TEXT [Commentary]

4.   The Song of Deliverance (5:1-31)

1 On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song:

2 “Israel’s leaders took charge,

and the people gladly followed.

Praise the LORD!

3 “Listen, you kings!

Pay attention, you mighty rulers!

For I will sing to the LORD.

I will make music to the LORD, the God of Israel.

4 “LORD, when you set out from Seir

and marched across the fields of Edom,

the earth trembled,

and the cloudy skies poured down rain.

5 The mountains quaked in the presence of the LORD,

the God of Mount Sinai—

in the presence of the LORD,

the God of Israel.

6 “In the days of Shamgar son of Anath,

and in the days of Jael,

people avoided the main roads,

and travelers stayed on winding pathways.

7 There were few people left in the villages of Israel[*]—

until Deborah arose as a mother for Israel.

8 When Israel chose new gods,

war erupted at the city gates.

Yet not a shield or spear could be seen

among forty thousand warriors in Israel!

9 My heart is with the commanders of Israel,

with those who volunteered for war.

Praise the LORD!

10 “Consider this, you who ride on fine donkeys,

you who sit on fancy saddle blankets,

and you who walk along the road.

11 Listen to the village musicians[*]

gathered at the watering holes.

They recount the righteous victories of the LORD

and the victories of his villagers in Israel.

Then the people of the LORD

marched down to the city gates.

12 “Wake up, Deborah, wake up!

Wake up, wake up, and sing a song!

Arise, Barak!

Lead your captives away, son of Abinoam!

13 “Down from Tabor marched the few against the nobles.

The people of the LORD marched down against mighty warriors.

14 They came down from Ephraim—

a land that once belonged to the Amalekites;

they followed you, Benjamin, with your troops.

From Makir the commanders marched down;

from Zebulun came those who carry a commander’s staff.

15 The princes of Issachar were with Deborah and Barak.

They followed Barak, rushing into the valley.

But in the tribe of Reuben

there was great indecision.[*]

16 Why did you sit at home among the sheepfolds—

to hear the shepherds whistle for their flocks?

Yes, in the tribe of Reuben

there was great indecision.

17 Gilead remained east of the Jordan.

And why did Dan stay home?

Asher sat unmoved at the seashore,

remaining in his harbors.

18 But Zebulun risked his life,

as did Naphtali, on the heights of the battlefield.

19 “The kings of Canaan came and fought,

at Taanach near Megiddo’s springs,

but they carried off no silver treasures.

20 The stars fought from heaven.

The stars in their orbits fought against Sisera.

21 The Kishon River swept them away—

that ancient torrent, the Kishon.

March on with courage, my soul!

22 Then the horses’ hooves hammered the ground,

the galloping, galloping of Sisera’s mighty steeds.

23 ‘Let the people of Meroz be cursed,’ said the angel of the LORD.

‘Let them be utterly cursed,

because they did not come to help the LORD—

to help the LORD against the mighty warriors.’

24 “Most blessed among women is Jael,

the wife of Heber the Kenite.

May she be blessed above all women who live in tents.

25 Sisera asked for water,

and she gave him milk.

In a bowl fit for nobles,

she brought him yogurt.

26 Then with her left hand she reached for a tent peg,

and with her right hand for the workman’s hammer.

She struck Sisera with the hammer, crushing his head.

With a shattering blow, she pierced his temples.

27 He sank, he fell,

he lay still at her feet.

And where he sank,

there he died.

28 “From the window Sisera’s mother looked out.

Through the window she watched for his return, saying,

‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?

Why don’t we hear the sound of chariot wheels?’

29 “Her wise women answer,

and she repeats these words to herself:

30 ‘They must be dividing the captured plunder—

with a woman or two for every man.

There will be colorful robes for Sisera,

and colorful, embroidered robes for me.

Yes, the plunder will include

colorful robes embroidered on both sides.’

31 “LORD, may all your enemies die like Sisera!

But may those who love you rise like the sun in all its power!”

Then there was peace in the land for forty years.

NOTES

5:1 Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song. The text’s inclusion of Barak in the song of victory alongside Deborah reinforces the observation (see note on 4:9a) that neither the author nor Deborah censured Barak. The song begins by praising the kinds of leaders of which Barak was the most conspicuous representative, which also accentuates his heroic place in the narrative, even if he was not ultimately the center of attention.

5:2 Israel’s leaders took charge. “Took charge” (para‘ [TH6544, ZH7276]) can be translated variously (Lindars 1995:225-227). Its usages, such as “release from restraints,” “releasing hair (in a disheveled manner),” or “taking the lead,” likely all participate in a common set of ideas rooted in either charismatic leadership or a battle-worthy “berserker” spirit. Thus, the NLT’s rendering is tame; it misses the sense of something being turned loose, of hair let down, of restraints thrown off as leaders passionately embraced their task.

gladly followed. The verbal root here (nadab [TH5068, ZH5605]) connotes a free choice, whether describing “freewill” offerings or responding to the call to battle. The unleashed passion of the leaders was met by a ready response from the warriors among the people.

5:4 LORD, when you set out from Seir . . . Edom. Several allusions in the OT depict ­Yahweh coming in power from Edom/Seir and the south in general (cf. Exod 15:1-18; Deut 33:1-3; Hab 3:3). This movement of Yahweh from the south, accompanied by torrential rains, forms an important element in the motif of Yahweh as the Divine Warrior (Cross 1971:86, 100-103). These hymns of divine triumph formed a vital part in the earliest Israelite worship in Canaan (Cross 1971:91-111). These motifs indicate that the song is not merely a song of victory, but liturgical poetry by which all Israel celebrated Yahweh’s power.

5:5 mountains quaked in the presence of the LORD, the God of Mount Sinai. The theophanic themes (cf. Ps 68:7-8) of Yahweh marching out to war and the outbreak of a thunderstorm and earthquake resonate both with Canaanite religious imagery—Baal being the god of the thunderstorm—and with the narrative itself in which the storm-swelled Kishon served Yahweh’s purpose in overturning his enemy. The whole cosmos participating in the divine victory also features in the motif of the Divine Warrior (cf. note on 5:4). God’s appearance at Sinai (Exod 19:9-25; 20:18-21) was the theophany par excellence, hence God is identified as zeh sinay [TH2088/5514, ZH2296/6099], meaning “this One of Sinai” (NLT, “God of Mount Sinai”).

5:6 In the days of Shamgar . . . in the days of Jael. The implication that Shamgar (3:31) was a contemporary of Jael suggests the time period of the Deborah story. Regarding this, see the note on 4:2. The logic of the poem does not require that the first named person (Shamgar) be an oppressor; Shamgar might have been a brigand or bandit who did Israel a good turn (see note on 3:31). Mentioning Jael in the context of travelers comports with the note in 4:11 that Heber had moved his household north to the Beth-shan valley area, likely from the area around Arad (cf. 1:16).

people avoided the main roads, and travelers stayed on winding pathways. The economy of Canaan depended on the trade routes. With the coastal routes open, trade flowed easily, but as the urban centers of the eastern Mediterranean began to fall in the decades surrounding 1200 BC to a variety of forces, such as the Sea Peoples, trade was interrupted and forced up to the watershed ridge routes. These were less secure and were exploited by bandits as they wound through the hill country. The confusion intervening between the withdrawal of Egypt from Canaan (c. 1150 BC) and the rise of Philistia (1070 BC) and then Israel (c. 1010 BC) would have made any movement on the ridge road precarious. With traffic shunted off to secondary roads exposed to looting, the aspect of the economy dependent on trade was shut down.

5:7 There were few people left in the villages of Israel. The NLT suggests depopulation of the hill country villages, and commentators since Rashi have suggested the villagers abandoned their homes and fled to cities. Many proposals for perazon [TH6520, ZH7251] (villages) exist in the literature, ranging from “peasantry,” “leaders,” and even “iron” (reading parzon, a dialectal variant on barzel [TH1270, ZH1366], and linking the line to the note that Israel lacked weapons in 5:8). The reference to occupants of unwalled villages seems most likely. Archaeological findings indicate, however, a burgeoning of the village population of the Israelite hill country throughout Iron Age I, so how did the “villager cease?” The key must be the verb, khadelu [TH2308, ZH2532]. Traditionally translated “cease,” the verb embraces a wider range of meanings, including restraint of various kinds. In 5:6, the caravans khadelu—they do not “cease” but are diverted to circuitous paths—i.e., they are restrained. Perhaps here the idea is that the economic crisis cramped the growing population of the Israelite villages that were dotting the hill country with increasing density.

until Deborah arose as a mother for Israel. The NLT follows the LXX and Vulgate in abandoning the first-person reference, lit., “until I, Deborah, arose, I arose, a mother in Israel.” Thinking of Deborah as mother “of/for” Israel might imply more than the text’s “in Israel” (beyisra’el [TH871.2, ZH928]) says. Is Deborah metaphorically the mother of the nation, or was she identifying herself simply as one of the people? Nothing else in the text suggests the former, but the volunteer spirit celebrated throughout this song might favor the latter. Emphasizing Deborah as a mother generates a powerful contrast with Sisera’s mother at the end of the poem (Lindars 1995:238).

5:8 When Israel chose new gods. The NLT makes explicit what is implicit in the Hebrew, which only says “(one/he) chose new gods,” implying “Israel” as the subject. Since Israel had been named immediately prior to this verse, the poet perhaps felt no need to repeat the name. The clause might also be interpreted idiomatically as an impersonal passive “new gods were chosen.” Another suggested translation “God chose new (men)” (Lindars 1995:239-241; followed by Block 1999) fits the text but not the larger context, even granting elements of his construal of the next line.

war erupted at the city gates. The NLT seems more dramatic than the Hebrew, which reads “then war (was in the) gates.” The particle ’az [TH227, ZH255] (then) sometimes introduces the apodosis of a conditional clause. The difficulty of the line has led to suggestions involving different word divisions and vocalizations, the most convincing being Lindars’s re-­reading ’az lakhem she‘arim (then war [was in the] gates) as ’az [’az]elu khamushe ‘arim, “then the armed men of the cities came forth” (Lindars 1995:240), which would follow well on his suggestion for the preceding line. The main problem lies in the use of ’azal [TH235, ZH261] in biblical Hebrew meaning not “come forth” but rather “disappear, pass away” (cf. Deut 32:36; 1 Sam 9:7; Job 14:11). If the sense is “then the armed men of the cities vanished,” we might see a reason why God had to choose “new (men)” (see note on 5:8a), or, declining Lindars’s suggestion for 5:8a, we could see malaise among leaders as part of the larger reality of economic depression and religious defection.

Yet not a shield or spear could be seen among forty thousand warriors in Israel! The lack of arms and armor could point to the lack of metallurgy in twelfth-century BC Israel, noted by the oft-cited (and misunderstood) 1 Sam 13:19-22. Certainly if my suggestion has merit that Heber the Kenite was an itinerant metalworker who put his skills at the disposal of Jabin and Sisera rather than Israel (see note on 4:11), then the claim of unarmed Israelites gains poignancy. Claims of deficient military resources might actually have been a part of ancient Israel’s ideology of self-identification that shifted the emphasis to Yahweh’s power rather than human prowess. Ironically, archaeological evidence currently does not suggest Israel was less well-armed than its nearest neighbors, though obviously the evidence is incomplete (Bloch-Smith 2003:416-420). The “forty thousand” likely refers to “40 militia companies” and not a literal 40,000. Before we feel too bad for the underarmed Israelites, we do well to remember that an earlier pharaoh, Merneptah, even in claiming to have defeated “Israel,” still named Israel in company with Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam—no mean ranking (Stager 1988:223).

5:9 commanders. The NLT’s “commanders,” though accurate and in accord with most translations, might miss an important nuance of the term khoqeqe [TH2710A, ZH2980], a participle based on a verb meaning to hollow out, inscribe, or engrave. The Qal participle in Isa 22:16 referring to one hewing out a tomb testifies to the active persistence of this nuance. The derived noun is traditionally translated “statutes” in reference to specific prescribed obligations. Influenced by the Polel participle appearing in 5:14 (“commanders”), some would emend this reference, but it is not necessary. While it is not fashionable to claim literacy for premonarchic Israel, the term khoqeq could imply an official whose duties involved the writing of specific orders or instructions, or even one who records the name of those who report for battle (Block 1999:228). Certainly the author speaks of writing elsewhere in the book (cf. 8:14). The Targum follows this lead and develops a whole interpretation of this phrase based on Israel’s adherence to the written Torah.

those who volunteered for war. The NLT here expands slightly on the Hebrew text, which reads “those volunteering among the people.” While war is clearly in the context, it is not in this clause, which instead repeats the complementary mention of both leaders and volunteers found in 5:2.

5:10 ride on fine donkeys, you who sit on fancy saddle blankets. The term “fine” actually denotes a preferred color of donkey, but the suggestion that these are rich merchants showing off their finery (Block 1999:228) conflicts with empirical evidence. Israelite material culture in Iron I is conspicuous for its lack of luxury items such as imported or painted pottery and the broad repertoire of pottery forms found in Canaanite and Philistine sites. This seems to have been a choice based on a commitment to simplicity (Faust 2009). Traders, they likely were, but mainly in necessary goods the Israelites could not make themselves. Likewise, the translation of middin [TH4055, ZH4496] as “fancy saddle blankets,” though traditional, imports the term “saddle” to a term that actually only refers to garments in general, following the tradition of LXX Alexandrinus, which translates with lampēnē (covered chariot or wagon). Less likely, some suggest “sit in judgment” by deriving middin from the root d-y-n [TH1777, ZH1906], a tradition reflected by LXX Vaticanus, the Vulgate, and Targums. As a point of cultural and historical authenticity, the text notes donkeys in caravan, not camels (see note on 6:5). The reference to caravans and traders fits well with the fact that while early Israel was largely a subsistence economy, exchange and contact among the tribes and even peoples outside of Israel remained a necessity. Indeed, in a complex chiefdom (likely early Israel’s social structure), the elite families maintained their influence largely by facilitating the exchange of selected prestige goods among the various satellite villages in their domains (R. Miller 2005:6-14). If the donkeys and blankets mentioned are in fact signs of wealth, such as that might have been in Iron I agrarian villages, the reference could be to the relatively more affluent members of the community. A breakdown in exchange among the regions of Canaan directly threatened Israel’s unity and coherence. Some find in the three clauses of this verse three different social classes, but this is unlikely.

5:11 Listen to the village musicians gathered at the watering holes. This line in the Hebrew compounds obscurities: “from the sound of the ones dividing between the drinking troughs.” Numerous alternatives exist (Lindars 1995:245-247); the NLT captures the most likely understanding.

righteous victories of the LORD and . . . of his villagers. The word tsidqoth [TH6666, ZH7407] expresses the concept of vindication, thus “Yahweh’s acts of vindication.” This line articulates the essential theme of the song: Yahweh acts mightily to demonstrate his supremacy simultaneously with his people stepping forward to venture mighty acts in his name. He vindicates both his own character and their trust in him.

the people of the LORD marched down to the city gates. Here the song turns definitively to the responses of the people to the challenge as they gather at the gates, where they seek a word from Deborah and urge Barak to battle. Here the roles are (at last) reversed. Instead of a demoralized and suppressed populace that needs urging from its leaders, now the people come down and ask the leaders to take action. Again, we hear no hint of shame associated with Barak, nor any hint of tension between Deborah and Barak.

5:13 Down from Tabor marched the few against the nobles. Lit., “then a survivor went down to/ruled the nobles.” The NLT makes a bold stab at this difficult line, construing the word sarid [TH8300, ZH8586] (survivor) as “few,” and adding a reference to Mount Tabor. A much simpler proposal comes from Na’aman (2005:303-305), who points out the village of Sarid (Tell Shadud) located on the southernmost spur of the Nazareth ridge, at the southern border of Naphtali, and just north of the main path of the Canaanite retreat. Israelites from the tribe of Naphtali, sweeping over from Sarid against the retreating Canaanites would constitute a flanking movement to push the Canaanites off the higher ground into the slush and mud created by sudden storm. The translation, “Then Sarid came down to/against the mighty ones” easily fits the text, illuminates the narrative, and requires no emendation.

The people of the LORD marched down against mighty warriors. Lit., “Yahweh’s people came down to me against the mighty ones.” The NLT omits “to me” but if we retain the first-person character of the poem in which Deborah is both poet and participant in the action, the line can be rendered more literally with the MT.

5:14 They came down from Ephraim—a land that once belonged to the Amalekites. A notoriously vexing line, only four words in Hebrew! Minni ’eprayim shorsham ba‘amaleq: “From Ephraim, their root (is) in Amalek.” The NLT takes “root” (shoresh [TH8328, ZH9247]) to refer to previous occupancy, but Amalek is characteristically associated with the southern desert and is not noted as originating in the hill country of Ephraim. Judges 12:15 does refer to Ephraim as “the hill country of the Amalekites,” while 7:12 links the Amalekites to the Midianites who ravaged the lower Jezreel valley in the Gideon story. These links, however, do not allow for Amalek as the erstwhile claimants of Mount Ephraim, as “their root” would require. Most scholars think the text has suffered in the copying process, with two changes suggested (Lindars 1995:252-253): First, ba‘amaleq [TH6002, ZH6667] (in Amalek) is a scribal error for be‘emeq [TH6010, ZH6677] (“in the valley”—the Jezreel valley). This reading is reflected in LXX Alexandrinus and Theodotian, and is followed by many contemporary translations. Second, “their root” is taken as a loan word from Egyptian denoting a high officer (cf. Gen 37:36). These two suggestions yield this sense: “from Ephraim, officers [went down] to the valley.”

they followed you, Benjamin, with your troops. The NLT paraphrases what seems to be a battle cry: “After you, O Benjamin, with your peoples!” The plural of “people” often denotes fellow kinsmen of tribe or clan (Lindars 1995:253-254; Burney 1920:134).

Makir. Makir (e.g., Gen 50:23; Num 26:29; 27:1), along with Ephraim and Benjamin, constitute the inhabitants of the central hill country north of Jerusalem and south of the Jezreel valley.

those who carry a commander’s staff. The stress on the leaders of the tribes, as well as on the warriors themselves, drives the poet to employ a wide range of terms. The NLT follows most modern translations, but beshebet soper [TH5608A, ZH6221] is literally “a scribe’s staff.” Most commentators and translators presuppose that pre-monarchial Israel had little or no writing, certainly no scribes. Recent discoveries, such as the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon (Garfinkel and Ganor 2009:243-272) possibly allow us to move writing in Israel back at least to c. 1000 BC. The biblical author was thinking of scribes, contra modern versions. The reference might well be to leaders capable of writing.

5:15 The princes of Issachar were with Deborah and Barak. They followed Barak. To the extent that “prince” implies a royal culture, it misses the sense of sar [TH8269, ZH8569]. In a tribal culture, “sheikh” or “chief” better expresses the social reality. The Hebrew for this line is awkward, reading “Issachar’s chiefs (were) with Deborah, and Issachar likewise (was with) Barak.” “Likewise” (ken [TH3651A, ZH4027]) might also be translated “was true.” The sense of the verse, though, seems to be that Issachar followed Barak and Deborah with equal alacrity.

in the tribe of Reuben there was great indecision. “Tribe” here is better rendered “­divisions,” referring to the clans and families of Reuben. Tribal cultures at times cannot respond decisively to a crisis, but bog down in debates and discussions among elders as competing interests of different branches of the community come to the fore. This inability contributed to Israel morphing into a dynastic, monarchic state. Since Reuben deliberated to the point of paralysis, even dereliction, perhaps “factions” best renders the term: “in the factions of Reuben, there was great indecision.” The use of the root kh-q-q [TH2710, ZH2980] to denote indecision puns wickedly on the occurrence of this root elsewhere in the song to denote the courageous initiative of Israel’s leaders (cf. 5:9, 14). The Reubenites might be castigated as “armchair warriors” (Lindars 1995:260).

5:16 Why did you sit at home among the sheepfolds? “At home” is not literally in the Hebrew text, but since the same image appears in Gen 49:14 (cf. NLT mg), where it is applied to Issachar, Lindars suggests this is an idiom for “stay at home.” Stager (1989) notes that Reuben and Gilead/Gad were principally pastoralist tribes, and points out the deep enmeshment between pastoralist groups and fixed settlements. Had these tribes struck out against the Canaanites, they would have jeopardized their own way of life. By contrast, the tribes who came to the battle all lived in areas characterized by self-sufficient farming villages; they had nothing to lose and much to gain from the destruction of Canaanite urban centers.

5:17 And why did Dan stay home? The traditional translation “why did he abide with the ships?” encounters problems. Dan originally settled in the Shephelah region near Zorah and Eshtaol, and later migrated to the far north (cf. ch 18). Craigie (1983:84-86), based on a Ugaritic parallel, renders ’oniyyoth [TH591, ZH641] (ships) as “at ease,” making the reference one of complacency. The idea is similar to the NLT’s “stay home.” Stager (1988, 1989) revived the proposal of Moore (1895:155-156) that the verse asserts Dan’s status as a dependent or client of the seafaring coastal communities, implying Dan had reached an economic impasse. Being economically entangled with non-Israelites, the Danites could not bite the hand that fed them. Interestingly, in 18:7, 28 the town Laish/Dan is compared to Sidon, a coastal shipping center.

Asher sat unmoved at the seashore. Asher settled in the coastal plain of Acco but lived “among the Canaanites,” implying subjection to them (1:31-32). Since the coastal Levantine economy benefited from a revived Egyptian-Canaanite imperial cooperation, it is likely the Asherites saw that military action against them would risk their own meal ticket.

5:18 Zebulun risked his life. Lit., “Zebulun was a people [who] scorned their [own] lives to the point of death!” The very strong wording is reminiscent of the commendation of the holy martyrs in Rev 12:11.

as did Naphtali. Here finally the tribe of Barak finds mention.

on the heights of the battlefield. For infantry to present themselves to chariot forces in the open field constituted an extreme military risk. Such unconventional tactics account for Barak’s caution when first urged by Deborah to lead the battle. Once the Israelite foot soldiers took the open field before the chariotry of Sisera, something extraordinary needed to happen or the Israelites would be butchered. Such is the boldness celebrated in this song.

5:19 at Taanach near Megiddo’s springs. This location fits the suggestion that Harosheth-haggoyim was the southern end of the valley of Jezreel. Both of these cities saw destruction in the late 1100s BC, though the text does not claim that Israel destroyed them. Whether they were standing at the time of the battle, or fell later with the collapse of Egyptian imperial aspirations, is not clear. These conspicuous sites, however, would have been well known.

no silver treasures. “Treasures” translates betsa‘ [TH1215, ZH1299], derived from a word meaning “cut,” which denotes a range of gain from interest on a loan to any kind of advantage or profit. Sisera got no “cut” from this battle. This note of his failure foreshadows the poem’s final section in which Sisera’s mother harbors vain fantasies of material gain from the battle.

5:20 The stars fought from heaven . . . against Sisera. The name “Sisera” was delayed for the entire poem until this moment, where its entry has dramatic impact. The reference to stars is typically taken to suggest a divine cause for the thunderstorm and swollen waters of the Kishon. But the appearance of a star or other heavenly body as a sign of divine power for Israel may also be in view (cf. e.g., Num 24:17). In the first Asiatic campaign of Thutmose III (1479 BC), in which his victory against Megiddo figures conspicuously, a shooting star apparently convinced both Thutmose and his enemies that divine power was on the pharaoh’s side (COS 2:17). More importantly, a common element in the OT Divine Warrior motif is the involvement of the cosmos in the victory of Yahweh (Cross 1971).

5:21 The Kishon River swept them away. The Kishon, normally a modest stream, becomes treacherous when flooded, as the waters drench the red soil of the valley, turning it into mire. Ironically, in dry weather, the same soil is ideal ground for chariot maneuver, as Thutmose III found in 1479 BC when he surprised the Canaanites on this battleground near Megiddo.

5:22 horses’ hooves hammered . . . galloping, galloping. The introduction of the verb “hammer” (halam [TH1986, ZH2150]) prepares for the striking irony of Jael “hammering” Sisera’s head (5:26). The NLT’s alliteration, along with “galloping, galloping” captures exactly the sonic impact of the Hebrew verbs: halemu . . . middaharoth dahroth.

5:23 Let the people of Meroz be cursed. The identity of Meroz remains contested. That it is a place name is implied by the following line in Hebrew: “cursed . . . be its inhabitants.” Conjectures abound, but since this is the only reference to Meroz in the OT, they remain guesswork. More interesting is the fact that aside from shaming and cursing, Deborah had no other means of securing the cooperation of the reluctant tribes. Shaming and cursing had sociological consequences, and in all probability, the shamed and cursed non­combatants later found themselves isolated from the assistance offered by their highland brothers.

said the angel of the LORD. Already in 2:15, the angel or messenger of Yahweh (mal’ak yhwh [TH4397/3068, ZH4855/3378]) had delivered a stinging rebuke, near Bethel, on the ­derelict northern tribes, who failed to remove Canaanite religion and culture completely from Israel’s territory.

because they did not come to help the LORD. The term translated “help” (‘ezrah [TH5833, ZH6476]) denotes not mere assistance, but a vital support and cooperation. The Hebrew reads “the help of Yahweh”; while “to help the LORD” is correct, interpreters should take care not to conclude from the text that Yahweh needs assistance! The line might have the sense, “they did not enter into the help [provided by] Yahweh.” The text has emphasized Yahweh’s power in the battle, but also celebrates the willing and valiant response of the people. Though Yahweh is the supreme God, needing no assistance, he does call his people to participate in his work.

5:24 Most blessed among women is Jael. The blessing pronounced here reminds the Christian reader of the cry of Elizabeth upon seeing the pregnant Mary (Luke 1:42).

5:25 yogurt. Pastoralist cultures develop forms of milk beverages based on the controlled curdling and, often, fermentation of milk to prevent spoiling, such as Indian ghee or Kenyan mursik. To serve a fermented beverage to one who has only asked for water suggests that Jael intended to dull the awareness of the already-exhausted Sisera (cf. note on 4:21). Maybe Sisera was hammered before he got hammered!

5:26 She struck Sisera with the hammer. The NLT’s “struck . . . with the hammer” translates the verb halam [TH1986, ZH2150], used in 5:22 to convey the hammering of the hooves of Sisera’s steeds. The derivative noun (halmuth [TH1989, ZH2153], “hammer”) appears in the previous line, producing alliteration. “Struck . . . with the hammer” could well be rendered “hammered” here, yielding a line reproducing the abruptness of the original (cf. NET).

crushing. The verb makhaq [TH4277, ZH4735] appears only here in the OT. Cognates in other Semitic languages suggest “exterminate, obliterate,” underscoring along with the next verb the terrific destructive force of the blow.

With a shattering blow, she pierced. This represents two verbs, “and she smashed and she pierced,” which underline the brutality of the attack, especially if “his temples” (raqqatho [TH7541, ZH8377]) refers to Sisera’s “(open) mouth” (see note on 4:21).

5:27 He sank, he fell, he lay still. These three staccato verbs provide a stop-action, almost cinematic image of Sisera’s collapse. The first verb, kara‘ [TH3766, ZH4156], resonates somewhat with the root kana‘ [TH3665, ZH4044], “to be low,” that occurs four times in 4:23-24.

at her feet. The description in 5:26 poses a few issues, but is notable for its devastating dramatic force. The differences between poetry and prose readily account for the differences in detail between the poem and the prose of ch 4. “At her feet” carries a satiric sexual connotation, being more directly translated as “between her feet,” a rare combination of “between” with “feet” (cf. Deut 28:57, KJV). Rather than sexually exploiting a woman after a victorious battle, Sisera had been dominated by a woman. Assertions of any actual sexual event in the story, however, miss the thrust of the imagery.

there he died. See the note on 4:22. The Heb., sham napal shadud [TH7703, ZH8720] (there he fell, devastated), resonates with the prose account’s conclusion in 4:22, (lit.) “and there was Sisera, fallen down dead,” and with the discovery of Eglon’s death (3:25). This record of the sight of each great enemy destroyed seems a literary way of celebrating the enemy’s demise.

5:28 Sisera’s mother looked out. We now encounter the third woman of the story. First, Deborah arose as a “mother in Israel.” Then the scene shifts to Jael, “most blessed among women.” Now Sisera’s mother provides the foil against which the victory of Israel is seen. If her residence was in Harosheth-haggoyim, in the vicinity of Megiddo or Taanach, she might well have been able to hear the sounds of battle. The complete ruination of Jabin and Sisera (see note on 4:23-24) could imply the destruction of Canaanite residences in the Jezreel valley, including the capture and death of Sisera’s mother, throwing this scene into grim relief.

5:30 with a woman or two for every man. The crass brutality of the language does not immediately appear in English. Rape and pillage are in view. For “woman” the text uses a word coined from “womb,” naming captive females by reference to their sexual organs. HALOT (2.1218; s.v. rakhamah [TH7361, ZH8169]) grimly identifies this as “a euphemism for vaginas, meaning one or two women as spoils of war, bed-mates, in vulgar conversation of soldiers.” Thus, Lindars (1995:285) suggests “wenches.” That such vulgarity toward captive girls finds expression on the lips not of a rough soldier, but of high-born women at court, reveals the callous heart of an oppressor.

5:31 LORD, may all your enemies die like Sisera! Lit., “thus will all your enemies perish, O Yahweh.” Limiting the analogy to Sisera blunts the edge of this verse. Coming on the heels of the portrait of Sisera’s mother, who possibly faced her own demise that day, this declaration by a woman lends poignancy to the poem’s climactic ultimatum. On the other hand, the killing of women does not feature prominently in Israelite heroism, so it is possible the poet leaves her fate unresolved. As the poem “fades to black,” it leaves the reader imagining her awestruck grief when she learns the truth.

may those who love you rise like the sun. “Love” is known to be a covenant term, denoting the full loyalty and devotion of the vassal to the king (Moran 1963:77-85). The rising sun figures in ancient Near Eastern lore as a hero going forth in triumph (cf. Ps 19:5). This line could therefore portray the lovers of Yahweh as the genuinely valiant heroes. The kinglets of Canaan in their correspondence regularly address the pharaoh of Egypt as “my sun god.” How right that those who have defeated the petty potentates of Canaan, Yahweh’s own loyal covenant vassals, are now compared to the morning sun, while for Canaan, pharaoh’s sun has set.

Then there was peace in the land for forty years. The standard framework formula concludes the story and brings the reader back to the linear historical pattern shaping 3:7–16:31.

COMMENTARY [Text]

The Song of Deborah (5:1-31a) intervenes between the prose conclusion (4:23-24) and the final author’s epilogue (5:31b). This song originated in the twelfth century BC and often manifests archaic vocabulary, grammar, and stylistic features. It likely began as an oral song and found constant reuse in Israel’s celebrations and remembrance. Oral material adapts over time; thus, the song does not appear in Judges in its original form. The language was updated periodically to reflect the usage of subsequent generations much as we today freshen up the English style and diction of texts written in earlier centuries, such as is done in modern renderings of Beowulf or Chaucer. Thus, the responsive echo of later generations who affirmed their own faith through this song finds a voice in the text. Attempts to reconstruct the original twelfth-century poem, though insightful, can obscure the integrated historical and spiritual dynamics of the canonical text.

The song’s archaic language and poetic style confused ancient scribes and translators, and continues to challenge modern scholars. Lindars (1995:212-222) provides an assessment of scholarly approaches to the song’s interpretive issues. Rather than attempt a reconstruction of the original poem, the NLT and this commentary generally follow the canonical text (MT), though some emendation remains necessary to allow the poem’s voice to emerge clearly.

Issues of genre, date, and purpose engage much scholarly attention (Block 1999:211-219; Butler 2009:110-135). Most refer to the song as a “hymn,” reflecting the consensus that it is very likely liturgical poetry, seen in its communal, public performance, its celebration and bold proclamation of the mighty acts of Yahweh, its use of the Divine Warrior motif, its appeal to the hearer to join in the spirit of the song, and in its pronouncement of blessings and curses on tribes who fought and those who did not. The singer praises Yahweh and urges the hearer to join in the praises of Yahweh for a mighty victory against the foe. More importantly, in the Old Testament, liturgical song preserves and proclaims the historical memory of Yahweh’s mighty acts in a manner that makes that same power available to the contemporary worshipers. Von Rad (1966:166-204) aptly terms this Vergegenwärtigung, meaning “actualization.” The song re-presents the historical acts of Yahweh to enable the later hearer to appropriate Yahweh’s promise for the present. The very real past meets the very needy present in the worshiping congregation. When this oral poetry is committed to writing, its content is enabled to transcend its “live” social-liturgical function as an object of reflection beyond the ethnic boundaries of the communal worship experience. By embedding the song in the total literary context of the book, the author allowed the process of re-actualization to occur as the poem interacts thematically and theologically with its surrounding literary context. Thus, the text is neither exclusively antiquarian nor entirely abstract; it is not “timeless” but ever-timely.

The song evinces a clear structure. It proclaims its thesis in 5:2, then moves to an epiphany of Yahweh (5:3-5). The description of the crisis in 5:6-8 slips over into the defining moment presented by the call to arms (5:9-11a), followed by the praise of those who dared to join the battle (5:11b-15, 18), and enclosing a bitter shaming of those who chose not to heed the call (5:16-17). The battle description proper moves in a series of images, but does not necessarily offer a rigidly consecutive narrative (5:19-23). The closing scenes dramatically portray Jael’s murder of Sisera (5:24-27) and the repulsive picture of Sisera’s mother awaiting his arrival with captives and spoil (5:28-30). The song’s ending (5:31) confronts the reader with the defining significance of one’s relationship with Yahweh as either a foe or a friend.

Judges 5 is distinctive in that alongside its praise of the Divine Warrior, it ascribes mighty deeds also to the people of Israel, who do not simply stand silent and behold the victory won by Yahweh. Yahweh fights, but Israel must “come to help the LORD” (5:23). Just as Deborah had challenged Barak to lead the army, now she celebrates the volunteers and chides those who sat the battle out. The tribal militia of Israel fighting for their lives against the Egyptian-Canaanite allied forces is reminiscent of William Wallace and his fellow kinsmen as portrayed in Braveheart. Far from merely informing the people, the prophet stirred the people with Yahweh’s word to rise to the challenge of battle. Deborah is both catalyst in her word of commission to Barak, and celebrant of the victory in the song (5:1).

Deborah’s praise of Israel’s leaders and the volunteers (5:2) lauds their unbridled battle-passion and willing embrace of the call to arms as human instruments for Yahweh’s power. Turning to address pagan rulers, the song emphasizes that the coming of Yahweh, not military might, procures Israel’s victory (5:3-5), just as the prose battle narrative (4:11-16) emphasized the primacy of divine intervention. Judges 5:6-9 then turns back to the human dimension and accentuates the resurgence of the volunteer spirit by stressing the paralysis and powerlessness brought on by oppression and, possibly, apostasy. As in 4:6-10, Deborah shook her people out of their lethargy (5:7); the princes and volunteers are praised again (5:9). Judges 5:10-12 emphasizes the power of reciting Yahweh’s righteous acts in provoking the Hebrews to mobilize, concurring with the stress of chapter 4 on the prophetic word as the key to victory. The roll call of the tribes (5:13-18) praises initiative and daring (5:13-15a), including the action of a single village, Sarid, in attacking the flank of the Canaanites (see note on 5:13). The song then castigates Reuben’s indecisiveness (15b-16), Gilead’s isolation, Dan’s cooptation, and Asher’s unwillingness to risk its security (5:17). Praise for Zebulun and Naphtali’s bold embrace of mortal risk climaxes the list (cf. 4:6, 10). The saving action of Yahweh is celebrated in 5:19-23, but the primary vehicles of his power are not the judges, as one might expect, but the forces of nature: the stars and the torrents of the river Kishon. That Yahweh alone is the main protagonist in the battle throws the decision to join or avoid battle into a new light. Those who stayed away did not betray humans, but Yahweh himself. Thus Meroz is cursed emphatically (5:23), while the wife of a Kenite traitor, by throwing in her lot with Israel, becomes “most blessed among women” and the real hero of the story. Her actions are immortalized in 5:24-27. In contrast to the gutsy faith of Jael stands the mother of Sisera and her attendants, who callously fantasize that Sisera is slow to return because he’s busy despoiling the Hebrews and molesting their maidens; they thought he would soon be back—with presents! The brutal irony is that Israel’s women would stand over the bodies of slain Canaanites while she and her wealthy attendants would likely face imminent capture or death as the victorious Israelites completed the task of humbling Canaan and completely cutting off Jabin and his lackeys like Sisera.

Judges 5:31a declares the point of the entire story and song: To oppose Yahweh is to perish; to love him is to know ever-growing strength. The sun metaphor and reference to loving Yahweh employs the same rhetoric that Canaan’s kinglets used in addressing pharaoh (see note on 5:31). One can, in love and loyalty to Yahweh, face the sunrise, or one can defy Yahweh and walk into the darkness of death with Jabin, Sisera, and all their camp (4:16). The love of Yahweh is embodied in the faithful and risky choices made by Barak, the volunteers of Israel, and Jael. Most of all, the stimulus, sustenance, and celebration of that love is embodied by Deborah, mother in Israel (5:7), the bearer of the divine word. She and the word she represents are the true heroes of the story. Naturally, no death notice appears at the story’s end. The deeds of charismatic individuals fade with their death, flashes in the pan. But the action of God, the passionate commitment of his people, and the all-embracing and empowering word are not confined by a single human lifetime.