst of the people<\/em>. The Levite not only left his employer, but he also stole from his e<\/span>mployer, which renders him guilty of both treachery and grand larceny.<\/p>\n

Altogether there were six specific steps of appropriation. First, they headed straight for the Levite\u2019s house. Second, they greet<\/span>ed the Levite warmly to curry his favor. Third, they stationed the six hundred men\u2014repeatedly described as girt<\/em> with the weapons of war\u2014outside the gate of the compound, thus providing intimidation. F<\/span>ourth, the five spies went in and took the cultic objects. Fifth, they stifled the protest of the Levite since they did not want Micah to hear or know what they were doing. Sixth, they bribed the Levite to leave his employer and join their migration; they already knew, of course, that he <\/span>would hire out for money.<\/p>\n

d. Micah\u2019s Response\u201418:21\u201326<\/a><\/p>\n

21So they turned and departed, and put the little ones and the cattle and the goods before them. 22When they were a good way from the house of Micah, the men that were in <\/span>the houses near to Micah\u2019s house were gathered together, and overtook the children of Dan. 23And they cried unto the children of Dan. And they turned their faces, and said unto Micah, What ails you, t<\/span>hat you come with such a company? 24And he said, ye have taken away my gods which I made, and the priest, and are gone away, and what have I more? and how then say ye unto me, What ails you? 25And the<\/span> children of Dan said unto him, Let not your voice be heard among us, lest angry fellows fall upon you, and you lose your life, with the lives of your household. 26And the children of Dan went their w<\/span>ay: and when Micah saw that they were too strong for him, he turned and went back unto his house.<\/p>\n

Verse 21<\/a> records the account of the Danites\u2019 departure from Micah\u2019s house: So they turned and departed<\/em><\/span>. For the first time it is stated that the families were with the six hundred, and the fact that they brought their families with them shows that they were very sure of victory. They put: the little o<\/em><\/span>nes and the cattle and the goods before them<\/em> so as not to have them attacked from the rear.<\/p>\n

Verse 21<\/a> records the account of the Danites\u2019 departure from Micah\u2019s house: So they turned and departed<\/em><\/span>. For the first time it is stated that the families were with the six hundred, and the fact that they brought their families with them shows that they were very sure of victory. They put: the little o<\/em><\/span>nes and the cattle and the goods before them<\/em> so as not to have them attacked from the rear.<\/p>\n

In verse 22<\/a>, Micah pursues the Danites. The timing was: When they were a good way from the house of Micah<\/em>. T<\/span>he posse consisted of: the men that were in the houses near to Micah\u2019s house<\/em> [who] were gathered<\/em> together<\/em>. This included the men of his compound as well as his neighbors, who obviously felt they benef<\/span>ited from Micah\u2019s temple and therefore participated. Eventually this group overtook the children of Dan<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 23<\/a> describes the initial confrontation between Micah and the Danites: And they cried unto<\/em><\/span> the children of Dan<\/em>. The response of the Danites was twofold. First, they turned their faces<\/em>. Since Micah caught up to them from the rear, they had to turn around to see him. Second, they responded v<\/span>erbally and said unto Micah, What ails you, that you come with such a company<\/em>? Literally, the Hebrew text reads: \u201cWhat to you that you are mustered?\u201d The sarcasm should not be missed.<\/p>\n

Verse 24<\/a> records<\/span> Micah\u2019s woe-filled response, beginning with the charge: Ye have taken away my gods which I made, and the priest, and are gone away, and what have I more?<\/em> In other words, since they have deprived him <\/span>of these things, nothing else worthwhile is left for him. But again, how could a god that could be god-napped be of any help to him? It is a question Micah did not see a need to resolve. Then comes Micah\u2019s rebuke: <\/span>and how then say ye unto me, What ails you?<\/em> There is some humor here: \u201cYou take away everything I have, and you ask me what ails me?\u201d<\/p>\n

In verse 25<\/a>, the Danites issued a threat to Micah: L<\/em><\/span>et not your voice be heard among us, lest angry fellows fall upon you, and you lose your life, with the lives of your household<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Danites\u2019 threat led to the separation of the parties (v. 26<\/a>). As fo<\/span>r the Danites: And the children of Dan went their way<\/em>. As for Micah: and when Micah saw that they were too strong for him, he turned and went back unto his house<\/em>. Nothing more is recorded about Micah.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Four observations can be made here. First, Micah entered the story as a thief, and the story ends with Micah becoming the victim of grand larceny. Second, the objects that the Danites stole from Mica<\/span>h were made from silver, the very substance that he had stolen from his mother. Third, the gods that he had made had been taken. These gods were not his creators, since they could be stolen and so were not able to save themselves. They were victims of \u201cgod-napping\u201d and needed to be rescued, instead of helping him out of his situation. The man who installed them into his house now finds his house <\/span>plundered. Fourth, the very reason that the priest had agreed to join Micah is the reason Micah could no longer retain him: namely, he hired out for money.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

e. The Danite Conquest\u201418:27\u201331<\/a><\/p>\n

27And they took that which Micah had made, and the priest whom he had, and came unto Laish, unto a people quiet and secure, and smote them with the edge of the sword; and they burnt the city with fire. 28And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Sidon, and they had no dealings with any man; and it was in the valley that lies by Beth-rehob. And they built the city, and dwelt therein. 29And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first. 30And the children of Dan set up for themselves the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land. 31So they set them up Micah\u2019s graven image which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh.<\/p>\n

Verses 27<\/a> to 28a<\/a> describe the destruction of Laish, beginning with the journey of the Danites: And they took that which Micah had made, and the priest whom he had<\/em>, and then the arrival: and came unto Laish, unto a people quiet and secure<\/em>. Then came the destruction: Dan smote them with <\/em>the edge of the sword; and they burnt the city with fire<\/em>. Finally, the author points out the vulnerability of Laish\u2019s inhabitants: And there was no deliverer<\/em>. This was for two reasons: first, because <\/em>it was far from Sidon;<\/em> and second, because they had no dealings with any man<\/em>, meaning the people of Laish had no treaties with any other group. Laish\u2019s location was: and it was in the valley that lies<\/em> by Beth-rehob<\/em>, known today as the Hulah Valley.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verses 28b<\/a> to 29<\/a> record the origin of the new city: And they built the city, and dwelt therein<\/em>. And they called the name of the city Dan<\/em>. It was alread<\/span>y called Dan back in Judges 5:17<\/a>, which may imply that the migration took place even before the war with Sisera, but more likely the name was given to it proleptically (in anticipation in the story, b<\/span>efore the fact), for there is no indication that the migration happened that early. In connection with Samson, the Danites were still south, and the migration must have taken place after Samson\u2019s death. The reason for the naming was: <\/span>after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Then verses 30<\/a> to 31<\/a> describe the new temple of Dan<\/span>: And the children of Dan set up for themselves the graven image<\/em>. The City of Dan now became the center of Danite idolatry, which included the installation of the Danite priesthood, who were to serve <\/span>as priests to the Tribe of Dan. The first high priest was Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses<\/em>. For the first time, as a surprise ending to the first appendix, the anonymous Levite is identi<\/span>fied by name and pedigree. The Hebrew text does read Moses<\/em>, but it has a hanging letter nun<\/span>, which allows for the reading of Manasseh<\/em>, and so other translations may read Manasseh<\/em> rather than Moses<\/em>. Bu<\/span>t the hanging nun<\/span> was inserted by a scribe to avoid connecting Moses with idolatry. But it was Moses<\/em> who was the father of Gershom<\/em> in Exodus 2:22<\/a>. So the correct reading should be: \u201cJonathan, the son <\/span>of Gershom, the son of Moses.\u201d Being the son of Manasseh would not make Jonathan a Levite, but being a son of Moses would make him a Levite. What this shows is that even the line of Moses had been Canaanized, affirming <\/span>Judges 2:6\u201310<\/a>. If Jonathan were the grandson of Moses, it would put the event early in the Book of Judges. However, the text allows it to mean not a direct son or grandson, but a de<\/span>scendant of Moses through Gershom, as was the case of Achan in Joshua 7:24<\/a> (in comparison with Joshua 7:1<\/a> and Joshua chapter 17<\/a>). So, the best way to view the migration chronologically is to put the e<\/span>vent following the death of Samson, with this Jonathan a descendant but not a direct grandson of Moses. This descendant of Moses now sets up a priestly dynasty: he and his sons<\/em>. So the line of Moses n<\/span>ow became a dynasty of priests for the Danite Tribe, in opposition to the Aaronic line.<\/p>\n

This, of course, was a major problem for the rabbis and they dealt with this more than one way. The Talmud<\/span> expla<\/span>ins it as follows:<\/p>\n

Was he [Jonathan] the son of Gershom, or was he not rather a son of Moses? As it is written, the sons of Moses were Gershom and Eleazer. But because of the deeds of Manasseh, the id<\/span>olatrous son of Hezekiah, the Scriptures assign him [Gershom] to the family of Manasseh. Rabbi Bar Channa said: The prophet studiously avoided calling Gershom the son of Moses because it would have been ignominious to Moses to have an ungodly son. But he calls him the son of Manasseh, raising the <\/span>nun<\/span>[,] however, above the line to show that it might be either inserted or omitted. And that he was th<\/span>e son of either Manasseh or Moses. Of Manasseh through initiating his impiety, or Moses by descent. Rabbi Tanchun says, The writing menashe<\/em> with a hanging nun<\/span> is a tikun sophrim<\/span>, [meaning a correction<\/span> of the scribes] and speaks of Ben Moshe<\/em>, [son of Moses] as ketiv<\/span> [that which is written] and ben Menashe<\/em>, [son of Manasseh] as keri<\/span> [that which is read].25<\/a><\/p>\n

The Sephardic, rabbinic anthology reads as <\/span>follows:<\/p>\n

Who was this Levite? Why was he destined to become the first victim of corruption? In chapter 18<\/a>, we are told that his name was Jonathan ben Gershom ben Manasseh. But the name Manasseh is wri<\/span>tten in an unusual way. The letter nun<\/span> is written above the other letters as if it did not really belong there, and was only added on. The rabbis explain that it, indeed, does not belong there. It sho<\/span>uld have been written Moshe<\/em> [Moses] not Menashe<\/em> [Manasseh]. The grandfather of this Levite was not Manasseh but Moses! His father was Moses\u2019 eldest son, Gershom. How could it be that a grandson of Mos<\/span>es came to minister to an idol? Moses was the greatest of all prophets, and God\u2019s most trusted servant. God Himself said of him, \u201cIn all my house he is trusted.\u201d How could his own grandchild stray so far from the way of the Torah? When Moses first asked Pharaoh to let the Jews leave Egypt to worship God, Pharaoh responded by making their bondage even <\/span>harsher. He stopped providing them with straw to put in the bricks, and forced them to find the straw for themselves. At the same time, he refused to lower the quota of bricks each Jew was required to produce each day. The Jews were unable to fill the quotas. Pharaoh then decreed that any Jew who did not complete his quota must put his child into the building in place of the missing bricks. It was when Moses saw the terrible suffering that he had <\/span><\/span><\/span>caused that he complained to God. He said, \u201cWhy did you send me on this mission? You said that you would save the Jewish people, but so far you have only brought them death and mourning.\u201d God answ<\/span>ered, \u201cSo it may appear to mortal eyes, but I know that none of those children is worthy of living. If they were to survive, they would only grow up to be thorns in the sides of the Jewish people. It may appear cruel to you, but in this way, my holy people are being purified. The Jews are my vineyard, and these children are the thorns. In this way they are being weeded out.\u201d Still Moses would <\/span>not accept God\u2019s decree. He begged for mercy. God said, \u201cI will permit you to save one of these children, so that afterward you will see what becomes of him.\u201d So, Moses went and took one child out of the wall and saved him. That child was Micah. Micah did indeed grow up to corrupt the Jewish people and cause them great death and destruction. The first one he led astray was the grandson of the man who had saved him, Moses.<\/span><\/span><\/span>26<\/a><\/p>\n

Another view is expressed by Rabbi Shmuel Yerushalmi:<\/p>\n

As we have already learned, the Levite\u2019s grandfather was not Manasseh, but Moses. The letter nun<\/span> is therefore written high<\/span>er than the other letters of the name to indicate that it does not really belong there. The prophet Samuel, who wrote the Book of Judges, wrote it in that way because he hoped that Jonathan would one day repent. In that case, <\/span>the nun<\/span> would be taken out and he would again be known as a descendant of Moses. This is indeed what eventually happened. King David saw that Jonathan did not really believe <\/span>in the idol, but only served it because he had no other source of sustenance. King David sent for him and asked him how he could hire himself out for such a sinful practice. He answered, \u201cI am following the teaching of my grandfather, Moses, who used to say <\/span>a person should rather serve idolatry than rely upon charity of the community.\u201d King David explained to him that that was not at all, what Mos<\/span>es meant. He only meant that one should not be too proud to do the work that is beneath him, as we have already learned. Then seeing that Jonathan was attracted to money, King David appointed him as officer of his treasury. His name was then changed to \u201cShebuel,\u201d which means, \u201cHe returned to God.\u201d Why did Samuel choose the name \u201cManasseh\u201d t<\/span>o replace \u201cMoses?\u201d One reason is that it does not require removing or changing any letters. That could not have been done. It was only necessary to add the letter. The name Manasseh was very appropriate for Jonathan. The \u201cManasseh\u201d referred to here is not the son of Joseph, who was the father of the tribe that bore his name, but King Manasseh. This Manasseh was a descendant of King David, but he was very wicked. He is considered to have been the worst of the kings because he actually denied the Torah. Some say that the words \u201cof the fam<\/span>ily of Judah\u201d in the last chapter are also an allusion to King Manasseh. Although Jonathan was a Levite, his deeds were like that of King Manasseh who is of the Tribe of Judah. There were many similarities between Jonathan and Manasseh. Both were the sons of famous righteous men. Manasseh was not only a descendant of King David, his father; King Hezekiah was one of the most righteous kings of the First Temple period. He eradicated idolatry in his entire kingdom, and brought the people back to the Torah. But Manasseh undid all the work of his father, after he established idolatry. He tried to destroy the Torah and the worship of God. This was much worse than anything that Jonathan had done. But, like Jonathan, Manasseh repented befor<\/span>e he died. And in this way, too, they were similar. The rabbis asked, \u201cWhy was Jonathan worthy of such a long life? Having served idolatry, should he not have been punished with an early death?\u201d They answered, \u201cBecause he was then stingy in his treatment of the idol.\u201d If someone came <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>with a sacrifice, he would say, \u201cWhy do you want to give a fine animal to an idol? The id<\/span>ol neither sees nor hears, neither eats nor drinks. Can it help you if you please it? Or hurt you if you do not?\u201d The man would realize that he was right and say, \u201cIndeed, it cannot. But what, then, should I do?\u201d \u201cPrepare a big bowl of fine flour and ten eggs and bring it to me and I will<\/span> appease the idol for you.\u201d Jonathan would answer. They would do as he told them, and after they had left, he would eat it himself. One day an arrogant man came who was not impressed by this answer. He said, \u201cIf indeed the idol has no power, why do you minister to it?\u201d \u201cWhat can I do?\u201d answered Jonathan, \u201cThat is how I make my living.\u201d On the one hand, this reveals how base his character was. On the other, it indicated to his credit that as long as he served the idol, he never let it <\/span>blind his eyes to the truth. Neither did he believe it himself, nor even pretend to believe in it. It always remained simply a job to which he had no personal commitment.<\/span><\/span>27<\/a><\/p>\n

Verse 30<\/a> concludes by describing the duration of <\/span>this counter-priesthood under Jonathan:<\/p>\n

\n
\n

he and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land<\/em>. This may refer to the Assyrian Captivity, but more likely i<\/span>t refers to the captivity of the Ark of the Covenant in 1 Samuel 4<\/a>. It was at that time that Shiloh was destroyed and the Ark taken captive, and it would not come back to Shiloh again; this would fit <\/span>well with the mention of Shiloh in the very next verse.<\/p>\n

In this way, in verse 31<\/a>, the counter-priesthood created a new worship center: So they set them up Micah\u2019s graven image which he made<\/em>. This esta<\/span>blished a tradition of Dan serving as an idolatrous worship center, and this will set the stage for Jeroboam doing the same thing in 1 Kings 12:29<\/a>, using this as a precedent, just as he used the prece<\/span>dents of Abraham and Jacob erecting altars in Bethel, to erect a sanctuary there as well. The duration was: all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh<\/em>. Here is the first mention of Shiloh<\/em> in the<\/span> Book of Judges. The context shows that Shiloh was totally ignored even by priests and Levites. And the phrase is linked with the previous verse, showing what is meant by the captivity of the land<\/em>. It<\/span> is also a link with what follows where the Ark of the Covenant plays a role. All this shows that the Book of Judges was written after Shiloh<\/em> was destroyed by the Philistines.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>B. Second Appendix: The Benjamite War\u201419:1\u201321:25<\/a><\/p>\n

Just as the first appendix to the Book of Judges had a background story leading to a main story, the second appendix follows the same format. In both b<\/span>ackground stories, a Levite plays a major role.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. The Levite and His Concubine\u201419:1\u201330<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. Conflict and Reconciliation\u201419:1\u201310a<\/a><\/p>\n

1And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the farther side of the hill-country of Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehem-judah. 2And his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him unto her father\u2019s house to Bethlehem-judah, and was there the space of four months. 3And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak kindly unto her, to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father\u2019s house; and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him. 4And his father-in-law, the damsel\u2019s father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there. 5And it came to pass on the fourth day, that they arose early in the morning, and he rose up to depart: and the damsel\u2019s father said unto his son-in-law, Strengthen your heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward ye shall go your way. 6So they sat down, and did eat and drink, both of them together: and the damsel\u2019s father said unto the man, Be pleased, I pray you, to tarry all night, and let your heart be merry. 7And the man rose up to depart; but his father-in-law urged him, and he lodged there again. 8And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart; and the damsel\u2019s father said, Strengthen your heart, I pray you, and tarry ye until the day declines; and they did eat, both of them. 9And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father-in-law, the damsel\u2019s father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draws toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day grows to an end, lodge here, that your heart may be merry; and to-morrow get you early on your way, that you may go home.<\/p>\n

10But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, \u2026<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 1a<\/a> again states the theme of the appendices: And it came to pass in <\/em><\/span>those days, when there was no king in Israel<\/em>. In this context, the emphasis is on the fact that there was no king to bring law and order in the Land. The episode described here occurred much earlier w<\/span>ithin the chronology of the Book of Judges, because, in this context, Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, was still living. Furthermore, the tribal league was still functioning and could still take a united stand as it did under Phinehas, when Joshua was still living. In this appendix, the Philistines are no threat; in fact, they are not even mentioned. Mor<\/span>eover, Bethel and Mizpah appear as major sanctuaries, rather than Shiloh, which was so prominent during the Philistine oppression. These clues all point to the fact that while the first appendix does chronologically follow the story of Samson, this appendix describes an event that chronologically corresponds to a period much earlier in the book; otherwise, one would have to believe that Phinehas would have lived to be several hundred years old.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Verse 1b<\/a> introduces two unnamed persons. The first person: was a certain Levite sojourning on the farther side of the hill-country of Ephraim<\/em>. Once again a Levite<\/em> is central to the story. Once ag<\/span>ain a Levite<\/em> is sojourning<\/em> rather than dwelling in a permanent place. Once again the key territory is the hill-country of Ephraim<\/em>, which includes most of the territory of the Tribe of Benjamin. The ph<\/span>rase on the farther side<\/em> in this context points to the northern end of the hill-country of Ephraim<\/em>, since it is opposite to Bethlehem and Gibeah. The second person introduced is a woman, a concubine<\/em>28<\/span><\/a> out of Bethlehem-judah<\/em>. Bethlehem<\/em> is mentioned as it was in the previous appendix. But here Bethlehem<\/em> will play a very positive role in contrast to the role played by Gibeah.<\/p>\n

Verse 2<\/a> sets the stage <\/span>for the drama of this appendix, beginning with the statement of the concubine\u2019s unfaithfulness: And his concubine played the harlot against him<\/em>. This is the reading of the Masoretic Text, and, if that<\/span> is correct, she deserved the death penalty. However, the Septuagint<\/span> translation and some old Latin texts read that \u201cshe became angry with him.\u201d And this was also the view of the Targumim<\/span>, the Aramaic<\/span> versions of the Hebrew Bible. If so, then she did not commit any moral sin, but she left him because of a fight. The reason for the textual difference is because in Hebrew the words for \u201charlot\u201d (zan<\/span><\/span>ah<\/span>) and \u201cangry\u201d (zanach<\/span>) sound very much the same, and this would be the result of a scribal error, because he confused two similar roots. So the issue is whether the original reading was zanah<\/span>, to pl<\/span>ay the harlot, or zanach<\/span>, to become angry. While the Masoretic Text gives one reading, the Septuagint<\/span> and other early versions use a different reading. Where this really matters is the question of whe<\/span>ther this issue was moral or not moral. If moral, then again, by the Mosaic Law, she would have deserved the death penalty. Either way, the result was the same, she departs from him and went away from<\/em><\/span> him unto her father\u2019s house to Bethlehem-judah<\/em>. Then the duration of separation is given: and was there the space of four months<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 3a<\/a> describes the reconciliation, which was initiated by the man<\/span>: And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak kindly unto her<\/em>. The Hebrew literally reads \u201cto speak to her heart.\u201d In other words, to try to win her back: to bring her again<\/em>. He did not travel<\/span> alone, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses<\/em> or donkeys, probably several donkeys, which carried provisions and gifts. Then came the reaction of the woman when she saw him again: and she<\/em><\/span> brought him into her father\u2019s house<\/em>. The fact that she brought him into her father\u2019s house<\/em> shows that she was reconciled back to him. Obviously, the initial meeting took place somewhere outside the h<\/em><\/span>ouse<\/em>, and now that they were reconciled; she brought him into her father\u2019s house<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verses 3b<\/a> to 10a<\/a> record the interchange between the Levite and the father-in-law, with verse 3b<\/a> describing the initial<\/span> meeting: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him<\/em>. His daughter had become the Levite\u2019s legal concubine, but this seems to be the first time her father met him, a rather unu<\/span>sual situation for that day. Verse 4<\/a> describes the first three days that they were together, beginning with the cause: And his father-in-law, the damsel\u2019s father, retained him<\/em>. The Hebrew reads, \u201cHe t<\/span>ook hold of,\u201d and implies a very strong physical restraint. The father was obviously very reluctant to see him go, and so he abode with him three days<\/em>. Their activity for the three days is simply stat<\/span>ed: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there<\/em>. Verses 5<\/a> to 7<\/a> deal with the fourth day: And it came to pass on the fourth day, that they arose early in the morning<\/em>. The intent was to depart<\/em>, but agai<\/span>n, there was a delay as the father-in-law first convinced him to stay later in the day, and then to stay one more night. Verses 8<\/a> to 10a<\/a> deal with the fifth day. It again began with the attempt to lea<\/span>ve: And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart<\/em>; but again there was a delay: and the damsel\u2019s father said, Strengthen your heart, I pray you, and tarry ye until the day declines; and<\/em><\/span> they did eat, both of them<\/em>. Unbeknown to either one of them, this last act resulting in a late start for their journey would cost the life of the concubine. Later in the day the Levite and the concub<\/span>ine again made preparations to leave, and once again the father tried to talk him into spending the night, but this time there was to be no further delay: But the man would not tarry that night, but h<\/em><\/span>e rose up and departed<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The key observation to note here is that this incident is happening in Bethlehem and the focus is that Bethlehem is a town of hospitality, even to the extreme.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>b. Journey to Gibeah of Benjamin\u201419:10b\u201315<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2026 10band came over against Jebus (the same is Jerusalem): and there were with him a couple of asses saddled; his concubine also was with him. 11When they wer<\/span>e by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray you, and let us turn aside into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it. 12And his master said unto him, We wi<\/span>ll not turn aside into the city of a foreigner, that is not of the children of Israel; but we will pass over to Gibeah. 13And he said unto his servant, Come and let us draw near to one of these places<\/span>; and we will lodge in Gibeah, or in Ramah. 14So they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them near to Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin. 15And they turned aside thither, to go in<\/span> to lodge in Gibeah: and he went in, and sat him down in the street of the city; for there was no man that took them into his house to lodge.<\/p>\n

Verses 10b<\/a> to 12<\/a> record the Levite\u2019s rejection of Jerusale<\/span>m as a stopping place. In verse 10b<\/a>, they approached toward Jerusalem, which was about six miles north of Bethlehem, and came over against Jebus<\/em>. Then the author explains: the same is Jerusalem<\/em>, showi<\/span>ng that a later writer lets his contemporaries know the difference between the old name and the new name. What was known as Jebus<\/em> at the time that the story takes place was now known as Jerusalem<\/em> at t<\/span>he time that the Book of Judges was written. The author refers to the city by its Canaanite name, emphasizing the ethnic issue: at this point, Jerusalem was still a Jebusite city, and the Levite thought th<\/span>at he would be safer in a Jewish city, even though the reverse was going to prove to be true. With the two men there were \u2026 a couple of asses saddled; his concubine also was with him<\/em>. Verse 11<\/a> gi<\/span>ves the circumstance: When they were by Jebus, the day was far spent<\/em>. Then came the suggestion: and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray you, and let us turn aside into this city of the Jebu<\/em><\/span>sites, and lodge in it<\/em>. But in verse 12<\/a>, the Levite rejected this: We will not turn aside into the city of a foreigner, that is not of the children of Israel, but we will pass over to Gibeah<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

In verse<\/span> 13<\/a>, the Levite made a counter-suggestion: Come and let us draw near to one of these places; and we will lodge in Gibeah, or in Ramah<\/em>. Gibeah<\/em> was another four miles north of Jerusalem; Ramah<\/em> was an ad<\/span>ditional two miles north of Gibeah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 14<\/a> records the approach to Gibeah: So they passed on and went their way, and the sun went down upon them near to Gibeah<\/em>. For this reason, they chose to stop a<\/span>t Gibeah<\/em> rather than try to continue two more miles north to Ramah. The author points out that Gibeah belongs to Benjamin<\/em>. This is a crucial identification for the purpose of the Book of Judges, and G<\/em><\/span>ibeah<\/em> will prove to be more Canaanite than Jewish.<\/p>\n

Verse 15<\/a> describes the Levite\u2019s party\u2019s arrival into Gibeah: And they turned aside thither<\/em>. The purpose was: to go in to lodge in Gibeah<\/em>, So, he went<\/em><\/span> in, and sat him down in the street of the city<\/em>. This was the main square, just inside the city gate, which would make him noticeable to the citizens coming in and going out. Normally, in the custom o<\/span>f that day, one of the citizens would offer them lodging of some sort. But in Gibeah, he will be noticed only for evil, and not for good, contrary to the law of hospitality of that day: for there was <\/em><\/span>no man that took them<\/em> into his house to lodge<\/em>. According to the laws of hospitality of that day, the wayfarer should have been offered some kind of lodging, but Gibeah did not even conform to the comm<\/span>on custom of that day.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

c. Problem of Hospitality\u201419:16\u201321<\/a><\/p>\n

16And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even: now the man was of the hill-country of Ephraim, and he sojourned in Gibeah; but the men of the place were Benjamites. 17And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the wayfaring man in the street of the city; and the old man said, Whither go you? and whence come you? 18And he said unto him, We are passing from Bethlehem-judah unto the farther side of the hill-country of Ephraim; from thence am I, and I went to Bethlehem-judah: and I am now going to the house of Jehovah; and there is no man that takes me into his house. 19Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for your handmaid, and for the young man that is with your servants: there is no want of anything. 20And the old man said, Peace be unto you; howsoever let all your wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street. 21So he brought him into his house, and gave the asses fodder; and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 16<\/a> introduces the old man<\/em>, beginning with his arrival: And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field<\/em>. The timing was a<\/em><\/span>t even;<\/em> this, too, is important for the context. In Gibeah, the hours of the night were dangerous, especially for strangers. As to the man\u2019s origin: now the man was of the hill-country of Ephraim;<\/em> in <\/span>other words, the same place that the Levite came from. Then he states the fact that he sojourned in Gibeah<\/em>. The old man<\/em> himself was a sojourner who only had set up temporary residence in the Benjamite<\/span> city; he was not really part of the citizenship of the city; he was not integrated into the community and did not share the morals of the community. However, he did know about the dangers of that community. For that reason, the text makes a distinction, <\/span>but the men of the place were Benjamites<\/em>. The old man<\/em> was a sojourner in Gibeah, but everybody else was a Benjamite. The old man is presented in <\/span>a positive light as one who will offer hospitality. But the Benjamites are presented in a negative role. They offer no hospitality, and they want to attack the stranger.<\/p>\n

So, in verse 17<\/a>, the old man m<\/span>ade his inquiry. This happened as he lifted up his eyes, and saw the wayfaring man in the street of the city<\/em>; and then made the inquiry: and the old man said, Wither go you<\/em> (Where are you going)? and <\/em><\/span>whence come you<\/em> (Where are you coming from)?<\/p>\n

Verses 18<\/a> to 19<\/a> record the Levite\u2019s response. As to the question, from where? The answer was: We are passing from Bethlehem-judah<\/em>. As to the question, to w<\/span>here? The answer was: unto the farther side of the hill-country of Ephraim<\/em>; because from thence am I<\/em>, meaning that is really where he lives. The Levite went on to explain, I went to Bethlehem-judah<\/em>, t<\/span>o clarify that he was not from Bethlehem<\/em>, but only traveled there. Then he gave his destination: and I am now going to the house of Jehovah<\/em>. If he was specifying a place, then he was referring to Shil<\/span>oh, for that was where the house of Jehovah<\/em> would have been at that time. But it is also possible that he was only expressing his occupation as a Levite rather than saying he was a resident of Shiloh.<\/span> He then presented his problem, which was a lack of hospitality toward him: and there is no man that takes me into his house<\/em>. He pointed out that he would have been no burden on any host because of hi<\/span>s own self-sufficiency regarding both his people and animals, there is no want of any thing<\/em>. No one had to provide food for the people or the animals, but he was only asking for a bed and a roof.<\/p>\n

Vers<\/span>es 20<\/a> to 21<\/a> describe the old man\u2019s hospitality. Verse 20<\/a> contains the invitation beginning with a word of Peace be unto you<\/em>, which carried the sense of \u201cDo not worry.\u201d Then came his offer: howsoever l<\/em><\/span>et all your wants lie upon me<\/em>. In other words, the old man<\/em> not only offered the beds they needed, but also offered to provide for all their needs, so that they did not need to use their own provisions<\/span>. The old man<\/em> was providing more hospitality than he needed to provide, going to the opposite extreme of the Benjamites. He concluded with a warning: only lodge not in the street<\/em>. The issue here was n<\/span>ot merely one of comfort; the man knew that the streets were dangerous. The same thing was true of Lot, and later there will be a correlation between what happened here and what happened in Sodom (Gen<\/span>. 19<\/a>). The fact is that the Benjamites were about to become guilty of the same sin as the Sodomites; this is how far their Canaanization had progressed. Then Judges 19:21<\/a> describes the old man\u2019s hospi<\/span>tality in four statements. First, he brought him into<\/em> his house<\/em>, thus providing shelter from the outside. Second, he gave the asses fodder<\/em>, thus providing for the animals. Third, they washed their fee<\/em><\/span>t<\/em>, thus providing for their comfort. Fourth, they did eat and drink<\/em>, thus providing for their food needs. So the man, a non-Benjamite within a Benjamite city, went to the extreme to provide hospitalit<\/span>y.<\/p>\n

d. Rape of the Concubine\u201419:22\u201326<\/a><\/p>\n

22As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain base fellows, beset the house round about, beating at the door; and they spoke to the m<\/span>aster of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into your house, that we may know him. 23And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my br<\/span>ethren, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into my house, do not this folly. 24Behold, here is my daughter a virgin, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble <\/span>ye them, and do with them what seems good unto you: but unto this man do not any such folly. 25But the men would not hearken to him: so the man laid hold on his concubine, and brought her forth unto t<\/span>hem; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. 26Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of<\/span> the man\u2019s house where her lord was, till it was light.<\/p>\n

Verse 22<\/a> records the demand of the Benjamites. The timing was: As they were making their hearts merry;<\/em> when they were satiated with what they at<\/span>e and drank, then came the attackers, identified from the general, the men of the city<\/em>, to the specific, certain base fellows<\/em>. The Hebrew literally reads the \u201csons of Belial,\u201d which literally means \u201cs<\/span>ons of worthlessness\u201d or \u201csons of no profit.\u201d The term \u201csons of Belial\u201d is used in different ways in the Hebrew text. It is used, for example, of those who are guilty of idolatry (Deut. 13:13<\/a>); of tho<\/span>se guilty of rebellion (1 Sam. 2:12<\/a>); of those who are constantly engaging in drunkenness (1 Sam. 1:16<\/a>); and of those who are guilty of lewdness and licentiousness, as is the case here. These men bega<\/span>n a siege: they beset the house round about<\/em>, beating at the door<\/em>. The Hebrew text used the hitpael<\/em> form, rather than normal kal<\/em> form, to emphasize the extreme eagerness of attaining their goal. They t<\/span>hen state their demand: Bring forth the man that came into your house, that we may know him<\/em>. This wording has obvious sexual connotations: they wanted to commit homosexual rape. The very same demand w<\/span>as made of Lot by the Sodomites in Genesis 19<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Verses 23<\/a> to 24<\/a> record the old man\u2019s protest, which began when the man, the master of the house, went out unto them<\/em>. By so doing, he exposed himself to d<\/span>anger. But for that culture, one had to go to the extreme to protect his guests at all costs, including at the cost of his wife and family. The old man\u2019s protest began with the rejection of the attackers\u2019 demand: <\/span>Nay, my brethren, I pray you, do not so wickedly, seeing that this man is come into my house<\/em>. In other words, he is the guest; therefore, he was under his protection. The rejection was fo<\/span>llowed by the plea: do not this folly<\/em>. The Hebrew word for folly<\/em> is nevalah<\/span>, and this would be a nevalah<\/span> for two reasons: first, it would violate all the standards of morality; and, second, it would m<\/span>ean committing both a homosexual act and a homosexual rape, both of which violate the high moral standards of the Mosaic Law. So in verse 24<\/a>, he made a counter-offer: Behold, here is my daughter a vir<\/em><\/span>gin, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seems good unto you<\/em>. Then again came the plea: but unto this man do not any such folly<\/em>. Two observations sh<\/span>ould be noted. First, the man carried the laws of hospitality to the extreme by offering both his virgin daughter and the concubine for gang rape. Second, in the case of the Levite, it was also an invitation to adultery, <\/span>since she was the legal concubine of the Levite. While the laws of hospitality of that day may have required or expected him to go to such extremes, he now went beyond what the biblical laws of hospitality would have allowed. Regardless of the laws of hospitality, as a Jew, he should not have made this offer.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verse 25<\/a> details the gang rape of the concubine. First the attackers<\/span> reject the offer: But the men would not hearken to him<\/em>, that is, the old man<\/em>. What happened next was not the action of the old man<\/em>, but the action of the Levite: so the man laid hold on his concubine<\/em><\/span>; the pronoun his<\/em> shows that the man<\/em> referred to here is not the old man<\/em>, but rather the Levite: and brought her forth unto them<\/em>. To save himself, the Levite sacrificed his concubine. The very man<\/em> who<\/span> went to so much trouble to get her back now threw her out as if she were just a piece of meat for the dogs. The virgin daughter was not thrown out, since the Levite would have no authority to do so. <\/span>Then came the rape: and they knew her<\/em>, meaning they had sexual relations with her; and abused her<\/em>. She was raped. The context shows that she was also badly beaten, because she died of the treatment sh<\/span>e received. The duration of the mistreatment was: all the night until the morning<\/em>. The Hebrew reads \u201cin the ascent of the dawn,\u201d meaning that when the first traces of light began to appear on the hori<\/span>zon, they released her: and when the day began to spring, they let her go<\/em>. At this point she was still living.<\/p>\n

Then, verse 26<\/a> describes the position in which the occupants find the concubine. The timi<\/span>ng was: Then came the woman in the dawning of the day<\/em>. The Hebrew literally reads \u201cat the turning of the day,\u201d implying that some time had elapsed between this moment and the ascent of the dawn in the<\/span> previous verse. She then fell down at the door of the man\u2019s house where her lord was<\/em>. After being gang-raped all night and beaten, she crawled back to the threshold of the door, only to die. The stat<\/span>ement, till it was light<\/em>, implies that even more time had passed. In all those extra periods of time, the Levite never came out to check on her. Had he come out and found her earlier and treated her e<\/span>arlier, perhaps he could have saved her life. But, he simply took his time and did not seem to care enough to see how she was doing. Although it was obvious that the crowds were gone, the noise factor would have disappeared, and although there was some time elapsing, he never came out to check on her. The sin of Gibeah was long remembered and mentioned centuries later in <\/span>Hosea 9:9<\/a> and 10:9<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

e. Response of the Levite\u201419:27\u201330<\/a><\/p>\n

27And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way; and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, with her hands upon the threshold. 28And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going; but none answered: then he took her up upon the ass; and the man rose up, and got him unto his place. 29And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the borders of Israel. 30And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider it, take counsel, and speak.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Comparing Judges chapter 19<\/a> with the circumstances surrounding Lot in Genesis 19<\/a>, one can find at least seven points of similarities. F<\/span>irst, of all the Hebrew words used in Genesis 19<\/a>, sixteen words, or one quarter of the total, are found in some form in this chapter. Second, twenty-four expressions found in the Genesis text have a c<\/span>lose parallel with this Judges text, and the variations are only grammatical or stylistic or such as are required by the context. Third, in the Hebrew text, both chapters have exactly sixty-nine words. Fourth, in both cases, there is a demand of homosexual rape. Fifth, in both cases, the prospective victims are guests of a host ready to protect them <\/span>at all costs. Sixth, in both cases, there is an attack on the private home of the host. Seventh, the two daughters of Lot are offered to the mob, corresponding to the virgin daughter and the concubine offered to the mob here. The author of Judges obviously wanted to parallel <\/span><\/span>Genesis 19<\/a> closely to show the enormity of the immorality and the sin of the Benjamites. The point is that, for the Benjamites and for the Levite, Canaanization is truly fu<\/span>lly complete.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>2. Tribal War Against Benjamin\u201420:1\u201348<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

a. Levite\u2019s Explanation\u201420:1\u20137<\/a><\/p>\n

1Then all the children of Israel went out, and the congregation was assembled as one man, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, with the land of Gilead, unto Jehovah at Mizpah. 2And the chiefs of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword. 3(Now the children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel were gone up to Mizpah.) And the children of Israel said, Tell us, how was this wickedness brought to pass? 4And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was murdered, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge. 5And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about me by night; me they thought to have slain, and my concubine they forced, and she is dead. 6And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel; for they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel. 7Behold, ye children of Israel, all of you, give here your advice and counsel.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 1<\/a> records the assembling of the tribes of Israel in response to the murder of<\/span> the concubine, beginning with the people: Then all the children of Israel went out<\/em>. The context shows that this only includes the other eleven tribes; Benjamin was not part of this assembly. Furtherm<\/span>ore, the congregation was assembled as one man<\/em>, emphasizing the unity of the eleven tribes\u2014a unity emphasized several times in the context. For example, the phrase as one man<\/em> appears three times (vers<\/span>es 1<\/a>, 8<\/a>, and 11<\/a>); the phrase, all the tribes of Israel<\/em> appears three times (20:2<\/a>, 20:10<\/a>, and 21:5<\/a>); the phrase, all the people<\/em> in 20:8<\/a> only; and the phrase all the men of Israel<\/em> in 20:11<\/a> only. This ty<\/span>pe of tribal unity was only possible in the earlier history of the Book of Judges, for unity totally broke down by the time of the latter history of the Judges, when there were tribes fighting each other, as in the<\/span> case of Jephthah against the Ephraimites. Furthermore, the gathering described in this passage (20:1<\/a>) was a spiritual gathering for a holy war. And the Hebrew word for congregation<\/em> is k<\/span><\/span>ahal<\/span>, which is used in the Torah<\/em>, the five books of Moses, for the gathering of the people to worship God. The phrase \u201cthe congregation of the people\u201d is kahal ha-edah<\/span>, which is reminiscent of Joshua <\/span>22:12<\/a>, where the whole congregation went up against the Trans-Jordanian tribes. The Hebrew word for one<\/em> is echad<\/span>, showing that the word can be used as a compound unity as well as an absolute unity, in<\/span> spite of what the rabbis may wish to believe. Finally, the author gives the geography of the gathering, which included both sides of the Jordan. The Cis-Jordanian side included those from Dan<\/em>, in the<\/span> north. This may imply that this event followed the previous one; but both uses of the name \u201cDan\u201d seem to be used prolyptically (in anticipation of the event to come in the future), because from the later per<\/span>spective of the writer, the city of Laish was already renamed \u201cDan.\u201d Then, the text continues, even to Beer-sheba<\/em>, in the south. This is the first use of this merism,29<\/a> written from the perspe<\/span>ctive of the author, by which time the Tribe of Dan was well-established in the north. The Trans-Jordanian side included those with the land of Gilead<\/em>. The context shows that while other cities of Gil<\/span>ead came out, one city did not: Jabesh-Gilead. The place of the gathering was unto Jehovah at Mizpah<\/em>. Mention of the location as the centralized meeting place does not mean that either the Tabernacle <\/span>or the Ark of the Covenant was in Mizpah<\/em>, but the phrase unto Jehovah<\/em> does mean that the assembled tribes held court in the sight of the Lord and in the name of the Lord. The Tabernacle and the Ark, a<\/span>t this point, were still in Shiloh.<\/p>\n

Verse 2<\/a> describes the presentation of the chiefs at the assembly: And the chiefs of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel<\/em> \u2026 The nameless Levite was able <\/span>to accomplish what later Barak, Gideon, and Jephthah could not accomplish. They presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God<\/em>. This is the only place that the phrase the assembly of the pe<\/em><\/span>ople of God<\/em> is used, but it again emphasizes that this was a holy war with a moral mission. With the leaders was an army of four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword<\/em>. Not all the Israelites were t<\/span>here, but all the leaders were there, along with the whole army. Since this was the total army, it shows that the population had decreased by one-third since the Exodus and the Conquest when the army was closer to 600,000.<\/p>\n

Verse 3a<\/a> notes the report to Benjamin: (Now the children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel were gone up to Mizpah.)<\/em> Such a massive gathering at the Benjamite border <\/span>where Mizpah<\/em> was located could not be hidden, and this gave the Benjamites time to mobilize their own army. The fact that they heard the tribes had assembled but did not attend shows that they were si<\/span>ding with the perpetrators of the crime.<\/p>\n

In verse 3b<\/a>, the Levite was asked, Tell us, how was this wickedness brought to pass?<\/em><\/p>\n

Verses 4<\/a> to 7<\/a> provide the account of the Levite. In verse 4a<\/a>, the speaker <\/span>was the Levite, the husband of the woman that was murdered<\/em>; the narrator for the first time explicitly states that she was murdered<\/em>. The story follows in verses 4b<\/a> to 7<\/a>, beginning with an account of t<\/span>he Levite\u2019s arrival in Gibeah: I came into Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge<\/em>. Verse 5<\/a> deals with the outrageous event in Gibeah: And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and <\/em><\/span>beset the house round about me by night; me they thought to have slain<\/em>. This was not the stated purpose in 19:22<\/a>, but it may have been his deduction in light of what they did to the concubine, for she<\/span> was indeed murdered: and my concubine they forced, and she is dead<\/em>. The Levite omitted his role in throwing her out to them. Then in verse 6<\/a> (Judges 20:6<\/a>), comes the carving and distribution of the b<\/span>ody: And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel<\/em>. The reason for his actions was: for they have committed lewdness and folly in<\/em><\/span> Israel<\/em>. The Hebrew word for lewdness<\/em> is zimmah<\/span>, a word used of sexual perversion such as incest (Lev. 18:17<\/a> and 20:14<\/a>), of giving a daughter over to prostitution (Lev. 19:29<\/a>), and of adultery (Job 31<\/span>:11<\/a>). The word for folly, nevalah<\/em>, is also used of sexual perversion, such as sexual promiscuity (Deut. 22:21<\/a>), premeditated rape (Gen. 34:7<\/a>; 2 Sam. 13:12<\/a>), adultery (Jer. 29:23<\/a>), and homosexual relat<\/span>ions (Judg. 19:23\u201324<\/a>), all of which carried the death penalty under the Mosaic Law. In Judges 20:7<\/a>, the Levite concluded, Behold, ye children of Israel, all of you, give here your advice and counsel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

b. Call to Arms\u201420:8\u201311<\/a><\/p>\n

8And all the people arose as one man, saying, We will not any of us go to his tent, neither will we any of us turn unto his house. 9But now this is the thing which we will do t<\/span>o Gibeah: we will go up against it by lot; 10and we will take ten men of a hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and a hundred of a thousand, and a thousand out of ten thousand, to fetch victua<\/span>ls for the people, that they may do, when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, according to all the folly that they have wrought in Israel. 11So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit <\/span>together as one man.<\/p>\n

The passage begins and ends with the same emphasis on unity: And all the people arose as one man<\/em> and knit together as one man. In verse 8<\/a>, they declared what they would not do: We<\/em><\/span> will not any of us go to his tent, neither will we any of us turn unto his house<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Then verses 9<\/a> to 10<\/a> declare what the avengers will do: But now this is the thing which we will do to Gibeah<\/em>. They beg<\/span>an with the method: we will go up against it by lot; and we will take ten men of a hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and a hundred of a thousand, and a thousand out of ten thousand<\/em>. The pur<\/span>pose was: to fetch victuals for the people<\/em>. In other words, one-tenth of the army was chosen by lot to be in charge of supplying food for the fighting force. The object was that they may do, when they<\/em><\/span> come to Gibeah of Benjamin<\/em>. The reason for this was: according to all the folly that they have wrought in Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 11<\/a> records the start of the action: So all the men of Israel were gathered agai<\/em><\/span>nst the city<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

c. Call to Benjamin\u201420:12\u201313<\/a><\/p>\n

12And the tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, What wickedness is this that is come to pass among you? 13Now therefore deliver up the men, the base fellows, that are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. But Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren the children of Israel.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The tribes of <\/span>Israel initially attempt to avoid war by making a request of Benjamin in verses 12<\/a> to 13a<\/a>, beginning with the accusation in verse 12<\/a>: What wickedness is this that is come to pass among you?<\/em> The questi<\/span>on carries an expression of surprise and bewilderment, and it carries the force of \u201cWhat has come over you?\u201d Then in verse 13a<\/a>, the Israelite messengers make a demand for the criminals: Now therefore <\/em><\/span>deliver up the men, the base fellows; that are in Gibeah<\/em>. The Tribe of Benjamin was given the opportunity to turn over the criminals and avoid a full-scale war. The purpose was that we may put them to<\/em><\/span> death<\/em>, and the goal was to put away evil from Israel<\/em>. This action was based on Deuteronomy 22:22<\/a> (purging the evil of adultery), and so their action had the force of law; the people guilty of such si<\/span>ns had to be put to death.<\/p>\n

In verse 13b<\/a>, the Benjamites refused the request: But Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren the children of Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

d. Preparation for War\u201420:14\u201317<\/a><\/p>\n

14And the children of Benjamin gathered themselves together out of the cities unto Gibeah, to go out to battle against the children of Israel. 15And the children of Benjamin were numbered on that day out of the cities twenty and six thousand men that drew sword, besides the inhabitants of Gibeah, who were numbered seven hundred chosen men. 16Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men lefthanded; every one could sling stones at a hair-breadth, and not miss.<\/p>\n

17And the men of Israel, besides Benjamin, were numbered four hundred thousand men that drew sword: all these were men of war.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verses 14<\/a> to 16<\/a> describe the mobilization of Benjamin, beginning in verse 14<\/a>, with the place of gathering: And the children of Benjamin gathered themselves together<\/em>.<\/span> They came out of the cities<\/em>, meaning that they came from all the other cities of Benjamin, outside of Gibeah, and then came: unto Gibeah<\/em>. All the fighting men of Benjamin came together at the town of<\/span> Gibeah, where the crime occurred, and that is where the fight will take place: to go out to battle against the children of Israel<\/em>. Verse 15<\/a> gives their number: twenty and six thousand men that drew s<\/em><\/span>word, besides the inhabitants of Gibeah, who were numbered seven hundred chosen men<\/em>, which means a total of 26,700 fighting men. Verse 16<\/a> reveals a special regiment of left-handed slingers: Among all <\/em><\/span>this people there were seven hundred chosen men lefthanded<\/em>. These were not the same 700 mentioned in the previous verse. Within the entire total of 26,700, there were these special 700, and what made <\/span>them special was their ability: every one could sling stones at a hair-breadth, and not miss<\/em>. The sling<\/em> was used as a weapon in warfare by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. The stone <\/span>would weigh as much as a pound, and could be slung with great accuracy, with a speed of as much as 90 mph. The same point is made of the Benjamites in 1 Chronicles 12:2\u20133<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Verse 17<\/a> deals with the army<\/span> of Israel: And the men of Israel, besides Benjamin<\/em>, (meaning, not counting the Tribe of Benjamin), were numbered four hundred thousand men that drew sword: all these were men of war<\/em>. It would appear <\/span>that the conquest of the Benjamites would be easy since they were obviously well out-numbered, but that was not to be the case.<\/p>\n

The confrontation between the army of Israel and the Tribe of Benjamin w<\/span>ould require a total of three specific battles. In the first battle, the order was the following. First came the inquiry, \u201cWho shall go up first?\u201d Second came the answer: \u201cJudah.\u201d Third came the attack, followed by the Israelites\u2019 defeat. In the second battle the order wa<\/span>s the following. First came the inquiry: \u201cShall we go up again?\u201d Second came the answer: \u201cYes.\u201d Third came the attack, followed again by the Israelites\u2019 defeat. In the third battle the order was the following. First came the inquiry: \u201cShall we go up again or not?\u201d Second, the answer was \u201cYes, and the victory is yours.\u201d Then third, the Israelites were victorious.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

e. First Battle\u201420:18\u201321<\/a><\/p>\n

18And the children of Israel arose, and went up to Beth-el, and asked counsel of God; and they said, Who shall go up for us first to battle against the children of Benjamin? A<\/span>nd Jehovah said, Judah shall go up first.<\/p>\n

19And the children of Israel rose up in the morning, and encamped against Gibeah. 20And the men of Israel went out to battle against Benjamin; and the men of <\/span>Israel set the battle in array against them at Gibeah. 21And the children of Benjamin came forth out of Gibeah, and destroyed down to the ground of the Israelites on that day twenty and two thousand m<\/span>en.<\/p>\n

The Israelites\u2019 inquiry of God is in verse 18<\/a>. The place was: And the children of Israel arose, and went up to Beth-el;<\/em> and the purpose was: and asked counsel of God<\/em>. This was probably done throug<\/span>h the Urim<\/em> and the Thummim<\/em>.30<\/a> The question was: Who shall go up for us first to battle against the children of Benjamin<\/em>? The answer was: And Jehovah said, Judah shall go up first<\/em>. This was the very sa<\/span>me role that Judah played earlier in the book (1:1\u201310<\/a>); this made sense, since the concubine was from Bethlehem-judah.<\/p>\n

Verses 19<\/a> to 21<\/a> describe the first battle, with verses 19<\/a> to 20<\/a> dealing with the <\/span>attack, which includes the siege in verse 19<\/a>: And the children of Israel rose up in the morning, and encamped against Gibeah;<\/em> and the attack in verse 20<\/a>: And the men of Israel went out to battle again<\/em><\/span>st Benjamin; and the men of Israel set the battle in array against them at Gibeah<\/em>. But the result, in verse 21<\/a>, was defeat: And the children of Benjamin came forth out of Gibeah, and destroyed down to<\/em><\/span> the ground of the Israelites on that day twenty and two thousand men<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

f. Second Battle\u201420:22\u201325<\/a><\/p>\n

22And the people, the men of Israel, encouraged themselves, and set the battle again in array in the place where they set themselves in array the first day. 23And the children of Israel went up and wept before Jehovah until even; and they asked of Jehovah, saying, Shall I again draw nigh to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother? And Jehovah said, Go up against him.<\/p>\n

24And the children of Israel came near against the children of Benjamin the second day. 25And Benjamin went forth against them out of Gibeah the second day, and destroyed down to the ground of the children of Israel again eighteen thousand men; all these drew the sword.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verses 22<\/a> to 23<\/a> begin again with the Israelites\u2019 inquiry of God, with verse 22<\/a> describing their preparation for war: And t<\/em><\/span>he people, the men of Israel, encouraged themselves<\/em>. They had been badly defeated, but this did not mean they were ready to give up the war. Instead, they regrouped their forces: and set the battle ag<\/em><\/span>ain in array in the place where they set themselves in array the first day<\/em>. But in verse 23<\/a>, before starting the attack, they made the inquiry: Shall I again draw nigh to battle against the children o<\/em><\/span>f Benjamin my brother<\/em>? The answer from Jehovah was, Go up against him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In verse 24<\/a>, God\u2019s affirmation to Go<\/em> led to the attack: And the children of Israel came near against the children of Benjamin the<\/em><\/span> second day<\/em>. But, in verse 25<\/a>, the attack was followed by another defeat: And Benjamin went forth against them out of Gibeah the second day, and destroyed down to the ground of the children of Israel <\/em><\/span>again eighteen thousand men; all these drew the sword<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>g. Third Battle\u201420:26\u201348<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(1) Inquiry\u201420:26\u201328<\/a><\/p>\n

26Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto Beth-el, and wept, and sat there before Jehovah, and fasted that day until even; and they offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings before Jehovah. 27And the children of Israel asked of Jehovah (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days, 28and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days), saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And Jehovah said, Go up; for to-morrow I will deliver him into your hand.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In verse 26<\/a>, the author records a different means of approach to preparing for the third battle: Then all the children of Israel<\/em>, meaning, the leaders, and all the people<\/em>, meanin<\/span>g, all the other members of the army, went up, and came unto Beth-el<\/em>. This probably refers to the town of Bethel. However, another possible option is that this should not be transliterated as a proper<\/span> name, but translated as \u201cto the House of God\u201d; and, therefore, it would be a reference to the Tabernacle in Shiloh. This is the rabbinic view and has some merit. This time they came with the signs of mourning: they <\/span>wept, and sat there before Jehovah, and fasted that day until even;<\/em> and showed acts of worship: and they offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings before Jehovah<\/em>. This was the first <\/span>difference from the previous two accounts.<\/p>\n

Verses 27<\/a> to 28a<\/a> deal with the question: And the children of Israel asked of Jehovah (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days, \u2026)<\/em> The seco<\/span>nd difference from the two previous approaches is the mention of the ark of the covenant<\/em>, the only reference to the ark<\/em> in the Book of Judges. If this was the City of Bethel, then for some reason the <\/span>ark<\/em> was not inside the Tabernacle in Shiloh at this point of time; but, again, it may refer to Shiloh as such. The author then specifies who the High Priest was: Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son <\/em><\/span>of Aaron, stood before<\/em> [the ark] in those days<\/em>. The mention of Phinehas<\/em> as the High Priest in those days<\/em>, was the third difference. The mention of Phinehas<\/em> shows that this event took place rather earl<\/span>y in the chronology of the Book of Judges and that this appendix took place previous to the first one (the story of the migration of the Tribe of Dan found in Judges, chapters 17<\/a> and 18<\/a>). The question<\/span> Israel asked God was: Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease<\/em>? This was the fourth difference: They specifically asked if they should stop the<\/span> war short of victory.<\/p>\n

In verse 28b<\/a> comes the answer: Go up;<\/em> in other words, they are to continue the war. The command was followed by a promise: for to-morrow I will deliver him into your hand<\/em>. This <\/span>was the fifth difference: This time they were promised victory.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

(2) The Battle\u201420:29\u201335<\/a><\/p>\n

29And Israel set liers-in-wait against Gibeah round about. 30And the children of Israel went up against the children of Benjamin on the third day, and set themselves in array a<\/span>gainst Gibeah, as at other times. 31And the children of Benjamin went out against the people, and were drawn away from the city; and they began to smite and kill of the people, as at other times, in t<\/span>he highways, of which one goes up to Beth-el, and the other to Gibeah, in the field, about thirty men of Israel. 32And the children of Benjamin said, They are smitten down before us, as at the first. <\/span>But the children of Israel said, Let us flee, and draw them away from the city unto the highways. 33And all the men of Israel rose up out of their place, and set themselves in array at Baal-tamar: and<\/span> the liers-in-wait of Israel broke forth out of their place, even out of Maareh-geba. 34And there came over against Gibeah ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and the battle was sore; but they <\/span>knew not that evil was close upon them. 35And Jehovah smote Benjamin before Israel; and the children of Israel destroyed of Benjamin that day twenty and five thousand and a hundred men: all these drew<\/span> the sword.<\/p>\n

The account of the third battle begins with the entrapment in verse 29<\/a>: And Israel set liers-in-wait against Gibeah round about<\/em>. This was the same tactic used by Joshua to capture Ai. It w<\/span>as necessary to draw the defenders away from the city in order to defeat the army and take the city.<\/p>\n

Then verse 30<\/a> deals with the siege. The timing was when the children of Israel went up against the <\/em><\/span>children of Benjamin on the third day, and set themselves in array against Gibeah, as at other times<\/em>. In other words, they appeared to be following the same procedure that proved to be a failure twice<\/span> before; this time, however, it was all a trap.<\/p>\n

In verse 31<\/a>, this prelude was followed by the attack by Benjamin: And the children of Benjamin went out against the people<\/em>, which led to the first stage<\/span> of the trap: and were drawn away from the city<\/em>. The Benjamites had initial success: and they began to smite and kill of the people<\/em>, making the comparison: as at other times<\/em>. So, initially it looked l<\/span>ike Benjamin was winning again, and the place was: in the highways, of which one goes up to Beth-el, and the other to Gibeah in the field<\/em>. The Bethel<\/em> here, geographically related to Gibeah<\/em>, could refe<\/span>r to the town of Bethel, which is why the previous reference most likely refers to the same place. The Benjamites, in the initial battle, killed about thirty men of Israel<\/em>, which seemed to give them t<\/span>he advantage, and it looked like they would win the third battle.<\/p>\n

But in verse 32<\/a>, what seemed like advantage for the Benjamites was only further entrapment. The assumption of the children of Benjamin<\/em><\/span> was: They are smitten down before us, as at the first<\/em>, referring to the two earlier times. But the fact was: But the children of Israel said, Let us flee, and draw them away from the city unto the hi<\/em><\/span>ghways<\/em>.<\/p>\n

With verse 33<\/a> came the springing of the trap beginning with the exposed army: And all the men of Israel rose up out of their place;<\/em> they suddenly ceased running, and set themselves in array at<\/em><\/span> Baal-tamar<\/em>; they now took their battle stand against the pursuing Benjamites. As for the hidden army, the liers-in-wait of Israel broke forth out of their place, even out of Maareh-geba<\/em>. Maareh<\/em> is a <\/span>hapax-legomenon<\/span> (word used only once in the Hebrew Bible) from the root maar<\/span>, which means, \u201cto strip.\u201d It refers to a region destitute of trees. This means that when the Benjamite forces began to disb<\/span>urse in flight, there were no trees for them to hide behind.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Verses 34<\/a> to 35<\/a> describe the third battle\u2019s turning point and outcome, beginning in verse 34<\/a> with the attack by the hidden army: And there <\/em><\/span>came over against Gibeah ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and the battle was sore<\/em>. Then came the surprise: But they knew not that evil<\/em> was close upon them<\/em>; the Benjamites did not realize tha<\/span>t disaster was imminent. In addition to one army taking their stand on the front, a second force was now attacking them from the rear. So they were cut off from moving forward or fleeing backward. Verse <\/span>35<\/a> gives the result. The role of God was: And Jehovah smote Benjamin before Israel<\/em>; and the role of Israel was: and the children of Israel destroyed of Benjamin that day twenty and five thousand an<\/em><\/span>d a hundred men<\/em> [25,100]: all these drew the sword<\/em>. These were only the soldiers, not civilians.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(3) Destruction of the City of Gibeah\u201420:36\u201340<\/a><\/p>\n

36So the children of Benjamin saw that they were smitten; for the men of Israel gave place to Benjamin, because they trusted unto the liers-in-wait whom they had set against Gibeah. 37And the liers-in-wait hasted, and rushed upon Gibeah; and the liers-in-wait drew themselves along, and smote all the city with the edge of the sword. 38Now the appointed sign between the men of Israel and the liers-in-wait was, that they should make a great cloud of smoke rise up out of the city. 39And the men of Israel turned in the battle, and Benjamin began to smite and kill of the men of Israel about thirty persons; for they said, Surely they are smitten down before us, as in the first battle. 40But when the cloud began to arise up out of the city in a pillar of smoke, the Benjamites looked behind them; and, behold, the whole of the city went up in smoke to heaven.<\/p>\n

Verse 36<\/a> gives the summary of the battle in the field: So the children of Benjamin saw that<\/em> they were smitten<\/em>. They eventually realized that disaster had struck and they had lost the war, and the following verses show how they came to realize this. The initial ploy was: for the men of Israe<\/em>l gave place to Benjamin<\/em>, meaning, the flight was only a ruse: because they<\/em> [the Israelites] trusted unto the liers-in-wait whom they had set against Gibeah;<\/em> that they would do what they were assigned to do. This summary is now followed by some details.<\/p>\n

In verse 37<\/a>, the author details the slaughter of Gibeah: And the liers-in-wait hasted, and rushed upon Gibeah; and the liers-in-wait drew themselv<\/em>es along, and smote all the city with the edge of the sword<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 38<\/a> details the sign for the special maneuver: Now the appointed sign between the men of Israel and the liers-in-wait was, that they s<\/em>hould make a great cloud of smoke rise up out of the city<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Finally in verse 39<\/a> comes the description of the entrapment. Concerning Israel: And the men of Israel turned in the battle<\/em>, meaning, they pretended to flee. Concerning Benjamin, there seemed to be apparent victory when Benjamin began to smite and kill of the men of Israel about thirty persons<\/em>, but they then drew a false assumption: for the<\/em>y said, Surely they are smitten down before us, as in the first battle<\/em>.<\/p>\n

As a result of the sign given in verse 40<\/a>, the Benjamites realized their defeat. The timing was: But when the cloud began to ari<\/em>se up out of the city in a pillar of smoke<\/em>, their observation was: the Benjamites looked behind them; and, behold, the whole of the city went up in smoke to heaven<\/em>. The Hebrew word for whole<\/em> is klil<\/span>. Normally, the word is used of the whole burnt offering as in Leviticus 6:15\u201316<\/a>, but here it is used of a city, as in Deuteronomy 13:17<\/a>. But this was how the Benjamites finally knew they were smitten in verse 36<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/span><\/span>(4) Flight and the Pursuit of the Benjamites\u201420:41\u201348<\/a><\/p>\n

41And the men of Israel turned, and the men of Benjamin were dismayed; for they saw that evil was come upon them. 42Therefore they turned their ba<\/span>cks before the men of Israel unto the way of the wilderness; but the battle followed hard after them; and they that came out of the cities destroyed them in the midst thereof. 43They inclosed the Benj<\/span>amites round about, and chased them, and trod them down at their resting-place, as far as over against Gibeah toward the sunrising. 44And there fell of Benjamin eighteen thousand men; all these were m<\/span>en of valor. 45And they turned and fled toward the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon: and they gleaned of them in the highways five thousand men, and followed hard after them unto Gidom, and smote of<\/span> them two thousand men. 46So that all who fell that day of Benjamin were twenty and five thousand men that drew the sword; all these were men of valor. 47But six hundred men turned and fled toward the<\/span> wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon, and abode in the rock of Rimmon four months. 48And the men of Israel turned again upon the children of Benjamin, and smote them with the edge of the sword, both th<\/span>e entire city, and the cattle, and all that they found: moreover all the cities which they found they set on fire.<\/p>\n

Verse 41<\/a> details the realization of the tide turning in the battle between the men of<\/span> Israel and the men of the Tribe of Benjamin. Concerning Israel: And the men of Israel turned;<\/em> they quit pretending to flee, and now faced the Benjamites in battle. As for Benjamin, the result was: an<\/em><\/span>d the men of Benjamin were dismayed;<\/em> they were terrified, and the reason was: for they saw that evil was come upon them<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Benjamites\u2019 terror led to their flight in verse 42a<\/a>: Therefore they turned <\/em><\/span>their backs before the men of Israel unto the way of the wilderness<\/em>; this refers to the steep descent of the Hill-country east of Gibeah, which extends all the way down to the Jordan Valley. This was <\/span>the direction of the flight, but they only went up to the edge of the wilderness, not all the way down to the valley.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Verses 42b<\/a> to 43<\/a> describe Israel\u2019s pursuit of Benjamin: but the battle followed ha<\/em><\/span>rd after them<\/em>, and this is brought out in two stages. First, they that came out of the cities destroyed them in the midst thereof<\/em>. As the Benjamites were fleeing eastward, they passed cities along the<\/span> route, but the men of these cities came out attacking and killing them along the way. Second, They inclosed the Benjamites round about, and chased them, and trod them down at their resting-place<\/em>. The<\/span> now smaller Benjamite groups were surrounded and slaughtered. The direction of the pursuit was as far as over against Gibeah toward the sunrising<\/em>. This might mean they fled toward the east to get as <\/span>far away from Gibeah<\/em> as possible. But a second option is that this was a scribal error, for the town of Geba, another city with the same basic Hebrew letters, lay on the edge of the wilderness, toward<\/span> which the Benjamites were fleeing, and this is probably the case.<\/p>\n

Verse 44<\/a> gives the total losses of the Benjamites at this point: And there fell of Benjamin eighteen thousand men; all these were men<\/em><\/span> of valor<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 45<\/a> describes Israel\u2019s mopping-up operation after the climax of the battle with the Benjamites. It begins with the direction of the Benjamites\u2019 flight: And they turned and fled toward <\/em><\/span>the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon<\/em>. But as the Benjamites fled, they<\/em> [the Israelites] gleaned of them<\/em> [the Benjamites] in the highways five thousand men<\/em>; the Israelites gleaned the men as if they <\/span>were small grapes plucked after the main vintage. These fleeing Benjamites were caught along the highways and killed on the spot. The Israelites\u2019 pursuit of the remaining Benjamites also continued and<\/em><\/span> followed hard after them unto Gidom, and smote of them two thousand men<\/em>. Two thousand more Benjamites were killed in the area of Gidom<\/em>; this is the only reference to this place in all of Scripture.<\/p>\n

V<\/span>erse 46<\/a> gives the grand total of the Benjamite losses among their soldiers that day: So that all who fell that day of Benjamin were twenty and five thousand men that drew the sword; all these were men<\/em><\/span> of valor<\/em>. They lost 25,000 men that day. But this figure only counts the fighting men, for the context shows that the actual slaughter was far greater in number.<\/p>\n

Verse 47<\/a> totals those Benjamite soldi<\/span>ers that escaped: But six hundred men turned and fled toward the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon, and abode in the rock of Rimmon four months<\/em>.<\/p>\n

On the surface, there appears to be a discrepancy with<\/span>in chapter 20<\/a> of Judges in the figures provided in accounting for the 26,700 soldiers that the Tribe of Benjamin had at the beginning of the conflict (v. 15<\/a>). Verses 46<\/a> to 47<\/a> state that 25,000 Benjami<\/span>tes were killed and 600 were left during the third and final battle. That would account for 25,600 Benjamite soldiers. One might ask, what about the other 1,100 soldiers mentioned in verse 15<\/a>? The sol<\/span>ution to this discrepancy is to note that verses 44<\/a> to 47<\/a> only mention the losses in the third battle; the 1,100 others would have been killed in the first two battles. In summary, the total of the 26<\/span>,700 soldiers (v. 15<\/a>) is accounted for by adding the 18,000 killed during the heat of the third battle (v. 44<\/a>), plus the 5,000 that were killed as the Benjamites fled along the way to the Rock of Rimm<\/span>on (v. 45b<\/a>), plus the 2,000 mentioned in verse 45c<\/a> who were killed at Gidom, plus the 600 in verse 47<\/a> who survived at the Rock of Rimmon, and allowing for the 1,100 who must have been killed during th<\/span>e first and second battles in the conflict. Verse 46<\/a> refers to 25,000 killed in one day, which can be figured by adding together the 18,000 killed of verse 44<\/a>, the 5,000 of verse 45b<\/a>, and the 2,000 of<\/span> verse 45c<\/a>. There is yet another, although smaller, apparent discrepancy within chapter 20<\/a>. Verse 35<\/a> states that the total killed in one day was 25,100, but verse 46<\/a> states that the number killed was <\/span>25,000. The difference between these two figures can be explained in that verse 35<\/a> gives the actual exact count while verse 46<\/a> gives an estimate in the thousands.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

In verse 48<\/a>, the cherem<\/span> curse, a curs<\/span>e requiring total destruction, is applied upon Benjamin: And the men of Israel turned again upon the children of Benjamin<\/em>, meaning, they turned back from pursuing the last 600 Benjamites and now turne<\/span>d on the population of the other cities of the Tribe of Benjamin: and smote them with the edge of the sword, both the entire city, and the cattle, and all that they found<\/em>. This was the nature of the c<\/span><\/span>herem<\/span> curse: moreover all the cities which they found they set on fire<\/em>. The original intent of the cherem<\/span> curse was for it to be applied strictly to the Canaanites, but here it was applied to the Trib<\/span>e of Benjamin.<\/p>\n

Chapter 20<\/a> shows five elements of a holy war: First, the people assemble as one man before God; second, it is the priesthood that leads the people in seeking the will of God; third, God<\/span> is the one who gives direct orders to march into battle; fourth, God goes before Israel as a Divine Warrior, striking the enemy; and, fifth, the people applied the Law of the Holy War.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>3. Wives for Benjamin\u201421:1\u201324<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>a. Recognition of the Crisis\u201421:1\u20137<\/a><\/p>\n

1Now the men of Israel had sworn in Mizpah, saying, There shall not any of us give his daughter unto Benjamin to wife. 2And the people came to Beth-el, and sat ther<\/span>e till even before God, and lifted up their voices, and wept sore. 3And they said, O Jehovah, the God of Israel, why is this come to pass in Israel, that there should be to-day one tribe lacking in Is<\/span>rael? 4And it came to pass on the morrow, that the people rose early, and built there an altar, and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. 5And the children of Israel said, Who is there among al<\/span>l the tribes of Israel that came not up in the assembly unto Jehovah? For they had made a great oath concerning him that came not up unto Jehovah to Mizpah, saying, He shall surely be put to death. 6A<\/span>nd the children of Israel repented them for Benjamin their brother, and said, There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day. 7How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing we have sworn by <\/span>Jehovah that we will not give them of our daughters to wives?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 1<\/a> sets the stage for dealing with the aftermath of the battle against the Benjamites, starting with the mention of the oath: Now <\/em>the<\/em><\/span> men of Israel had sworn in Mizpah<\/em>. This part of the commitment in Mizpah<\/em> had not been mentioned earlier. The oath was obviously made in the heat of anger, but only mentioned now because of the implic<\/span>ations it has in this closing chapter. The content of this oath was: There shall not any of us give his daughter unto Benjamin to wife<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Recalling the oath to deprive Benjamin of wives, in verse 2<\/a>, Isr<\/span>ael mourns. The place of mourning was: And the people came to Beth-el<\/em>. Here again, this reference probably means the City of Bethel, but it may also mean simply \u201cthe House of God,\u201d and therefore the e<\/span>vent may have taken place in Shiloh. The signs of mourning were threefold: first, sat there till even before God<\/em>; second, and lifted up their voices<\/em>, and third, they wept sore<\/em>. The Hebrew literally re<\/span>ads \u201cand they wept with a great weeping.\u201d<\/p>\n

Verse 3<\/a> gives the reason for Israel\u2019s mourning: O Jehovah, the God of Israel, why is this come to pass in Israel<\/em>. Their complaint had to do with the circumsta<\/span>nces that led to the present crisis: what mysterious working of the providence of God allowed such a tragedy to happen? Namely: that there should be to-day one tribe lacking in Israel?<\/em><\/p>\n

In verse 4<\/a>, Isr<\/span>ael\u2019s mourning led to special offerings. The sense of urgency is stated as follows: And it came to pass on the morrow, that the people rose early, and built there an altar<\/em>. This statement would tend t<\/span>o show that the location was the town of Bethel, which would not have had an altar, and so they built one. Shiloh already had an altar, and there would be no need to build one there. Then they made offerings: <\/span>and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings<\/em>. But this time there was no answer from God, and so they took actions on their own.<\/p>\n

Verse 5<\/a> records Israel\u2019s search for options to continue the<\/span> Tribe of Benjamin. The issue was: Who is there among all the tribes of Israel that came not up in the assembly unto Jehovah<\/em>? The issue was twofold: First, who did not come up to fight against Benjami<\/span>n? And, second, in light of the above, who did not take that oath? Then the content of the great oath of Mizpah is stated: For they had made a great oath concerning him that came not up unto Jehovah t<\/em><\/span>o Mizpah, saying, He shall surely be put to death<\/em>. This was the same oath mentioned in verse 1<\/a>, but now another facet of the oath is revealed. The great oath<\/em> means that all the members were bound to a<\/span>ppear by an oath<\/em>, which consisted of a threat of death to any who were disobedient. So, now there were two thoughts: first, the oath<\/em> that those who had not come to Mizpah should be punished by death; <\/span>and second, anxiety for the preservation of this tribe, which sprang from compassion toward Benjamin. The men of Israel showed their concern in the endeavor to provide such as remained of the men of Benjamin with wives without vi<\/span>olating the oath that none of them would give them their own daughters as a wife. These two factors determined the course to be adopted by the congregation.<\/p>\n

Verse 6<\/a> descri<\/span>bes the men of Israel\u2019s change of attitude: And the children of Israel repented them for Benjamin their brother, and said, There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day<\/em>. The Hebrew word for cut off <\/span>is gada<\/span>, which means, \u201cto hack off.\u201d There was one tribe \u201chacked off\u201d from Israel that day. This is the same root for the name Gideon. This is the only use of the word in the Book of Judges.<\/p>\n

Verse 7<\/a> p<\/span>resents the problem: How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing we have sworn by Jehovah that we will not give them of our daughters to wives?<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n

b. First Stage: Jabesh-Gilead\u201421:8\u201315<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(1) Destruction of Jabesh-Gilead\u201421:8\u201311<\/a><\/p>\n

8And they said, What one is there of the tribes of Israel that came not up unto Jehovah to Mizpah? And, behold, there came none to the camp from Jabesh-gilead to the assembly. 9For when the people were numbered, behold, there were none of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead there. 10And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the most valiant, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the little ones. 11And this is the thing that ye shall do: ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that has lain by man.<\/p>\n

Verse 8<\/a> records Israel\u2019s search for the violators of the first oath. The question was: What one is there of the tribes of Israel that came not up un<\/em>to Jehovah to Mizpah?<\/em> The answer was: And, behold, there came none to the camp from Jabesh-gilead to the assembly. Jabesh-gilead<\/em> was in the Trans-Jordan, a great distance away.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Verse 9<\/a> reveals the met<\/span>hod of this discovery: For when the people were numbered, behold, there were none of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead there<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verses 10<\/a> to 11<\/a> describe the destruction of Jabesh Gilead, beginning with t<\/span>he strike force: And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the most valiant<\/em>. The mission given to them went from the general to the specific. In general, they were to Go and smite the i<\/em><\/span>nhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the little ones<\/em>. Specifically, they were instructed, this is the thing that ye shall do: ye shall utterly destroy every male,<\/em><\/span> and every woman that has lain by man<\/em>. The obvious question was: How would they know who was a virgin and who was not? Exactly how they knew is not told, but married women and single women were often <\/span>differentiated by what they wore. The rabbis came up with the solution: \u201cHow did the soldiers know which girls were virgins? They set them on top of barrels of wine. If the smell of wine came out of their mouths, it was a sign that they were not virgins.\u201d<\/span>31<\/a> This is pure rabbinic imagination. As harsh as all this sounds, the sin and punishment of Jabesh-Gilead must be viewed in light of the sacredn<\/span>ess of the bond linking the several tribes into a tribal union. They now applied the cherem<\/span> curse on Jabesh-Gilead, and once again, a Jewish city suffers the cherem<\/span> curse. The one possible precedent f<\/span>or this action is in Numbers 31:13\u201320<\/a>.<\/p>\n

(2) Wives from Jabesh-Gilead\u201421:12\u201315<\/a><\/p>\n

12And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him; and they brought them unto the camp <\/span>to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.<\/p>\n

13And the whole congregation sent and spoke to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock of Rimmon, and proclaimed peace unto them. 14And Benjamin retur<\/span>ned at that time; and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead: and yet so they sufficed them not. 15And the people repented them for Benjamin, because that Jeh<\/span>ovah had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n

Verse 12<\/a> introduces the 400 virgins of Jabesh-gilead: And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins<\/em>. The explanation <\/span>continued: that had not known man by lying with him<\/em>. The Hebrew word for virgin<\/em> is betulah<\/span>, or in the plural form, betulot<\/span>. If this word clearly meant \u201ca virgin,\u201d there would have been no need for the<\/span> explanatory phrase: that had not known man by lying with him<\/em>. Because the word betulah<\/span> is not as clear as almah<\/span>, the word used in Isaiah 7:14<\/a>, it made the explanation necessary. Then came the transfe<\/span>r: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh<\/em>. Since Shiloh<\/em> was the place of the Tabernacle, it would provide a refuge and sanctuary that other places like Mizpah and Bethel would not. Shiloh was w<\/span>here the armies gathered first, and here they could also undergo ceremonial cleansing from being engaged in the war. The author specifies: which is in the land of Canaan<\/em>. The Jordan River was the bord<\/span>er, and Jabesh-Gilead was east of the river, therefore outside of the Land of Canaan<\/em>. As soon as one crossed to the west side of the Jordan River, he was in the Land of Canaan<\/em>. This is the only time t<\/span>he name Canaan<\/em> is used in a post-conquest context. This mention may again point to an earlier date for this event, but it also reemphasizes the author\u2019s theme that these people are becoming more and m<\/span>ore Canaanized.<\/p>\n

Verse 13<\/a> describes Israel\u2019s peace with Benjamin, beginning with the delegation: And the whole congregation sent and spoke to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock of Rimmon<\/em>, a<\/span>nd then made the offer: and proclaimed peace unto them<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 14<\/a> records the return of Benjamin: And Benjamin returned at that time<\/em>, and this was followed by the marriage: and they gave them the women<\/em><\/span> whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead<\/em>. But then came the problem: and yet so they sufficed them not<\/em>. They were still 200 wives short.<\/p>\n

Verse 15<\/a> deals with the reconciliation of the t<\/span>ribes: And the people repented them for Benjamin<\/em>; they repented of the war they had conducted against Benjamin. The cause was: because that Jehovah had made a breach in the tribes of Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

c. Second Stage: Shiloh\u201421:16\u201324<\/a><\/p>\n

16Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin? 17And they said, There must<\/span> be an inheritance for them that are escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel. 18Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters, for the children of Israel had sworn, sayi<\/span>ng, Cursed be he that gives a wife to Benjamin. 19And they said, Behold, there is a feast of Jehovah from year to year in Shiloh, which is on the north of Beth-el, on the east side of the highway that<\/span> goes up from Beth-el to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah. 20And they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards, 21and see, and, behold, if the daughters of S<\/span>hiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. 22And it shall be, when their fat<\/span>hers or their brethren come to complain unto us, that we will say unto them, Grant them graciously unto us, because we took not for each man of them his wife in battle, neither did ye give them unto them, else would ye now be guilt<\/span>y. 23And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they carried off: and they went and returned unto the<\/span>ir inheritance, and built the cities, and dwelt in them. 24And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to<\/span> his inheritance.<\/p>\n

Verse 16<\/a> states the issue: Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?<\/em> Because of the ma<\/span>ss slaughter of the Benjamites, all the Benjamite women and children had been killed, and all that were left were 600 male Benjamites. Four hundred had wives but two hundred did not, and there was no other place they c<\/span>ould go to where young people were not part of the oath.<\/p>\n

Verses 17<\/a> to 18<\/a> express Israel\u2019s concern about the shortfall of wives for the Tribe of Benjamin: There must be an inheritance<\/em><\/span> for them that are<\/em> escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel<\/em>. Their concern for the 200 without wives was based upon two issues. The first issue is seen in the word yerushah<\/span>, wh<\/span>ich means inheritance<\/em>. The word yerushah<\/span> is usually used of the land allotted to the nation of Israel or to one of its tribes. Thus, the elders were concerned that this small group of survivors retain<\/span> the inheritance and possession of the territorial allotment of the Tribe of Benjamin. Second, they were concerned that the tribe would not be able to maintain its independent existence within the small tribal confederacy since the 400 wives provided them so far were not enough. The elders of Israel were concerned to make sure that Benjamin was able to maint<\/span>ain its whole tribal holding. The 400 who now had wives were not quite enough, and so the elders proceeded to find wives for the remaining 200. But the dilemma was the oath: <\/span>Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters, for the child<\/em><\/span>ren of Israel had sworn, saying, Cursed be he that gives a wife to Benjamin<\/em>.<\/p>\n

So in verse 19<\/a>, the elders finally came up with a solution. The occasion was: And they said, Behold, there is a feast of Je<\/em><\/span>hovah from year to year<\/em>. The context shows it was springtime; and, therefore, this might have been the time of the Passover. The dance of the virgins around this time may have been in imitation of the<\/span> dance of Miriam in Exodus 15:20<\/a>. The location was: in Shiloh, which is on the north of Beth-el, on the east side of the highway that goes up from Beth-el to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Vers<\/span>es 20<\/a> to 22<\/a> record the elders\u2019 instruction to the Benjamites, beginning in verses 20<\/a> to 21<\/a> with the chase of the virgins. The first step was the hiding: Go and lie in wait in the vineyards<\/em>. The mentio<\/span>n of vineyards<\/em> would put this period in the spring. If it was some time before the harvest, then the feast might have been that of the Passover. If it was after the harvest, and this was the harvest d<\/span>ance, then the feast would have been the Feast of Weeks. The goal was to see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you <\/em><\/span>every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin<\/em>. Then, in verse 22<\/a>, the elders gave the Benjamites some assurance. In the case that it shall be, when their fathers or the<\/em><\/span>ir brethren come to complain unto us<\/em>, then they will get the following response: Grant them graciously unto us<\/em>, and that for two reasons. First, because we took not for each man of them his wife in ba<\/em><\/span>ttle<\/em>. In other words, the men of Israel had not been able, in battle, to provide all the Benjamites with wives, but ran 200 short. Second, neither did ye give them unto them; else would ye now be guil<\/em><\/span>ty<\/em>. In other words, since the fathers of these women in Shiloh were part of the oath, but did not give the girls willingly, they were not guilty of violating the oath.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

So, verse 23<\/a> deals with the rema<\/span>ining 200 wives: And the children of Benjamin did so<\/em>, meaning, they followed all the instructions to attain wives. This resulted in the catch: and took them wives, according to their number<\/em> [200], of <\/em><\/span>them that danced, whom they carried off: and they went and returned unto their inheritance<\/em>, meaning to the tribal territory of Benjamin, and built the cities<\/em>, which had been destroyed in the war, and <\/em><\/span>dwelt in them<\/em>. And so the peace was restored.<\/p>\n

Verse 24<\/a> records the return of Israel: And the children of Israel departed thence<\/em>, meaning from Shiloh, at that time, every man to his tribe and to his fa<\/em><\/span>mily, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

4. The Theme\u201421:25<\/a><\/p>\n

In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In the context of this book, there was no king in Israel<\/em> to do seven things. First, there was no king in Israel to destroy idolatry. Second, there was no king in Israel to enforce proper worship. Third, there was no king in Israel to conquer the enemies, especially the Philistines, so that the Tribes of Israel could gain full possession of the Land. Fourth, there was no king in Israel to bring law and order into the country and to enforce the Law of Moses. Fifth, there was no king in Israel to bring order among the tribes. Sixth, there was no king in Israel to punish wicked cities. Seventh, there was no king in Israel to enforce a just way of solving problems like the one concerning the wives of Benjamin. The result of not having a king was that every man did that which was right in his own eyes<\/em>. This is a repetition of a statement made three times previously: Judges 17:6<\/a>, 18:1<\/a>, and 19:1<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

5. Observations on the Two Appendices<\/p>\n

By way of observation, there are at least nine common features between the two appendices.<\/p>\n

First: Both the Tribes of Dan and Benjamin were given territory in Isra<\/span>el\u2019s heartland, between Judah to the south and Ephraim to the north. Both bordered each other, and so the problem was not on the fringe, but right in the heartland of Israel.<\/p>\n

Second: Both tribes were <\/span>found in dire straits, but for different reasons. Dan could not take the territory allotted to him. Benjamin had all the other tribes turn against him, to the point of almost causing the Benjamites\u2019 disappearance.<\/span><\/p>\n

Third: In both appendices, there was a major role of an unnamed Levite who fails to fulfill his Levitical role. The first one is named later, but not initially.<\/p>\n

Fourth: In both cases the<\/span>re is a Bethlehem-Levite connection, though neither Levite actually lived there but only sojourned there.<\/p>\n

Fifth: Both Levites are connected with the Hill-country of Ephraim, with the second one actual<\/span>ly living there. The significance is that this was where the Tabernacle was located.<\/p>\n

Sixth: Both accounts involve priests inquiring of God concerning the outcome of a proposed plan of action.<\/p>\n

Seventh:<\/span> Both accounts conclude with a reference to Shiloh. In Judges 18:31<\/a>, it is stated that the Danites continued to use Micah\u2019s idols as long as the Tabernacle was in Shiloh. In 21:19\u201324<\/a>, the narrator des<\/span>cribes an event that took place in Shiloh.<\/p>\n

Eighth: In both accounts, the figure of 600 men plays a role.<\/p>\n

Ninth: Both accounts declared the fact that there was no king in Israel in those days. This rev<\/span>eals a major purpose of the Book of Judges: to give a reason why Israel needed a king. But more than that, it also shows which king they should choose from: not a king of the House of Saul, who came from Gibeah, but a king from the town of Bethlehem, like David.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

C. Third Appendix: Book of Ruth<\/p>\n

The Book of Ruth is expounded separately in the next section, and the following is to show how the Book of Ruth plays a role here. The Book of Ruth is a continuation of the Book of Judges, and in ancient times it was viewed as part of the book and the third appendix to the book. While the first and second appendices of the Book of Judges showed something negative, particularly Gibeah of the Benjamites, where Saul came from, which was sinful, immoral, inhospitable, and violating the Law of Moses, the Book of Ruth focuses on Bethleh<\/span>em where good things were happening, where one had hospitality so that even a Gentile was welcomed. In the Book of Ruth, people are going out of their way to maintain and keep the Mosaic Law. So, the third appendix, the Book of Ruth, shows how God made preparations for Israel to have a king. The origin of the king should not be Gibeah, but should be Bethlehem. So for these reasons the Book of Judges was probably written. At first, David was only king of Judah before he became king of all Israel, while the other tribes were under Ishbosheth, the son of Saul. The <\/span>Book of Ruth favors the House of David from Bethlehem over the House of Saul from Gibeah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ONE Introduction A. Title The Hebrew title Shophtim means \u201cjudges.\u201d The Hebrew root is from the word shaphat, and it has three basic meanings: first, \u201cto judge,\u201d second, \u201cto govern,\u201d and, third, \u201cto exercise leadership.\u201d In the Book of Judges, the word Shophtim is used in a double sense. One usage is \u201cto deliver,\u201d and … <\/p>\n

\u201eThe Book of Judges\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10\/revisions\/21"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}