The punitive campaign against Benjamin was no sooner concluded than the tribes immediately became very uneasy about the consequences of their zeal for righteousness. So fully and completely had they done what they had deemed to be their duty that there was now grave prospect of the complete disappearance of one of their twelve tribes. For Benjamin was reduced to a mere handful of men, and how could these continue their families since their brethren had sworn not to give their daughters in marriage to a tribe of such wickedness? “And the people came to Bethel….and lifted up their voices, and wept sore.”

Here is demonstrated the folly of human oaths. Only God, the Eternal, who knows the end from the beginning, can truly bind Himself by an oath never to be set aside, for with Him, only, is the wisdom to foresee the outworking of events. In this incident there is the plainest of all warnings to those who love government by constitution and minute-book and all the paraphernalia of the Medes and Persians. Such may be all very well for business executives, but in a community of the people of God reliance on a cast-iron adherence to rules and resolutions is a sign of small-mindedness. The fewer the governing principles of an ecclesia the smaller will be the risk of becoming fettered hand and foot by chains of one’s own fashioning. It was a lesson Israel should have learned from this experience with Benjamin. It is a lesson the New Israel has not learned yet.

Another pitiable decision

As the people brooded on their problem before God in Bethel, bad became worse. Instead of confessing their folly and relying upon divine wisdom to correct their short-sightedness, they proceeded to indulge in casuistry with a typical Pharisaic flavour, and so piled more evils on top of the first. Such was ever the result of human cleverness. These men would fain disguise their spiritual immaturity with the brilliance of their scheming.

The solution was worked out with a logic at once admirable and reprehensible: The oath not to intermarry with Benjamin (they said) applies to all of us who assembled together at Mizpeh. Therefore it does not apply to those who refrained from joining the assembly. Therefore the only exceptions are the men of Jabesh-gilead. But we also swore most solemnly to destroy all who did not combine with us to punish the iniquity of Gibeah. Therefore Jabesh-gilead lies un-der a ban of extermination. And now see how clever-ly we can implement both ‘resolutions’ simultaneously! We will send an army against Jabesh-gilead to exterminate all except the maidens, and these will we give in marriage to the lonely men of Benjamin.

It was a mathematically concise solution which must surely have given much satisfaction to whoever propounded it. The comparatively trivial snag about it was that it punished the innocent and involved those who had started out to reform the corruptions of Israel in as great an injustice and as blatant an iniquity as that of Gibeah. More than a millenium later, the same mentality in the sons of these men was still straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

In this incident is to be found the origin of the connection and sympathy in later days between Saul, king of Israel, and the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. Saul would have descended from one of these women given as a consolation prize to the Benjamites. His intense anxiety to save Jabesh-gilead from the ravages of the Ammonites (1 Sam. 11) would be a perfectly natural expression of family feeling.

It is interesting too to observe that Saul’s method of rallying Israel for the defence of Jabesh was a conscious imitation of the unnamed Levite’s appeal to the tribes to take action against Gibeah — he took a sacrifice, but instead of offering it upon the altar he severed it into twelve pieces and sent it with an urgent message to all the twelve tribes. Only, there was this difference: the Levite was making an appeal; Saul was issuing a threat: “Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.” Saul had inherited the mentality of Israel at Mizpeh.

— and yet again!

As it turned out, the admirable scheme for the rehabilitation of Benjamin was not fully adequate to the occasion, for there was still a shortage of some two hundred women. So a further expedient, equally disreputable, had to be connived at.

The men of Benjamin were encouraged to satisfy their needs by crudely abducting the maidens of Shiloh as, dancing in the meadows at Passover, they kept fresh the memory of the crossing of the Red Sea and of the delight with which Miriam and the women of Israel celebrated that deliverance in dances before the Lord (Exodus 15).

The casuistry involved in this scheme was even worse than before, for in effect the elders of the people said to Benjamin: We vowed not to give our womenfolk to any of you in marriage, but if you take them by force, there will be no breaking of the vow on our part, and we will turn a blind eye to the offence of abduction.

This surely was straining out a gnat and swallowing a hippopotamus! The idea was particularly clever in its recommendation that the maidens of Shiloh be seized, for they would be virgins who, like Jephthah’s daughter, had been consecrated to the Lord in the service of the Tabernacle, and consequently they would — in a sense — be the special concern of no particular tribe. Hence the escapade — or rather, outrage — could be carried through with complete freedom of fear of reprisals.

It was, of course, blandly overlooked that these women were the Lord’s and that consequently this ‘Operation Shiloh’ was comparable with the sacrilege of misappropriating tithes and offerings which had been dedicated to God. What a serious lack of spiritual maturity there was in these men of Israel, now that Joshua was taken from them.

Phinehas?

It might be thought that the presence of Phinehas in their midst would contribute a certain degree of balance to their spiritual judgments. But far from this being the case, it is to be feared that Phinehas himself must bear a good deal of the responsibility for these tragic blunders. The more carefully this last chapter of Judges is compared with other incidents in which Phinehas figured, the more they are seen to be of a piece. First, there was the full-blooded zealous way in which he took action to stop the rot of the apostasy of Baal-peor: “And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel” (Num. 25:7,8).

In the circumstances it was an action wholly admirable and one that was blessed by God with an everlasting “covenant of peace”. But it betrayed an unreflecting impetuosity that was evidently characteristic of the man.

Next, there was the conclusion of the war against Midian: “And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males” (Num. 31:6,7).

The resemblances to the campaigns against Benjamin and Jabesh-gilead can readily be seen:

1. the priest taking the field along with the host.
2. the use of “the holy instruments” — Urim and Thummim — for divine decision.
3. a thousand from each tribe; compare the twelve thousand against Jabesh.
4. the slaughter of all the males.

These similarities suggest that Phinehas may have been the impetuous mind responsible, at least in part, for some of the decisions taken in this sorry epoch of Israel’s history. It is to be hoped that this tentative conclusion does him an injustice. On the other hand, it is just possible that there is here the reason for the otherwise unexplained transfer of the high-priesthood to the family of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron.

Notes

3.	The triple emphasis on “Israel” here is significant.
4.	Built there an altar. A pointer that “the house of God” (v. 2) was not Shiloh, for the altar there would not need (re-) building. But it is easy to understand that the ancient holy place at Bethel had fallen into disuse.
5.	Concerning him that came not up. Cp. the curse on Meroz (5:23).
7.	We will not give them of our daughters. Treating Benjamin like Canaanites: Deut. 7:3,4.
19.	Shiloh….on the north side of Bethel, etc. These precise details about the site of Shiloh were necessary for all readers of Judges from the time of Samuel onwards, because then the Philistines wiped Shiloh completely off the map; Jer. 7:12-15; 26:6,9.
21.	The daughters of Shiloh would be mostly from Ephraim. The other wives of Benjamin were from Manasseh. Thus the descendants of Rachel come together — Ephraim and Manasseh with Benjamin.

The date of the book of Ruth cannot be fixed precisely but this does not matter greatly. It is sufficient to know that it was during the period of the judges. The genealogy at the end of chapter 4, if clear of omissions, suggests the time of Samson or maybe earlier when the growing Philistine oppression made itself felt against the southern tribes of Israel.

Possibly the famine in Israel which occasioned the rest of the story was brought about by Philistine depredation of the crops, for it would be a most unusual kind of famine that would afflict the land of Judah for so great a period as ten years and yet leave untouched the land of Moab less than thirty miles away. The fact too, that food and plenty were sought in Moab and not in Egypt, the traditional refuge in time of famine, suggests that the roads to Egypt were in the hands of unfriendly people. But these conclusions are at best tentative.

Whatever the cause of the famine, there can be little doubt that no bread in Bethlehem, the house of bread, was another indication of divine displeasure. Famine is a heavier punishment than pestilence (2 Sam. 24:14). God was chastening this people beloved for their fathers’ sakes (Lev. 26:19; Dt. 28:18; 1 Kgs. 8:37).

But one, Elimelech, chose not to endure the chastisement but to evade it. As in Abraham’s experience (Gen. 12:10), leaving the Land was a mistake to be paid for. Yet, by an impressive paradox, this was God’s way of seeking out Ruth the Moabitess, to add her to the family of His Beloved.

With his family, Elimelech migrated to safety and plenty in Moab, exchanging the land of God’s choice for a land of idols and ignorance. This was, who can doubt, a reprehensible policy and one which brought in its train a further danger of heathen marriages and their risk of idolatry. It has been surmised that the name Elimelech was originally Elimoloch — Moloch is my god — given to this child in Israel by a Moabite mother (Num. 25:1). Such an explanation, by no means impossible, makes the move to Moab easier to understand.

The Moabite marriages for Mahlon and Chilion actually took place in direct contravention of a divine commandment: “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly” (Dt. 7:3).

And so it came about, for Elimelech did not survive for long. An old tree transplanted does not thrive. Thus, once again, the Word of truth re-emphasizes the folly of seeking marriages with those who do not share one’s faith in Christ. The fact that Orpah and Ruth proved to be vastly superior to the average Moabitish wife is only a further demonstration of the way in which God so very often shows his grace to men by bringing good out of their folly. “Let us do evil, that good may come” is a policy rightly and vigorously repudiated by the apostle Paul.

It is worth noticing that, although the marriages took place soon after the arrival in Moab and the death of Elimelech, there was no child to either marriage during the next 10 years (contrast 4:13). Then came the deaths of Mahlon and Chilion. Says one old writer: “Elimelech, like ripe fruit, fell down of his own accord; they, like green apples, were cudgelled off the tree.” Were these experiences a further sign of God’s displeasure?

It is a marvellous tribute to the character of Naomi that she was not very speedily forsaken by her sons’ wives, especially when the traditional relations between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law are considered. She had apparently inspired in the hearts of these two young women such a genuine affection that they were prepared not only to live their married lives in the same house, but to go on living with her after the loss of their husbands.

Return home!

News came that God was once again blessing Israel with plenty; and since Naomi herself had no roots in Moab there was nothing to hinder her return. Orpah and Ruth were bent on going with her; but soon, in words of thanks for past kindnesses, and with benediction for the future, Naomi bade them return. Then, as now in many countries, a young woman without family ties or a home of her own was a prey to all kinds of evil. So Naomi exhorted them to stay on in their own land with their own kith and kin so that in due time they might marry again.

The levirate law (Dt. 25:5-10) required that, when a man died without issue, his brother should take the widow and raise up children to bear his name. But Naomi urged that she herself was old and without husband. So, even if she were to re-marry and bear other sons, how grotesque it would be for Ruth and Orpah to wait for them until they were of marriageable age!

Thus she applied every possible discouragement. By this means she provided a none-too-easy problem for Bible readers ever since, as to whether she did well to urge her daughters-in-law to return home, or whether she ought not rather to have influenced them for their own good, to come with her to Israel and become good Israelites.

It was a big undertaking for these Moabite young women to venture into a land of strangers with no help other than what an aged and poverty-stricken mother-in-law could provide. And so they wept together.

Said Naomi: “It grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord (and not just bad luck; 1 Sam. 6:9) is gone out against me.”

Orpah, not so impressed with the religious issues as Ruth was, or maybe seeing the practical difficulties more clearly, at length chose to return, albeit with increased sadness at the parting.

Naomi now renewed her exhortation to Ruth, yet at the same time hoping that the advice would not be heeded. It was Elijah’s discouragement of Elisha over again, and Jesus’s calculated coldness to the Canaanite woman. “Return thou!” The words were spoken unselfishly, and perhaps to prove Ruth’s constancy, yet doubtless Naomi’s strong affection hoped fervently that this lovely daughter-in-law would hold to her purpose.

A true loyalty

And she did. Ruth was emphatic. In words of love and fidelity that will last for ever, she set aside every hardship and difficulty that might be mentioned:

“Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.”

Never was more eloquent repetition! And (she might have added): “Where thou risest, I will rise”. Not even death will part these two.

Dominant in this resolve to be with Naomi was a determination to be a woman of Israel with her. Whereas Orpah was gone back to her Moabite people and to her Moabite god, Ruth insisted: “Thy God shall be my God.” And she meant it, for she sealed it by an oath sworn on the covenant name of the God of Israel: “The Lord do so to me and more also if ought but death part thee and me.” And Naomi was content that it should be so.

But how could Ruth declare with truth: “Thy God shall be my God”? Did not the Law lay it down that “a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation….” (Dt. 23:3)? Some have speculated that Ruth was the very first proselyte from Moab after the ten generations. However, the chronology hardly allows of this. More likely, that Mosaic prohibition applied only to males, for it is not certain that the masculine “Moabite” covered the womenfolk as well. It is even possible that the Lord was ready to make an exception to His law for such a one as Ruth. Parallel examples are not wanting.

Back in Bethlehem

Naomi’s arrival in Bethlehem caused a sensation. The women of the place were aghast at the change both in Naomi and her circumstances. Maybe there was something of ‘I told you so’ about the ejaculation: “Is this Naomi?”

Or perhaps what they said was: ‘This is Naomi!’ She had gone forth a prosperous woman, happy in her husband and two grown sons. The family had been one of some importance, for they were Ephrathites of Bethlehem-Judah, that is, they belonged to the distinguished family that sprang from Salmon, the prince of Judah who had married Rahab after the fall of Jericho. The family was closely connected with the hero Caleb after whose wife Bethlehem-Ephratah was named.

The name of Elimelech might also suggest prosperity, for practically every individual in the Bible whose name is compounded with the Hebrew word melech, king, is a person of some consequence.

But now Naomi was alone, apart from this comely stranger, and quite destitute. She had gone out full, so she declared, and returned empty. But how could she say so when she had Ruth by her side? Even so, she did well to speak no complaint against her dead husband. “Call me not Naomi (my pretty, my sweetie), call me Mara (bitter): for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.” And she told how her three-fold cord of comfort, not easily broken, was her stay no longer. Instead, only misery, “pressed down, shaken together, and running over”.

The divine name Shaddai, by which she chose to acknowledge the rebuke of God, may have been used in ironic allusion to its meaning in the promises to the Fathers about a multitudinous seed (Gen. 17:1,2; 28:3; 35:11; etc.). But in the poetical books “Shaddai” also means “Destroyer”. Perhaps that is what Naomi meant.

There is a marvellous dramatic irony about this, for, had she but known it, Naomi returned more full than when she went out. How could she realise that every word of God’s glorious promises to Abraham was going to be fulfilled through this helpless but devoted stranger returning with her from Moab? At this moment she saw herself only as an undefended prisoner-at-the-bar, with the powers of the universe arrayed against her both as counsel for the prosecution and as a judge on the bench: “The Lord testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me!” But before very long she was to marvel at the work of God on her behalf.

Notes

1.	The Hebrew Bible sets the Book of Ruth quite apart from Judges, but the LXX joins them together. So too does that first word: “And” (not “Now”).
	Ruled may mean “began to judge” (as in 2 Sam. 15:10). In which case, like Judges 17-21, Ruth belongs to the generation after Joshua.
	Went to sojourn. Would this be possible after Jud. 3:29,30? The early part of Jud. 3:14 has been suggested.
4.	The rabbis refer the curse in Ps. 109:14 to this verse.
6.	Visited his people. Referred to in Lk. 1:68.
9.	Find rest. This puts point to 3:1.
13.	It grieves me. Hebrew: mar; cp. v. 20.
15.	Her gods: Baal-Peor, Chemosh! (Josh. 24:15) — and the prospect of a husband.
17.	The Lord do so to me…. Reference to the sacrifice over which an oath is taken?
21.	Testified against me, by hard circumstance: Job 10:17.

The men of Ephraim responded to Gideon’s appeal for cooperation, though not from the best of motives. They intercepted and slew a great number, including two leading Midianite captains. And then, when Gideon and his small band came on the scene, they proceeded to be as quarrelsome as possible. As descendants of Joseph’s firstborn they greatly prided themselves on their prestige and status as a leading tribe in Israel. In later days Jephthah was to find in them the same touchiness. None were so prickly as these Ephraimites (Isa. 11:13).

Truculent Ephraim

The gist of their complaint was: ‘We are the best fighters in Israel and the most important tribe. Why then were we not invited to the party?’ They were peeved that a great victory had already been won without their own matchless contribution.

Faced with a similar situation (12:1-6) Jephthah reacted strongly. Tough fellow that he was, he meant to stand no nonsense from anybody. And the men of Ephraim found to their cost that bluster does not always pay.

However, Gideon’s situation was markedly different. He had only three hundred men at his back, and tired men at that. Also, they were miles from home.

So Gideon, against his own inclination, tried the soft answer that turneth away wrath, and it worked.

“Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?” he blandly asked them, meaning either: Already you have achieved far greater results than anything I have done; or else: This campaign of mine was surely too trivial to bother so important a tribe as Ephraim with. And by mentioning his hometown he kept his own personal achievements tactfully in the background.

This diplomacy saved any further explosion, but subsequent developments were to show that Gideon’s blood-pressure had been driven markedly higher.

Succoth and Penuel

Set on making the most of the Midianite rout, he got away from the Ephraimites as quickly as possible. Jordan was forded, and he and his valiant supporters pressed on towards Succoth on the north bank of the Jabbok. They were now tired and hungry men, “faint yet (still) pursuing”.

Surely the men of Succoth — fellow Manassites — would help them with food and encouragement. But no! These men knew that their city lay right in the main line of Midianite invasion (had they suffered on former occasions?), and how were they to know that Gideon would teach these pirates from the desert such a lesson that for generations they would be content to stay out in the wilderness?

So, in effect, they said: ‘It is more than our lives are worth to make enemies of those marauders by helping you. First get their kings Zebah and Zalmunna, and we’ll find you all the food you want.’

This made Gideon angry, but he could not stay then to deal with their cowardly churlishness as it deserved. So with a bitter comment he left them: “The Lord will certainly give me victory in this pursuit (what a different Gideon this is!). When these Arabs have been taught their lesson, then you will learn yours! I’ll see to that!”

Gideon and his men crossed the river and continued wearily up the valley to Penuel, only to meet with the same reception there. These men of Gad had even less excuse, for they had a national reputation as fighters (1 Chron. 12:8); also, they were well fortified and had a strong tower of refuge. So with a sardonic promise: “I’ll be back!” Gideon kept his men to the main objective, more faint yet still pursuing.

Rout of a demoralised foe

The trail took them southeast, and at last they came up with the enemy at a place called Karkor. The Midianites felt confident that the pursuit would not follow them thus far, and since here they were ringed round by hills with only one approach route (according to Garstang’s “Joshua-Judges”), defence would in any case be an easy matter. So “the host was secure”.

If the AV of v. 13 may be accepted (s.w. 14:18; RV follows LXX), then Gideon made another night attack. This is a highly probable conclusion after the earlier success of the same tactics.

It may be surmised that, having posted his main force at the obvious point of escape, he sent a detachment to come at the Arab encampment via the “back door”, that is over the steep circle of hills, making a great clamour as before to scare their demoralised panicky foe. Then, when flight took place by the one and only exit, it would be a relatively simple matter to intercept and destroy those who were armed only with their own frantic fear.

Zebah and Zalmunna

The two princes Zebah and Zalmunna managed to get away, but they were pursued (on captured camels?) and taken.

Back at Penuel, Gideon did as he had promised. Turning the men of the place into his slaves, he roughly drove them to the task of dismantling the tower of refuge in which they took so much pride.

And near Succoth a young man of the place who fell into his hands readily supplied a written list of the main men of the city. These Gideon rounded up. After prisoners Zebah and Zalmunna had been paraded before them, the tokens of success whom they had demanded to see before granting even the most trivial aid, Gideon left the mark of his excusable resentment on these unbrotherly brothers so that his name would be remembered in Succoth for long years to come.

He also grimly interrogated Zebah and Zalmunna about certain of their most notorious atrocities. Even now, in the hands of this dour vengeful leader, these evil men could not refrain from boasting of the horrors they had perpetrated.

“Those whom you treated in such fashion were my own brothers,” was Gideon’s curt comment. And turning to his son Jether, he bade him: “Up, and slay them! are not you the near kinsman, the avenger of blood?”

But Jether, a mere lad, hesitated. And the two hard men of the desert quailed at the possibility of being hacked and mangled because of his inadequate skill and strength. Or was it that in their pride they thought it demeaning to die by the hand of any but the mightiest of the mighty men? So without demur Gideon slew them himself.

Back amongst his own folk, Gideon found himself the centre of a wild surge of enthusiasm throughout the northern tribes. They marvelled that one so unsure of himself should have suddenly become the tough ruthless warrior who had sensationally rid them of their enemies. Was he not the very leader they needed? And a clamour arose that he be made king — in everything but name. Clearly his fine qualities ran in the family. Had not the lad Jether also distinguished himself in the Midianite campaign? They would have a dynasty of intrepid leaders.

Notes

Chapter 7

24.	Beth-barah, north of the confluence of Jabbok and Jordan, the scene of much work by John the Baptist (John 1:28).
25.	Oreb, Zeeb. Compare the double meaning in Jer. 5:6: “A Zeeb of the Orebs (Arabs) shall slay them.”

Chapter 8

2.	The grapes of Ephraim. A big slaughter there, evidently; Isa. 10:26.
5.	Zebah, Zalmunna. Since these names mean: Victim and Protection withheld, they are probably grim Israelite perversions of the true names of these princes.
6.	This intransigence suggests that Moses’ misgivings about an unbrotherly spirit in the eastern tribes (Num. 32:14,15) were not altogether without foundation.
	Bread unto thine army. Compare Deut. 23:3,4; 1 Sam. 25:8-11.
7.	The marked change in Gideon, very obvious here, stems from 7:15.
10.	Regarding these numbers, see “Bible Studies”, 10.15.
14.	Described unto him. RVm: wrote down for him, is certainly correct. The modernists who said ever so confidently that this reading was impossible because of the illiteracy of the times have now themselves proved to be archaic.
16.	Taught. RVm: threshed. One letter difference.
17.	The men of the city; i.e., the elders; v. 14.
18.	Tabor. Had they fled there from Abiezer? Or, error for tabor (= navel, a name for Shechem)? Or, error for Tabbath, unknown (7:26).
21.	Ornaments. RV: crescents. There is archaeological evidence that these were worn as fertility symbols.
24.	Because they were Ishmaelites. Note the different plunder taken from the Midianites; v. 26.

For the next forty years there was tranquility in that part of the Land. Gideon was a good judge, but not without his faults. He multiplied wives to himself (Deut. 17:17), he tolerated (in Shechem) the Baal-worshipping Canaanites (Deut. 20:17,18), and he did little to prevent the divorce between the northern tribes and the tabernacle at Shiloh, which his new sanctuary at Ophrah encouraged. And in spite of Gideon’s continuing insistence that “the Lord (and not Gideon) shall rule over you”, thankfulness to God for deliverance from the buccaneers of the desert waned. Also, they quite ceased to be grateful to Gideon — Jerub-Baal! — for delivering them from spiritual thraldom.

“And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baal-berith their god” (8:33).

This immediate apostasy after the death of Gideon seems to have been entirely local in character. Apparently it had its centre in Shechem. It was, indeed, the worst kind of apostasy in that there was in it a large element of truth. It esteemed the holy associations of Shechem with Abraham and Jacob (Gen. 12:6,7 and 33:20). The deity it worshipped was called El-berith, the god of the covenant, with allusion to the Fathers just mentioned or to the covenant which, at the instigation of Joshua, the people had made there at Shechem with the God of their Fathers (Josh. 24:25). In later days Zephaniah had to castigate the people of Judah because “they swear (loyalty) to the Lord, and they (also) swear by Malcam.” Here, at a much earlier date, was the same thing in different dress.

Nor was this the only seed of evil growing up after the death of Gideon. Besides his enormous family, he had left also Abimelech who was his son by a Canaanitish concubine (NIV: slave girl) in Shechem. This Abimelech had all the ambition that his father had lacked. Realising that the sons were hardly as popular as their father had been, he began to scheme how that leadership might become his.

The name given him by his father commemorated Gideon’s unbudgable principle: “God is king” (8:28) — Ab, father, was commonly used in an idiomatic way for God. But now that Gideon was dead, Abimelech gave his own name a different twist: “My father was king”, with the implication: “and therefore I have the same right also”.

Assassination

Next, he began a clever propaganda campaign in Shechem, where Canaanites still predominated. Working through his Canaanitish relatives on his mother’s side, he cunningly discredited his brethren, the sons of Gideon, and at the same time commended himself to the Shechemites as one of their own folk. Why should they put up with rule from seventy people, Israelites all of them, when instead their interests would be better served if they were governed by one of themselves?

The coup d’etat proceeded on quite normal lines. Funds for the hiring of a gang of desperadoes were supplied from the temple treasury of Baal-berith, the flat rate for the job being one piece of silver per murder! Choosing an appropriate time (one of the feasts of the Lord?) when all Gideon’s family would be gathered together at Ophrah, Abimelech and his hired assassins descended on them, and slew them in their own town — “upon one stone”. The reference is surely to the stone in Ophrah which had been hallowed by Gideon’s sacrifice when he was first commissioned by the angel to lead Israel against the Midianites. Thus Abimelech showed his cynical contempt not only for his father but also for his father’s faith.

The grim contract was not fully carried out, for Jotham, the youngest of the family, was able to hide from the murderous onslaught, and so escaped. He must have been not only very young but also a lad of exceptional character and ability, for he determined that even at the risk of his life he would utter his curse against those who perpetrated such a foul deed.

With the same brazen cynicism that he had already shown, Abimelech chose, as the place of his coronation, the very place sanctified by the covenant made with the Lord by Israel at the time of Joshua (Josh. 24:25,26). It was at that place also where the blessings and curses of the Law had been recited (Deut. 27:12ff; Josh. 8:30-34). In this desperate coup d’etat Abimelech brought upon himself a surprising number of those Deuteronomic curses!

Jotham’s parable

It was whilst the ceremony was in progress that Jotham stood forth on a projecting ledge of Mount Gerizim to denounce those who had imported gangster rule into Israel. Gerizim was the place whence the Blessings of the Law had been proclaimed to the people under Joshua (Josh. 8:33), but now the burning words of Jotham turned even these into a curse. Travellers say that there is a projecting crag on the face of the mountain that would make a fine natural pulpit for Jotham’s denunciation. His words rang clear and loud in the valley below, and the stiff climb facing any who might seek to pursue him ensured freedom from capture.

Jotham’s parable of the trees of the forest, quite without parallel in Scripture, is full of interest.

When the trees decided that they must choose themselves a king, first the olive and then the fig-tree and then the vine declined the honour emphatically on the grounds that they had more profitable work to do than merely spend time lording it over their fellows, which egotistic activity was — so they all implied — a particularly futile way of life; they had much more important things to do, fulfilling their responsibilities both to God (in His sacrifices and drink-offerings), and also to man.

So in desperation the rulership was offered to the bramble, a trailing spiny plant of the wall of thicket, having neither fruit nor shade nor timber; it could only be a nuisance to its fellows and to men. The bramble, aspiring after the honour and wishing to make its position secure against those who doubted its qualifications, reinforced its persuasions by threat and bombast. By all means “Put your trust in my shadow (the shadow of the bramble, forsooth!); and if not let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.”

Jotham then proceeded to expound at least in part his own parable. The olive, fig and vine represented Gideon and his sons who had served the community faithfully and despised the transient rewards of royal status at the expense of the rest. Whereupon these men of Shechem had chosen one who could be likened only to a bramble, destitute of fruit, shade, and timber, and having only nuisance value, especially n starting a forest fire. Jotham went on: ‘Did you men of Shechem show good faith with Gideon? Then what prospect is there of realisation of Abimelech’s hopes that you will be true to him? Let me wish you joy of your new monarch!’

With that, he uttered his solemn curse on them all: “Let fire come out from Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and from the house of Millo, and devour Abimelech.”

Then Jotham ran for his life from the men who were even now scaling the mountain side to take him.

The story of the outworking of Jotham’s curse is sordid, but fascinating as a realistic record of what undisciplined human nature gets up to.

King Abimelech has problems

For three years Abimelech reigned as undisputed despot in that region. Then by degrees because of the character of his regime there sprang up a serious disaffection among the Shechemites who had first acclaimed him so enthusiastically. At first there was no open resistance in the city, but some of the wilder spirits took to the mountains and plundered the caravans that used the busy east-west and north-south roads through Shechem. Doubtless a good deal of Abimelech’s revenue came from the tolls paid by these traders; so he could not afford to have them scared away by marauders.

Gaal

Whilst he was away from Shechem (seeking to extend his “sphere of influence” in other parts of Ephraim and Manasseh?), a number of these guerrillas, led by Gaal, the son of a Hittite slave, came to Shechem at the time of grape-harvest. When the harvest festival was in full swing in the temple of Baal-berith, Gaal — now more than half-tipsy through over-indulgence — began to say openly and boldly what all the town had been whispering for a good while. He reviled Abimelech to his fellow-Hittites as an upstart Israelite (see how the usurper’s mixed parentage now turns to his disadvantage!): ‘If only I had the chance to give these fine people of Shechem the lead they really need! Why doesn’t Abimelech gather his forces, and come and fight me and my men? Is it because he dare not?’

Zebul, mayor of the town and Abimelech’s deputy, was a cautious and astute man, who hoped to profit from a collision between these violent factions. He knew on which side the real strength lay. Nevertheless he realised that immediate strong measures against Gaal would only bring out the entire population in open rebellion. So, instead, he sent a message to Abimelech urging him to make a speedy return during the night. By placing his forces advantageously, he could seize the opportunity to cut off Gaal and his fighters from their base in the city when they came out to do battle next morning.

Civil war

Abimelech saw the wisdom of this suggestion, but carried out the maneuver so clumsily that his men were picked out moving about on the hillside in the early light of dawn. Even so, by clever sarcastic words uttered before many of the people, Zebul succeeded in goading Gaal to attempt a trial of strength with Abimelech: ‘Where is your boasting now? Didn’t you say only last night that you’d be glad of a chance to fight Abimelech?’ Gaal dare not draw back, or his prestige would be utterly gone, although, in the sober light of morning with the wine no longer inflaming his brain, the overthrow of Abimelech appeared a much tougher proposition altogether.

So he and his men marched out to battle — and defeat. Within a short while they were driven back towards the city demoralised and disgraced. But Zebul had shut the gates of the city against them, so they fled for safety where they could.

Doubtless the Shechemites thought their disturbances were now over. But Abimelech was not the forgiving sort. Next morning the people, thinking that hostilities were now concluded, went forth in considerable numbers to resume their work in the fields. This was Abimelech’s opportunity to repeat the stratagem of the previous day, only this time it was done more efficiently and against unarmed unsuspecting people. Thus many, being quite unable to offer resistance, were slain. There followed an assault on the city itself, and at length in the evening Abimelech took it and put the rest of the population to the sword. He symbolically sowed the city with salt, in token of its utter subjugation.

Abimelech’s sudden end

On the shoulder of the hill — Mount Zalmon (it means “image”; v. 46) — only a short distance from Shechem, was the tower of Shechem and the temple of Baal-berith. The priests and people here were known to be against Abimelech. So when they learned of the fall of Shechem, fearing that trouble was in store for themselves, they all crowded into the tower for refuge.

Abimelech led his men against them with great bravery and resource. He set the example by carrying a bough of a tree to lay against the door of the tower. His men responded in like fashion, so that firing the pile, they soon had the building a mass of flames. All the wretched fugitives within were either destroyed in the conflagration or cut down as they sought to escape.

There was similar trouble at Thebez, a town about twelve miles north of Shechem and near to Gideon’s town Ophrah. Probably the people, having kinship with the family of Gideon, had never taken kindly to Abimelech’s dictatorship and were glad of what seemed to be a good opportunity to throw off his yoke.

The scene at the tower of Shechem came near to being re-enacted. Again the people took refuge in their strong tower; and again Abimelech led the assault, following the same tactics. But this time as he drew near to the door of the tower, hoping to set a blaze going, a woman — remembered in history (2 Sam. 11:21), although nameless — threw a millstone from the top of the tower. Just as the original quarrel in Shechem was stirred up by an evil spirit from the Lord (v. 23), so now it was angelic control doubtless which guided the casting of that millstone so that it cracked Abimelech’s skull. Tough in spirit to the very last, he cried out to his armour-bearer: “Draw thy sword, and slay me that men say not of me, A woman slew him.” So he died, and in spite of his last desperate contrivance he was remembered more than a hundred years later as the man who was slain by a woman.

In this way the curse of intrepid young Jotham found complete fulfilment: “Thus God rendered the wickedness of Abimelech, which he did unto his father, in slaying his seventy brethren: and all the evil of the men of Shechem did God render upon their heads: and upon them came the curse of Jotham the son of Jerubbaal.”

Notes

Chapter 8

29.	Why is this verse here?

Chapter 9

2.	Jerub-Baal. Since they were mostly Hittites, this name played on their prejudices. Here Gideon’s principle (8:23) is roughly set at nought.
5.	Upon one stone, as though it were a judicial execution, or as though there were sacrifices to Baal for past sacrilege. Not improbably, this was the inscribed stone of Josh. 24:26,27, pushed over in contempt and used as a slaughter stone. This slaughter set the pattern for the extermination of five dynasties in the northern kingdom begun by Jeroboam at Shechem.
6.	This temple and pillar and a large flat stone were found by archaeologists in 1963.
8.	Olive, fig, vine intended perhaps to suggest Gideon and his son, and his son’s son; 8:22.
9.	My fatness: wherewith they honour God: the holy lamps, sacrifices, and anointing oil.
	Be promoted means “sway about over”.
13.	Cheereth God, by cheering God’s men; Matt. 26:28,29; John 2:8-10; also, the drink offerings.
14.	All the trees. But there is no “all” in v. 8,10,12, implying that the bramble had not joined in the urging of the other three.
15.	Trust in my shadow. How does one crawl under a bramble? And once there, stir an inch and there is only torment and laceration.
	Devour the cedars of Lebanon. A prophecy of all coming to ruin.
18.	King over the men of Shechem implies non-acceptance by the other tribes.
20.	Fire….from the men of Shechem. Not in Jotham’s parable. Nor did it so happen.
26.	Gaal the son of Ebed means near-kinsman, the son of a slave, which by an irony exactly describes Abimelech. Now it is bramble against bramble.
28.	Son of Jerub-Baal. Abimelech’s Israelite blood is now against him; contrast v. 2.
29.	LXX: And I would say to Abimelech. Big mouth! v. 38.
37.	The plain of Meonenim. Better: the wizard’s oak; s.w. Deut. 18:10,14. The same oak as in Gen. 35:4.
39.	Gaal and his followers only, not the general populace.
43.	Three companies; i.e., two of the four companies (v. 34) joined together to secure the city gate. The other two massacred the people in the fields.
49.	Fire, thus fulfilling Jotham’s curse literally (v. 20).

At this point there must be a pause to consider in greater detail some of the extraordinary features of this campaign.

Certain outstanding difficulties were mentioned earlier:

• Why Gideon’s army should have in it so many fearful soldiers;
• Why the Midianites too should be in a state of panic.

To these must be added:

• The problem of the selection of such strange means for putting the enemy to flight, and the startling success which attended the stratagem;
• The interpretation of the barley-cake in the dream as representing the sword of Gideon; it is a highly unusual word that is used to describe how the cake “tumbled” into the host of Midian.

All these details, and a number of others, fit into the picture with remarkable ease once a certain feature of the story is properly grasped, namely, that before preparations for the struggle were complete there had appeared in the sight of the men of Israel and also to the astonished gaze of the Midianites a vision of the Cherubim of Glory, “the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof”, “the chariots of God which are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels”.

Recalling the over-powering grandeur of the vision of the Cherubim chariot as seen by Ezekiel, with its wheels of fire, its flashing lightning, the accompanying noise of thunder and tempest — with all this in mind, certain details of the Gideon story are worth a second look:

(a) “The sword of the Lord and of Gideon” is a strange battle cry for men using no weapon in the fight. But let it be realised how close is the connection is Scripture between “the sword of the Lord” and the Cherubim of Glory, and much that is mystifying will then become plain. The following should be considered: “So he drove out the man: and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life” (Gen. 3:24). (A thoughtful student will not require to be warned against thinking of angels in white robes brandishing flaming swords in all directions. For a fuller description of what Adam and Eve saw, reference should be made to Ezekiel 1.)

“Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing n the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face” (Num. 22:31).

“If I whet my glittering sword (RVm: ‘the lightning of my sword’) and mine hand take hold of judgement” (Deut. 32:41).

“And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand” (Josh. 5:13; see also 1 Chron. 21:12; Isa. 30:30 with 31:8 and 37:36; Ezek. 38:21).

(b) The smashing of earthenware jars, the wheeling of torches and the thunderous shout of the three hundred are now seen to be a deliberate human representation of the Cherubim of Glory, and the chariot of the Lord. Consider some of the details from Ezekiel’s description of the cherubim, and mark the similarity with Gideon’s arrangements: “a stormy wind out of the north….fire flashing continually….a brightness out of the midst of the fire….their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches….out of the fire went forth lightning. And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning….wheels like unto the colour of a beryl….a wheel in the midst of a wheel….full of eyes round about….the spirit of life was in the wheels….I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a noise of tumult like the noise of an host.” Add to these further details from the appearance of the glory of the Lord on mount Sinai: “thunders and lightnings….and the voice of a trumpet exceeding loud”; and from the vision of the Cherubim of Glory in Rev. 4: “the voice….as it were of a trumpet talking with me….lightnings, thunderings and voices”. (Compare also 2 Thes. 1:7,8; Matt. 24:31; Zech. 9:14; there are many other passages.)

(c) “A cake of barley bread tumbled into the host.” This most unusual word occurs again in Genesis 3:24 to describe the “cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way.” The immediate interpretation: “This is none else than the sword of Gideon” is now more easily understood, especially when it is realised that the Hebrew words for “sword” and “cherub” sound very much alike.

(d) If there had already been a manifestation of the cherubim, the fearfulness of the Midianite host is immediately explained. Compare the remarkable incident at Dothan: “And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha” (2 Kgs. 6:17). Also, “the Lord made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians to come upon us” (2 Kgs. 7:6).

(e) The presence of so many fearful men among those who obeyed Gideon’s call is also explained. They came, although without faith and against their own inclination, because of the divine imperative which the cherubim vision implied

“And the Spirit of the Lord began to move Samson in Mahaneh-dan between Zorah and Eshtaol.” Here, as the narrative repeatedly insists (14:6,19 and 15:14), was the true source of Samson’s strength, and not in his long hair, as careless reading has often wrongly inferred. The further implication behind the words just quoted is that at first Samson operated locally, in the immediate vicinity of his own home. It was only later that he carried the offensive into the camp of the enemy.

Divergent interpretations

It is difficult to be sure which is the correct way to interpret the story of Samson’s first Philistine encounter. Certainly in later days he seems to have become a self-indulgent unsanctified character, obsessed with a craving for women; and it may be that this first highly-coloured episode at Timnath is to be interpreted on those lines.

But it is also possible to read it very differently, as a deliberately-contrived incident, guided by the Holy Spirit, to challenge Philistine domination in that area: Samson was now for the first time being pointed out to his fellows as the most recent “saviour” raised up by God. Such a view is not fully-established, but these hints are worth considering:

1. “It was of the Lord, that he (the Lord?) sought an occasion against the Philistines.” And so also in 15:1; 16:1,4?
2. Samson’s words: “Get her for me; for she is right in mine eyes” (this is the literal rendering). The phrase could mean something very different from satisfaction of his own inclination.
3. Samson must have known of the Law’s prohibition of Canaanite marriages (Deut. 7:3,4), and these Philistines reckoned as Canaanites (Josh. 13:3 context). The unheeded reminder from his parents argues either a high degree of wilfulness or a very strong secret purpose.
4. The riddle of lion and honey takes on special point when it is realised that ‘the mouth of the lion’ is a neat play on the name Philistine. And the word used for a “swarm” of bees in precisely that which is used scores of times for the congregation of Israel.
5. The fact that Samson went to his betrothal feast alone, unsupported by a crowd of Israelite friends and relations, seems to point to a similar conclusion (unless this was their way of expressing strong disapproval).

It would be with grief and bewilderment that Samson’s parents, acceding to his seeming wilfulness, went down to Philistine Timnath to make all the necessary arrangements for betrothal and dowry.

Samson and the lion

Samson went to Timnath also, but alone. Near his journey’s end he encountered a fully-grown young lion, such as would have been a terror to any armed man. But Samson met and slew it with his two hands: “he rent him as he would have rent a (boiled) kid.” Yet, of set purpose he kept the news of the exploit to himself.

The months went by. At the end of the harvest season, or maybe a full year later, Samson returned to Timnath to arrange for the formal betrothal feast to take place. On the way he remembered the lion that he had slain and looked to see what had become of it. There it still lay, but now dry and shrivelled by the sun and taken over as the busy home of a swarm of bees. One old commentator sees proof here that it was a land overflowing with honey, when bees found it necessary to set up house in the carcase of a lion.

Samson regaled himself with their honey and carried away more, so that his parents also might enjoy the unexpected feast. He was now beginning to see this extraordinary incident as a symbolic prophecy of the work he was to achieve. He, Samson, alone and unaided, was to grapple with the Philistine lion and slay it, so that his own people might enjoy the riches of Philistine prosperity. Out of the strong enemy was to come forth much sweetness for the people of Israel. The word “riddle” means also “parable” (as in Ezek. 17:2ff).

Samson’s riddle

The betrothal feast, which duly took place, was a strange affair, for here was a solitary friendless Israelite in the midst of a crowd of Philistine roisterers. Israelites disapproved of this unnatural engagement.

Since Samson brought no guests of his own, thirty young Philistines were hastily added to the party. It was the kind of situation that this boisterous self-confident Israelite revelled in. He twitted these last-minute guests with having brought no wedding gifts (a deliberate snub, doubtless), and with mock joviality scarcely masking his dislike, he jokingly propounded a solution to their embarrassment.

‘Answer my riddle,’ he cried, ‘and instead I’ll provide gifts for you. But if not, you shall each give me a linen garment and a change of raiment.’1

To this they agreed. What other could they do without loss of face? They they had their riddle: “Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.”

It was a problem not impossible of solution, for what other “strong eater” could be referred to except a lion? And what “sweet meat” was known to the people of that land save honey? And had not the carcase of the lion, noisy with the busy-ness of bees, been lying there in a near-by vineyard these many weeks?

For three days the celebrations continued, Samson bringing off many a witticism at the expense of these numbskulls of Philistines. Very probably he half hoped that they would light on the answer to his riddle, so that he might have the pleasure of expounding triumphantly its parabolic meaning.

On the fourth day (according to both Septuagint and Syriac versions), they sought to turn the tables on this oddity of an Israelite with his seven long plaits of hair, by bringing pressure to bear on his fiancee: “Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and they father’s house with fire: have ye called us to impoverish us? Not so! (i.e. not if we can help it!).”

The maiden was not at all loth to comply with the request. Their threats were unnecessary, for her sympathies were actually more with them than with this strange husband she was to wed. So for the rest of the feast she privately coaxed and badgered Samson, after the persistent manner that women have, until at last in desperation he blurted out the explanation to her.

The Philistine guests, now confident of their triumph, waited until the last possible moment before gloatingly announcing their solution to the riddle. Upon this Samson, with what seemed ungovernable rage, vented his chagrin (if it was that!) against them. Suiting his words to the company, he lapsed into the coarse language of harlotry: “If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.” And he went forth from the presence of them all, his strength and anger harnessed by the Holy Spirit for the discomfiture of the Philistines.

A reign of terror broke out in Philistine Ashkelon as, day after day, citizens were found dead and stark naked. Before long thirty dead Philistines had paid off Samson’s bet for him. It must have been with a grim, sardonic satisfaction that he despatched those soiled, blood-stained garments to Timnath.

Frustration and revenge

The experience at his betrothal did nothing to cure or alter Samson’s intentions. Some time later he went down to Timnath again to claim his bride but only to find (though the news must surely have reached him indirectly before this!) that she was his no longer. Fearful of becoming a local laughing-stock at the conclusion of the ill-fated betrothal feast and perhaps passing it off as a great scheme to humiliate Israelite Samson, her father had gladly bestowed her on the young Philistine gallant who was to have acted the part of best-man for Samson. And now, even more fearful of the rage of this quixotic uncontrollable Israelite, he desperately sought to patch up the situation by offering his younger daughter. Astutely and accurately weighing up his man, he recommended her charms: “Is not her younger sister fairer than she?” But Samson was in no wise disposed to play second fiddle to a man he despised, and he went off meditating further vengeance: ‘This time shall I be quits with the Philistines when I do them a mischief,’ he declared openly.

None but a man of his unlimited exuberant physical energy would have chosen such a means of balancing the account. By luring a pack of wild dogs with the prospect of food (probably a dead Philistine or two?), he was able to capture (with friendly assistance?) a tremendous number of them, and to set them free again in Philistine crops and vineyards up and down the country with burning brands fastened to their tails.

Another debt paid off

The consternation and wrath created by all this havoc and destruction found immediate and savage expression in the burning of Samson’s wife in her own home. The very fate that she had sought to avoid by the betraying of the secret came back on her. Evidently she was suspected of playing a double game. Hearing about this, Samson, oddly enough, felt that there was yet another debt to discharge. So he went to Timnath and “smote them hip and thigh”. The familiar Biblical phrase so frequently used without understanding of its precise significance, should actually be ‘hip on thigh’. It is a wrestler’s term, and here means‘at close quarters, in hand to hand fighting’. Samson disdained the use of any weapons save his own thew and sinew.

After this he was no longer welcome amongst his own tribe. Philistine retribution which was powerless to harm Samson was doubtless savage against his brethren of the tribe of Dan. So, for some time he lived an outlaw life in a cave near Bethlehem. But the Philistines were not content to let the matter lie. Sooner or later this wild Israelite would burst forth again and do them further serious damage. Prudence indicated the need for prompt and drastic action against him. So they invaded the territory of Judah in force.

The weakness of the men of Judah in face of this trouble is a sorry commentary on the miserable decline of morale in the Israelites at this period. Instead of rallying round Samson, and gladly following his confident lead, they immediately were willing to barter his life for some easement from Philistine oppression. Reflection on this shameful fact will make more apparent the magnitude of the task confronting Samson. The people had no will for freedom. Yet without Samson could there have been a Samuel, and with Samuel a Saul, or a David?

The fight at Lehi

The Israelites then took action against him, probably trading on his marked unwillingness to bring any harm to people of his own nation.

“Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us?” It was a strange reproach to be brought by Israelites against an Israelite! Nevertheless Samson acquiesced in their scheme to curry favour with the Philistines. He specified only one condition — that they should be content to deliver him alive, rather than dead, to their overlords. His words here almost seem to suggest that he could not have resisted effectively, even had he chosen to do so. But when after being bound securely, he was handed over the Philistines, “the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him”. He burst like charred flax the new ropes with which he was bound, and then faced the host of the enemy with no weapon save a jawbone from the whitening skeleton of an ass which was lying there in the pass.

It was a long and bloody struggle that day as Samson, with his back to a rock, fought and slew all who came against him. At length, all that remained of the enemy withdrew, leaving a multitude of slain.

There is difficulty in this incident. For, even allowing for the extraordinary intensification of Samson’s physical powers imparted by the Spirit of the Lord, it is difficult to imagine how the battle took place. Is it possible that Samson’s valour and power rallied the craven cowards of Judah to join in the struggle with him? Certainly it is hard to conceive of them as standing inactive, whilst such an unequal contest was in progress.

At no other time except in the last moments of his life does Samson show to such advantage as in this encounter with the Philistines at Lehi. He had displayed the utmost unselfishness and consideration for the unworthy men of Judah, and now he acknowledged with unstinted thankfulness the power of the Lord by his hand.

Further, in his extremity of thirst at the end of a long fight through the heat of the day, he threw himself on the providence of his God. And his prayer met with immediate response. “God clave the hollow place that is in Lehi (not, as AV, in the jaw bone), and there came water thereout.” This added blessing Samson likewise acknowledged by the name which the spring bore from that day forward: ‘The well of him that cried (unto Jehovah)’.

This day’s exploit fully established Samson’s divine right to lead and guide his people. For twenty years he, under God, was their bulwark against Philistine domination. There was, doubtless, many another mighty deed wrought on Israel’s behalf, but until the last and greatest almost nothing further is recorded.

Another woman!

Emboldened by these exploits, and by others, doubtless, Samson on a later occasion ventured right into Gaza, the great stronghold of the enemy, simply that he might indulge himself with the seductive pleasures of a harlot there. It has been distressing to the faithful of many generations since that day to read of the way in which Samson’s zeal for the deliverance of his people was so vitiated by this weak streak in his character. To be sure, all men of God, whose lives and doings are recorded in Scripture, are revealed as men of weakness in some respect or another. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David — the giants of Old Testament faith — all had their periods of faithlessness. Moses came near to open blasphemy, Hezekiah indulged in the vainglory of politics, Noah shamed himself in drunkenness, and Lot in incest. The catalogue is almost endless. Only Joseph — wonderful type of Christ — has no blot against his name. Yet all these names are in the Book of Life. And so, too, is Samson (Hebrews 11:32), though not because of these sins of his, but in spite of them and by the grace of God. Those who wrestle despairingly against similar odds might take courage from the force of his example and so renew faith in their own ultimate victory.

Gates of Gaza

The Philistines were resolved that this latest opportunity must not be let slip. But by this time their respect for their formidable opponent was so great that they were glad of the excuse to postpone their daunting task until the light of dawn. They had little stomach for facing a raging Samson in the dark. But in any case, they argued, he would not bestir himself before morning; and even if he did, were not the city gates securely barred?

But Samson chose to take his departure at midnight, and city gates meant nothing to him. Instead of bursting them open, as he doubtless could have done, he blithely lifted them clean out of their sockets — gates, bars, posts, frame and all — and carried them to the top of the “mountain that is before Hebron”.

If this must be taken to mean the mountain adjacent to Hebron, the feat of transport was even more phenomenal than that of hoisting the gates from where they were fastened. But this can hardly be meant, for it would imply that Samson was carrying the gates of Gaza the whole of that night and all through the next day, and all to no purpose. ‘The mountain that looks toward Hebron’ might well have been the first hill on the Hebron road, no more than two miles away. Deuteronomy 32:49 has a parallel to this. There Mount Nebo is described as being “over against Jericho” (same phrase in Hebrew as Judges 16:3), although Jericho is approximately twenty miles away.

This episode of the gates of Gaza is perhaps the best illustration of all of the grotesque, boisterous humour which characterized so many of Samson’s doings. This particular feat has something of the flavour of a school-boy’s practical joke.

But there was also a deep religious seriousness behind it. Had not the Promise been made to Abraham: “Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies”? So in a very literal fashion Samson demonstrated to these Philistines that it was useless for them to seek domination over Israel, for had not God told the father of his nation that they — Israel — were to have all that Land and to rule all the peoples they found there? In token of which the gates of this Philistine enemy were carried out on the Hebron road where they could, so to speak, look to the place of the tomb of Abraham to whom this great gate promise was made. Even the “gates of hell” could not prevail against the Saviour raised up by God.

Samson did this extraordinary feat, and nearly everything else, with a freakish, irrepressible sense of fun. It shouts from every part of the narrative. His teasing of his Philistine guests, his eccentric device with the foxes and firebrands, his long drawn-out leg-pulling of Delilah (one can almost hear his schoolboy guffaw echoing round that house in Sorek!) — all of these incidents are of one piece. Even the grim way in which he paid his bet, and the dramatic situation envisaged when he let the men of Judah bind him — these too show something of the same mentality. There was no lack of personality about this Samson.

Notes

Chapter 14

2.	Get her for me: i.e. not only arrange the wedding, but also provide the dowry.
6.	He told not. Lev. 11:39 bears on this also, surely.
8.	After a time. Literally: ‘from days’, which might mean ‘at the end of the year’ or ‘a year later’; e.g. Jud. 11:4,40; 17:10; Num. 9:22; 1 Sam. 1:3; 27:7.
11.	When they saw him, i.e. alone, unaccompanied.
15.	Lest we burn thee. And they did! 15:6.
	Is it not so? There might be a confusion here between Hebrew lo and lo’, as in a number of other places. In that case, the meaning would be: ‘to impoverish us for him!’
19.	Ashkelon was a long way off. Deliberately chosen for that reason? But it has been suggested that there was another Ashkelon close by Timnath.
	The Spirit of the Lord….anger. Compare 1 Sam. 11:6.

Chapter 15

4.	Foxes. A place called Shaalabbin (= the foxes of the cunning one) was located close by (Josh. 19:42). Did it take its name from this incident, or did it supply the idea for Samson’s weird prank?
6.	Her father. LXX: her father’s house.
10.	Do to him as he hath done to us. Compare v. 11. In time of war both sides justify themselves in this way.
14.	The Spirit….came mightily upon him. Here, of course, and not in his long hair, was the true source of his amazing strength. True all the time.
15.	Jawbone….a thousand. Psa. 3:6,7 seems to allude to this. David in a parlous strait, and with his own people turning against him, gains comfort and strength from Samson’s success in a bad situation.
16.	There is typical play on words here. “Heap” and “ass” are the same in Hebrew. So the same word comes four times.
	A thousand men. If indeed Samson was fighting all alone, then must not aleph be read as meaning a squad, and not a literal thousand? See “Bible Studies”, 10.15.
18.	Called on the Lord. “By faith Samson….”: 16:28.
19.	Kore is also the partridge. Was that the original force of the name here?

Chapter 16

3.	The doors of the gate. There was a place called Shaaraim — Two Gates — associated with the Philistine war (1 Sam. 17:52), but geographically it is difficult to link with this incident.

The story of Samson is the proper end of the Book of Judges. With that the reader is brought almost, if not quite, to the time of Samuel. There are, actually, three appendices to the book:

• the story of Micah and the Danite apostasy;
• the frank account of the great crime of the Gibeathites and its consequences;
• in sharp contrast with these, the charming idyll of Ruth the Moabitess.

The indications are that all these three appendices belong to the early days of the judges, but in none is there any mention of a “judge”. From that point of view they are not part of the original purpose and plan of the book at all.

“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” This expression, which comes four times altogether (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), implies that the Judges narrative was compiled during the reign of one of the kings. It might be read, also, as indicating a state of anarchy in Israel, when the national organization had gone to pieces. But this was far from being the case, for there are various allusions to a system of ordered government; e.g. 18:2,8; 20:1,2,12,13,18; 21:10,16.

It is often overlooked that identical words are applied to Israel in the wilderness: “(When ye are come into the Land) ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes” (Deut. 12:8). When those words were spoken Israel did not lack cohesion or orderly government, but there are indications enough that at that time men served God or disregarded His law as they chose. It is in this sense that the words must be read concerning the period of the judges.

The main point of the narrative in Judges 17,18 appears to be the discrediting of the false sanctuary established by the Danites in their new home in the north. That unauthorised oracle was equipped with stolen cursed silver, instead of gold to show forth the glory of the divine. There was no priest of the line of Aaron. And the tabernacle was sited outside the territory assigned to the twelve tribes. Later, in the time of Jeroboam I, these facts would take on special significance (1 Kgs. 12:28,29).

Improvising a sanctuary of the Lord

There was a woman in mount Ephraim who had lost eleven hundred shekels — more than sixty thousand pounds (1989 inflation). The rabbis, seizing on the coincidence of this sum of money with that paid to Delilah (16:5), supposed that the woman was none other than Delilah herself. This is hardly likely, for wasn’t that amiable lady paid her eleven hundred shekels five times over? In any case, the allusion to Mahaneh-Dan (18:12) implies that this strange episode takes place before the time of Samson (13:25). But there seems to be little ground for Josephus’ assertion that here the history harks back to the generation following Joshua.

Confident that her money had been stolen, this woman in the tribe of Ephraim uttered a dreadful curse which was to come upon the head of the thief. Perhaps it was by design that the imprecation was spoken in the hearing of her son Micah, for he, scared at the consequences which might now ensue, promptly confessed his crime and restored the money. Whereupon his mother cancelled out the curse with an equally glib blessing and in token of her gratitude at its restoration she then dedicated the money to the service of Jehovah.

This Corban was made effective by the expenditure of a portion of it — two hundred shekels — for the manufacture of “a graven image and a molten image”. These were duly installed in a private “house of God”, and this strange home-made religion was made into a going concern by the ordination of one of Micah’s sons as priest.

Jonathan the Levite

By and by there came along a vagrant Levite from Bethlehem-Judah. His name Jonathan is not given at first mention. It may well be that there is a corruption of the text here, for the words “he sojourned there” (17:7) are literally “Gershom”, who is later mentioned as the Levite’s father (18:30). The same verse makes Gershom to be the son of Manasseh. But Gershom was certainly the son of Moses (Exod. 2:22). The explanation of this discordance, fully accepted by all scholars, is not without interest. In an effort to safeguard the reputation of their revered Moses, the scribes wrote into the manuscripts an additional letter nun above the line, thus: M ^N SH.

In this way it was intimated to the synagogue reader that he was to substitute the name Manasseh for the name Mosheh. That alteration persists in every Hebrew Bible right up to the present day.

This Levite came from Bethlehem, of which city nothing is written concerning Levites. Why then should he be described as hailing from Bethlehem? The question is more easily asked than answered. Possibly, so it has been speculated, he was connected by marriage with a Bethlehem family. It is a curious fact that the next episode (Jud. 19) also concerns a Levite with connections at Bethlehem.

Jonathan the Levite was wandering the countryside, apparently ‘looking for a job’. He seems to have had no means of subsistence. If indeed this were so, it is a sorry commentary on the speed with which the people of God forgot their responsibility to provide by tithes and offerings for those who were set apart as teachers and ministers of God’s Law. On the other hand, it may well be that Jonathan was a restless, worthless character, unworthy of the name of Levite. This seems to be nearer the truth, for there was no lack of hospitality for another Levite in Bethlehem (19:4-9). So Jonathan may even have been expelled from Bethlehem.

Micah leaped at the opportunity to have a full-fledged Levite as priest at his own private chapel and made the man a tempting offer of employment which was gladly accepted. It was an arrangement that satisfied both of them. “The Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons….Then said Micah, Now I know that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.” It seems to have been overlooked, whether ignorantly or wilfully, that the Levite was not qualified to act as priest and that Micah, himself a layman, was unqualified to consecrate Jonathan in that capacity. The explanation is probably ignorance, for there is something strikingly ingenuous, bordering almost on the superstitious, in Micah’s conviction that God was now on his side for sure, because of the priest he had. Before very long he would have occasion to think differently.

Perversions of true religion

It is appropriate to consider here one of the main problems of this incident, namely, the nature of the worship which Micah instituted in his own home. Several times over, there are mentioned four articles of devotion: a graven image, a molten image, an ephod and teraphim (17:4,5; 18:14,17,20).

These accoutrements of Micah’s home-made religion present a strange mixture of the true and the false, the hallmark of apostasy from time immemorial.

It is not unlikely that the graven image and the molten image are the same, one in apposition to the other. The golden calf made by Aaron is described in both ways (Exod. 32:4).

The ephod was, of course, a normal priestly garment. There is some evidence that the high-priest’s ephod was a kind of corselet — linen stiffened by gold wire — made vivid with the divine colours.

Archaeologists have established, by comparison with similar features in contemporary religion, that the teraphim were small objects like children’s dolls. It would appear that in some way they were associated with right of inheritance to the family property; hence the great fuss made by Laban and his sons over Rebekah’s theft of her father’s teraphim (Gen. 31:19ff).

There is little difficulty in harmonizing Micah’s home-made system of approach to God with his evident belief in Jehovah as the covenant God of Israel. The fault lay in the blithe assumption that God would be well-pleased with a self-consecrated priest ministering in a sanctuary which the man himself had fashioned and located in a site convenient for himself, rather than in a place which the Lord his God had chosen. The service and worship in Micah’s private tabernacle might be — doubtless was — both sincere and devout, and in many of its features correct, but in certain big essentials, there was gross departure from the Law given through Moses. “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me” (Lev. 10:3). “It shall be that the man whom the Lord doth choose, he shall be holy” (Num. 16:7).

Notes

5.	Read: house of God, as RVmg: cp. 18:31.
6.	No king in Israel. Contrast Deut. 33:5.
10.	Father, perhaps in the sense of “prophet”: 2 Kgs. 6:21.
	Ten shekels, out of 1,100. A bit mean!
12.	Consecrated the Levite. Yet this home-made sanctuary was within easy reach of Shiloh!
15.	The Lord will do me good. 18:20-26 provides a very ironic commentary on this.

The story of Samson seems to belong to the end of the period of Judges, but it is no easy matter to link up the relevant chronological details:

1. 13:1. Philistine domination for 40 years.
2. 15:20. Samson judged Israel for 20 years.
3. 1 Sam. 4:18. Eli judged Israel for 40 years.
4. 1 Sam. 7:2. A rather mysterious period of 20 years.

Out of these details some commentators deduce that Samson and Eli overlapped, but it is not easy to see just how the conclusion is reached.

It does seem fairly likely that Samuel was brought up as a Nazarite (more correctly: Nazirite) in imitation of Samson. The similarity in the circumstances of the births of these two children would doubtless suggest this.

The angel of the Lord

Manoah and his wife lived in Zorah, hard by the valley of Sorek, on the border of the territory of Dan and Judah and not many miles from Philistine territory (Josh. 15:19: 19:41; 1 Chron. 2:53). It was to the woman that the angel of the Lord first appeared. He presented his “credentials” by intimating his knowledge concerning her. “Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not.” The correct conclusion was immediately drawn that this unknown visitant was, at the very least, a “man of God”, i.e. a prophet.

There followed a plain declaration of the divine blessing of motherhood which was to be hers. God purposed that the son to be born should begin the work of saving his people from the grim consequences of their sins. In token of the reforming character of the movement which he was to lead, he should be a Nazarite from birth. Wherefore also his mother must, during her pregnancy, observe the same restrictions.

All this was duly reported to her husband. He, not at all doubting but being most anxious to observe all the necessary requirements with regard to the child, sought from God the favour of a further theophany. This was promptly granted, and in acknowledgement of it Manoah delayed the divine messenger whilst a sacrificial mean and offering were prepared. The suspicion was there in his mind already, though he couldn’t be sure, that this stranger was more than a prophet.

Godly reaction

Manoah asked yet another favour. Might he not know the name of this illustrious visitor so that the promised son might be named after him? “Why askest thou thus after my name” was the reply, “seeing it is wonderful?” (The same word is later a title of the Messiah; Isaiah 9:6). And, matching his words with his deeds, the angel not only accepted the oblation which Manoah brought but himself ascended out of their sight in the flame of the altar.

The reactions of man and wife were both singularly creditable to them. Manoah, out of a deep sense of human unworthiness, was convinced that such close contact with heavenly majesty must inevitably mean death for them both. His wife, with surer instinct, knew that this amazing theophany was a token of divine blessing and not reprobation: had there not been the repeated promise of a son, and had not their offering been promptly accepted in signal fashion by the Almighty?

The marked resemblance between this experience and Gideon’s would doubtless, on reflection, help greatly to strengthen the faith of Manoah and his wife in the heavenly promise.

Thus the promise was believed, and in due time fulfilled. The child was named — according to the originally expressed intention — after the angel who announced his birth. For the name Samson is almost certainly derived from the Hebrew word for “sun”, a fact much delighted in by certain critics who would explain Samson away as a solar myth preserved in Hebrew folklore.

The similarities between Samson and Hercules, the strong man of Greek legend, are naturally used to support this conclusion. These resemblances can hardly be accidental:

1. Both strangled a lion.
2. The spring quenching Samson’s thirst corresponds to the refreshing baths provided by Sicilian nymphs for Hercules.
3. Samson’s carrying away the gates of Gaza suggests the pillars of Hercules.
4. Each met his death through the machinations of a woman.

The obvious explanation is that Samson is the origin of the Hercules myth, rather than conversely. There is support for this in the fact that the story of Samson’s foxes and firebrands also finds a clear echo in a Roman legend.

Of course Samson’s name has reference to the angel whose name had never been divulged. He was named after the appearance of the angel: “his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible” (13:6).

“And the child grew, and the Lord blessed him.”

The Nazarite vow, scrupulously observed by Samson at this time, carried with it three prohibitions:

1. Abstention from the vine and from wine and strong drink in all its forms.
2. Avoidance of defilement through contact with a dead body.
3. There must be no cutting or shaving of the hair of the head (Numbers 6:1-8).

These restrictions, voluntarily assumed, make little sense until it is realised that the Nazarite vow was a special device by which the ordinary layman could approximate closely in certain essentials to the character of the high priestly office. When on duty in the sanctuary the High Priest was not to partake of wine (Lev. 10:11). Nor was he to allow himself to become defiled by the dead (Lev. 21:1,5). But, when ministering, he was to wear the crown (nezer) with its golden plate inscribed “Holy to the Lord”. In the case of the Nazarite (the word is obviously derived from the Hebrew word for ‘crown’), his crown was to be the natural growth of hair. “All the days of his separation he is to be holy unto the Lord” (Num. 6:8).

Thus a Nazarite vow meant special sanctity and also consecration as one who sought in some outstanding religious capacity to be the representative of his people. What a high ideal lay before Samson! What great achievements of eternal worth might have been his! But alas! He broke the law of his Nazarite vow both in the letter and in the spirit. Thus his repeated failure was all the more lamentable.

Notes

5.	Nazarite. How did a fighter like Samson avoid contact with death? Of course he didn’t. Then after each big fight did he make elaborate renewal of his vow? Or were the wars of the Lord regarded as not defiling? Or did Samson just not bother?
12.	Pressing requests, yet apparently the angel added nothing to what he had already said in v. 3-5.
15.	A kid for thee. Compare Gideon; 6:18,19.
25.	The camp of Dan. Mahaneh-Dan, named from a (chronologically) earlier incident in 18:11,12.
	The Spirit of the Lord, fulfilling Gen. 49:11.
	Move. The word means “trouble, disturb”. Philistine domination became a sore concern in his mind.

There can be little doubt that God intended Samson to provide for the people of his time a foreshadowing of the greatness and goodness of the promised Messiah, the One who should crush the power of sin, who should possess the gate of his enemies, who should be a Prophet like unto Moses, who should minister holiness as a Priest and rule in the midst of his brethren. And indeed, if all that was weak and disreputable about Samson be discarded, the resemblances to Christ are striking enough, and would doubtless have been more so, if only he had fulfilled his early promise and the devout hopes reposed in him by his parents.

It is an interesting and worthwhile exercise to attempt to set out the similarities between this saviour who failed and the Saviour who overcame. Here are some of the more obvious details:

From this list it can be seen that in spite of the way in which Samson ruined the Messianic image in himself, there are still remarkable correspondences between the two. But for Samson’s deplorable weaknesses, what other similarities might there not have been!!

As it is, it becomes easier in many respects to trace a resemblance to God’s other “firstborn”, the people of Israel. Here again, especially this time in the sections that concern Samson’s failures, the agreement is striking:

1. Samson was a child of promise. “Israel is my son, my firstborn.”
2. Both Samson and Israel were named from an angelic appearance (Judges 13:17; Genesis 32:28).
3. Samson was a Nazarite — “Holy to the Lord”. At Sinai God said: “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exodus 19:6).
4. Both were marvellously blessed with the Holy Spirit.
5. Samson lapsed repeatedly into entanglements with women. Israel continually went a-whoring after the idols as well as the women of other nations.
6. Samson was repeatedly bound and yet broke loose. This was also Israel’s experience throughout the period of the Judges and for a long time after. The similarity is specially apt for these Last Days.
7. Samson’s bondage in captivity corresponds to Israel’s long dispersion and affliction by the Gentiles, and also to the final oppression soon to come.
8. Samson’s blindness prefigures the spiritual blindness of Israel (Isaiah 43:8,10).
9. Samson was mocked and derided. Israel: “a proverb, and a by-word, among all nations” (Deuteronomy 28:37).
10. Does blind Samson’s display before the Philistines correspond to the irrepressible vigour of the new state of Israel, always the centre of world politics?
11. At the last Samson renewed his vow of holiness and appealed to God for help. Here doubtless is prefigured the long-awaited repentance of Israel.
12. As Samson and his enemies died together, so also the State of Israel will be destroyed in the final holocaust when judgment comes to the nations.
13. But Samson will rise from the dead, justified by his faith. So, too, Israel will rise nationally from a valley of dry bones.

The loss of his daughter was not the only trial Jephthah had to face at this time of victory. The men of Ephraim were known throughout Israel for their sense of self-importance. Taking undue pride in the precedence assigned to their tribe in Jacob’s prophetic blessing on Joseph’s younger son, they never lost an opportunity to assert what they deemed to be their primacy in Israel. Even with Joshua, himself a man of Ephraim, they had shown themselves cantankerous and greedy of territory (Josh. 17:14), so that it had called for much forbearance and tact on Joshua’s part in the handling of their selfish complaint. Gideon had had to face the same problem. Instead of applauding his heroism, stamina and skill in routing the Midianites, they childishly complained that they had been ignored in the rally and struggle for liberty.

Jephthah had to face the same unreasonable spirit. Angry at being left in the background when glorious victories were being won by such an upstart leader, the Ephraimites gathered in force and crossed Jordan into Gilead. Possibly, too, they felt it unwise to allow a man such as Jephthah to become too powerful, for then their own dominance of central Israel might be challenged.

But in Jephthah they had a man of different material from either Joshua or Gideon. These two were, both of them, men lacking self-confidence; whereas Jephthah feared no one save the God whom he worshipped. Besides this, he was terribly depressed by the loss of his only child, so he was not disposed to exercise overmuch patience with such unreasonable neighbours.

Even so, as with the Ammonites, he reasoned with them, pointing out bluntly that appeal had been made to them earlier, but in vain. This time spent in futile parley at least enabled Jephthah to rally his men once more. They, laden with spoils of war, had already dispersed to their own homes. Once again the battle was joined — a sorry spectacle, this, Israelite against Israelite! — and once again Jephthah’s valour and brains won the day.

A convenient password

When the men of Ephraim turned to flee, Jephthah with quick foresight detailed off squads of men to travel swiftly to the fords of Jordan. It was Ehud’s coup de grace over again (3 :28). Yet in his fairness Jephthah strictly forbad them to slay any except the men of Ephraim who should fall into their hands there (for the fords of Jordan were always busy with travellers other than Ephraimites).

Evidently there was some local trick of speech characteristic of the men of Ephraim which enabled a rough and ready discrimination to be made between them and others. The Englishman’s traditional inability to say “braw bricht moonlicht nicht” in guid Scots, and the Frenchman’s common failure with the English th are other examples of the same sort of linguistic peculiarity. Possibly too Jephthah’s men chose the word ‘Shibboleth’ not only because of its initial consonant but also because of the ambiguity in its meaning; for it can signify either ‘a flood of waters’ (to be crossed) or ‘an ear of corn’ (to be threshed).

How many men fell in this deplorable strife among brethren? It is difficult to take the AV’s forty-two thousand seriously. A possible reading is: “forty-two fighting men” (see “Bible Studies”, 10.15).

Thereafter Jephthah was left in peace. Indeed it is fairly likely that for the rest of his days he was accepted by most of the central tribes as the God-given Judge of Israel.

In this capacity he lived for only six short years. The Hebrew text has the nonsensical reading that “he was buried in the cities of Gilead”. But it requires, however, only the very smallest emendation to read (as LXX) ‘in his own city’, i.e., Mizpeh.

Can it be that Jephthah’s short tenure of office points to his being middle-aged when he became chief of Gilead? The fact that he had no other child after his daughter, and the sharp contrast with the enormous families of other judges of Israel, perhaps encourages this idea.

Jephthah and Christ

Jephthah stands out as a man of many admirable qualities. Not only was he patient with his enemies and unresentful of wrongs done to him. Not only was he a strong personality amongst men and brilliantly versatile in war. But also in an age of declension he was a man outstanding for his godliness! Although only half an Israelite, he was by his faith and zeal for the Lord the finest of them all in that day of very small things. Throughout a life of change and uncertainty — the life of an outlaw — he maintained his intimacy with the Word of God given through Moses. And through that Word he nurtured his sense of justice until the day when he was called to exercise it on behalf of the people of the Lord. Against all discouragements, he put God first in his life: “I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.” What more fitting words for his epitaph? Assuredly the name of Jephthah did not creep into Hebrews 11 through accident or oversight.

It is not difficult to trace a number of intriguing parallels between Jephthah and Christ.

• His birth not according to normal wedlock.
• Rejected by his brethren and his nation.
• He gathered to him a band of despised men.
• The bold challenge: Am I to be your head, or not?
• He was filled with the Spirit.
• His right was asserted as unchallengable.
• A great victory was won, to save his people from oppression.
• His vow was fulfilled at great personal cost.
• Even after victory, he was mocked and rejected.
• Judgment against his enemies.
• “By thy words thou shalt be justified.”

“Minor” judges

Jephthah was followed in the central tribes by three other “minor” judges about whom little is recorded.

Ibzan of Bethlehem in Zebulun (Josh. 19:15), by contrast with Jephthah and his one daughter, had a remarkably well-organized family of thirty sons and thirty daughters all of whom were suitably married off. There is no word of deliverance or military exploits, so presumably these were not necessary during his seven years.

There is no possibility that he should be equated with Boaz, the husband of Ruth.

He was followed by Elon, also of Zebulun. Aijalon, his city (not to be confused with the Aijalon made famous by Joshua’s long day), was probably named after him.

Next came Abdon the son of Hillel. He belonged to Ephraim, the centre of his administration being only a few miles west of Shechem. Again there is mystifying mention of a vast family, but after a relatively short rule of eight years he died without obvious successor, and declension set in again.

Notes

1.	Went northward, to the fords near Succoth; or, possibly (as RVm) to Zephon which was near Succoth, north of the Jabbok.
4.	Gathered together. His meagre army was already dispersed after the battle against Ammon.
6.	Shibboleth. LXX turns this into Stachys (Rom. 16:9). Presumably this test word would be introduced into casual conversation, and thus the unsuspecting Ephraimite would unconsciously give himself away. The same word s’bol comes in Isa. 53:4 (= Matt. 8:17) — a more powerful instance of how he who took Sibboleth on himself died!
	Slew. The Hebrew word normally means sacrificial slaying. Then why here? Fuller’s comment is: “Haply this execution, without order of Jephthah, might be done by the Gileadites in heat of anger, soldiers in the precipice of their passion being sensible of no other stop but the bottom.”
11.	Elon was evidently a tribal name; Num. 26:26.
13.	Abdon by an easy distortion becomes Bedan (1 Sam. 12:11).
15.	The mount of the Amalekites was probably so named from 7:12,24,25.