INTRODUCTION
1. Title
The English title of this book reflects the MT (“judges”), the LXX (“judges”), and the Vulgate (“Book of Judges”) titles. God brought these “judges” to deliver Israel from oppression. Although they were divinely empowered leaders, they did not become hereditary rulers.
Eight men in this book are said specifically to have “judged” or “led Israel” (GK 9149; 3:10; 10:2–3; 12:7, 8–9, 11, 13–14; 15:20; 16:31). Even though others, such as Ehud (3:12–30) and Gideon (6:1–8:32), were judges, it is not specifically said that they “judged” or “led” Israel. Also “leading” Israel was one woman, Deborah (4:4–5). Elsewhere in Scripture the leaders of the period from Joshua’s death to King Saul are also called “judges” (Ru 1:1; 2Sa 7:11). Eli and Samuel were the last two judges. In all there were fifteen judges, if Barak is considered a co-judge with Deborah and if Eli and Samuel are added to the thirteen judges in the book of Judges.
2. Historical Background
The book of Judges covers the period from the death of Joshua to the dawn of the monarchy. Political and religious turmoil accompanied Israel’s attempts to occupy the land that had been conquered and divided by lot under the leadership of Joshua. Apart from the struggle against the Canaanites at the time of Deborah, Israel’s adversaries came from outside the land. Most of these, such as Moab, Midian, and Ammon, were content periodically to plunder the land. The Philistines, however, who at this time entered Palestine in greater numbers, contested with Israel for permanent possession of the land.
Tragically, the Israelites even fought among themselves. Ephraim was ravaged by Manasseh (ch. 12), and Benjamin was almost annihilated by the other tribes (chs. 20–21). Between the days of Joshua and Samuel, Israel plummeted to moral and spiritual disaster. Over and over the pattern of sin followed by oppression was repeated. Occasionally God raised up a Deborah or a Gideon to turn the people back to himself, but the intervals of revival were all too brief.
The events narrated in Judges cover a period of 410 years if viewed consecutively. Such a lengthy time does not, however, fit any accepted chronology of the early history of Israel. Consequently some of the judge-ships must have overlapped. Samson and Jephthah, for example, may have ruled simultaneously—one in the west (in Canaan), the other in the east (in Transjordan; 10:7). Most of the data can be worked into a satisfactory historical framework if we adopt the early date of the Exodus (c. 1446 B.C.) and Conquest (which began forty years later).
3. Authorship and Date
The writer of the book of Judges is unknown. Although he may have been an associate of Samuel, unlike Samuel he did not focus attention on the dangers inherent in the monarchy. The book is a unified whole, divided into three parts: (1) the success and failure of the Israelites in Canaan (1:1–2:5); (2) the period of the judges’ rule (2:6–16:31); and (3) two stories denoting sin and corruption (17:1–21:25).
Several factors show that the author lived and wrote during the early monarchy (c. 1030 B.C.). The hectic events in this book are viewed from the perspective of a united, stable rule: “In those days Israel had not king; everyone did as he saw fit” (21:25; cf. 18:1; 19:1). This statement suits the time of the united kingdom best; and 1:21 points to a period before David’s capture of Jerusalem, for the Jebusites were living there “to this day.” The mention of Canaanite control of Gezer (1:29) implies that the king of Egypt had not yet captured the city and given it to King Solomon as a dowry for his Egyptian bride (c. 970 B.C.).
4. Purpose
The primary purpose of the book of Judges is to show that Israel’s spiritual condition determined its political and material situation. When the Israelites disregarded Joshua’s warnings and worshiped the gods of Canaan, they felt the wrath of an angry God, who allowed the nation to come under the control of tyrants and invaders. Few books of the Bible show human depravity as does this one. When in the midst of their suffering the nation repented of their sin, cried to God for mercy, and turned to him in renewed obedience, God graciously sent deliverers to rescue the people from oppression.
This book also shows that Israel failed to realize her divinely intended goal without a king. The Israelites were unable to govern themselves according to the law of Moses and thereby proved that they needed a king. To this author, monarchy was definitely better than anarchy. The implication is that a nation led by a godly king would experience prosperity under the blessing of God.
The events recorded in Judges also serve in general to fill the gap between the time of Joshua and that of Samuel.
5. Special Problems
One problem that perplexes the reader of Judges is the apparent approval of cruelty and gruesome killing. But such actions as performed by Ehud and Jael are not necessarily sanctioned either by the author or by the Lord. Long neglect of the Mosaic law had left the Israelites with many mistaken notions about God’s will.
Another problem closely related to the above is how God’s Spirit could use men like Jephthah and Samson, whose motives and behavior were open to such serious question. That God worked through Samson need not denote his approval of an immoral lifestyle. In God’s sovereignty the Holy Spirit came on people for particular tasks, and this enduing was not necessarily proportionate to one’s spirituality. The Spirit’s power enabled people to inspire Israel (6:34; 11:29) and to perform great feats of strength (14:6, 19; 15:14). But it was a temporary enduement, and Samson and later Saul tragically discovered that the Lord had left them. The NT experience of the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit was not known in the OT.
EXPOSITION
I. The Success and Failure of the Tribes in Canaan (1:1–2:5)
A. The Capture of Adoni-Bezek (1:1–7)
1–2 The first chapter presents supplementary material on the conquest of Canaan viewed from the standpoint of individual tribes. Most of the episodes occurred after the death of Joshua. Before conducting further military action, the people consulted the Lord, probably through the Urim and Thummim handled by the high priest (Nu 27:21). As in the order of march in the desert (Nu 2:9), Judah was designated to be first (cf. also Jdg 20:18). Judah was also the tribe leading the march against Benjamin in the civil war at the end of the book (20:18). Though the Joseph tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh) received the birthright (1Ch 5:1), Judah had been destined to lead the nation (Ge 49:10).
“Canaanites” applies to all the peoples found in the land of Palestine, but at times it is restricted to the inhabitants of the valleys and coastal plains (Nu 13:29). God’s promise that he had “given the land into [Judah’s] hands” parallels his encouraging words to Joshua after the death of Moses (Jos 1:3).
3 Judah invited their full-brother tribe Simeon to join them, especially since Simeon’s territory was surrounded by Judah’s (Jos 19:1) and that tribe was undoubtedly gradually absorbed into Judah. The tribe of Simeon was greatly reduced in numbers during the wilderness wanderings, probably as punishment for their sins of idolatry and fornication in Moab (Nu 25:1–14).
4–5 The Lord fulfilled his promise to Judah, who won a great victory at Bezek (cf. 1Sa 11:8). Adoni-Bezek means “lord of Bezek” (cf. Jos 10:1–3). Adoni-Bezek died in Jerusalem (v.7).
6–7 The severing of Adoni-Bezek’s thumbs and big toes incapacitated him as a warrior and as a priest, a dual function common to many kings. In their ordination service the priests had blood applied to their thumbs and big toes (Lev 8:23–24). Adoni-Bezek admitted that he had similarly mutilated the thumbs and toes of seventy rulers of cities, making beggars out of them; so he deserved to be paid back (cf. Ex 21:24).
B. The Capture of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Debir (1:8–15)
8 The city of Jerusalem did not become an integral part of Israel until David stormed the fortress of the Jebusites (2Sa 5:7). Hence the successful attack of Judah was either a temporary or partial capture.
9 From Jerusalem the men of Judah went south and west to continue their conquest. The three areas mentioned are the major geographical divisions of southern Palestine. The “hill country” is the central mountainous region, the “Negev” is the dry ground in the southern part, and the “western foot-hills” represent the region between the mountains and the coastal plain.
10 Hebron (some nineteen miles south of Jerusalem) has the highest elevation (3,000 ft.) of any city in Judah and is famous as the home of Abraham (Ge 13:2; 23:2, 19). Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai were descendants of Anak, who had terrified the spies (cf. Nu 13:22–33). This time, however, the men of Judah conquered them. Fittingly, Caleb, one of the two believing spies, was allotted Hebron as his inheritance (Jos 14:13–14); he directed its capture (Jdg 1:20; see also Jos 15:13–19).
11–13 Debir is located eleven miles southwest of Hebron. Its king was listed among the thirty-one kings captured by Joshua (Jos 12:13). Like Hebron it was a residence of some Anakites (Jos 11:21). This city was captured by Caleb’s younger brother Othniel after Caleb offered his daughter Acsah as the prize. Normally young men paid a bride-price to the father of the bride, but the military triumph was considered payment enough (cf. 1Sam 18:25). As relatives of Kenaz, Othniel and Caleb were apparently associated with an Edomite clan (Ge 36:11). Their rise to prominence in Judah and Israel demonstrates the degree to which other people were assimilated by the chosen nation.
14–15 Caleb’s daughter needed the permission of her husband before she could ask her father for a gift. Since Caleb had given them land in the arid Negev, she requested a field with “springs of water.” Caleb agreed, and this gift may have been her dowry.
C. The Additional Success of Judah and Simeon (1:16–18)
16 The Kenites, an ancient Canaanite people (Ge 15:19) connected with the Amalekites, had been friendly to Israel during the wilderness wanderings. Moses had, in fact, married a Kenite girl. The Kenites left Jericho, the “City of Palms” (3:13), and joined some people of Judah living near Arad, an important city sixteen miles directly south of Hebron. Moses had defeated the king of Arad as Israel skirted southern Palestine (Nu 21:1–3), and Joshua later counted Arad’s king among his victims (Jos 12:14).
17 Judah together with Simeon successfully captured Zephath, renaming it Hormah—a city that was allotted to Simeon (Jos 19:4). Since the name means “total destruction,” it may be the same Hormah demolished by Moses near Arad (Nu 21:1–3). The complete destruction recalls the Lord’s command to wipe out the Canaanites and their livestock and give all the articles of silver and gold to the sanctuary (Dt 7:1–2; 20:16–17; Jos 6:17–19).
18 The capture of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron by Judah must have been temporary (cf. v.19). These were Philistine cities along the coast, though the main migration of the Philistines did not reach Palestine until 1200 B.C. The order of the three cities suggests an invasion from the south.
D. A Summary of Success and Failure (1:19–21)
19 While notably successful in the hilly regions of central Palestine, Judah failed to control the plains. The Israelites were no match for the iron chariots that functioned effectively on the level terrain along the coast (see especially chs. 4–5).
20 Taking Hebron represented the key achievement of Judah, and v.20 attributes its capture to Caleb (cf. also v.9). Hebron became a city of refuge belonging to the priests (Jos 20:7; 21:11), but its fields and suburbs were Caleb’s own possession (Jos 21:12).
21 Benjamin’s main city was Jerusalem, but neither Benjamin nor Judah could dislodge the Jebusites (see comment on v.8). An alternate name for Jerusalem is “Jebus” (19:10), which attests to the long attachment of the Jebusites to this natural stronghold.
Five Cities of the Philistines
Like a string of opulent pearls along the Mediterranean coast, the five cities of the Philistines comprise a litany of familiar Biblical names: Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath.
Each was a commercial emporium with important connections reaching as far as Egypt along the coastal route, the “interstate highway” of the ancient world. The ships of Phoenicia, Cyprus, Crete and the Aegean called at Philistia’s seaports, which included a site today called Tell Qasile, where a Philistine temple has been found, on the Yarkon River just north of modern Tel Aviv.
The Philistine plain itself was an arid, loess-covered lowland bordering on the desert to the south—a stretch of undulating sand dunes adjacent to the sea—and the foothills of the Judahite plateau on the east. No area in Biblical history was more frequently contested than the western foothills (the Shephelah region), lying on the border between Judea and Philistia. Beth Shemesh, Timnah, Azekah and Ziklag were among the towns coveted by both Israelites and Philistines, and they figure in the stories of Samson, Goliath and David.
The area to the north of Philistia, the plain of Sharon, was also contested at various periods: During Saul’s reign the Philistines even held Beth Shan and the Esdraelon valley. Later, from about the time of Baasha on, a long border war was conducted by the Israelites at Gibbethon. Originally a part of Judah’s tribal allotment, the coastal area was never totally wrested away from the Philistines who may have begun their occupation as early as the time of Abraham.
E. The Capture of Bethel (1:22–26)
22 Next to Judah, the most important tribe was Ephraim; and vv.22–29 describe the activities of Ephraim and his brother, Manasseh. The two tribes may have cooperated in the capture of Bethel (about twelve miles north of Jerusalem), since the attack is attributed to “the house of Joseph”; but the city lay within Ephraim’s territory. Bethel means “house of God,” a name given by Jacob after God’s revelation to him there (Ge 28:19). As God promised to protect the patriarch, so he “was with” the Joseph tribes here. Bethel was to become a key religious center during the divided kingdom.
23–25 To capture Bethel, Israel followed the strategy used at Jericho. Spies were sent there, and they found a man willing to show them the entrance to the city. In return for his cooperation, the spies promised safety for the informer, just as Rahab and her family had been protected at Jericho. When the Israelites captured the city, they released the man and his family.
26 These survivors headed north, “to the land of the Hittites,” a term applied to Syria (Jos 1:4). The Hittite Empire was based in Asia Minor but extended its control over wide areas west of the Euphrates.
F. Additional Failures of the Tribes (1:27–36)
27 The remainder of ch. 1 records the inability of the other tribes to occupy territory. Manasseh’s allotment included several key cities in the Valley of Jezreel. Joshua 17:16 mentions the problems in this area because the Canaanites had “iron chariots.” Beth Shan was an important fortress controlling a trading route across the Jordan.
Taanach was five miles southeast of Megiddo, a city that controlled the pass at the entrance to the Jezreel Valley. Dor lies along the Mediterranean coast south of Carmel; Ibleam is situated at the southern end of the Jezreel Valley near Dothan. Joshua had defeated the kings of these three cities (Jos 12:21, 23), but a permanent Israelite occupation did not follow. The Canaanites, like the Amorites in vv.34–35, were determined to keep their living areas and resist Israel.
28 The most the Israelites could do was to exploit the Canaanites as a cheap labor force. Moses earlier had instructed the nation to use the residents of peaceful cities near Canaan as forced laborers, but the peoples of Canaan were to be totally destroyed (Dt 20:11–17).
29 Ephraim failed to gain possession of Gezer, a city eighteen miles west of Jerusalem. This city guarded the approaches to the foothills and Jerusalem from the northwest.
30 Zebulun’s territory was north of Manasseh’s. The cities of Kitron and Nahahol likely were situated on the northern edge of the Jezreel Valley.
31–32 The tribe of Asher experienced wide setbacks against Acco, Aczib, and Sidon, regions on the Mediterranean north of Mount Carmel, and against the other towns somewhat farther inland. Here the cities of Tyre and Sidon led a strong Canaanite culture with its vigorous Baal worship. Their culture and religion had a strong influence on Israel, especially during the reigns of Solomon and Ahab.
33 The Naphtalites, whose region lay to the east of Asher, failed to dislodge the residents of Beth Shemesh and Beth Anath. Beth Shemesh (“house of the sun”) may have had a sanctuary devoted to the worship of the sun god; Beth Anath contains the name of Anath, the Canaanite goddess of war and both consort and sister of Baal.
34–36 The fortunes of the tribe of Dan have a certain prominence in Judges (see ch. 18). Their difficulties stemmed from Amorite pressure to keep them out of the plains and valleys, where most of their inheritance lay. The Amorites kept control of Aijalon, eleven miles northwest of Jerusalem, and nearby Shaalbim. After the Danites migrated north, the nearby tribe of Ephraim finally subjugated the Amorites. The “Scorpion Pass” is located south of the Dead Sea, at the southern border of the Promised Land (Jos 15:2–3).
G. Disobedience Condemned by the Angel of the Lord (2:1–5)
1–2 The deplorable spiritual condition of the Israelites lay behind their failure to dispossess the Canaanites. To expose Israel’s sinfulness, the “angel of the LORD” appeared to them. This angel, frequently identified with God himself (6:2; 13:21–22), was perhaps a preincarnate form of the Second Person of the Trinity. His announcements to Gideon and to Samson’s parents promised deliverance at crucial points in Israel’s history. The move from Gilgal to Bokim may signify the relocation of the tabernacle. Gilgal, situated between the Jordan and Jericho, had been the initial religious center (Jos 4:19–20). In 20:18–28 and 21:1–4, Bethel is identified with the sanctuary.
The angel of the Lord charged Israel with breaking their covenant with God in spite of his faithfulness on their behalf. God had fulfilled his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He would “never break [his] covenant” (cf. Lev 26:42–44; Dt 7:9); and out of gratefulness Israel was expected to obey him. Yet they entered into agreements with the Canaanites, including marriage covenants (cf. Pr 2:16–17), and did not tear down their altars (Ex 34:12–13).
3 God therefore did not help the Israelites drive out their enemies but left some to trap them through pagan customs and religions. Israel had been repeatedly warned that the Canaanites could become irritants in their eyes and thorns in their sides (Nu 33:55; Jos 23:13).
4–5 The response of the people to the angel’s sad pronouncement was to weep loudly. Like the weeping of Nu 14:1, when the spies announced that Canaan could not be captured, here the crying does not necessarily imply repentance. They offered sacrifices, however; and the burnt offerings and fellowship offerings sacrificed at Bethel not long after (21:1–4) did connote national mourning. “Bokim” means “weeping.”
II. The Rule of the Judges (2:6–16:31)
A. Introduction (2:6–3:6)
1. The passing of godly leaders (2:6–9)
After the summary of the incomplete wars of occupation, we meet the threatening wars of liberation that characterize the period of the judges. To explain how Israel fell prey to powerful oppressors, the author reviews events since the death of Joshua.
6–9 Just before his death, Joshua had led the people in renewing the covenant with the Lord (Jos 24). Then he sent them away to finish occupying the land. What they did about this is described in ch. 1. Joshua was buried on the land allotted to his family in Timnath Heres. He received the exalted title of “servant of the LORD” (see comment on Jos 24:29). During the lifetime of Joshua and the leaders who outlived him, Israel was relatively faithful to the Lord. These men had experienced God’s miracles.
2. The pattern of the period of the judges (2:10–23)
10 After the death of Joshua’s contemporaries, the new generation accelerated down the highway to destruction. They did not know God in a vital way nor had they seen the miracles their fathers had talked about. Each generation must personally experience the reality of God.
11–13 History repeated itself as Israel went through the fivefold pattern of sin, slavery, supplication, salvation, and silence. The sin phase is always introduced with the words “The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD” (3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). They deserted the very God who had delivered them from Egypt and had saved them from Pharaoh and his host (cf. v.1). They worshiped Baal—an epithet of the Canaanite storm god Hadad, the god of rain and agriculture, and the leading deity in the pantheon. There were also “Baals” associated with particular places (see Nu 25:3; Jdg 9:4). Israel’s earlier encounter with the Baal of Peor had been disastrous (Nu 25). The “Ashtoreths” were deities such as Astarte, who was goddess of the evening star and renowned for her beauty. She was a goddess of fertility, love, and war, and was often linked with Baal (10:6).
14–15 The Lord became angry at Israel’s apostasy and turned the Israelites over to their enemies, thus initiating the slavery phase of the cycle. God “sold them” as one sells a slave (3:8; Dt 32:30). Israel’s crops, supposedly guaranteed by the worship of Baal, were carried off year after year. The strong hand of the Lord now acted to secure Israel’s defeat (cf. Dt 28:25). In their distress the people entered the supplication stage; they cried out to the Lord.
16–19 Salvation came through the judges raised up by God. Some fifteen individuals could claim this designation, though six are “minor” judges who are mentioned only briefly (Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon). Not long after gaining Israel’s freedom, the people forgot what the Lord had done (the silence stage), and the judges would find them newly enmeshed in sin. Their religious prostitution meant that they were forsaking the nation’s true “husband,” the Lord (“Baal” means “husband” or “owner”). Moreover, the worship of the Canaanite gods literally involved sexual conduct with temple prostitutes supposedly to promote the fertility of the soil.
The Lord spared the people throughout the lifetime of a given judge, even though they deserved to be resubjugated. The words “groaned” and “oppressed” (v.18) relate back to the Egyptian bondage (cf. Ex 2:24; 6:5; 3:9). Then after the death of a judge, the corruption of the people increased; they became “stubborn” (GK 7997), repeating their stiff-necked attitude in the desert (cf. Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5).
20–23 Again the anger of the Lord is mentioned (cf. vv.12, 14). There is a note of contempt as the Lord addressed the people as “this nation” rather than as “my nation” (cf. Hag 1:2). The summary here closely resembles the stern pronouncement of vv.1–3 by the angel of the Lord. Violating the covenant meant a slower conquest of Canaan. The nations would be left there to test Israel’s desire to obey the Lord. The constant pressure from a pagan culture would prove who the genuine believers really were.
3. The people left to test Israel (3:1–6)
1–2 The nations left in Canaan to test Israel had another purpose: they afforded practical experience in warfare, for these new generations of Israelites had not participated in Joshua’s wars of occupation. Israel would one day confront major powers like Egypt and Assyria; so the smaller wars provided valuable training. Part of God’s sovereign action was to use the Canaanites both to punish and to teach Israel.
3–4 The Philistines (who had migrated from Caphtor of the Aegean area) are mentioned first, perhaps because they were to become the primary opponents of Israel. Their five-city cluster along the Mediterranean included Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron. The “Sidonians” refers to the Phoenicians, whose leading port city was Sidon (cf. 1:31). The Hivites were located in northern Israel in Jos 11:3, but Shechem (cf. Ge 34:2) and Gibeon (Jos 9:3, 7) in central Palestine were also Hivite cities.
5–6 The Hittites may not be the same north Syrians of 1:26 but another Canaanite people well known at Hebron in the hills of Judah (Ge 23). Intermarriage with the peoples of Canaan had been forbidden (Jos 23:12) since it would lead directly to idolatry. It was into that very trap, however, that the nation fell (cf. 2:1–3).
B. The Victory of Othniel Over Cushan-Rishathaim (3:7–11)
7 The first cycle, though brief, follows the pattern delineated in ch. 2. Israel sinned by forgetting God and worshiping foreign deities. “Asherah” was the wife of both El and Baal, and some confuse her with Ashtareth/Astarte (2:13). An “Asherah” was also a symbol of the goddess, a sacred tree (Dt 16:21), or a carved pole set up beside an altar to Baal (Jdg 6:25).
8 Israel’s sin angered the Lord, who sent Cushan-Rishathaim, king of Upper Mesopotamia, to oppress them. The king’s name seems to mean “Cushan of double evil,” a rather strange designation but perhaps intended to be an intimidating one. “Cush” (Ge 10:8) was the father of Nimrod, founder of Babylonian civilization.
9–10 When the Israelites appealed to God for help, Othniel was commissioned to rescue them. This relative of the illustrious Caleb has already been introduced in 1:11–15 as a successful warrior. His selection shows that the oppression followed Joshua’s death quite closely, perhaps about 1375–1367 B.C. When the Spirit of the Lord came on him, Othniel won a great victory. The empowering of the Spirit is crucial in Judges, and down to the time of David it remained the mark of God’s chosen vessel.
11 Othniel’s triumph ushered in a forty-year peace, the first of several peace periods given in multiples of forty (v.30; 5:31; 8:28).
C. The Victory of Ehud Over Moab (3:12–30)
1. Israel oppressed by Moab (3:12–14)
12–14 When Israel again fell into sin, God used their perennial enemy Moab to subdue them. Usually the Lord gave strength to the Israelites (e.g., 16:28), but here the Lord was on the side of Israel’s foe. In Moses’ day the Moabites had attempted to thwart Israel by hiring Balaam to curse them, and along with the Midianites they had actually involved God’s people in idolatry (Nu 25). Now Moab had allies such as the Amalekites, who had bitterly opposed Israel in the desert (Ex 17:8–16).
Moabite forces crossed the Jordan and occupied Jericho (“City of Palms”). This means that they had first defeated the tribe of Reuben, which had inherited territory east of the Dead Sea. Because of their locale, the Transjordanian tribes were especially vulnerable to enemy attack. Jericho had been cursed by Joshua (Jos 6:26) and was probably unoccupied when King Eglon moved in. From this strategic base Eglon dominated the Israelites for eighteen years.
2. King Eglon slain by Ehud (3:15–25)
15 God’s choice to end the Moabite oppression was a man from Benjamin. Ehud was a left-handed man of the same mold as the seven-hundred expert slingers from Benjamin who fought in the civil war (see 20:13b–16, 43–47).
16–17 Ehud’s task was ostensibly to make the yearly tribute payment to Eglon to assure him of Israel’s subjection for another year. Since the payment was carried by a number of men, it may have been food or wool. For the occasion Ehud had made a small sword or dagger, about eighteen inches long. It was well concealed, and the fact that he was left-handed enhanced his stratagem.
18–23 Apparently Ehud and his men left Jericho before Ehud returned alone to strike his fatal blow. “The idols near Gilgal” were most likely a well-known landmark. After the other Israelites were safely en route home, Ehud came back to seek a private audience with Eglon. The king wanted to hear this secret message, so he requested his officials and attendants to leave. With Eglon sitting in the cool upper room of his palace, Ehud presented the “message from God.” The king stood up reverently to hear the divine oracle, and Ehud drew his sword and delivered the fatal “message.” Perhaps the huge size of the king (cf. v.17) and the unexpected use of the left hand prevented him from seeing Ehud’s move, for it is clear that no cry of alarm was heard outside. Ehud left the dagger completely buried in Eglon’s abdomen and made his escape, locking the doors of the room to prevent quick detection of his crime.
24–25 Eglon’s officials hesitated to unlock the doors, assuming that their master might be seeing to his bodily needs. Finally they became suspicious and took a key to remove the bolt from the doors. They found the king lying on the floor, the victim of assassination. God did not necessarily approve of the method used by Ehud, for the Spirit of the Lord did not come on Ehud, and he was never described as “judging Israel” (cf. 2Sa 4:11).
3. The Moabites defeated by Ehud (3:26–30)
26 The reluctance of the Moabite officials to break into the king’s room gave Ehud the time he needed to escape. He followed the same route he had started to take earlier (cf. v.19), heading for the unidentified “Seirah.” His goal was to reach the hill country of Ephraim. Ephraim was one of the most powerful tribes of Israel and occupied the territory adjacent to Benjamin on the north.
27–29 Ehud knew that the death of Moab’s king would throw the officials and troops at Jericho into confusion—an opportune time to strike the hated invaders and end their rule. Using the ancient alarm system of a trumpet (Nu 10:9), Ehud quickly assembled Israelite men to help him follow up his personal triumph. Ehud’s bravery and enthusiasm inspired a large following, for all sensed that the Lord was handing the enemy over to them. Under Ehud’s command the Israelites took control of the fords of the Jordan and cut off Moab’s line of retreat (cf. 7:24; 12:5–6). Ehud led the rout of ten thousand Moabites, who probably represented Eglon’s crack troops.
30 Israel’s victory restored her independence as Moab was “made subject” (GK 6268) or “subdued.” This verb is used at the end of several cycles in Judges (4:23; 8:28; 11:33) to indicate a thorough defeat. Eighty years of peace (1309–1229?), the longest “rest” in the book, followed Ehud’s triumph.
D. The Victory of Shamgar Over the Philistines (3:31)
31 The reference to Shamgar is brief but intriguing. As with some of the other minor judges, there is no mention of the sin of Israel (10:1–5; 12:8–15). Shamgar’s work was explicitly military. He won an astonishing victory over the Philistines by means of an oxgoad (cf. 15:16)—a stout stick tipped with bronze and used for prodding animals. Shamgar’s use of this weapon implies that the Philistines were already disarming neighboring people (cf. 5:8; 1Sa 13:19–22).
Shamgar is a foreign name. His name is mentioned in 5:6, along with Jael, as a hero of Israel. He may have been a contemporary of Ehud, since the latter’s death is not cited till 4:1.
E. The Victory of Deborah and Barak Over Jabin and Sisera (4:1–5:31)
1. The prose account (4:1–24)
Somewhat in the form of Hebrew parallelism, Judges has two supplementary accounts of the victory over the Canaanites. The first is in narrative fashion; the second is a majestic poem.
a. The oppression (4:1–3)
1–3 The next major oppression came at the hands of a coalition of Canaanite forces led by Jabin and Sisera, and it affected primarily the northern tribes. Jabin lived in Hazor, once the largest city in Palestine, some nine miles north of the Sea of Galilee on the main route between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Joshua had defeated a Jabin king of Hazor (cf. Jos 11:1–11). Sisera’s strength lay in his 900 chariots, a sizable force for this early period. With this military advantage, he terrorized the tribes living near the Valley of Jezreel.
b. Deborah’s challenge to Barak (4:4–10)
4–5 Deborah was a prophetess, like Miriam (Ex 15:20) and Huldah (2Ki 22:14), and also a judge. Because the rule of women was not normal in Israel, her prominence implies a lack of qualified men. Deborah sat as judge at the southern end of Ephraim’s territory. The reference to a palm tree may allude to the stateliness and gracefulness of women (SS 7:7–8).
6 The Lord commanded Deborah to challenge Barak of Naphtali to confront Sisera’s troops, whose oppression was felt even in Ephraim and Benjamin. Naphtali and Zebulun, the first tribes to be summoned, covered most of Israel’s territory north of the Jezreel Valley. Cone-shaped Mount Tabor rises some thirteen hundred feet from the valley and afforded an unmistakable meeting place. Barak was told to “lead the way”; if he did so, God would lead the enemy into the trap.
7 Deborah revealed that the site of the battle would be near the Kishon River. This river flowed in a northwesterly direction through the Valley of Jezreel and emptied into the Mediterranean north of Carmel. During the summer months it dwindled to a mere stream. The surrounding valley was excellent terrain for deploying chariots. During the spring, however, the rains caused the river to overflow its banks and flood the low-lying areas nearby.
8–10 Barak expressed his willingness to go, but only if Deborah accompanied him. Her presence as a prophetess would assure contact with the Lord, just as the presence of Moses and the ark of the covenant brought victory in battle (Nu 10:35), while their absence meant defeat (Nu 14:44). Barak’s lack of faith prompted Deborah to predict that the honor of killing Sisera would belong to a woman (see v.11). So Deborah went along, and her support helped Barak raise the necessary troops. They began the search for troops in Kedesh, Barak’s hometown.
c. Jael’s husband introduced (4:11)
11 This seemingly intrusive verse acquaints the reader with the family of the woman Deborah had just alluded to in v.9. Jael, the wife of Heber, belonged to the nomadic Kenites, most of whom lived in the arid regions of southern Judah (1:16). As relatives of Moses, this people had a strong tie with Israel. The “great tree" in Zaanannim (cf. Jos 19:33) lay on the escape route taken by Sisera after the battle.
d. Sisera’s army routed by Barak (4:12–16)
12–14 When Sisera learned of Israel’s troop movements at the northeastern end of the valley, he called out his entire chariot force and a large army to advance against them from the west. The presence of a sizable enemy force at Mount Tabor cut off the line of communication between Sisera and King Jabin in Hazor. Humanly speaking Barak’s hastily gathered army had no chance against such might, but Deborah said that this was the opportune moment. She encouraged Barak by announcing that “the LORD [had] gone ahead [GK 4200 & 7156] of [him].” This is a technical term used of a king marching at the head of his army (1Sa 8:20). The Lord would take the lead in striking down the enemy (2Sa 5:24).
15–16 The Lord’s role is even clearer as he “routed” (GK 2169; cf. Ex 14:24; 1Sa 7:10) Sisera’s army. This routing probably took place by a rainstorm (cf. “thunder” in 1Sa 7:10; cf. also Jos 10:10–11), for Deborah’s song shows that a sudden downpour overwhelmed Sisera’s chariots (5:20–21). Even Sisera was forced to abandon his useless chariot and flee north, away from the heated action. The main conflict took place at Taanach, some five miles south of Megiddo (5:19).
The Lord’s control of the forces of nature showed his superiority over Baal, the Canaanite storm god. Sisera would certainly not have tried to depend on chariots during the rainy season; so this storm probably struck some time after the spring rains that normally end in May. The lightly armed Israelites quickly demoralized the bogged-down Canaanites, who turned and fled westward. It was a decisive victory, for the Canaanites never again formed a coalition against Israel.
e. Sisera slain by Jael (4:17–24)
17 Sisera headed north away from the main line of pursuit. He may have hoped to reach Hazor, but his strength was running out. When he arrived at Zaanannim, he decided to take advantage of the hospitality of the friendly Kenites. He knew of their cordial relationship with Jabin but was clearly unaware of their intermarriage with Israel (v.11).
18–20 Jael greeted Sisera as “lord” (GK 123), in deference, he thought, to his lofty military title. Her offer of refuge was tempting, for who would search for him in a woman’s tent? Besides, the law of hospitality among nomads guaranteed the safety of one’s guests. Jael put a covering over the exhausted leader and gave him some milk (probably a kind of yogurt or curdled milk; 5:25). Though Jael’s kindness convinced Sisera of his safety, he took one more precaution by asking her to mislead any potential searching party.
21 When Sisera had fallen into a deep sleep, Jael picked up a wooden mallet and a tent peg and drove the peg into his temple, with enough force to hammer the tent peg into the ground. Women normally did the work of putting up and taking down the tents; so Jael knew how to handle her tools. Although Jael’s action was a startling violation of hospitality, Sisera was a man who had “cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years” (4:3). Since he had had no mercy on God’s covenant people, Sisera probably lay under the sentence of “total destruction” placed on the Canaanites in general (Dt 7:2; Jos 6:17; see comment on Jos 2:10). Victory over the enemy was usually not considered complete until the leaders were eliminated, and in specific cases the Lord demanded that their lives be taken.
22 When Barak finally tracked Sisera down, Jael showed him the dead commander. Deborah’s prediction had come true; Barak lost the honor of vanquishing his chief rival. Sisera had died at the hands of a woman—in that culture a disgraceful death (cf. 9:54).
23–24 The rout of Sisera’s army broke the power of Jabin, king of Canaan. Without his commanding general, he succumbed to the Israelite forces. His eventual destruction doubtless includes the loss of his capital at Hazor.
2. The poetic version—the Song of Deborah (5:1–31)
The victory over the Canaanites was also commemorated in a poem of rare beauty. Called the “Song of Deborah,” this masterpiece expresses heartfelt praise to God for leading his people in triumph. It is a hymn of thanksgiving, a song of victory like Ex 15 or Ps 68. The poetry itself is magnificent, featuring many examples of climactic parallelism (vv.7, 19–20, 27) and onomatopoeia (v.22). Deborah is usually considered the author; the connection between prophetess and music is a natural one (cf. Ex 15:20–21).
a. Praise to God for his intervention (5:1–5)
1 A prose verse similar in form to Ex 15:1 introduces the song. Both songs commemorate the supernatural overthrow of horses and chariots.
2 The opening line can also be translated “When locks of hair grow long in Israel,” alluding to the practice of leaving hair uncut to fulfill a vow (Nu 6:5, 18). This then connotes dedication to the Lord in participating in a “holy war” (cf. Dt 32:42). The willingness of the people to fight for the Lord is emphasized in the second line. “Praise” (GK 1385) is literally from the verb “to bless.”
3 Out of deep gratitude for God’s motivating work among the people, Deborah lifted her heart to the One worthy of praise. She wanted “kings” and “rulers” (GK 8142) to hear about the God of Israel and his magnificent victory. The song is directed to “the LORD” (GK 3378), the name of God that expresses his covenant relationship with Israel.
4–5 These two verses describe a theophany (a visible, temporal manifestation of God), a characteristic of songs of victory (Ps 68:7–8). God’s intervention is compared with his awesome appearance at Sinai, where the covenant with Israel was established to the accompaniment of thunderstorm and earthquake (Ex 19:16–18). This is an apt reference, for the rains had been Sisera’s undoing and again revealed God’s transcendent power.
b. Conditions during the oppression (5:6–8)
6 Conditions were deplorable as Canaanite robbers roamed the highways, making travel dangerous. Commercial trading was likewise stopped, and the economy was being adversely affected.
7–8 Agriculture also was disrupted by the marauders. Life in unwalled villages was unsafe, and crops had to be abandoned. God had sent war and oppression because of their sin; now they were being effectively disarmed as well (or perhaps the large army did not dare to use their weapons against Sisera and his chariots). This lamentable situation continued until Deborah came on the scene. Her deep concern for the nation and her abilities as prophetess and judge inspired the people to take action. But first they had to give up the “new gods” they had chosen.
c. Challenge to recount the Lord’s victory (5:9–11)
9 Oppression and defeat have given way to triumph, as travelers can once more move about freely, and normal activities are resumed. The author’s heart goes out to the volunteers and leaders whose courage made this possible.
10–11 All classes of travelers are told to listen as the singers recount God’s great acts. Whether rich or poor, all would stop at the wells and have an opportunity to hear about the Lord’s “righteous acts.” The final two lines present the reverse of v.8: instead of war coming to the gates, people could now congregate there for normal judicial and business activities.
d. The roles of the individual tribes (5:12–18)
To throw off the Canaanite yoke, it was important for the tribes to cooperate in battle. Those who participated are commended, while the tribes who shirked their responsibility are condemned.
12 The section begins with a call to Deborah herself to awake. Normally “wake up” (GK 6424) is a plea to take action (Ps 44:23; Isa 51:9), and apparently Deborah had to be roused from her complacency as a judge (4:5). The song she is asked to “break out in” may have been a war song (cf. 2Sa 1:18). Barak (son of Abinoam; 4:6) too is called on to take captives, implying a convincing victory (cf. Ps 68:18; Eph 4:8).
13 The years of oppression had taken a heavy toll in lives. The verse may reflect a two-stage gathering of troops. First, volunteers may have joined their tribal leaders, before journeying together to the rallying point at Mount Tabor. The last phrase could be translated “against the mighty,” meaning the enemy.
14–15a Ephraim and Benjamin, two southern tribes, are mentioned first, perhaps because of their association with Deborah. The reference to Amalek is probably a geographical one (cf. 12:15). Makir usually refers to the half-tribe of Manasseh east of the Jordan, but here the western half is clearly intended (Jos 13:30–31) since the battle occurred within its borders. Zebulun is highly praised for its bravery. Along with Naphtali, they had responded to Barak’s initial summons (4:10). Issachar, located at the eastern end of the Jezreel Valley, also participated enthusiastically.
15b–16 Several tribes somewhat distant earned the author’s wrath for their inactivity. Apparently Reuben at least seriously considered sending some men, for their “searching of heart” is mentioned twice. The tribes from Transjordan had made an important contribution to the conquest under Joshua (cf. comment on Jos 1:12), but pressure from the Moabites may have influenced Reuben’s decision. The mention of campfires and flocks presents a tranquil picture in contrast with war cries and clashing armies.
17 Gilead was a common designation for much of Transjordan. The tribe of Gad possessed most of Gilead (Jos 13:24–25), though the half-tribe of Manasseh also lived there (Jos 13:31). “Reuben” and “Gilead” would thus include all three of the tribes across the Jordan.
The tribe of Dan had encountered difficulty in taking possession of their inheritance ever since the time of Joshua (cf. 1:34). It is not surprising, then, that they did not help solve this largely northern problem. The reference to “ships” implies that Dan had not yet migrated to the north. Asher, situated along the coast north of Carmel, had also failed to dislodge the Canaanites. Yet Asher was close enough to the oppressed area to have offered some assistance.
18 The aloofness of these tribes is sharply contrasted with the wholehearted efforts of Zebulun and Naphtali. Judah and Simeon are not mentioned, presumably because of their location far to the south.
e. The battle described (5:19–23)
The vividness of the poetry increases as the author uses repetition, satire, and concrete imagery to paint a lively picture. This poetic account should be closely compared with the description of the battle in 4:12–16.
19 The armies clashed at Taanach, near Megiddo, and the kings of Canaan were supremely confident of victory. With a touch of sarcasm, the author says that this time there was no plunder. They had robbed and oppressed the Israelites for the last time.
20–22 The Canaanites’ downfall came as God intervened. The reference to the participation of the stars may be a slap at astrological readings used by the Canaanites. As the rains fell, the river Kishon overflowed its banks; and chariots and riders were swept away. The surging river encouraged the Israelites to “march on” in pursuit of the enemy. The mighty horses of the foe were no match for the people of the God of Israel. In the context “thundering hoofs” seems to relate to a frantic retreat. The repetition of “galloping” (GK 1852) is a striking example of onomatopoeia in Hebrew.
23 The city of Meroz came under God’s curse, pronounced by the angel of the Lord, for failing to fight. Meroz was undoubtedly located in the heart of the oppressed area; so the condemnation of that community was more severe than that of the distant tribes. Since elsewhere in Judges cities refusing to participate in urgent battles were destroyed (8:15–17; 21:8–10), Meroz may have shared the same fate.
f. Jael praised for her deed (5:24–27)
24–27 In sharp contrast to the curse against Meroz is the blessing reserved for Jael, a woman who refused to remain neutral (see comments on 4:19–21). She initially treated Sisera in accord with his noble standing. But this once magnificent leader was quickly struck down. This heroine is compared to an expert archer, for the verbs “shattered” and “pierced” are used of arrows in Nu 24:8 and Job 20:24.
In v.27, the words “sank” and “fell” occur three times each, and “feet” occurs twice. This repetition builds up to the final and climactic word of the verse: “dead” (lit., “destroyed”). Sisera had been a mighty and devastating force against Israel, but now the destroyer was himself destroyed (cf. Isa 33:1).
g. Sisera’s mother’s futile wait (5:28–30)
28–30 The scene shifts from Jael’s tent to the luxurious home of Sisera. With a skillful, dramatic touch, the author reflects on the agonized waiting of Sisera’s mother for the return of her son. The long delay could mean that the illustrious warrior had tasted defeat, but his mother and her ladies-in-waiting console themselves with visions of plunder. It was common for soldiers to carry off beautiful maidens as trophies of victory (cf. 21:12). “Garments” were a special prize of war (cf. Jos 7:21; Zec 14:14), and Sisera as commander was sure to secure the most beautiful for his family.
h. Conclusion (5:31)
31 As in another song of victory (Ps 68:1–2), there is rejoicing over the fall of the wicked (cf. Nu 10:35). Reference to the sun and its strength closely parallels Ps 19:4b–6; Mal 4:2. The stunning defeat of Sisera resulted in forty years of peace for Israel.
F. The Victory of Gideon Over the Midianites (6:1–8:32)
The Gideon cycle is the longest segment of the book. Chapter 9 might also be counted as part of the Gideon story, since it describes the rule of his son. Under the inspiring leadership of this judge, the Israelites won a victory even more astonishing than that of Deborah and Barak.
l. Israel’s land devastated by the Midianites (6:1–6)
1–4 For the fourth time in Judges, the Israelites fell into sin. This time they found themselves at the mercy of invading Midianites. These desert dwellers, descended from Abraham and Keturah (Ge 25:2), lived generally to the south of Palestine. For seven years the camel-riding Midianites swept across the Jordan into the Valley of Jezreel at harvest time. With their speedy, wide-ranging mounts, they roamed all the way to Gaza, helping themselves to crops and animals. The Midianites were joined by the Amalekites—who had earlier assisted King Eglon of Moab (3:12–13)—and by other eastern peoples. Israel was helpless to resist the invaders and literally took to the hills to save their lives. It was a time of judgment comparable to the Day of the Lord (Isa 2:12, 19; 9:4).
5–6 The destruction was so great that it could be described in terms of a plague of locusts. Both in numbers and in effect, the invasion of the nomads matched the work of those devastating insects earlier mentioned as the inevitable outcome of disobedience (Dt 28:38; cf. Joel 1:4). The staple products of the land were no doubt hard hit by this yearly destruction (cf. Joel 1:11), including sheep, cattle, and donkeys (cf. Dt 28:31). The main areas affected had borne the brunt of the preceding Canaanite oppression. Manasseh suffered most, along with other tribes adjacent to the Jezreel Valley: Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (v.35).
2. Israel’s disobedience condemned by a prophet (6:7–10)
7–10 In their distress the Israelites once more cried out to the Lord. The last time this happened, God used the prophetess Deborah to bring deliverance (4:3–4). On this occasion the Lord sent a “prophet” (GK 5566) to pinpoint the cause of the oppression in words similar to those of the angel of the Lord in 2:1–4. Once again God reminded the people of their release from Egypt’s slavery, which should have resulted in perpetual devotion to the Lord. Instead, the Israelites had been worshiping the gods of the Amorites. Here “Amorites” is used generally of all the inhabitants of Palestine (cf. Ge 15:16). Israel refused “to listen to” (GK 9048) the Lord, a Hebrew idiom for disobedience (cf. 2:2).
3. Gideon challenged by the angel of the Lord (6:11–24)
11 The Lord’s instrument of deliverance was a young man from the tribe of Manasseh named Gideon. While he was threshing wheat in Ophrah, the angel of the Lord appeared to him there and sat under the oak tree (cf. 4:5). To hide the wheat and himself from the Midianites, Gideon was threshing in a winepress, a pit carved out of rocky ground. Normally threshing floors were located in exposed areas so that the wind could easily blow away the chaff.
12 The angel’s words seemed out of line with the timid actions of Gideon, and Gideon himself challenged their validity. Actually, the promise of the Lord’s presence was intended to encourage Gideon, just as the same assurance led Moses to take the Israelites out of Egypt. “The Lord is with you” is in fact the basic meaning of the name Yahweh (see comment on Ex 3:12–14). Gideon was called a “mighty warrior,” perhaps in anticipation of his remarkable bravery, or else a term that means he was of the upper class, the warriors who became the landed aristocracy.
13 Gideon did not recognize the visitor and complained that the oppression proved that the Lord was not with Israel. Like the psalmist (Ps 44.1–3, 9–16), Gideon contrasted the miracles everyone had heard about with the current inactivity of the Lord. Apparently Gideon was unaware of the prophet’s explanation in vv.8–10.
14 The heavenly guest is identified as the Lord himself, who was sending Gideon as Israel’s deliverer (cf. Ex 3:12; Isa 6:8–9). The strength Gideon possessed was the promise of the Lord’s presence with him.
15–16 It is difficult to know whether “Lord” (GK 151) means “sir” or “Lord,” for either is possible; in any case, Gideon came to recognize the supernatural character of the visitor only gradually. Gideon belonged to the weak clan of Abiezer, and his own position in his family division was not a prominent one. Yet God delights to use those who are young or humble and bring them to prominence (see 1Co 1:26–27). Gideon’s fears were somewhat relieved by the reassurance that with the Lord’s help he would be able to defeat the Midianites.
17–21 To obtain proof that God or his messenger was really talking to him, Gideon requested that his guest perform a miraculous sign, the first of three signs that Gideon was to see. First, however, Gideon received permission to bring his guest an offering. Since “offering” can mean “gift,” the food prepared by Gideon was partially an expression of hospitality. Unleavened bread is, of course, involved in many offerings; but it is sometimes served in quickly prepared meals (Ge 19:3). This was a substantial meal for such a time of scarcity, since the “ephah” of flour was about half a bushel. The angel instructed Gideon to use the rock—perhaps part of the winepress—as an altar. The fiery consumption of the meat and bread indicated the acceptance of Gideon’s offering and, together with the disappearance of the angel, provided the sign Gideon was seeking.
22–24 Gideon’s response was one of fright, for he knew that no one could see God face to face and live (Ex 33:20; cf. Jdg 13:22). Gideon was quickly assured that he would live, since the Lord promised him “peace” (GK 8934) and well-being. This peace included not only his personal welfare but also the restoration of Israel’s freedom and prosperity. Gratefully, Gideon built an altar to commemorate the Lord’s promise.
4. The altar of Baal destroyed and Gideon’s life imperiled (6:25–32)
25–26 Almost immediately the Lord asked Gideon to respond to his call to deliver Israel from Midian by taking decisive action in his own family. Even his father had espoused the Baal cult, leading the community in the worship of this pagan deity. Through Moses, God had said that altars to Baal and their accompanying Asherahs must be torn down (Ex 34:12–13; Dt 7:5; cf. Jdg 2:2). Baal worship was popular, however, and Gideon knew he was risking his life by obeying the Lord.
Part of Gideon’s task was to sacrifice a bull on a new altar dedicated to the Lord. Bull worship was closely associated with Baal and his father, El, and this particular bull was doubtless reserved for the Baal cult. If two bulls were intended, one might have been used to break down the pagan altar. The altar of the Lord was to be set up on top of a “height” (i.e., a “bluff” or “stronghold”), a prominent place where the city residents may have found refuge from the Midianites. Pieces of wood from the sacred pole would supply fuel for the burnt offering.
27–30 Gideon followed the Lord’s orders at night, correctly anticipating that his deeds would arouse the anger of the populace and his own relatives. Apparently one of Gideon’s ten servants revealed the identity of Baal’s enemy to the townspeople, and they demanded Gideon’s death. How different from Dt 13:6–10, where Moses commanded that even close relatives must be stoned for idolatry! The heresy had become the main religion.
31 Joash refused to put his son to death, arguing that a deity like Baal could defend himself. To interfere was an insult to Baal punishable by death. Joash’s seemingly honest appeal to Baal may reflect his own doubt in the power of a deity who could not deliver them from the Midianites.
32 Gideon was probably called Jerub-Baal (“Let Baal contend [with him]”) as a derogatory name, indicating the certain judgment the people expected him to face. When no harm came to him, the name became a reminder of Gideon’s great victory over Baal.
5. Gideon’s army (6:33–35)
33 The crisis in Ophrah was soon eclipsed by the annual invasion of the Midianite coalition. This was their eighth incursion into the fertile Valley of Jezreel, and it came during the wheat harvest in May or June (v.11).
34–35 This time, however, the enemy was not to feast without a fight. The Spirit of the Lord “came upon” (lit., “clothed”; GK 4252) Gideon (cf. 2Ch 24:20–21; Isa 51:9; Lk 24:49), already encouraged by his initial obedience. Like Ehud (3:27), Gideon sounded the trumpet of alarm to gather the troops. The men of his own clan of Abiezer were the first to follow him—an indication that they now shared Gideon’s attitude toward Baalism. Then the rest of Manasseh and the other northern tribes came to oppose the Midianites. Ephraim was not invited, perhaps because Gideon feared that this powerful “brother” tribe would not accept his leadership (cf. 1:22; 8:1–3).
6. The fleece (6:36–40)
36–38 Gideon’s confidence in God’s promises was far from complete and needed to be bolstered frequently. As in the previous instance (v.17), Gideon again asked for a sign to confirm God’s favor and word (cf. Ge 24:12–14). Gideon felt that if the fleece only was wet with dew and not the surrounding ground, that meant the Lord was with him. As Gideon requested, so it was: the fleece was saturated with dew, but the ground was dry.
39–40 The wool fleece would absorb the dew more readily than the hard ground of the threshing floor; so the second test required an even greater miracle. When Gideon made the second request, he knew the Lord would be unhappy with his weak faith. The wording of v.39 is remarkably close to Abraham’s final plea on behalf of Sodom (Ge 18:32).
Like Gideon, many a believer whose faith needed bolstering has “put out the fleece” to help him find the Lord’s will. If this “fleece” consists of a careful observation and interpretation of God’s leading through circumstances, the procedure can be a healthy one. But Gideon’s method was to make purely arbitrary demands of God and insist on immediate guidance. Despite Gideon’s lack of faith and insistence on a second sign, God in mercy not only chose to withhold punishment but condescended to answer him.
7. Gideon’s army reduced (7:1–8a)
1 With his hastily assembled army, Gideon set up camp at En-Harod, at the foot of Mount Gilboa. The Midianite hordes were located some four miles north of them in the Jezreel Valley, at a place about ten miles west of the Jordan. The invaders knew about this 32,000-man army and their leader (v.14), but apparently they did not view them as a serious threat.
2–3 The Lord’s instructions probably came as a surprise to Gideon, who was already outnumbered four to one. But the size of the army was not the crucial factor: God could give victory to a few men as easily as to a large army (cf. 1Sa 14:6). Lest Israel take credit for her achievements, the Lord began to remove all ground for boasting. The first stage in the troop reduction was to allow the cowardly to go back home. Their fear might prove contagious and ruin the campaign (cf. Dt 20:8). More than two-thirds of Gideon’s army left the scene.
4–6 The Lord, however, informed Gideon that the army had to be reduced even further. A special “screening” was setup based on the way the 10,000 drank water. This strange procedure netted a total of 300 men who apparently crouched down to scoop up water by using their hands as a dog uses its tongue. All the others dropped to their knees before drinking.
7–8a Possibly the 300 displayed a greater alertness in staying on their feet, but in actuality they may have been no more courageous than the 9,700 others. When v.8a says that Gideon “kept” (GK 2616) the 300, it implies that they too had a strong urge to vanish with their colleagues (this expression is used in 19:4 for a person detained against his will). If these 300 men were beginning to tremble, the need for God’s intervention became even greater. Before departing the 9,700 gave the remaining soldiers their provisions and their trumpets. The large number of trumpets that Gideon acquired (cf. v.18) implies that a surprise attack was in the planning.
The story of Gideon begins with a graphic portrayal of one of the most striking facts of life in the Fertile Crescent: the periodic migration of nomadic people from the Aramean desert into the settled areas of Palestine. Each spring the tents of the bedouin herdsmen appear overnight almost as if by magic, scattered on the hills and fields of the farming districts. Conflict between these two ways of life (herdsmen and farmers) was inevitable.
In the Biblical period, the vast numbers and warlike practice of the herdsmen reduced the village people to near vassalage. Gideon’s answer was twofold: (1) religious reform, starting with his own family; and (2) military action, based on a coalition of northern Israelite tribes. The location of Gideon’s hometown, “Ophrah of the Abiezrites,” is not known with certainty, but probably was ancient Aper (modern Afula) in the Valley of Jezreel.
The battle at the spring of Harod is justly celebrated for its strategic brilliance. Denied the use of the only local water source, the Midianites camped in the valley and fell victim to the small band of Israelites, who attacked them from the heights of the hill of Moreh.
The main battle took place north of the hill near the village of Endor at the foot of Mount Tabor. Fleeing by way of the Jordan Valley, the Midianites were trapped when the Ephraimites seized the fords of the Jordan from below Beth Shan to Beth Barah near Adam.
8. Gideon’s victory confirmed by a dream (7:8b–14)
8b–12 With less than one percent of his original army, Gideon’s faith again began to waver. For the third time God gave him a sign, and at last Gideon was thoroughly convinced. Any promise or action repeated three times was regarded as the surest confirmation (16:15; Nu 24:10). Before he attacked, Gideon and his aide Purah, who was probably his armor-bearer (9:54), paid a visit to the Midianite camp. What he was to hear would encourage him tremendously.
The foe spread out before them seemed innumerable (cf. Jos 11:4; 1Sa 13:5), while Gideon could count the available Israelites all too easily.
13–14 Gideon and his servant overheard two of the enemy soldiers discussing a dream. In the ancient world dreams were considered an important means of divine communication (1Sa 28:6; cf. Ge 20:3–6; 37:6–; et al.). The enemy soldier was able to interpret the dream and predict Gideon’s victory. Barley bread could represent Israel as a cultivator of the soil. The key to the interpretation of the dream is that the word translated “came tumbling” (lit., “overturning”; GK 2200) can be applied also to swords (cf. its use in Ge 3:24). The “overturning” or “overthrow” of the tent represented the collapse of the nomadic forces.
9. Preparation for the battle (7:15–18)
15 Gideon realized that what he had heard was far more than a coincidence; so he immediately prostrated himself in grateful worship before the Lord. Now ready to fight, Gideon returned to prepare his men for the historic battle.
16–18 The only orthodox part of Gideon’s instructions was to divide the men into three groups (cf. 1Sa 11:11; 2Sa 18:2). By spreading out around the Midianites, Gideon’s troops would create the impression of being a much larger army. The “trumpets” (GK 8795) were the same ram’s horn type used by Ehud and Gideon (3:27; 6:34) to summon the troops. Only the leaders would give signals on the trumpets, so three hundred trumpets normally represented a sizable army. When Joshua captured Jericho, only seven priests had trumpets (Jos 6:6).
The empty jars were used to hide the light of the torches until the proper moment arrived. The soldiers may have been mystified as to the actual purpose of such unusual weapons, but their orders were to follow Gideon’s example carefully. After blowing the trumpets, they were to shout the war cry (v.20).
10. The Midianites routed (7:19–25)
19–20 Gideon and his men disrupted the Midianite camp sometime between ten o’clock and midnight, striking just after new guards had been posted. The Israelites’ main weapon was noise; and between the trumpet blasts and the smashing of jars, they achieved the intended effect of demoralizing the Midianites. Once the jars were broken, three hundred torches lit up the night, apparently at the head of vast columns of troops. To add to the nightmare, a ringing battle cry pierced the night air.
21–22 These startling developments quickly produced panic, a normal occurrence when God led his people into battle. The Midianites were convinced that a powerful army was about to massacre them. The people ran about, shouting and trying to escape as fast as possible. In all the confusion they began fighting among themselves, thinking that enemy forces were already in their camp. Finally, to avoid the slaughter, the Midianite hordes fled toward the Jordan and the safety of the desert beyond.
23–25 To help in the pursuit, Gideon summoned reinforcements, perhaps including many of his original 32,000. Their courage restored, they gladly rushed after the foe. Gideon also called on the powerful tribe of Ephraim to cut off the Midianites at the fords of the Jordan (cf. 3:28). Many of the enemy forces had not yet crossed when the men of Ephraim attacked them and captured Oreb and Zeeb, probably leading generals of the army. The two were promptly put to death at sites later named to commemorate the occasion (cf. Isa 10:26). When the Ephraimites met with Gideon in 8.1–3, they brought along the heads of these leaders.
11. The Ephraimites’ complaint (8:1–3)
1–3 The tribe of Ephraim had a proud heritage (see 1:22) and felt insulted by Gideon’s failure to call on them earlier. They had cooperated honorably with Ehud (3:26–29) and Barak (5:13–14a) and wondered why they were left out this time. Gideon decided to adopt a course of appeasement. He praised them for their great victory over Oreb and Zeeb, assuring them that in comparison his accomplishments were small. In a sense Ephraim received the “leftovers” (NIV, “gleanings”). These, however, were more substantial than the initial victory (“harvest”) won by his little Abiezrite clan. Gideon’s flattery calmed their anger and avoided the civil war that later flared up between Ephraim and Manasseh (12:4–6). “A gentle answer turns away wrath” (Pr 15:1).
12. Lack of cooperation from Succoth and Peniel (8:4–9)
4–6 The narrative now shifts back to the exploits of the “three hundred.” Gideon was faced with an attitude exactly the opposite of Ephraim’s as two cities completely rejected his request for help. The tiny army was now some forty miles from the hill of Moreh when they came to Succoth, just north of the Jabbok River. Worn out from the long chase, Gideon asked these residents of Gad for some provisions. The men of Succoth reasoned that the fleeing Midianites would soon regroup and easily defeat the makeshift army thrown together by Gideon. Any assistance given to Gideon would implicate Succoth and bring certain retaliation from the feared nomads. The question in v.6 apparently refers to the custom of cutting off the hands of dead victims as a convenient body count (1Sa 18:25; cf. Jdg 1:6).
7 The sarcastic, unpatriotic response of the leaders of Succoth brought a sharp retort from Gideon. Perhaps the tribes of Transjordan could be excused for failing to aid Deborah and Barak (5:17), but neutrality was impossible when the conflict was on their soil (cf. 5:23). Gideon promised that when he returned in victory, he would severely punish the city.
8–9 Moving six miles east, Gideon received the same response from the people of Peniel. In the very place where Jacob had met with God and had his name changed to Israel (Ge 32:28–30), these descendants of his refused to believe that God could give victory over the Midianites. Gideon vowed that he would soon demolish the fortified tower that had made Peniel an important city.
13. The capture of the kings of Midian (8:10–12)
10–12 True to his word, Gideon pressed farther into Transjordan, following the caravan trail taken by the Midianites. By this time the remnants of the Midianite army were in Karkor, east of the Dead Sea. No doubt the Midianites believed they were safely out of range of the pursuing armies, but again Gideon surprised them and routed them.
Gideon’s main goal was the capture of Zeba and Zalmunna, Midian’s two kings, for without leadership the eastern hordes were not likely to resume their raids. The two kings probably belonged to different tribal groups.
14. Retaliation against Succoth and Peniel (8:13–17)
13–17 The resounding victory over Midian did not deter Gideon from severely disciplining these two delinquent cities. A young man from Succoth was compelled to write down the names of the “princes” or “elders.” The seventy-seven men who were registered on this death list heard Gideon repeat their earlier taunt before carrying out the punishment. Like their neighbors in Peniel, the men of Succoth doubtless died for their guilt.
15. The Midianite kings slain (8:18–21)
18 The scene probably shifts across the Jordan, so that Gideon could display his captives to the main body of Israelites. The presence of his young son, Jether, also points to a location nearer home. After viewing the vengeance taken by Gideon on fellow Israelites, the Midianite kings did not hold out much hope for their own survival. In fact, they seemed to prefer death by admitting they had killed Gideon’s full brothers—a slaughter that may have occurred during one of their earlier campaigns, when opportunity for revenge seemed remote.
19 Gideon had considered sparing the kings’ lives, but the additional element of personal revenge made their death certain. Moreover, the death of enemy leaders almost always accompanied total military victory (3:21–25; 4:21–22; 9:55; Jos 10:26).
20–21 Gideon gave the honor of executing the kings to his firstborn son, Jether. The lad shunned this gruesome task, and the kings quickly pointed out that this was a man’s job. For them it would be more honorable and less painful to be killed by a renowned warrior like Gideon. Death at the hands of a boy or a woman was considered a disgrace (5:24–27; 9:54). Gideon complied with their final request.
16. Gideon’s ephod (8:22–27)
22–23 Gideon’s celebrated victory brought him an invitation to become king over Israel and establish a ruling dynasty. Under unified rule, the Israelites felt they could better prevent any future oppression. Gideon rejected the offer, for God was their king, and the people needed to renew their allegiance to him.
24–26 While refusing the throne, Gideon did in fact assume many of the prerogatives of a king; he established a large harem (v.30), amassed a fortune (v.26), acquired royal robes, and made an ephod to consult God (v.27). He also accepted gifts from his grateful soldiers. Most of the items given to Gideon were those usually worn by women in Israel: “earrings” (perhaps “noserings”; cf. Ge 24:47; Eze 16:12), “pendants,” and “chains” or “necklaces” (cf. SS 4:9). This vast repertoire of jewelry may have been a factor in Gideon’s accumulation of wives.
Verse 24 contains the only reference in Judges to the Ishmaelites. Apparently this was an inclusive term for Israel’s nomadic relatives and alternated freely with “Midianites” (cf. Ge 37:25–28; 39:1).
27 With the gold Gideon surprisingly made an ephod that was to lead Israel into idolatry. The high priest wore an ephod, an apronlike garment made of linen, various colors of yarn, and gold thread (Ex 39:2–5). The breastpiece attached to it contained the mysterious Urim and Thummim (Ex 28:28–30), used to consult God (1Sa 23:9–10); this may have been Gideon’s purpose in making a golden replica. Gideon seems to have wrongly assumed priestly functions. The ephod eventually served an idolatrous purpose and is described in the same terms as the gods of Canaan (2:2, 17). Gideon, who had boldly broken up his father’s altar to Baal, was now setting a trap for his own family.
17. Gideon’s accomplishments and death (8:28–32)
28–31 Midian had been thoroughly disgraced and caused no further trouble. Gideon himself spent the remainder of his life in Ophrah. His many wives and sons reflected his prosperity (cf. 2Ki 10:1, 4; 12:9, 14). The hatred and murder that plagued Gideon’s family after his death (cf. ch. 9) are characteristic of OT polygamous situations. Among Gideon’s wives was a concubine from Shechem. Apparently she continued to live in her hometown and remained under the authority of her father. In such marriage relationships the husband was expected to visit from time to time (cf. 15:1). It is the son of this low-ranking wife who rises to prominence in the next chapter.
32 Gideon’s death notice further attests his importance; only he and Samson were buried in the tomb of their fathers. To die “at a good old age” implies a long and full life (Ge 15:15; 25:8; 1Ch 29:28).
G. The Brief Reign of Abimelech (8:33–9:57)
1. Apostasy after Gideon’s death (8:33–35)
33 Abimelech is not called a judge, nor was he raised up by God to rescue Israel. Since he was the son of Gideon, this period stands in a unique relationship with the preceding one. Again the Israelites became enamored with Baal worship, and particularly Baal-Berith (cf. 2:11), whose worship was centered at Shechem. Baal-Berith means “Baal of the covenant” and may indicate that they had made a covenant with Baal.
34–35 By worshiping Baal-Berith, Israel deserted the God who had made a covenant with them at Sinai and who had repeatedly been their Savior. They also quickly forgot the benefits won for the nation by Gideon. Calling Gideon Jerub-Baal here recalls Baal’s inability to “defend himself” against Gideon (see 6:27–32).
2. Abimelech’s rise to power (9:1–6)
1 In a polygamous society the relatives of one’s mother can provide refuge and support for an ambitious prince. Abimelech was probably spurned by his half-brothers because of his mother’s lowly status (cf. 11:1–2); so he appealed to his mother’s brothers for help.
Shechem (between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim) lay on important caravan routes. Since no mention is made of the capture of Shechem during Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, possibly a treaty was made with that city soon after the invasion (see Jos 8:30–35; 24:1–27—two covenant renewal ceremonies that took place at Shechem). The people of Shechem maintained a link with the Canaanite founders of the city, and perhaps Abimelech’s mother herself was a Canaanite.
2–4 Abimelech’s appeal was based on the tenuous claim that his step-brothers’ rule would not have Shechem’s best interests at heart. In fact, it is unlikely that Gideon’s sons intended to dominate an area thirty miles south of Ophrah. The residents of Shechem, however, agreed to his plan and provided a substantial sum to carry it out. Temple treasures were often used for military and political ends (cf. 1Ki 15:18). The individuals hired were a worthless band (cf. 11:3; 2Ch 13:7).
5–6 Treacherous and unstable, these mercenaries helped Abimelech commit wholesale fratricide. But mass murders are rarely a total success, and Jotham managed a narrow escape (cf. 2Ch 22:10–12). Nevertheless, Abimelech became the first person ever to be crowned as king in Israel. His abortive rule ran roughshod over the divine requirements for that office (cf. Dt 17:14–20). His coronation ironically took place near the tree in Shechem where Joshua had solemnly placed the “Book of the Law” (Jos 24:26). Beth Millo (lit., “house of the fill”) is likely the same as the “tower of Shechem” of v.46. The word “fill” comes from the huge earthen platform on which these structures were built.
3. Jotham’s fable (9:7–21)
The sole survivor of Abimelech’s purge delivered an incisive evaluation of his half-brother’s rule. Presented in allegorical form, this story of the trees effectively lays bare Abimelech’s true character and the utter disregard of the people of Shechem for Gideon’s memory.
7–9 Jotham traveled to Shechem and climbed Mount Gerizim’s eight-hundred-foot slope south of the city. There, at a safe distance from his audience, he pronounced a powerful curse (cf. v.57).
The introduction to the fable contains an unusual reference to God as the One who listened to them. By this statement Jotham may be asking the hearers to present to God a response to his arguments. For the comparison of kings to trees, see also Isa 10:33–34. In recognition of Israel’s lowly status, Jotham began, not with a cedar, but with an olive tree. Olives were used for food, ointment, and medicine; they were one of Israel’s most valued crops (Dt 11:14). Olive oil kept the lamps in the Holy Place burning constantly, thus “honoring” the Lord. In view of its important functions, the olive tree declined the offer to become king.
10–11 The fig tree likewise passed up the opportunity to rule. Like olives, figs were a key agricultural product. Israel’s picture of the ideal age was for every man to sit under his vine and under his fig tree (Mic 4:4; cf. 2Ki 18:31).
12–13 Predictably, the vine also refused. Its fruit was the main beverage of the land, and libations of wine accompanied many sacrifices at the sanctuary (Nu 15:10).
14–15 At last “the thornbush” was called on; and, having nothing better to do, the surprised shrub gladly agreed to reign. This plant was a menace to agriculture and had the quality of burning quickly (Ps 58:9). Since it provided little if any shade, its “refuge” is spoken of sarcastically. It could only threaten to destroy, if its rule were not accepted.
16–20 By this time Jotham’s main point was clear, but he gave a detailed interpretation. Gideon probably represented one of the good trees invited to become king (8:22), though exact identifications are not needed. Noble, capable leaders like Gideon believed that the theocracy, not a monarchy, was the best form of government. Abimelech was the thornbush king. Along with the Shechemites, he was guilty of a terrible crime against Gideon, who had saved them at the risk of his own life. He really had nothing to offer the people. Abimelech’s mother is called a “slave girl,” a term usually referring to a wife’s servant who is also a concubine (Ge 21:12; 30:3).
The reference to acting “honorably and in good faith” (v.19) with Gideon and his family implies that an agreement of some kind had been made with Gideon (cf. 8:35). A judge and his family had certain privileges that the revolt completely ignored. The supposition in v.20 is actually a grim prediction that the parties to the crime would mutually destroy each other. True to its nature, the thornbush would ignite a deadly blaze.
21 Before the hostile audience could intercept him, Jotham ended his short speech and fled.
4. The revolt of Gaal and Shechem (9:22–29)
22 Abimelech’s rule of Shechem, Arumah (v.41), and Thebez (v.50) was a brief one. The word for “governed” (GK 8606) is unique to the book and is perhaps chosen to distinguish Abimelech’s ill-fated rule from that of the true judges. He ruled like a tyrant, and he soon encountered opposition in Shechem itself.
23–25 The Lord was at the source of the conflict, for he “sent an evil spirit” to disrupt the relationship between Abimelech and Shechem. If “spirit” is to be taken in the sense of a supernatural being, this situation would be comparable to Saul’s (1Sa 16:14; cf. 1Ki 22:19–23). The citizens of Shechem and Abimelech had committed murder, and the friction between them arose as a result of their guilt.
“To act treacherously” (v.23) is to break an agreement with someone. Shechem’s citizens betrayed Abimelech by ambushing the caravans that passed through the ideally located city. No longer could Abimelech receive revenue from these welcomed traders. With travel so dangerous and the lost income, the economy began to suffer greatly (cf. 5:6).
26–27 A certain Gaal came to Shechem to exploit the situation and to deepen the rift between Abimelech and Shechem. He was probably a Canaanite strongly opposed to Israelite rule. Gaal and his men arrived near the time of the summer harvest, when the Canaanites had a religious festival similar to Israel’s Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:34–43). The Canaanite celebration often included excessive drinking and immorality, hardly conducive to true religious expression. Yet the “festival” of v.27 is literally a “praise,” when the gods (especially Baal-Berith; cf. v.4) would be honored for providing an abundant harvest (cf. 16:24).
28–29 Gaal took advantage of the occasion to advocate open rebellion against Abimelech. Whereas Abimelech had earlier stressed his descent from a woman of Shechem (vv.1–2), Gaal noted that Abimelech’s father was an Israelite. How could a city that traced its heritage back to the Hivite prince Hamor (Ge 34:2) give its allegiance to an Israelite intruder? Gaal boldly asserted that he would be a far better leader and threw out a challenge to Abimelech. Part of Gaal’s appeal lay in the fact that Abimelech did not reside in Shechem; instead, he had appointed Zebul (a Canaanite name meaning “prince”) to govern the city, and the Shechemites may have resented this.
5. Gaal’s defeat (9:30–41)
30–33 When Zebul heard about Gaal’s slanderous remarks aimed at Abimelech and him, he moved quickly before the rebel forces could decide to restrict his activities. He secretly sent messengers to inform Abimelech of the dangerous situation and to offer some sound advice. If Abimelech struck quickly, he could still save the day; for Gaal had not yet had time to organize the Shechemites into a solid army. Zebul recommended an ambush—a strategy that had worked at Ai (Jos 8:2; cf. Jdg 20:37).
34 Abimelech took Zebu’s advice and used the tactics of his father, Gideon—moving at night and dividing his forces into several companies. By morning Abimelech’s army was ready to make a sudden dash to Shechem and surprise the enemy.
35–37 Gaal, in his new role of leader of Shechem, was stationed at the city gate when he noticed the approaching men. But Zebul was there to ease Gaal’s fears in an effort to keep him from preparing his troops. Finally, it became clear that people were coming from all over, including a company from the soothsayers’ tree. Gaal may have wished he could have consulted a practitioner there, though his fate seemed sealed already.
38–39 At this point Zebul reminded Gaal of his earlier taunt and challenged him to make good his boast. Gaal probably was not prepared for a siege; so he had little choice but to leave the city walls behind and confront Abimelech in the open. It is difficult to know whether Gaal had the support of the fighting men of Shechem in the battle or had to rely only on his personal supporters (the alternate translation of v.39 in NIV note., “Gaal went out in the sight of the citizens of Shechem,” is equally valid). Shechem’s residents were mainly involved in battles on the following day (vv.42–45).
40–41 Whatever its composition, Gaal’s army soon headed back to the city, and many more were killed or wounded along the way. Abimelech himself did not try to enter the city, but his capable governor drove the disgraced Gaal and his remaining men out of Shechem.
6. The capture of Shechem and the tower of Shechem (9:42–49)
Apparently the people of Shechem were eager to resume their normal activities. Abimelech, however, wanted to punish them further for their lack of loyalty. But his vindictive action destroyed the main city of his “kingdom” and left him with little to rule (cf. Pr 30:21–22).
42–44 Since the fields were outside the city, the people had to go outside its walls to bring in the rest of the harvest. They likely did not have any military plans, nor did they anticipate further problems from Abimelech—at least not so soon. However, for the second day in a row, Abimelech set an ambush and surprised the people in the fields. He cut off their line of retreat to the city while the rest of his troops slaughtered those who were stranded.
45 Already weakened by the loss of so many able-bodied men, the people left in Shechem were unable to ward off Abimelech’s full-scale attack. He forced his way into the city and put the rest of the people to the sword. Then he tore down the main buildings and sowed the ground with salt to symbolize the utter destruction of the city and its perpetual infertility (Dt 29:23; Ps 107:34). Indeed, Shechem was not rebuilt until the reign of Jeroboam I, almost two centuries later (1Ki 12:25).
46 The tower of Shechem was probably the same as Beth Millo (see comment on v.6). Normally the tower or fortress was located within the city proper, as at Thebez (v.51). At Shechem the fortress-temple of El-Berith (an alternate name for Baal-Berith; cf. 8:33) may have been this inner citadel. People could have taken refuge within its walls to defend the citadel independently of the rest of the city (cf. 1:8).
47–49 This time Abimelech decided to build a huge fire to destroy his victims. He and his men got some branches or brushwood from nearby Mount Zalmon and carried them to the tower. Abimelech’s command to have his soldiers follow his example sounds like Gideon (7:17), who himself had destroyed a tower at Peniel (8:17). After the usual long, rainless summer, the wood was like tinder; so a blazing fire was soon underway. The temple gave the people no protection. With the collapse of the fortress, all resistance at Shechem came to an end.
7. The death of Abimelech (9:50–57)
50–53 Dissatisfaction with Abimelech’s rule was widespread, for he next traveled ten miles northeast of Shechem to punish Thebez. The city proper was easily taken, but a strong fortress within it proved more formidable. The people of Thebez heard of Abimelech’s strategy at Shechem; so they climbed to the roof where they could offer some resistance. When Abimelech tried to set another fire, he was struck by an upper millstone thrown with amazing accuracy by a woman. The “upper millstone” was an easily held stone, about ten inches long, that rode back and forth over the larger lower millstone as the grain was crushed (cf. Dt 24:6). Grinding wheat was the work of women, and the woman doubtless took the stone with her as a potential weapon. Her success was surprising (cf. 1Ki 22:34); it was unmistakably a divine retribution.
54 Since dying at the hand of a woman was considered a disgrace (cf. 4:17–24), Abimelech commanded his armor-bearer to kill him immediately. Yet long after his death, the credit continued to be given to the woman (cf. 2Sa 11:21; 1Sa 31:4).
55 With Abimelech dead, the Israelites gave up their campaign and returned home. Similarly, later in Israel’s history, the slaying of a leader led to the disintegration of Sheba’s revolt against David (2Sa 20:22) and to the dispersal of Ahab’s armies at Ramoth Gilead (1Ki 22:34–36). Each example illustrates the power of individual leaders and the desperate need for godly, capable rulers.
56–57 Both Abimelech and Shechem had been guilty of murder and ultimately had to pay for their crimes. Jotham’s curse was fulfilled in a remarkably literal way (vv.15, 20). The fire that destroyed the tower of Shechem may have been partially fed by thornbushes, the very designation used for Abimelech in the fable.
H. The Rule of Tola and Jair (10:1–5)
1–2 Little is known about the rule of the minor judges mentioned here and in 12:8–15. The reference to “save” implies a military victory over some oppressor. Except in the reference to Shamgar (3:31), none of the references to the other minor judges identifies the oppressor of Israel. Since the word “led” (or “judged”) appears most often with the lesser judges, some believe that these judges functioned primarily to handle judicial decisions (cf. its use in 4:4).
Tola son of Puah was, like his father, named after one of the sons of Issachar (Ge 46:13). Shamir was located in central Palestine. By maintaining a base there, Tola may have exercised control over much of the land.
3–5 Tola’s twenty-three-year rule probably overlapped that of Jair, though Tola’s began first. Jair was in charge of Gilead, east of the Jordan, and his rule provides a transition to the more important exploits of another Gileadite, Jephthah. Like Tola, Jair was named after a renowned figure—Jair, a great-great-grandson of Manasseh, who captured sixty cities in Bashan (Nu 32:39–41; 1Ch 2:22–23). These cities were called “Hawoth Jair” (the “settlements of Jair”), and thirty of them were still controlled by Jair the judge. That Jair had a total of thirty sons shows he was wealthy (cf. 8:30), as does his possession of thirty donkeys. Kings rode donkeys of this kind (Ge 49:11; Zec 9:9).
I. The Victory of Jephthah Over the Ammonites (10:6–12:7)
1. Oppression and supplication (10:6–16)
The scene now shifts to Transjordan as the Ammonites exerted tremendous pressure from the east. The author uses the occasion of this renewed suffering to detail again the phases of the cycle (cf. 2:6–3:6). These verses also introduce the Philistine oppression, which probably ran concurrently with the Ammonite invasion (cf. v.7).
6–7 This is the final and most extensive list of Israel’s sins; it may apply to the whole period. The Baals and Ashtoreths (cf. 2:11–13) were worshiped by most of the nations mentioned here, but other deities also were served. Moab’s main god was Chemosh (Nu 21:29), Ammon served Milcom (1Ki 11:5), and Dagon was the leading deity of the Philistines (16:23). By mentioning the gods of the Ammonites and the Philistines last, the author emphasizes that Israel deserved to be enslaved to these two nations.
8–9 The opening clause of v.8 refers to the Ammonites and their severe oppression of Israel. “That year” can be placed about 1096 B.C. The oppression lasted as long as the Moabite one (3:14) and was concentrated in Gilead (i.e., central and northern Transjordan (cf. 5:17). Tribes in south-central Palestine also came under Ammonite domination, and the mention of Ephraim is important for understanding 12:1–3.
10–14 Faced with mounting difficulties, the Israelites finally confessed their sin and cried out for help. The Lord, however, is not to be called on only in emergencies; so he withheld assistance. After all, he had faithfully rescued them at least seven times, only to have them turn quickly to other gods. He released them from Egypt’s iron furnace and enabled them to defeat Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites (Jos 2:10) who lived in Transjordan. The Ammonites had earlier aided the Moabites (3:13), and Shamgar was renowned for defeating the Philistines (3:31). The Sidonians may have helped Jabin and Sisera during the “Canaanite” oppression (4:1–3), and the Amalekites already opposed Israel twice in Judges, supporting the Moabites (3:13) and the Midianites (6:3). The Midianites themselves may be the seventh nation mentioned.
15–16 God’s people demonstrated the genuineness of their repentance by throwing out the idols they were worshiping and by being willing to return to God on his terms. Persistent prayer finally brought an answer from Israel’s compassionate Lord (cf. 2:18). Expressed in human terms, God “could bear [them] no longer,” as he watched them suffer.
2. Gilead’s predicament (10:17–18)
17–18 Israel’s deliverance came in the campaign that followed. At first, however, it looked as if another Ammonite victory was imminent. Their army had once more assembled to attack Israel. The Israelites, determined to stop the Ammonites, gathered at Mizpah to plan their strategy (a town near the territory of the Ammonites; see 11:29). The leaders of Gilead had no outstanding general; so as an incentive they offered to make any commander who proved successful against the Ammonites the ruler of their entire territory (cf. 11:9).
3. Jephthah’s exile and recall (11:1–11)
1–3 The opening paragraph is a parenthesis introducing Jephthah son of Gilead. Gilead too was named after a famous ancestor, in this case the grandson of Manasseh. Without doubt his family belonged to the “upper class,” one reason why Jephthah was called a “mighty warrior” or “man of valor.” Jephthah was certainly a capable fighter, but his social position also was important. Because of his mother’s status, he was an illegitimate son and ranked at the bottom of his family. But in spite of this, the Lord saw fit to use him in a remarkable way.
Apparently Gilead was not a polygamist. Only one wife is mentioned in v.2, and the reason for Jephthah’s expulsion was that he was the son of “another woman.” His half-brothers had little sympathy for him, especially in the matter of inheritance. Unlike Abimelech (9:1–5), Jephthah did not have the protection of his mother’s family; so he was forced to flee to Tob, some fifteen miles east of Ramoth Gilead. In this desolate region Jephthah roamed with a band of “adventurers” and fellow misfits (cf. 9:4).
4–6 Jephthah established such a reputation as a skilled fighter and leader that the men of Gilead turned to him in their search for a commander. Presumably “some time later” brings the reader back to 10:17–18 and the Mizpah gathering.
7–11 With understandable bitterness, Jephthah reminded the leaders of Gilead of his ostracism (cf. 10:14). The elders swore before the Lord that his banishment was over and that they would in fact make him ruler over all Gilead after the battle. This offer astonished Jephthah, but he was convinced by their willingness to take an oath. His years of wandering had served to deepen his faith in the Lord. He knew that if victory lay ahead, it would be from the Lord’s hand (v.9). When Jephthah returned with the leaders to Mizpah, he confirmed his intentions “before the LORD” as the agreement with Gilead was sealed. The ceremony at Mizpah had the makings of a coronation as the people installed their new leader.
4. Jephthah’s presentation of Israel’s territorial claim (11:12–28)
12–13 Jephthah’s first move as commander was to get in touch with the Ammonites in an attempt to negotiate peace. The reply from the king of the Ammonites contained hope for peace, but only on the condition that Israel return “occupied territory.”
14–15 Since the disputed land lay between the Arnon and the Jabbok rivers, Jephthah sent back a detailed explanation of how Israel had obtained possession of that region. This historical summary attempts to prove that Israel captured this land from the Amorites without violating the territorial rights of either Moab or Ammon (who were now allies; cf. 3:13).
16–18 Jephthah first referred to Israel’s stay at Kadesh, when they requested permission to travel through Edom (Nu 20:14–17) and Moab. Neither Edom nor Moab allowed Israel to pass through; so the people detoured south of Edom and then east of Moab, stopping at the eastern end of the Arnon River. The Lord specifically commanded Israel not to fight against Edom, Moab, and Ammon because these peoples were all related to Israel; and God had given them their own territory (Dt 2:5, 9, 19).
19–22 No such prohibition applied to Sihon, however. So when the Amorite king also refused the Israelites passage, there was a battle at Jahaz. God gave the Israelites a decisive victory, and they took possession of the precise parcel of land then claimed by the king of Ammon (v.13). Based on the borders at the time of Israel’s conquest, Jephthah’s case is a strong one. Moses had seized only Amorite territory and had avoided any open conflict with either Moab or Ammon.
23–24 In OT times war often was viewed as a contest between the gods of the nations involved (cf. v.27). The Lord had clearly defeated the gods of the Amorites, giving Israel clear title to the land. The Ammonites, therefore, had no right to take it away. They should have been content with the territory Chemosh had given to them. Indeed, land itself was considered the property of the deity (cf. 2Ki 5:17). Ammon was thus guilty of stealing real estate belonging to the God of Israel.
Jephthah’s reference to Chemosh raises a problem, since Chemosh was the god of Moab while Milcom was the Ammonites’ deity. The Ammonites may have joined in the worship of Moab’s gods, just as the Midianites did in Nu 25. Possibly “Chemosh” and “Milcom” were viewed as alternate names of the same deity.
25–26 Jephthah’s final argument is based on the length of time Israel had possessed the disputed territory. Balak was the king of Moab who hired Balaam to curse the Israelites. After the curses turned out to be repeated blessings (Nu 24:10), Balak made no attempt to regain the area held by Sihon and then Israel. He clearly recognized the legitimacy of Israel’s claim to the land. During the next “three hundred years,” neither Moab nor Ammon succeeded in retaking the land. Did not such a long occupancy prove Israel’s right to that area?
27–28 Insisting on his innocence, Jephthah appealed to the Lord to decide the issue (this is the only explicit reference in the book to the Lord as Judge). But Jephthah’s detailed arguments failed to impress the king of Ammon. Convinced that at least might was on his side, the king prepared for war with Israel.
5. Jephthah’s vow and victory over Ammon (11:29–33)
29 As in the case of Gideon (6:34), the Spirit of the Lord empowered Jephthah in preparation for battle (cf. 6:34). Thus strengthened, he traveled north through Transjordan, gathering troops from the tribes of Gad and Manasseh. These two tribes actually split Gilead between them (Jos 13:25, 31), with Gad receiving the larger share.
30–31 Jephthah’s desire to defeat the Ammonites was so intense that he made a special “vow to the Lord.” Though intended as an act of devotion, it showed a lack of faith in God’s enabling power. Scholars continue to debate whether or not Jephthah had a human sacrifice in mind. The phrases in question can be translated “whatever comes out” or “whoever comes out” and “I will sacrifice it,” but it is hard to see how a common animal sacrifice would express unusual devotion.
Human sacrifice was strictly forbidden by the Mosaic law (Lev 18:21; Dt 12:31); so Jephthah should have known that God’s favor could not be gained in this terrible way. Yet Israel’s neighbors—ironically, especially the Ammonites—sacrificed their children (see 2Ki 3:27); and this custom might have influenced Jephthah. Although Jephthah did not originally plan to sacrifice his daughter, he would gladly have offered up anyone else if it helped bring victory.
32–33 The Lord gave Israel a stunning victory over Ammon, and Israel was able to capture twenty cities. Thus the bulk of the region between the Arnon and the Jabbok once again belonged to Israel. Verse 33 indicates that a very large number of Ammonites died in the battle.
6. Jephthah’s vow fulfilled (11:34–40)
34–35 The flush of victory gave way to bitter despair when Jephthah was greeted by his daughter, leaping and dancing, like Miriam and the women of Israel who had celebrated the triumph at the Red Sea (cf. Ex 15:20). But as the first to leave his house, she came under the terms of his vow. How strange for this happy young girl to notice the response of her father! He behaved like a defeated soldier, not the victorious commander he really was. The death of his only child would mean the end of his family line. Jephthah’s lament describes the situation as an unmitigated disaster. Both he and the Ammonites were humiliated and subdued. His own daughter unknowingly brought calamity to herself and her father.
36–39 Jephthah’s daughter sensed the implications of her father’s vow but made no attempt to get him to break it. Her willingness to yield herself resembled that of another only child, Isaac (Ge 22). Even if victory over Ammon meant her life, it was worth it; and she gently encouraged her father to perform his vow. First, however, Jephthah’s daughter requested a two-month period in which she could literally weep because she would never marry. The goal of every Hebrew girl was to marry and have children (Ge 30:1), but Jephthah’s daughter would do neither. Accompanied by her friends, she spent two months on the mountains, weeping and meditating, preparing for her ordeal. When she returned, Jephthah carried out his solemn vow.
40 The yearly commemoration of this noble girl makes sense only if she died at the hands of her father. No other interpretation is satisfactory. The death of this innocent girl came because of a rash vow. Jephthah knew that it was a sin to break a vow (Nu 30:2), but in this case it was an even greater sin to fulfill it. Jephthah was treating his daughter as a “person devoted to destruction” (Lev 27:29). This type of punishment was a strong curse reserved for the enemies of God (cf. Jos 6:17), but Jephthah’s daughter had done nothing to deserve such a fate. According to Pr 26:2, “an undeserved curse does not come to rest” (cf. 1Sa 14:28, 43–45). Though Jephthah sincerely believed God required him to go through with his promise, he was badly mistaken.
7. Jephthah’s defeat of Ephraim (12:1–7)
1–3 The proud and powerful tribe of Ephraim had earlier denounced Gideon for failing to invite them to participate in the victory over Midian (8:1–3). Gideon had soothed them by involving them in the campaign and praising their contribution. Now Ephraim challenged Jephthah, voicing their complaint after crossing the Jordan and coming to Zaphon. They threatened to burn down Jephthah’s house, as if he were no more than a petty prince (cf. 15:6). This time the exchange did not end so amicably.
Understandably, Jephthah was greatly irritated by the Ephraimites’ arrogance. During the eighteen-year oppression, the people of Gilead had doubtless asked for help from Ephraim and other affected tribes (cf. 10:9), but no assistance was forthcoming. In the recently completed campaign, there was no mention of an invitation to Ephraim (11:29), though Jephthah indicated that a general call may have gone out. The fight against the Ammonites was a perilous one. Yet Jephthah defeated them and gave God the credit. Why should the Ephraimites complain about a victory accomplished through God’s intervention for the benefit of all the tribes? It was a strange jealousy that spurred on Ephraim.
4–6 The civil war was triggered when the men of Ephraim called the Gileadites “renegades.” This insult may have been partially aimed at Jephthah’s former position as a brig-and chief, but more likely it stemmed from the division between the eastern and western tribes (cf. 5:15–17). Ephraim looked down on these relatives across the river, who no longer even spoke the same dialect.
For the third time in Judges, the capture of the fords of the Jordan was crucial (3:28; 7:24–25). Apparently these were the same fords where the Ephraimites had cut down the Midianites in ch. 7. But this time Jephthah’s army slaughtered the Ephraimites, who were trying to flee from the skillful Gileadite fighters. The clever test faced by the disgraced soldiers was to pronounce the word “Shibboleth,” which means either “an ear of grain” or “a flowing stream.” The Ephraimites were identified when they managed to say only “Sibboleth” (cf. Mt 26:73).
With the loss of 42,000 men, Ephraim’s military capability was virtually wiped out (cf. Nu 1:33). Jephthah was vindicated and his position as leader of Gilead was strengthened. Nevertheless, the intertribal warfare illustrated the serious problems that confronted the nation as a whole.
7 Jephthah “led” or “judged” (see the introduction) Israel for only six years, most likely only in Transjordan. He was buried in Gilead, perhaps in Mizpah where he had made his home.
J. The Rules of Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon (12:8–15)
Before his detailed discussion of Samson’s life, the author inserts brief notices about the last three minor judges. They ruled for comparatively short periods of time and were probably contemporaries.
1. Ibzan (12:8–10)
8 Ibzan ruled from Bethlehem, which may refer to the famous town south of Jerusalem or to a city in the territory of Zebulun (Jos 19:15). The Zebulun location is favored because the southern city is usually identified as “Bethlehem in Judah” (17:7–9; 19:1–2, 18).
9–10 Ibzan’s large family reveals his wealth and polygamous practices (cf. 8:30; 10:4). He gave his daughters away in marriage to people outside his clan (cf. Dt 25:5). Marriages were often contracted within one’s tribe (14:3); the fact that Ibzan’s marriage policy is mentioned suggests a break with tradition.
2. Elon (12:11–12)
11–12 Elon ranks with Tola (10:1–2) as a judge about whom almost nothing is known. He was named after one of the sons of the founder of the tribe (Ge 46:14).
3. Abdon (12:13–15)
13 Pirathon was the home of Benaiah, one of David’s mighty men (1Ch 11:31) from Ephraim (1Ch 27:14). The site is close to the border between Ephraim and Manasseh.
14–15 The mention of Abdon’s forty sons and thirty grandsons seems out of proportion with his short period as judge. Counting sons and grandsons, Abdon’s offspring equaled Gideon’s (8:30). For the significance of the donkeys, see comment on 10:4.
K. Samson’s Victory Over the Philistines (13:1–16:31)
In chs. 13–18, the author concentrates on the tribe of Dan, one of the largest and most prominent tribes during the desert march (Nu 2:25–31). In the period of the judges, however, Dan seemed helpless against the Amorites (1:34) and moved northward to find new territory (chs. 17–18). Contrasted with these failures are the exploits of Samson. Yet his own life was a strange mixture of the strength and weakness that epitomized the tragic conditions within the tribe itself.
1. The angelic announcement of Samson’s birth (13:1–14)
1 The primary introduction to this cycle was in 10:6–16, where it was linked with the sins that brought on the Ammonite invasion. Now the author, having described the defeat of Ammon, turns to the enemy that proved to be a thorn in Israel’s side until David mastered them. The Philistines had lived in Palestine since Abraham’s time (Ge 21:32–34; 26:1–6); but since 1200 B.C., they had settled along the coast in increasing numbers (cf. 3:3). Shamgar had won a great victory over them (3:31), halting their advance at least temporarily.
The Philistines, however, were warlike and powerful, and by 1100 B.C.. they were exerting considerable pressure from their five cities in the west. The start of their forty-year oppression of Israel—the longest in the book—followed about five years later, and the tribes of Dan and Judah were the first to come under Philistine rule (cf. 15:11).
2–5 The epic story of Samson begins in the city of Zorah, located in the foothills about fifteen miles west of Jerusalem (cf. v.25; 16:31; 18:2, 8, 11). The plight of Manoah’s wife was one shared earlier by the renowned Sarah and Rachel (Ge 11:30; 29:31). Since the Israelites considered children as a gift of God (cf. Ps 127:3), barrenness was a mark of divine disfavor. To die childless was tragic indeed (cf. 11:37–40). Manoah’s wife would have been overjoyed to have just an ordinary baby, but the angel of the Lord informed her that she would have a special son.
The son promised to Manoah’s wife would be a Nazirite (GK 5687; a word meaning “dedicated” or “consecrated”). According to Nu 6:1–12, the Nazirite vow was voluntarily taken for a limited time, but Samson’s was lifelong. Nazirites had three special restrictions: (1) they were to abstain totally from “fermented drink” and could not eat any grapes or raisins; (2) they could not have their hair cut; and (3) they could not come near a corpse. Violation of all these plays an important part in Samson’s life, though the second restriction is particularly emphasized.
Samson’s mother was commanded here to observe the Nazirite vow at least during the course of her pregnancy. The prohibition against eating unclean food applied to all Israelites. It was, however, especially important for her because carcasses were used as food and could contaminate—or make ceremonially unclean—whatever they came in contact with (cf. Lev 11:32–40), including her unborn son.
The dedication of the child was to have military implications also, for he would gain victories over the Philistines. Yet since he would only “begin the deliverance,” the conquest would be an incomplete one.
6–7 Manoah’s wife shared the amazing news with her husband but had difficulty describing the visitor. “A man of God” is a term normally applied to prophets (Dt 33:1; 1Sa 9:6; cf. 2Ch 8:14). The man’s impressive or “awesome” (GK 3707; cf. Pss 66:5; 76:12) appearance caused her to wonder whether he was an angel. To establish the authenticity of the message, it was important to know the name of the messenger (cf. Ex 3:13).
8–14 Manoah’s motivation in praying for a second visit by the man of God apparently lay in his anxiety about rearing so unusual a child. He seemed overwhelmed by the responsibility, which may explain why his wife had said nothing to him about the child’s involvement with the Philistines. The Lord answered Manoah’s prayer and sent the angel back. This time Manoah was able to confer with him (vv.11–18). Yet he said nothing more about how to raise the child; the boy’s manner of life and his mission in life had been adequately explained in v.5. Verse 14 does, however, add the detail about avoiding any product of the grapevine, not just wine (cf. Nu 6:3). That the angel did not directly answer Manoah’s question may imply that his request for a confirming visit showed lack of faith. He was not easily convinced by the word of God (cf. 6:36–40).
2. The angel’s miracle (13:15–23)
15–17 Proper etiquette demanded that Manoah provide a meal for his guest, as Abraham had done on a similar occasion (Ge 18:1–8). So Manoah prepared a young goat. Since Manoah and his wife had not fully realized who the angel was, they did not intend to sacrifice the goat. When the angel asked that a burnt offering be presented to the Lord, Manoah wondered about the identity of this man. Besides, Manoah wished to “honor” the man who predicted the birth of the long sought-after son.
18–22 The angel avoided a direct answer to the question. In the phrase “beyond understanding,” however, there is a clear indication of his divine nature. Proof that this was the angel of the Lord came when Manoah presented the burnt offering and its accompanying grain offering. As the flame rose, the angel ascended in it before the couple’s startled eyes. This was even more spectacular than the disappearance of the angel who talked with Gideon (6:21). Manoah’s reaction to the miracle, however, matched Gideon’s; he too thought he would die as a result of seeing God (6:22; cf. Ge 16:13).
23 The Lord had calmed Gideon’s fear of dying (6:23), but here Manoah’s wife relieved his anxiety. Using good common sense, she reasoned that the Lord would not have taken the trouble to come down twice and promise them a child if they were to die immediately. Besides, the Lord had requested and accepted an offering from them.
3. The birth and growth of Samson (13:24–25)
24–25 The faith of Manoah’s wife was rewarded when the Lord blessed the couple with a baby boy. The name “Samson” is formed from the word for “sun,” perhaps to signify that God, like the sun, had brought new light into their lives (cf. Mal 4:2).
The early years of Samson’s life are covered swiftly (cf. Lk 1:80; 2:40, 52). God gave him a sound mind and a strong body as he grew to maturity. For a while he lived in Mahaneh Dan (“camp of Dan”)—possibly a temporary home because of Philistine pressure on the cities.
More than any other judge, Samson was moved by the Spirit of God (see also 14:6, 19; 15:14). On this occasion an unusual verb (GK 7192) describes the Spirit’s activity—a word elsewhere used of men whose spirits are disturbed by dreams (cf. Ge 41:8; Dan 2:1, 3). Perhaps the Lord used the same means to speak to Samson and to stir him to “begin the deliverance . . . from the hands of the Philistines” (v.5).
Contrasted with Jephthah, Samson had every advantage as a boy. His birth was predicted by an angel; he had godly parents who loved him greatly; he was uniquely dedicated to God as a Nazirite; and he experienced the power of God’s Spirit as a young man. Despite all these favorable factors, Samson’s life as it unfolds in the next three chapters is marked by tragedy.
4. Samson’s engagement to a Philistine (14:1–9)
1–2 The saga of Samson begins and ends with Samson displaying a fatal weakness for Philistine women. In this first episode Samson traveled some four miles southwest of Zorah to Timnah, a city on the border between Judah and Dan, which apparently was assigned to the latter tribe (Jos 15:10; 19:43).
The presence of Philistines at Timnah reveals their occupation of Israelite territory. Their rule was more subtle and peaceful than the other periods of oppression, since Samson and presumably others were free to intermarry with the Philistines. Even the tribe of Judah was content to let the Philistines control them, a sign that a fairly normal life was possible (15:11).
At Timnah a Philistine woman captivated Samson, and he wished to marry her. Normally in Israel parents decided whom their children should marry (Ge 24:4; Ex 21:9; cf. Ge 28:1–2) and were responsible for making arrangements with the bride’s parents (Ge 24:34–38). Samson was willing to let his parents approach the woman’s parents as long as he selected the woman (cf. Ge 34:4).
3–4 Samson’s parents objected strenuously to his choice, for Israel had been warned not to intermarry with the Canaanites (Dt 7:1–3; cf. Jdg 3:6). Although the Philistines were not listed among the seven nations of Canaan in Dt 7:1–3, the same objections given there applied to them. They were foreigners whose idolatry would lead their spouses astray (cf. Ge 26:34–35; 1Ki 11:1–6; Ne 13:27). Moreover, the Philistines were the one nation near Israel that did not practice circumcision of any kind (cf. also 15:18; 2Sa 1:20).
The pleading of Samson’s parents did not sway him, and reluctantly they gave in. From the divine perspective, however, Samson’s contact with the Philistines gave an opportunity for God to use him. It may seem paradoxical that the Lord would work through Samson’s willful decision, but this aspect of his sovereignty appeared before in Judges (cf. 3:1–2).
5–6 Samson and his parents were traveling to Timnah to discuss marriage arrangements when his great strength was first displayed. He had evidently left his parents briefly and rejoined them later on the main road. Attacked by a lion, Samson was enabled by the Spirit of God to kill the lion easily. Samson likely said nothing to his parents about his feat because such contact with the dead lion violated his Nazirite vow (cf. Nu 6:6, 9). The mention of the vineyards in v.5 may mean that Samson broke another Nazirite law by eating some grapes (Nu 6:3).
7–9 This additional meeting with the woman reinforced Samson’s desire to marry her; so at the specified time he returned to Timnah for the wedding feast. On the way he took the same path he had followed in v.5 and noticed that there was a honeycomb in the lion’s carcass. Heedless of the Nazirite vow, he scooped out some delicious honey and shared it with his parents. It was the unusual location of the honey that gave Samson the idea for the riddle of vv.12–14.
5. The marriage feast and the riddle (14:10–20)
10 Arriving at Timnah, Samson made preparations for the wedding feast. “Feast” is literally “a place of drinking,” and doubtless the forbidden fruit of the vine passed between the lips of Samson the Nazirite. Samson’s father is singled out, perhaps because he was paying for the feast, or perhaps because he was a witness to this marriage covenant (cf. Ge 24:50; Eze 16:8).
11 The thirty companions were probably provided by the bride’s family (cf. Mt 9:15; Mk 2:19). In some instances these companions were a kind of bodyguard for protection against marauders. At this feast their function was to match wits with Samson.
12–13 Though the riddle was designed as a form of entertainment, it may have been related to the lack of proper wedding attire also (cf. Mt 22:11–12). Samson’s offer was an attractive one, since clothes were highly regarded in the Near East. Possibly also the Philistines wanted to prove that they were smarter than the Israelites.
14–17 Solving the riddle turned out to be more difficult than anticipated; so by the middle of the week the Philistines realized what this wedding might cost them. In desperation they threatened Samson’s wife, and the festal atmosphere turned into a battle of nerves. The bride was asked to use any means possible to get the answer from Samson, or she and her family faced destruction and death (cf. 15:6). To save her family, Samson’s wife pled for him to show his love by confiding in her; she wore him down by weeping for a week (cf. 16:15). Samson was good at keeping secrets (cf. vv.6, 9), but he eventually gave in to his wife’s nagging.
18–20 Given the answer by Samson’s wife, the Philistines triumphantly presented it before the deadline. Samson replied with another bit of verse that showed how they got the answer. Heifers were not normally used for plowing; so the thirty had not played fair. In retaliation Samson traveled over twenty miles to the coastal city of Ashkelon, one of the five key Philistine centers. There, again empowered by the Spirit (v.6), he waylaid thirty well-dressed men and robbed them of their clothes to pay off the debt. Apparently he hoped to conceal his actions by going such a long distance from Timnah.
Still angry with his wife, Samson avoided her for a time and returned to his father’s home. If Samson had not had relations with his wife, the marriage was not fully legal; and the bride’s father wondered whether it ever would be consummated. Therefore, because he did not want his daughter to be abandoned in disgrace so soon after the wedding, he gave her to Samson’s best man (cf. 1Sa 25:44).
6. Samson’s revenge for the loss of his wife (15:1–8)
1–2 Samson’s anger eventually subsided, and he decided to reclaim his wife. The wheat harvest occurred in early June and was a time of festivity. The word “visit” in v.2 suggests that Samson’s marriage may have been of the “visit” type (see comment on 8:31). By this arrangement the Philistine bride could avoid the in-law problems that her presence in an Israelite household would cause.
If this was a “visit” marriage, the young goat was considered an acceptable present for the enjoyment of marital relations (Ge 38:17). Samson also wanted to atone for his apparent desertion of his wife. When he announced his intention of going to her room and consummating the marriage, her father told him that she was no longer his wife. Knowing that Samson had legally purchased his bride, the father offered him his more beautiful younger daughter.
3–6 Samson was not impressed with the “Rachel” of this family and flatly rejected the offer. His claim of being the true husband of the older daughter was correct, for even the Philistines referred to him as “the Timnite’s son-in-law” (v.6). True, he had not immediately consummated the marriage, but was this sufficient ground for the divorce effected by the father? Samson held all the Philistines responsible for the affront and felt he had the right to take revenge.
The “foxes” Samson used may actually have been jackals. The fire spread with incredible speed, and soon the Philistines’ crops were ruined. The fire destroyed the sheaves of stacked grain and also the grain ready to be harvested in the fields (Dt 23:25). Grapevines and olive trees were also ruined. Under the law (Ex 22:6), burning crops and fields was considered a serious offense; and the Philistines were distressed at this blow to their economy. They retaliated by burning Samson’s wife and her father, a fate that ironically she had tried to avoid by wheedling out of Samson the key to his riddle (14:15).
7–8 Quickly the feud with the Philistines assumed national proportions as Samson sought to avenge the death of his wife. Though he intended to stop when he got even, neither side quit seeking revenge till Samson and thousands of Philistines were dead (cf. 16:28). Presumably the slaughter took place in the Timnah area, but it served to arouse all Philistia. Anticipating the Philistines’ reaction, Samson took refuge in a “cave” or cleft of a rock.
7. Samson’s victory at Lehi (15:9–20)
9–13 Aroused by Samson’s outbursts, the Philistines assembled as an army and moved into Judah near “Lehi” (lit., “jawbone”), the name given to the area after Samson’s victory. The presence of an army prompted a quick investigation, for the men of Judah were anxious to keep the peace. Aware of Samson’s hideout, three thousand men went to extradite him. Their action betrays the strange complacency with the status quo that made them willing to accept continued domination by the godless Philistines. They meekly handed Samson over to face almost certain death. Samson’s justification of his behavior was the same as that used by the Philistines: They deserved to be paid back! Samson agreed to let the men of Judah tie him up after being assured that they would not harm him. He had no desire to fight and kill his own countrymen. Uncertain of his attitude toward them, they tied him securely with new ropes.
14–15 The Philistines’ battle cry was a sign that they sensed victory over their hated foe. Shouting provided a psychological advantage over one’s enemy (cf. 1Sa 4:5). In this instance the shouting only served to arouse Samson. Empowered again by the divine Spirit (cf. 14:6), he easily snapped the ropes that bound him. He seized a fresh jawbone of a donkey, one that was moist and not brittle, and killed a thousand men. Any of the Philistines who survived probably fled the scene in astonishment. Again, the men of Judah had a chance to follow up this victory and throw off Philistine domination, but they remained strangely inactive.
16–17 To commemorate the triumph, Samson composed another short poem. Like the couplet in 14:18, this poem uses repetition, and it also includes a play on words (cf. NIV note). Carcasses of donkeys were usually thrown outside the city wall (Jer 22:19), and this kind of disgraceful burial had befallen the Philistines. Samson’s single-handed victory resembles that of Shamgar (see 3:31). The importance of the jawbone and what Samson did accounts for the name “Jawbone Hill” (see NIV note).
18–20 Samson acknowledged that God was responsible for his victory, but, like Elijah (1Ki 19), he was physically and emotionally drained following the conflict. As he had done for the Israelites in the wilderness (Ex 17:6), God provided water for Samson from the “hollow” in Lehi. The spring was thereafter called “Caller’s Spring” because of God’s wonderful answer to prayer. By referring at this point in the Samson story to his twenty-year prominence as judge (cf. 16:31), the author suggests that his effectiveness ended prior to the tragic events of ch. 16.
8. Samson’s feat of strength at Gaza (16:1–3)
1–3 The final episodes in Samson’s story confirm both his great physical strength and his great weakness for women. A number of years passed before he ventured into Philistine territory again. This time he went to Gaza, some forty miles west of Hebron and twelve miles south of Ashkelon. Even at this southernmost Philistine city, his reputation was well known; and the residents showed great caution in their attempt to capture him.
Samson’s sensual nature led him to involvement with a prostitute, one of many at centers such as Gaza. Still not married, Samson was especially susceptible to temptations of the flesh (cf. Ge 38:12–15). Thinking they had him trapped, the men of Gaza hid outside and made plans to surprise Samson in the morning. They probably fell asleep, confident that the locked city gates had hemmed in their prisoner.
Sometime during the middle of the night, when the Philistines least expected it, Samson left his shelter and tore loose the city gate. He carried off the heavy wooden doors, the posts on which they hung, and the crossbar of wood or metal that reinforced the doors. He proceeded to haul the whole gate assembly to a hill opposite Hebron.
9. Samson and Delilah (16:4–20)
4–5 Delilah lived near Samson’s hometown, for Zorah and Mahaneh Dan (cf. 13:25) were situated by the Sorek Valley. Delilah is never called a Philistine woman (cf. 14:1–2), but her proximity to the Philistine-occupied area and her close contact with their leaders indicate that she probably was.
The Philistine leaders were determined to find out the secret of Samson’s strength. Instead of threatening the woman he was infatuated with, the five rulers (cf. 3:3) promised Delilah a fortune—fifty-five hundred shekels of silver (more than 140 pounds)! No wonder Delilah did not give up till she had discovered the secret of Samson’s strength. The Philistines’ goal was to “subdue” Samson; they hoped to harness his strength and put it to good use.
6–9 Delilah’s objective must have been obvious to Samson. He knew how well his Philistine wife had kept a secret (14:17) of far less importance than this one. Confident that he would never tell her the truth, he toyed with her for his own amusement. The first clue dealt with “thongs” made from animal intestines. These were “fresh,” much like the fresh “jawbone” he so effectively had used in battle (15:15). But their moistness was of no more help than the perfect number seven; Samson easily broke them (cf. 15:14), and the Philistines made no attempt to seize him.
10–12 Delilah claimed that Samson had deceived or cheated her. His second clue was a variation of the first one, though the Philistines should have learned from previous experience that new ropes could not shackle him (15:13). Perhaps they felt that the men of Judah had not tied him securely enough the first time. But special tying was ineffective as Samson once more broke free.
13–14 Again Delilah complained of being mistreated, and her third plea to Samson took on a new intensity. The Hebrew suggests that Delilah shouted, “Tell me!” as Samson’s irritation grew. This time he came dangerously close to the truth as he linked his strength with his hair, and his explanation was so different that it might have given Delilah hope that he was not lying this time.
It is difficult to determine the kind of loom Samson’s hair was woven to. That Samson was sleeping suggests the horizontal kind. Having woven Samson’s hair into the fabric and fastened it with a pin, Delilah thought she had him trapped. Samson had no more difficulty “pulling up” the pin and the whole loom than he had tearing loose the gate of Gaza (cf. v.3).
15–17 By this time Delilah was frustrated. Yet though she had failed to learn the secret and the Philistines had undoubtedly grown impatient and had gone home (cf. v.18), she was not yet ready to give up. Instead, she did as Samson’s wife had done and began to question his love (cf. 14:16). Samson’s continued deception disturbed Delilah because it confirmed his intention to keep the secret. Lying once or twice might have been forgiven, but this was the third time. Yet Delilah kept after Samson, who became so tired of her nagging that he finally gave in, as he had during the wedding feast (14:17). Rather than break his relationship with Delilah, he allowed it to break him.
Samson’s career as a Nazirite was an inconsistent one. He had been careless about keeping his distance from the fruit of the vine or from dead bodies (see comments on 14:6–10). Yet he kept his long hair as the symbol of his dedication to God. This was the specific point the angel had spoken of (13:5), and it may have exceeded the other Nazirite restrictions in importance (cf. 1Sa 1:11).
18–20 Knowing that she had finally arrived at the truth, Delilah persuaded the Philistine rulers to return one final time so that she might betray him to them. While they knew that shaving beards and pulling out hair was a sign of mourning (cf. Jer 41:5), they hardly dared believe what cutting off Samson’s hair would do to him.
Samson himself could not believe the inevitable, planning to elude the Philistines as always. But the bonds of sin are not so easily shaken off. When the Spirit of the Lord leaves someone, the results are indeed disastrous.
10. The capture and punishment of Samson (16:21–22)
21–22 Moving in quickly, the Philistines seized Samson and blinded him. The Jews considered loss of eyesight a terrible curse (Pr 30:17; cf. 1Sa 11:2). Samson’s feet were fettered by bronze shackles (cf. 2Sa 3:34), and he was forced to work in a prison in Gaza, the very city from which he had once escaped (v.3). Grinding at the mill was a woman’s job (9:53), which added to Samson’s humiliation. It is unclear whether he used a small hand-mill or was forced to turn a large circular stone, a job normally given to donkeys (the latter task would avenge Samson’s earlier treatment of the Philistines; cf. 15:16). While in prison, Samson’s hair began to grow again.
11. Samson’s final revenge at the feast of Dagon (16:23–31)
23–25 The capture of Samson led to great rejoicing; and the Philistines had a national festival in honor of Dagon, their god of grain and chief deity. They attributed Samson’s downfall directly to Dagon, and it was this theological error that led to the destruction of Dagon’s temple. Samson had fallen into their hands, not because Dagon had defeated the Lord, but because Samson’s sinfulness had caused the God of Israel to abandon him.
How vividly the Philistines remembered Samson’s “reign of terror”! It had been a time of devastation and death, and even Dagon’s grain was put to the torch (15:5). But this was replaced by laughter and feasting as the drunken Philistines called for the once invincible Samson to appear before them and to “entertain” (GK 8471) or “amuse” them. Clearly the Philistines intended to mock Samson as he performed for them (cf. Ge 21:9).
26–30 From the noise around and above him, Samson could tell that he was near the center of the building. With help from the young man assigned to attend him, Samson located the main columns of the temple. It was his turn to get revenge on the Philistines (15:7); so he called on the Lord for assistance, as he had done at Lehi years earlier (15:18). The Philistines apparently had no inkling of Samson’s intentions. Indeed, he may not have fully regained his strength until the Lord empowered him this one last time.
With a mighty effort Samson dislodged the pillars from their bases, bringing down the roof on top of the dignitaries assembled inside. Thousands of spectators on the roof also perished in the fall, and the number killed proved to be Samson’s greatest slaughter. He gladly died with them rather than continue his pitiful existence among them.
31 The “brothers” who buried Samson may have been relatives from the tribe of Dan (cf. 14:3). The “father’s family” was a more restricted group than a clan but broader than our Western conception of a family. Samson was laid to rest in the region where he had grown up and was given the honor of burial in his father’s tomb (cf. 8:32).
Samson was ranked among the heroes of the faith (Heb 11:32). Yet he failed to live up to his great gifts. Unable to conquer himself, he was ruined by his own lusts. He stands as a tragic example of a man of great potential who lacked stability of character. Still, God in his sovereignty used him.
III. Two Appendixes (17:1–21:25)
The final five chapters of Judges constitute two nonchronological appendixes to the book, omitting any reference to judges or times of oppression. Both episodes recounted in this section occurred early in the whole period of the judges and illustrate the moral and religious decay that eventually led many to call for the appointment of a king. The key expression in these chapters is “In those days Israel had no king” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).
A. Micah’s Priest and the Migration of Dan (17:1–18:31)
1. Micah’s mother and idolatry (17:1–6)
1–2 The bizarre and violent events in the appendixes are closely linked with the hills of Ephraim, the highlands of central Palestine beginning some twelve miles north of Jerusalem (the region that played an important role in the success of Ehud, Deborah, and Gideon; see 3:27; 4:5; 7:24). In tune with the moral chaos of the day, a man named Micah stole a substantial sum of silver from his own mother (a yearly wage was ten shekels; cf. v.10). No wonder Micah’s mother cursed the thief! Since a well-founded curse was dreadfully effective—even within one’s own family (Ge 9:25)—Micah was frightened into confessing his guilt. Immediately his mother pronounced a blessing on him to undo the curse.
3–4 Out of gratitude for getting her silver back, Micah’s mother decided to consecrate it to the Lord (cf. Ex 28:38). Yet the desire to make an idol was diametrically opposed to God’s command and, in fact, made Micah’s mother liable to God’s curse (Dt 27:15). Strangely, she dedicated only two hundred of the original eleven hundred shekels. Both her motivation and her activity are questionable.
With the two hundred shekels of silver, the silversmith made an idol for Micah’s mother (cf. v.3–4; 18:14, 17–18). This idol was possibly cast in the form of a calf (cf. Ex 32:4). Later the same idol was associated with the city of Dan (cf. 18:30; 1Ki 12:29).
5–6 In addition to the carved image, Micah had teraphim (“idols”; GK 9572)—one or more household gods (cf. Ge 31:19; 1Sa 19:13, 16). Like the “ephod” (cf. 8:27), the teraphim could be used for divination purposes (Eze 21:21). Since the ephod was a priestly garment, Micah went one step further by ordaining one of his sons as priest. Thus Micah boldly set up a “shrine” (lit., a “house of God”) right in his home. It was a sad perversion of the true worship of the Lord, leading the author of Judges to bemoan the fact that in those days “everyone did as he saw fit” (cf. 21:25).
2. Micah’s Levite (17:7–13)
7–9 The law had specified that priests were to come from the tribe of Levi; so Micah was quick to “upgrade” his religious establishment when the opportunity arose. The Levite he hired had been living in Bethlehem (cf. 19:1). Bethlehem was not one of the forty-eight Levitical cities mandated by Moses (Nu 35:6–8) and assigned by Joshua (Jos 21). The Levites were doubtless scattered because of lack of support, a situation that prevailed all too often in Israel’s history (cf. Ne 13:10). In an attempt to improve his situation, the young Levite traveled north and found Micah eager to hire a more “legitimate” priest.
10–12 The Levite became both a “father” and a “son” to Micah. “Father” is a term of honor used of Joseph’s position in Egypt (Ge 45:8) and of Elisha as a respected prophet (2Ki 6:21; 13:14). Micah promised to give him enough to live on, including the clothes needed to carry on his priestly functions. Content with these terms, the Levite agreed to serve Micah, who thereupon carried out the second ordination ceremony in the chapter (cf. v.5). The new priest was a descendant of Moses (18:30); since the priesthood was restricted to the descendants of Aaron, his attempt to minister was abortive.
13 Equipped with a shrine, a Levitical priest, and an assortment of idols, Micah felt that this strange combination would bring God’s blessing. His smug assertion ranks with Aaron’s announcement about a “festival to the LORD” the day after the golden calf was made (Ex 32:5).
3. Danite spies and Micah’s priest (18:1–6)
1 Again it is mentioned that Israel had no king (cf. 17:6; 19:1; 21:25)—the only thing that might stop the chaos described in chs. 17–21. Despite the monarchy’s drawbacks, kingly rule would improve general conditions at least temporarily.
Caught in a squeeze between the Amorites (1:34–35) and the Philistines to the west and Judah’s territory to the south, the Danites sought out a new homeland. Their desire to move revealed a lack of faith in the Lord who had allotted to them their original territory (see Jos 19:40–48).
2–3 Five spies were sent from the same area where Samson grew up, Zorah and Eshtaol (cf. 13:2). They were assigned to search for a new location to the north, much like the twelve men commissioned by Moses (Nu 13:2). En route they stopped at Micah’s house, which must have been near a main road. They were attracted by the voice of the recently hired Levite. Their questions imply that they knew him personally, or at least recognized his “Judean” accent. Their repetitive questions reveal their surprise at finding a Levite in that locale.
4–6 When they learned his occupation and resources, the Danites decided to consult the Lord through the Levite. The inquiry was successful, for “Go in peace” implies they would be victorious over the enemy.
4. The report of the spies (18:7–10)
7 The spies traveled straight north till they arrived at the city of Laish, some one hundred miles from their original inheritance and farther north than any territory allotted to the tribes of Israel. There, at the foot of Mount Hermon, they discovered a highly desirable location, a long distance from potential enemies and furnished with an excellent supply of water. The Lebanon range protected it from interference from either Syria or Phoenicia. The residents of Laish enjoyed their secure position and had not built any defenses against invaders. It was an ideal situation for the land-hungry Danites.
8–10 The account the spies gave to the rest of the tribe was most promising. Their positive and unanimous report, recommending an immediate attack, contrasted sharply with the pessimistic majority opinion of the spies sent by Moses to explore the entire land (cf. Nu 13:25–33). The claim of divine approval, however, based on the consultation of v.6, was hardly justifiable.
5. The abduction of Micah’s priest (18:11–21)
11–12 Responding to the challenge of the spies, the Danites quickly set out for this new “promised land.” Yet one wonders why only six hundred are mentioned. From the Samson narratives it is clear that not all the Danites moved north. The first stop on the journey was near Kiriath Jearim, a city about eight miles from their original homeland of Zorah and Eshtaol.
13–17 The next leg of the journey brought the Danites to the home of Micah. They had recalled the favorable oracle of v.6 and were planning to make more extensive use of the priest and his paraphernalia. The young Levite must have been surprised to see the men again, and at first he was dismayed at the theft of the ephod and idols (cf. 17:4–5). With a six-hundred-man army poised outside, there was little the priest could do to prevent the robbery.
18–21 The priest’s mild protest was countered by an offer that he join the Danites and enjoy an expanded ministry to an entire tribe. With the prospect of a higher salary and increased influence, he quickly forgot his loyalty to Micah and agreed to their terms. Instead of losing his religious equipment and perhaps his life, he gained a new position.
6. Micah’s futile pursuit (18:22–26)
22–24 When Micah discovered the loss of his idols and his priest, he hastily gathered some friends and pursued the thieves. The Danites were forced to travel at a moderate pace because of the children and the livestock; so they were easily overtaken (cf. Ge 31:23). The Danites pretended to be innocent of the charge hurled by Micah; but they did not invite a search. Micah’s protest has an almost humorous ring to it. He had good reason to be upset, and the Danites knew it.
25–26 With their superior manpower, the Danites threatened to attack Micah’s forces and put an end to his complaints. They claimed to be fierce or desperate men (2Sa 17:8). Faced with almost certain defeat and death, Micah sadly gave up the cause and returned home. Micah stood face to face with the weakness of his gods. They were taken captive, unable to effect their own escape (cf. 6:31; Isa 46:1–2).
7. The capture of Laish (18:27–31)
27–28 Moving straight north, the Danites successfully attacked and destroyed Laish. Because of its isolated location and the people’s desire to remain independent, they could not find help against the invaders.
29–30 The new city was renamed “Dan” and became the northernmost outpost of Israel in the proverbial “from Dan to Beersheba.” There Micah’s idols were set up and Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of Moses (Ex 2:21–22), served as priest.
31 The events of this chapter must have occurred before 1075 B.C., since the Philistines destroyed Shiloh at about that time (cf. Jer 7:12–15). The tabernacle had been set up at Shiloh, some twenty miles north of Jerusalem, by Joshua (Jos 18:1); and the site continued as a religious center during the period of the judges. In those days Israel had no king and no Jerusalem sanctuary to unify the people.
B. The Atrocity at Gibeah and Civil War (19:1–21:25)
The second appendix relates one of the most shocking episodes of Israel’s history. It occurred quite early in the period of the judges, because Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, was still ministering as high priest (20:28; cf. Nu 25:7, 11), and because the tribes were still able to function as a unit (cf. Jos 22:9–34). There is also a need for a long time span between the disgraceful behavior of the tribe of Benjamin and the choice of a Benjamite, Saul, as Israel’s first king (1Sa 10:26)!
1. The reconciliation of the Levite and his concubine (19:1–8)
1–2a The major characters come from the hill country of Ephraim and from Bethlehem in Judah. This time it was the Levite who lived in Ephraim and had a concubine from Bethlehem. Evidently she was unhappy with her status as a secondary wife; for she committed adultery and then returned to the refuge of her father’s home in Bethlehem rather than face an angry husband.
2b–4 Four months later the Levite attempted to recover his concubine. Using tender, comforting Words, he tried to persuade her that reconciliation was the best policy. Her father was very happy to see him, probably because the breakup of the relationship had meant social disgrace for the family. Anxious to please his son-in-law, the father insisted that the Levite stay in Bethlehem a few days. The laws of hospitality play an extremely important role as the story unfolds (cf. 4:17–23).
5–8 The Levite’s attempt to get an early start on both the fourth and fifth day was thwarted by his father-in-law. The enjoyment mentioned in vv.6 and 9 is often associated with food and drink (cf. v.22). The concubine was apparently not present during the meals, for “the two of them” refers to the Levite and the father. She is ignored through most of the narrative, and there is no indication that she even wanted to rejoin her husband. The delay on the fifth day proved to be as dangerous as Lot’s hesitation in Ge 19:16.
2. The journey to Gibeah (19:9–15)
9–10 When his father-in-law requested that the Levite delay his departure for a third time, the Levite refused the offer and insisted on leaving. Perhaps he felt that he had stayed too long already. Unfortunately it was the kindness of the girl’s father that led to her fatal overnight stay in Gibeah. The travelers headed north toward Jerusalem, six miles from Bethlehem. They left mid to late afternoon, since daylight was almost gone when they reached Jerusalem.
11–14 The road the Levite and his company took passed just to the west of Jebus; so it would have been a convenient lodging place. But the Levite refused his servant’s suggestion due to the foreign residents of the city (cf. 1:8, 21). He feared the possibility of danger there and wanted to reach an Israelite city where, ironically, he expected good hospitality. Gibeah lay four miles beyond Jebus. Gibeah belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. Up to that time apparently the Benjamites’ immorality was not well known.
15 The city square was an open area just inside the city gate, and it was the logical place for visitors to wait. They would have had to spend the night there if no invitation was forthcoming (cf. Ge 19:2). After the lavish hospitality of Bethlehem, it must have seemed strange that no one offered them lodging. But it was too late to venture out onto the dark roads.
3. The hospitality of the old man (19:16–21)
16–17 In a culture where inns or hostels were nonexistent, it was incredible that anyone would refuse hospitality to a stranger. Yet the Levite and his party were ignored till an old man from the same tribal area as the Levite came on the scene. This Ephraimite was residing in Gibeah on a temporary basis. Like Lot, the old man did not share the morals of the townspeople.
18–19 The Levite explained the situation, though he added that he was going to the house of the Lord (located at either Bethel or Shiloh). He made it clear that he had plenty of provisions; so the old man would not find his visit burdensome. Normally the host supplied the needs of the traveler (Ge 24:25), but the Levite was taking no chances.
20–21 The old man warmly welcomed the Levite to alleviate his nervousness about the strange reception of Gibeah. Spending the night in the square was far too dangerous; so the three were taken into his house. The crisis was over—or so it seemed. The friendly man performed the normal duties of a host, politely refusing the Levite’s offer to use his own supplies. The old man fed the animals and provided water for the trio to wash their feet (cf. Ge 18:4; 24:25). Then they enjoyed a meal together.
4. The sexual perversion of the Gibeahites (19:22–28)
22–24 Before long it became evident that the Levite and his company had relaxed prematurely, and the Levite must have soon understood why no one else had offered hospitality. Gibeah had imbibed the morals of Canaan and had become another Sodom. Just as the worship of Baal had brought about a near catastrophe in the plains of Moab (Nu 25:1–9), so the Baal cult was probably responsible for subverting the Benjamites. This must have been comparatively soon after the earlier incident, for the same priest Phinehas intervened on both occasions (Nu 25:7–8; Jdg 20:28).
The “wicked men” (lit., “sons of Belial”) are worthless scoundrels bent on evil. They were active homosexuals engaging in practices condemned in Scripture (Lev 18:22; 20:13). The old man felt a deep sense of responsibility to protect his principal guest, and in desperation he offered the townspeople his own daughter and the Levite’s concubine instead of letting them assault his guest (cf. Ge 19:8). In those days the place of a woman was often very low, and the “disgraceful thing” was to molest the man. Nevertheless, the Israelites normally considered the rape of a woman disgraceful (Ge 34:7), and women who were promiscuous were also condemned to death for their behavior (Dt 22:21).
25–26 One can easily see why the concubine had left her husband in the first place. She was virtually sacrificed to save his skin as the men sexually “abused” her all night. The concubine survived till dawn, but by actual sunrise the ordeal had taken her life.
27–28 The Levite had not anticipated the mass assault his concubine had succumbed to, but his words seem callous nonetheless. Should he not have shown concern for her long before daybreak? And did he really expect her to be in any condition to travel? It is little wonder that he is called her “master” rather than “husband” (vv.26–27).
That night of horror made a powerful impact on the nation, and centuries later the prophet Hosea recalled the depth of Gibeah’s corruption (Hos 9:9; 10:9).
5. The crime report to Israel (19:29–20:7)
29 The shocking murder influenced the Levite to take drastic action. He cut up his concubine’s body as one divides the carcass of a sacrificial animal (Ex 29:17; Lev 1:6) and sent a part of her body to each of the twelve tribes, including the leaders of the offending tribe, Benjamin. Apparently the recipients of this gruesome parcel were expected to respond to the appeal or else risk being struck with the sword themselves (cf. 21:10; cf. 1Sa 11:7).
30–20:1 Predictably, the nation reacted with burning indignation. The Israelites had been guilty of numerous sins since the Exodus, but never of anything so repulsive as this. They needed to appraise the situation and then plan a course of action. The nation then “came out as one man,” even from the distant borders of Israel. Mizpah, an important religious center in the days of Samuel (1Sa 7:5, 16) that was only a few miles from Gibeah, was the rallying center.
2–3 The leaders of “the people of God” bore the solemn responsibility of meting out the proper punishment for the crime, and a large army supported them. Benjamin’s forces of 26,700 (v.15) seemed little in comparison to the 400,000 of Israel.
4–7 The Levite related the shocking details of the murder, claiming that his own life had been in danger that night. He may have exaggerated this point to place himself in the best possible light before the assembly. Then he explained his decision to dismember the concubine’s dead body lest the deed go unnoticed. Such “lewd” behavior as that of the men of Gibeah deserved swift and harsh punishment, and the Levite pled that the leaders would hand down a guilty verdict.
6. Israel and Benjamin: preparations for war (20:8–18)
8–10 The response to the Levite’s plea was a positive one, and all Israel resolved to take punitive action against Gibeah. This decision was clearly God’s will, though they cast lots to find out which tribe should lead the way (cf. v.18). Ten percent of the troops were set apart to gather supplies in case a lengthy campaign was necessary. No effort was to be spared to deal with the “vileness” or “disgraceful thing” (cf. 19:23–24) of the men of Gibeah.
11 For the third time in the chapter, the expression “as one man” occurs (cf. vv.1, 8). The Israelites were knit together as a unit, in marked contrast to the days of Deborah and Barak (5:15–17).
12–13a As originally intended, the anger of the nation was directed only against Gibeah. Since Gibeah belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, however, the leaders of that tribe were of necessity involved. Capital punishment was clearly prescribed, and the Israelites confronted the Benjamites with the Mosaic passages (Dt 13:5; 21:21).
13b–16 Rather than surrender the guilty men, the leaders of the tribe chose to be loyal to the town of Gibeah. What had begun as a punitive operation against one city now turned into full-scale civil war. The men of Benjamin had a good reputation as excellent soldiers (cf. Ge 49:27); their prowess with the bow and the sling was well known (cf. 1Ch 8:40; 12:2). If many of the soldiers of Gibeah were among the elite left-handed (cf. 3:15) slingers, one can understand why the whole tribe would be reluctant to hand them over without a battle. Apparently seven hundred slingers formed a unit within the army, much like the chariotry or the light infantry (cf. 2Ki 3:25; 2Ch 26:14). Stones propelled at speeds up to ninety miles per hour were extremely effective.
17–18 The forces of Israel comprised a powerful army, the largest the nation had ever assembled (cf. v.2). The nation sought guidance from God (cf. 1:1), and the Lord directed that the prominent tribe of Judah should lead the way (cf. Nu 2:9). Gibeah’s proximity to the territory of Judah insured familiarity with the terrain.
The mention of Bethel poses a problem, since the tabernacle was located at Shiloh (cf. 18:31). Bethel had been a revered location ever since the Lord revealed himself to Jacob at that site (Ge 28:11–19); so, like Mizpah (v.1), Bethel could have been one of several suitable holy places. The ark of the covenant may have been moved from Shiloh to Bethel (cf. vv.26–27) to be nearer to the scene of battle (cf. Nu 10:35). Since Phinehas the high priest stayed with the ark, it was possible to inquire of the Lord wherever Phinehas happened to be.
7. The first battle (20:19–23)
19–21 Confident of victory, the Israelites moved their forces and equipment near Gibeah and lined up for battle. But the hilly terrain gave the advantage to the defending Benjamites, who used their expert slingers and swordsmen to kill 22,000 of the enemy. The men of Benjamin fought with the determination of those who knew that their very existence as a tribe was at stake. Apparently they struck quickly and withdrew into the city, leaving the Israelites to mourn their losses the rest of the day.
22–23 The startling defeat brought Israel to its knees. On other occasions such slaughter had followed blatant national sin (Nu 25:6; Dt 1:45). The tribes wondered whether perhaps the defeat was punishment for attacking a “brother” tribe—perhaps they had misinterpreted the Lord’s will. So this time they asked the question the answer to which they had assumed in v.18. The Lord again answered affirmatively, and the army received a much-needed boost to their morale (cf. 1Sa 4:9; 2Sa 10:12).
8. The second battle (20:24–28)
24–25 Early the next day a more determined Israelite army took the field only to fall back once more before the invincible men of Benjamin. This time fewer were killed, but the 18,000 casualties brought the two-day total to a staggering 40,000, ten percent of their entire force (cf. v.2)! It seemed catastrophic; but by reducing the size of the army, God was showing them that numbers alone do not guarantee victory. They needed to trust God to accomplish the impossible (cf. 7:7).
26 Deeply discouraged, the army retreated eight miles north to Bethel. The weeping and fasting revealed their desperation, for it appeared that the Lord was ignoring their just cause. The combination of burnt offerings and fellowship offerings was usually an expression of devotion and commitment. The absence of any sin offering implies that the people were innocent of wrongdoing.
27–28 Ministering at Bethel was Phinehas, the zealous grandson of Aaron who had stopped the terrible plague on the plains of Moab, where 24,000 Israelites had perished in the worship of the Baal of Peor (Nu 25:9). Once more he was called on to intercede in a time of national disaster. The sacred ark (its only mention in Judges) was also there, symbolizing the presence and power of God (cf. 1Sa 4:3). The Israelites were prepared to give up the fight against Benjamin, but the Lord again advised them to attack. This time he gave assurance of victory!
9. The third battle (20:29–41)
29 The third time for any event or activity is often the decisive time. If Israel lost this battle, the war against Benjamin would have ended in disgrace. To strengthen their attack, the Israelites changed their strategy. They decided to set an ambush, a strategy successfully used at Ai (Jos 8:2) and Shechem (Jdg 9:33–44). The men of Benjamin were overconfident after two easy victories, and the ruse might work.
30–36a For the third consecutive day, the Israelites lined up against Gibeah, and once again the Benjamites sensed victory. They pursued the men of Israel, who were retreating to the north, and thirty more soldiers died. The death of these men actually made the strategy more effective. When most of the defenders were some distance from Gibeah, the 10,000 men in ambush attacked the city. This sizable force (twice that at Ai [Jos 8:12]) was well able to capture Gibeah. The success of the ambush turned the tide of the battle.
36b–41 The sudden assault on Gibeah brought death to all in the city. Gibeah was quickly set on fire as a signal that the city had been captured. When they saw the smoke, the other Israelites turned and began to fight in earnest. They probably pointed to the fire so that the Benjamites would turn around and see what had happened. As in the case of Ai (Jos 8:20), the psychological impact was tremendous. The Benjamites could not believe their eyes, and they lost all incentive to fight. Disaster had caught up with them because of their evil deeds. The word “whole” (v.37; GK 3972) is often used of “whole burnt offerings” (Dt 33:10). The entire wicked town literally became a burnt offering (cf. Dt 13:16)!
10. The flight of Benjamin (20:42–48)
42 Caught between the inspired main force of Israelites and the ten thousand troops used in the ambush, the Benjamites’ only recourse was to flee. They headed east toward the desert area extending from Bethel to Jericho (cf. Jos 16:1). Perhaps they hoped to cross the Jordan and escape into the deserts beyond, but the sheer numbers of Israelites made this impossible. The pursuing forces were augmented by men from nearby cities. Whenever Israel had the enemy on the run, it seemed that volunteers flocked to join in the pursuit (cf. 7:23–24; 1Sa 14:22).
43–47 The Benjamites were surrounded not far from Gibeah and suffered tremendous losses as the Israelites seemed intent on wiping them out. The term “cut down” (vv.42, 45; GK 8845) has the idea of killing or capturing the enemy down to the last man (cf. Dt 24:21 [NIV, “go over”]; Jer 6:9). In one day some 25,000 elite warriors died.
The total slain, given more exactly as 25,100 in v.35, still does not seem to account for the 26,700 mentioned in v.15. If only 600 survived (v.47), 26,100 must have been killed. The other 1,000 men apparently died during the first two days of fighting, where the author of Judges only supplies the number of Israelites who were killed. The last 600 men of Benjamin found refuge at the rock of Rimmon, a conical limestone hill surrounded by wadis and located about four miles east of Bethel. Numerous caves provided hiding places from the relentless pursuers.
48 Methodically, the Israelite soldiers captured and destroyed all the defenseless towns of Benjamin. According to Dt 13:12–18, any Israelite city that harbored idolaters was to be burned—people as well as animals. The sin of Gibeah was considered as serious as idolatry.
11. Concern for Benjamin’s survival (21:1–4)
1–2 Unlike most victorious armies, the men of Israel mourned rather than celebrated. The terrible judgment against Benjamin had all but eliminated that tribe. So Israel went to Bethel to weep before the Lord, just as they had done after being defeated in the two earlier battles (20:23, 26). Did the nation suddenly realize that the punishment had gone further than they intended, or were they simply lamenting the judgment that the Benjamites fully deserved?
It appeared that the tribe would become extinct because of the oath that had been taken when the Israelite army assembled at Mizpah (cf. 20:1–10). The low morality exhibited at Gibeah was sufficient reason for banning intermarriage with that tribe; the men of Benjamin had become Canaanites (cf. 3:6). But the people later regretted that they had taken an oath.
3 When Israel had won battles in the past, sometimes very few men were missing in action (cf. Nu 31:49). No wonder they bemoaned the fact that an entire tribe was missing after this conflict. The tribes of Israel were twelve in number, but Jacob’s youngest son was about to lose his posterity completely.
4 To renew their commitment to the Lord and to seek his help, the people presented the same kinds of offerings mentioned in 20:26. This time they built another altar (cf. 6:24, 28).
12. Wives from Jabesh Gilead (21:5–14)
5–7 The dilemma posed by the first oath was partially solved by reflecting on another, more important oath the Israelites had taken. When the pieces cut off from the concubine had been sent throughout Israel, the implication was that any city that did not respond to deal with this atrocity would itself be subject to death. If it had not been for their grief over Benjamin, the Israelites might never have discovered which regions were delinquent.
8–9 The search revealed that the city of Jabesh Gilead was guilty. This town was located nine miles southeast of Beth Shan and two miles east of the Jordan. Perhaps these residents of Manasseh refused to oppose a tribe related to them through Rachel.
10–12 The leaders of Israel decided that Jabesh Gilead deserved the same fate as the cities of Benjamin in 20:48. According to Nu 31:17–18, it was permissible in a war of revenge to save the lives of the virgins. They alone could be spared, and it was this provision that was used to secure wives for Benjamin. Four hundred girls were taken to Shiloh (the place where the tabernacle was located) on the Canaan side of the Jordan River. Situated about nine miles north of Bethel and the rock of Rimmon, Shiloh afforded a temporary refuge where the captive girls could mourn the loss of their loved ones.
13–14 Four months had passed since the six hundred Benjamites had been in hiding. The anger stirred by the war had now subsided, and the men were doubtless eager to give up their precarious existence. When the offer of peace was combined with a promise of wives, the men of Benjamin decided it was safe to accept the terms. Thus the sole survivors of a city were married to the remaining refugees of a tribe. Since there were only four hundred women, however, two hundred men were still left without spouses.
13. Wives from Shiloh (21:15–23)
15–18 The grief of the nation is again mentioned (cf. v.6); and it seems as if the “elders of the assembly” were unaware of the four hundred women obtained from Jabesh Gilead. Perhaps the plan being devised to abduct the maidens of Shiloh was formed before the outcome of the campaign against Jabesh Gilead was known. After the four hundred Jabesh Gilead virgins arrived on the scene, it would be difficult to worry about the tribe being “wiped out.” By v.22 the results of the war with Jabesh Gilead had become available.
The “gap” was literally a “breach,” usually associated with an outburst of the Lord’s anger (2Sa 6:8). It also refers to a break in a wall, suggesting the incompleteness of Israel without Benjamin. For the third time in the chapter, reference is made to the oath that forbade the giving of daughters to Benjamin (cf. vv.1, 7). In the absence of wives, the breach seemed irreparable.
19 A solution was suggested by the approaching festival in Shiloh, when a large number of people would gather. During the celebration perhaps the Benjamites could find the girls they needed. The festival was likely the Feast of Tabernacles (see Dt 16:13–15), since vineyards are mentioned and the grape harvest comes in August and September. It was a joyous harvest festival.
The detailed directions about Shiloh’s location may have been given to assist the Benjamites in making the fastest escape possible. Probably they were not familiar with the region, since it lay in the middle of Ephraim’s territory to the north. In view of the spiritual condition of Gibeah and most of Benjamin, it is unlikely that they had bothered to attend any recent religious festival in Shiloh.
20–23 Ironically, the men of Benjamin were told to set an ambush (“hide”; GK 741) for the girls, the same technique used by the Israelites against the Benjamites at Gibeah (20:37). The strategy worked flawlessly, and each man obtained his wife. This highly unorthodox method of obtaining a wife was sure to disturb the relatives of the women greatly. Fathers and brothers usually received a bride price from the prospective groom and had an important voice in arranging the marriage (cf. Ge 24:50–53). The Israelites promised to intercede for Benjamin on the grounds that there was no other way to save the devastated tribe. The fact that the Benjamites stole the maidens absolved the parents from the curse against giving their daughters to Benjamin! These arguments may have been less than convincing, but the leaders of Israel prevented the relatives from retaliating against the Benjamites (cf. 18:22–26).
Restored to their property, the surviving Benjamites began the long task of rebuilding and repopulating their cities. It is a tribute to their hard work and to the resiliency of Israel as a whole that a member of the Benjamite tribe was selected to be their first king (1Sa 9:1–2).
14. Conclusion (21:24–25)
24–25 Since the Israelites had dealt with the sin of Benjamin (cf. 20:8) and yet had provided for the future of that defeated tribe, the soldiers felt free to disband. The task had been far more difficult than they had anticipated, and the whole affair constituted one of the most tragic chapters of Israel’s history.
The last verse repeats the somber words with which these appendixes began in 17:6. From the standpoint of the monarchy, the period of the judges was indeed a time of anarchy and upheaval. The often leaderless people wallowed in idolatry, immorality, and hatred. Sin abounded on both a personal and a national level, and God repeatedly allowed the enemy to overwhelm his people. The reigns of David and Solomon were a far happier time. Yet it was the last of the judges, Samuel, whom God used to call the people to repentance.