TEXT [Commentary]

B.   Stage One: Triumph (3:12–5:31)

1.   Ehud: The assassin deliverer (3:12-30)

12 Once again the Israelites did evil in the LORD’s sight, and the LORD gave King Eglon of Moab control over Israel because of their evil. 13 Eglon enlisted the Ammonites and Amalekites as allies, and then he went out and defeated Israel, taking possession of Jericho, the city of palms. 14 And the Israelites served Eglon of Moab for eighteen years.

15 But when the people of Israel cried out to the LORD for help, the LORD again raised up a rescuer to save them. His name was Ehud son of Gera, a left-handed man of the tribe of Benjamin. The Israelites sent Ehud to deliver their tribute money to King Eglon of Moab. 16 So Ehud made a double-edged dagger that was about a foot[*] long, and he strapped it to his right thigh, keeping it hidden under his clothing. 17 He brought the tribute money to Eglon, who was very fat.

18 After delivering the payment, Ehud started home with those who had helped carry the tribute. 19 But when Ehud reached the stone idols near Gilgal, he turned back. He came to Eglon and said, “I have a secret message for you.”

So the king commanded his servants, “Be quiet!” and he sent them all out of the room.

20 Ehud walked over to Eglon, who was sitting alone in a cool upstairs room. And Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you!” As King Eglon rose from his seat, 21 Ehud reached with his left hand, pulled out the dagger strapped to his right thigh, and plunged it into the king’s belly. 22 The dagger went so deep that the handle disappeared beneath the king’s fat. So Ehud did not pull out the dagger, and the king’s bowels emptied.[*] 23 Then Ehud closed and locked the doors of the room and escaped down the latrine.[*]

24 After Ehud was gone, the king’s servants returned and found the doors to the upstairs room locked. They thought he might be using the latrine in the room, 25 so they waited. But when the king didn’t come out after a long delay, they became concerned and got a key. And when they opened the doors, they found their master dead on the floor.

26 While the servants were waiting, Ehud escaped, passing the stone idols on his way to Seirah. 27 When he arrived in the hill country of Ephraim, Ehud sounded a call to arms. Then he led a band of Israelites down from the hills.

28 “Follow me,” he said, “for the LORD has given you victory over Moab your enemy.” So they followed him. And the Israelites took control of the shallow crossings of the Jordan River across from Moab, preventing anyone from crossing.

29 They attacked the Moabites and killed about 10,000 of their strongest and most able-bodied warriors. Not one of them escaped. 30 So Moab was conquered by Israel that day, and there was peace in the land for eighty years.

NOTES

3:12 Once again the Israelites did evil. The Hebrew idiom translated “once again” could just as easily be rendered “continued” [to do evil]. Though periods of rest are noted in the text, explicit references to repentance or righteousness are rare. Since 2:17-18 emphasizes that the Israelites did not in fact listen to their judges, but “played the harlot” more and more, perhaps “continued to do evil” resonates deeper than “once again.”

the LORD gave King Eglon of Moab control over Israel. The name “Eglon” combines a word for “calf” (‘egel [TH5695, ZH6319]) with a suffix (-on) common in Hebrew for forming adjectives, abstract nouns, or diminutives (Waltke and O’Connor 1990:92). It likely derived from an Akkadian noun formation designating a particular member of a larger class. Hence, the name Eglon likely means “little calf” or “the calflike one.” Given Eglon’s description in 3:17b, most readers cannot resist observing that the “calf” was fatted, though the language for Eglon’s size does not support that view! Attempts to construe the name “Eglon” as demeaning or satiric appeal to English connotations of bovine nomenclature, but ancient Near Eastern usage identifies bulls and calves with deity, so that no such connotation attaches to the name in Hebrew.

because of their evil. The NLT compresses the Hebrew, which uses the full statement “because they did that which was evil in the eyes of Yahweh.” The repetition in Hebrew strongly emphasizes this aspect of the introductory form. Only in this story does this formula appear twice.

3:13 Jericho, the city of palms. The Hebrew does not contain the word “Jericho,” but the NLT rightly infers it from “city of palms” (cf. Deut 34:3). Perhaps the author wanted to put the connection between the headquarters of Israel’s oppressor and the scene of Joshua’s greatest triumph between the lines. Jericho, modern Tel Es-Sultan, possesses a fine spring that supports a date-palm grove. The town was allotted to Ehud’s tribe, Benjamin (Josh 16:1, 7; 18:21). Strategically positioned near the northern tip of the Dead Sea, Jericho controlled the three roads leading up through the Judean desert to the strategic plateau that formed the Benjaminite heartland. By holding Jericho, Eglon cut off Benjamin from any contact to the east and gained three invasion routes. With the Philistines present in the western lowlands (cf. 3:31), the Benjaminites were confined to the little plateau between Jerusalem and Bethel, an area not much larger than 10 square miles. Jericho also provided Eglon with the best possible access back to his homeland in Moab.

3:15 But when the people of Israel cried out to the LORD for help. The NLT addition of “for help,” though not explicit in the Hebrew, captures the idea that the verb employed does not imply repentance, but desperation.

the LORD again raised up a rescuer to save them. Only Othniel and Ehud receive the sobriquet “rescuer” (moshia‘ [TH3467B, ZH4635]), and they alone are said to be “raised up” (Hiphil of qum [TH6965, ZH7756]) by Yahweh. The words “again” and “to save them,” however, are lacking in the Hebrew. Their inclusion by the NLT harmonizes this passage with its counterpart in the Othniel story (3:9) but has no textual basis and is unnecessary.

His name was Ehud son of Gera, a left-handed man of the tribe of Benjamin. Since “Benjaminite” means “son of the right hand,” Ehud’s left-handedness strikes an ironic chord: A left-handed right-hander is one tricky guy! But “left-handed” scarcely captures the Heb., ’itter yad-yemino [TH334, ZH360] (bound on/by his right hand), which suggests more a disabling of the right hand than a preference for the left. But it hardly denotes injury or defect, since 20:16 notes 700 more Benjaminite crack slingers and archers of the same condition. First Chronicles 12:1-2 identifies David’s Benjaminite allies who could wield the bow or sling with either hand. Halpern (1988:40-43) comments on the peculiar advantage that a left-handed swordsman would have against right-handers in battle, reversing the normal sword-on-shield orientation, and rightly proposes Ehud belonged to a Benjaminite warrior elite whose training began early with boys having their right hands tied to promote facility with the left.

The Israelites sent Ehud to deliver their tribute money to King Eglon of Moab. It appears that Ehud is actually part of a group (cf. 3:18), but he clearly is the leader of the group. Indeed, Ehud’s specialized combat skills made him the logical person to ride shotgun on the tribute run, ensuring the tribute arrived safely. Did his kinsmen know of his plan to assassinate Eglon? Their immediate response to his call to arms in 3:27-28 suggests readiness, so perhaps they intentionally dispatched Ehud with his hidden agenda.

3:16 So Ehud made a double-edged dagger. For Ehud to craft his own sword, likely from bronze, contrasts with the OT observation of a general lack of metallurgy and weapons among the Israelites (cf. 5:8b; 1 Sam 13:19-22) and comports well with his membership in an elite class with special abilities and resources. Bronze remained the dominant material in arms and armor throughout the first Iron Age (cf. 1 Sam 17:1-7).

about a foot long. The word gomed [TH1574, ZH1688] (about a foot) appears only here in the OT. Translators and commentators assume the word denotes a relatively short unit of measure since it governs ’orkah [TH753, ZH802] (its length) and since the entire weapon seems to vanish into Eglon’s belly. The LXX guesses “span” while the Targumists and rabbinic interpreters suggest “[short] cubit,” i.e., the distance from the elbow to the knuckles, but with no valid philological basis. But must the word denote a unit of length? Since no ancient lexical sources identify this term as a unit of measure, and common terms for length were at hand, perhaps the author stresses not the sword’s length, but its construction. Along with being double-edged, it possessed another feature characteristic of its entire length. The only cognate for gomed is Arabic gamada, which inscribes ideas such as rigidity or stiffness. Perhaps the author, who displays a strong interest in heroes’ weapons, calls attention to the sword as “rigid or stiff” over its length.

he strapped it to his right thigh, keeping it hidden under his clothing. Although the text says nothing directly about the length of the sword (see note above “about a foot long”), the need for concealment implies a sword short enough to conceal while long enough to do the job (see below). The traditional Canaanite khopesh or sickle-sword could not be sheathed due to its shape and was ineffective at thrusting. These hindrances were overcome by straight blades (cf. Stone 2009:657-663; Yadin 1963:1.172-173, 206-207), which arrived in the Levant with the Sea Peoples during the transition between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age and are known to scholars as the Naue Type II. The functional (as opposed to decorative or ritual) Naue Type II swords found so far range from 19.5 to just over 33 inches. Ehud’s sword would fall on the shorter end of that spectrum. In the end it is best to see this weapon as being a “double-edged combat sword.” The sword would be long enough that its thrust would strike deeply and damage enough tissue to cause instantaneous, or at least very rapid, death.

Judging from reliefs from the ancient Near East, warriors typically slung their swords across their backs, or even across their chests, sometimes in scabbards, often not. Swords worn on the waist typically rode on the hip opposite the fighting hand, the “cross-draw” (cf. Yadin 1963: 1.222-223, 2.334-337). Ehud’s left-handedness shifted his sword to an atypical position on the right thigh, increasing the likelihood that his weapon would go unnoticed until the moment of attack. A perusal of combat scenes from the ancient Near East reveals comparatively few left-handed swordsmen.

3:17 fat. Heb., bari’ [TH1277, ZH1374] typically denotes the fatness of health and prosperity. Obesity does not seem to inhere in the word. Daniel and his friends, after some time on a diet of vegetables and water, are observed to be bari’ (Dan 1:15; “better nourished,” NLT). However, only here in the OT is bari’ modified by “very,” and 3:22 notes that Eglon’s fat closed over the blade. But popular portrayals that make Eglon as a pile of blubber like “Jabba the Hutt” are misplaced. Rather, Eglon is better understood as a very prosperous, healthy, robust guy. Consider Eglon’s era: The collapse of the Late Bronze Age imperial cultures ca. 1200 BC witnessed the emergence of new territorial states whose kings rose up through tribal cultures of chieftains and warlords. Such men were not ineffectual tubs of jello, but tough, resourceful men, always alert to potential threats to their power. Eglon likely was just such a man: powerful, resourceful, imposing, and dangerous.

3:18 with those who had helped. Lit., “and he dismissed the people who bore the tribute.” It becomes clear at this point that Ehud is accompanied by a party of tribute bearers, whose dismissal allows him to return alone to complete his more pressing errand of assassinating Eglon.

3:19 the stone idols. Heb., pesilim [TH6456, ZH7178] (carved stones), typically used to denote idols that fit the traditional translation “graven image” (e.g., Deut 7:5, 25; 12:3); the term can also denote cast images. They need not be stone. The word, with its cognate pesel [TH6459, ZH7181], appears 54 times in the OT. Though Deuteronomy condemns pesilim, the Deuteronomistic History seldom utters the word with the same explicit revulsion found in the book of Deuteronomy. The word does not seem to be a distinctive Deuteronomistic term, but is more characteristic of prophetic texts. Second Chronicles 33–34 also uses the term in its distinctive supplements to the Deuteronomistic narratives of Amon and Josiah.

Gilgal. The name gilgal [TH1537, ZH1652] appears 40 times in the OT, only twice without the definite article. Possibly not a true proper name, it can denote any stone-encircled encampment (cf. Zertal 1991:28-49). Several sites in Israel could be in view in the several OT references to Gilgal (ABD 2.1022-1024). Located within sight of Jericho, Gilgal was the base camp of the conquest, first home of the Ark, and the scene of the circumcision of the wilderness-born conquest generation of Israelites and the first Passover in Canaan (Josh 5). It later became a pilgrimage destination (Hos 4:15; Amos 4:4; 5:5). There also, Joshua erected stone monuments when the Israelites crossed the Jordan (Josh 4). Might the “carved stones” mentioned here be those monuments? Joshua 4 did not use pesel or pesilim (see note above) and did not refer to the stones as carved or inscribed. Moreover, these terms never denote a legitimate monument to Yahweh. Still, the presence of idols at Gilgal, the very place where stone monuments from Joshua’s time stood, would underscore the depths to which Israel had sunk.

he turned back. This rendering obscures a potentially important theological point. The Hebrew more literally reads “but he (emphatic) turned from the stone idols that were at Gilgal.” The images (pesilim; see note above) form a bracket around this section of the narrative. The murder of Eglon begins when Ehud “turns from the idols.” (Notably, the LXX explicitly says Eglon returned from the idols.) Ehud’s getaway is complete in 3:26b: “now he (emphatic) had crossed over the carved stones.” Again, in 3:26, a word with dual use occurs; “cross over” in theological contexts means “transgress.” While the author used these words in their normal senses of turning and crossing, the association with idols might also function ironically to connote repentance and violation of idols, as a framework for deliverance.

He came to Eglon and said. The Hebrew is quite abrupt, omitting the words “he came to Eglon” but moving from Ehud’s about-face at the idols directly to his address to Eglon.

I have a secret message for you. “Secret message” (debar-sether [TH1697/5643, ZH1821/6260]) seems to be a double entendre, given the range of meaning for dabar [TH1697, ZH1821] (word, thing). On one hand, Ehud claimed to have a secret message for Eglon, on the other, he had a secret agenda for Eglon’s demise. At this point, Eglon likely viewed Ehud as a collaborator; he had delivered the tribute and now returned without his countrymen present, claiming a secret message.

the king commanded his servants, “Be quiet!” and he sent them all out of the room. Ehud’s plan required that the servants be outside and unsuspecting. What would have been so important about Ehud’s announcement as to require total privacy? The delivery of tribute implied Ehud’s loyalty as a vassal. Perhaps the king hoped for news of even more Israelite leaders submitting to his rule.

3:20 Ehud walked over to Eglon, who was sitting alone in a cool upstairs room. Halpern (1988:43-58) notes that the palace would have been two-stories high, with the throne at one end on the second level (‘aliyyah [TH5944, ZH6608]), with a maintenance and storage area on the ground level. The audience chamber would be on the ground level, with the second story open above. Petitioners entered through a front door and stood below the king, who sat at the far end of the house in the upper chamber, which could be closed and locked. Windows on the second story of the house provided ventilation, hence the designation “cool upstairs room.” While correct, the architectural features are somewhat muddled in the translation. Ehud did not “walk over” to Eglon so much as he “went up” into the king’s physical presence. If Eglon assumed Ehud was a collaborator with a secret message, this face-to-face proximity would not disquiet him.

Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you!” The phrase debar-sether [TH1697/5643, ZH1821/6260] (a secret thing; 3:19) now becomes debar-’elohim [TH1697/430, ZH1821/466] (thing of/from God). The choice of ’elohim rather than the Israelite national name for God, Yahweh (yhwh [TH3068, ZH3378]), perhaps served to further reduce the king’s suspicions and reinforce his sense of Ehud’s complicity.

3:21 plunged it into the king’s belly. The Hebrew verb taqa‘ [TH8628, ZH9546] emphasizes the violence of the thrust that would have been necessary to damage enough tissue to cause what appears to be instantaneous incapacitation. When describing penetration, the verb can denote pounding a peg into the ground for a firm hold (Isa 22:23, 25) or through Sisera’s temple (4:21) or even through Samson’s braids (16:13-14). In the latter two, the text specifies not merely piercing, but piercing through: Jael’s peg strikes the ground under Sisera’s head, Delilah’s peg fastens Samson’s locks to the wall. The verb also describes Joab’s ramming of three spears into (through?) the heart of Absalom (2 Sam 18:14) and also the fastening of the body of Saul to the wall of the temple in Beth-shan (1 Sam 31:10, MT). Clearly the writer describes a fierce, devastating, and deep thrust: Ehud “ran him right through.” See further 3:22.

3:22 The dagger went so deep that the handle disappeared beneath the king’s fat. So Ehud did not pull out the dagger. The NLT and a majority of interpreters assume Eglon was obese and that the text emphasizes this feature here. But Eglon’s “fat” is better understood as thriving health (see note on 3:17), and the text suggests instead the violence of Ehud’s thrust, such that the tip of the sword broke out through Eglon’s back. This is seen in the use of taqa‘[TH8628, ZH9546] (“thrust”; see note on 3:21). The thrust was so deep that the hilt entered the king’s body and the fat of his abdomen enclosed around the grip. The writer’s use of a hapax legomenon, hannitsab [TH5325, ZH5896], to describe the grip, points to the uniqueness of the sword’s construction in this regard: Examples of the Naue II sword all lack a cross guard, making entry of the hilt after the blade possible. Most also featured a rounded pommel to facilitate a complete final thrust driven by the palm. The pommel would remain visible, but the grip could be thrust deeper. Ehud may well have left the sword in Eglon as a gruesome calling card.

the king’s bowels emptied. A minority of scholars (so NIV translators) think this phrase, though present in Hebrew, is a scribal error. The clause visually and aurally resembles the next clause, leading some to suspect a miscopied text (dittography). On the other hand, medical professionals report that evacuation of the bowels often follows immediately upon massive trauma or death, so this event is not out of place and suggests the king was instantly killed or at least incapacitated. No short knife or dagger could have the effect of immediate incapacitation or death on a sizeable man. I received the following communication from Dr. Joseph W. Richardson, MD, an emergency medicine physician at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, in response to a query about whether and how a single blade to the abdomen might have the effects noted in this story (emphasis added):

There are two possible causes for immediate (or almost immediate) loss of consciousness with a belly wound. The first would result in a very rapid death. The aorta is large in the upper abdomen. If it were transected at a level above the navel, a human’s entire blood volume would/could be spilled in less than 45 seconds. No blood flow to the brain and a person loses consciousness in about 5 seconds. This injury could produce almost immediate incapacitation. It would probably require a sword being thrust completely through the abdomen and exiting to the left of the spine, as the aorta is somewhat protected by the boney spine at that level. The second phenomenon would produce an immediate loss of consciousness, but would not necessarily be followed by death. The tenth cranial nerve controls both heart rate and bowel motility. When this nerve is stimulated in the abdomen, a decrease in heart rate rapidly ensues. A decrease in heart rate translates as a decrease in cardiac output which translates as decreased blood flow to the brain. This again results in a loss of consciousness within 5 seconds. I strongly suspect that this poor king experienced both of these phenomena. Vagal stimulation producing a rapid loss of consciousness from which he never awakened as his blood volume was probably either spilled on the floor or lost within his abdominal cavity. I wish I could say that I’ve never seen this scenario, but I have. A few years ago a local businessman committed suicide by the Japanese traditional hara-kiri. In this ritual, a sword is thrust through the abdomen just left of the naval and pulled upwards with a violent thrust/pull. Again, a rapid loss of consciousness with rapidly following death. (Richardson 2008)

Incidentally, Dr. Richardson had, only a short time prior to this communication, treated a man who had attempted hara-kiri, so he had become intimately familiar with traumatic abdominal sword wounds. Likewise, ancient heroic literature provides vivid descriptions of these wounds and their effects (Stone 2009:658-660).

3:23 Then Ehud closed and locked the doors of the room and escaped down the latrine. King and Stager (2001:30-33) have a helpful description of ancient locks and keys. Though lacking a key, Ehud had to have a way of locking the door, likely from the inside, which left him in the room. How did he escape the scene of his deed? Halpern (1988:59-60) has shown how an upper throne chamber toilet emptied into a chamber below, on the ground level of the building. Iron Age toilets often had a removable seat over a larger opening. Ehud could have removed the toilet seat, dropped (carefully) through the opening into the area below and then walked out into the audience chamber. From there, he exited the palace normally, whereupon the guards returned to their normal posts inside. All seemed perfectly normal, as 3:24 notes.

3:24 After Ehud was gone, the king’s servants returned and found the doors to the upstairs room locked. Clearly to the servants, nothing seemed amiss, suggesting their presumption that Ehud was not particularly dangerous. Ehud’s exit must have appeared to them perfectly innocuous. This rules out a leap or descent from an upper window, ­suggested by some commentators.

They thought he might be using the latrine. The Hebrew idiom “covering the feet” lies behind the NLT’s “using the latrine.” Since this toilet was a permanent architectural feature of the building, and private, the term “latrine” with its communal and even improvised connotations might not be the best representation of the Hebrew. Since the Hebrew idiom names an activity, not a place, “relieving himself” might be the best expression. More notable is the implication of the grammatical construction of the clause, which begins with the restrictive particle ’ak [TH389, ZH421], followed by the participle “covering” with the independent pronoun, then the object “feet.” It can be graphically translated, “he must be the one relieving himself in the cooling chamber.” The text suggests the servants already knew someone was in the process of using the toilet. The locked doors of the upper chamber confirmed who it was.

3:25 so they waited. But when the king didn’t come out after a long delay. One did not simply walk in on a king in the ancient world. Entering a king’s private chambers uninvited risked death (Esth 4:11).

they became concerned. Lit., “until they were ashamed.” Shame in the ancient world was not mere embarrassment, but a sense of social paralysis, of not knowing what to do, because, for whatever reason, no correct or socially appropriate action presented itself. Intruding on the king was potentially fatal, but the king’s silence and inaccessibility also posed problems.

got a key. Getting a key was more trouble than modern readers might think. Keys to Iron Age locks were “large enough to be slung over the shoulder” (King and Stager 2001:33).

they found their master dead on the floor. The Hebrew is more abrupt in presenting the humiliating scene, using hinneh [TH2009, ZH2180] to stress immediacy: “[Right] there was their master, fallen down dead.” The phrase is similar to that of the discovery of Sisera dead on the tent floor (4:22).

3:26 While the servants were waiting, Ehud escaped, passing the stone idols. The Hebrew uses disjunctive clauses to frame the narrative of 3:24b-25 with a series of stops and starts, sending some sequences of action to the background while pulling another set of actions to the foreground. Verse 26 resumes Ehud’s escape from 3:24a.

Seirah. The identity of Seirah remains obscure. The term does not refer to the Edomite territory of “Seir” since flight there could not have facilitated Ehud’s sounding the trumpet in Mount Ephraim (3:27). Etymologically, the word might imply a forested place. Fleeing from the barren flats around Jericho and Gilgal up toward the Benjaminite heartland below Mount Ephraim would have entailed moving toward more forested regions. Perhaps a stand of trees marked a rendezvous point for Ehud’s compatriots, who then could muster their comrades for battle.

3:27 When he arrived in the hill country of Ephraim, Ehud sounded a call to arms. Rainey (Rainey and Notley 2006:39) notes that Mount Ephraim designated a zone that included the northern Benjaminite region; thus, we need not suggest that the reference to Ephraimite involvement in the battle is a secondary expansion of the story’s interests. The slope of Mount Ephraim descended into the Benjaminite territory, which formed a “saddle” of land before the road sloped upward toward the Judean highlands. Ehud had quite a hike! From Jericho at 722 feet below sea level, he would have traveled 13 miles, and climbed over 3,500 feet in elevation, to reach the vicinity of Bethel, the southernmost reach of Mount Ephraim, traveling over some of the most formidable terrain imaginable, only to turn right around and rush back at the head of the Israelite forces to engage the enemy on the floodplain of the Jordan.

3:28 the Israelites took control of the shallow crossings of the Jordan River across from Moab, preventing anyone from crossing. This ford, ironically, would have been the one used by Joshua (Josh 3) just a few generations earlier. The grim aim of the Israelite strategy is clear. More than liberation from a tyrant, they seek to destroy him. Rather than just expelling the Moabites, the Israelites seized the crossing and prevented the Moabites from escaping, slaughtering them all. One of the hardest features of the biblical message to absorb is Israel’s hatred of tyranny. Israel does not simply represent liberation from oppression, it embodies the destruction of tyranny itself.

3:29 They attacked the Moabites and killed. The Hebrew simply says “struck,” but the term virtually always describes a fatal blow. Omitted in the NLT here is the temporal expression “at that time.” That, combined with the expression “that day” in 3:30, seems to stress the past aspect of Israel’s stunning victory, similar to the slang expression in English “back in the day.” From the perspective of the final author, those days were long gone.

about 10,000 of their strongest and most able-bodied warriors. The writer expresses the number in approximate terms, and “thousand” can refer to a fighting unit, not a literal number of men. The author uses two Hebrew phrases to describe the enemy. The second uses the term khayil [TH2428, ZH2657], the normal term for denoting a man of substance and standing, a hero. The first, however, uses the term shamen [TH8082, ZH9045], “oil/fat.” Like the term used for Eglon’s “fatness,” this word seldom involves obesity but designates prosperous, well-nourished, well-supplied persons or places. Hence, the NLT rightly translates “strongest and most able-bodied warriors.” These fighters, like their slain leader, were substantial, well-provisioned men of war. The narrator did not celebrate the slaughter of incompetent buffoons, nor engage in dark humor with an ethnic edge. He identified Eglon and his men as splendid and formidable fighters in their prime, cut down by Yahweh through Israel’s valor, inspired by Ehud’s blade.

Not one of them escaped. The Hebrew text repeats the word “man” (’ish [TH376, ZH408]) three times in a half-verse to stress the totality of Israel’s victory. Lit., “every robust man, every man of valor, not a man escaped.”

3:30 So Moab was conquered by Israel that day. The verb “was conquered” rather blandly renders a more graphic term typically translated “was humbled, subdued, brought low,” which stresses the totality of Israel’s victory over the Moabites.

there was peace in the land for eighty years. This remarkable statement records the longest period of rest in the entire book, over five times the length of the period of oppression, and twice the length of its nearest competitors (Othniel, Deborah, Gideon). Just enough wordplay operates between 3:14’s “eighteen” (shemoneh ‘esreh [TH8083/6240A, ZH9046/6926]) and “eighty” (shemonim [TH8083, ZH9046]) here to provide a satisfying aural closure to the story.

COMMENTARY [Text]

The stories of Ehud, Shamgar, and Deborah (3:12–5:31) present Israel successfully overcoming its oppressors under divinely prompted and enabled leadership. The stories of Ehud and Deborah are vigorous; they fully embody the “heroic” qualities noted in the introduction. Both distill the threat represented by an army into a single oppressive figure: Eglon and Sisera. Both concentrate the heroic saving action of God into an act by a single individual, Ehud and Jael. Both culminate in an assassination and the dramatic discovery of the slain oppressor’s sprawled corpse. Even Shamgar, who gets only one verse, performs a remarkable and classically heroic deed with an improvised weapon and “saves Israel.” On first blush, it appears that these stories exult in the rule of charismatic heroes, and indeed, they do. A closer inspection, though, reveals a surprising undertow drawing the reader in another direction.

Two tendencies mark commentary on the Ehud story (3:12-30). Scholars universally see the story as satirizing Eglon, leaving the reader with the impression that almost anyone could have killed the hulking, slow-witted, Moabite monarch. This view typically also suggests an ethnic edge to the humor. The other tendency is to see in Ehud a “decline” in the quality and character of the judges, citing the alleged silence or absence of Yahweh, and even the silence of the narrator, who they claim reports the story with no added comment (cf. Younger 2002:122-125). These claims impose on the text a standard external to the stories themselves and foreign to the culture in which the events occurred. In fact, the description of Eglon is anything but satiric, emphasizing he was an imposing, dangerous man, as were all his fighters (see note on 3:17; cf. Stone 2009). More importantly, the narrator gives Ehud highest accolades: Ehud alone, after Othniel, is said to be “raised up” by Yahweh. Ehud alone after Othniel is labeled “savior/rescuer.” Ehud also procures for Israel 80 years of peace, and his death notice is omitted from the narrative proper and relegated to a circumstantial or concessive clause at the start of the Deborah story (4:1). Ehud also bears immediate testimony to Yahweh’s power when he calls his countrymen to battle, seizing none of the glory for himself.

Perhaps the original storyteller shared the historical sophistication marking the Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2), which also displays reservation in referring to God’s actions in the story. The “absence” of Yahweh, in fact, creates a space in which human actions on Yahweh’s behalf become meaningful. If the book’s overall structure offers a steadily developing critique of the charismatic office, then the omission of the ruakh yhwh [TH7307/3068, ZH8120/3378] (Spirit of ­Yahweh) from this story, just as it is omitted from the Deborah story, should not be seen as a criticism of these characters. Unless we resort to an extreme hermeneutic of irony, we must assume that the framework’s straightforward approval of Ehud is expounded by the narrative itself. Ehud is not presented as deficient in character or skill; rather, the story affirms that his background, training, skill, ­daring, initiative, and willingness to risk everything provided Yahweh with precisely the moment he needed to elicit heroism from his people and draw the whole community from oppression to victory.

As noted in the introduction, the “decline” of the judges is not a story-by-story affair, but is organized into three stages. Thus, Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, and Deborah all stand on the level of “triumphant” judges, revealing how the theocratic community could function effectively, even in the context of the people’s periodic sin and failure.

The dark tone created by the introduction’s twofold statement that Israel did evil in the Lord’s sight (3:12) becomes deeper with the note that the oppressor, Eglon, has been directly strengthened by Yahweh for his role. Though Israel’s evil is not specified as the fatal sin of idolatry, the reference later in the story to stone images at Gilgal at least raises the specter of other gods. The tide turns when Israel “cries to Yahweh” (3:15), though the text says nothing of repentance. Yahweh raises up Ehud as Israel’s savior. He is a “Benjaminite,” a name meaning “son of the right hand.” Immediately, however, the text notes that Ehud is left-handed. A “left-handed right-hander” suggests a wily hero. The wordplay also possibly offsets the assignment of a positive role to a Benjaminite, a tribe often censured in Judges, by implying he is not a real “son of the right hand.”

The story vividly unfolds Ehud’s daring deed. Verses 15-17 set the stage by noting the occasion for Ehud’s action: an audience with Eglon for presenting tribute (3:15c). It then shifts to the implement to be employed: the double-edged sword; then the stratagem: concealing it on his right thigh, to be drawn with the left hand (3:16). Despite attempts to construe this killing as the sacrifice of a “fatted calf,” the term minkhah [TH4503, ZH4966] (tribute) derives its cultic use from the more common sense of a simple offering or gift. The cultic usage, moreover, typically denotes a nonbloody offering of cereals and grains (cf. Lev 2). The sense of “tribute” or “gift, present” is common (e.g., Gen 32:13; 43:11; 1 Sam 10:27; 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 20:12), so no cultic nuance need be ascribed here. Indeed, the political situation is obvious; subordinated peoples are bringing tribute to their overlord. Each prop and setting noted in 3:15c-17 figures in Eglon’s assassination (3:18-26). The unit is bracketed by references to Ehud’s turning back from the idols (3:19) and crossing/passing by the idols (3:26), thus creating a spatial, and perhaps implicit theological framework for his action, since the terms “turn” and “cross” connote repentance and trans­gression respectively in religious contexts (Polzin 1980:158-161).

The opportunity presented by the tribute offering (3:15c) is seized in 3:18b-20. Ehud returns alone (3:18a), probably creating the impression of being a collaborator, and cleverly secures privacy with Eglon (3:19) by announcing a “secret message.” Ehud’s secret “divine message” (3:20) turns out to be double-edged, with a fatally secular point. The sword, so carefully described by the narrator (3:16), fulfills its destiny in a single thrust (3:21) clear through the king’s imposing frame (3:21-22), probably causing immediate incapacitation followed by a swift death. The king’s evacuated bowels figure centrally in the next stage of the story.

The narrator often brackets events inside of other events. Verses 23 and 26 bracket the discovery of Eglon’s body (3:24-25) with the escape of Ehud. Scholars almost universally accept the explanation of Halpern (1988:43-60) regarding the palace’s structure, and most accept his reconstruction of Ehud’s escape: After stabbing Eglon, Ehud locked the doors from the inside, passed through the latrine passage from the upper to the lower floors and back into the audience room, and exited the palace normally. The attendants returned and discovered the doors to the upper chamber locked (3:24). They assumed the king was relieving himself, no doubt smelling the matter released from the king’s bowels. They waited, but the king never came out (3:25). Finally, they opened the door, and discovered their assassinated sovereign. Meanwhile, Ehud was long gone.

In 3:27-30 Ehud’s lone achievement adorns the glory of Yahweh and becomes the property of Israel as he proclaims to Israel that (lit.) “Yahweh has given your enemy, Moab, into your hands!” He musters the people, who employ a clever stratagem, capturing the fords of the Jordan against the Moabites, who, like their king, are substantial, well-provisioned men of war. The generalization of Ehud’s victory to all Israel links the true hero to the community. Great and daring deeds alone do not suffice; the hero must also lead his people to great exploits of their own. Ehud, like Othniel, fills the role admirably, and the result is an astounding 80 years of rest for the land.

This story is as double-edged as the sword that lies at its center. This celebrated “judge” is never said to judge Israel and is no Spirit-anointed, miraculous deliverer. His divine enablement resides in his wits, his status, and ability as an elite warrior. The story thus holds before the reader the mystery of God’s ways. He works in the “secular” cleverness of an Ehud even as he does in the Spirit-inflamed charismatic. That which seems “religious” may not be; that which comes with no theological calling card may yet be the ever-hidden, always double-edged, Word of God that still finds its mark and cannot be withdrawn.