TEXT [Commentary]

2.   Abimelech: Authority usurped (8:33–9:57)

33 As soon as Gideon died, the Israelites prostituted themselves by worshiping the images of Baal, making Baal-berith their god. 34 They forgot the LORD their God, who had rescued them from all their enemies surrounding them. 35 Nor did they show any loyalty to the family of Jerub-baal (that is, Gideon), despite all the good he had done for Israel.

CHAPTER 9

1 One day Gideon’s[*] son Abimelech went to Shechem to visit his uncles—his mother’s brothers. He said to them and to the rest of his mother’s family, 2 “Ask the leading citizens of Shechem whether they want to be ruled by all seventy of Gideon’s sons or by one man. And remember that I am your own flesh and blood!”

3 So Abimelech’s uncles gave his message to all the citizens of Shechem on his behalf. And after listening to this proposal, the people of Shechem decided in favor of Abimelech because he was their relative. 4 They gave him seventy silver coins from the temple of Baal-berith, which he used to hire some reckless troublemakers who agreed to follow him. 5 He went to his father’s home at Ophrah, and there, on one stone, they killed all seventy of his half brothers, the sons of Gideon.[*] But the youngest brother, Jotham, escaped and hid.

6 Then all the leading citizens of Shechem and Beth-millo called a meeting under the oak beside the pillar[*] at Shechem and made Abimelech their king.

7 When Jotham heard about this, he climbed to the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted,

“Listen to me, citizens of Shechem!

Listen to me if you want God to listen to you!

8 Once upon a time the trees decided to choose a king.

First they said to the olive tree,

‘Be our king!’

9 But the olive tree refused, saying,

‘Should I quit producing the olive oil

that blesses both God and people,

just to wave back and forth over the trees?’

10 “Then they said to the fig tree,

‘You be our king!’

11 But the fig tree also refused, saying,

‘Should I quit producing my sweet fruit

just to wave back and forth over the trees?’

12 “Then they said to the grapevine,

‘You be our king!’

13 But the grapevine also refused, saying,

‘Should I quit producing the wine

that cheers both God and people,

just to wave back and forth over the trees?’

14 “Then all the trees finally turned to the thornbush and said,

‘Come, you be our king!’

15 And the thornbush replied to the trees,

‘If you truly want to make me your king,

come and take shelter in my shade.

If not, let fire come out from me

and devour the cedars of Lebanon.’”

16 Jotham continued, “Now make sure you have acted honorably and in good faith by making Abimelech your king, and that you have done right by Gideon and all of his descendants. Have you treated him with the honor he deserves for all he accomplished? 17 For he fought for you and risked his life when he rescued you from the Midianites. 18 But today you have revolted against my father and his descendants, killing his seventy sons on one stone. And you have chosen his slave woman’s son, Abimelech, to be your king just because he is your relative.

19 “If you have acted honorably and in good faith toward Gideon and his descendants today, then may you find joy in Abimelech, and may he find joy in you. 20 But if you have not acted in good faith, then may fire come out from Abimelech and devour the leading citizens of Shechem and Beth-millo; and may fire come out from the citizens of Shechem and Beth-millo and devour Abimelech!”

21 Then Jotham escaped and lived in Beer because he was afraid of his brother Abimelech.

22 After Abimelech had ruled over Israel for three years, 23 God sent a spirit that stirred up trouble between Abimelech and the leading citizens of Shechem, and they revolted. 24 God was punishing Abimelech for murdering Gideon’s seventy sons, and the citizens of Shechem for supporting him in this treachery of murdering his brothers. 25 The citizens of Shechem set an ambush for Abimelech on the hilltops and robbed everyone who passed that way. But someone warned Abimelech about their plot.

26 One day Gaal son of Ebed moved to Shechem with his brothers and gained the confidence of the leading citizens of Shechem. 27 During the annual harvest festival at Shechem, held in the temple of the local god, the wine flowed freely, and everyone began cursing Abimelech. 28 “Who is Abimelech?” Gaal shouted. “He’s not a true son of Shechem,[*] so why should we be his servants? He’s merely the son of Gideon, and this Zebul is merely his deputy. Serve the true sons of Hamor, the founder of Shechem. Why should we serve Abimelech? 29 If I were in charge here, I would get rid of Abimelech. I would say[*] to him, ‘Get some soldiers, and come out and fight!’”

30 But when Zebul, the leader of the city, heard what Gaal was saying, he was furious. 31 He sent messengers to Abimelech in Arumah,[*] telling him, “Gaal son of Ebed and his brothers have come to live in Shechem, and now they are inciting the city to rebel against you. 32 Come by night with an army and hide out in the fields. 33 In the morning, as soon as it is daylight, attack the city. When Gaal and those who are with him come out against you, you can do with them as you wish.”

34 So Abimelech and all his men went by night and split into four groups, stationing themselves around Shechem. 35 Gaal was standing at the city gates when Abimelech and his army came out of hiding. 36 When Gaal saw them, he said to Zebul, “Look, there are people coming down from the hilltops!”

Zebul replied, “It’s just the shadows on the hills that look like men.”

37 But again Gaal said, “No, people are coming down from the hills.[*] And another group is coming down the road past the Diviners’ Oak.[*]”

38 Then Zebul turned on him and asked, “Now where is that big mouth of yours? Wasn’t it you that said, ‘Who is Abimelech, and why should we be his servants?’ The men you mocked are right outside the city! Go out and fight them!”

39 So Gaal led the leading citizens of Shechem into battle against Abimelech. 40 But Abimelech chased him, and many of Shechem’s men were wounded and fell along the road as they retreated to the city gate. 41 Abimelech returned to Arumah, and Zebul drove Gaal and his brothers out of Shechem.

42 The next day the people of Shechem went out into the fields to battle. When Abimelech heard about it, 43 he divided his men into three groups and set an ambush in the fields. When Abimelech saw the people coming out of the city, he and his men jumped up from their hiding places and attacked them. 44 Abimelech and his group stormed the city gate to keep the men of Shechem from getting back in, while Abimelech’s other two groups cut them down in the fields. 45 The battle went on all day before Abimelech finally captured the city. He killed the people, leveled the city, and scattered salt all over the ground.

46 When the leading citizens who lived in the tower of Shechem heard what had happened, they ran and hid in the temple of Baal-berith.[*] 47 Someone reported to Abimelech that the citizens had gathered in the temple, 48 so he led his forces to Mount Zalmon. He took an ax and chopped some branches from a tree, then put them on his shoulder. “Quick, do as I have done!” he told his men. 49 So each of them cut down some branches, following Abimelech’s example. They piled the branches against the walls of the temple and set them on fire. So all the people who had lived in the tower of Shechem died—about 1,000 men and women.

50 Then Abimelech attacked the town of Thebez and captured it. 51 But there was a strong tower inside the town, and all the men and women—the entire population—fled to it. They barricaded themselves in and climbed up to the roof of the tower. 52 Abimelech followed them to attack the tower. But as he prepared to set fire to the entrance, 53 a woman on the roof dropped a millstone that landed on Abimelech’s head and crushed his skull.

54 He quickly said to his young armor bearer, “Draw your sword and kill me! Don’t let it be said that a woman killed Abimelech!” So the young man ran him through with his sword, and he died. 55 When Abimelech’s men saw that he was dead, they disbanded and returned to their homes.

56 In this way, God punished Abimelech for the evil he had done against his father by murdering his seventy brothers. 57 God also punished the men of Shechem for all their evil. So the curse of Jotham son of Gideon was fulfilled.

NOTES

8:33 As soon as Gideon died. The Hebrew implies an immediate, even concurrent, event. The death of a judge is stated in 2:16-19 to signal a new plunge into apostasy. Othniel’s (3:11-12) and Gideon’s (8:33-35) deaths follow this pattern. There is no such pattern for the intervening judges.

prostituted themselves by worshiping. “By worshiping” is an accurate expansion on the Hebrew. This is the third and final use of the verb zanah [TH2181, ZH2388] (meaning “play the harlot, prostitute oneself”), which refers to apostasy in Judges (see note on 19:2). In the prologue (2:17), the verb marks the fact that Israel did not listen to their judges and fell into worse depravity than their forefathers—it is an explicit statement of downward decline. Then in 8:27 the author uses the term to describe Israel’s idolatrous veneration of Gideon’s ephod, again uniting the idea of apostasy to disobedience to a judge. The final use (8:33), in which Israel worships the Baals, also explicitly includes a betrayal of the judge (cf. 8:35; 9:16).

the images of Baal. Lit., “the Baals,” but the author means multiple images, not various kinds of Baals, though that is not impossible. The plural of Baal in reference to deities appears only four times in Judges, and each time it appears in the author’s commentary on events, rather than in the events themselves. It figures prominently in the preface to the book (2:11), reappearing in the Othniel account (3:7), which serves as the scorecard for the whole series of judges. It then appears here, where the prologue’s claim of an incremental decline into idolatry is explicitly fulfilled. Lastly in 10:6, 10 the “Baals” find mention in the Jephthah account, where Yahweh finally seems to run out of patience with his people.

making Baal-berith their god. “Baal-berith” means “Baal of the Treaty/Covenant.” Israel’s harlotry with Baal reverses the first act Gideon performed: the destruction of the Baal altar and renewal of offerings to Yahweh at Ophrah. Shechem seems to have been a diplomatic and political center for the region, thus worship of a “Treaty God” seems fitting. Later in the story, though, Shechem’s deity is named “El Berith.” The language here is quite strong. Israel did not simply worship Baal, but actually made Baal-berith their national god, in essence abrogating the covenant (berith [TH1285, ZH1382]) made with Yahweh in Josh 24, a covenant that actually constituted them as Yahweh’s people in the land. Ironically, that very covenant likely incorporated Shechem into the Israelite community of Yahweh. Israel “converted” in the other direction, adopting Shechem’s old Canaanite god. In the story to follow, Shechem will abrogate its covenant, as well. The seriousness of this apostasy cannot be overstated: It is a blade to the heart of Israel’s identity.

8:34 They forgot the LORD their God. Lit., “the children of Israel did not remember (welo’ zakeru [TH2142, ZH2349]) Yahweh . . . .” Remembrance in the OT goes far beyond the mere retention of facts or persons in one’s mind (NIDOTTE s.v. zakar). The activities described by the word in OT usage include the active maintenance of the ongoing effects of an event or relationship, typically by public, communal commemoration such as we see in ch 5. Failing to remember Yahweh goes together with not “knowing” Yahweh (see note on 2:10). To forget Yahweh is to live so that Yahweh’s deeds, and Israel’s relationship with him, have no effect, no visible sign or trace. Yahweh and his actions have become a dead past.

who had rescued them from all their enemies surrounding them. Typically, Israel is said to have forgotten, or is commanded to remember, Yahweh’s deliverance of his people from Egypt (Exod 13:3; Deut 5:15; 6:12; 7:18; 15:15; 16:12; 24:22). Here, however, Israel’s amnesia was concerning the acts of deliverance performed since entering the land. Victory over the remaining nations in the land constituted Yahweh’s education plan for Israel (cf. 3:1-4) as well as his means of demonstrating openly, via testing, the faithfulness of Israel. Israel flunked.

8:35 Nor did they show any loyalty. “Loyalty” translates the term khesed [TH2617, ZH2876], one of the richest theological terms in the entire OT. This intensely relational term assumes a structured relationship between two parties, and it designates the behavior that maintains and nurtures the relationship. It classically, though not exclusively, denotes the obligation of care that a superior shows to a subordinate, such as a host to guest, or patron to client, and quintessentially, Yahweh to Israel. Dereliction at doing khesed fundamentally undermined relationships. Thus, khesed simultaneously names the fundamental core value of ancient Israelite tribal society and the essential bond of fidelity between Yahweh and Israel. The present context lacks the superior-inferior aspect, but envisions Israel as bearing a strong obligation to Gideon and his family; it asserts (in almost the strongest possible terms) Israel’s betrayal of their deliverer. The author directly links apostasy from Yahweh with the betrayal of Yahweh’s human servant. It is therefore astounding to hear Gideon characterized as “one of these faithless persons” constituting “the greatest obstacle to the work of God” (Block 1999:307). Far from condemning Gideon’s faithlessness, the text condemns Israel for not showing good faith to Gideon and his family. Indeed, Gideon did fail at the end of his career, but our author does not charge him with unbelief and credits him with 40 years of “rest” in line with Othniel, Ehud, and Deborah.

Jerub-baal (that is, Gideon). The narrator in fact juxtaposes the two names directly, as if hyphenating them: “Jerub-baal-Gideon,” using no parenthetical construction as he did in 7:1, “Jerub-baal (that is, Gideon).” The two names function thematically in the story. Gideon’s name predominates, appearing 40 times in 6:1–9:57, though never in 9:1-57, where he is only called Jerub-baal. Despite the nickname “Jerub-baal,” bestowed by his father in 6:32 and used 13 times in 6:1–9:57, this name is used of Gideon only once in the battle narrative (7:1). The name is applied to him in the epilogue once without the additional “Gideon” (8:29) and then here, where the names fall side-by-side. All nine mentions of Gideon in ch 9 will employ Jerub-baal, though the NLT changes them to “Gideon” for clarity. The author introduced the name Jerub-baal to stress Gideon’s role as a combatant against Baal (6:32), but returns to it to stress the miscarriage of Gideon’s legacy (8:29-30) and Israel’s reversion to the worship of Baal (8:33-35). By contrast, the author saves the name “Gideon” for what he affirms: rest (8:28) and death at a ripe old age (8:32). “Jerub-baal” bespeaks a mission aborted, a legacy repudiated. Gideon’s name is a taunt: “Let Baal Contend!” In the end, Baal did, and apparently won.

despite all the good he had done for Israel. This statement is not an attempt to “salvage” Gideon (contra Block 1999:306). Despite the toxic legacy created by Gideon’s abandonment of his leadership obligation and erection of the ephod, the text never undermines the worth of his achievement as a deliverer, however much his latter-day interpreters try to force that impression on the text. The author does, however, maintain an unrelenting dialectic between Gideon’s stunning achievement and the sad consequences of his final hesitation.

9:1 One day. The Hebrew text has no time indicator. The text could suggest that as soon as Gideon died, Abimelech put his plan into action. Such would fit the power-hungry ­cynicism evinced by Abimelech.

Gideon’s son Abimelech. Lit., “Jerub-baal’s son” (cf. NLT mg). The presence of both names, Gideon and Jerub-baal, in 8:35 obviates the need to change the text. See note on 8:35 regarding its significance. The name “Abimelech” was not unique to our despot. The Amarna Letters of the 1300s BC attest it for pharaoh’s appointed ruler in Tyre (Moran 1992:232-242), and the name abmlk appears in two Ugaritic texts, not to mention its presence in Gen 20–21 and 26.

went to Shechem. Shechem features in treaty-making in the OT: Jacob and his sons entered into an agreement with the inhabitants of Shechem (Gen 34); Israel, upon entering the land, renewed the covenant at Ebal and Gerizim, the two mountains overlooking Shechem (Deut 27, Josh 8:30-35); and the book of Joshua ends at Shechem (Josh 24:1, 25) with Joshua making a covenant. This covenant united Yahweh, the Israelites, and apparently ­others who had joined with them. A stone and an oak figure in Joshua’s covenant, as they do in the crowning of Abimelech (cf. 9:6). Shechem certainly has the stone, but the tree, naturally, is long-gone, though numerous archaeological indications at other ­sanctuaries all but ensure that one was indeed present at Shechem (Stager 1999:241-243). The Hebrew word for treaty or covenant, berith [TH1285, ZH1382], appears in the name of the deity “whored after” by Israel, Baal-berith (8:33). Later referred to in the narrative as El-berith (9:46, NLT mg), his temple treasury in Shechem funded Abimelech’s adventures (9:4). Shechem emerges one last time as a town for deal-making in 1 Kings 12, where Rehoboam seeks the rubber-stamp approval of the northern tribes for his kingship (ABD 5.1174–1186; Stager 1999:2003).

Additional information about Shechem appears as relevant in the notes below, but a basic introduction is pertinent here. No other town in the central highlands of Israel equaled Shechem in importance (Smith 1931:117-118; ABD 5.1174-1186; Richter 2007:361-362). It easily paralleled Jerusalem in influence. A low 15-acre mound situated now in the ­modern town of Balata, beside modern Nablus, ancient Shechem stood at the intersection of the major north–south highway along the watershed ridge and a vital east–west route linking the Jordan valley to the coast (Moore 1895:240). The north–south road connected Jerusalem and Bethel to Shechem, and then turned northeast to Tirzah (or slightly southeast of it) to join Wadi Far’a. From there, the Far’a highway drops southeast for 1,700 feet traversing 17 miles to the Jordan valley (Dorsey 1991:174-175). The east–west route passes between mounts Ebal (2,600 feet) and Gerizim (2,800 feet), with Shechem situated strategically along the pass (Dorsey 1991:164-165). Shechem thus provided a perfect perch for traffic, trade, and trouble in the central highlands. The well-watered soil, eroded from hard limestone, offered excellent prospects for farming and herding.

The city emerged about 1900 BC, peaked around 1600 BC, and was destroyed around 1540 BC by the Egyptians in their pursuit of the Hyksos who had dominated Egypt for a hundred years. Shechem lay abandoned but was revived around 1450 BC when Pharaoh Thutmose III decided to exploit Canaan and appointed local lackeys as rulers in Canaanite towns. Shechem blossomed into a splendid Late Bronze Age city ruled by a thuggish scoundrel named Laba’yu, the incarnation of Late Bronze Age realpolitik. We know this gangster’s Machiavellian machinations from his correspondence with the pharaoh. Pledging loyalty and charging his colleagues with treason, he laid siege to Megiddo and attacked Gezer. After his murder, his sons continued fleecing caravans and raking in riches until around 1300 BC when unknown persons burned Shechem to the ground. Clearly Shechem knew well the shenanigans of strongmen grasping for power, men like Abimelech.

the rest of his mother’s family. This smooths out an awkward Hebrew phrase: mishpakhath beth ’abi ’immo (lit., “the clan of the father’s-house of his mother”). “Father’s house” normally denotes the basic localized family in the OT. This could refer to the mother’s father and extended family. Ironically, just as the present story’s troubles start with a liaison between an Israelite and a Shechemite, so the first significant engagement between God’s people and Shechem began with the rape of Jacob’s daughter Dinah by “Shechem son of Hamor” (Gen 34). This story also turns on a covenant between “Israel” and Shechem that led to violence (Schneider 2000:134).

9:2 Ask the leading citizens of Shechem. Repeatedly, the Hebrew text refers to the ba‘ale shekem [TH1167, ZH1251], the “lords [lit., ‘baals’] of Shechem.” Our modern notion of “leading citizens” does not convey the authority and responsibility for a community that the town elders bore in the ancient world.

all seventy of Gideon’s sons. The NLT renders Jerub-baal as “Gideon” throughout ch 9, as noted in its mg notes to 9:1, 5. This replacement obscures the contrasting perspective of 9:1-57 over against 6:1–8:35. Far from indicating that Gideon actually did accept kingship, the fact that all 70 of his sons dominated Shechem, rather than one select heir, underscores that in the wake of Gideon’s abdication of his responsibility, his very influential family dominated local affairs the way any large, wealthy family might. Such behavior typifies a complex chiefdom (R. Miller 2005), for which Iron Age I Shechem provides an excellent example.

or by one man. Indeed, rule by one, one who has proven his worth serving under Yahweh’s call, one who was bred to that responsibility by a father who cared about the future, certainly would be better than being suffocated by 70. Abimelech also could be hearkening back to earlier, better days in Shechem under Laba’yu and other kinglets, who maintained a steady stream of income for the city.

And remember that I am your own flesh and blood! Abimelech’s appeal to “flesh and blood” raises the question of Shechem’s ethnicity and affiliations. Shechem does not appear in Josh 12 in the list of cities whose kings Joshua killed, nor does it feature in any conquest narratives. Its absence from the list of cities still to be conquered, and its presence in the list of cities of refuge (Josh 20:7; 21:21), as well as the access Israel had to a sanctuary there for covenant making (Josh 24:25-26) and for the burial of Joseph (Josh 24:32) suggest its incorporation into Israel. The region just north of Shechem, known as the Shechem Syncline, was the traditional territory of Manasseh and scene of the heaviest new village settlements in Iron Age I, settlements thought to be Israelite (Zertal 1994, 2004). Closer analysis by R. Miller (2005:34-36, 99-101, 119-121) reveals Shechem’s actual sphere of influence to be to its south, in the Ephraimite region, also densely settled very early by Israelites (Finkelstein 1988:119-204). Shechem controlled nine smaller towns and their dependent villages—a solidly Israelite affiliation. However, the facts that Gideon’s Shechemite wife held lower status (8:29-30) and that Abimelech appealed to blood ties to Shechem that his 70 half brothers apparently lacked, indicate a perceived ethnic difference between Israel and Shechem. Might the Shechemites have been among the “foreigners” (or, “sojourners/strangers”) of Josh 8:33, and among those still worshiping false gods in Josh 24:23-24, who were incorporated into Israel via treaty? Lacking more data, definitive conclusions remain out of reach. But if Shechem was party to the covenant with Yahweh reported in Josh 24, Abimelech here virtually dissolves that covenant—all in the name of Baal-berith, “Baal of the Covenant.”

Abimelech asserts blood ties as a basis for loyalty, apart from any appeal to fidelity to ­Yahweh, his covenant, or the obligations binding the Israelites to one another. Even though descended from Jacob, Israel existed in Canaan essentially as an oath-bound community, devoted by treaty to Yahweh, to the land he granted them, and to each other as joint holders of his promise. This community certainly contained many who were not literal blood kin to the Israelites, such as Rahab and her household, the Gibeonites, Ruth, and others like them. Kinship in Israel was fictive, a social bond resulting from an allegiance to Yahweh that bound them all together, regardless of their pedigree. Allegiance to Yahweh came first, and that in turn created the kinship that bound Israel into a great family. In grounding his bid for power on the divisive wedge of blood ties, Abimelech reversed this principle, making mere blood ties the basis for political allegiance. Incidentally, interpreters placing too much emphasis on “racial” ethnicity could distort the viewpoint of the author who stresses covenant bonds and a shared culture of faith as the true basis of Israelite identity.

9:4 They gave him seventy silver coins. The Hebrew omits any unit of measure, so attempts to calculate the weight of the payment are irrelevant (Younger 2002:221). The “seventy [in] silver” could suggest that each brother was only worth one piece of silver, or it could suggest a price—like a “hit contract”—for each brother.

from the temple of Baal-berith. Archaeological excavations at Shechem have unearthed several sanctuaries, including one massive temple, dubbed the Migdal Temple. Until recently, archaeologists thought this massive temple, built around 1650 BC, had been destroyed about 1540 BC, only to be replaced by one that was one-third its size, which stood in Abimelech’s day. Stager’s (1999:228-249) reassessment of the data demonstrates that the massive temple in fact endured right up until the destruction of Shechem around 1125 BC. The temple was 86 feet long by 70 feet wide, with stone foundations 17 feet thick that supported walls of mud-brick and timber. Such massive foundations imply a multistory structure. A pair of towers with staircases stood forth 16 feet on either side of the entrance. Just outside the temple entrance stood a large altar of earth and stone, and two stone slabs 4–5 feet wide, judging from the notches into which they fit, and possibly standing twice that height. (Such standing stones are called matseboth [TH4676, ZH5167] in the OT; e.g., Gen 28:18.) Further out, conspicuously placed on a promontory jutting out from the main structure, stands yet another base with a notch for a stele 5 feet wide and 16 inches thick. Nearby was found a slab of superbly polished fine limestone that fit the notch perfectly. The broken slab still stands about 5 feet high but was likely 10 feet tall. If numerous other ancient parallels are valid, the surface of this slab seems to have been prepared for an ink inscription, now long eroded (Richter 2007:358-361; cf. Deut 27:1-8). Interestingly, both narratives of Joshua writing the terms of Yahweh’s covenant on a stone monument appear at Shechem (Josh 24:25-28; the inscription in Josh 8:30-35 is near Shechem). Whether or not the monuments are the same, Abimelech’s political pact, formed in a sanctuary in Shechem, stands exactly opposite the moment in Josh 24 when, in Shechem, the people of God were constituted in the land of Canaan. The Shechemites’ crowning of Abimelech may thus amount to an abrogation of the covenant.

reckless troublemakers. This represents two phrases. The first, ’anashim reqim [TH7386, ZH8199], “empty men,” does not by itself imply anything about the men’s character, but identifies them as disenfranchised, “portionless men deprived of their land in a culture in which social identity was rooted in kinship networks and inherited land. Second sons of secondary wives, misfits and mercenaries, outlaws and outlanders are just some of those who fell between the kinship cracks . . . forming pseudofamilies under the patronage of warlords, trading their services for portions of martial harvests and brigandage” (Moore 1895:244). These men with nothing at stake had only their loyalty and their sword to offer, not unlike the men who gathered around David (1 Sam 22:2; cf. 11:3). Of course, men with no investment in a community might well be unprincipled, and the second term, “troublemakers” (pokhazim [TH6348, ZH7069]), has the idea of bubbling over, being undisciplined or boisterous. The idea is more hotheadedness than evil.

9:5 his father’s home at Ophrah. This employs the term beth-’ab [TH1004, ZH1074] to denote the actual family farm plot. In the case of a very substantial citizen with a large family, such as Jerub-baal’s, the family farm would include several houses with a range of domestic installations such as grinding stones and vegetable plots encircled by a low partition wall (cf. King and Stager 2001:18 for an illustration). This farm might have earlier included the altars mentioned in 6:25-26. That these murders occurred in the very homestead of Jerub-baal, makes them that much more heinous.

on one stone. The phrase could be rendered “at one stone.” This very peculiar and ominous note suggests a ritual character to the killing. Three alternatives exist. (1) The stone could have been an altar, which would have made it essentially a slaughter block, such as in 1 Sam 14:33-35, where Saul calls for a “large stone” for a mass sacrifice (Moore 1895:242-243; Soggin 1981:68). The text has clearly identified Ophrah as a sacred site with an altar belonging to Gideon’s father (6:25). Archaeologists have excavated a sacred site just 12 miles to the south, still within the boundaries of Manasseh, known as the Bull Site. In addition to a bronze bull figurine, the site features a flat stone slab at one end of a round enclosure (R. Miller 1999:161). The slab might well be a simple stone altar, but as easily could have been a matsebah [TH4676, ZH5167], a sacred standing stone. While some doubt if the Bull Site was a true public worship site (Coogan 1987), it might well have been a private or family shrine not unlike the one associated with Gideon’s family at Ophrah. Against this view, the Hebrew word ’eben [TH68, ZH74], in reference to a single stone, seldom denotes an altar, and even then, only one improvised on the spot (1 Sam 6:14-15; 14:33-35).

(2) The stone could be a grave marker. Ancient Near Eastern texts associate stones with graves. In the Egyptian tale of the refugee courtier, Sinuhe, the pharaoh’s invitation for the hero to return home reminds him that “your tomb-pillars . . . are among those of the royal children” (COS 1.38:80). Gideon’s grave gets conspicuous notice (8:32) and would make the atrocity a brazen betrayal of his legacy. Again, nowhere in the OT does a single stone (’eben) serve as a grave monument, though a heap of stones does.

(3) The stone could be a monument associated with Gideon’s authority, intentionally desecrated by Abimelech. The Panamuwa Inscription (COS 2.37.2-11a) tells of a curse on the royal house of the land of Y’dy in Syria: The ruler Bartzur and his 70 sons are murdered by a usurper, but Panamuwa, like Jotham, escapes. The usurper’s oppressive reign persists until Panamuwa allies with the king of Assyria, who restores Panamuwa to his place. The Assyrian king then “killed the stone of destruction from his father’s house” (COS 2.37.2-11a, pp. 158-159). The identity of this “stone of destruction” remains unclear. Superficially, the Aramaic phrase, ‘bn shkht, resembles the Hebrew phrase, “one stone” (’eben ’ekhath). The Aramaic text might refer metaphorically to the usurper (Gibson 1975:83). The murder of 70 sons in a coup, reference to the “father’s house,” prominent reference to a stone, and the theme of a curse and its outworking, resonate strongly with ch 9. Commemoration or desecration of the legacy of a ruler (or usurper) involved setting up, destroying, or restoring (as appropriate) a monument, often, as with the Panamuwa story, an image of the ruler himself, carrying his inscription (Richter 2002:127-205). The stone in the Panamuwa story could be a monument representing the usurper, “killed,” i.e., demolished, by Tiglath-pileser III.

Single stones appear in the OT often as monuments: Joshua’s monument to the covenant in Josh 24:26-27; the “one stone” (’eben ’ekhath [TH68/259, ZH74/285], as here) set up by Samuel (1 Sam 7:12); and likely also the “great stone” at Gibeon (2 Sam 20:8). The “Stone of Zoheleth/Serpent’s Stone” (1 Kgs 1:9) could also be an altar or a sacred pillar. The “Stone of Bohan” (Josh 15:6; 18:17) is probably just a topographical feature. While our biblical story does not specify a monument, the “one stone” could easily be a monument associated with Gideon in Ophrah that Abimelech desecrated by the atrocity he perpetrated. This is the most likely of the three options.

Like other usurpers, Abimelech clearly intended not just to kill his rivals, but to send a message. To slay Jerub-baal’s sons in Jerub-baal’s home, in the very shrine where Jerub-baal got his name, clearly announced not merely a seizure of power, but the repudiation of Jerub-baal (Gideon), his family, and all that he stood for. When Abimelech terminated the rest of Gideon’s lineage and abrogated his legacy, he threw down a gauntlet before the God who had called and empowered Gideon. In essence, he shook his fist at Gideon’s God and said, “Let Yahweh contend for himself, if he is a God!” God took that challenge up with a vengeance, as the story shows.

they killed all seventy of his half brothers. Abimelech actually only got 69, or one less than all, since the number itself might be idiomatic, not literal (Fensham 1977:113-115). The 70 murdered by Abimelech calls to mind the many uses of the number in the OT. The mutilated Adoni-bezek, before his death, spoke of 70 kings, maimed in like manner, who had been subservient to him (1:5-7). Ahab’s 70 sons fell to Jehu’s sword in a coup (2 Kgs 10:1-11).

But the youngest brother, Jotham, escaped and hid. The scenario of all the royal sons being executed with a single survivor is a common trope. Normally the survivor ultimately replaces the usurper. The most striking biblical example remains Athaliah’s murder of the royal family and the escape of Joash (2 Kgs 11). Unlike Joash, Jotham would not replace Abimelech; after issuing his stinging, parabolic condemnation of Abimelech, he disappears (9:21).

9:6 Beth-millo. Lit., “the house of the filling.” Ancient engineers typically constructed temples and palaces either on a high site, or on one artificially raised by building a retaining wall and then filling it with rubble. The “city of David” in Jerusalem has a massive stepped stone structure that functioned as a retaining wall for the fill supporting the Jebusite citadel that David ultimately controlled. The Bible calls this filled-in platform “the Millo” (e.g., 2 Sam 5:9 mg). Likewise, at Shechem, the massive temple was constructed on almost 15 feet of rubble and fill. So the term “Beth-millo” serves here simply as another term for the temple at Shechem.

under the oak beside the pillar at Shechem. On the stone pillar, cf. note on 9:4. Stager has collected examples of temples similar and contemporary with the Shechem temple, noting that altars and stelae were also typically accompanied by sacred trees. A Canaanite temple in Egypt, for example, had a courtyard in front where excavators found pits that had been occupied by trees, now long dead. Caches of acorns on the altars suggest the trees were a species of oak. At a sacred oak in Shechem, named Moreh, Abram built his first altar to Yahweh (Gen 12:6-7). There also Jacob buried his household idols (Gen 35:4), and Joshua made the covenant constituting Israel as Yahweh’s people in Canaan (Josh 24:26).

made Abimelech their king. This short statement employs the words malak [TH4427, ZH4887] (make king) and melek [TH4428, ZH4889] (king) affirming Abimelech as the king, and made king by the leaders of Shechem. Noteworthy is the fact that in the Amarna Texts, in letters exchanged between Canaan and Egypt in the 1300s BC (just prior to the arrival of the Israelites), no ruler in Canaan refers to himself as a “king” except for the king of Hazor. By contrast, Joshua 12 lists 31 cities, each tagged with “one king,” suggesting that what these leaders called themselves among their subjects and colleagues differed sharply from how they represented themselves to higher authority.

9:7 the top of Mount Gerizim. The top of Mount Gerizim would be a half-mile from Shechem and a thousand feet higher. Jotham probably stood on one of the rises on Gerizim’s lower slopes. Boling (1975:plate 4) suggests this is the site where he excavated the Middle Bronze age “Tananir Sanctuary” on the lower slope of Gerizim. In the canonical ordering of the OT, Gerizim hearkens back to Joshua’s fulfillment of Moses’s instructions (Deut 11, 27) to confirm the covenant on Gerizim and Ebal (Josh 8:30-35). Though Jotham stood on the “blessing” mountain, he uttered a stinging condemnation.

9:8-15 the trees decided to choose a king. Since the truly productive members of the forest society decline the role of king and only the worthless member, the briar, accepts it, many interpreters see this parable as an attack on kingship. Jotham, however, gives this parable a major twist, using it to condemn usurpers and their coconspirators and implicitly defending legitimate rule.

the olive tree . . . the fig tree . . . the grapevine. These plants are among the seven crops cited as typifying Yahweh’s blessing on the land (Deut 8:7-8). All represent domesticated agricultural species, requiring long-term cultivation. They reflect a vision of life that embraces continuity and stability to flourish. These crops were also the prime export products for which the land was famous. The chief of each area controlled trade with outsiders, negotiating trade on behalf of his community. These three agricultural products appear quite appropriately on the lips of an heir of the great chief, Jerub-baal. Each plant spurns the offer of kingship, claiming they are already too important to bother with being king. The outcome reveals this claim as a sham.

9:14 the thornbush. The thornbush produces nothing of value. In contrast to the three cultivated, domesticated plants, the thornbush grows wild and interferes with the orderly work of agriculture. Thorns also burn voraciously once ignited.

9:16 honorably and in good faith. The terms here are “in truth” (’emeth [TH571, ZH622]) and “in wholeheartedness” (tamim [TH8549, ZH9459]). The first term has to do with something having such a stable character that it will not change. To be “true” in this sense means to be reliable and unwavering. The second word relates more to unmixed motives and undivided allegiances. Noah was tamim, wholehearted or blameless, before God (Gen 6:9), and Abraham was called by God to “be tamim” traditionally translated, “perfect” or “wholehearted” (Gen 17:1). These words describe everything that the citizens of Shechem were not.

9:17 risked his life. The Hebrew is impossible to translate exactly, but too good to ignore, reading along the lines of “he dumped his life/soul out there.”

9:20 may fire . . . devour. Jotham identified two consequences: Fire from Abimelech would consume his coconspirators, but they would also destroy him. The story’s structure will follow up both elements of Jotham’s pronouncement.

9:21 Beer. The location of Beer (meaning “a well”) is unknown.

9:22 After Abimelech had ruled over Israel for three years. Though Abimelech was a king, (melek [TH4428, ZH4889]), the verb used here (sarar [TH8323, ZH8606]) connotes a lesser function often associated with military command. Perhaps the writer wanted to avoid attributing actual kingly office to Abimelech. That the rebellion occurs after three years, i.e., in his fourth year, ironically connects with the vintage festival—see note on 9:27.

9:23 God sent a spirit that stirred up trouble. In contrast to the legitimate saviors of Israel, who were possessed by the Spirit of Yahweh, Abimelech the usurper received a kind of charisma of his own, lit. “God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem.” The term “evil” (ra‘ [TH7451, ZH8273]) embraces the entire semantic domain of trouble, calamity, mischief, and moral evil from the point of view of the person involved. It does not denote objective evil. For example, Joshua challenged his people, “If it is ra‘ in your eyes to serve Yahweh” (Josh 24:15). Clearly serving Yahweh is not a bad thing, but someone conceivably could perceive it as such. Thus God put a spirit between Abimelech and the Shechemites that caused bad feelings. The authenticating, loyalty-inspiring charisma of the divinely chosen leader had its dark counterpart. God had taken up the challenge implicit in Abimelech’s repudiation of Gideon.

9:24 God was punishing Abimelech. With this verse and 9:56-57 the narrator frames the story that follows as the fulfillment of Jotham’s fable-curse. By specifying the fulfillment, the author also specifies the meaning of Jotham’s fable for this specific context. In some other context, the fable might yield to a variety of interpretations, but for the biblical narrative, the author clearly delineates a single meaning: the divine condemnation and punishment of Abimelech as a fratricidal usurper who seized power by brute force rather than being chosen and empowered by God. The parable also censures Abimelech’s coconspirators, the leaders of Shechem, who repudiated their ties with Gideon and his God.

9:25 The citizens of Shechem set an ambush. The judgment of God unfolds not in a direct, miraculous intervention, but in the ripening fruit of Abimelech’s own treachery, energized by the divinely sown spirit of hostility. The very men he had won now turn against him.

on the hilltops. The text probably refers to the heights of Gerizim and Ebal. Ebal in particular offers a commanding view in all directions. A vast portion of the land of Israel becomes visible in a dramatic panorama from its peak (Smith 1931:115-121).

robbed everyone who passed that way. Since the ruler of Shechem profited from intercepting and “facilitating” caravan trade over the main routes passing by the town, Shechemite brigands robbing the caravans before they arrived deprived Abimelech of his income, but still provided wealth for the town (Burney 1920:277; Matthews 2004:109). Abimelech’s actual residence in Arumah (9:31) prevented his direct management of affairs in Shechem, which he appears to have delegated to Zebul.

9:26 Gaal son of Ebed. It is hard to imagine a name in Hebrew that could carry a more loathsome connotation than that of Abimelech’s nemesis. The verbal form of this name means, in varying contexts, “to loathe, feel disgust” (HALOT 1.199, s.v. ga‘al [TH1603, ZH1720]). The noun based on it might mean “dung beetle.” In short, nothing can be found in this word that one would relish as a name. His patronymic,“son of Ebed” means “son of a slave,” and does not add much to the man’s character or status. Nor does the following narrative help the reader gain a higher estimate of the man. The scene almost smacks of a B-western movie in which a gang of low-life rustlers and rabble-rousers move into town—except, of course, Shechem was already such a town! Only a century or so earlier, the gangster-king Lab’ayu and his ‘apiru consorts provided an exact historical prototype for Abimelech and his coconspirators.

9:27 During the annual harvest festival . . . the wine flowed freely, and everyone began cursing Abimelech. The festival was a celebration of the Canaanite deity Baal-berith. The NLT smooths out the details of the verse, which literally reads, “they went out to the field, they gathered their vineyards, they trod, and they performed praises, and they entered the house of their god and they ate, and they drank, and they cursed Abimelech.” Thus the original conveys a process that is glossed over in many modern translations. Ironically, the only other OT occurrence of the word for “festival” (hillulim [TH1974, ZH2136]) is in Lev 19:23-24, which requires that fruit trees be left alone for three years, with the fourth-year fruit reserved as holy. Abimelech had ruled Shechem for three years, and with this fourth-year festival offering of the fruit harvest, his own fate had ripened.

9:28 “Who is Abimelech?” Gaal shouted. “He’s not a true son of Shechem.” The NLT captures the gist of Gaal’s drunken reviling, though the original is more choppy and reflects the presumably inebriated condition of the speaker rather well. The symmetry of divine judgment emerges here. Not only do the Shechemites turn on the king they elected, the interloper Gaal now seduces them, just as Abimelech had done (9:2), by appealing to blood ties. Ironically, Gaal’s lineage is not known.

He’s merely the son of Gideon. Where Abimelech had emphasized his blood ties to Shechem, Gaal reminds everyone that Abimelech was still the son of the foreigner Gideon (Jerub-baal).

the true sons of Hamor, the founder of Shechem. Hamor, the name of the clan associated with Shechem in the OT (Gen 34), is the Hebrew word for “donkey.” Presumably such a name carried no pejorative connotations, or perhaps was a nickname bestowed on him by the narrator. Ancient treaty making in the Levant often featured the sacrifice of a donkey. Archaeologists excavated a donkey’s skeleton, minus its head, formally buried by Shechem’s ancient citizens, apparently as a sacrifice for a foundation deposit (ABD 5.1182). Given the Shechemites’ appreciation for jackasses, it’s no wonder they followed the likes of Abimelech and Gaal!

9:31 in Arumah. The Hebrew text reads betormah, meaning “in tormah.” The meaning of tormah [TH8649, ZH9564] remains obscure, and many rightly discern here a spelling error. The original phrase was be’arumah [TH725, ZH777], “in Arumah.” Even though the leaders of Shechem elected Abimelech king, he actually seems to have resided in the town of Arumah, now identified with Khirbet El-Urmah, five miles south of Shechem. This fortified and well-watered site served as a satellite administrative center for Shechem (R. Miller 1999:195; 2005:34-35). It also lay along an alternative route linking Shechem to the Jordan valley should Abimelech require an escape route (Dorsey 1991:178). If Abimelech suspected ill will from the men of Shechem, Arumah provided a secure headquarters. Having founded his rule on betrayal, Abimelech, like usurpers before and after him, had to maintain constant awareness of flight routes and fallback positions.

9:35 Gaal was standing at the city gates. From excavations, two gates are known at the site. Both originated in the Middle Bronze era (2000–1550 BC), were damaged or destroyed, and rebuilt at least partially in the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC), lasting until around 1150 BC. The eastern gate originally featured impressive single blocks of stone, called orthostats, and a series of steps leading from the gate-level down to the roadway (E. Campbell 2002:131-143; 169-174). If this was Gaal’s point of observation, then the hillside where he saw troops descending would have been the eastern slope of Mount Ebal or the lower hillocks directly outside the gate. He might have referred to the lower hills in the plain east of Shechem. The northwest gate, for which the site is famous, also featured what appear to have been administrative residences, a shrine, and possibly a barracks, and would have afforded a clear view of Gerizim and Ebal. Zebul’s suggestion that he was seeing shadows (9:36) might suggest it was morning, as the eastern sun would throw shadows on the mountains to the west, visible from the northwest gate.

9:37 the hills. Heb., tabbur ha’arets [TH2872, ZH3179], or “navel of the earth/land,” a term of uncertain meaning. The NLT passes over the difficulty in its main text but notes in the margin “center of the land.” The expression “navel of the earth” is often taken to have cosmological implications derived from the notion of a place being the point of junction between the realms of the gods and humans. Such lofty cosmological nuances seem unlikely in the speech of the thug Gaal. The notion of nexus or connection, however, fits the location topographically. The hill country of Ephraim and Manasseh posed obstacles to travel. Shechem lay at the junction of several crucial valleys. From its northwest gate, the Shechem valley led to the coastal plain. From before the east gate, the Mukhna Plain stretched south, facilitating travel toward Jerusalem. Likewise, a valley led north with branches to Wadi Far’ah, which descends east to the Jordan valley and north to the Jezreel valley (cf. note on 6:1; Rainey and Notley 2006:39; ABD 5.1175). The region of Shechem was indeed, not metaphorically or cosmologically, but quite physically and literally, “the junction of the land.”

another group is coming down the road past the Diviners’ Oak. Many trees in the OT are named for various types of religious functions conducted there. Diviners and divination were prohibited in the OT (Lev 19:26; Deut 18:10-14), though prophetic denunciations make it clear that divination was practiced (cf. Isa 2:6; Mic 5:12).

9:38 Now where is that big mouth of yours? More than just mockery, Zebul shamed Gaal. They were in the city gate, where the town elders gathered for legal and civil business. In the presence of the same men to whom Gaal had boasted the night before, Zebul threw his boast back in his face. In an ancient society where honor and shame exerted a powerful force on behavior, Gaal had no choice, if he wanted to retain his standing before the men of Shechem, but to gather his men and engage Abimelech’s force.

9:41 Abimelech returned to Arumah, and Zebul drove Gaal and his brothers out of Shechem. The expulsion of Gaal and his gang from town and Abimelech’s return to Arumah likely persuaded the Shechemites that this unhappy little episode was past. They could return either to their harvest or to their looting of caravans.

9:42 the people of Shechem went out into the fields to battle. The words “to battle” do not appear in the original. The Shechemites might simply be resuming their grape harvest, the onset of which they celebrated earlier, since the crisis appeared to have passed (Boling 1975:179; Soggin 1981:191-192). Or they could have resumed their armed interdiction of traffic. Whatever their errand, they were caught off guard and massacred. Abimelech—and God—had plans for the residents of Shechem as well as for Gaal.

9:45 The battle went on all day before Abimelech finally captured the city. The NLT creates the impression of a daylong battle culminating in the capture of the city, though the actual engagement hardly seems one that would take an entire day. The text simply says that there was fighting “in the city” all that day. The battle in the fields could have been quite swift, but the conflict in the confines of the city might have been long and tedious, moving from house to house before reaching its grisly climax.

He killed the people, leveled the city, and scattered salt all over the ground. “The city” likely refers to the lower city, since the assault on the acropolis follows next. Archaeologists confirm that the city of Shechem, including its palatial temple, was destroyed c. 1125–1100 BC, in line with the chronology suggested in this commentary. This places Gideon around 1150 BC. Commentators tend to attribute uncontrollable rage to Abimelech (e.g., Matthews 2004:110-111), but in fact, Abimelech’s actions constitute the norm for conquering an ancient city. Sowing with salt appears as a curse form in the Aramaic treaty of Sefire (COS 2.82.35b-42). The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 BC) describes his destruction of the city of Khunusu: “I burnt the city. The three walls . . . I razed, destroyed, turned into a ruin hill and strewed sipu-stones over it” (Grayson 1991:24). The identity of the sipu-stones is unclear, but the verb employed is the exact cognate to the one found in the Abimelech story, translated “scattered” (lit., “sowed”). The reference appears to have been a mineral strewn over a conquered site to dramatize its total annihilation (CAD 16.205). Much later, the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal boasts of strewing the ruins of conquered cities with salt and a peculiar thorny plant. Both salt and the plant also feature in an obscure reference to an oath (CAD 15.64). Perhaps the destruction of cities that had profaned a sacred oath involved scattering these substances on the ruins. At any rate, Shechem remained abandoned until the early tenth century BC, only to meet destruction again in 918 BC by Pharaoh Shishak.

9:46 the leading citizens who lived in the tower of Shechem. Heb., ba‘ale migdal-shekem [TH4026, ZH4463], meaning “the lords/ of the tower/citadel of Shechem.” This tower should be understood as a reference to the massive temple in Shechem (see note on 9:4), and the passage is not describing where these people lived in the city (contra NLT’s “who lived in”). Temples had civic as well as religious functions, so leading citizens might well be associated with the temple.

hid in the temple of Baal-berith. The NLT offers no equivalent to the term tseriakh [TH6877, ZH7663], which names the part of the temple that people fled to. Comparative studies all point to a trench or narrow cave excavated into rock, but no such structure exists, or was possible at the Shechem temple, which was founded on fill, not bedrock (Boling 1975:181). The space referred to may be another part of the Shechem temple: Walls as wide as those found at Shechem were not solid. An inner and outer wall created chambers around the perimeter of the temple, partitioned by stone and timber, accessible via the stairwells found in the two towers at the temple entrance. Thus, the Shechemite worthies packed into the temple, but rather than go into the open worship space, they crammed into the side chambers (Stager 1999, 2003).

9:48 Mount Zalmon. This location is not known with certainty, but must have been nearby. Probably it was one of the lower, bench-like projections from Mount Ebal or Mount Gerizim.

9:49 cut down some branches. The cutting of trees, indeed, of whole forests and orchards, figures prominently in ancient Near East warfare accounts (Hasel 1998, 2005). The text, in stressing “branches” being cut rather than whole trees, might bear witness to the early Israelite taboo against destroying trees in warfare (contra Matthews 2004:107; cf. Deut 20:19-20).

They piled the branches against the walls of the temple and set them on fire. As Stager (1999, 2003) notes, the smoke from the fires would be suffocating in the narrow, cramped space in which Shechem’s upper crust had hidden. In addition, the temple’s construction would be both brick and timber; ultimately, the entire structure would collapse.

about 1,000 men and women. This number should be taken literally and would require that the tower or temple in the text be the massive fortress temple (see note on 9:4). No other structure excavated at Shechem could accommodate so many persons for this fiery demise.

9:50 Thebez. The town is one of two sites close together near the modern village of Tubas, 13 miles northeast of Shechem (Zertal 2008:107-108, 204-205, 210-212, 219-223). In early Iron Age I, Thebez actually lay outside the administrative sphere of Shechem, being attached to the chiefdom at Tirzah (R. Miller 2005:29-90). Abimelech’s reasons for attacking Thebez remain obscure. Since he had just destroyed Shechem, perhaps he intended to annex the nearby Thebez as the beginning of a move on Tirzah itself. The site also provided strategic access to Dothan, another center of influence in the highlands. Unlike Shechem, Thebez does not seem targeted for destruction by Abimelech. Perhaps he intended to use it as an interim headquarters.

9:51 there was a strong tower inside the town. Both possible sites for Thebez, Khirbet Fuqahah and Khirbet ‘Eynun, feature signs of fortification. The latter features an eight-acre tell sporting a surrounding fortification wall enclosing much pottery, including types distinctive to this site, and crowded with building remains. In addition, six curious circles of standing stones 65–130 feet in diameter were along the bottom of the tell. Zertal (2008:220) notes Khirbet ‘Eynun was “undoubtedly a central site during Iron Age I (Early Israelite Settlement period).” Abimelech might indeed find such a site appealing for his next move.

9:53 a woman on the roof dropped a millstone. The phrase pelakh rekeb [TH6400/7393, ZH7115/8207], “riding millstone,” specifies this is the upper millstone. Women typically milled grain in a handmill featuring a pelakh takhtiyt [TH6400/8482, ZH7115/9397] (cf. Job 41:24), the lower grinder, which was larger, flat, and slightly concave, and the pelakh rekeb, or “riding grinder.” The miller knelt, crushing the grain by rolling the oblong, almost football-shaped “rider” over the kernels. Made from black basalt, upper millstones possessed sufficient value to rate a taboo against use as collateral for debt (Deut 24:6). The cessation of the sound of grinding offered Jeremiah a symbol for the end of life as Judah knew it during the Exile (Jer 25:10). Such a stone, weighing 4–9 pounds, would constitute a formidable projectile shaped perfectly for throwing (King and Stager 2001:94). It is impressive that the Thebezite woman, in the pandemonium of flight, had the foresight to take her upper millstone. Some scholars claim this mention of “stone” is a kind of bookend to the “one stone” on which Abimelech executed his 70 half brothers. In English, this works—the word “stone” is repeated, but in Hebrew it does not. Nothing about “one stone” (’eben ’ekhath [TH68/259, ZH74/285]) resonates with “upper millstone” (pelakh rekeb).

that landed on Abimelech’s head and crushed his skull. Though the wording is different, one cannot avoid comparison with the crushed skull of Sisera, also at the hands of a strong, stout-hearted woman (4:21-22; 5:26).

9:54 Draw your sword and kill me! Don’t let it be said that a woman killed Abimelech! Abimelech here anticipates Saul’s similar plea, as he also was dying in shame, far from God (1 Sam 31:1-6). The heroic tradition’s concern for honor finds sad expression in the plea of the fratricidal usurper not to die at the hands of a woman. The woman, however, remains immortalized, though nameless, in the annals of killers of tyrants, whom the Bible uniformly celebrates. That Abimelech’s request failed to secure his honor appears in the later citation of this event as proof of his careless battle tactics, where the woman is credited with killing him after all (2 Sam 11:21).

ran him through. The verb used here, daqar [TH1856, ZH1991] (to pierce through), is rare (elsewhere only in Num 25:8; 1 Sam 31:4; 1 Chr 10:4; Isa 13:15; Jer 37:10; 51:4; Lam 4:9; Zech 12:10; 13:3). Additionally, swords in this era rarely exceeded 24 inches in length, and none have been found from Iron Age I sites; to “run someone through” might have been harder than it seems. Along with the dialogue, this verb links the account to that of Saul’s death (HALOT 1.230, s.v. daqar).

9:55 When Abimelech’s men saw. Lit., “when the men of Israel saw,” identifying those who fought alongside Abimelech as Israelites, further puzzling readers about exactly what connections existed between Israel and Shechem. It is possible, though, that the reference is not to soldiers. Possibly “men of Israel” had gathered to observe the outcome of the battle, and when they saw Abimelech was dead, they went home.

saw that he was dead, they disbanded and returned to their homes. The NLT uses terms connoting the breakup of a militia, a legitimate possibility, but not the only one.

9:56 In this way, God punished Abimelech. The writer here makes the theological point explicit. God’s wrath was expressed in the alienation of the Shechemites against Abimelech, the arrival of a seducer, the rebellion, the siege, the destruction of Shechem, and Abimelech’s ultimate death at the hands of the woman. The only real deed performed by God in this story is the insinuation of a spirit of hostility amongst Abimelech and his coconspirators. For the rest, human arrogance and aggression served well enough.

for the evil he had done against his father by murdering his seventy brothers. Claims that Gideon had actually turned against God fail because of this clear statement that God avenged the evil done against him, destroying the man who repudiated Jerub-baal, his family, and his God.

9:57 God also punished the men of Shechem for all their evil. If the suggestions above about Shechem’s covenant with Yahweh dating back to Josh 24 (see note on 9:2) serving to constitute them as members of Israel despite their indigenous Canaanite ethnicity are accepted, then the decision to affiliate along bloodlines with Abimelech and join him in the repudiation of their heritage in Jerub-baal/Gideon did constitute the abrogation of their covenant with Yahweh, which he here punishes.

So the curse . . . was fulfilled. The book of Judges repeatedly locates the divine purpose in the activities of a fallible, often flawed human being. Jotham served no role in the story other than the pronouncement of the word of God unmasking the treachery of Abimelech and Shechem. He does not return for vindication, and no claim is made that he should rule. Gideon had, after all, rejected inherited rule. But Jotham’s curse clearly condemned usurpers and asserted the principle of legitimate inheritance. For God to fulfill the curse of Jotham amounts (in the logic of the narrative) to a divine condemnation on usurpers and endorsement of legitimate succession.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Few statements epitomize the story of Abimelech’s father, Gideon, better than that associated with the founder of the modern missionary movement, William Carey, who said, “Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God.” Such should have been Gideon’s legacy. But just as the church founded to honor Carey’s legacy in Lester, England, has become a Hindu temple, so the legacy of Gideon dissolved in the events that followed his death.

The story of Abimelech illustrates how meaning, in the Bible, resides at the intersection of past events, geography, culture, other ancient texts, literary features, and the readers. The meaning of this text remains obscure unless we also know the context, concerns, and aims of the characters—a point totally lost in a superficial reading. By the same token, merely reconstructing the historical events fails to place the story in its theological context. All Scripture seeks to reveal the ways and character of God and the nature of the human response. This story brings to the forefront the particular issue of leadership in Israel, which it treats with much more nuance and complexity than mere contrasts between “pro” and “anti” kingship positions can hope to capture.

Gideon’s refusal of a position of leadership and the construction of the ephod (8:22-27) dramatized an important principle: When legitimate human leadership abdicates, effectual divine leadership evaporates. Thinking he was assuring God’s continued rule over Israel, Gideon actually ensured that the people would “play the harlot” and abandon Yahweh. With Yahweh abandoned, the legacy and family of his servant Gideon was doomed. Not only had Gideon’s repudiation of human rule ended up perverting divine rule, it had actually recoiled on his own career, spoiling his legacy. The prologue to the Abimelech story (8:33-35), coming on the heels of the ephod debacle, shows that when divine rule is rejected, as in Israel’s apostasy, human rule is threatened as well. So divine rule and human rule, far from being antagonists, would stand as joint victims of spiritual harlotry.

The structure of the Abimelech story works out clearly as a cause-effect or crime-punishment movement accompanied by a theological explanation. The result is the pattern shown below:

The Crime (8:1-21)	The Punishment (8:22-57)
The Cause (8:1-6) The Crime Perpetrated: Abimelech’s Fratricidal Usurpation of Power	The Effect (8:25-55) Punishment Effected: Abimelech Meets His End in Avenging Himself against Usurpation
Explanation: The Crime Decried Its Character (8:7-15) Its Consequences (8:16-21)	Explanation: The Punishment Interpreted Its Divine Source Indicated (8:22-24) Its Divine Source Confirmed (8:56-57)

The speech of Jotham has been typically construed as critical of kingship, but this interpretation runs into difficulties in this context. The fable does not actually criticize kingship, but attacks those who refused the responsibility of ruling, leaving the nation to worthless scoundrels. The thornbush actually articulates the point of the parable (9:15). It is not hungry for power but shrewdly unmasks the folly of the trees in offering the thorn a task it patently cannot fulfill. All commentators note that “shade” (tsel [TH6738, ZH7498]) appears in the ancient Near East as a common term for the protection extended by a king over his domain. Rather than attacking the institution of kingship (Block 1999:320-321), the fable exposes the danger created when worthy candidates, preoccupied with their own admittedly productive lives, decline leadership, thereby abandoning the field to unworthy pretenders, with catastrophic consequences. Its vindication in the story that follows demonstrates the wrath of God on those who wrest power from its rightful possessors. Applied to the story, the three productive plants that declined compare with Gideon, who was offered permanent, patrimonial rule, but who refused and instead retired as a prosperous and influential sheikh. His refusal created a vacuum filled by the useless, fruitless, uncultivated Abimelech (Moore 1895:244-248). The moral of the story is that when fit persons refuse to lead, unfit persons will seize power.

In Jotham’s speech, awareness of this issue is profoundly magnified as the speaker is none other than the sole surviving legitimate heir of Gideon/Jerub-baal, criticizing one who has just seized power by slaughtering his 70—or 69—rivals. The context unmistakably assumes legitimate rule is inherited, and the speech as a whole attacks not kingship, but usurpers and their coconspirators. Moreover, this betrayal of Gideon is linked back verbally to 8:33-35 and becomes part of Israel’s betrayal of its God. Thus, the speech uttered is a dynast’s protest against usurpation.

The punishment (9:22-57) unfolds as the inexorable outworking of the action of God, who intervened to exact vengeance on behalf of Gideon in fulfillment to Jotham’s message. Abimelech’s struggle against outside agitators (9:26-41) is framed by reference to conniving insider insurrectionists (9:25, 42-50), and the whole is bracketed with claims that God personally worked to sow discord and bring vengeance (9:22-24, 56-57) all in fulfillment of Jotham’s word. This literary arrangement transposes a typical story of Late Bronze/Iron Age I city-state insurrection into a paradigm of divine judgment on a usurper in vindication of the sole surviving legitimate dynast. That judgment did not work through miracles or charismatic heroes, but through the relentless unfolding of the moral and social consequences of the choices made by the characters. In the end, the thornbush had it right (9:15). Far from being a critique of kingship, the Abimelech story stands as an affirmation that when legitimate human rule is usurped, divine rule asserts itself in defense of human rule—and (dare I say) dynastic, human rule at that.

The inspired author organized this material to move the reader away from the position articulated by Gideon. Gideon had proposed that permanent, dynastically self-perpetuating rule was incompatible with divine rule, and set up the ephod to make divine rule complete. But 8:27 demonstrates that when human rule is declined, divine rule is perverted. Judges 8:28-35 takes another step away from Gideon by correlating and coordinating the rejection of divine rule and human rule: Both fall together. The way was then open for the Abimelech story to function as a prodynastic narrative in which God is depicted as vindicating the speech of the sole surviving son of Gideon: Divine rule asserts itself against fratricidal usurpation. Far from advocating a charismatic model of leadership, the writer expressed a commitment to political institutions, specifically the institution of dynastic rule. Behind the whole process, for this writer, stands the view that God is best honored by a community with regular structures of human rule and succession, and who sets in place forces of judgment when those structures are violated.

Do issues like inheritance and succession matter to the church of the twenty-first century? Perhaps they do. The Christian church in its early centuries faced a problem: Once the apostles had died, how were believers to ensure the purity of their doctrine, worship, and practice? The earliest church fathers spoke of succession: If the teaching came from one who had sat at the feet of the apostles, then the teaching was considered true. Over time, this principle of trusting the authorized, human channel of revelation traced back to the apostles solidified into two forms. On the one hand, the canon of the New Testament took shape primarily around debates about what actually constituted the true apostolic witness. The New Testament documents represented a universally accepted standard of apostolic preaching and teaching. On the other hand, the early church continued to treasure the chain of teaching from leader to leader in the great urban churches of the Mediterranean world, a chain extending back to the apostles. This view ultimately crystallized in the view represented in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Even Protestants, who reject the claims of the centrality of any one human leader, still esteem highly the witness of past believers and teachers, as they affirm sola scriptura. While Christians for centuries have debated these two sets of claims, a third approach has always haunted the church. The church has always had those who claimed to need no ties to the past, no standards of teaching, no rule of faith. Such believers claim they need only the Spirit of God to inspire them and guide their reading of the Bible (if they are bound to the Bible!). Proudly declaring their independence from any tradition or precedent, spurning the wisdom of others, past and present, they set out to establish their faith and life de novo. Such need no leadership except that of the Spirit, and they become a law unto themselves. The history of Christianity is replete with examples of how such leadership solely by the Spirit, or solely by Scripture, eventually becomes the chaotic, tyrannical rule of one person. In many ways, these believers bear a strong resemblance to Abimelech and his comrades. Authority emerging from illegitimate origins ends in the abuse of power. As noted earlier, the great divide between Gideon and Abimelech is that Gideon embraced power only after a long process of testing and clarification. Even though his abdication in the end was wrong, it still revealed how little Gideon actually loved power. Abimelech, however, and those like him, live only for power, worshiping the god of raw force. Abimelech blindly repudiated any authority beyond himself, an error brought forcibly to mind by the Thebezite woman’s millstone.

The church must always recognize that however new and fresh our experience of God’s grace in Christ might be, we also receive that faith as a legacy from those who have gone before us. When we read the Scriptures as our sole authority, we dare not read them alone, arrogantly ignoring the wisdom, experience, and insight of our forebears. We have been preceded, and to those who have paid the ultimate price for their faith, we owe a debt of covenantal loyalty and faithfulness, both to them and to Christ.