By and by came Samson’s last and most disastrous love-affair. It seems likely that Delilah was not a Philistine (as is often assumed) but one of his own people. She is not specified as of Philistine race, whereas the others are. Her home was in the valley of Sorek, hard by Samson’s own home. And when the lords of the Philistines sought her cooperation, the narrative says they “came up unto her”, as though implying that she did not live in their territory, but in the hill-country. Other details in the story will be seen to support this conclusion.

Delilah does a deal

The Philistines had now come to recognize clearly that if they were to have any success at all against Samson, it must be achieved by taking advantage of his weakness for women. Delilah, whose name means either ‘she who brings low’ or ‘night vulture’, was probably a common harlot. She had no scruples whatever about agreeing to betray Samson. Was she not in the trade for what she could make out of it? And a quarter of a million pounds (by modern inflation) was not to be sneezed at as payment for a night’s work. It seems likely that the strange figure of 1,100 pieces of silver which each Philistine lord offered Delilah was due to monetary exchange differences between the two peoples.

So, on three separate occasions, Samson found himself once more the butt of incessant cajolery, teasing and petulance. Strange that he was so slow to learn the lesson from his earlier experience at Timnath. Thus there developed between the two of them a half-joking, light-hearted game with a queer, rather grim, undertone to it. Samson would mislead Delilah with his plausible explanations and then suffer himself to be bound, the while enjoying her pouting and assumed childlike ingenuousness. She in turn was acting the part in deadly earnest with all the arts and wiles at her command, for the prize was no triviality.

Her commission was: “Entice him, and see wherein his great strength lieth”; whence it may be inferred that Samson was no brawny mass of muscle; he had none of the extraordinary physique of Goliath, or surely it would not have been necessary for these Philistines to probe for the secret of his strength. Samson, then, should be pictures as a man of normal physique and appearance rather than as a great muscular giant.

At the third attempt Delilah came near to learning the truth when Samson, still with tongue in cheek, had her weaving the seven long plaits of his hair into the warp and woof of the piece of cloth in her loom. But again she found herself thwarted. The very force with which Samson roused himself to go against the Philistines dismantled the primitive contraption as he rushed out dragging the material and half the machine after him.

So it continued each time he visited her, the light-hearted game degenerating into vexation and ill-temper as she “pressed him daily with her words”.

The secret divulged

At last, goaded beyond control, Samson blurted out his secret, and immediately Delilah knew that at last she had the the truth. Had she been a daughter of the Philistines, this Nazarite vow of Samson’s would have been meaningless to her. But being a Jewess, she saw at once the connection between his vow and his unique gift from God. Doubtless she marvelled at her own lack of perception in not earlier connecting the two together.

By this time the Philistine lords had washed their hands of Delilah, having satisfied themselves that she was in league with Samson to fool them in a manner after his own heart. Probably it was only her connection with Samson which saved her from nasty treatment. But now she sent hastily unto them to renew the contract, and they — impressed by the urgency of her message — complied. They “brought the money in their hand.”

That night “she made him sleep upon her knees”. It was a ticklish operation and full of risk. So, most probably, she doped him, for cutting his hair in normal sleep would be the biggest of risks. “She made him sleep.” As he slept, she beckoned for the one who was to help her, and together they hastily and unevenly lopped off his plaits, all the time anxious and fearful lest he should awake. It is unlikely that he was shaved in the modern sense of the word, especially since the word employed to describe the process is used also of the shearing of sheep.

Then came the cry, as on former occasions: “The Philistines be upon thee, Samson.” Whereupon Samson bestirred himself, saying self-confidently (and egotistically?): “I will go out (I will get off scot free?) as at other times before, and shake myself” from this strange drowsiness. But now his strength was gone, not because his strength was in his hair but because the life-long covenant with the God of his fathers which he had so many times abused and disgraced was now utterly broken. “The Lord was departed from him”, and he was become “as one man” (16:7 mg; what a contrast with 13:25; 14:6,19; 15:14).

There, in the place where he had wasted God-given time and strength and responsibilities, he now writhed in futile, feeble impotence in the grip of incredulous Philistines whilst Delilah, a bag of shekels in one hand, “afflicted” him with scorn and insults in inexpressible relief that her make-believe game of love was at last brought to a successful conclusion. It is evident that she really hated him intensely.

Shame and helpless captivity

The Philistines were taking no chances. At any moment there might come to Samson one of those incredible accessions of superhuman strength which had made his name to be feared from Ekron to Gaza. So, there and then, as he lay bound in the very place of his sensuality and self-indulgence, they ruthlessly and savagely gouged out his eyes — those eyes that had been his downfall from the beginning (for almost the first thing that is written concerning him is that “he saw a woman”). And, tortured as he was by the searing pain of this cruel and vengeful deed, and tortured yet more by bitter self-reproaches, Samson was brought to Gaza and led in triumph through the crowd of spiteful jeering Philistines.

It is possible that Peter makes reference to this enticement and capture of Samson: “They allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness….While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world….they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning” (2 Pet. 2:18-20). If the allusion is to Samson these phrases take on a good deal more force; compare also 2 Timothy 2:4,5.

Once the initial humiliations were over — and how vile they would be can be left to the imagination — Samson settled down to the weary wretchedness of the prison-house where, hour after hour, blanketed by the misery of ‘total eclipse’ and the treadmill boredom of grinding, grinding, grinding, he pondered a thousand times the paths his feet had trod. He realised with renewed humiliation how ignobly he had let egotism and animal appetite lure him from his high and holy calling as a saviour of his people.

New birth

He would realise, too — and with thankfulness — that in giving him his life, even as a blinded prisoner, God was graciously giving him an undeserved opportunity to start afresh. For had he died summarily in Sorek by a thrust from a Philistine spear, he had died a reprobate. Even so, there seemed but little that he could do in token of his belated spiritual renewal. He could only renew in his penitence the Nazarite vow which he had so signally disgraced. So “the hair of his head began to grow again after he was shaven”, and with it grew his restored fellowship with the God whose Name he had besmirched among the heathen. God gave him also once again the strength he might have used in earlier days to better purpose.

But why were the Philistines such fools as to allow him his hair again? One can only assume that Delilah had explained to them the spiritual significance of his unshorn locks, and thus they reasoned: ‘His God cast him off, and will now have no more use for him.’ They little knew the graciousness of the God of Israel!

And meantime, in his penitence, Samson renewed his Nazarite vow. Did he get word through to his fellow-Israelites that the appropriate sacrifices (Numbers 6) be offered on his behalf?

Before long there came round the great religious festival of Dagon, the god of the Philistines. Opinion is divided as to the character of Dagon worship. On the basis of a doubtful derivation from the Hebrew word for ‘fish’ and the finding a half-man, half-fish deity in Syria, it has been conjectured that Dagon was ‘of fishy form and mind’, perhaps indirectly reminiscent of Philistine origins in Crete across the sea.

However, it is now pretty firmly established that Dagon was a god of harvest (the Hebrew word for corn is dagan). Hence, when the Philistines captured the ark of the covenant in the time of Samuel they were punished with a plague of rats in time of harvest, and, as corollary, the ravages of bubonic plague (1 Sam. 5:9-12; 6:4). Temples dedicated to Dagon have been found at Mari (18th Century) — far away from Philistia, at Ugarit in Syria (14th Century), and at Bethshan (11th Century). And it may well be that Sam-son’s grinding of corn — woman’s work — was a device for consecrating his labour to Dagon, their god of harvest.

At this festival, naturally enough, Samson was brought out so that all might gloat over his discomfiture. Had he not been the chosen representative of Jehovah, the God of Israel? And was not this humiliation of Samson the humiliation of Jehovah also and the exaltation of Dagon who had brought the redoubtable enemy into their power? So they rejoiced in a shout and hymn of praise: “Our God hath delivered into our hands our enemy, and the destroyer of our country, which slew many of us.” In the original the words rhyme.

They little realized that this gloating against the God of Israel decided their fate, and that of Dagon, for no man can indulge in that sort of vainglory and get away with it. Four hundred years later Sennacherib, mighty monarch of Assyria, was to find that out (Isa. 37:12-20; “Isaiah”, HAW, p. 47ff).

Climax!

Samson was brought to the temple, the roof of which was packed with spectators. The Hebrew text says three thousand. This would imply a structure twenty times as big as the average ecclesial hall. The Sinaitic LXX says seven hundred (a hundred for each lock of Samson’s hair!). There in the open space before it, for the entertainment and jubilation of these uncircumcised, he danced an Israelite war-dance (s.w. 2 Sam. 2:14). There is no hint in the text that he performed feats of strength to glorify their capture of him.

Then, the show over, they led Samson into the temple itself that there he might be inspected at closer quarters by the nobility: “And they set him between the pillars”, the twin pillars (their Jachin and Boaz) in the middle of the building which bore the main load of the roof and fulfilled the function of the keystone of an arch. Macalister’s excavations at Gezer, not many miles away, revealed that there was some such plan about the heathen temple there. Other digs at Gaza and Tel-en-Nasbeh have shown chiefs’ houses built to a similar pattern.

Samson had evidently been in that temple in the days of his sight, and there he had noted the structural weakness. Now, at last, here was an opportunity to work for the deliverance of his people the like of which would never come his way again. In his day he had wasted many an opportunity of using his great strength to a good end. The lesson had now been learned. He would not waste this one. But, now, if there was to be achievement, it must not be for vainglory but by strength from God and to the glory of God.

So he prayed as he had never prayed before. The Septuagint Version says he wept. It was a double prayer. First, for himself as a miserable sinner, unfit to stand there as the representative of the God of Israel, unfit to be aught but a castaway from His presence: “O Lord God, remember me!” Remember me! — as David was remembered. “Remember, O Lord, thy tender mercies and thy lovingkindnesses; for they have been ever of old. Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness’ sake, O Lord” (Psa. 25:6,7). Remember me! — as the thief on the cross was remembered: “Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”

And as these two were both justified by their faith, so also in this hour was Samson; so that his name also is inscribed in the Lamb’s Book of Life: “And what shall I more say (of those who pleased God by their faith)? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens” (Hebrews 11:32-34). To his first prayer Samson added another which was not so much for himself as it might seem: “Strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be avenged of the Philistines for one of my two eyes” (RVmg).

It has to be remembered that from the point of view of the Philistines, Samson’s cause was the cause of the God of Israel; humiliation of Samson was the humiliation of Jehovah. So it follows that the obvious way, maybe the only way, in which the Lord would be vindicated before that unholy crew, was through the vindication of His servant. And yet — as Samson’s prayer makes plain — the finest thing that could happen now could not wipe out entirely the ignominy of the past. So he could not regard this final stroke for which he sought divine help as, at best, more than vengeance for one of his two eyes.

That Samson’s assessment of the situation was a correct one is shown by the signal response to his prayer. “And he bowed himself with all his might.” The situation is such as to set the imagination racing. There in the gaudy obscene temple of Dagon, crowded with hundreds of the stalwart swash-buckling nobility of the Philistines accoutred in all their finery, this long-haired unimpressive Israelite with the featureless face of the blind braced himself between the two central pillars, with shoulders against one and his feet against the other (for the Hebrew word means ‘he stretched himself’).

The Israelite captive boy whose duty it was to be eyes to Samson realised now what his revered fellow-countryman sought to achieve, and darting nimbly through the throng, he was out to the open sky and safety before any could hinder him. To him, surely — under God — is owed the record of the Nazarite’s prayer of faith. Samson’s effort caught the attention of some who at first laughed uproariously at what he attempted, and spat on him with contempt. But Samson strained again, the muscles bulging stiff and hard in every part of his body. One of the pillars shifted slightly. A woman screamed and pointed in terror. Two young braves swore vigorously and threw themselves frantically on the naked straining Israelite, but in vain; as he made his final effort they might just as well have tried to bend a block of granite.

Another muttered prayer escaped from Samson’s lips: “Let me die with the Philistines.” The pillars shifted again, and yet again. Then, with a resounding crash, that overloaded roof came thundering down bringing with it more pillars, masses of masonry and a dense crowd of Philistines whose holiday was now ended. Screams of fright and yells of pain rent the air, but from most there was just — silence. And a great cloud of dust ascended up to heaven. Samson’s God had avenged him of one of his two eyes.

News of this last and greatest exploit was carried by Samson’s faithful, fleet-footed friend to the villages of Dan, and, mustering in a body, they marched fearlessly into Gaza. Unmolested by the Philistines (busy looking for fragments of Dagon), they disinterred his body from the mighty heap of rubble and carried it reverently back for interment in the tomb of his parents who had lived only long enough to be bitterly disappointed in the hopes they centred in their child of promise. Yet, one day, they will have rejoicing in him.

Learning from Samson

The two main lessons from the life of Samson are simple and clear:

1. The consecrated life must be a consecrated life. Facing simultaneously in opposite directions is impossible, although many still attempt it. There can be no serving God and Mammon. Wherefore, “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.”
2. “There is forgiveness with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared.” There is no life so foul that it cannot be made sweet by the grace of God. Let there be only a humble facing of the fact that “in me(that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing”, and with it a prayer that God will do with one’s life what no amount of single-handed effort can ever achieve. These lessons must be learned. Must!

Notes

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

As he approached his home the maidens of the town came forth, according to the custom of the time, to greet the mighty man of valour with songs and dances. In this way, Miriam and the women of Israel had celebrated the destruction of Pharaoh’s host in the Red Sea (Exod. 15:20); and later, David’s victories over the Philistines were acclaimed in the same fashion (1 Sam. 18:6).

But now, to his consternation and grief, Jephthah beheld amongst them his own daughter, and he who should have been enjoying the victor’s triumph rent his clothes: “Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.”

However Jephthah’s vow be understood, that last phrase shows what a sterling character he was. “I cannot go back!” Come what may, his vow to God must be performed. Jephthah swore to his own hurt, and changed not. “He that doeth these things shall never be moved.” For this Jephthah’s name is inscribed in the Lord’s “roll of honour” in Hebrews 11 amongst those who glorified God by their faith.

More than one view possible

The question of the fate of Jephthah’s daughter as a result of the vow he made unto the Lord is probably the most discussed problem in the Book of Judges. Traditionally the vow of Jephthah has been taken as meaning exactly what it says. Nevertheless there are those who believe that Jephthah’s daughter was not slain and burnt on an altar, but that she was dedicated to life-long service of God in connection with the tabernacle. This latter conclusion has the weight of evidence behind it. It is those who believe that the maiden became a burnt offering who are faced with difficulties.

First, it is tolerably clear that Jephthah was expecting to have to give to God, in fulfilment of his vow, a person and not an animal; or to be more precise, both a person and a burnt offering. His words were: “Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me….shall surely be the Lord’s.” There is no point in stressing “whatsoever (as distinct from whomsoever) cometh forth”: the word “whatsoever” is a Hebrew masculine, for in such a sentence the masculine would cover all genders.

But what animal might come to meet Jephthah? The only animals that might be offered as a burnt offering were sheep, goats, bullocks, and (for the very poorest of the people) pigeons. Would Jephthah be expecting to be met by any of these? The only animal that might conceivably go out to meet him would be a favourite hound, and that would certainly not make an acceptable offering to the Lord.

What possible burnt offering?

In any case, Jephthah’s vow manifestly signified something of considerable value in his eyes — a real sacrifice, in the modern sense of the world.

Since, from the very nature of the vow, it must refer to someone over whom Jephthah had full control, the possibilities are limited to two: a favourite slave, or servant, or his only daughter.

Consequently, the conclusion becomes inevitable that Jephthah was vowing unto God someone for whom he would have real affection, someone whose loss he would mourn bitterly. His vow was a vow worth making. It honoured God by an offering that was by no means inconsiderable.

Once this vow is thus seen in its true perspective, all other details begin to fall into place.

Difficulties to be considered

It has already been seen that Jephthah was no uncouth desperado, but — like the outlaw David — a devout man well-schooled in the Scriptures. He would therefore be no stranger to such passages as the following: “Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 18:21).

“Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in the fire to their gods” (Deut. 12:30,31).

“There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch” (Deut. 18:10).

Then is it possible that such a man as Jephthah would even consider making a human sacrifice? Is it likely that having just returned from the slaughter of the Ammonites (whose god had been unable to deliver or prosper them), he would then proceed to imitate the rites of Molech, the god of Ammon, which were utterly forbidden to Israel?

Again, let it be supposed that Jephthah had sought to offer his daughter as a burnt-offering. This could be done only at the altar of the Lord, and through the ministration of a priest — and what priest would condone or assist such a flagrant breach of Levitical precept?

And, if the maiden were to die as a sacrifice, would it not be an intensely unnatural thing for her to spend the last two months of her life away from her father who loved her so much?

It needs to be recognized also that the vowing of persons to God was a perfectly normal matter in the life of Israel; the Law made provision for such acts of exceptional piety: “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation” (Lev. 27:2). A commutation price, differing for males and females and according to the age of the person vowed unto the Lord, might be paid. In the case of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty, this payment was fifty shekels (for a working man, more than a year’s wages?).

Evidently then, the vow took the form of consecrating, in effect, the labour value of the person vowed. The practical result, in most instances, would be for the commutation price to be paid and the life of the individual concerned would proceed normally.

But, it has been claimed, the same scripture requires the actual sacrifice of such as Jephthah’s daughter: “Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold, or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; abut all shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 27:18,19).

To apply these words to the question under discussion is to confuse two very different things, namely (1) that which is vowed; and (2) the devoted thing (Hebrew “cherem”; e.g., Josh. 6:17,18 s.w.).

Whereas there was always optional redemption of a vow by means of a money payment, the cherem — nearly always associated with what was taken in war — normally meant utter destruction (something akin to whole burnt offering). Jephthah’s vow was the former of these. Lev. 27:18,19 describes the latter.

Fulfilment of a vow

There were instances, like Hannah’s vowing of her son unto the Lord “all the days of his life”, when advantage of the commutation arrangement was not taken. This is what Jephthah meant when he said: “I cannot go back.” His daughter was to be given to the Lord all the days of her life. So completely did Jephthah feel his indebtedness to the Lord that there was to be no suggestion of taking an easy way out. He would pay his vow in the fullest sense, by giving his daughter from that time forward for permanent service in the precincts of the tabernacle.

Tabernacle service by women

That such a thing was possible and was familiar in Israel is indicated fairly clearly in Scripture:

• The women who “assembled at the door of the tabernacle” (Exod. 38:8; 1 Sam. 2:22) apparently had duties in connection with the service of the tabernacle.
• Lamentations 1:4: “The ways of Zion do mourn, because none come to her solemn feasts: all her gates are desolate: her priests sigh: her virgins are afflicted, and she is in bitterness.” The reference is to the temple service in the time of Jeremiah.
• Psalm 68:25: “The singers (the sanctuary choir, see v. 24) went before, the players on instruments (the sanctuary orchestra) followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.”
• Heman’s fourteen sons and three daughters who were “all under the hand of their father for song in the house of the Lord, with cymbals, psalteries and harps” (1 Chron. 25:5,6).
• 1 Chron. 15:20 and the title to Psalm 46 mentions “Alamoth”, in allusion to the maidens’ choir associated with the sanctuary.
• Other Scriptures indicating the same practice are Num. 31:30; Ezra 2:65; Luke 2:37; and 2 Sam. 13:18 (probably). See “Bible Studies”, 10.05.

“Lament”

Now it is easy to see why Jephthah’s daughter bewailed her virginity. Strange indeed if, when about to die as a sacrifice, she lamented only her virginity and not her impending doom. Also, “the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.” The word here translated “lament” definitely does not mean “lament”. Its only other OT occurrence excludes such a meaning: “There shall they rehearse the righteous acts of the Lord” (Jud. 5:11). The form of the Hebrew sentence suggests that these maidens came to “talk with” the daughter of Jephthah (as AV mg.). The same Hebrew root could mean (as in Hos. 8:9,10) that they brought her gifts.

What has been suggested so far seems to be negatives from the start by the phrase: “And I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

The Hebrew text of this phrase is ambiguous. It may mean what this AV rendering says. Or it may be read: “And I will offer to him (to the Lord) a burnt offering”. (Other examples of this grammatical construction are to be found in Zech. 7:5; Josh. 15:19; Neh. 9:28; Job 31:18; Isa. 22:20.)

This second alternative gives the idea that besides the dedication of a person Jephthah was also vowing a sacrifice.

That this is the correct reading is established by another grammatical detail — the AV reading: “offer it up for (or, as) a burnt offering” would require a prepositional prefix to represent “for”, and this is not there in the text.

Other passages combine to reinforce the interpretation offered here. If Samuel could be dedicated to the service of the sanctuary for life, why not Jephthah’s daughter? The Hebrew word for “offer a burnt offering” is used for going up to the sanctuary of the Lord and for personal dedication there (1 Sam. 1:7,21,22,24; 2:19).

To sum up: The weight of Biblical and linguistic evidence is definitely in favour of the idea that Jephthah vowed to God the life-long dedication of his daughter’s virgin service at the tabernacle, and also, in addition, a burnt-offering as the open token of the beginning of her dedicated life.

It has been suggested that in later days when the boy Samuel was brought to the Lord at the age of three (see 1 Sam. 1:24 RVm; 2 Chron. 31:16) he would be put under the care of this holy woman, now grown old in the service of the Lord.

Notes

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

Chapter 8

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

Chapter 9

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

With Abimelech and his cracked skull out of the way, the record proceeds to dispose of two “minor” judges in the space of five verses. Not that they were minor really, for v. 6 continues: “And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord.” Two men who could keep their fellow-Israelites from apostasy for a period of 45 years were men of stature.

Tola of Issachar rather remarkably administered his rule from Shimron in the territory of Ephraim. Was this a tactful concession to the conceit of the men of Ephraim, who made such a nuisance of themselves in the times of Gideon and Jephthah (8:1; 12:1)? Or was Shimron, named after one of Tola’s ancestors (1 Chron. 7:1), another example of interlocking tribal territories?

Tribes intermixed

It is possible to trace

• Dan in Judah (Josh. 19:41; 15:33).
• Simeon in Judah (19:1,7).
• Judah in Manasseh (19:34; Matt. 19:1).
• Ephraim in Manasseh (16:19; 17:8).
• Zebulun in Issachar (21:28).
• Benjamin in Ephraim (Jud. 21:20,21).
• Benjamin in Gad (21:12-14).
• Benjamin in Judah (Josh. 18:28).
• Reuben in Benjamin (18:17).
• Manasseh in Issachar (Jud. 1:27).
• Issachar in Ephraim (10:1).

It was an excellent way for Israel to learn that they were members one of another.

Jair, who had 30 sons (disciples?) who helped him in administration of the eastern tribes, and in token of their office rode of asses (not horses for war), seems to have aimed at recovering the good days in the time of Joshua, when his forefather Jair (Num. 32:41) ruled 23 out of the 60 “cities” called Havoth-jair (1 Chron. 2:22,23). Havoth really means “villages, living places”; but the comment has been well made that “to contented minds villages are cities”.

There is no story to tell about Israel when under the guidance of Tola and Jair, a fact which itself tells a good story, for “a people is happiest when there is least to record”.

But when these leaders slept with their fathers the usual religious decline set in once again. With a censure not to be restrained the compiler of the history (Samuel?) catalogues seven of the pagan deities (v. 7) which were now given priority over the God of Israel. And then, almost at once, there is listed (v. 11,12) seven of the surrounding nations who each in their turn had had their pound of flesh at Israel’s expense until Jehovah granted deliverance. Yet apostasy continued as readily as ever.

The Ammonites

The latest oppressors — Philistines and Ammonites — seem to have taken advantage of each others’ presence, the former coming in from the west, and the latter from the east: an undesigned but effective pincers movement. Accordingly the next two judges to bring deliverance were Jephthah (against the men of Ammon) and Samson (against the Philistines).

The Ammonites, with their capital at Rabbath-Ammon — the Amman in the modern state of Jordan — were related to Israel, but like those other kinsmen, the Edomites, they ever found special pleasure in hostility and violence against Israel. Here are examples:

1. 18 years oppression till the rise of Jephthah (10:8).
2. Ruthless conditions of peace imposed on Jabesh-Gilead (1 Sam. 11:8).
3. Barbarous mockery of David’s friendly embassage (2 Sam. 10:4).
4. Savage brutality against the women of Gilead (Amos 1:3).
5. Fiendish gloating over the sack of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (Ezek. 25:6).
6. The assassination of good Gedaliah and those with him (Jer. 40:14; 41:2).
7. Hindrance of the rebuilding of the temple (Neh. 4:7,8).

Usually the Ammonites were content to restrict their campaigns to Israel east of Jordan; but this time Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim all experienced the misery of their inroads.

In their wretchedness Israel turned again to the God they had ignored: “Do thou unto us whatever seemeth good unto thee: only deliver us, we pray thee, this day” (v. 15).

But at first the only reaction of heaven was: “Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation.” Was this the contemporary high-priest refusing to intercede with God on their behalf?

This kind of rough response had its effect. The people, fleeing from the flame of affliction, threw themselves into the everlasting arms of the God of their fathers, “and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel”.

The stage was set for another heroic chapter.

Notes

Once again the children of Israel had treated lightly the covenant of their God, going off into idolatry. Once again retribution came on them, but of a different character from the previous occasion when all the northern tribes had groaned under the iron tyranny of Sisera.

Ravaged by Midianites

This time they were sorely tried by seasonal incursions of Bedouin tribes from the Arabian desert. These swarmed into the country in their thousands at harvest time. “They came in as locusts for multitude” (Jud. 6:5RV), and the effect was about the same. These Midianites had long memories. It had never been forgotten among them how drastic was the treatment they had received at the hands of Israel in former times (Num. 31:8-11).

Now, wherever they went, they left devastation and impoverishment, for, whereas locusts eat only that which is green and growing, these “left no sustenance for Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass”.

Thus Israel was brought very low and brought also to the acknowledgement of their apostasy, although — as will be seen by and by — that repentance was kindled in the hearts of only a small minority in the first instance; and this in spite of the lesson of their hardship being driven home to them by a prophet of the Lord, probably at the time of Passover. The prophet was probably Phinehas the high priest, or his son. They were given a blunt reminder of God’s past deliverances and how they owed to Him a faithfulness such as they had not shown (6:8-10).

The Angel of the Lord

It was about this time that the angel of the Lord appeared unrecognised to a young man of the tribe of Manasseh some miles south of the plain of Jezreel, which was invariably a chief target of Midianite forays.

Gideon, the son of Joash the Abiezrite, belonged to the senior family of the Gileadites (Josh. 17:1,2; 1 Chron. 7:17,18), whose inheritance was on the east side of Jordan. But evidently the inroads of the Bedouin had driven them to seek safer homes with the other branch of the tribe of Manasseh, possibly in the Manassite enclave in Issachar (Josh. 17:11).

Gideon was attempting the frustrating and well-nigh impossible task of threshing corn in a wine-press. He had brought out a few bushels of wheat from the cave where it had been stowed away from the depredations of the enemy, and even as he worked, he feared lest he should be surprised by them in the very act.

Threshing called for a high level rock platform, exposed to all the breezes of heaven. What bigger contrast could there be with the place Gideon had chosen — a small, restricted hollow dug in the side of a wadi. How irksome such a task must have been! But at all costs the precious grain must be preserved.

Fearful Gideon

“The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.” In place of the usual “Shalom”, the angel used what was a familiar greeting of the lord of the harvest (Ruth 2:4; Psa. 129:7,8; 2 Thes. 3:16). It sounded ironically in Gideon’s ears. So, too, did the description of himself as “a mighty man of valour”, for if ever there was a man who lacked confidence in himself it was Gideon (6:11,15,27,39; 7:10). Before very long he was to learn that such are the men through whom God prefers to work, and through whom God can work best. He was to learn, too, that the harvest greeting was a prophecy of Heaven’s bounty soon to come upon them again.

But at the moment Gideon felt discouraged, and said so: “Oh my lord, if Jehovah be with us (mark here the change of pronoun showing how completely Gideon put first the well-being of the people, and thought little of his own prosperity), if the Lord be with us, why then is all this befallen us? And where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?” Here, surely, he was referring to the prophetic message lately communicated.

The reply to this was first a steadfast and penetrating gaze from the angel, and then: “Go in this thy might (the might thus imparted; cp. Luke 22:43,61) and save Israel from the hand of Midian; have not I sent thee?” These imperatives should surely have told Gideon the identity of the stranger, but this young man was too much obsessed with his own inadequacy: “Oh my lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? Behold my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.”

The words were not true. This was an eloquent, because unstudied, expression of the character of the one who spoke. So, further assurance was now given him: “Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man” (v. 16), that is, by one decisive stroke.

There is here an echo of the angel’s words (the same angel? Exod. 3:12,20) to Moses at the burning bush. The earlier allusion to deliverance from Egypt suggests that Gideon’s mind had been running on this very matter. He recognised the angel’s allusion in a flash and, quickly comparing his own circumstances now with those of Moses then, he asked for a sign. Had not signs been given to reluctant Moses? Then why not to himself? His suspicions were growing that this unknown visitant was no mortal man.

A dedicated Gideon

The sign that he sought was the acceptance of a sacrifice, such as he now felt to be necessary, for — without direct rebuke — the apostasy of his people was being brought home to him. With as little delay as possible he produced a young goat as a peace-offering. Perhaps he had also in mind that a kind of the goats was the prescribed sin-offering of a ruler of the people (Lev. 4:22,23).

He brought, in addition, a meal-offering of exceptional quantity — an ephah of flour (more than half a hundred weight!) baked into cakes, and this, at a time when kid and meal alike could hardly be spared.

Thus in these offerings he expressed, without a word spoken, his consciousness of the need for expiation of sin, his earnest seeking for fellowship with God, and his desire (symbolized by the meal-offering) to dedicate the work of his life to God.

So perhaps he was not altogether surprised when commanded to place both offerings on a nearby rock and to drench them in the broth of the sacrifice. A touch of the angel’s rod, and all was consumed in a roar on divine fire. It was an anticipation of Elijah’s experience on Mount Carmel. Sin-offering, peace-offering, meal-offering — all were become an instantaneous burnt-offering, a sweet savour unto the Lord, symbolizing that, from now on, Gideon was to be wholly and entirely given to the holy work of his God and to the deliverance of the people of his God.

Thus Gideon had the sign he craved. With it his inkling became a certainty, and he shrank away aghast that he in his sins had talked face to face with an archangel from the very presence of Omnipotence. He had neither covered his eyes nor removed the sandals from his feet. Then how could he expect to live?

These surging doubts were quickly silenced by a firm angelic assurance, and his mind was quickly diverted to the work that lay before him — immediate drastic action against the canker of idolatry. Baal’s altar must remain no longer, and the foul phallic symbol of all the beastly practices associated with that cult must be utterly destroyed. Chickens-hearted Gideon, thou might man of valour, see thou to it!

And the angel departed.

Reformation

But how to begin? How was he to set himself against the vested interests of so many and against the public opinion of all the town? Yet the angel’s instructions brooked no delay. A stewardship was committed unto him. So all the rest of that day, fearing to act openly, Gideon brooded on the problem. Then, when night fell, he went to work in great trepidation, yet goaded on by his sense of duty and by the memory of the angel’s commandment and of the fire of the Lord consuming his offering.

Secretly gathering ten of the family servants he went forth and directly the demolition of the pagan altar and of the Asherah beside it, doing no small part of the work himself, both out of enthusiasm for the job and also to quell the misgivings of his helpers.

Thus did Gideon justify his name: “he who cuts down” (s.w. Deut. 7:5; 12:3). A few days more, and it was to be fulfilled in other ways also.

Gideon’s father, Joash, being the leading man in the town, was ex officio priest of Baal also. Not that he had any real enthusiasm for Baal-worship, but he lacked the energy or strength of character to set himself against the tide of public opinion. The altar just cut down was hard by his house, and tethered there were two bullocks destined to be sacrifices to Baal. These Gideon now took and offered to the Lord, this time not on his own behalf but on behalf of the people — the young bullock for a sin-offering (see Lev. 4:13,14), and the other bullock for a burnt-offering (Num. 15:24). His reformation of his people had begun, and the process had already brought him not only the office of reformer but also that of priest!

Reformation resisted

Not a few people in the town must have been aware that something was going on, but presumably they assumed that these were extra-zealous devotions at the sanctuary of Baal.

Next morning, when they learned differently, there was uproar. Joash, informed by Gideon of the angelic commission, now knew that he must help this new movement, though he was not the sort to throw himself enthusiastically into any cause. A public enquiry quickly fixed the blame for the desecration of Baal’s holy place on Gideon. “Bring forth thy son that he may die,” demanded the men who “stood against him”. But Joash, quick witted and sardonic, was equal to the occasion: “Will ye plead for Baal? Will ye save him?….if he be a god, let him plead for himself.” Once again there are resemblances to Elijah on Mount Carmel. And the logic is unanswerable: Does almighty Baal need mortal helpers? Cannot he deal with those who blaspheme his name? “Let be until morning” (RVm), and see what Baal will do.” Then he made a sudden ominous appeal to the lapsed law given by Moses: “If there arise among you a prophet….saying, Let us go after other gods….that prophet shall be put to death” (Deut. 13:1-5). So he declared: “He that will plead for Baal, let him be put to death.”

The threatening situation passed. It became known and accepted that the Spirit of the Lord had clothed itself with Gideon (RVm). From now on, under his new sardonic nickname Jerubbaal (“Let Baal plead for himself”), Gideon was recognised as judge of Manasseh and the neighbouring tribes.

Notes

There is another approach to the Song of Deborah that is not to be lightly discarded. Since “all scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness”, one is bound to ask where such profit is to be sought in this ancient record.

True, there is the evidence of the Providence of God over His Chosen People, and there is the example of faith, in Barak and those who so manfully supported him. But what of the chapter as a whole?

New Testament resemblances

A hint meets the reverent student in the words: “Arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive.” Is it just accident that identical words are quoted in Ephesians 4:18 and Psalm 68:18 with direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ? His captivity was his New Israel in bondage to sin until he came and led it forth to liberty, and a glorious inheritance, even as Moses did Israel.

Again, is it just accident that Deborah’s song concludes with words which anticipate very remarkably the expression Jesus himself used to describe the final emancipation of the righteous from sin?: “Let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might” (5:31). With these words compare: “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:43).

Since the beginning and end of this Son have close associations with the New Covenant, it is hardly likely that the rest of it is devoid of similar significance.

Spiritual application

So, it would seem that the wild spiritual poetry of this Son may be read also as a searching prophecy of the varying degrees of response to Christ’s appeal and of the different types of individuals who today, according as their various characters, help or hinder the divine work in their midst.

Consider first the important lessons underlined in the first two verses: “Then sang Deborah and Barak….on that day..” When success in the Lord’s work accrues, there must be no time lost in thanking Him. And it is He, and not His instruments, who are to be thanked: “Praise ye the Lord for the avenging of Israel.”

The helpers

Next, consider those through whom victory was won.

Ephraim had serious problems to cope with at home: “Out of Ephraim came down they whose root is in Amalek.” It needed faith to consign to the care of God the otherwise crippling anxiety for the well-being of those left behind near aggressive Amalekite neighbours. How easily might these Ephraimites have fobbed off the pressing appeal with the unanswerable argument: “Wait until we have coped satisfactorily with our own problems, and then our help will be given without stint.”

How often does such a limited, parochial, faithless attitude betray the spiritual immaturity both of ecclesias and of individuals in these days in the work of preaching. “We have more than we can cope with in our own area” is the querulous cry; “why then should we go far afield to help others?”

Those who today maintain that a man’s duty is in his own ecclesia and his own locality only, might take note of the example of Ephraim who had the best reason of all for staying at home; his root was in Amalek. There is no room for parochialism in the Truth; the world is Christ’s parish.

The bulk of support for the leaders came from the tribes of Zebulun, Naphtali, and Issachar; these felt, more than any others, the oppression of the godless. Consequently in these tribes support was nearly a hundred per cent.

The parallel today is the solitary brother or sister and the ecclesia remote from its fellows. These lack the easy comforts of a fulness of fraternal intercourse and the sense of solidity which mere numbers can give. These too have to face the wearing problems of worldliness in a more acute form, and for them the distinction between black and white, between light and darkness, is much more acute.

For these very reasons it is in such that unquenchable zeal and earnestness in preaching is most readily found. These may take courage from the words: “Up, for this is the day….is not the Lord gone out before thee?”

The alternative (if indeed it is an alternative) is acquiescence in Canaanite domination, mockery and oppression. That way lies easy seduction from faith in the covenants of promise. That way lies absorption into the unspiritual masses against whom divine wrath is foretold.

Manasseh supplied leaders in the struggle: “Out of Machir came down governors (lawgivers).” By this is emphasised the need for men of godliness and sound principle who can equip with divine wisdom based on faithful instruction the rank and file going forth in the hosts of the Lord. Paul wrote to Timothy: “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Thou therefore endure hardness as a good soldier of Christ” (2 Tim. 2:2,3).

Note should be taken of the special characteristic of Issachar: “As was Issachar, so was Barak; into the valley they rushed forth at his feet” (RV). This was the secret of their successful action — they kept close to their divinely-appointed leader, and never swerved from loyalty to him.

This also is the secret of successful evangelization in this day of increasing indifference to and contempt for the Word of God. He who goes forth with the message of salvation must be one who is habitually at the feet of Jesus Christ his Lord.

Then there was Benjamin, “little Benjamin”, least expected of all! For Benjamin was a much depleted tribe at this time (the episode of Judges 20 almost certainly belongs to the generation immediately after Joshua). And further, Benjamin was comparatively remote from the centre of conflict and might well feel that it was none of his business.

As in the wars of the Lord then, so also in the work of preaching today, every little helps; and oftentimes it is the little that help the most. What would be the psychological effect on the mustering army near Megiddo when over the brow of the hill came marching the dauntless little squad from Benjamin? Would there be a loud groan go up to heaven at the smallness of this detachment? Or, rather, since help from Benjamin was hardly expected at all, would there not be an almighty cheer of friendly welcome and a perceptible lifting of the spirits of them all, as good-natured jokes were passed and warm greetings exchanged?

Today in the uphill work of preaching the same principle still operates. Every little does help, and that, too, out of all proportion to its magnitude. But alas! It is the man with the one talent who usually prefers to hide it away wrapped in a sweat-rag, thus putting both out of use.

In the campaign against the Canaanites, the battle of Jezreel was only the first blow: “The hand of the children of Israel prevailed more and more against Jabin, king of Canaan” (4:24RV).

A great deal of encouragement to continue the struggle to the bitter end would unquestionably come from Jael’s destruction of Sisera. The mightiest blow of all had ben struck by one who, though not of Israel, was as true a child of Abraham as any of them. What a surge of emotion and thankfulness — and also of astonishment — would pass through the army of Barak as the news spread. “Blessed shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be!”

Let those who have but lately been brought to Christ from among “the stranger” (as we say) take notice of the exceptional opportunity that is theirs in strengthening the hands of their new brethren and sisters. If they will but give themselves to the work of the Lord with the fierce resolve which animated Jael in her struggle against evil, their enthusiasm will have a mighty tonic effect on all who wage the same warfare against the-world-and-the-flesh, which is the devil. IN all the experiences of Christian discipleship there is nothing finer than the warming reassurance to be derived from the knowledge of a new convert throwing himself heart and soul into the work of the Truth. “Gold, silver, precious stones!”

The faint-hearted

But whilst there was much zeal and high resolve amidst the tribes of Israel, discouragements also abounded.

First, and greatest: “By the divisions of Reuben there were great resolves of heart. Why abodest thou among the sheepfolds?….By the divisions of Reuben were great searchings of heart.” Reuben was the firstborn. From him a lead could surely be expected. But no! “Unstable as water, he did not excel.” From the first Reuben had shown himself too much in love with flocks and herds. Too little he had appreciated his responsibility as an integral part of the people of God. And now there is hesitation as, too carefully, he weights the pros and cons.

“By the divisions of Reuben” — the word possibly signifies “water courses” (as in the RV), but it may equally well mean “dissensions”. Here is the picture of a tribe out of harmony with itself, an ecclesia of divided counsels. And in either case, the net result is the same — nothing, save the discouragement of others who struggle against the “iron chariots” of the enemy.

Weighty, doubtless, were the arguments advanced at Reuben’s council of war (business meeting) against doing anything.

“It’s no good; somebody else tried the same thing five years ago and failed hopelessly.”

“Besides, we have to think of the danger to our own folk from the Moabites whilst we are away.”

“After all, haven’t we responsibilities nearer home than this? What about helping Gad against the Ammonites?”

“Judah’s stronger than we are, and they are doing nothing.” So it went on and one; and Reuben’s irresolution is written for ever in the Word of Truth.

The arguments were doubtless all of them sound, but every one of them would have been invalidated by faith as a grain of mustard seed. And for lack of this, the lesson of Reuben’s vacillation has today still to be learned in many another tribe of Israel.

“Gilead abode beyond Jordan.” The reference might be either to Gad or to eastern Manasseh. In either case there was little of excuse. The Gadites had a great reputation in war; they were “men of might, and men of war fit for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler, whose faces were like the faces of lions, and who were as swift as the roes upon the mountains” (1 Chron. 12:8). They should have been in the very forefront of the battle. And eastern Manasseh must have lost all feeling of true fellowship with their own kith and kin if they could thus allow them to face peril unaided.

The inspired comment is damning in its brevity: “Gilead abode beyond Jordan” — as if implying: “To be sure! What else could be expected from people as self-centred as they?”

“And Dan, why did he remain in ships?” The migration northwards to isolation and idolatry had not yet taken place. The rhetorical question is powerful here. Why did he not help? Because of six cubits and a span of Philistine muscle and armour? The reproach suggests a different reason: Dan remained in ships. He had the port of Joppa, and with it the key to commercial prosperity. Dan remained in ships because they filled his money-bags. So Dan forged fetters for himself and robbed his brethren of aid that was their due in a struggle for freedom. Little wonder that ere long Dan should lead his brethren in the worst idolatry of all. He was already worshipping one false god.

How much greater is the tragedy today when a faithful ecclesia still striving to maintain the cause of God has to do so in face of the discouragements of many who have succumbed to the worship of materialism, the god of this world and especially of this age.

The reproach against Asher seems to have been easy readiness to be daunted by difficulties: “Asher sat still at the haven of the sea, and abode by his creeks.” The main territory of Jabin’s dominion cut Asher off from his brethren, and Asher was content to have it so — a good enough excuse for doing nothing. Yet what might not Asher have achieved in the common cause, with such brilliant opportunities for hit-and-run raiding, interference with trade caravans and other indirect methods of warfare? But instead Asher “sat still”. Perhaps too Asher was living on his past. He had achieved the partial conquest of this remote territory in earlier days, and felt that therefore nothing more in the way of effort should be required of him.

Whichever way his problem be viewed, Asher stands out as an example to be avoided in the work of the Lord. And the lesson has still to be learned. “There is a lion in the way” becomes, many a time over, the counsel of false prudence and camouflaged laziness. And in the ecclesias of Christ today the number of retired veterans who talk of former days with happy self-satisfaction instead of wistful regret or forward-looking resolution is depressingly large.

Nor is Heber the Kenite dead — the man who has known the surpassing favour of God in being brought into covenant and fellowship with the people of God, but who treats such privilege oh so lightly. Instead — as though in self-justification for his own inertia — he proceeds to work actively and nefariously for the enemy, a secret traitor in the cause. One Heber the Kenite can do much to weaken the hands of the men of war. But those who tend to be unjustly discouraged by knowledge of such handicaps must remember that the work in the Lord’s, and “the Lord is gone out before thee”, so ultimate failure is impossible for the man of faith.

Last of all comes the repeated unmitigated curse of God on Meroz: “Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord.” These were people on the spot where the activity for the Lord was at its height. To them came the ripest of all opportunities and they coolly let it pass by.

Perhaps they said: “The battle may yet turn in favour of the Canaanites, and then we can expect savage retaliation if we take action against Sisera. On the other hand if we let well alone, it may be remembered for our good.” Or perhaps they said: “Sisera is well armed and a desperate man. It would be folly to attempt anything against him.” Or, maybe, “If it is the Lord’s will that Sisera should be slain, he will be slain; so there is no need for us to raise a hand against him.”

Today the same thing is not unknown — the mentality that will not preach the Truth for fear of giving offence to some worldling, the mentality that will happily talk sport or politics from the corner seat when the turn of conversation shouts for salvation as the topic, the mentality that will make the foreknowledge of the Almighty a devastating excuse for inertia. “If it is the will of God that this or that man be called, he will be.”

Such, because “they came not to the help of the Lord” (!), are cursed — cursed right out of existence, for they are dead even whilst they live and will assuredly never see the day when “the sun goeth forth in his might”.

Current discouragements notwithstanding, there is much to hearten the Lord’s faithful remnant in their war of attrition against the powers of darkness, “for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” Whatever the words meant when Paul wrote them, they mean a lot more now.

“Up; for this is the day….has not the Lord gone out before thee?”

Notes

Chapter 5

Warning and denunciation are now concluded. For a brief but valuable space Jude moves over to positive exhortation regarding the welfare of the brethren — elders and rank-and-file alike. But it does seem fairly evident that these verses are addressed primarily to the leaders of the ecclesia(s) receiving this epistle. As will be seen, several of the phrases suggest this idea. And it is appropriate that Jude should end his letter with special words of advice to the elders.

“But ye, beloved” — here is pointed contrast with the preceding verse denouncing the unspiritual. The first and plainest recommendations bids them hold firmly to the basic tenets of the Statement of Faith. Your creed is vitally important: “Build up yourselves in your most holy faith.” But the implication here is a serious one. The foundations of Christian belief are only foundations. The Lord intends them to be built on. The follower of Christ who is content to spend the rest of his days with the ABC of his Faithl, without forging ahead in his spiritual appreciation of the higher levels of the gospel, or in his efforts to fashion himself into a finer stone for the Lord’s spiritual House, is not really a followers, for he is standing still.

One plain sign of growth in Christ is one’s attitude to prayer. But what is this “praying in the Holy Spirit” which Jude urges? Here is a phenomenon of life in the early church calling for careful attention:

• “Praying with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints” (Eph. 6:18).
• “Watch unto prayer” (1 Pet. 4:7).
• “Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks….Quench not the Spirit” (1 Thes. 5:17-19).
• “The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groaning which cannot be uttered” (Rom. 8:26).
• “Take heed therefore….to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath made your overseers, to feed the church of God….therefore watch and remember” (Acts 20:28,31).
• “….through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19).
• “Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving” (Col. 4:2).
• “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls….that they may do it with joy, and not with groaning” (Heb. 13:17).

The picture that emerges from this catena of passages (and there are others similar in character but perhaps not so pointed) is one of special prayer meetings held by the elders of the ecclesias on behalf of members of their community in need of spiritual support. But the problem so often is: What to pray for? All too often human wisdom is not equal to the occasion.But in first century days the Holy Spirit was. Here was a divine gift reinforcing and directing the prayers of the brethren, making good the inadequacy they were only too conscious of. Whether there is any counterpart to this situation today is problematical, but certainly in Jude’s time that uncertainty need not arise. The brethren were not to neglect their spiritual aids and duties: they must “pray in the Holy Spirit”.

The third item in this luminous triad lacks the precision of the others — or so it seems at first reading: “Keep yourselves in the love of God”. Here is one of the many examples in the New Testament where there is confusion between agape, the virtue of Christian love, and agape, the Love Feast (see on vv. 1-4). Here the meaning is: “Keep yourselves by means of the divine Agape”. The Greek verb is most commonly used of keeping commandments; and the preposition frequently has this instrumental meaning: “by means of”. And here theos without the article has a weaker meaning that with it, e.g. “The Word was with God (article) and the Word was divine (no article)” (John 1:1).

The next phrase chimes in with this reading: “Looking for (‘welcoming’ would be better) the mercy (forgiveness) of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life”. The Breaking of Bread service brings present assurance of sins forgiven (Matt. 26:28), and holds out a blessed prospect of future blessedness — “I will drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom”.

Thus, in this passage there is, first, emphasis on the Creed of the Christian — “I believe”; next, the duty of elders in leading prayer and worship; and then the supreme importance of the Breaking of Bread service. In fact there are here two triads in one:

Next follows another triad, all three items of which are concerning those with insecure faith. The understanding of some of the phrases is much complicated by ambiguity regarding some of the Greek words and by a variety of manuscript readings, all of them fairly well attested. So, since it is hardly possible here to discuss the various nuances of translation and the rather technical problems of textual criticism, it is proposed to cut a collection of Gordian knots by outlining what is the most likely reading and coherent meaning. The note in the R.V. margin is a splendid understatement: ‘The Greek text in this passage is somewhat uncertain.’

“Some (you must) reprove, who argue the point with you.” In other words, when there is contumacy and self-assertiveness, let such pride and wilfulness be rebuked (for the individual’s own sake) and exposed (for the warning and benefit of the rest).

“And others (you must) save with fear, snatching them out of the fire.” Here is another allusion to the Zechariah passage about Joshua the high priest: “Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?” (3:2). The figure of speech is appropriate enough to the case of Joshua in filthy garments, for a firebrand is scorched and damaged but is saved without being burned up. So the right attitude towards those soiled by worldly and defiling associations is to use swift and energetic effort to save them before they are past saving. It is the “Operation Lost Sheep” which Jesus himself counselled in an eloquent parable to which so often emotional assent is given but with little practical action.

“And on some (you must) have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” It is right to shrink from the very idea of “filthy garments”, and when others are in disreputable spiritual attire, censure of such is natural enough. But how much better it is if there be an understanding forgiveness. Again the allusion is to Zechariah 3. Joshua doubtless cringed to think that his high priestly garments, “for glory and for beauty”, were defiled and utterly unworthy of his high office, but the mercy of the Lord vindicated him. The allusion goes beyond this post-captivity situation back to Moses’ Law of Leprosy. If rigorous washing removed the sign of the plague, then all was well — the garment (here the Greek chiton is derived directly from the Hebrew ch’toneth, the coat worn by a priest) could be worn again. But otherwise it must be destroyed by fire. Which things are a parable for the reclaiming of those whose life in Christ has suffered defilement.