“The place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name there” is a constantly recurring phrase in the Book of Deuteronomy. The reference is to the centre of worship, the tabernacle and its service, which was to be established in a convenient centre in the Land when wilderness wanderings were ended.

Shiloh

Shiloh was the place which was chosen “at the first” (Jer. 7:12). It was centrally situated in the territory of Ephraim. There Joshua convened the tribes when the earliest blows of conquest had been struck, in order to apportion the rest of the Land more precisely to those who had not inherited as yet. But, strangely enough, it was at Shechem and not Shiloh, where Joshua assembled the people to hear his final exhortations and to be renewed in covenant with their God who had given them the Land. This is doubly strange in that Shechem and Shiloh are so close together. It would have been just as easy for the tribes to assemble in one place as in the other. How came it, then, that the place sanctified by the presence of the tabernacle and the ark was disregarded?

There are references to Shiloh as a centre of worship in a section of the Book of Judges which probably belongs to the early part of this disturbed period (18:31 and ch. 21). And again in the early chapters of 1 Samuel, the sanctuary at Shiloh is the background to the familiar stories of Hannah and Samuel, of Eli and his wayward sons.

Then from this period onward Shiloh as a centre of worship in Israel disappears completely from the sacred records, apart from two allusions in Jeremiah (7:12; 26:6,9) to the utter destruction which overtook the tabernacle there and the town itself. It was disowned by God who destroyed it by the Philistines (Psa. 78:60).

It is a matter for surprise that Shiloh apparently played so little part in the history of the nation. The fact is that Shiloh was not unique as a holy place in Israel; it was not the only ‘place which the Lord was to choose to place his name there’.

An investigation of the various other centres, which were used in these unsettled times as places of approach to God should not be without value.

Shechem

Mention has already been made of Shechem which, at the time that Joshua made covenant there between the people and their God, was evidently already regarded as a right and proper place for worship and sacrifice. There the people presented themselves “before God” (Josh. 24:1). “So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord” (Josh. 24:25,26). This sanctuary at Shechem was probably the one called Bochim (the weeping ones) in Judges 2:1-5. Indeed the incident described there may be the very occasion which Joshua 24 narrates in greater detail. The similarities are certainly very striking. This Judges narrative adds: “and they sacrificed unto the Lord”.

Other Scriptures make it plain that at Shechem there was an altar of special sanctity and historic importance. It was there that the Land was first promised to Abraham’s Seed (before it was promised to Abraham!), which gracious promise was acknowledged by sacrifice on the altar which Abraham raised up there in thanksgiving (Gen. 12:6,7). It was to this place that Jacob came after his encounter with Esau on his way back from the country of Laban; and there, after repurchasing the piece of land which Abraham had bought from the original Hittite owners (Acts 7:16), he rebuilt Abraham’s altar (Gen. 33:19,20).

It was this altar which was rebuilt again, this time by Joshua, when the tribes of Israel all came together between Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim to hear proclaimed the blessings and curses of the Law (Josh. 8:30).

But the re-establishment of the Hittite worship of Baal-berith in the time of Abimelech, the unworthy son of Gideon, ended the special holiness of Shechem until, many years later, the Son of God himself called the people of that place to “worship God in sincerity and in truth”, even as Joshua himself had insisted in the day of the covenant (John 4:24; Josh. 24:14). The site of this Shechem altar, of ancient sanctity, has lately been identified by the archaeologists (“Biblical Archaeology Review”, Jan.-Feb. 1985; see also Jan.-Feb. 1988).

Gideon’s Ophrah

There was another sanctuary of much less prominent character in the early days of the Judges, in Ophrah the home of Gideon. Its origin was, of course, the consecration (as an altar) of the rock where the angel of the Lord accepted fearful Gideon’s offering (Judg. 6:21-26). The altar from that day forth was called “Jehovah-Shalom” — the Lord of Peace.

The language of Judges 8:27 implies that Gideon ill-advisedly, though with the best of intentions, chose to establish and equip at Jehovah-Shalom a centre of worship for the God who had wrought deliverance through him. There is also the further implication that this new institution was widely accepted as a new spiritual centre for the neighbouring tribes. This honouring of a place which God had not chosen for such purpose would doubtless have continued but for the defilement of it by the brutal slaughter of Gideon’s family at the hands of Abimelech and his hired assassins.

From this example, and others now to be considered, it appears that God was willing, during this period when the tribes were disturbed and incoherent, that other sanctuaries besides the main centre be used to focus the piety of Israel.

Mizpeh of Gilead

It is clear from the story of Jephthah that in his day there was a well-recognized sanctuary in Mizpeh of Gilead. Jephthah’s agreement with the elders of Gilead was made “before the Lord in Mizpeh” — a phrase which invariably has reference to an altar or holy place where God was worshipped. Apparently too, but not certainly, it was at this Mizpeh that Jephthah vowed his vow unto the Lord. And, it may be that it would be at this sanctuary where his daughter would serve the Lord during her life-long virginity — but not necessarily (“Bible Studies”, p. 205a).

Other Mizpeh sanctuaries

This Mizpeh is always referred to with the definite article: The Mizpeh, i.e. The Watchtower. The priests and prophets of the Lord are frequently alluded to in Scripture as ‘watchmen’ (e.g. Hab. 2:1; Ezek. 3:17 and 33:2-7; Hosea 9:8; Isa. 29:20 and 56:10 and 21:6; Jer. 31:6 and 6:17). This detail, combined with the reference in Joshua 13:26 to “Ramoth-Mizpeh” in Gilead, suggests fairly strongly that Mizpeh was an alternative name for Ramoth-gilead, which was one of the cities of refuge in eastern Israel. It seems not unlikely that Ramoth-gilead was also the Mizpeh where Jacob and Laban agreed to disagree, and where Jacob also “offered sacrifice upon the mount” (Gen. 31:48-54). If so, its sacred associations in Jacob’s day might well single it out in later times for re-consecration.

It may well be the same Mizpeh that is mentioned in 1 Sam. 7:16 along with Bethel, Gilgal and Ramah as one of the centres of Samuel’s administration. The Septuagint adds significantly in that place: “and he judged Israel in all these sanctuaries.”

The possibility should be considered of Mizpeh (watchtower) being a kind of technical term for a sanctuary in ancient Israel very much as ‘Ebenezer’ or ‘Bethel’ became for many a Methodist community in the last century a well-recognized name for their place of worship.

For instance, Mizpeh of Moab (1 Sam. 22:3), where David met the king of Moab when seeking refuge for his parents from the vengeful jealousy of Saul, may well be Bezer, the city of refuge, which was situated on the borders of Reuben and Moab.

There is another Mizpeh mentioned in Judges 20:1,3 and 21:1 in connection with the controversy between Benjamin and the rest of the nation. Geographical considerations immediately rule out the possibility that this might be Mizpeh of Gilead. But the text calls it “the house of God”, i.e. Bethel (20:18,26,31 RV and 21:2 RV), on the northern border of Benjamin. Some, however, identify it with Shiloh.

It is not certain where was the Mizpeh to which Samuel rallied the tribes for repentance before God (a long-neglected Day of Atonement?) and for resistance against further Philistine aggression (1 Sam. 7:5-16). Most probably it was the Gibeah (the priestly and Benjamite part of Kirjath-Jearim; Josh. 21:17; 18:14,28) where the ark was lodged after being returned by the Philistines. This may also have been Samuel’s Ramah, for that became a well-recognized religious centre during his lifetime. There is a good deal of uncertainty about some of these place-identifications.

Nob

Nob, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, is stated to have been a place of organised worship of some considerable importance. It had “fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod”; and Ahimelech himself, high-priest of the line of Ithamar and Eli, officiated there (1 Sam. 21 and 22:18,19). It was this place which is referred to in the narrative of the slaying of Goliath: “And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem” (1 Sam. 17:54; cp. 21:8,9). It is difficult to see just how or why Nob came to achieve such high but short-lived importance.

Gibeon

Lastly, mention must be made of Gibeon, “the great high place” (1 Kgs. 3:4). “There (at the beginning of Solomon’s reign) was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the Lord had made in the wilderness” (2 Chron. 1:3).

This very tabernacle, first fashioned under the shadow of Mount Sinai, had undoubtedly been set up originally in Shiloh. How then did it come to be at Gibeon? One can only surmise. If the identity of Gibeon-Gibeah-Ramah be accepted (and a pretty good case can be made for this), then probably, when there was a serious threat, after the death of Eli, of Shiloh being overrun by the Philistines, Samuel had the tabernacle dismantled and removed elsewhere. When his administration settled down at Ramah-Gibeon he would have the sanctuary re-erected there; and there it continued right through the reign of David. If this identification of Gibeon is not accepted, then it is necessary to postulate that irreligious Saul took the trouble for no known reason, to have Moses’ tabernacle re-erected at a place which gets no mention at all in the history of his reign.

The numerous offerings which Solomon made at Gibeon (1 Kgs. 3:4) probably marked the formal closure of the sanctuary at Gibeon as “the great high place”. Whatever may have been its precise function hitherto, this would now be completely superseded by the temple that was a-building in Jerusalem.

Likely conclusions

It would seem, then, beyond question from the evidence available that during the period between Joshua and David quite a number of holy places were in use at various times for the offering of sacrifices and for approach to God. This fact suggests a different view of the often repeated phrase in Deuteronomy: “the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name there”. Instead of regarding it as an allusion to the one unique place, Shiloh, which was appointed as the centre of worship for the nation, perhaps it should be read as signifying the place (i.e. any place) which has been sanctified for that purpose.

In harmony with this suggestion are the words of Nathan the prophet to David: “Thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in: for I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up Israel unto this day; but have gone from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle to another. Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?” (1 Chron. 17:4-6).

This diversity of holy places helps to a clearer understanding of the repeated criticism made in the later history that “the high places were not taken away” by the kings of Judah. Gibeon is called “the great high place”. The sanctuary where the prophet Samuel ministered is called “the high place” (1 Sam. 9:13). And when, in a Hezekiah psalm, Assyrian invaders are said to have “burned up all the synagogues of God in the Land” (Psa. 74:7,8), the reference is most probably to the various religious centres mentioned in this compilation, to which a certain sanctity still clung

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.

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

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).

Perhaps the scanty mention that is given Tola and Jair is deliberate, in order to hasten the reader on from a consideration of worthless Abimelech in ch. 9 to the story of the worthy Jephthah. The contrast between these two is heightened by the correspondences between them.

Ostracized by his family

Jephthah fled (to the land of Tob, to the north of Gilead) when disinherited by his brethren. Jephthah’s father was the prince of Gilead. His mother was a harlot. The rest of the family were strongly resentful of Jephthah’s place among them, and at the first suitable opportunity — the death of their father? — they combined to exclude him with violence not only from the family inheritance but even from their tribe. This half-brother of theirs was a blot on the family name not to be tolerated.

But there may have been more to it than this. If in early life, Jephthah were already showing signs of outstanding character and ability, such as were evident enough in later days, it is easy to see how, in spite of his origins, he would be a firm favourite with his father and therefore all the more an object of both envy and hatred by his brothers.

Thus, driven out from home, and prevented by family influence and persecution from settling elsewhere in the tribal territory, Jephthah took to the wilds. There he gathered round him a band of other outlaws who, like himself, were prepared to live by their wits and their daring. A fair parallel would be David in his Adullam period. Jephthah was now become a kind of Robin Hood.

The Authorised Version here may be misleading: “And there were gathered vain men unto Jephthah, and went out with him (i.e., on forays).” The word here translated “vain” means literally “empty”, and may signify no more than that they were penniless, without resources. An almost identical word is used for the lean kine of Pharaoh’s dream.

The Judges pattern repeated again

At first it was the eastern tribes of Gad and Manasseh who bore the brunt of Ammonite aggression, but evidently as the power of the marauders grew, so also did their ambition, so that they made inroads also into the territory of the central tribes of Ephraim, Benjamin and Judah. “They vexed and oppressed (literally: crushed) the children of Israel….so that Israel was sore distressed.”

Again the history followed the familiar pattern already well-established earlier in this period. “The children of Israel cried unto the Lord” — another bread-and-butter repentance.

Nevertheless because “His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel” (a wonderful expression, this!), God brought deliverance, not in any marvellous supernatural way, but by the hand of the man they had despised and ill used.

Appeal to Jephthah

The Ammonite threat becoming critical, the men of Gilead were driven to call in the help of Jephthah and his band. The deputation was coldly received, for Jephthah had many bitter memories, and there amongst the elders who came to parley with him were some of the brothers who had treated him so shabbily in earlier days.

These delegates asked that Jephthah take over the leadership of the eastern tribes until the Ammonite danger was over. But this did not satisfy him. ‘Make me your permanent leader (he said), and I’ll agree.’

With no option left them, they did agree. So, glad at heart to have this reconciliation with own folk, Jephthah came with them to the sanctuary at Mizpeh, and there the agreement was ratified by solemn covenant before the Lord. Jephthah may have been an outlaw, but all his days he was a man of godliness.

This approach to Jephthah shows the kind of man he was. For, in his free-booter life, he had evidently not preyed on his own people — as he well might have done. Yet how many, treated as he had been, would have held off from using opportunities for working off old scores? Had Jephthah’s men actually raided the people of Gilead, hatred for him would have intensified to such an extent as to make concord quite unthinkable. His outstanding ability as a leader was obviously known to everybody. More than this, he had the reputation of being a just man, or the idea of him being head of the tribe would never have been given a moment’s consideration. The leading family in Gilead would not readily eat its own words, except out of a conviction that Jephthah was the very man, the only men n fact, who was equal to the present emergency.

Parley with the enemy

And so he proved to be. Having promptly moved his headquarters to Mizpeh, he sent an immediate deputation to the king of the Ammonites protesting against this latest outrageous invasion. The reply — spoken, surely, with tongue in cheek — was that Gilead belonged to Ammon by right, having been Ammonite until Israel came out of the wilderness under Moses.

Jephthah might justifiably have treated this argument with contempt or even ridicule. But instead he patiently tried to reason the matter out at length. The despatch which he now sent detailed the facts and arguments that were not to be gainsaid:

1. In bygone days Israel took no land from either Moab or Ammon.
2. In fact Israel had bee exceedingly careful to avoid offence to any neighbouring people.
3. At that time the country of Gilead was possessed by the Amorites, not the Ammonites; and it was only when their king, Sihon, became aggressive that Israel fought against him and annexed his land.
4. Besides, said Jephthah, you believe that your god Chemosh gave you the land you now inhabit. We know that our God gave us this land.
5. Balak, king of Moab, lost territory to Sihon the Amorite. When we took it from Sihon, Balak knew better than to claim it from us. Hadn’t you better learn that lesson?
6. You have let this demand of yours slumber for no less than three hundred years. Why has it taken you so long to decide that the land we live on is really yours?
7. Lastly, we have right on our side; and Jehovah, the God who gave us the land, is still the God of judgement against our enemies.

Jephthah a Bible man

Another feature of Jephthah’s message to the king of Ammon is worth noting: his remonstrance to the Ammonites is full of detailed allusions (about 19 of them) to the history of Numbers 20,21 and the parallel passages in Deut. 1,2.

Evidently Jephthah knew his Bible! He had the history of his people hundred of years before at his finger tips. So here was no uncouth, boorish buccaneer, but a man of culture with a sense of tradition and a deep reverence for the God who had cared for his people in days gone by.

Of course, like all aggressors from that century to this, the king of Ammon had no intention of settling the issue by diplomacy. He was bent on war and complete conquest.

“Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah”, as it had upon Othniel and Gideon, and as it came upon Samson some time afterwards. Jephthah not only sent messengers to rally the central tribes but also made a big personally-directed recruiting drive throughout Manasseh and Gilead, and then paused once more before the sanctuary in Mizpeh to make a signal act of self-consecration:

“And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” (Jud. 11:31).

Of the battle itself little is told, save that the Lord gave a great victory. In spite of having to face only a small Israelite army (12:3), the Ammonites were routed and pursued many miles. And Jephthah was able to return to Mizpeh satisfied that he had accomplished fully the deliverance he had promised to attempt. The fulfilment of his vow was now due.

Notes

Chapter 10

15.	Do thou unto us…. Compare David’s attitude towards divine judgment. 2 Sam. 24:14.
16.	His soul grieved. Compare Isa. 63:9.
17.	Mizpeh means “watchtower”. Josh. 13:26 identified with Ramoth-gilead — see Chapter 26 for details about the numbers of sanctuaries in Israel at this period.

Chapter 11

1.	Gilead; i.e., the prince of Gilead (see v. 26).
2.	Not inherit: compare Gen. 21:10; 25:6.
	The son of a strange woman. It is doubtful whether Deut. 23:2 applies here; v. 3 appears to apply v. 2 to cases of incest.
3.	Tob means “good” — probably an ironic name for the “badlands” north of Gilead (2 Sam. 10:6, mg.), a land of barren basalt.
8.	Therefore implies: “because we now wish to make amends” — tactful, if not the whole truth!
13.	Israel took away my land. Contrast Deut. 2:19. What Israel took was parts of Moab and Ammon which had already been seized by Sihon the Amorite; Num. 21:26; Josh. 13:25.
15.	Note the emphasis on Moab in v. 15,17,18, because he was the brother of Ammon; Gen. 19:36-38. At the time spoken of, Ammon was right out of the picture.
17.	In like manner, they sent to the king of Moab. This detail is an addition to the Pentateuch account. As it turned out, this appeal to Moab proved unnecessary.
19.	Into my place. This almost suggests that Israel’s “place” was west — and not east — of Jordan. But it could be read as meaning “the rest of my place”.
22.	The wilderness. Hinting that Ammon could have as much of the wilderness from Rabbath-Ammon and eastward as it liked.
24.	Chemosh. But Milcom was god of Ammon, and Chemosh was god of Moab. However, just as Israel at times took over Chemosh, so also doubtless did Ammon.
25.	Deut. 223:4 implies that Ammon shared with Moab in the hiring of Balaam.
26.	Three humdred years. The exact sum of all the periods mentioned in the Judges up to this point. And Jephthah knew these facts!
29.	The Spirit came upon Jephthah, thus confirming v. 11; cp. Acts 6:3,6

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.

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.

“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.

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.