# comment

text:
<p>They gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had promised, and he drove out from there the three sons of Anak- </p><p>As discussed on :10, it was Caleb who had taken Hebron. But then Judah made out that they were so righteously granting it to him, as if they had won the victory. It was in any case given to Caleb by God through Moses and Joshua, not by them:&nbsp; And Hebron was a priestly city, so Caleb gave it away anyway. </p>


text:
<p>The children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem, but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day- </p><p><a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a> says that "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah couldn’t drive them out; but the Jebusites live with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day". We noted on :2 that Judah was given the potential to drive out the inhabitants of the entire land, including Jerusalem. They failed to do this and so Benjamin also failed to. Although "did not drive out" doesn't sound as if they failed in battle; they simply didn't attempt it, because they were satisficers, content with what they had and not seeing their much greater call and potential. Joshua had earlier defeated "Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem" (Josh. 10:1), but this victory wasn't followed up permanently; for Judah did take Jerusalem in :8 but lost it soon afterwards. Just as the Lord Jesus has taken Jerusalem for us... </p><p> It seems that as Jerusalem was on the border between Judah and Benjamin, they both had the opportunity to possess Jerusalem, but both chose not to. See on :19. As explained on :8, Judah defeated the king of Jerusalem. But they failed to possess his territory. They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The house of Joseph went up against Bethel, and Yahweh was with them- </p><p>Bethel is about 2 km. away from the site of Ai, which had been totally destroyed by Joshua. There is archaeological evidence that Bethel was built up soon after the entry of Israel to Canaan under Joshua. Clearly the great victories of Joshua weren't followed up on, and some community of Canaanites associated with Ai had established or re-established themselves down the road at Ai. Yet Yahweh was eager to still support them at this later stage in trying to follow up on the Ai victory, for "Yahweh was with them" in attacking Bethel. This is the persistent theme- that Joshua's victories were not followed up on. For in any conquest, even a won battle must be followed up on. All this points to our failure to follow up on the Lord's total victory against sin in every form.</p><p>This term "house of Joseph" presumably refers to Ephraim and eastern Manasseh, but the term is used to describe a Benjamite in <a href='B:100 19:16'>2Sa 19:16</a>; <a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a>. God’s intention was that each family within each tribe had a specific inheritance, from which they drove out the local inhabitants and lived there with His blessing. But it seems that contrary to this intention, they often moved to other tribes, ever seeking for a better deal some place other than that which God intended for them.</p><p>"Yahweh was with them" is LXX "And Judah was with them", reflecting the one Hebrew letter difference between the two words Yahweh and Judah in the original. In this case, we would have some evidence that some in Judah saw the potential of :2, that all the land, for all the tribes, had been given into the possibility of Judah to conquer for them.</p>


text:
<p>The house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel. The name of the city before was Luz- </p><p>Although Luz was called Bethel (<a href='B:10 35:6'>Gen 35:6</a>; <a href='B:70 1:23'>Jdg 1:23</a>), <a href='B:60 16:2'>Jos 16:2</a> implies a difference between them. Perhaps Luz was the city, and "Bethel" refers specifically to the altar of Jacob there. But Keil suggests Bethel refers to the "southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>)".</p>


text:
<p>The spies saw a man come out of the city and they said to him, Please show us the entrance into the city and we will deal kindly with you-</p><p>They were perhaps seeking to emulate Joshua's victory over Jericho, and the preservation of Rahab (<a href='B:60 6:23'>Jos 6:23</a>). The word translated “keep” in <a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a> is that translated “spies” here. The spies were the keepers in the way of Israel, to bring them in to the land. And yet the Angel at the exodus was their ‘keeper’ to bring them into the land. The spies were working in harmony with their Angels; and thus they succeeded. Israel’s guardian Angel was to “keep” them in the way (<a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a>), clearly echoing how the Angels kept the way to the tree of life in Eden. The same Hebrew word for “keep” occurs very often in Exodus in the context of Israel being told to keep God’s commands; but their freewill effort was to be confirmed by the Angel keeping them in the way of obedience. They were to “keep” themselves in the way (<a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a> and many others; s:w. “take heed”, “observe” etc:), but the Angel would keep them in it. This mutuality is developed in <a href='B:20 23:21'>Exo 23:21</a>, where having said the Angel will keep them, Israel are told “Beware of him, and obey his voice”. “Beware” translates the same Hebrew word as “keep”. The Angel would keep them:, but they were to keep to the Angel. This is an example of how we are intended to have a mutual relationship with our guardian Angel, leading to Him strengthening us in the one way.</p>


text:
<p>He showed them the entrance into the city and they put the city to the sword, but they let the man go and all his family- </p><p>The conquests of Joshua were nearly all as a result of the local inhabitants coming against him. Even the men of Jericho are described as proactively fighting against Israel (<a href='B:60 24:11'>Jos 24:11</a>). These later conflicts are a result of not having possessed the land as God intended, and so they seem to feature Israel now attacking the local peoples. This was it seems not God’s ideal intention; His intention was that those peoples came against Israel and were therefore defeated.</p>


text:
<p>The man went into the land of the Hittites and built a city and called it Luz, which is its name to this day-</p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God’s Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God’s word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shean, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements; the Canaanites continued to dwell in that land- </p><p>In the list of cities given to the Levites,&nbsp; "Bileam" meaning 'not of the people', is called Ibleam, <a href='B:70 1:27'>Jdg 1:27</a>; <a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>, and in <a href='B:60 21:25'>Jos 21:25</a>, Gath-rimmon. Perhaps it is called "Bileam" in <a href='B:130 6:70'>1Ch 6:70</a> because it continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p><p>Dor was in Asher (<a href='B:60 11:1-2'>Jos 11:1-2</a>; <a href='B:60 12:23'>Jos 12:23</a>; <a href='B:60 17:11'>Jos 17:11</a>; <a href='B:70 1:27-28'>Jdg 1:27-28</a>). Taanach was within either Issachar or Asher (<a href='B:60 17:11-12'>Jos 17:11-12</a>; <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a>). But these towns were also given to Ephraim (<a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.</p>


text:
<p>When Israel had grown strong they put the Canaanites to forced labour and did not utterly drive them out-</p><p>For "forced labour", see on :30. For "drive out", see on :19. To 'grow strong' can be a technical term for having military superiority (s:w. <a href='B:110 20:22'>1Ki 20:22</a>; <a href='B:140 17:1'>2Ch 17:1</a>; <a href='B:140 21:4'>2Ch 21:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Ephraim didn’t drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer, but the Canaanites lived in Gezer among them- </p><p>Living together meant that there was a reconciliation of cultures between them. If the Israelites had been truly devoted to Yahweh's ways in practice, such reconciliation would not have been practicable; or we would be reading that the Canaanites accepted Yahweh. But the opposite happened. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas and vice versa, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Zebulun didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Kitron or Nahalol, but the Canaanites lived among them and became subject to forced labour- </p><p>One reason why Israel failed to drive out the tribes, and thereby lost the Kingdom, was simply because they wanted to take tribute from them (<a href='B:60 17:13'>Jos 17:13</a>). <a href='B:330 7:19'>Eze 7:19</a> defines “silver and gold” as Israel’s stumblingblock- moreso than idols. They just so loved wealth. The men of Bethshemesh looked into the ark to see if there were any more jewels left in it (<a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a> cp. 6,15); they trampled upon the supreme holiness of God in their crazed fascination with wealth.</p>


text:
<p>Asher didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, or Rehob- </p><p>According to the definition of Asher's territory in <a href='B:60 19:24-31'>Jos 19:24-31</a>, these were their border towns. Perhaps they settled down to inherit the territory in the midst of their canton, and just couldn't be bothered to subjugate the peripheral towns. For "drive out", see on :19. Many of the towns which weren't subjugated by the tribes were on the very edges of their tribal cantons. They were therefore literally thorns in their sides (<a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>but the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, for they did not drive them out- </p><p>Living among the Canaanites would imply that Asher were a minority amongst a majority. The extent of disobedience to the commands to slay the inhabitants of the land is quite astounding. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Naphtali didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh or Beth Anath, but he lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land who became subject to forced labour- </p><p>Living among the Canaanites would imply that Naphtali were a minority amongst a majority. For "forced labour", see on :30. For "drive out", see on :19. The two towns mentioned here were idol sanctuaries, 'house of the sun god' and 'house of Anath', another Canaanite idol. These ought to have been destroyed, and not doing so was tantamount to breaking covenant with Yahweh (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the hill country, for they would not allow them to come down to the valley- </p><p>Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience (<a href='B:70 3:2'>Jdg 3:2</a> NIV). His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God’s punishment of Israel. He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there. Likewise "the border of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually "the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>but the Amorites continued to dwell in Mount Heres, in Aijalon and in Shaalbim. Yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became subject to forced labour- </p><p>For "forced labour", see on :30. Mount Heres is ‘mount of the sun,’ probably the same as Ir-shemesh, ‘city of the sun’, in <a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>. As noted on :33, these pagan sanctuaries ought to have been destroyed.</p>


text:
<p>The border of the Amorites was from the ascent of Akrabbim, from the rock and upward- </p><p>"The rock" may be that at Kadesh of <a href='B:40 20:8'>Num 20:8</a>, or Petra / Sela ["the rock", <a href='B:380 1:3'>Oba 1:3</a>]. The point is that the local population drew a boundary line in the area which was supposed to be Israel's, and defended and enforced it. This was how weak Israel were from the beginning.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh came up from Gilgal to Bochim. He said, I brought you up out of Egypt- </p><p>Angels are usually recorded as just appearing. This Angel apparently travels from Gilgal to Bochim. Gilgal was Joshua's base camp for his conquest of the land (Josh. 9:6; 10:6; 10:15; 10:43; 14:6), and where the [same?] Angel had first appeared to him encouraging him in his conquest. This surely is the Angel that was promised to Israel in Ex. 23 who would lead them into the promised land and subdue their enemies. It was likely through the mouth of that Angel that Israel had been warned against intermarriage and idolatry in Canaan. Israel were circumcised at Gilgal (Josh. 5:2-9) and stones had been set up there so that "When your children ask their parents in time to come, “What do these stones mean?” then you shall let your children know, “Israel crossed over the Jordan here on dry ground.” For the LORD your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you crossed over, as the LORD your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up for us until we crossed over, so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the LORD is mighty, and so that you may fear the LORD your God forever’" (Josh. 4:20-24 NRSV). But the Angel removes from there and travels some way- perhaps observed doing so by the Israelites. The message was that Yahweh had departed from them and come to a place of weeping, 'Bochim'. But a fair case can be made that Bochim was in fact Bethel. Bethel is connected with weeping: “And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse died, and she was buried below Bethel under an oak: and the name of it was called the Oak of Weeping” (Gen. 35:8; also in Jud. 20:26). The LXX is clear: "The angel came to the Weeping Place, even to Bethel, even to the house of Israel”.  And we have just read of Bethel in Jud. 1:22-26. The terrible reality is that God wept because of how Israel had wasted their potential to inherit the Kingdom, which Joshua-Jesus had made possible for them. And surely He weeps today. But Israel wept too (:4)- they shared God's perspective on their failures, and thus came to know His Spirit. This is, therefore, the model repentance- to come to see things as God does, to feel about our sins as He does.
The Hebrew is "I made you to go up out of the land of Egypt". This was God's grace to Israel, through the Angel. For the people didn't actually want to leave; they liked the idea of it, as men like the idea of quitting the world today, but preferred to stay: "Is not this the word that we told you in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness" (Ex. 14:12). Stephen in Acts 7 argues that Israel were always resistant to the saving work of Moses, just as they were to that of the Lord. They constantly murmured against him and rejected his leadership. And yet God brought them up from Egypt, literally, made them go up out of Egypt (stressed in Lev. 11:45; Dt. 20:1; Josh. 24:17; Jud. 6:8 and so often). Just as Abraham was taken out of Ur, and we too were taken out of the world. We are called, but He certainly assists our response to that call. Just as in the Lord's parable, those invited to the wedding feast are sent servants to actually bring them to it. And they resisted even that.
The salvation from the Egyptians was at the Red Sea, long ago (<a href='B:20 14:30'>Exo 14:30</a>). The Israelites were repeatedly reminded of this (<a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:8'>Jdg 6:8</a>; <a href='B:70 10:11'>Jdg 10:11</a>). But they failed to perceive that God’s actions in history were in fact their personal salvation, an act of grace shown to them also. David grasped that point, and his Psalms often thank God for the exodus, as if it had happened to him personally. But the problem is that Israel like all people tended to only see what was before their face at that moment. They had no sense of God’s historical salvation of them, and the guarantee that He would likewise come through for them, if they remained faithful to Him.</p><p>And have brought you to the land which I swore to your fathers, and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you-</p><p>The promises made to Abraham were made by an Angel. This is implied in the Genesis account and repeated later- e. g. <a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a> describes the Angel which led the people of Israel out of Egypt and into Canaan reminding them of "the covenant which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you". Thus when we read passages talking of the covenant God made with them and with Abraham, let us watch out for further allusions to Angelic work. When we read of God breaking His covenant, are we to understand that the Angels can speak like this, but God Himself doesn’t and can’t? Or that God has such passion and emotion that He can say ‘contradictory’ things like this?</p><p></p><p>Consider the following examples of God 'repenting'. For each, try to explain it in terms of God Himself changing His mind, and then think how an understanding of Angels could do better: <a href='B:20 4:24'>Exo 4:24</a>; <a href='B:40 14:34'>Num 14:34</a> AVmg:; <a href='B:20 32:11'>Exo 32:11</a> mg:; <a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a>; <a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a> cp. <a href='B:450 11:10-11'>Zec 11:10-11</a>. If you like this line of approach, consider the following examples, of where 'God' says He won't do something; and then does: <a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a> cp. 34:9; <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a> cp. 31:17. See on <a href='B:450 11:10-11'>Zec 11:10-11</a>.</p><p>Although the idea of Angels changing their minds has some attraction, my own conviction is that God as it were limits His omniscience and omnipotence in order to enter into real relationship with His people. He has emotions, and speaks in the fire of His wrath, as we do, who are made in His image. And so He utters judgments which by grace He didn’t totally follow through on. Perhaps the repentance or intercession of a minority ameliorated His judgments; or perhaps the pole of grace and love is stronger within Him than that of judgment. For mercy rejoices against judgment, even within His personality.</p><p>God promised that even if Israel sinned, He would never break His covenant with them (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>; <a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a>). But He did (<a href='B:450 11:10'>Zec 11:10</a> cp. <a href='B:300 14:21'>Jer 14:21</a>), as witnessed by the termination of the Law of Moses, which was the basis of His covenant with Israel. His love creates yet another Bible paradox. Israel broke the covenant by their disobedience (<a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a>; <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a> and many others). God therefore broke His part of the covenant. Yet God made His promises concerning the unbreakable covenant because He chose to speak in words which did not reflect His foreknowledge that Israel would sin. The apparent contradiction is resolvable by realizing that God did not set His mind upon Israel's future apostasy when He made the 'unbreakable' covenant with them. And yet the paradox still ultimately stands; that He broke His covenant with them when they sinned. He worked through this punishment in order to establish an even more gracious new covenant.</p><p>It was Israel who "broke the everlasting covenant" (Is. 24:5; Jer. 11:10); "they broke My covenant through all your abominations" (Ez. 44:7). But from God's side, He remained faithful to them, like the faithful partner in a marriage. As Paul put it, if we deny Him, He abides faithful (2 Tim. 2:13). The covenant was broken by Israel but not by God.  
</p>


text:
<p>and you must make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; break down their altars’. But you have not listened to My voice; why have you done this?- </p><p>As discussed on :1, their covenant with the inhabitants of the land was an undoing and abrogation of the exclusive covenant with Yahweh which they had signed up to. And yet He still remained in covenant. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh (:1). The existence of pagan place names throughout the record of the conquest, e.g. Bath Dagon, house of Dagon, Beth Shemesh, house of the sun god, all demonstrates that they didn’t break down the altars.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out from before you, but they shall be thorns in your sides-</p><p>I noted on Judges 1 that many of the towns which weren't subjugated by the tribes were on the very edges of their tribal cantons. They were therefore literally thorns in their sides (<a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>).</p><p>And their gods will be a snare to you- </p><p>Twice in 1 Timothy, Paul speaks about a snare; the snare of the devil (<a href='B:610 3:7'>1Ti 3:7</a>), and the snare of wanting wealth (6:9). The desire for wealth in whatever form is the very epitome of the devil, our inherent sin which we must struggle against. The idea of a snare is that it results in a sudden and unexpected destruction. The unexpectedness of the destruction should set us thinking: surely the implication is that those who are materialistic don't realize that in fact this is their besetting sin, and therefore their rejection in the end because of it will be so tragically unexpected. It's rather like pride; if you're proud and you don't know it, then you really are proud. And if we're materialistic and don't know it, we likewise really have a problem. The idea of riches being a snare connects with copious OT references to idols as Israel's perpetual snare (<a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a>; <a href='B:50 7:16'>Deu 7:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>; <a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>; <a href='B:230 106:36'>Psa 106:36</a>; <a href='B:350 5:1'>Hos 5:1</a>). Paul's point is surely that the desire of wealth is the equivalent of OT idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>When the angel of Yahweh spoke these words to all the children of Israel, the people lifted up their voice and wept- </p><p>As in their response to Joshua's speech challenging their idolatry, we rather wait with expectant hope to read that like Jacob's sons, they bring out their idols and bury or burn them. If only we could achieve a second naivety in reading the records, we would at this point be on the edge of our seats, waiting for them to now ditch their idols. But we read only of their tears, the emotion of a religious moment, rather than any lasting response to the blunt warning they had been given. Yet still God graciously responds to their tears.</p>


text:
<p>They called the name of that place Bochim; and they sacrificed there to Yahweh-</p><p>We notice that they had the opportunity to rename or name places in Israel. But they retained so many place names which have clear associations with Baal and Dagon. As noted on :4, they went through the motions of religious worship and repentance- but there is no record of them actually ditching their idols.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Joshua had sent the people away, the children of Israel went every man to his inheritance to possess the land- </p><p>Joshua / Jesus "let the people go" / dismissed them to live in their possessions which he had liberated for them. He dismissed them to go and live in their specific inheritance which it seems each family were given, although unrecorded this is implied by the laws about inheritance. We think of Daniel standing in his lot at the last day. The phrase is so often used of Israel being let go from Egypt. Now they were let go into the Kingdom. But they balked at it, wanted a hand to hold, a man to follow. And no man was raised up to replace Joshua after his death. The Lord's death and finished work are likewise all we need. It is for us to now go and inherit the Kingdom, although the Lord uses this language about how we shall do so after the judgment seat. </p><p>They were to quit their idolatry and then possess the land in God’s strength. They went forward to possess the land, but with no record of having ditched their idols. "Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn’t possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>The people served Yahweh all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work of Yahweh that He had worked for Israel- </p><p>Serving a god meant doing sacrifice to it as they did to the Baals (:11). As discussed on Joshua 24, I suggest that the 'service of Yahweh' in view here refers to the operation of the tabernacle rituals. For 'serving Yahweh' can be a technical term which refers to this and nothing else. This is not to say that they were faithful nor exclusively committed to Him. Joshua in <a href='B:60 24:19'>Jos 24:19</a> had said that they could not 'serve Yahweh' acceptably, unless they ditched their idols. Which they didn’t. The people understood serving Yahweh as doing the rituals of His religion, whereas Joshua understood it as serving Him exclusively with no place in their hearts for any idolatry.</p><p>Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience (<a href='B:70 3:2'>Jdg 3:2</a> NIV). His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God’s punishment of Israel. He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there. Likewise " the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually "The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Yahweh, died, being one hundred and ten years old- </p><p>Numbers and ages in Hebrew literature are not necessarily to be taken literally. This was the age at which Joseph is recorded as reaching (<a href='B:10 50:26'>Gen 50:26</a>), and we will read in <a href='B:60 24:32'>Jos 24:32</a> of the burial of Joseph's bones at Shechem, at the same time as Joshua is buried. We are clearly invited to see a connection between the two men, both of them maintaining spirituality and hope in the Kingdom whilst surrounded by unspirituality and terrible failure by God’s people to realize their potential.</p>


text:
<p>They buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnah Heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Gaash- </p><p>"In the border" may mean that they believed even then that one day he would be resurrected, and then immediately enter into his eternal inheritance. LXX adds: "There they put with him into the tomb in which they buried him, the knives of stone with which he circumcised the children of Israel in Galgala, when he brought them out of Egypt, as the Lord appointed them; and there they are to this day". Josh. 24:30 says Joshua was buried in Timnath Serah. "Heres" means the sun, and may well have a paganic reference. Perhaps the name was changed back to its original "Heres" because the Israelites worshipped the gods of the Canaanites.</p>


text:
<p>Also all that generation were gathered to their fathers; and there arose another generation after them who didn’t know Yahweh, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel- </p><p>The "fathers" served other gods (<a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a>), but the Bible describes death as a gathering to the fathers. Clearly the differentiation between good and bad men is not made at death. Death is unconsciousness, and the ultimate division and reward will be at the return of the Lord Jesus and the judgment seat He will then set up:&nbsp;</p><p>Note the parallel between knowing Yahweh and seeing / experiencing all His works for His people (:7). This experience is what it is to know Yahweh, rather than purely academic theoretical knowledge. </p>


text:
<p>The Israelites did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and served the Baals- </p><p>Serving Yahweh was to be exclusive. Any worship of Baals was to break that exclusive covenant they had made with Yahweh and therefore to forsake Yahweh (:12,13). But 'forsaking Yahweh' is how He saw it. They themselves never became atheists or formally abrogated their relationship with Yahweh. They believed that they could worship Yahweh through worshipping Baal, and that they were doing nothing wrong to Him by this infidelity. Hence Yahweh warns in Hos. 2:16, "You shall no longer call Me Baal". </p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They forsook Yahweh the God of their fathers who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods of the peoples who were around them and bowed themselves down to them- </p><p>See on :11.</p><p>And they provoked Yahweh to anger-</p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>They forsook Yahweh and served Baal and the Ashtaroth- </p><p>As explained on :11, this was how Yahweh felt. They themselves didn’t think they had forsaken Him. The Bible at times speaks from God’s viewpoint, at others from the perspective of the people whose actions are being described. To forsake Yahweh was to break covenant with Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>). Israel did forsake Yahweh (<a href='B:70 2:13'>Jdg 2:13</a>), but still He remained faithful to them, as Hosea remained faithful to Gomer despite her infidelity to their marriage covenant. Instead of forsaking them as He threatened, He instead by grace sent them saviours, judges, looking forward to His grace in sending the Lord Jesus, Yah's salvation.</p><p>The punishment for forsaking Yahweh was that "Yahweh will send on you cursing, confusion and rebuke in all that you put your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the evil of your doings by which you have forsaken Him. Yahweh will make the pestilence cleave to you until He has consumed you from off the land into which you now go in to possess it" (<a href='B:50 28:20-21'>Deu 28:20-21</a>). We expect these things to therefore happen at this time; but we note God’s amazing patience and gentleness in not bringing these things immediately, and instead raising up judges as saviours for this wayward people.</p><p>'Baal' literally means an owner, hence a lord or husband. One of David's mighty men was called Baal-Yah (1 Chron. 12:5 AV "Bealiah", owned by Yah). What was wrong with Baal worship was that it made Baal your owner or possessor. Accepting God as our owner has huge practical import. Man's need for belonging is ultimately met. We belong to God. We are His servants. Ashtaroth is the fertility god also known as Astarte, or Ishtar by the Assyrians and Babylonians, Aphrodite to the Greeks.  </p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel and He delivered them into the hands of raiders who plundered them, and He sold them into the hands of their enemies all around so that they could no longer stand before their enemies- </p><p>As noted on :13, this was a very restrained response from Yahweh, and not actually according to the judgments threatened for forsaking Him in <a href='B:50 28:20-21'>Deu 28:20-21</a>. The judgments of <a href='B:50 29:23-27'>Deu 29:23-27</a> were likewise the prophesied outcome of Israel forsaking Yahweh; and this too didn’t happen at this time, by grace alone: "The whole land is sulphur, salt and burning, that it is not sown nor giving produce and no grass grows therein, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which Yahweh overthrew in His anger and in his wrath. They and all the nations shall say, Why has Yahweh done thus to this land? What does the heat of this great anger mean? Then men shall say, Because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh the God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and went and served other gods and worshipped them, gods that they didn’t know and that He had not given to them. Therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against this land, to bring on it all the curse that is written in this book". But instead we are to read that although God punished them, He raised up saviours to save them from the judgments; and this looks forward to His grace in the Lord Jesus, 'Yah's salvation'.</p>


text:
<p>Wherever they went the hand of Yahweh was against them for evil, as Yahweh had spoken and as Yahweh had sworn to them; and they were very distressed- </p><p>See on :18. But as noted above, He did not bring upon them all the things which He had spoken, in wrath He remembered mercy. This "distress" is the word used of the distress of the historical Jacob / Israel (<a href='B:10 32:7'>Gen 32:7</a>), when like Israel he was confronted with his sins and led to cast himself upon God’s grace.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh raised up judges who saved them from those who plundered them- </p><p>The judgments for forsaking Yahweh were of total destruction- see on :13,14. We expect these things to therefore happen at this time; but we note God’s amazing patience and gentleness in not bringing these things immediately, and instead raising up judges as saviours for this wayward people. And those saviours look forward to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Yet they didn’t listen to their judges; for they played the prostitute after other gods and bowed themselves down to them. They turned aside quickly out of the way in which their fathers walked, who had obeyed the commandments of Yahweh. They didn’t do so- </p><p>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a>; <a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a>; <a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a>; <a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a>; <a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a>; <a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a>; <a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a>; <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a>; <a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>; <a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a>; <a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>). The very language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a>; <a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a>; <a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a>; <a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a>; <a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His.</p>


text:
<p>When Yahweh raised up judges for them- </p><p>God Himself 'arose and saved' Israel from Egypt (<a href='B:230 76:9'>Psa 76:9</a>, s:w. "raised up a saviour"), and the phrase is also used of Moses in <a href='B:20 2:17'>Exo 2:17</a>. But the people didn’t want this radical deliverance from their enemies, because like the generation saved from Egypt, they were with their enemies in their hearts, and worshipped their gods as Israel had taken the idols of their Egyptian enemies with them, through the Red Sea (<a href='B:330 20:17'>Eze 20:17</a>). So the potential possible in these raised up saviours / judges was never totally realized.</p><p>Yahweh was with the judge and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge, for it grieved Yahweh because of their distress because of the oppression- </p><p>The hand of their enemies was effectively Yahweh's hand (:15). Yet God’s grace worked as it were against His own judgment. We see here the tension between mercy and judgment deep within the personality of God; and the pole of grace wins out over that of necessary judgment. And this God is our God. "Grieved" is the word for "repent" (as AV); He changed His mind, because He was grieved for them. And so we read in <a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a> of how His repentings were kindled together deep within Him.</p>


text:
<p>But when the judge was dead they turned back and behaved more corruptly than their fathers in following other gods to serve them and to bow down to them. They didn’t cease from their evil practices or from their stubborn ways-</p><p>The book of Judges reflects this grace of God- showing, incidentally, that grace isn't only a New Testament theme. We are so wrong if we imagine that Judges is all about a cycle of sin, judgment, repentance, raising up a judge-saviour, salvation and restoration to God. For one thing, the cycles are never the same- for God is in passionate relationship with His people, and passionate love doesn't work to the 'same ole same ole' plan every time. Time and again we find that Israel sin, do not repent (<a href='B:70 2:19'>Jdg 2:19</a>)- and yet all the same God sends them a Saviour. They are saved without repentance, simply because God pities them (<a href='B:70 2:15-16'>Jdg 2:15-16</a>). They do the very things which God predicted in Deuteronomy would result in Him breaking the covenant with them (see on :13,14)- and yet He does not break His side of the covenant (<a href='B:70 3:1'>Jdg 3:1</a>). In all this we see an altogether profound grace, arising out of God’s passionate love for His people. We simply don't 'get' how passionate is God’s love for us!</p><p>After each judge they did "more corruptly" than the previous generation. We get the same impression in the record of the kings. It all gives the impression of an ever downward slide into the final apostacy which elicited the captivities in Assyria and Babylon. These are therefore presented as only happening after an amazing display of patient grace over many generations.</p><p>"Stubborn" is literally hard or difficult. The way of the flesh is difficult, just as Paul says that men crucify themselves / pierce themselves through with many sorrows through loving money (1 Tim. 6:10).</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel and He said, Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to Me- </p><p>To keep covenant was thus paralleled with listening / being obedient to God. The covenant was broken, because they had broken it rather than God. And yet for generations (see on :19), He still kept His side of it. <a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a> had said that when Israel "transgressed [My] covenant", then they would "perish quickly from off the good land". But as noted on :19, this didn’t happen "quickly". God’s grace waited many generations before exiling them from their land. He changed His mind, or 'repented', because of His grace; see on :18.</p><p>GNB suggests the sense is that God regularly said that He would no longer drive out the nations, every time a judge died and the people turned away: "Then the LORD would become furious with Israel and say, "This nation has broken the covenant that I commanded their ancestors to keep. Because they have not obeyed me, I will no longer drive out any of the nations"".</p>


text:
<p>I also will no longer drive out from before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died- </p><p>Israel were told to work with God to drive out the nations who lived in Canaan, because if those people remained there, they would be a spiritual temptation for Israel. But Israel sinned, they willfully followed the idols of Canaan rather than the God of Israel. And therefore God said that He would not help Israel in driving out the nations any more (<a href='B:70 2:20-21'>Jdg 2:20-21</a>). It was as if He was confirming them in their desire to succumb to the temptations of the surrounding nations. He as it were 'led them into temptation', and we are to pray in the words of the Lord's prayer that we are not led as they were.</p>


text:
<p>So by them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of Yahweh to walk therein as their fathers did, or not- </p><p>As discussed on :21, the test of Israel was really leading them further down the downward spiral which they themselves wanted. We note Yahweh graciously considered that "their fathers" had "kept the way of Yahweh", clearly alluding to Abraham and the patriarchs (<a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a>). But this too was an imputation of righteousness by grace, for the patriarchs often strayed from that covenant, Jacob especially.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh left those nations without driving them out quickly and didn’t deliver them into the hand of Joshua-</p><p><a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a> had said that when Israel "transgressed [My] covenant", then they would "perish quickly from off the good land". But as noted on :19, this didn’t happen "quickly" when they now transgressed the covenant. God’s grace waited many generations before exiling them from their land. Instead, God puts it so positively by saying that He didn’t drive out the nations "quickly". The positive nature of His grace is seen all through this sad record of human failure.</p><p>The implications that we should respond ‘quickly’ to the Gospel surely mean that we should not have any element of indifference in our response to the call of God, and yet the foundations of a true spiritual life cannot be laid hastily. The Father drove out the tribes from Canaan slowly, not immediately- or at least, He potentially enabled this to happen (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>). But Israel were to destroy those tribes “quickly” (<a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). Here perhaps we see what is meant- progress is slow but steady in the spiritual life, but there must be a quickness in response to the call of God for action in practice. Compare this with how on one hand, God does not become quickly angry (<a href='B:230 103:8'>Psa 103:8</a>), and yet on the other hand He does &nbsp;get angry quickly in the sense that He immediately feels and responds to sin (<a href='B:230 2:12'>Psa 2:12</a>); His anger ‘flares up in His face’.</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn’t realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the nations which Yahweh left to test Israel, those who had not known all the wars of Canaan-</p><p>Israel do the very things which God predicted in Deuteronomy would result in Him breaking the covenant with them- and yet He does not break His side of the covenant. In all this we see an altogether profound grace, arising out of God’s passionate love for His people. We simply don't 'get' how passionate is God’s love for us! See on <a href='B:70 2:19'>Jdg 2:19</a>. <a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a> says that "Yahweh left those nations without driving them out quickly and didn’t deliver them into the hand of Joshua". <a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a> had said that when Israel "transgressed [My] covenant", then they would "perish quickly from off the good land". But as noted on <a href='B:70 2:19'>Jdg 2:19</a>, this didn’t happen "quickly" when they now transgressed the covenant. God’s grace waited many generations before exiling them from their land. Instead, God puts it so positively by saying that He didn’t drive out the nations "quickly". The positive nature of His grace is seen all through this sad record of human failure.</p><p>Yahweh left or 'gave rest' to Israel's enemies, using the very word used of how He would give rest to Israel so that they didn't experience war nor opposition from enemies. But this was reversed. They need not have had any war, if they had been loyal to the covenant. So God "left' nations in the land to teach Israel war, hoping still to lead them to a position where they would conquer those enemies in obedience to the covenant. But we note "He did this only in order to teach each generation of Israelites about war, especially those who had never been in battle before" (:2 GNB). The implication is that living at peace and safety was now never envisioned by God as being possible for Israel. Even if some future generation had never experienced war [the contemporary generation most definitely had], they likely would need to fight in future. Because they seemed bent on sin, God now foresees they would never get to a point where they would be without war. Because war, the threat from enemies, was the result of unfaithfulness to the covenant. As happened after the flood, God comes to a more realistic view of His people's weakness. Through understanding what's going on here, we can better appreciate the Kingdom prophecies which speak of Israel finally dwelling at peace and without threat from their enemies. Because they shall sin no more, and the result of righteousness shall be peace from their enemies all around them.</p>


text:
<p>so that the later generations of the children of Israel might learn battle experience, those who before knew nothing of it- </p><p>As discussed on :1, this is putting it so positively. For the reason He didn’t drive out the nations was because they had broken covenant with Him (<a href='B:70 2:19-23'>Jdg 2:19-23</a>). Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience. His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God’s punishment of Israel. He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there. Likewise " the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually " The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p><p>God didn't drive the nations out as a punishment and also as a test of Israel's faithfulness, which they failed by marrying into those nations and therefore worshipping their gods (Jud. 2:20-23). But here God speaks more positively of how He sought to use those nations as a training for Israel. To train their faith in Him. We marvel at God's incessant desire to save, and to use even abject human failure to somehow by all means save some.

"Learn battle experience" is literally, 'learn war'. The ideal was that God would have driven out the nations and Israel lived at peace, none making then afraid. The Kingdom age will feature "they shall learn war no more". But God now adopts a suboptimal policy. He wants to teach Israel to fight, to learn war, and so He intended to work through the nations remaining in the land. To strengthen Israel's faith. Towards the end that they would drive out all the nations and live in peace. He acts similarly if e.g. someone marries out of the Faith. He doesn't abandon them but continues working with them, even though they have made their spiritual path more difficult for themselves and less likely of success.</p>


text:
<p>the five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites, the Sidonians and the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath- </p><p>But <a href='B:70 1:18'>Jdg 1:18</a> says that "Judah took Gaza with its border and Ashkelon with its border and Ekron with its border". I suggest the answer is that their victory was like those of Joshua- not followed up on. And like the victory over Jerusalem recorded in <a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>, soon after which the Jebusites were soon again entrenched in Jerusalem (<a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>They were left to test Israel, to know whether they would listen to the commandments of Yahweh which He commanded their fathers by Moses- </p><p>Israel were told to work with God to drive out the nations who lived in Canaan, because if those people remained there, they would be a spiritual temptation for Israel. But Israel sinned, they willfully followed the idols of Canaan rather than the God of Israel. And therefore God said that He would not help Israel in driving out the nations any more (<a href='B:70 2:20-21'>Jdg 2:20-21</a>). It was as if He was confirming them in their desire to succumb to the temptations of the surrounding nations. He as it were 'led them into temptation', and we are to pray in the words of the Lord's prayer that we are not led as they were.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites- </p><p>Living together meant that there was a reconciliation of cultures between them. If the Israelites had been truly devoted to Yahweh's ways in practice, such reconciliation would not have been practicable; or we would be reading that the Canaanites accepted Yahweh. But the opposite happened. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas and vice versa, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>and they took their daughters to be their wives and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods- </p><p>Many passages make the connection between marriage out of the covenant, and adopting idolatry: <a href='B:20 34:12-16'>Exo 34:12-16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:2-9'>Deu 7:2-9</a>; <a href='B:70 3:6-7'>Jdg 3:6-7</a>; <a href='B:110 11:2-3'>1Ki 11:2-3</a>; <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a>. <a href='B:50 7:4'>Deu 7:4</a> RV dogmatically predicts that a Gentile man will definitely turn away the heart of his Hebrew son-in-law… So certain is it that marriage to Gentiles leads to accepting their idols that <a href='B:150 9:1-2'>Ezr 9:1-2</a> reasons that Israel hadn't separated from idols because they had married Gentiles. Time and again, those who marry out of the covenant claim that they feel strong enough to cope with it, that marriage is only a human thing, and that their spiritual relationship with God is between them and God, and unaffected by their worldly partner. Yet this is exactly the opposite of what God’s word says. It's not true that you can marry into the world and be unaffected in your own spirituality. Solomon thought he could handle it; and apparently, he did- for the first 20 years or so. But his Gentile wives were his spiritual ruin at the end.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and forgot Yahweh their God, and served the Baals and the Asherahs- </p><p>Serving Yahweh was to be exclusive. Any worship of Baals was to break that exclusive covenant they had made with Yahweh and therefore to forsake or forget Yahweh (<a href='B:70 2:12-13'>Jdg 2:12-13</a>). But 'forsaking / forgetting Yahweh' is how He saw it. They themselves never became atheists or formally abrogated their relationship with Yahweh. They believed that they could worship Yahweh through worshipping Baal, and that they were doing nothing wrong to Him by this infidelity.</p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel and He sold them into the hand of Cushan Rishathaim king of Mesopotamia. The Israelites served Cushan Rishathaim for eight years.</p><p>The pattern of 'serving' their Canaanite conquerors and then 'crying unto the Lord' (<a href='B:70 3:8-9'>Jdg 3:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 3:14-15'>Jdg 3:14-15</a>) recalls their servitude to the Egyptians, resulting in Israel 'crying to the Lord' (<a href='B:20 2:23'>Exo 2:23</a>), and being answered by the Passover deliverance - which looked forward to the events of the Lord’s second coming. Their deliverances by the judges therefore also typify this. "Saviours (judges) shall come up upon mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau (so that) the Kingdom shall be the Lord's" (<a href='B:380 1:21'>Oba 1:21</a>). “Saviours / judges" may be an intensive plural referring to the one true saviour / judge, Jesus. </p><p></p><p>The phrase " the Lord sold them into the hand of..." , which occurs here in <a href='B:70 3:8'>Jdg 3:8</a>, runs as a refrain throughout the record of Israel's punishment at the hand of her enemies:&nbsp;The force of what this will mean in practice is brought out in <a href='B:50 32:30'>Deu 32:30</a>:&nbsp; "How should one chase a thousand (Jews), and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock (protecting Angel) had sold them…?". Given the huge numerical superiority of Israel's Islamist enemies, this shows a total military collapse by the Israelites in the face of this aggression:&nbsp;&nbsp; This is a far cry from the arrogance, confidence, bravery and 'fight to the death' attitude of modern Israelis.</p>


text:
<p>When the Israelites cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised up a saviour for them, Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother- </p><p>God Himself 'arose and saved' Israel from Egypt (<a href='B:230 76:9'>Psa 76:9</a>, s:w. "raised up a saviour"), and the phrase is also used of Moses in <a href='B:20 2:17'>Exo 2:17</a>. But the people didn’t want this radical deliverance from their enemies, because like the generation saved from Egypt, they were with their enemies in their hearts, and worshipped their gods as Israel had taken the idols of their Egyptian enemies with them, through the Red Sea (<a href='B:330 20:17'>Eze 20:17</a>). So the potential possible in these raised up saviours / judges was never totally realized:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh came on him and he judged Israel. He went out to war and Yahweh delivered Cushan Rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Cushan Rishathaim- </p><p>We can too easily skim read these verses and fail to appreciate how huge was the victory. "Mesopotamia" was the vast region between the Euphrates and Tigris; the Hebrew is Aram-naharaim ‘Syria of the two rivers,’ usually held to designate the country between the Euphrates and the Tabor (2 Kings 17:6). This king was mighty and ruled a large territory. He was perhaps seeking to get access to the sea, hence he attacked Israel. But this great king and his army were slain by the small clan of Othniel in the South of Judah. 
Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn’t realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>This king of Cush (also featured in <a href='B:330 38:5'>Eze 38:5</a>, N:I:V:) has the epithet 'Rishathaim', meaning 'double wickedness':&nbsp;These things point forward to the conflicts of the latter days between the Lord Jesus, Israel's ultimate judge / saviour, and the latter day enemies of Israel within the land promised to Abraham. This serves to emphasize how the latter day invasion will be headed up by an individual who is unashamedly a 'man of sin', a true anti-Christ:&nbsp;He was "king of Mesopotamia" (<a href='B:70 3:8'>Jdg 3:8</a>), literally meaning 'Aram (Syria) of the two rivers" , i:e. Tigris and Euphrates:&nbsp;This would point to a geographical location in modern Iran/Iraq. </p>


text:
<p>The land had rest forty years. Othniel the son of Kenaz died- </p><p>The forty years rest of <a href='B:70 3:11'>Jdg 3:11</a>; <a href='B:70 5:31'>Jdg 5:31</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a> may not be a literal period. I have elsewhere noted that the forty year reigns of Saul, David and Solomon create chronological problems if read literally. The idea may be that forty years was a time of testing, as it was for Israel in the wilderness. We think of the Lord's 40 days of testing too. In this case, they were tested by peace. And they consistently failed, as God’s people often do.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh. Yahweh strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done what was evil in the sight of Yahweh- </p><p>This hints, perhaps, at a relatively sudden revival / strengthening of Israel's enemies, allowed by God in order to punish His people. They dominate Israel, they repent, and then cry to Yahweh for a saviour- and the Lord Jesus will be sent:&nbsp; It could be argued that this has indeed occurred since the discovery of oil in the Arab states;&nbsp; alternatively it could refer to a sudden revival after a dramatic defeat by Israel and/or her Western allies. <a href='B:300 48:47'>Jer 48:47</a> NIV clearly speaks of a revival of Moab's fortunes in the last days.</p><p>The repeated mention of Edom, Moab and Ammon in the prophets is hard to interpret specifically, seeing that these nations covered relatively small geographical areas which are now in Jordan and Syria:&nbsp;&nbsp; It may be that it is from these nations that the latter day onslaught is launched. We can, perhaps,&nbsp;therefore look&nbsp; to those countries becoming increasingly radicalized against Israel:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He gathered to him the Ammonites and Amalek and he went and struck Israel; and they took possession of the city of palm trees- </p><p>Amalek was a tribe fated to destruction by God (Ex. 17:14), so we immediately suspect that this domination of Israel will come to destruction.
This should be seen against the background of many Scriptural indications that the latter-day&nbsp; entity dominating Israel in their land will comprise a confederacy of surrounding nations, united by the single desire of attacking Israel. Psalms 83 is a notable example of this. We note these attackers came from the east, over Jordan, and took Jericho (<a href='B:50 34:3'>Deu 34:3</a>), perhaps making it their headquarters on the west bank of the Jordan. However, "the city of palm trees" could also have been En-gaddi, since Jericho had been destroyed by Joshua and wasn't rebuilt until the time of Ahab (<a href='B:110 16:34'>1Ki 16:34</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites served Eglon king of Moab for eighteen years- </p><p>"Eglon" means 'calf', the same word used of the calves later worshipped by Israel. He was named after his idol, and yet Yahweh strengthened him (:12) in order to punish His people. God may use people, but that usage doesn't mean that He therefore approves of them. We too may be used by God, but this is no evidence of our accpetability with Him. He is described as "fat" and is slain with a knife- as if this was the slaying of the fatted calf. In the prodigal parable, the Lord interprets this as a celebration for repentance. Possibly Israel had sinned and repented, and Ehud was raised up in response to that. Or more likely, God counted Israel as having repented when they hadn't.</p>


text:
<p>But when the Israelites cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised up a saviour for them, Ehud the son of Gera the Benjamite, a left-handed man. The children of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab-</p><p>It seems from <a href='B:130 8:6'>1Ch 8:6</a> that Ehud's family were carried captive to Mahanath, a place in Moab. And this would explain his motivation in fighting to free Israel from Moabite domination. The Ehud of <a href='B:130 8:6'>1Ch 8:6</a> was also a Benjamite [from Geba] who was related to Gera; see note there. Left handed people were considered strange and often relegated to the periphery of society in primitive societies; we see again how almost all the judges had something which made them despised and rejected. And yet it was exactly that group which God delighted to use to save His people (<a href='B:70 3:15'>Jdg 3:15</a>). We notice how God used left handed people to give David victory (<a href='B:130 12:2'>1Ch 12:2</a>), and to punish their hypocritical brethren (<a href='B:70 20:16'>Jdg 20:16</a>), and also the left handed Jael (<a href='B:70 5:26'>Jdg 5:26</a> LXX). He seems to rejoice in using those whom man despises. See on :21. It's also possible that Ehud was right handed but had lost use of his right hand, thus making him effectively left handed. The Hebrew for Left-handed" here is literally 'a shut up right hand'. It isn't the same as in :21 where we are told of his left hand. That again would support the theme- that human strength is taken away so that God may be glorified through human weakness. And although he was of Benjamin, the son of the right hand, that was somehow shut up or disabled. This explains why there's something odd in the grammar of the phrase "the Benjamite". Literally it reads "a son of the right hand". Perhaps the idea is that the son of the right hand has his right hand somehow disabled, so that he is left handed. His natural ability has been removed. Ehud couldn't be the man he was intended to be. And all this was part of God's psychological background work in 'raising up' Ehud to save Israel. 

I discuss on Jud. 20:16  how Benjamin were noted by the other tribes for having a regiment of left handed men. Benjamin means 'son of the right hand', the firstborn- something Judah and the other tribes bitterly resented. It's as if they were known as 'left handers', famed or mocked by the other Israelites for their left handed slinging regiment- as a dig against their role as being sons of the right hand. And this tension was behind the way the Israelites were later eager for an excuse to wipe out the tribe of Benjamin. Left handedness is associated with sexual deviance, homosexuality and femininity in some African cultures, and it quite likely was in the time of Judges. "Sinister" literally means 'left handed'. "Men shook hands with their right hands since it was this hand that carried any weapon and if a weapon was being carried shaking hands could not take place". Indeed losing the right hand was seen as a punishment for sexual deviance. Ehud would have felt misunderstood and misjudged, perhaps contributing to his initial desire to make a suicide mission to assassinate Eglon. Probably his personal desperation was stronger than any courage that came from faith. In their culture at the time, being 'normal' was all important. And it was not normal to be left handed. And so many of us fall into that category, of those not considered 'normal'. But God uses those very abnormalities. The point is that the man who was of the right handed tribe was in fact left handed; he fitted the image of a man who didn't live up to his name, and was perhaps mocked because of it. But it was that despised left hand which God was to use. And so continues a great theme in Judges, that God uses the marginalized and disdained as His great warriors. Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah... the left handed, female, youngest son, illegitimate son of a prostitute. Just as Ehud uses a home made dagger with his left hand, others use an ox goad, a tent peg, water pitchers instead of swords, a millstone thrown over a wall, the jawbone of a donkey... the weak, everyday things of life. This is still how God's Spirit works. 

If Ehud's right hand was deformed, and he had no sword on his left thigh, Eglon would not have suspected that Ehud had any nefarious purpose in wanting to come close to him. God worked through the left-ness of Ehud. The man who had lost use of his right hand was not fit for military service; but he became the great warrior deliverer of Israel. The right hand is associated with good things (Is. 48:13; Ex. 15:6; Ps. 89:25; 110:1), morality (Ps. 137:5), approval (Gen. 48:13-20; Ps. 80:17; Is. 41:13) and purity (Ex. 29:20; Lev. 8:23; 14:14,17). But the left hand is associated with the opposites of these things. The rejected go to the left hand; and Ecc. 10:2 sums it up: “A wise man’s mind is at his right, and the fool’s mind at his left”. But through this weakness, God works. 

Ehud was "raised up" by God, but clearly worked on his own initiative. His plan involved making himself a dagger (:16), carefully working out an assassination plot based on his knowledge of Eglon's palace after having been there many times taking tribute; and a cunning plan to pretend to have received a message from the idols at Gilgal for Eglon. This was all a result of ideas forming in his own mind, and having the single minded courage to develop them. Yet all this was under God's control, 'raising him up' for the moment. </p>


text:
<p>Ehud made himself a sword which had two edges, a cubit in length; and he wore it under his clothing on his right thigh- </p><p> "Made himself" is literally 'made him', and could as well mean that he made the sword as a gift for Eglon- but in presenting it to him, plunged it into Eglon to murder him. There is irony throughout. Eglon, the fatted 'calf' [as Eglon means] was sacrificially offered. For the dagger recalled the priestly knives. Whereas Ehud had been bringing sacrifices to Eglon. We ponder whether all this irony and mockery was in fact of the Spirit. Yet still God worked through it all. Ehud was a man of a disabled right arm; he did whatever he did with his left hand. To fashion a sharp knife with only his left hand would not have been easy. And the record stresses that he "made [it] himself". We are left to imagine him struggling one handed with the hot metal, making some kind of vice to hold the knife as he sharpened it... And so the one handed man made a two edged sword / dagger / knife, with its own hilt. The way he makes it himself, and returns from the idols to Eglon alone, all suggests he had planned the assassination carefully- and without the involvement of anyone else. Because, I suggest, he thought of it as a suicide mission. God worked through the hand of this disabled, suicidal, left handed loner... For men who think up suicide missions do so for many reasons. Not just bravery or a desire to achieve a greater good for their own side at the cost of their life. The desire to end their own lives can also play a large part, and this was likely the case with Ehud. But as with Samson, God worked through it. We note that the Spirit only came upon Ehud after his assassination of Eglon. The assassination itself was apparently his own plan, although part of his being 'raised up' for the job of delivering Israel from Moab.
This is presumably measuring by the "short cubit," i:e. the length from the elbow to the knuckles, about 13 inches or 33 cm. The idea of a saviour with a two edged sword looks ahead to the Lord Jesus and His latter day deliverance of His people from the same neighbouring peoples (<a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He offered the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man- </p><p>There is a strange emphasis on Eglon's physical form. "Eglon was a very fat man" is supported by the detailed and gory record of his death by stabbing:&nbsp; "Ehud... thrust it (the dagger) into his belly: and the haft also went in after the blade;&nbsp;and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly" (<a href='B:70 3:17'>Jdg 3:17</a>; <a href='B:70 3:21-22'>Jdg 3:21-22</a>):The men of Moab are likewise described as "lusty" (<a href='B:70 3:29'>Jdg 3:29</a>), the Hebrew word meaning literally 'oily, greasy', and implying fatness:&nbsp;All this emphasis - and it is that - must be for a reason:&nbsp;Surely it suggests that the Moabites had indulged themselves in the good life, eating and drinking to excess - doubtless at the expense of the Israelites whom they were then dominating:&nbsp;This would indicate that the latter day enemies of Israel will be enjoying great material prosperity, yet most standard-of-living indicators show that Israel's neighbours generally are far from having this:&nbsp;A massive redistribution of wealth brought about by revolutions, coupled with holding the West to ransom with oil prices and pillaging the wealth of Israel, would easily bring about this situation. However, LXX gives "handsome", and the word translated "fat" is used also of flourishing animals and plants (Gen. 41:2,5; 1 Kings 5:3). It is the word used for Daniel and his friends appearing so healthy and strong (Dan. 1:13, as Ps. 73:4). But generally the word is used of animals, perhaps inviting us to see Ehud as a priest sacrificing Eglon, whose name means 'bull'. "Present" is mentioned three times and the word mincha can mean 'sacrifice'. But Ehud sacrifices the fattened calf Eglon with a priestly knife.</p>


text:
<p>When he had finished offering the tribute he sent away the people who carried the tribute- </p><p>This could have happened at Eglon's palace in Moab, or at his field headquartes in the "city of Palm trees" (:13), which I suggested was En-gaddi or Jericho (see on :28). It seems Ehud wanted to operate totally alone; possibly because there was nobody of exactly the same mind in the group of Israelites accompanying him. This would be a sad reflection on how willing they were to be subjugated; and also a parade example in serving God alone, even if our brethren are weak; see on :19.</p>


text:
<p>but he himself turned back from the idols that were by Gilgal and said, I have a secret errand to you, king. The king said, Keep silence! All his attendants left him- </p><p>This language could suggest that "he himself" turned away from idolatry, but his brethren were happy to remain with the idols. The assassination had to be carried out by himself alone because he had nobody of a similar mind to support him. See on :26. "Turned back" carries the idea of repentance. Perhaps only at this point did Ehud repent of idolatry; hence the significance of him passing beyond the idols on his return. "Gilgal" means a circle, so perhaps the "hewn images" were arranged in a circle. We are left guessing what happened to the other Israelites. Ehud alone "turned back from the idols" so we are left to guess that the others stayed there worshipping them. Ehud acted alone, spiritually and in every way. He never shared his mission with anyone else, for likely the mindset of the Israelites was as in Samson's time- accepting that the Gentiles ruled over them, and not seeking to overthrow them in any realistic way. They simply complained of their burdens, just as many today. The way God worked through Ehud to save them was therefore grace itself to the undeserving.  "Errand" is literally a 'word', which is why the king asks his servants to be silent and to leave- so that the prophetic word could be heard by him. 

"Secret message" is literally 'a hidden thing'. Ehud has in view his hidden dagger. He is constantly being sarcastic and ironic- not an altogether spiritual characteristic. The sarcasm and irony continues, in that it was the king himself who commanded his servants to leave him alone with Ehud. Ehud could not have contrived this, nor could he have asked them to leave. This was God's hand confirming him in his brave mission- which may well have  been planned by him as a suicide mission, hence him going alone. For had be murdered Eglon, the servants would soon have murdered him. The long delay of the servants in unlocking the door and finding Eglon dead, a delay just long enough to allow Ehud to escape with his life, was likewise surely the hand of Divine providence which Ehud could not have himself orchestrated. We also reflect how Eglon didn't scream when stabbed or in his death throes [possibly any groaning from him was thought to be the sound of the obese man having another stomach upset]- again, Ehud could not have orchestrated this. Had Eglon screamed, his servants surely would have heard and come to arrest Ehud. Likewise the servants didn't check or frisk Ehud's right thigh where his dagger was hidden. They saw his right hand was deformed and there was no sword on his left thigh, as would be normal for a right handed man; and so presumably they let him go in to Eglon. All these things lead us to suspect again that he himself had planned it all as a suicide mission; but God saved him from death at that point, so that he could rally Israel by his example. </p>


text:
<p>Ehud came to him as he was sitting alone in the cool upper room. Ehud said, I have a message from God to you. He arose out of his seat- </p><p>The cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed close in here upon the two men. We are told that the room is an upper room, and cool; we see Eglon arising out of his seat, perhaps with some difficulty if he were obese.  "God" is elohim, and Ehud is pretending that he has been to the idols near Gilgal, the elohim, and has been sent back by them to Eglon with a personal message for him. Balak, another king of Moab, likewise "rose up" to hear the oracle from Balaam. And we think of Samuel taking Saul aside alone to give him a word from the Lord (1 Sam. 9:27). Oracles were sometimes given to kings by priests or local rulers as a sign that they accepted the king's sovereignty over them. And Ehud is surely doing this. Ehud's deceit is of a very high level. Although his personal bravery isn't in question, and was surely an outcome of his faith, a higher level would surely have been to simply trust in Yahweh and in Yahweh's Name attack the Moabites and liberate territory from them. But Ehud's bravery and huge risk is of such an extraordinary level that we naturally hesitate before suggesting he could have done even better. But it seems to me that he could have done even better... by not pretending he actually was an idol worshipper. </p>


text:
<p>Ehud put forth his left hand and took the sword from his right thigh and thrust it into his body- </p><p>Again there is the stress on the fact that Ehud used his left hand; see on :15. He presumably was grasping the king, about to whisper in his ear a message from God. And perhaps he did indeed have a message from God which he whispered as he stabbed him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The handle also went in after the blade and the fat closed on the blade, for he didn’t draw the sword out of his body, and it came out behind- </p><p>It would seem that AV "and the dirt came out" may be correct. Ehud knew he only had one chance, to kill the man immediately without him screaming in agony to attract attention. So he would have struck him with full force. But the idea may also be that the man was as it were pierced right through; the image of total victory used several times of God’s piercing through of His latter day enemies. Or we could render the phrase to the intent that he immediately went out into the parshedon, or inner chamber, and thence to the next chamber (:23). This would continue the very fine attention to detail noted on :20.</p><p>
ESV "and the dung came out". This turned Eglon's throne into a toilet chair or seat. The irony and sarcasm of the record surely reflects Ehud's thinking; and such an attitude seems suboptimal in spiritual terms.</p>


text:
<p>Then Ehud went out into the porch and shut the doors of the upper room on him and locked them- </p><p>As noted on :20, we have a very close attention to detail here. He managed to make the door lock after he closed it. Ehud clearly planned the assassination carefully. He would have been familiar with the layout of the palace because he had presumably been there several times before, offering tribute during the 18 years of Moabite domination of Israel (:14). Yet bringing the tribute to Eglon could be seen as a sign of weakness. But through that, God worked. For it gave Ehud knowledge of the palace layout.</p>


text:
<p>Now when he had gone out, the servants came and saw that the doors of the upper room were locked, and they said, Surely he is covering his feet in the upper room- </p><p>Covering the feet is an idiom for sleeping (<a href='B:90 24:3'>1Sa 24:3</a>), but it could be that it also means 'to go to the toilet'. His obesity may have been such that he had frequent bowel problems, of which he was embarassed, and they assumed he had locked the doors for the sake of his own privacy.</p><p>There is a bitter sarcasm in the record. Eglon was indeed going to the toilet, in that his excrement flowed out from his wound and he was lying in it. This sarcasm reflects how Ehud had planned things. And we again question whether such bitter sarcasm was right when doing God's work. So much could have gone wrong for Ehud, but nowhere does he hint at praise of God's grace to him. Rather does the record reflect his perspective, of shaming an enemy and making him and his people a laughingstock. But that surely isn't God's approach to His enemies. The AV brings out better the triple usage of "Behold". We are given as it were a slow motion description of the servants' actions and confusion. We aren't given such slow motion description of Ehud's escape and flight. The record seems to reflect Ehud's intention- to mock and poke fun at the Moabites, as their inaction is contrasted with his dashing heroism as he successfully exits the palace and flees: "They saw that, behold, the doors of the parlour were locked, they said, Surely he covereth his feet in his summer chamber. And they tarried till they were ashamed: and, behold, he opened not the doors of the parlour; therefore they took a key, and opened them: and, behold, their lord was fallen down dead". We note the similarities between Ehud's left handed, deceptive murder of Eglon, claiming to have a quiet word for his victim; and the deception used by Joab to assassinate Abner and Amasa, again using his left hand in an unexpected left handed thrust and shedding out the bowels of the victim (2 Sam. 3:27; 20:8-10). Joab's assassinations were wrong, as the record makes clear (1 Kings 2:5,6,31,32). But we wonder whether he was inspired by Ehud; and that raises the question as to whether Ehud used the right methods to assassinate Eglon. Even though God worked through them. Just as He did through Samson's very deceptive and morally wrong ways of murdering Philistines. </p>


text:
<p>They waited until they were ashamed; but still he didn’t open the doors of the upper room, therefore they took the key and opened them and behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth- </p><p>"Still he didn’t open the doors of the upper room" is written from the perspective of the servants. For we know, as the readers, that their king is lying there dead. But the Bible chops and changes in whose perspective it adopts, and this is helpful to remember when assessing the language of demons in the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p>Ehud escaped while they waited and passed beyond the idols and escaped to Seirah- </p><p>This was a daring, single handed assassination that reflected a deep faith within Ehud. I suggested on :19 that the assassination had to be carried out by himself alone because he had nobody of a similar mind to support him. His brethren were happy to remain with the idols (:19), but Ehud passed beyond them- to true relationship with Yahweh. "Seirah" has not been defined as a town, and may be the name for the forests of the hill country of Ephraim (:27):&nbsp; The record continually mocks at the enemy, calling Eglon a fat cow sacrificed by Ehud, who cleverly duped the dumb courtiers. And here, Ehud "escaped" whilst none of the Moabites "escaped" Israel (:29 s.w.). The pesilim ["idols"] may refer to carved paganic stones which the Moabites had set up as boundary markers on the territory they had taken over from the Israelites. They probably had an image of Eglon and his gods upon them, like other boundary markers which have been unearthed, which is why Ehud claims he has received a revelation from those gods to give to Eglon.</p>


text:
<p>When he had arrived, he blew a trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went down with him from the hill country, and he went before them- </p><p>I suggested on :19 and :26 that Ehud was pretty much alone in his high level of devotion to Yahweh. But although the other Israelites were spiritually weak, they still had some potential strength; and Ehud's example inspired them to come forward for the Lord. If [like Elijah] he had despised them for their unspirituality, then they would not have rallied to him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>There is no record of Ehud telling the Israelites that he had slain Eglon. He urges them to follow him- "he went before them"- to attack the Moabites. Clearly his single handed act of faith inspired him to further faith, and somehow his confidence in victory inspired Israel.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them Follow me, for Yahweh has delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. They followed him and took the fords of the Jordan opposite the Moabites and didn’t allow any man to pass over- </p><p>I suggest that Eglon was based at "the city of palms" which he had made his headquartes on the western side of Jordan. Now he had been slain, the Moabites wanted to flee back over the Jordan to Moab. Ehud guessed this would happen, and so took the fords of Jordan. "Opposite the Moabites" would then mean "before the Moabites arrived":&nbsp;</p><p>Ehud was a man whose right hand was closed or restricted. But he had assassinated Eglon with his left hand. And so he urges Israel that their "hand" too can prevail, and :30 confirms this by saying that Moab was subdued under the hand of Israel. If the deformed hand of Ehud could do what he did, so could the weak hand of Israel. And we are also to be inspired by the victories of those who one way or another are limited in their right hand. We love watching handicapped people achieving great things... and should be inspired that we too can arise above our own handicaps. Ehud's victory was intended to be the inspiration for Israel's. Thus the fatness of Eglon is repeated in :29, where the 10,000 Moabites slain were all 'fat' or strong (Heb.). Above all, the Lord's victory as a man of our nature is to inspire us to likewise overcome.</p>


text:
<p>They struck down about ten thousand Moabite men at that time, every strong man and every man of valour, and none escaped- </p><p>See on :17. The word for "thousand", especially when used in a military context, doesn't necessarily refer to a literal 1,000. Rather can it mean some kind of military subdivision.</p>


text:
<p>So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. The land had rest for eighty years- </p><p>The nations in the land being "subdued" was the outcome of Israel being obedient to the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). We read this word "subdued" used of how the land was at times subdued before Israel (<a href='B:70 3:30'>Jdg 3:30</a>; <a href='B:70 4:23'>Jdg 4:23</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a>; <a href='B:70 11:33'>Jdg 11:33</a>). But each time it is clear that the people generally were not obedient to the covenant. One faithful leader was, and the results of his faithfulness were counted to the people. This is what happened with the Lord's death leading to righteousness being imputed to us.</p>


text:
<p>After him came Shamgar the son of Anath, who killed six hundred Philistine men with an ox goad, and he also saved Israel-</p><p>Anath is clearly a reference to Anat, the god of warriors. He was named according to a belief that he as a warrior would have Anat supporting him. But again we see, as with Jael and Gideon, how being surrounded by a background and culture of spiritual error and weakness didn't preclude people from rising above it. And so it is today. 

Some pointings of the Hebrew in Jud. 3:31 have Shamgar killing 600 Philistines with an ox goad or "mattock" [as LXX]- using whatever came to hand in workaday life. Likewise Samson killing 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass (Jud. 15:14,15). Likewise Jael  with her [wooden] tent peg and mallet.
The Hebrew phrase "attack... and save" is used in <a href='B:90 23:2'>1Sa 23:2</a> when David is uncertain about whether to attack the Philistines. David is being pointed back by this allusion to the zeal of Shamgar the son of Anath, 'the answer'. The answer to David’s question was in Shamgar. David was spiritually and mentally exhausted at this time, and God’s way forward for him at this time was to get up and be proactive for others. That is not always the right answer for us in our low moments, but when it is, we will be directed to it by God, perhaps through allusion to Biblical characters.</p><p>Samson's victory at Lehi may have inspired Shammah to slay the Philistines at the same place, years later (<a href='B:100 23:11'>2Sa 23:11</a>; AV "into a troop" is Heb. "Lehi"). And yet Samson's victory with a donkey jawbone would have been inspired by Shamgar's victory with an ox goad (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>). This is how the body of Christ should function; one spiritual victory inspiring another.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, when Ehud was dead- </p><p>This is the intentionally repeated cycle of all the historical records, both of the judges and kings. Israel's apparent loyalty to Yahweh was only seen at the time of strong individual reformist leaders. Immediately the leader died, they returned to unashamed idolatry. Clearly the message is that no matter what strong leadership there may be amongst God’s people, or what truly spiritual ethos and culture is inculcated by them- the hearts of individuals can still be untouched by it. And so without that culture, if the church closes or the individual moves away geographically or cannot attend due to health issues, or the leader dies... the commitment of the individual will be shown to have been meaningless. We must ask ourselves how our faith would really be, if we were taken away from the Godly influences and cultures in our lives. If individual believers were forcibly removed from their churches and spiritual networks- would their faith stand? This is why we must continue our appeal for personal Bible reading, indeed Bible study, and serious personal prayer and witnessing.</p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>). But another refrain in Judges is that every man did what was right in his own eyes- but what is right in our own eyes, following our own heart, is usually not what is right in God's eyes.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan who reigned in Hazor- Josh. 11 speaks of Joshua totally destroying Hazor so that no Canaanite remained there. But clearly the site had been re-taken and populated again. Just as happens with the victories of Joshua-Jesus against everything that might be a barrier to our inheritance of the Kingdom. Joshua's destruction of "Jabin" is understandable once we perceive that "Jabin" was not a personal name but a title, like 'Pharaoh'. Yahweh sold them, but the record often says that they sold or prostituted themselves to the idols of the nations. He will confirm men in the path they wish to go.</p><p>The record of Deborah and Barak's victory over "Jabin king of Canaan" is shot through with connections with other passages which are clearly latter day prophecies, e.g. Psalms 83, Ezekiel 38:&nbsp;&nbsp; There is also a very deliberate series of allusions in their song of victory to Israel's exodus from Egypt and the destruction of Pharaoh's army - which is also prophetic of Israel's future deliverance from her neighbouring oppressors by the Lord's return:&nbsp;Other expositors have shown the links between the song of Deborah and Barak and Psalms 68, which is clearly prophetic of Christ's work of deliverance both on the cross and in the final deliverance of Israel from the forces of evil.</p><p>"Jabin" meaning "man of great understanding" may suggest that he was the intellectual think-tank behind the confederacy, whose ideology was operationalized by a capable, well resourced, military leader (Sisera). The motivation for the coming attack on Israel must be ideological as well as just "to take a great spoil":&nbsp;However, the words of Sisera's mother imply that he (and she!) personally was motivated by a desire for the riches of the Israelites:&nbsp; "Have they not divided the prey... of divers colours of needlework... meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?" (<a href='B:70 5:30'>Jdg 5:30</a>). Such total confidence in victory is yet to be seen in a Middle East scarred with the memories of Israel's&nbsp;victories over the last decades.</p><p>The captain of whose army was Sisera who lived in Harosheth of the Gentiles- </p><p>This presents an identical scenario to Sennacherib king of Assyria having Rabshakeh as his field commander during his attack on Jerusalem, which beyond doubt was a major type of Israel's latter day invasion outlined in passages like Ezekiel 38 and Psalms 83.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites cried to Yahweh, for he had nine hundred iron chariots, and for twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel- </p><p>"Oppress" is the word used of how Israel were oppressed in Egypt (<a href='B:20 3:9'>Exo 3:9</a>). But the intention, as with Israel's latter day oppression, is that it would lead them to cry out for Yahweh's salvation, 'Jesus': "For they will cry to Yahweh because of oppressors, and He will send them a saviour and a defender, and He will deliver them" (<a href='B:290 19:20'>Isa 19:20</a> s:w:). All the judges were therefore types of the ultimate deliverance of Israel by the Lord Jesus in the last days.</p><p>The fearful implications of "chariots of iron" [probably wooden chariots with iron scythes on the wheels] is hard for us to fully appreciate. "The children of Joseph said... the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron" (<a href='B:60 17:16'>Jos 17:16</a>), as if that were a totally understandable reason for their unwillingness to even challenge the Canaanites;&nbsp; whilst some years later Saul and Jonathan were the only Israelites to have iron weapons, thanks to the Philistines' monopoly over it (<a href='B:90 13:19-22'>1Sa 13:19-22</a>). Possession of 900 "chariots of iron" was therefore like having some super-weapon into whose paradigm no other armaments could enter:&nbsp; This may have its latter day equivalent during the coming period of Israel's total domination by her neighbours. See on :15. The scythes on the wheels were specifically intended to destroy foot soldiers on flat ground. Yet Barak charged down Tabor onto the flat ground, his mean at his "feet", as foot soldiers, with no shield nor spear [according to Jud. 5], to engage with these chariots. This was in total faith. And his 'coming down' Tabor matches Yahweh's 'coming down' in victory. </p>


text:
<p>Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, judged Israel at that time- </p><p>"Deborah" is usually interpreted as meaning 'bee', but clearly it is a form of the common Hebrew word for 'word' or 'saying', debar. The prophetess was a woman of the word, and as with many personal names, she was named after her life's work- just as Anglo Saxons carry the name carpenter, smith, buckler, joiner etc. She "judged Israel" perhaps in the sense of giving them judgments from God’s word. A judge was a deliverer, and being a judge was being a deliverer (Jud. 2:16; 3:10). She is not recorded as having delivered Israel and so we assume her 'judging' Israel was in teaching them the law, and thereby resolving disputes. Doing what the Levites were intended to do, but clearly didn't do- as we see from the accounts of Levites in Jud. 17-21. Judges typically received a commission or were filled with the Spirit; but we don't read of that with Deborah. Most of the judges are described as having been raised up by Yahweh to save  Israel (Jud. 3:9,15; 6:14; 10:14,15; 13:5); and they were empowered to do so by Yahweh’s spirit (Jud. 3:10,28; 6:16,34; 7:22; 8:3; 11:29,32; 13:25; 14:19; 15:14; 16:20). The judges "save" Israel; but that term is never used about Deborah (cp. Jud. 2:16; 3:9,15,31; 6:14,15; 8:22; 10:1; 13:5). None of these things are ever stated of Deborah. This sets us up to be somewhat uneasy about her from the start; and we will see that she continually reflects pride. She is not later listed as a judge in 1 Sam. 12:9-11 LXX, but Barak is; and Barak is the one noted by name for his faith in Heb. 11:32.</p>


text:
<p>She lived under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came up to her for judgment-</p><p>Presumably this refers just to those Israelites who wanted to hear the judgments of God’s word. She laments in <a href='B:70 5:10'>Jdg 5:10</a> LXX that she was largely ignored, and she rebukes those who ignored her prophetic words and had been unwilling to assist in the battle: "Ye that sit on the judgment-seat, and walk by the roads of them that sit in judgment by the way". It was Deborah who sat by the roadside giving judgment from God’s word, and who was largely ignored</p><p>Note the parallel between an Angel sitting under an oak and a prophetess sitting under an oak (<a href='B:70 4:5'>Jdg 4:5</a>; <a href='B:70 6:11'>Jdg 6:11</a>). In <a href='B:300 23:18'>Jer 23:18</a>; <a href='B:300 23:22'>Jer 23:22</a> we find prophets standing in the “council of the Lord” (RV) to receive His word; and yet this sounds very much like Angels standing in the court of Heaven to receive God’s word of command. “The God of the spirits [Angels] of the prophets sent his Angel” to the prophet John (<a href='B:730 22:6'>Rev 22:6</a> RV); implying that as God had sent His Angel-Spirits to inspire the prophets, so now He did to John. <a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a>; <a href='B:230 147:18'>Psa 147:18</a> speak of the sending out of God’s word to melt snow and send rain; this must surely refer to the Angels being sent out from the court of Heaven to do these things. The way the “watcher and holy one” came down from Heaven is paralleled with the word of Divine command likewise coming down from Heaven (<a href='B:340 4:23'>Dan 4:23</a>; <a href='B:340 4:31'>Dan 4:31</a>). The universe is not just ticking away on clockwork; the Angels are actively being sent out from Heaven to perform what may appear the most mundane and repetitious of things. Thus God sends out His Angels; He sends out His word; and He also sent out His prophets (Haggai- <a href='B:440 1:12'>Hag 1:12</a>; Ezekiel- <a href='B:330 3:5-6'>Eze 3:5-6</a>). God rose up and sent out His prophets (<a href='B:120 17:13'>2Ki 17:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a> and many others). He is described as doing this because those prophets likewise identified with the word (as Deborah- see on :4) and became part of their own message. </p><p>The geography is significant. Deborah lived in the south, and apparently had little ability to motivate many of the people around her, according to her lament in Judges 5. She sends a message to a man in the far north of Israel, telling him to rally 10,000 men and go and fight a far superior enemy. That Barak responds to this message, and from a woman, sent from a distance, is commendable. It was a great act of faith, even if his faith wasn't as total as it might have been, and reveals his huge respect for Deborah, 'woman of the word / debar'. </p>


text:
<p>She sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh Naphtali and said to him- </p><p>'The holy place of Naphtali' is an example of the paganic place names still being used. Barak is being called to leave all that and go and work for Yahweh in His strength. "Barak", 'lightning', is the word used to describe Yahweh's miraculous manifestation through lightnings in the saving of His people (s:w. <a href='B:50 32:41'>Deu 32:41</a>; <a href='B:100 22:15'>2Sa 22:15</a>), and He will use them again in the last days when He repeats these ancient victories over Israel's enemies (s:w. <a href='B:420 3:11'>Hab 3:11</a>; <a href='B:450 9:14'>Zec 9:14</a>). But Barak was slow and nervous to live up to the potential victory which was implicit in his name; and that was the tragedy of Israel's history at the conquest. And it is the abiding tragedy of so much spiritual history.</p><p>Hasn’t Yahweh, the God of Israel, commanded-</p><p>This could imply he had received the prophetic word to go into battle, but had not responded. <a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a> LXX says that "A revelation was made in Israel when the people were made willing", referring to the specific prophetic word given to Deborah here in <a href='B:70 4:6-7'>Jdg 4:6-7</a> that victory was possible- if the people were willing. Which Barak wasn't, completely.</p><p>‘Go to Mount Tabor and take with you ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and Zebulun?- </p><p>"Mount Tabor... the river Kishon (<a href='B:70 4:6-7'>Jdg 4:6-7</a>) is near the valley of Jezreel - Armageddon:&nbsp;Hence <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a> speaks of "the waters of Megiddo", and "men of... Naphtali... and... of Zebulun" from those same areas (4:6) were used to win the victory. "Take with you", AV "draw toward", is s:w. :7 for how God would likewise draw the enemy toward them. The two sides were to be drawn together by God in conflict. </p><p>This records the call to arms as only for Naphtali and Zebulon. But the other tribes are criticized in Jud. 5 for not entering into the spirit of the event. The need is the call, and no legalistic arguments can stop that call. The calling of 10000 men of Naphtali and Zebulon to Mount Tabor by Barak and Deborah surely was some fulfilment of the otherwise enigmatic Dt. 33:19: "They shall call the peoples to the mountain. There they will offer sacrifices of righteousness, for they shall draw out the abundance of the seas". This prophecy has as context "the ten thousands of Ephraim; they are the thousands of Manasseh" (Dt. 33:17). The impression is given there that they would offer sacrifice there on "the mountain" and share the spoil of "the seas" [nations], and possibly this happened as Deborah sung the song of Jud. 5. The people of Ephraim and Manasseh are first in the list mentioned in Jud. 5 as those who supported the thousands of Zebulon and Naphtali, and who assembled to the mountain of Tabor. Asher and Dan are criticized in Jud. 5 for not assembling to Tabor because they were too concerned with their business in their ports on the coast. But Dt. 33:19 LXX promises blessing to Zebulon and Naphtali from the coast: "For the wealth of the sea shall suckle thee, and so shall the marts of them that dwell by the sea-coast". </p>


text:
<p>I will draw to you, to the river Kishon- </p><p>This 'drawing' points forward to Gog, the chief (military?) prince of Meshech and Tubal (parts of Assyria?), being drawn into Israel with hooks in his jaws (<a href='B:330 38:4'>Eze 38:4</a>; <a href='B:330 38:8'>Eze 38:8</a>). The Kishon is little more than a muddy trench. But God uses the little things, and made it swell and flash flood the plain so that the chariots and horses, Sisera’s super weapon, became useless. </p><p>Sisera the captain of Jabin’s army with his chariots and his multitude, and I will deliver him into your hand’- </p><p>The apparently insuperable strength of Sisera is recognized, but within that recognition there is the encouragement that God would deliver it all into the hand of Barak. He disbelieved this, and so the victory was given into the hand of a woman. Thus God set up a potential which a man didn’t realize, and in this case, He transferred it into the hands of another (:9).</p>


text:
<p>Barak said to her, If you will go with me then I will go, but if you will not go with me I will not go- </p><p>If Yahweh had commanded him (:6), then Yahweh would be with him. But just as Israel wanted a human king rather than Yahweh, so Barak wanted a human manifestation of God to be with him. Just as Asa is recorded as serving God just as well as David, when actually this wasn't the case; but God counted him as righteous (<a href='B:110 15:11'>1Ki 15:11</a>), so the incomplete faith of men like Baruch was counted as full faith by later inspiration (<a href='B:70 4:8-9'>Jdg 4:8-9</a> cp. <a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>). Sometimes the purges of idolatry by the kings is described in undoubtedly exaggerated language- such was God’s joy that at least something was being done? Barak is listed in Heb. 11:32 as one of "those who through faith subdued kingdoms... from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, turned to flight armies of aliens". As with Samson, we ponder whether the record presents his weak side. But God saw the faith that was also within him, and noted that for us all to see in Hebrews 11. But "I will not go..." could be read as a defiant refusal of the Divine call ["go to mount Tabor", :6; "Arise Barak and lead away captives", Jud. 5:12] unless Deborah 'goes' with him. Yahweh has gone out before him, but still he refuses to 'go' unless Deborah 'goes' with him. Many of the calling narratives feature this weakness of response to the call to "go". Moses objects "Who am I that I should go... they will not believe me" (Ex. 3:11; 4:1). Jeremiah and Ezekiel both protest their inadequacy to "go". Gideon opines that his clan is the smallest in Manasseh and he isn't the right man (Jud. 6:15); Saul likewise objects that he is from a poor family and the smallest tribe (1 Sam. 9:15). We too are called, for the language of calling is applied to us all in the New Testament. Not only to the Kingdom, but to "go" into all the world around us with the Gospel. And our responses likewise will be faltering. We as men balk at God's call. Clearly enough, from all these examples of Old Testament men doing so.
We can compare Barak's desire for Deborah the prophetess to "go with" him with Moses, Aaron and Hur praying for Israel on a hill, whilst Joshua down below was fighting the battle. Or the prophet Elisha being present during battles. Barak on one level believed God's word through Deborah, because he does muster 10000 men for an apparently suicidal encounter with Sisera. But like so many of us, he still wanted the physical embodiment of that word to be with him visibly.
LXX adds: "For I know not the day on which the Lord prospers his messenger / Angel with me". We have here another allusion to Angelic involvement in the victory, which we have noted elsewhere and on Jud. 5:23. But at this point, Barak is unsure whether this will happen. And yet he is counted in Heb. 11:32 as a man of faith. This not knowing is then alluded to in :9 LXX "but know that thy honour shall not attend...". See on :14.
</p>


text:
<p>She said, I will surely go with you; nevertheless the journey that you take will not be for your honour, for Yahweh will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh- </p><p>The potential was that the enemy was to be sold into Barak's hands (:7). But Barak didn’t fully believe that, and so the potential was applied to another. This is still how God works.</p><p>This opens up the question of whether God automatically reassigns a task and possibility to another; or whether if we let the ball drop, His intention will not be realized. We think of Mordecai's comment to Esther in Esther 4:14 [see commentary there] that if she doesn't speak up for the Jews, deliverance will come from another quarter. And yet the original is unclear- it could equally be saying "And shall deliverance come from another quarter?". As if it might not. The lack of clarity is intentional. We are to appreciate the degree to which we matter. The Lord's parables speak of Him giving His wealth to His servants to trade with. How far His work prospers is over to them; for He has 'gone into a far country', He is far away in the sense that He has delegated to us authority to do His work on His behalf, and will review that work at His return.  To have your life's mission done by a woman, to be shown to have been less brave than a woman, and to be presented as having been spiritually inferior to a woman... all this would have been shameful and humbling to Barak. But he is the one mentioned by name in Hebrews 11, and not Deborah nor Jael. His humiliation may well have developed his faith. Or perhaps the women were brave but without the faith that he had, for people can be very brave for reasons other than faith in God. And he was humbled whereas Deborah was proud. We note that Barak is listed as judge in 1 Sam. 12:11 rather than Deborah: "Yahweh sent Jerubbaal and Barak and Jephthah and Samuel and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies". I note on Jud. 5:7 ["The rulers ceased to rule in Israel. They ceased until I, Deborah, arose; until I arose, a mother in Israel"] that Deborah's victory song hints at excessive pride in herself; and perhaps that is why the apparently weaker Barak is seen by God as the greater hero than Deborah. Deborah's statement that Yahweh would "sell Sisera into the hand of a woman" may indeed have been a prophetic word of Jael's murder of Sisera. But we can also accept the possibility that the "woman" Deborah had in view was herself. And her prophetic word was fulfilled through another woman, not herself as she perhaps imagined.
"Deborah arose" is to be connected with how the Divine word was "Arise, Barak, and lead away your captives" (Jud. 5:12). Barak didn't make this response. Deborah did it for him. And yet he is counted as a man of faith (Heb. 11:32). 
"I will surely go with you" sounds like Yahweh's assurance to a nervous Joshua (Josh. 1:9) and Israel (Dt. 1:30; 20:4). But Deborah rather arrogantly puts these words in her own mouth to the nervous Barak, facing the same essential enemies as Joshua.
</p>


text:
<p>Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali together to Kedesh and he went with ten thousand men following him; and Deborah went with him- </p><p><a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a> seems to imply that Barak did this in faith, although not to the ideal level possible for him. Heb. "Ten thousand men at his feet", perhaps meaning 'Ten thousand footmen'. He had no chariots; his army was all composed of infantry, facing a vast multitude with 900 chariots of iron. We note the contrast in :13 between these foot soldiers, and the chariots of iron- whose iron scythes were specifically designed to kill foot soldiers: "Barak summoned Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up by foot with ten thousand men behind him” (4:10)... “Sisera summoned all his chariots, nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the troops who were with him” (4:13).</p>


text:
<p>Now Heber the Kenite had separated himself from the Kenites, from the children of Hobab the brother-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent by the oak in Zaanannim which is by Kedesh-</p><p>Kedesh, 'holy place', was an example of the pagan names still being used by the Israelites. Likewise Zaanannim is LXX "the oak of the covetous ones", and we recall the association of oaks with idolatry. Again we are getting the impression of strength coming out of surrounding spiritual weakness. Heber's separation from the Kenites is here not presented in a very positive light. See on :17. Probably it was motivated by personal betterment; hence he chose to live by LXX  "the oak of the covetous ones". Jael's faithfulness to Israel is the more remarkable; because her family were on the side of Sisera, and had fallen out with the Israelites. Previously, the Kenites had been part of Israel: “the descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up with the people of Judah from the city of palms into the wilderness of Judah, which lies in the Negeb near Arad, and they went and settled with the people” (Jud. 1:16). But Heber at least had now fallen out with Israel, seeing he was in alliance with Jabin; yet clearly his wife had retained her personal faith in Yahweh despite the family politics around her. She was in any case distantly related not to Moses directly, but to Moses' Gentile wife. But clearly she had faith in Israel's God, or else she wouldn't have done the hugely counter cultural thing that she did, reversing the hospitality code and going against her husband and clan to slay their ally Sisera. She acted totally alone to do so, and showed thereby her faith and personal relationship with Yahweh.
The “Oak in Zaanannim” next to Kedesh, 'the holy place', is surely a sign of idolatry, and stands in contrast to Yahweh's woman Deborah prophesying His word beneath “the palm tree of Deborah” (:5). Heber had gone away from Yahweh; yet within his camp, his wife was strongly faithful to Yahweh. "Kenite" is literally, one from Cain; and is the word for "spear" (s.w. 2 Sam. 21:16). Israel won their victory without sword or spear, as Deborah will later sing. Even from the family like Cain, there was at least one faithful woman. Here we see the power of a new creation, of how our background and surrounding environment need not railroad us into unspirituality.
</p>


text:
<p>They told Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam had gone up to Mount Tabor- </p><p>The battle plans seemed all the wrong strategy in human terms. The dreaded chariots were at full advantage on the flat land around the Kishon. Barak took his men up into the mountain, which was logical, as chariots couldn't be used there. But then they are told by God to come down from mount Tabor and fight with the chariots (:14). As with the capture of Jericho, God’s strategy is seen as unwise humanly. But this is the 'foolishness of the thing preached' which Paul says confounds the might of this world:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Sisera gathered together all his chariots, nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people who were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles to the river Kishon- </p><p>This 'gathering together' is spoken of in latter-day passages - <a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a> and <a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a>. These previous invasions which typify those of the future, also mention this 'gathering together': Sisera's forces did this (<a href='B:70 4:13'>Jdg 4:13</a>), as did those of Ammon (<a href='B:130 19:7'>1Ch 19:7</a>), the Amorites (<a href='B:70 11:20'>Jdg 11:20</a>), the local powers with Assyria in Hezekiah's time (<a href='B:400 4:11'>Mic 4:11</a>), Gog's forces (<a href='B:330 38:7'>Eze 38:7</a>), the Arab-Canaanite tribes (<a href='B:10 34:30'>Gen 34:30</a>) and especially the Philistines (<a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a>; <a href='B:90 13:11'>1Sa 13:11</a>; <a href='B:90 17:1'>1Sa 17:1</a>; <a href='B:90 25:1'>1Sa 25:1</a>; <a href='B:90 28:1'>1Sa 28:1</a>; <a href='B:90 29:1'>1Sa 29:1</a>; <a href='B:100 23:11'>2Sa 23:11</a>). This is quite some emphasis. Thus while we can expect to see greater potential Arab unity developing around the Israel issue and perhaps a common allegiance to charismatic 'Nebuchadnezzar' figure for a brief period, their complete meeting of minds will not be until the final push against Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>Deborah said to Barak, Go, for this is the day in which Yahweh has delivered Sisera into your hand- </p><p>"This is the day" would connect with Barak's complaint in :9 LXX: "I know not the Day in which God will send his angel to give me prosperity: come with we that you may direct me in this respect”. She did come with him, and now tells him the precise time in which he was to make the attack: "This is the day".  </p><p>But as explained on :7,9, Yahweh's plan was indeed that ideally Sisera would be delivered into Barak's hand. But his faith wasn't up to it, so the enemy was to be delivered into a woman's hand. But it seems Deborah, as a prophet, knew that it was still potentially possible for Barak to have the victory through the enemy being delivered into his hands.</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn’t realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p><p>Hasn’t Yahweh gone out before you? So Barak went down from Mount Tabor and ten thousand men after him-</p><p>See on :12. To come down from mount Tabor to where the chariots could be used was the very opposite of good strategy. Deborah in <a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a> quotes the words of <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a> concerning the Angel going before Israel to drive out the nations to Barak, to inspire him with courage in fighting them : "Yahweh your God is He who goes over before you as a devouring fire. He will destroy them and He will bring them down before you; so you shall drive them out and make them perish quickly". . She recognized that the work the Angels did when they went out many years ago to do all the groundwork necessary for Israel to destroy all the tribes of Canaan was done for all time. It was not too late to make use of that work by making a human endeavour in faith. So with us, the smaller objectives in our lives as well as our main goal of reaching the Kingdom have all been made possible through the work of Christ and the Angels in the past. Deborah's recognition of this is shown in her song- <a href='B:70 5:20'>Jdg 5:20</a>: "They (the Angels) fought from Heaven; the stars (Biblical imagery for Angels) in their courses fought against Sisera". In passing, note that the Hebrew for 'courses' is almost identical with that for 'ladder' in the account of Jacob's vision of a ladder of Angels. Strong specifically defines it as meaning 'staircase'. See on <a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a>.</p><p>Other implications that a repentant Israel will be used to win this great victory, are to be found in the mention of "the river Kishon" and "Harosheth", which was near Mount Carmel:&nbsp;These places feature in the record of Elijah's great appeal to Israel; the apostate element among them were slain at the Kishon (<a href='B:110 18:40'>1Ki 18:40</a>), as the faithless in Israel will be in the last days:&nbsp;&nbsp;The typical inference here in Judges that the invader will be destroyed at this same place would suggest that they will share in the judgments that come upon God’s enemies, and therefore perish in the same geographical location:&nbsp;&nbsp; Yet it was also in this same place that Israel repented, finally responding to Elijah's ministry. The work of the Elijah prophet of the last days will likewise culminate in a spiritually revived Israel defeating their enemies.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the sword before Barak, and Sisera got down from his chariot and fled away on foot- </p><p>This stress on chariots, both in the record of the attack and of God’s defeat of them, takes the mind back to the Egyptian chariots which pursued Israel and were destroyed in the Red Sea. "The Lord discomfited / routed Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host" (<a href='B:70 4:15'>Jdg 4:15</a>) recalls how God "troubled (same Hebrew word translated routed / discomfited) the host of the Egyptians, and took off their chariot wheels... so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee... and the Egyptians fled" (on foot, <a href='B:20 14:24-27'>Exo 14:24-27</a>), just as Sisera "lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet" (<a href='B:70 4:15'>Jdg 4:15</a>), due to the mud produced by the hail (<a href='B:230 83:9'>Psa 83:9</a>).</p></p>Deborah will later exalt that Israel had no shield nor spear (Jud. 5:8). The "sword" here may therefore refer to Yahweh doing this rout with His sword.</p>


text:
<p>But Barak pursued the chariots and the army to Harosheth of the Gentiles, and all the army of Sisera fell by the sword; there was not a man left- </p><p>"There was not a man left" matches the comment concerning the Egyptians, that "there remained not so much as one of them" (<a href='B:20 14:28'>Exo 14:28</a>). We find the essence of the Red Sea deliverance repeated in life after life, situation after situation, in Israel's history. This happens to the extent that some of the Psalms can speak as if we were there present; and Paul stresses how that passage through water remains a type of the baptism of every believer to this day (<a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a>). Just as Yahweh confounded Israel's enemies at the Red Sea (<a href='B:20 14:24-25'>Exo 14:24-25</a>), so He did in Deborah's victory over Sisera (<a href='B:70 4:15'>Jdg 4:15</a>); and likewise "not one was left". </p><p>"Not a man left" may allude to how Canaanites were to be totally destroyed as herem to Yahweh, devoted as a burnt offering in totality. One of many examples in Dt. 7:2: “When the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them". See too Dt. 7:16,17,24; 9:1,3; 11:23; 33:27 etc.</p>


text:
<p>However Sisera fled away on foot to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite- </p><p>The wives of Bedouin chiefs have their own tent.</p><p>For there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite-</p><p>Jabin / Hazor is listed in Joshua 11 as one of the kings overcome by Joshua earlier, and now Heber has made peace with Hazor. LXX adds "...the Kenite his friend", pointing up Jael's bravery in murdering the friend of her husband under the guise of friendly hospitality. For a wife was expected to uphold the political alliances of her husband. This would suggest Heber had moved away from the things of God and was now in league with Jabin, rather than maintaining the connection between the Kenites and Israel. We recall that Moses' wife was a Kenite. See on :11. Again we are getting the impression of strength coming out of surrounding spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p>Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; don’t be afraid. He came in to her into the tent and she covered him with a rug- </p><p>LXX "Hid him behind&nbsp; the curtain". Here again, as with Rahab, Ehud and the Gibeonites, we have deception used as an expression of faith. "The curtain" would have been the curtain which separated her sleeping space from the rest of the tent. To invite another man into her tent and invite him into her personal sleeping space was unheard of. She was very brave to do this, and was desperately thinking outside the box of her surrounding culture and all the expectations upon her as Heber's wife. Because she wanted to rise to the moment and carpe diem for the Lord's work. Sisera was surely heading towards the tent of the male head of the family, Heber. But Jael goes out to meet him and urges him to turn in to her tent. Men never entered the tent of another man's wife; even Amnon had to ask his father's permission for his half sister to come into his bedroom. So quite possibly he perceived that Barak was hot on his heels chasing him, and there was not a moment to be lost. Hence he tells her to stand at the tent door and inform any man looking for him that there is no man in her tent. And this would explain the violation of custom in entering the personal tent of the wife of a married man. Sisera is expecting pursuit and expecting tents to be entered in search of him. All the examples of the hospitality culture include footwashing (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; Jud. 19:21). She doesn't do this because time is of the essence- Barak is hot on the heels of Sisera.  All this highlights Jael's bravery and quick thinking. Women lived in separate tents to their husbands, often because the husband had more than one wife. We recall Laban searching the tents of Jacob and also the tents of his wives (Gen. 31:33).
“Turn in, my lord, turn in to me" is the language of the hospitality culture. It repeats the words of Lot to the Angels in Gen. 19:2: "My lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house”. And yet she bravely subverts and goes against that hospitality culture; instead of protecting her guest with her life, she kills him. And thus stands as an example of rejecting our surrounding culture and even subverting it, for the sake of the Lord's work. And so it is used in Prov. 9:15,16; 7:5-23). Indeed, for a married woman to invite a male in to her tent and cover him with a blanket / invite him beyond the curtain into her sleeping space... was most definitely seen as a very forward thing to do. Whilst I fail to see solid evidence that they had a sexual encounter, it does seem to me that she was giving him the come on... and that helped him to make that split second decision to go into her tent for refuge. When her plan was to kill him. We note too that the invitation from a woman to turn in to her personally [Lot invites his guests to turn in to his house] could be read as having a hint of sexual invitation. Hospitality culture always involved the male head of family making the offer to the visitor. But Heber was a friend of Sisera; and he was not consulted. Jael invites the guest- and that was unheard of in their hospitality culture. 
</p>


text:
<p>He said to her, Please give me a little water to drink for I am thirsty. She opened a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him- </p><p>The cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed close in here upon the two people in the tent. She gives him more than he asks, not water but milk, and butter (<a href='B:70 5:25'>Jdg 5:25</a>), perhaps thinking that dairy products would make him more sleepy. She did what she did on the spur of the moment, for she was surely not expecting Sisera to come stumbling in to her tent. Although she had her own tent, there is no evidence that the other people in the encampment, including her husband, agreed with her actions. Like Ehud, she acted completely alone, quite against the expectations of her surrounding family and environment. And for all time we have an example of a woman far from the battle front, "a woman of the tents" (Jud. 5), in an unspiritual environment, surrounded by children and domestic issues, suddenly given a chance to do a major thing for God. And she rises to the call magnificently, grabbing what she had to hand [a tent peg] and using it.  The comment has been made that "Now as then the work of pitching tents fell to women among the Bedouin". The tools of her workaday life were transformed into God's instruments in her hand. Just as a delivery driver or hairdresser on a British council estate rises up to lead woman after woman to the saving Truth of Jesus Christ. 
As we see from Lot and the old man in Jud. 19 being willing to sacrifice their daughters for the sake of hospitality culture, the woman was bound by that culture of hospitality to have defended his life, even at the risk of her own. So what Jael did was powerfully and radically counter cultural. She thought well beyond the narrow confines of her social situation.
Deborah responds to a request for something to drink, gives milk and covers Sisera with a blanket. Possibly in her own bed. This is very much the image of a mother. I suggest this quietly subverts Deborah's proud claim to be a "mother in Israel", and Deborah's implication that the glory for killing Sisera would go to her as a true "mother in Israel". The glory goes to Jael, also presented as a mother figure, who was not in fact an Israelite.
</p>


text:
<p>He said to her, Stand at the door of the tent and when any man comes and asks you ‘Is there any man here?’ say ‘No’- </p><p>The theme of gender continues. She surely had children and other women in her tent. She was to speak of Sisera as if he were not even a man, but a woman. The whole story is a deconstruction of the male glorifying narrative of those times. And this was not purely for the sake of it, rather is it part of a wider theme that God works through the despised in order to achieve His greatest victories.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jael Heber’s wife took a tent peg and a hammer in her hand and went quietly to him and hammered the peg into his temples, and it pierced through into the ground- </p><p>"Heber's wife" is noted because what she was doing was so countercultural, against the will of her husband who was in league with Sisera. And the inspired record takes note of that. "Jael" can mean 'wild deer', and we note that "Naphtali [source of most of Barak's soldiers] is a hind [yaelah] let loose" (Gen. 49:21)- suggesting she was on the side of her husband's enemies. A sleeper cell, even perhaps of just one woman, within the tents of Israel's enemies. Just as so many of the Lord's people today.
We too easily assume that a nail was made of iron or some metal, as we are used to. But all archaeological evidence is that tent pegs were wooden. And so were hammers. Metal was at a premium. To kill a man with a wooden peg was an act of faith by Jael. The way he apparently rose up against her three times is thereby more understandable if the peg was only wooden. Ez. 15:3 is specific that a pin or nail (s.w.) was made out of wood. The word for nail is also rendered "stake" in Is. 33:20; 54:2. We note that some pointings of the Hebrew in Jud. 3:31 have Shamgar killing 600 Philistines with an ox goad or "mattock" [as LXX]- again, using whatever came to hand in workaday life. Likewise Samson killing 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass (Jud. 15:14,15).
"In her hand" is added, whilst obvious, to show the fulfilment of the prophecy that Sisera would be given into "the hand" of a woman (Jud. 4:9; 5:25,26). He ran to the encampment and was enticed by Jael's hospitality; but through that, Yahweh was putting him into Jael's hand. But if Jael had remained within the very narrow horizons of her tent life, if she had remained just a woman of her time and station... then the potential gift 'into her hand' wouldn't have happened.
This is clearly intended to be understood as the seed of the woman smiting the seed of the serpent in the head. Jael smiting off Sisera's head may be the basis of <a href='B:230 110:7'>Psa 110:7</a>: "therefore shall he lift up the head". It also connects with David cutting off Goliath's head in an encounter full of echoes of the latter-day conflict between Christ and Israel's enemies:&nbsp;In the same way as Israel then had to follow up David’s token victory, so they had to do the donkey- work in the wake of Sisera's death, and so they will also engage in a process of subduing the nations after Christ's initial dramatic victory at Armageddon - the landing of the stone upon the feet, the killing of Goliath, the nailing of Sisera's head. "The hand of the children of Israel prospered ('going, went and was hard', A:V. mg:), and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin" (<a href='B:70 4:24'>Jdg 4:24</a>) definitely speaks of a subsequent process of subjugation.</p><p>For he was in a deep sleep; so he died- </p><p>LXX "darkness fell upon him and he died". But the idea seems to be that he swooned, and then died. She didn’t kill him outright, according to Deborah's song of praise for Jael, he rose up and then fell down dead at her feet (<a href='B:70 5:27'>Jdg 5:27</a>). This makes Jael's bravery all the more commendable, especially in that her husband was in league with Jabin. Indeed Jud. 5:26,27 could suggest he sank down three times: "She sent her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen's mallet; she struck Sisera; she crushed his head; she shattered and pierced his temple. Between her feet he sank, he fell, he lay still; between her feet he sank, he fell; where he sank, there he fell—dead". She hammered the peg through his skull and into the ground [NIV “She drove the peg through his temple into the ground”], implying his head was on the ground. If she had first struck him while he was lying down asleep, covered with a blanket, then there would have been some cushion or mattress between his head and the ground. So it makes sense to understand she had a struggle with him, he fell to the ground [as in Jud. 5], and she at that point nailed his head into the ground [Jud. 4:21]. We can read with LXX "darkness fell upon him and he died" rather than that he was asleep. Or "he was in a deep sleep" [NEV] may mean he was stunned and unconscious when he fell the last time.</p>


text:
<p>As Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him and said to him, Come and I will show you the man whom you seek. He came to her and there lay Sisera, dead; and the tent peg was in his temples- </p><p>In <a href='B:70 5:15'>Jdg 5:15</a> LXX, Deborah comes over as in command in the field, sending Barak on foot to find Sisera: "And princes in Issachar were with Deborah and Barak, thus she sent Barak on his feet in the valleys into the portions of Reuben". We wonder whether Barak pursuing Sisera personally was because Barak wanted the glory of killing him. He would thereby have been disregarding Deborah's prophecy that "Yahweh will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman" (:9). Despite constantly being presented as  not being of the highest spiritual caliber, Barak is the one listed in Hebrews 11 as the man of faith. We aren't told how Barak felt as he saw Sisera's body in Jael's tent and realized the brave act she had performed. He would have been filled with deep respect for her. But also a deep sense, surely, of how foolish he had been to pursue the glory of killing Sisera himself. Naturally he would have remembered Deborah's words to him, and realized that he had wasted his effort in running after Sisera seeking to kill him. Just as so much of our human endeavour we suddenly realize to have been so misplaced. If we had been more sensitive to God's word, we'd have saved ourselves so much exertion.  </p>


text:
<p>So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the Israelites- </p><p>The nations in the land being "subdued" was the outcome of Israel being obedient to the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). We read this word "subdued" used of how the land was at times subdued before Israel (<a href='B:70 3:30'>Jdg 3:30</a>; <a href='B:70 4:23'>Jdg 4:23</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a>; <a href='B:70 11:33'>Jdg 11:33</a>). But each time it is clear that the people generally were not obedient to the covenant. One faithful leader was, and the results of his faithfulness were counted to the people. This is what happened with the Lord's death leading to righteousness being imputed to us.</p>


text:
<p>The hand of the Israelites prevailed more and more against Jabin the king of Canaan until they had destroyed him- </p><p>All this is but one of several hints that after Christ's latter day destruction of the military arm (cp. Sisera) of the enemies in the land of Israel, the campaign is then taken to the civil headquarters (represented by 'Babylon' in the Apocalypse?), typified here by Jabin.</p>


text:
<p>Then Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam sang this song- </p><p>It is clearly Deborah's song, and it is very critical of those in Israel who didn’t respond to her prophetic call to arms. And Barak would have ben humbled by the fact that women like Deborah and Jael had gotten the glory rather than himself. So the way he sings along with it is a sign of his humility, which meshed with his faith [although incomplete] which Paul notes in Hebrews 11.</p>


text:
<p>Because the leaders took the lead in Israel, because the people offered themselves willingly, blessed be Yahweh!</p><p>But the song will go on to lament that the leaders of Israel didn’t take the lead (:7 especially), and neither did Barak. But Deborah, a woman, took the lead and was the true leader. Elders can shut up, or open, the Kingdom to men. They watch “in behalf of” the souls of the ecclesia (<a href='B:650 13:7'>Heb 13:7</a> RV). Their very examples can influence the flock positively or negatively- for “like priest like people” is a Biblical idea. When the leaders “offered themselves willingly”, so did the people (<a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a>; <a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a>). LXX "A revelation was made in Israel when the people were made willing" would refer to the specific prophetic word given to Deborah in <a href='B:70 4:6-7'>Jdg 4:6-7</a> that victory was possible- if the people were willing. Which Barak wasn't, completely.</p><p>"The people offered themselves willingly" to Deborah perhaps forms the basis for the description of Christ's people in the last days, being "willing in the day of your power" (<a href='B:230 110:2'>Psa 110:2</a>).</p><p>Deborah praises God for the freewill of His warriors, as in :9; as if it was a gift from Him. The fact she praises God and not them reflects how God still works in human freewill decisions. And therefore those who didn't come to Yahweh's "help", even though not invited, are condemned by Deborah. </p>


text:
<p>Hear, you kings! Give ear, you princes! I, even I, will sing to Yahweh. I will sing praise to Yahweh the God of Israel- </p><p>LXX "I will sing, it is I who will sing to the Lord, it is I, I will sing a psalm" emphasizes "I"; perhaps the song was sung specifically by Deborah, as she glorifies that she, a woman and despised prophetess who had to teach under a palm tree as she had no premises to do so, had had her prophetic word justified. Barak would then show his humility by singing along with her. "Hear, O ye kings;&nbsp; give ear, O ye princes" sounds like the appeal to the nations that goes out after Christ's victory (cp. <a href='B:230 2:10'>Psa 2:10</a>). But the kings and princes could simply refer to the leaders of Israel, whom effectively Deborah is rebuking later in the song (:7).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh, when You went forth out of Seir, when You marched out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled, the heavens poured. Yes, the clouds poured down water- </p><p>LXX "the heaven dropped dews". There was apparently a downpour of water from Heaven which led to the Kishon swelling and carrying away some of the enemy (:21). This is the language of Habakkuk 3, Psalms 68 and other prophecies of the last days. Deborah is feeling she has become, by default, another Moses; for the victorious march of Israel is like theirs from Sinai (:5), which she calls "Seir", alluding to <a href='B:50 33:2'>Deu 33:2</a>. She feels a similar theophany has occurred, along with the rainfall then experienced (<a href='B:230 68:8-9'>Psa 68:8-9</a>).</p><p>The language of storm and melting mountains (:5) clearly riffs on Baal, the storm god of Canaan. Yahweh is shown as superior to Baal- the god of the Canaanites, and the god adopted by His own people. It was the storm which gave Israel victory; and so Yahweh and not Baal is presented as the storm God.</p>


text:
<p>The mountains melted at the presence of Yahweh, even Sinai at the presence of Yahweh the God of Israel- </p><p>The mountains melted means that from the mountains flowed down streams.
Literally, "this is Sinai", as if Deborah was nodding towards mount Tabor as she sung. We might say, 'Sinai all over again'.
Heb:, as AV, "this Sinai", as if Deborah felt herself back there standing before Sinai witnessing the great theophany there, in that she has seen it before her eyes, as it were, in what God has now done in giving her victory against Sisera. This is the power of Biblical history. There is a living word which continues to speak to us; the historical victories of God are replicated, in essence, in our own experiences.</p>


text:
<p>In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were deserted, the travellers walked through byways- </p><p>The idea is that the situation in Jael's time is as it was in the days when Shamgar delivered Israel (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>). Whilst this describes the broken down infrastructure of the land, with people using byways because they feared being attacked on the main roads, there is the implication in LXX of spiritual weakness: "they deserted the ways... they went in crooked paths". And this may speak of the latter day Israel in a state of devastation and collapse, with highways unoccupied (cp. motorways wrecked by bombing). It's also possible they avoided the highways so as to avoid paying taxes to the Canaanites. Yahweh by contrast (:4) marched straight ahead and powerfully, and so did Barak and those marching in step with Him. Deborah's point seems to be that Shamgar's deliverance didn't change the fact that Israelites still feared to walk along the highways. But Deborah's deliverance had achieved that. She is comparing herself favourably to Shamgar, as if she is an even greater judge / deliverer. And yet later references to the judges mention Barak as a judge and not Deborah. Such comparisons again smack of pride.</p>


text:
<p>The rulers ceased to rule in Israel. They ceased until I, Deborah, arose; until I arose, a mother in Israel- </p><p>Rulers is LXX "the mighty men ceased". Deborah's song is really a lament at the failure of Israel's leadership, and Barak, who had also failed to provide this leadership when empowered to do so, was very humble to have sung this song with her (:1). She was a "mother in Israel", providing leadership in a family bereft of male headship- because none of the men provided it. "Ceased" can be rendered 'deserted'. Deborah is very critical of others in Israel, to point up her own exalted opinion of herself. Perhaps she alludes to how her namesake Deborah who was Jacob's nurse and was buried beneath an oak tree (Gen. 35:8). Quite possibly the palm tree under which she sat was that same tree. She was the mother of Jacob / Israel. Perhaps she calls herself a mother in Israel to compare herself with Sisera's mother (:28). We wonder if there isn't some pride here; which may explain our observation on Jud. 4:9 that it is the apparently weaker Barak who is seen by God as the greater hero than Deborah. Certainly :3 LXX has too many personal pronouns, as if it's all about her: "I will sing, it is I who will sing to the Lord, it is I, I will sing a psalm". And here again: "I Deborah arose, until I arose". Other examples of her pride are noted on :13,21,28. The imagery of "mother" suggests protection of children unto death. Deborah is presenting herself as the saviour of the children of Israel; but it was really Barak's faith [although it was imperfect] and huge bravery, coupled with that of Jael- rather than Deborah. She isn't recorded as doing much at all in the battle. </p>


text:
<p>They chose new gods, therefore war came to the gates- </p><p>Gentile nations didn’t change their gods; but God’s people did, ever seeking a little extra material benefit from some new religion; see on <a href='B:300 2:8'>Jer 2:8</a>; <a href='B:300 2:11'>Jer 2:11</a>. Israel are therefore likened in Hosea to a sexually addicted woman, ever seeking new partners. In this sense Israel were worse than the other nations, who only changed their gods when forced to by the military dominance of neighbours.</p><p>Was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?-</p><p>"Thousand" when used in a military context usually means some military subdivision rather than a literal 1,000. The idea may be that although they had shields and spears, none of the 40,000 in view got their weapons out in response to Deborah's prophetic call. The reference to 40000 unarmed men may be to Josh. 4:13, where Joshua had 40000 soldiers who went to fight against Jericho- and defeated Jericho without fighting, because God gave the victory. Deborah is perceiving the similarity. The allusion must surely be to Joshua's conquest of Jericho because Barak's force was of 10000 not 40000 (Jud. 4:6,10). </p>


text:
<p>My heart is with the governors of Israel, who offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless Yahweh!- </p><p>"Offered" can be translated 'responded'. LXX "You that are willing among the people, bless the Lord":&nbsp;Deborah now praises the few leaders who did respond to her prophetic call to arms. The Hebrew for "governors" can mean a law-giver or teacher, literally "an engraver of laws"; she may have in mind the faithful scribes, who supported her prophetic call to arms. Perhaps in the latter day context this speaks of a minority of faithful amongst latter day Israel, with God’s law engraved in their hearts as it was on stone previously (<a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a>):&nbsp;Remember that Elijah will be calling for a revival of true interest in the Mosaic law during &nbsp;his ministry, which may well coincide with Israel's period of downtreading (<a href='B:460 4:4-6'>Mal 4:4-6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Speak, you who ride on white donkeys, you who sit on rich carpets and you who walk by the way- </p><p>This seems a criticism of those in Israel who were not "willing" to assist in the battle. LXX "Ye that mount a she-ass at noon-day, ye that sit on the judgment-seat, and walk by the roads of them that sit in judgment by the way". It was Deborah who sat by the roadside giving judgment from God’s word, and who was largely ignored (<a href='B:70 4:5'>Jdg 4:5</a>). Or we can read this as saying that the wealthy and the poor, who walked rather than rode expensive donkeys, would unite in praising Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Far from the noise of archers, in the watering places, there they will recite the righteous acts of Yahweh, the righteous acts of His rule in Israel. Then the people of Yahweh went down to the gates- </p><p>The idea may be that those who didn’t respond to God’s command to fight Sisera would in the future, far from the noise of war, recite at the wells the great acts which Yahweh had wrought through women. And those who recited things at the watering places were largely women. We recall how women were found at wells in the lives of Abraham's servant, Jacob and Moses. In the latter day context, <a href='B:330 39:3'>Eze 39:3</a> stresses how Gog will rely on his archery to terrorize Israel in the last days: "I will smite your bow out of your left hand, and will cause your arrows to fall out of your right hand":&nbsp;Assyrian bas-reliefs frequently show them posing with their bows:&nbsp;The importance of archery in warfare can easily be overlooked by us, who tend to lump bows, arrows, swords and shields etc. together as obsolete weaponry. Yet the ability to strike from a distance without personal combat was a vital innovation:&nbsp;The highlighting of the fact that the enemies of Judges 4 and Gog of Ezekiel 38 both used archery suggests that this may have a latter day equivalent - which must surely be in the use of missile power? The vials of Revelation being poured out from the air onto the earth (land - of Israel) may also indicate that latter day judgments literally descend from the air.</p><p>AV "even the righteous acts toward the inhabitants of his villages in Israel". God saved Israel at this time by grace alone, and yet Deborah prefers to see that salvation as just or righteous. Perhaps she failed to grasp grace. Or possibly we are to perceive as does Paul in Romans, that God's saving by grace is still 'just' and fair in His morality. The women assembled at wells to chat and gossip, just as folks do today in online groups and coffee shops. But their talk was not to be the usual stuff of chit chat. It was to be of Yahweh's great salvation through the weak instruments He used. And so our social talk should be likewise focused.</p>


text:
<p>‘Awake, awake, Deborah! Awake, awake, sing a song! Arise, Barak, and lead away your captives, you son of Abinoam’- </p><p>This seems to be a quotation from the prophetic word which came to Deborah. "Awake" is 'arise'. But Deborah says that she "arose" a mother in Israel, rather glorifying her own obedience to the call. Perhaps the first sentence in this verse was sung by Barak (see on :1), and the second by Deborah, in a kind of part singing. <a href='B:230 68:18'>Psa 68:18</a> quotes this verse with reference to the latter day work of the Lord Jesus. Taking captivity captive (Heb:) means 'take prisoner those who took you prisoner'. This is the language of the latter day victory over Babylon (<a href='B:290 14:2'>Isa 14:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then a remnant of the nobles and the people came down. Yahweh came down to me against the mighty- </p><p>She laments that only a remnant had responded to her call to arms. LXX "Then went down the remnant to the strong". But this again is a theme of God’s workings with men. The left handed, the women, the minorities, those whom man despises, are used by Him to work His great victories.</p><p>'The remnant' presumably means that only a minority of God's people got involved in the battle. And so it has ever been.
We perhaps have another hint of Deborah's self focus when she exults [in the Hebrew] that "the people of the Lord came down for me against the mighty". "For me" leaves us wondering about her level of humility; see on :7. Dominion over the mighty was achieved by Jael, but Deborah likes to see herself as the victor. This confirms our hunch that her earlier comment that a woman would get the glory, and not Barak, had herself in view.
</p>


text:
<p>Those whose root is in Amalek came out of Ephraim after you, Benjamin, among your peoples. Governors came down out of Machir- </p><p>LXX "Ephraim rooted them out in Amalek, behind thee was Benjamin among thy people: the inhabitants of Machir came down with me searching out the enemy". Machir may recall the daughters of Zelophehad, who joined Deborah in personally fighting the enemy. Being rooted in Amalek means they had taken over Amalekite territory. 
Machir and Gilead refers to the two halves of Manasseh, one on each side of the Jordan.</p><p>Those who handle the writer’s quill came out of Zebulun- </p><p>The idea is that instead of drawing their quills from their pouches, they drew swords.</p><p>God asked goldsmiths to do the manual work of building the wall of Jerusalem, bruising their sensitive fingers against lumps of rock (<a href='B:160 3:8'>Neh 3:8</a>; <a href='B:160 3:31'>Neh 3:31</a>); and Barak’s victorious warriors were civil servants and writers (<a href='B:70 5:14'>Jdg 5:14</a>), not military men. Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, when we’d have thought that naturally speaking, they would have been far more comfortable in the reverse roles. Judas was put in charge of the money amongst the twelve; when Matthew the tax collector would presumably have been the obvious man for the job. Naaman wanted to do some great act, but was asked to do the hardest thing for him- to dip in Jordan.</p><p>Verses 14-18 mention the tribes of Israel, and their responses to the battle. The tribes are listed in order according to their mothers: by Rachel, then by Leah, then by Bilhah and Zilpah. This is clearly intentional. The Rachel tribes are mentioned first in that Joseph was represented by Ephraim, then Benjamin, then Machir (a grandson of Joseph and grandfather of Gilead). It's as if all Jacob's sons are paraded before us and receive their judgment. Perhaps this feature is because Deborah has declared herself the "mother in Israel" and thereby feels able to judge Israel, as her sons. But again, we wonder whether Deborah is not rather over exalting herself. And it is she rather than God who declares herself the mother in Israel, a matriarch on a par with Jacob. We note that later scripture doesn't make any comment upon Deborah. Barak is mentioned later as judge at this time, rather than Deborah; and Barak not Deborah is mentioned in the roll call of the faithful in Hebrews 11 as having through faith turned to flight a huge army. Jael was really the woman who should have been glorified more than Deborah. Whilst Deborah does praise her, unlike Rahab or Ruth, she has no abiding record in Israel's history. And Deborah seems to have far more to say about herself than about Jael. And so we have in Jael one of many true heroines who never got much reward for their heroism- in this life.</p>


text:
<p>The princes of Issachar were with Deborah. As was Issachar, so was Barak. They rushed into the valley at his feet- </p><p>LXX "And princes in Issachar were with Deborah and Barak, thus she sent Barak on his feet in the valleys into the portions of Reuben". Deborah comes over as in command in the field, sending Barak on foot to find Sisera (<a href='B:70 4:22'>Jdg 4:22</a>). LXX “Barak also sent forth his footmen into the valley". To leave the heights of Tabor and charge into the flat valley, with no shield nor spear, where the 900 iron chariots could be used most effectively, was against all military sense. But Yahweh caused a flash flood of the Kishon (:21), swept many of them away, and made the land muddy so the chariots got stuck in the mud. But the charging down into the valley, following Barak, was an act of pure faith.</p><p>By the watercourses of Reuben there were great divisions of heart- </p><p>She rightly mocks how the men of Reuben claimed to struggle in their hearts as to whether or not to support her call to arms. So often we hear the phrase "It's difficult to decide" or talk about struggles of heart- when the call to rise up in obedience is obvious and clear. But God’s unambiguous calls are often made difficult by our struggles of the heart against them. "The divisions of Reuben" could refer to how they were divided among themselves into factions, which prevented their co-operation with their brethren; or they were divided in their judgment within their own hearts.</p>


text:
<p>Why did you sit among the sheepfolds, to hear the whistling for the flocks? At the watercourses of Reuben there was much searching of heart- </p><p>As noted on :15, they were claiming that the decision to follow God’s calling was 'so difficult' and required much internal agony of heart searching. In reality, it involved them sitting amongst their sheep, listening to the bleating of the flocks (LXX). She asks "Why…?". And the answer was, because they didn’t have faith and devotion to God’s clear prophetic word which had called them to arms. Or we can read as GNB "Yes, the tribe of Reuben was divided; they could not decide to come". They operated on the false basis that there had to be unanimity before they could agree; and because they were divided over the matter, even those willing to fight actually didn’t. Because they put their own desire for unanimity or "unity" with their brethren above the need to be loyal to God’s word personally.</p>


text:
<p>Gilead remained beyond the Jordan. Why did Dan remain in ships? Asher remained still at the haven of the sea, and lived by his creeks- </p><p>Asher "lived" or [LXX] 'remained in his tabernacles', perhaps implying devotion to false gods; see on :18. The Hebrew for Gilead 'remaining' can mean 'pottered about', and that's how it is for so many believers. Likewise LXX "Dan pottered about in ships". The call to rise above their limited horizons is refused because they are too busy pottering about, 'just needing' to do this or that, preoccupied with their own immediate concerns... until life and opportunity is frittered away. Jud. 4:6 records the call to arms as only for Naphtali and Zebulon. But the other tribes are criticised for not entering into the spirit of the event. The need is the call, and no legalistic arguments can stop that call. Gilead could be read as the tribe of Gad. Dan's territory included the port of Joppa (Josh. 19:46), from where they likely traded with the Phoenicians. And they didn't want to leave their lucrative business to fight the Lord's battles up north.</p>


text:
<p>Zebulun was a people that jeopardized their lives to the death; Naphtali also, on the high places of the field- </p><p>The reference to the paganic high places could be in contrast to the hint in :17 that Asher remained serving idols, whilst Naphtali won victories for Yahweh on the paganic high places.</p>


text:
<p>The kings came and fought, then the kings of Canaan fought at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo- </p><p>Taanach was in either Issachar or Asher (<a href='B:60 17:11-12'>Jos 17:11-12</a>; <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a>). But this town was also given to Ephraim (<a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the whole nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.</p><p>The battle was fought "at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo":&nbsp;&nbsp;'Taanach' meaning 'place of fasting' is another hint at repentant Israel taking part in the final defeat of their latter day enemies. Joel describes a call to fasting during the period when the land lies totally devastated during the initial period of enemy domination (<a href='B:360 2:15'>Joe 2:15</a>).</p><p>"Megiddo" and the descriptions of Sisera gathering his chariots and God drawing them into battle must link with the nations being gathered to Armageddon, the valley of Megiddo (<a href='B:730 16:16'>Rev 16:16</a>):&nbsp;If this connection is valid, then " the kings of the earth (land - of Israel?) and of the whole world" which are&nbsp; gathered (<a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a>) would primarily refer to the kings of the eretz promised to Abraham,&nbsp;those within the 'land' at its maximum promised extent between the Nile and Euphrates.</p><p>They took no plunder of silver-</p><p>If the "they" is the victorious Israelites, the idea may be that unlike Achan, they devoted the spoil to Yahweh. Or LXX "they took no gift of money" might imply they refused to be bought off by the Canaanites, but rather slew them. If the "they" is the Canaanites, then Deborah may be rejoicing that the faithful Israelites refused to pay tribute to them. Or perhaps the idea is that the Canaanites expected much booty from their victory but were disappointed. Or the idea is that the Israelite warriors didn't fight motivated by plunder. </p>


text:
<p>From Heaven the stars fought. From their courses they fought against Sisera-</p><p>Israel’s fighting is paralleled with the Heavens and stars [=Angels] fighting for them. The Lord of Hosts of Angels was working in tandem with the hosts of Israel. And it’s the same for the new Israel. <a href='B:650 12:22'>Heb 12:22</a> speaks of how we, the hosts of the church, are paralleled with hosts of Angels: “…to innumerable hosts, the general assembly of angels, and the church of the firstborn” (RVmg:). See on :22.</p><p>Deborah in <a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a> quotes the words of <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a> concerning the Angel going before Israel to drive out the nations to Barak, to inspire him with courage in fighting them. She recognized that the work the Angels did when they went out many years ago to do all the groundwork necessary for Israel to destroy all the tribes of Canaan was done for all time. It was not too late to make use of that work by making a human endeavour in faith. So with us, the smaller objectives in our lives as well as our main goal of reaching the Kingdom have all been made possible through the work of Christ and the Angels in the past. Deborah's recognition of this is shown in her song- <a href='B:70 5:20'>Jdg 5:20</a>: "They (the Angels) fought from Heaven; the stars (Biblical imagery for Angels) in their courses fought against Sisera". In passing, note that the Hebrew for 'courses' is almost identical with that for 'ladder' in the account of Jacob's vision of a ladder of Angels. Strong specifically defines it as meaning 'staircase'. See on <a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a>.</p><p>This verse is the only one that seems to mention God's part in the victory. The classic songs of praise for deliverance (Ex. 15; Ps. 18; Hab. 3 etc.) continually speak of Yahweh as having wrought a great deliverance. But Deborah's song has not a single reference to Yahweh as the deliverer, the One actually doing the work, although there is the oblique reference to "the stars", presumably the Angels, fighting alongside Israel. Instead, the song praises Yahweh for how wonderful His servants have been; it glorifies Deborah, and briefly mentions the roles of Barak and Jael. It's hard not to see it as Deborah's self glorification. And we note Barak's humility in singing along with it. When he is the one noted by God later as the man of faith in the whole saga.</p>


text:
<p>The river Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. My soul, march on with strength- </p><p>The NIV Study Bible locates the area of Gideon's victory in Jud.  7:1 as being just  south of Mouth Tabor between the Jordan River and the end of the Kishon River. This is the very same area where God would later give Barak a dramatic victory. Barak was encouraged in his faith by the fact Gideon had been given a huge victory against far greater odds, in the very same area. Barak of course may not have perceived this, just as we may not perceive the hints God is giving us that we in essence are going through the same experiences as Biblical characters.
The flooding of the Kishon made the chariot wheels drive heavily and slowed the horses; and made flight on foot very difficult. Just as happened at the Red Sea. "The fate of Sisera’s host finds a parallel in the battle of Mt Tabor between the army of Napoleon and the Turks, Apr. 16, 1799, when many of the latter were drowned when attempting to escape across a part of the plain inundated by the Kishon". 
The "ancient river" recalls the historical associations of Kishon with the repentance of Israel at Elijah's time. It seems some of the enemy were swept away trying to ford it. LXX "my mighty soul will trample him down" presents Deborah as a glorious warrior on horseback; although we wonder if she is not being a tad lifted up in pride in speaking like this (see on :28). There was apparently a downpour of water from Heaven which led to the Kishon swelling and carrying away some of the enemy (:4).  Or "my soul march on with strength" may have been a kind of pause for her to regain her breath to sing the next stanzas.</p>


text:
<p>Then the horse hoofs stamped because of the prancing, the prancing of their strong ones- </p><p>The picture may be of the muddy conditions and flooding causing the horses to come unhitched from the chariots, and then gallopping away. LXX "When the hoofs of the horse were entangled", recalling the horses of the Egyptians entangled in the mud of the Red Sea. The idea is that the horses and chariots of Sisera, like those of Pharaoh, were in conflict with those of the Angel cherubim.</p><p>The chariots of Egypt and Sisera will finally be seen as a poor match for the Angel-cherubim "chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof". "Then were the horsehoofs (of Sisera's chariots) broken by the means of the pransings, the pransings of their mighty ones", i:e. the Angel-cherubim:&nbsp;&nbsp; If there was a manifestation of the Cherubim on that occasion, this would accord well with the gentle hint that there will be a Cherubim appearance associated with the second coming (<a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a>), and this would also be the means of putting the latter day Arab 'chariots' out of business.</p>


text:
<p>‘Curse Meroz’, said the angel of Yahweh. ‘Curse bitterly its inhabitants, because they didn’t come to help Yahweh, to help Yahweh against the mighty’- </p><p>Meroz was a village on the borders of Issachar and Naphtali, on the route taken by the fleeing enemy soldiers, but the inhabitants refused to participate in attacking them. The bitter cursing, specifically by an Angel, shows how much God notes and hates sins of omission, of doing nothing when the need is clearly the call to arms. We note the other tribes who refused to help aren't cursed as Meroz is bitterly cursed. Meroz was perhaps a village which Sisera fled through, and Meroz didn't apprehend him. Unlike Jael. Likewise we will soon read how Succoth and Penuel refused to give Gideon assistance (Jud. 8:5-9). Such sins of omission are laboured in the Bible. They are our most likely kind of failure.</p?<p>Deborah was a prophetess and may have been given her prophetic words directly by an Angel. In one sense God 'requires not help from man'. But in another sense, 'God is in need of man', as Avraham Heschel put it. He never forces His ways upon us, and always acts with respect to human freewill. In this sense He 'needs' our "help"; even if it is the "help" which a father asks from his young son in doing a job. Meroz may have been a village through which Sisera or his men had fled, and they feared to join in the fight. The same situation was to recur when Succoth and Penuel refused to help Gideon (<a href='B:70 8:5-9'>Jdg 8:5-9</a>). The history of Meroz and the Israelites who refused to help Deborah was a lesson not learnt by Succoth and Penuel.</p>


text:
<p>Jael shall be blessed above women, the wife of Heber the Kenite; blessed shall she be above women in the tent- </p><p>Deborah's words reflect some bitterness at the way that women were secluded "in the tent" with apparently no role in public life. But Jael had risen above that. When unexpectedly Sisera came stumbling into her tent, she paid no respect to the league her husband had made with him and his king Jabin. She deceived him and slew him. She rose above all the apparent constraints upon serving Yahweh which were upon her:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He asked for water and she gave him milk. She brought him butter in a lordly dish- </p><p>She did this in sarcasm, recognizing him for who he was, and treating him as a lord- until she slew him.</p>


text:
<p>She put her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen’s hammer. With the hammer she struck Sisera. She struck through his head. Yes, she pierced and struck through his temples- </p><p>LXX "She stretched forth her left hand to the nail" would be another example of left handed people, or ambidextrous, being used by God; or at best, the victory is ascribed to the use of the left hand. Left handed people were considered strange and often relegated to the periphery of society in primitive societies; we see again how almost all the judges had something which made them despised and rejected. And yet it was exactly that group which God delighted to use to save His people (<a href='B:70 3:15'>Jdg 3:15</a>). We notice how God used left handed people to give David victory (<a href='B:130 12:2'>1Ch 12:2</a>), and to punish their hypocritical brethren (<a href='B:70 20:16'>Jdg 20:16</a>). He seems to rejoice in using those whom man despises.</p><p>We note again how Jael uses the man's hammer. She does the work a man was supposed to do. This is clearly intended to be understood as the seed of the woman smiting the seed of the serpent in the head.</p>


text:
<p>At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay. At her feet he bowed, he fell. Where he bowed, there he fell down dead- </p><p>The idea of <a href='B:70 4:21'>Jdg 4:21</a> seems to be that he swooned, and then died. She didn’t kill him outright, he rose up and then fell down dead at her feet. This makes Jael's bravery all the more commendable, especially in that her husband was in league with Jabin.</p>


text:
<p>Through the window she looked out and cried; Sisera’s mother looked through the lattice. ‘Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why do the wheels of his chariots delay?’- </p><p>Whilst Deborah was full of faith and God’s word, there is a discernible element of bitterness and arrogance in her, now she has won the victory; see on :21. And we must beware of this kind of thing. From a distance, she mocks Sisera's mother and rejoices in that woman's pain and bitter disappointment. The song concludes somewhat strangely with this mockery of Sisera's mother- by the Deborah who has self proclaimed herself "a mother in Israel". She is seeking to heighten the contrasts between herself and Sisera's mother.</p>


text:
<p>Her wise ladies answered her, yes she answered herself- </p><p>This again is a mocking at the supposed wisdom of the enemy. Their wise women were sure Sisera delayed because he was busy gathering the spoil. And their wisdom is derided as foolishness.</p>


text:
<p>‘Have they not found, have they not divided the spoil? A girl, two girls for every man; to Sisera a spoil of dyed garments, a spoil of dyed garments embroidered, of dyed garments embroidered on both sides, on the necks of the spoil?’- </p><p>Deborah mocks this woman and her female friends, as&nbsp; women who would glorify the way Sisera was delaying because he was busy raping pretty girls and dragging them back with him. In the latter day context, "Prey... spoil" is Ezekiel 38 language: "To take a spoil and to take a prey... Are you come to take a spoil... a prey?" (<a href='B:330 38:12-13'>Eze 38:12-13</a>). Thus the motivation for the average invader is quite clear- although this will most likely be wrapped up behind some pseudo-religious reasoning provided by a latter day 'Jabin' (see on <a href='B:70 4:2'>Jdg 4:2</a>):&nbsp; Such total confidence in victory is yet to be seen in a Middle East scarred with the memories of Israel's&nbsp;victories over the last decades. "Girl" is literally "womb". Sisera's mother exalts that her son is probably delaying because he is raping some virgins and getting them pregnant with her future grandchildren. She is presented by Deborah as a most unpleasant woman; maybe she was, but Deborah is totally fabricating what she likes to imagine was in the mind of this woman. And Deborah has presented herself as a mother, a mother in Israel- and she is relishing the contrast with Sisera's mother, to Deborah's own glorification.</p>


text:
<p>So let all Your enemies perish, Yahweh, but let those who love Him be as the sun when it rises forth in its strength-</p><p>This takes on an ultimate fullness of meaning when this battle is read as typical of Armageddon, when all&nbsp;God’s enemies will perish once and for all:&nbsp; "But let them that love him be as the sun when he goes forth in his might" is using the common figure of the dawn as being representative of Messiah's second coming (<a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:100 23:4'>2Sa 23:4</a>; <a href='B:230 19:4-5'>Psa 19:4-5</a>). Those who truly love the appearing of that sunrise will themselves be a light to this dark world of flesh; they shall personally go forth as the rays of sunlight, in whatever way, just as the light of&nbsp; knowledge of the person of Jesus will do. These words are clearly applied to all the faithful in Mt. 13:43; Dan 12:3.
</p><p>Then the land had rest forty years- </p><p>The forty years rest of <a href='B:70 3:11'>Jdg 3:11</a>; <a href='B:70 5:31'>Jdg 5:31</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a> may not be a literal period. I have elsewhere noted that the forty year reigns of Saul, David and Solomon create chronological problems if read literally. The idea may be that forty years was a time of testing, as it was for Israel in the wilderness. We think of the Lord's 40 days of testing too. In this case, they were tested by peace. And they consistently failed, as God’s people often do.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and Yahweh delivered them into the hand of Midian for seven years- </p><p>The events of these chapters are to be read as typical of Israel's latter-day conflict with her enemies. Psalms 83 is a well-known description of the final invasion of Israel to "cut them off from being a nation", concluding with the imprecation "Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb;&nbsp; yes, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna" (<a href='B:230 83:11'>Psa 83:11</a>) - whom Gideon destroyed. Isaiah 9 is set in the context of the Assyrian invasions of the land, the last of which they were saved from by Hezekiah, the primary fulfilment of the "great light" which appeared to an Israel under Assyria's dominance:&nbsp;&nbsp; The destruction of the invaders was to be "as in the day of Midian" (<a href='B:290 9:4'>Isa 9:4</a>), i:e. it would be typified by Gideon's destruction of Midian previously:&nbsp;&nbsp; The context in <a href='B:290 8:12'>Isa 8:12</a>; <a href='B:290 8:19-22'>Isa 8:19-22</a> speaks of Israel living in fear of an Arab confederacy, having thrown off their faith in God, stubbornly refusing to seek "to the law and to the testimony", and with the land full of "trouble and darkness" so that "they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry", due to the invaders destroying the crops. This language recalls the scenario portrayed in <a href='B:70 5:6-7'>Jdg 5:6-7</a>, where the Jews creep around their own land after a total collapse of infrastructure.</p><p>Isaiah 9 then speaks of how God "lightly afflicted the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali (in the first Assyrian invasion - <a href='B:120 15:29'>2Ki 15:29</a>) and afterward did more grievously afflict her" (<a href='B:290 9:1'>Isa 9:1</a>) in the second invasion:&nbsp;The suffering of Israel at this time is spoken of in terms of their abuse in Egypt, which is clearly typical of the last days: "You have multiplied the nation (as God did in Egypt - <a href='B:20 1:7'>Exo 1:7</a>), and not increased the joy... You have broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder (the language of Israel in Egypt), the rod of his oppressor (s:w. "taskmaster" in <a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a>) (<a href='B:290 9:3-4'>Isa 9:3-4</a>).</p><p>This was to be "as in the day of Midian" (<a href='B:290 9:4'>Isa 9:4</a>) when Israel's saviour was Gideon. Yet <a href='B:290 9:2'>Isa 9:2</a> speaks of their saviour as "a great light" arising in the darkness, and this is quoted in <a href='B:470 4:15-16'>Mat 4:15-16</a> as referring to Jesus. Gideon therefore becomes a type of Christ's breaking of the yoke of sin, and also of His latter-day deliverance of Israel from sin's political manifestation:&nbsp;Similarly the account of David’s victory over Goliath has reference to our Lord's victory over sin on the cross, and also over "the man of sin" who will oppress Israel in the last days.</p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p><p>It is possible that a 'time' may also refer to a year, so the fact that "the Lord delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years" (<a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>) may refer to this "seven times" punishment for sin, which was to come after their refusal to be reformed by their previous sufferings (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>). A seven-year duration of Israel's final holocaust is hard to square with hints elsewhere that this will last for three and a half years:&nbsp;But <a href='B:340 9:25-27'>Dan 9:25-27</a> implies that after 69 weeks ('sevens') there would be a final week of punishment for Israel's sins, which would be split into two halves of three and a half years each. The first three and a half years may apply to the AD 70 period, and the latter to the last days. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p>The hand of Midian prevailed against Israel, and because of Midian the Israelites made themselves dens in the mountains, the caves and the strongholds- </p><p>"Yahweh delivered" Israel "into the hand of Midian" (:1) uses the same Hebrew word as in <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>, "I will punish you yet seven times…ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy":&nbsp;To fulfil this, "the hand of Midian became strong (Hebrew) against Israel". Such a revival of Israel's enemies coupled with increasing military success against Israel is a process which is already beginning, and which, despite short-term fluctuations, we should expect to continue.</p><p>Identical language of hiding in caves is found in <a href='B:90 13:6'>1Sa 13:6</a> concerning Israel's pining away when under attack by the Philistines:&nbsp;&nbsp;There can be no doubt that these incidents are the focus of <a href='B:650 11:37-38'>Heb 11:37-38</a>, which describes nameless men of faith as being "slain with the sword:&nbsp;they wandered about in sheepskins... being destitute, afflicted, tormented... they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth". This therefore teaches us that there were definitely some in Israel at those times who had a remarkable degree of faith, and it surely follows that the final tribulation which these previous invasions typify will likewise lead to the existence of a minority of faithful in Israel.</p><p>The Hebrew word translated "caves" occurs again in <a href='B:330 33:27'>Eze 33:27</a> in a passage speaking of the final desolation of the Land which will lead to Israel's repentance:&nbsp; "They that be in the forts and in the caves shall die of the pestilence (cp. the plagues to come upon Israel in the last days , <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>):&nbsp;For I will lay the land most desolate... none shall pass through (cp. "the highways were unoccupied", <a href='B:70 5:6'>Jdg 5:6</a>):&nbsp;Then shall they know that I am the Lord, when I have laid the land most desolate" (<a href='B:330 33:27-29'>Eze 33:27-29</a>). All this suggests a desolation of the land physically and a state of total breakdown of infrastructure.</p><p>The Israelites who fled to the dens and caves are described as heroes of faith because of what they did (<a href='B:650 11:38'>Heb 11:38</a>). And yet their domination by the Philistines was a result of their idolatry. They were idolatrous, and yet some had faith; and it was this faith when surrounded by weakness which was perceived by God.</p>


text:
<p>So when Israel had sown their seed, the Midianites, the Amalekites and the people of the east came up against them- </p><p>This is exactly what one would expect from the allusion to <a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a>, speaking of the curses to come for breaking the covenant:&nbsp; "If... you break my covenant I also will do this unto you (i:e. break My side of the covenant, in that) I will even appoint over you terror, consumption... and cause sorrow of heart:&nbsp; and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it".</p>


text:
<p>and they encamped against them, and destroyed the crops as far as Gaza, and left no sustenance in Israel, neither sheep nor ox nor donkey- </p><p>Note that the initial motive for the raids was to spoil the land and steal cattle. The Ezekiel 38 latter day invader has similar motivation, "To take a spoil... to take a prey... to take away cattle and goods" (<a href='B:330 38:13'>Eze 38:13</a>). It should be noted, however, that such connections do not necessarily indicate that the invasion prefigured in Judges 6 is to be equated with that of Ezekiel 38. The point is that all the latter-day invasions of Israel have broadly similar motives, and all consistently involve the neighbours of Israel, rather than nations like Russia.</p><p>The descriptions of what the Midianites did to the land are all expressed in terms of being the very opposite of the blessings for obedience to the covenant. If Israel were obedient, they would eat bread until they were full, live in safety without fear (cp. :5), and the land would be free of conflict (Lev. 26:5,6). Israel were suffering the curses for disobedience. They cried to Yahweh for help, but there is no record of their repentance, even when they are told to quit idolatry (:10). The cycle so far in Judges has been of sin-suffering-repentance-deliverance-sin-suffering etc. But the repentance element is noticably missing here. The subsequent account of Gideon's fairly typical family encampament at Ophrah and Abiezer shows that they continued their idolatry. But still God saved them through Gideon, an act of grace. And yet when Gideon cuts down the image of Baal in his village, there is a surprising willingness to go Yahweh's way, as shown by his father's sudden taking of Gideon's side, and the local people responding to Gideon's call. Perhaps there was some level of subsconscious repentance in the people, although unexpressed and not resulting in any actual change. But God noticed even that, and raised up Gideon to be the catalyst for the outward expression of a faith and repentance that existed sub rosa. And He works in the same way today. So often converts realize that they had subconsciously been there with the Lord all along, repentant in their hearts, but God raises up a situation which triggers them to come out openly.</p>


text:
<p>For they came with their livestock and their tents; they came up as locusts for multitude; both they and their camels were without number, and they came into the land to destroy it- </p><p>They brought their animals with them in order to graze them, which would've left Israel bare afterwards. This 'scorched earth' policy of the invaders is the prototype for Joel's latter day prophecy of the locust / grasshopper invaders leaving the land physically empty before Israel are forced to their final repentance:&nbsp;We note how the destruction as if by locusts means that Israel were treated as Egypt, to where they returned in their hearts and whose gods they had taken with them. See on :7.</p>


text:
<p>Israel was brought very low because of Midian and the children of Israel cried to Yahweh- </p><p>"Very low" is the word used about Israel's latter day humiliation which leads to their final repentance (<a href='B:290 17:4'>Isa 17:4</a>). It's not that God willingly humiliates; it's that humility is necessary for relationship with Him, and pride leads to sin. And it is this humiliation which leads to our crying out to God. David uses the word of himself (<a href='B:230 79:8'>Psa 79:8</a>; <a href='B:230 116:6'>Psa 116:6</a>; <a href='B:230 142:6'>Psa 142:6</a>), as if he saw in Israel at this time something of himself. As we can:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When the Israelites cried to Yahweh because of Midian- </p><p>Their crying to Yahweh is twice emphasized (:6,7). The phrase is used of how Israel did so in Egypt (<a href='B:90 12:8'>1Sa 12:8</a>), and of how they will in the last days (<a href='B:360 1:14'>Joe 1:14</a>). We noted the allusion to Joel in :5.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh sent a prophet to them, and he said to them, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘I brought you up from Egypt and brought you out of slavery- </p><p>The response to their crying to Yahweh is not deliverance, but rather a prophet coming to them and attempting to convict them of their sin and failure to respond to God’s wonderful deliverance of them from the Gentile world. Their repentance is therefore presented as utterly critical to their further deliverance. But there is no record of this repentance being forthcoming. Instead, a weak man who doubts his own faith is chosen and strengthened to deliver them. This was absolutely a case of salvation by grace.</p><p>The salvation from the Egyptians was at the Red Sea, long ago (<a href='B:20 14:30'>Exo 14:30</a>). The Israelites were repeatedly reminded of this (<a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:8'>Jdg 6:8</a>; <a href='B:70 10:11'>Jdg 10:11</a>). But they failed to perceive that God’s actions in history were in fact their personal salvation, an act of grace shown to them also. David grasped that point, and his Psalms often thank God for the exodus, as if it had happened to him personally. But the problem is that Israel like all people tended to only see what was before their face at that moment. They had no sense of God’s historical salvation of them, and the guarantee that He would likewise come through for them, if they remained faithful to Him.</p><p>In the latter day context, this must have a connection with the suggestion that Elijah will be "sent" to Israel during their suffering, "before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (<a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This "dreadful day" must be that of the final destruction of Israel's invaders rather than simply the return of Christ. Joel similarly speaks of how during the time when the Jewish heavens and earth are turned into "blood and fire, and pillars of smoke", the Jews will possess the Spirit gifts "before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come" (<a href='B:360 2:28-31'>Joe 2:28-31</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This connection between Joel and Malachi would hint that the possession of these gifts is associated with the work of Elijah.</p>


text:
<p>and I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of all who oppressed you, drove them out from before you, and gave you their land- </p><p>"Oppress" is the word used of how Israel were oppressed in Egypt (<a href='B:20 3:9'>Exo 3:9</a>). But the intention, as with Israel's latter day oppression, is that it would lead them to cry out for Yahweh's salvation, 'Jesus': "For they will cry to Yahweh because of oppressors, and He will send them a saviour and a defender, and He will deliver them" (<a href='B:290 19:20'>Isa 19:20</a> s:w:). All the judges were therefore types of the ultimate deliverance of Israel by the Lord Jesus in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>I said to you, I am Yahweh your God; you shall not fear the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But you have not listened to My voice’.</p><p>And so the message ended. There is no record of this repentance being forthcoming. Instead, a weak man who doubts his own faith is chosen and strengthened to deliver them. This was absolutely a case of salvation by grace.</p><p>In the latter day context, the prophet reminding Israel of the covenant they made with God in Horeb (<a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a>), is precisely the work of Elijah (<a href='B:460 4:4'>Mal 4:4</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>"Fear" is a major theme of Gideon's early life. The word "fear" is used so often of 'not fearing' the pagan gods. "Fear" can mean simply to worship or revere, but it is all the same the word for "fear". Gideon's fear and timidity (Jud. 6:23,27; 7:1,3,10) is therefore to be associated with his fear of the power of the pagan gods. And this is indeed the result of worshipping anything other than the one true God- fear and nervousness. Peace is only in whole hearted devotion to Him.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh came and sat under the oak which was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash, the Abiezrite, and his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites-</p><p>As noted on :10, this further initiative to save Israel without their repentance is a Divine movement of absolute grace. We have a picture here of Israel's desperation and poverty, as well as the extent of the domination by the Midianites. They had to hide even their wheat and flour from the marauding bands. We deduce that the winepress is not in use- for one of the curses for breaking the covenant was that the vintage would cease, and wine would be cut off from Israel.</p><p>Note the parallel between an Angel sitting under an oak and a prophetess sitting under an oak (<a href='B:70 4:5'>Jdg 4:5</a>; <a href='B:70 6:11'>Jdg 6:11</a>). In <a href='B:300 23:18'>Jer 23:18</a>; <a href='B:300 23:22'>Jer 23:22</a> we find prophets standing in the “council of the Lord” (RV) to receive His word; and yet this sounds very much like Angels standing in the court of Heaven to receive God’s word of command. “The God of the spirits [Angels] of the prophets sent his Angel” to the prophet John (<a href='B:730 22:6'>Rev 22:6</a> RV); implying that as God had sent His Angel-Spirits to inspire the prophets, so now He did to John. <a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a>; <a href='B:230 147:18'>Psa 147:18</a> speak of the sending out of God’s word to melt snow and send rain; this must surely refer to the Angels being sent out from the court of Heaven to do these things. The way the “watcher and holy one” came down from Heaven is paralleled with the word of Divine command likewise coming down from Heaven (<a href='B:340 4:23'>Dan 4:23</a>; <a href='B:340 4:31'>Dan 4:31</a>). The universe is not just ticking away on clockwork; the Angels are actively being sent out from Heaven to perform what may appear the most mundane and repetitious of things. Thus God sends out His Angels; He sends out His word; and He also sent out His prophets (Haggai- <a href='B:440 1:12'>Hag 1:12</a>; Ezekiel- <a href='B:330 3:5-6'>Eze 3:5-6</a>). God rose up and sent out His prophets (<a href='B:120 17:13'>2Ki 17:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a> and many others). He is described as doing this because those prophets likewise identified with the word and became part of their own message.</p><p>Grain was usually threshed on a special floor, but the word used here means to beat with a stick. This was what poor gleaners did, as in Ruth 2:17. Just beating out a few ears for a small amount of flour. It is the picture of poverty and fear, of the weak cowed by the strong. And at just that point, Gideon was called. This is God's style, to call and use the small, timid, under performing and fearful.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh appeared to him and said, Yahweh is with you, you mighty man of valour-</p><p>The Angel assured Gideon that "Yahweh is with you [singular]"; and yet Gideon seems to have intentionally misunderstood this by arguing back that if Yahweh is really with us, then why are they suffering so much (<a href='B:70 6:12-13'>Jdg 6:12-13</a>). He flinched at the personal call to action- just as we can, seeking instead to take refuge behind the community. Yet God Himself turns to Gideon and bids him "go in the strength of this one"- the Hebrew grammar referring to the Angel. Robert Boling comments: "The referent of "this one" is the Yahweh envoy [i:e. the Angel], presumably in his capacity as commander of Yahweh's army". And this is the same call to us- to go in the strength of the Angel which goes before us, and seek to replicate Him, Heaven's plan for us, on this earth. And God backed up this call to Gideon to follow the Angel by saying he should go out in faith, "because Ehyeh is with you" (<a href='B:70 6:16'>Jdg 6:16</a>)- a direct quotation from the Angelic manifestation to Moses in <a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a>. It's an interesting exercise to follow the parallels between the Angelic commander of Yahweh's armies, and Joshua as the human commander of them on earth. And one doesn't have to be a military leader in iron-age Israel to feel that same call to follow the Angel.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said to him Oh, my lord, if Yahweh is with us why then has all this happened to us? Where are all His wondrous works which our fathers told us of, saying ‘Didn’t Yahweh bring us up from Egypt?’ But now Yahweh has forsaken us and delivered us into the hand of Midian- </p><p>See on :12. Gideon is focusing upon the statements that Yahweh had brought Israel out of Egypt- and ignoring the consequences of Israel's sin of returning to Gentile domination by worshipping Gentile gods. This is typical of human 'difficulties' with God. They focus upon one aspect of the equation, and refuse to factor in the consequence of human sin.</p><p>The reference to "Which our fathers told us of" make us wonder whether this was not Passover time. The prophet had just spoken of Egypt in :8,9. Just as at the breaking of bread we can wonder whether all this is really true for me, so Gideon doubted. Gideon is actually being called to be a new Moses to deliver Israel; when he felt so inadequate and was apparently unqualified. We must remember that Moses was seen as the pinnacle of Hebrew spirituality. And Gideon was being called to be like him. The call was introduced by the phrase "The Angel of Yahweh appeared to him" (:12); and that is just the phrase used of Moses' call at the burning bush (Ex. 3:2). It is a theme of most of the 'Divine call' narratives that the called person resists and feels inadequate [Gideon's resistance on the grounds of being the  smallest of the smallest clan is repeated by Saul when he was called, 1 Sam. 9:21]; and it is the same in every human life. Moses felt "Who am I that I should go and deliver Israel?" (Ex.3:11); and Gideon felt "How can I deliver Israel?" (:15). "Who am I to do this?" is in fact the qualification of every truly called servant of God. We think of Jeremiah and many others. "Go and save Israel from the hand of [their enemies" (:14) was the same calling as Moses had. And Gideon is reassured in :16 that Yahweh will 'surely be with' him; in exactly the same words as spoken to Moses in Ex. 3:12: "Surely I will be with you. This will be the token to you, that I have sent you". They are both given a "token" of this. Divine calls often come whilst engaged in daily work; Moses was keeping his father in law's sheep, Gideon was threshing his father's grain, Saul was searching for his father's donkeys, Peter was working in his father's fishing business when the Lord called him. Both Gideon and Moses had their call authenticated by fire- in the burning bush, and in consuming Gideon's offering. As Gideon feared because he had 'seen God' (:22), so did Moses (Ex. 3:6 Moses was afraid because he had looked upon God, Heb.).  Israel were under abuse by Gentiles and needed deliverance.      </p><p>We note that in relatively recent history, God had done great miracles for Israel through the judges. But Gideon ignores all them, suggesting that Yahweh has done no miracle for Israel since the Exodus. His attitude is not at all good. But God still works with him.</p><p>We need to realize that God deals with us as individuals. No matter how functional and holy, or dysfunctional and evil, is our church, we are still treated by the Father as His individual children. So many have struggled with this, tending to see themselves rather as inevitably part of a community, faceless cogs in a machine. And this is actually quite attractive to humanity- hence the popularity of Roman Catholicism. Reflect a while on how God told Gideon: “I will be with thee” [you singular], and yet Gideon responds: “Oh my Lord, if the Lord be with us…” (<a href='B:70 6:12-13'>Jdg 6:12-13</a>). Gideon had to be taught that God saw him as a separate, unique individual, and didn’t deal with him automatically merely as part of a community as a whole. But it was a slow process. When Gideon saw in a dream a man saying that God had delivered Midian into his [singular] hand, Gideon then tells Israel that God had delivered Midian into their hands (<a href='B:70 7:14-15'>Jdg 7:14-15</a>). He still found it so hard to believe that God treated him as so important to Him.</p><p>Gideon's questions go unanswered because to ask them was to perceive the answer: 'Because Israel sinned and turned to other gods'. The Divine silence to many 'Why...?' questions reveals the same answer. The Divine silence provokes us to realize the answer was known to us in our conscience all along.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh looked at him and said, Go in the strength of this One and save Israel from the hand of Midian. Haven’t I sent you?- </p><p>I prefer the AV / ESV: "Go in this might of yours and save Israel". There is a purposeful juxtaposition between Gideon's whining weakness, and God’s statement that this is his "might" and by this strength / might, Gideon is to deliver Israel. All within us cries out that Gideon is not strong in faith; indeed he goes straight on to express his lack of faith that he could save Israel (:15). And that is exactly the point. Gideon is a parade example of those [like ourselves] who out of weakness are made strong (<a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a>). It continues the theme of God rejoicing to save Israel by the weak, the left handed, the women, those who consider their faith is weak.</p><p>Or "Go in the strength of this One" could be God speaking directly to Gideon whilst the Angel stood there; as if bidding him follow his Angel in the path to victory which had already been potentially enabled.</p><p>Gideon in Judges 6 and 7 presents as a child, desperately wanting God to hold His hand. Wanting reassurance after reassurance, even though God had given it him. As a child, you instinctively put your hand out for someone to hold it as you approached a road. You earnestly implored the adult steadying your bicycle as you learned to ride and balance "You won't let go, will you?". Or as you learned to swim without a board. Gideon comes over as this, time and again. And God used him. But just as we now have crossed thousands of roads alone, he grew old and brave, whipped Israelites who didn't support him, appeared as a mighty warrior, fearless and confident in pursuit of his enemies. But the key is to remain in contact with the little child within you, to stay small in your own eyes, to always have that need for God, that instinctive putting out of your hand to Him. It is for this reason that we have the incident of Gideon telling his young son to murder the captured kings, when [LXX] he was too young to wield a sword. He wanted to brutalize his own son at an early age by getting him to commit murder. As Gideon looked at his little boy, shy and so unsure and pining away from the challenge... he should have seen his real self. It is the loss of that little child within which is so tragic in spiritual terms. And it happens in life, as observed by so many. "Now we're old and brave, Fernando". "When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse, out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now, the child has grown, the dream has gone. And I have become, comfortably numb". Remember yourself as a small child, so unsure and humble in the sense of not caring about others' opinion and desperately seeking a hand to hold. That must be, and can be, how we ever are. The Lord held up one such child as the hero of faith and spirituality; whereas men hold up mighty warriors like Gideon in their moments of prowess and triumph as the image to inspire and seek to attain. The Lord exemplified all this, by constantly addressing God as His abba, daddy, the term of childhood endearment and dependence. Even in Gethsemane and to the cross. His usage of the term is startling, especially in the context of Judaism at His time.

O Lord, thy sovereign aid impart
To save me from low thoughted care;
Chase this self will from all my heart,
From all its hidden mazes there;
Make me Thy duteous child that I
Ceaseless may “Abba, Father” cry.
"I am weak but Thou art mighty, hold me with Thy powerful hand...
When I tread the verge of Jordan bid my anxious fears subside"</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, O Lord, how can I save Israel? My family is the poorest in Manasseh and I am the least in my father’s house- </p><p>LXX Be gracious to me. Gideon saw the connection between grace and salvation and confessed that such a salvation could only be by God's grace to the powerless. This is the more impressive when we consider that Gideon was physically the very image of a warrior king. But he is so aware of his frailty. "Poorest" could be as LXX and Hebrew, "my thousand is weakened", or diminished. This is evidence enough that the Hebrew term "thousand" doesn't mean literally 1,000, but a group of some kind; for the 1,000 is here diminished, and yet still remains a "thousand". This helps explain the otherwise very high numbers which we find in some places in the Hebrew Bible. The family had been brought down very low. But this was so that God might use Gideon in his weakness, and through him manifest His saving strength. The answer as to "How can I save...", is 'through Yahweh's saving', Yahoshua, 'Jesus'. So many questions are effectively posed by God in our lives through our experiences, which have the same answer: Yah's salvation, Jesus.</p><p>Gideon argued that his "thousand" in Manasseh was diminished or reduced. But he was to learn that this was the kind of "strength" which he was to go against the Midianites with. And when he does, he finds that his strength is greatly diminished again, twice; from 32,000 to 10,000, and then from 10,000 to 300. But this theme of diminishing his strength had begun when his "thousand" was diminished.</p><p>We note the consistent theme of initial resistance to the Divine call (<a href='B:20 3:11'>Exo 3:11</a>; <a href='B:20 4:10'>Exo 4:10</a>; <a href='B:20 4:13'>Exo 4:13</a>; <a href='B:90 10:21-22'>1Sa 10:21-22</a>; <a href='B:300 1:6'>Jer 1:6</a>; <a href='B:370 7:14-15'>Amo 7:14-15</a>; <a href='B:490 5:8'>Luk 5:8</a>). We can too easily excuse our lack of devotion by saying that we are unfit and unworthy. But this is a lack of faith in His forgiveness and grace.</p><p>Gideon was in fact continuing the theme of Judges- that deliverers were from the weak and unqualified for the job. Ehud, the left-handed man (Jud.3:15-30), Deborah, a woman (Jud. 4-5), Samson the sexaholic etc. And now it is Gideon the fearful (Jud. 6:27 destroying the altar at night as he feared to do it by dad; 8:23 etc.); even his son Jether is presented as fearful. But God knew his fear, and even offers him the chance of going near the Midianite camp in chapter 7 in order to get assurance that they are in fact fearful of him. Yet by chapter 8, Gideon's dialogue with the men of Succoth and Penuel reveals him as confident of success and not at all fearful, and he threatens to tear down their tower (Jud. 8:9). This is very different to the Gideon who had feared to tear down his father's Baal altar. His judgment of Israelites who didn't support him in Jud. 8:14-17 is a reflection of his changed character. And this leads him to the poor behaviour with which he ended his life; spiritually, it would've been far better had he remained timid and desperate for God to hold his hand, rather than to become old and brave and self confident. So many stumble once they have a taste of power and success. We are set up to hope for a tale of a man moving from fear to faith, but instead the path is from fear to self-assertion. Yet despite this failure, Heb. 11 still lists him as a Kingdom person.    </p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to him Surely I will be with you, and you shall strike the Midianites as one man-</p><p>Gideon was bidden rise up to the example of Moses- for there were many similarities between his call by the Angel, and the Angelic calling which Moses received at the burning bush. Thus Gideon was called to follow the Angel in faith, "because Ehyeh is with you" (<a href='B:70 6:16'>Jdg 6:16</a>)- a direct quotation from the Angelic manifestation to Moses in <a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a>. And yet he responds: "Alas! For I have seen Yahweh's envoy face to face!" (<a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a>). Gideon knew full well that Moses had seen the Angel "face to face" (<a href='B:50 34:10'>Deu 34:10</a>). Gideon's fear is therefore rooted in a sense that "No! I'm simply not Moses!". And it's the same with us. We can read of all these reasons to believe that Moses is really our pattern, and respond that "No! This ain't me...". But there, in the record of Gideon and his success, lies our challenge to rise up to the spirit of Moses.</p><p>The huge numbers of the Midianites are spoken of "as one man". Gideon was perhaps confident to fight a single Midianite in one on one combat, for he appears to have been a physically strong warrior. And God is saying that fighting the Midianites will be no more difficult than that for Gideon.</p>


text:
<p>He said to Him, If now I have found grace in Your eyes, then show me a sign that it is really You Who talk with me- </p><p>Gideon perceives he is being led as Moses was (see on :16,22). And so he uses the phrase Moses used, "If now I have found grace in Your eyes". But he does so without attention to context, for Moses said that when being almost sarcastic to God in his effectively refusing the way God wished him to go in.</p><p>God eating with man was a sign of grace in Gen. 18:3, where Abraham asks the Angels to eat with him if had found grace in their eyes. And so it was here, Gideon saw he needed grace, as noted on :15. And he is encouraged that he had received it. We likewise find assurance of that grace by eating with the Lord at the breaking of bread.</p>


text:
<p>Please don’t go away until I come to you and bring out my present and lay it before you. He said, I will wait until you come back-</p><p>Circumstances repeat within our lives, and between our lives and those of other believers. This incident was to repeat in <a href='B:70 13:15'>Jdg 13:15</a>. Such connections are why we meet together, why we share our lives with others; and one of the reasons why we read the Bible, which is God’s selected choice of various biographies which He knows will speak to each of us in a unique way.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon went in and prepared a young goat and unleavened cakes of an ephah of meal. He put the meat in a basket and he put the broth in a pot and brought it out to him under the oak and presented it- </p><p>Oaks were typically associated with idolatry, and the altar of Baal was apparently standing on the property belonging to Gideon's father. It was as if the Angel is demanding that Gideon and his people no longer serve Baal, but Yahweh; and give to Yahweh what they had intended for Baal (see on :25).</p>


text:
<p>The angel of God said to him, Take the meat and the unleavened cakes and lay them on this rock and pour out the broth. He did so- </p><p>That there was a rock altar beneath an oak (:19) makes it clear enough that the family sacrificed to idols at this point. But as explained on :25, they were now to quit that and sacrifice instead to Yahweh. Tragically it was probably upon the rock upon which Gideon first sacrificed to Yahweh (<a href='B:70 6:20'>Jdg 6:20</a>) that his seventy sons were to be slain by Abimelech, with the help of men who worshipped Baal Berith (<a href='B:70 9:5'>Jdg 9:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then the angel of Yahweh stretched out the end of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes, and fire went up out of the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes, and the angel of Yahweh departed out of his sight- </p><p>Gideon being told to "pour out the broth" upon his offering, making it wet so that the consumption by fire from heaven was clearly miraculous (<a href='B:70 6:20-21'>Jdg 6:20-21</a> cp. <a href='B:110 18:33-34'>1Ki 18:33-34</a>), was encouraging Gideon to see himself as the prototype Elijah-prophet. This would provide the basis for Elijah dousing his sacrifice with water before it was accepted in an identical way. Gideon still doesn't learn, for he proceeds to ask for a repeat of this miracle concerning wetness; he asks that there should only be dew upon the ground (or perhaps even upon the whole land of Israel, see Hebrew text) according to his word of faithful prayer (<a href='B:70 6:37-39'>Jdg 6:37-39</a>). Elijah saying that "there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word" (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>) is surely a conscious replica of this. It is quite possible that we, too, may be given certain prompts in life by reason of particular experiences repeating those of a Biblical character.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon saw that he was the angel of Yahweh, and Gideon said, Alas, Lord Yahweh! I have seen the angel of Yahweh face to face!- </p><p>See on :16, where we saw how Gideon is being set up as Moses. His panic at having seen the face of an Angel is therefore due to failing to appreciate this. For Moses saw the Angel's face, and lived. And there was no reason why Gideon couldn't. We see in his panic a man struggling with the calling he was being given. And yet despite all his wriggling, he does finally accept it, and does act in faith, as Hebrews 11 makes clear.</p><p>I suggest that Gideon is transferring his real guilt into a form of false guilt, as often happens within the human mind. He realized his family, Israel and probably himself were guilty of idolatry. But he can't quite bring himself to confess that to himself, and so instead he feels guilt stricken over something which wasn't a sin, i:e. seeing the face of an Angel. For Moses and others had done so, and it was no sin.</p><p>It was no random chance that Gideon was later led to victory at Penuel (<a href='B:70 8:9'>Jdg 8:9</a>). Penuel was so named to celebrate how Jacob had sene the face of God and lived (<a href='B:10 32:30'>Gen 32:30</a>). Gideon had earlier thought he would be slain as he had been so unworthy to see the face of the Angel. As with our lives, God was leading him to perceive ever more His grace. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to him, Peace! Don’t be afraid. You will not die-</p><p>"Peace" in the Bible usually refers to peace with God through forgiveness. The assurance that he will not die was because he had been forgiven. I explained on :22 that he did have a conscience of sin, but he couldn't quite bring himself to confess it, and transferred that true guilt into a false guilt. But this was enough for God; that movement of conscience within Gideon was accepted as repentance, and he is assured peace with God. And he perceives this and memorializes that peace in the name of the altar he will build.</p><p>I noted on :22 that Gideon was later reminded at Penuel of how he like weak Jacob had seen the face of God and lived. And he at that time tells the men of Penuel that he will "come again in peace" (<a href='B:70 8:9'>Jdg 8:9</a>). Coming "in peace" reflected how he had learned the lesson from seeing the face of the Angel; for he had built an altar called 'Yahweh is peace', and now he was confident that indeed he was at peace with God despite all his weaknesses.</p>


text:
<p>Then Gideon built an altar there to Yahweh and called it Yahweh is Peace-</p><p>As explained on :23, this was a celebration of peace with God; and it implies therefore his repentance and forgiveness. What was required in order to lift the Midianite oppression was repentance; and Gideon's very weak repentance was as it were used by God to enable Him to lift it. This altar is likely that of :26. It is mentioned and then we are given the details as to how it was built. Gideon's motivation in building it was because he had experienced peace with God through grace. Just as Paul says we have too. There was no grace and no peace with God through Baal. As Jonah noted, those who observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy. Grace and peace with God are concepts unique to the one true faith.</p><p>To this day it is still in Ophrah of the Abiezrites-</p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God’s Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God’s word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>The same night Yahweh said to him, Take your father’s bull, the second bull seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that your father has and cut down the Asherah that is by it- </p><p>The seven year old bull represented the seven years of Midianite domination of Israel (:1). "The second bull" may have been an animal which was being raised especially for sacrifice to Baal. It was only by ending this Baal worship that the seven years of domination would be ended. And the seven year old bull was therefore to be seen as a kind of atonement sacrifice for those seven years of apostacy.</p><p>'Gideon' means 'hacker' or 'cutter / thrower down'. The root is used in the Mosaic commands to cut down the pagan idols of Canaan (Dt. 7:5; 12:3). He was being asked to live up to his name, to realize that he had been set up in advance to do what seemed to him so impossibly difficult. We too have good works prepared for us to do from the foundation of the world. And we struggle to accept this, making excuses, looking for signs etc.</p> <p> We note that Gideon's father had the Asherah grove by the altar (Jud. 16:25). This was studied disobedience to Dt. 16:21: "You must not plant for yourselves an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of Yahweh your God, which you shall make for yourselves". His repentance, apparently overnight, is therefore the more remarkable. We also see how Yahweh worship had become mixed with paganic worship. "The altar" in view was that of Yahweh, but it had become the altar of Baal because of the mixing of truth and error, of Yahweh and paganic worship. This worship of the flesh in the appearance of Yahweh worship is in fact our abiding temptation, as it was for Israel. They never abrogated Yahweh worship, but worshipped idols in the name of Yahweh worship. We, e.g., may gossip in the name of "truth" or "love"; purchase luxury items or property in the name of worshipping God or serving Him.</p> <p> 
Dt. 16:21 was one of a whole series of apparently 'minor' commands which were designed to make obedience easier to the others already given. Thus he tells them in Deuteronomy not to plant a grove of trees near the altar of God - because he knew this would provoke the possibility of mixing Yahweh worship with that of the surrounding world (Dt. 16:21). There was to be no possibility of worshipping idols in the name of Yahweh worship; there was not even to be the possibility of some subliminal suggestion of it arising from having a grove of trees near an altar.</p>


text:
<p>build an altar to Yahweh your God on the top of this stronghold in the proper way, and take the second bull and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah which you cut down- </p><p>"This stronghold" may refer to the heap of stones under the oak tree which they had used for worshipping idols. I suggested on :25 that the "second bull" [it could be translated just "the other bull"] was one being bred for sacrifice to Baal.</p>


text:
<p>Then Gideon took ten of his servants and did as Yahweh had spoken to him, and because he feared his father’s household and the men of the city, he could not do it by day, so he did it by night- </p><p>Again we see his weakness, and yet his desire to respond, however weakly. And God eagerly used that. Clearly his family were idolaters and the altar was on his father’s property, so it would be surprising if Gideon was not also an idolater.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of the city arose early in the morning, the altar of Baal was broken down and the Asherah was cut down that was by it and the second bull had been offered on the altar that was built- </p><p>The record presents Gideon's complete (if nervous) obedience through the eyes of the observers early that morning. Gideon knew they would soon find out that he had done it. But he doesn't flee the village. He did it at night because he feared the other people would forcibly stop him from doing it.</p>


text:
<p>They said one to another, Who has done this? When they inquired and asked, they said, Gideon the son of Joash has done this- </p><p>We note that Gideon doesn't call them out on their idolatry. Rather he lets them come to him. He was no fearless prophet, denouncing idolatry in God’s Name.</p>


text:
<p>Then the men of the city said to Joash, Bring out your son that he may die, because he has broken down the altar of Baal and because he has cut down the Asherah that was by it-</p><p>They were twisting the Mosaic laws of apostacy to apply them to Gideon for desecrating Baal's altar. They were psychologically able to do this because they considered that Baal worship was a form of Yahweh worship. And it was this continual mixture of flesh and spirit, of truth and error, which was and is the abiding weakness of God’s people.</p><p>"Bring out... that he may die" recalls the behaviour of the Sodomites (Gen. 19:5). And again there is a refusal to agree. I suggest that Gideon perceived the similarity; because in :39 he asks God for yet another sign, prefaced with "Do not be angry with me if I speak one last time". And he is quoting verbatim the words of Abraham when he had pleaded for Sodom in Gen. 18:32. This is how familiarity with the text of scripture works; we perceive a connection between our experience and that of God's people historically. And then, working it through, thinking about life and its connections with Biblical precedent, we are inspired to continue the spirit of the Biblical narrative in our own lives. </p>


text:
<p>Joash said to all who stood against him, Will you contend for Baal? Or will you save him? He who will contend for him, let him be put to death by morning. If he is a god, let him contend for himself, because someone has broken down his altar-</p><p>Joash had presumably been a committed Baal worshipper; for the altar was on his territory, and the village would have been quite small. He responds not at all as we, or probably Gideon, expected. We can be encouraged that there is a spiritual conscience within all people, and when they see someone like Gideon have the courage to stand up and be counted, they are relatively easily motivated to do the same. Thus the Gospel penetrates strongly Islamic or atheistic communities- because one person within them stands up and is counted for Christ.</p><p>Self-expression, or even self-manifestation, is one of God’s features, and so He intends it to be in us who are made after His image. God manifestation doesn’t in that sense mean the destruction or ignoring of the individual human person; rather, the very opposite, in that the real character, the new life, will be eternally developed and preserved. This is where Hinduism is so wrong, as wrong as any monolithic, apostate version of Christianity- the person disappears into the great Whole. Joash understood where ‘God manifestation’ can be taken too far; he told the Baal worshippers to let Baal plead for himself, rather than them pleading for him. This needs thinking through. He was saying that they were assuming that they had to ‘play God’ for Baal; they had to mindlessly, unthinkingly manifest the god they thought existed. Joash says that if Baal really exists, he himself will act for himself, openly. And this of course is where the One True God excels; He does act for Himself, and doesn’t rely solely upon manifesting Himself through men in order to achieve anything. Note the intentional surprise for us in <a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a>: "Thus says the Lord that created you... I have redeemed you, I have called you by your name; you are Mine". We expect the creator, owner and redeemer of someone or something to name it with His name. But God dashes that expectation- He says instead that we are called by our name.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore on that day he named him Jerub-Baal, saying, Let Baal contend against him because he has broken down his altar-</p><p>We see here how names were given to people because of life experiences; this explains why the same person or place can have several names. Joash was struck by the power of the logic which had occurred to him; Baal ought to argue for himself if he were a real god. Baal's total dependence upon men for his actions was evidence enough that he had no real existence. And Joash was grateful to Gideon for pointing this out:&nbsp; Perhaps the point is that Baal must be really so weak, because he was unable to 'contend' with someone as weak and doubting as Gideon, who had cut down his image and thrown down his altar.</p>


text:
<p>Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the people of the east assembled themselves together and they crossed over and encamped in the valley of Jezreel- </p><p>People who had been yelling for Gideon's blood now go strangely silent. Joash was perhaps the elder of the village, and his logic was hard to argue back against. The eastern peoples then crossed over Jordan, all set to now wipe out the Israelites and take their land. This was indeed the punishment for breaking the covenant, and only the weak faith and shaky repentance of Gideon was going to stop it.</p>


text:
<p>But the Spirit of Yahweh came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet; and Abiezer was gathered together after him- </p><p>This language is picked up in <a href='B:290 61:1-2'>Isa 61:1-2</a>: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me... to preach good tidings... liberty to the captives…to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God":&nbsp;Primarily this refers to Isaiah preaching an inspired message of deliverance to an Israel threatened by the Assyrian invasion,&nbsp;whilst it is also quoted in the Gospels&nbsp; concerning the work of Christ:&nbsp;Both these applications have their basis in the Spirit of God coming upon the judges, showing that they typify both the work of Christ and of the Elijah prophet, of which Isaiah was an early manifestation.</p><p>Abiezer, his home village, gathered loyally around Gideon; when just recently they had demanded his death for apostacy against Baal. We see here how fickle people are; and yet more positively, how relatively easy it is for people to change. Because there is a spiritual conscience in everyone, and it often needs just one person within their family or community to step out for Christ, and they will too.</p>


text:
<p>He sent messengers throughout all Manasseh and they also were gathered together after him, and he sent messengers to Asher, to Zebulun and to Naphtali and they came up to meet them- </p><p>The idea may be that all Manasseh supported him, but the three other tribes came up to discuss with him, just "to meet them". Or it could be that they all responded, at least eventually (<a href='B:70 7:23'>Jdg 7:23</a>). We recall how Deborah's appeal for support from Asher and some of the leaders of these tribes had been refused. And after God gave the great victory, she taught everyone the song of Deborah in Judges 5 which lamented their lack of response. So perhaps that had worked, and now they responded. We may fail a call the first time, but then it is repeated, and we accept it. Just as Gideon had motivated the village of Abiezer, so now Abiezer motivated "all Manasseh" and perhaps they in turn motivated Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said to God, If You will save Israel by my hand, as You have spoken- </p><p>Gideon's fragile faith is in fact a great encouragement to us. He nervously kept on in his spiritual path, although ever wanting visible evidence of God’s presence with him. Gideon comes over as repeatedly trying to avoid God's claims and call; and yet God kept on with him, and so it is with each of us. We need to enquire and clarify what our mission is in this world- for we each have a calling, and the lesson of Gideon is for us all, not just a few.</p>


text:
<p>I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece only and it is dry on all the ground, then I will know that You will save Israel by my hand as You have said- </p><p>Quite possibly there was a drought and water was precious, hence Gideon took a bowl in order to fill it with the valuable water from the fleece. The giving or withholding of dew was a reflection of whether or not Israel were receiving the blessings or cursings of the covenant. One of the blessings of the true Israel was that of dew (Gen. 27:28,44). The signs of the dew demonstrated that God would save by grace- giving the blessings for obedience when there had been no obedience, giving and taking those blessings by His soversign power. The miracles addressed Gideon's unspoken question: 'We have been disobedient, so how will God bless us with the blessings of obedience, such as dew and victory over larger armies?'. They deserved no dew, for they had sinned. Elijah was to be inspired by Gideon's weak faith in later asking for dew and rain to be withheld (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>). We too are to be motivated by the faith of others, no matter how weak. The threshing floor is also a symbol of judgment. If God gave His blessings, the dew, to Gideon's fleece but not to the ground / land of Israel generally, then Gideon would know that indeed God was uniquely with him, even if the rest of Israel deserved judgment and the withholding of the covenant blessings. "Ground" is eretz, the usual word for the land of Israel. If just the soil around the fleece were in view, a different word would have been used.</p><p>Baal was supposed to be the god of dew. So having destroyed Baal's altar, Gideon asks God to demonstrate at least just to himself, that He is indeed the controller of dew rather than Baal. “Can any of the false gods of the nations give rain? Can the skies of themselves give showers? Only you are He, O Yahweh our God! Therefore we will wait for you, for you made these things” (Jer. 14:22). We see how a man can publically profess faith in God, and do great things in His Name and in criticism of error. And yet himself be very frail in faith and desperate for confirmation. The fighting of apostacy and brave declaration of the error of the wicked, can so easily be done whilst our real spiritual man is so weak and frail and in such need of confirmation.</p>


text:
<p>That is what happened, for he got up early the next day and squeezed the fleece together and wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water- </p><p>There is a much repeated characteristic of God’s servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God’s work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Joshua (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said to God, Don’t let Your anger be kindled against me and I will speak but this once- </p><p>Gideon is inspired by the words and spiritual ambition of Abraham (<a href='B:10 18:32'>Gen 18:32</a>). Perhaps he feared it was just a coincidence, seeing that fleeces naturally attract dew. Fleeces naturally attract and retain moisture, so Gideon may have felt on reflection that the first sign was not in fact that great, and so he asked for something harder in the second sign. Again he presents as so very weak and faltering in his faith. As Hebrews 11 says, Gideon is really the classic case of a man whose weakness was made strong.</p><p>Please let me make a trial just this once more with the fleece. Let it now be dry only on the fleece and on all the ground let there be dew-</p><p>I suggested on :37 that Gideon specifically understood the dew as covenant blessing from God, which the ground / land of Israel didn’t deserve. He had asked God to show him that he, Gideon, was going to receive those blessings, even if the land didn’t. But his faith still faltered. By asking for it to now be done the other way around, Gideon was effectively asking for all Israel to be blessed with dew- because of his lack of faith, and needing everything to be demonstrated to him again. Again we note that "ground" is eretz, the usual word for the land of Israel. If just the soil around the fleece were in view, a different word would have been used.</p>


text:
<p>God did so that night, for it was dry on the fleece only and there was dew on all the ground- </p><p>The Hebrew word for "fleece" is literally 'that which is cut down / cut off', and it can also effectively mean that which is destroyed (s:w. <a href='B:410 1:12'>Nah 1:12</a> "thus shall they be cut down"; "they are soon cut off", <a href='B:230 90:10'>Psa 90:10</a>). Israel had indeed been cut down by the Midianites. Gideon had just cut down the symbols of Baal worship (same idea, although a different word is used- <a href='B:70 6:26'>Jdg 6:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:28'>Jdg 6:28</a>; <a href='B:70 6:30'>Jdg 6:30</a>). I suspect he simply asked for the miracle to be done again, in reverse order, because of his own weak faith and not because he saw any great symbology in the whole scene at the time. But later, he may have perceived that he had been asking God to place His blessing of dew upon that which was cut down, or retract it. And indeed God demonstrated that He could do this with ease- and do it at Gideon's word. The blessing or cursing of Israel was to depend upon Gideon and his faith. For generally Israel had not repented, and that was what was necessary for the Midianite domination to end. But Gideon's weak repentance was going to be accepted by God as it were for all Israel. This was how eager God was to save them from Midian, despite their idolatry. And it looks ahead to His eagerness to save us, through the work of the Lord Jesus and His far greater righteousness being imputed to us, who are more willing to receive it than were Israel. Arguments like this make us have every confidence that we shall indeed be saved, by His amazing grace.</p><p>The two miracles are reversible miracles- wet on the fleece, dry on the ground; then dry on the fleece, wet on the ground. A reversible miracle was done again to prove to a doubting Israel, and a doubting Moses, that God was truly going to save them by grace: Moses' rod was made a snake and then a rod again; Moses' hand was made leprous and then sound again. This kind of reversible miracle was common in the surrounding idol cults. In the Enuma Elish, Marduk is challenged by the other gods to destroy a garment and then recreate it- and he does, to prove his power. In Homer's Odyssey, in the 10th book, the goddess Circe changed the comrades of Odysseus into pigs and then restored them. We see here how influenced Israel were by surrounding paganism, yet God worked through that to still confirm them. We can compare how the waters of both the Red Sea and the Jordan were driven back, and then made to return as before. Reversible miracles were to confirm weak faith. And God went along with that, having told Gideon at the start that He considered him a mighty warrior who had the faith to do his mission. </p>


text:
<p>Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon- </p><p>"Gideon" is the word used for the command to cut down the idols of the land (<a href='B:50 7:5'>Deu 7:5</a>; <a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a>). It seems Gideon was named this after he cut down the pagan grove on his family property, and his father then also called him "Jerubbaal", 'let Baal contend [for himself]'. We see here how men came to be called by various names which reflected their life experiences. This is why often people have a number of different names in the Hebrew Bible.</p><p>And all the people who were with him rose up early-</p><p>There is a much repeated characteristic of God’s servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God’s work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Joshua (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p><p>And encamped beside the spring of Harod- </p><p>"Harod" means trembling, and may have been named after the trembling of Gideon and the people (:3). Constantly he is portrayed as weak in faith and fearful, and yet not giving up and going forward in the path given to him.</p><p>And the camp of Midian was on the north side of them by the hill of Moreh, in the valley- </p><p>Moreh was the name of a Canaanite, so the continuing place name reflects how it had not been conquered by the Israelites and renamed as it should have been. We have the persistent impression of strength despite an environment of such weakness, and this we respect about Gideon. 
"Moreh" means "oracle". The vision given to the Midianites was that oracle.</p><p>The NIV Study Bible locates the area of Gideon's victory in Jud. 7:1 as being just  south of Mouth Tabor between the Jordan River and the end of the Kishon River. This is the very same area where God would later give Barak a dramatic victory. Barak was encouraged in his faith by the fact Gideon had been given a huge victory against far greater odds, in the very same area. Barak of course may not have perceived this, just as we may not perceive the hints God is giving us that we in essence are going through the same experiences as Biblical characters.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Gideon, The people who are with you are too many for Me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast against Me saying, ‘My own hand has saved me’- </p><p>In all Israel's great military victories, there was some element of God’s hand (e.g. hailstones, earthquake) to stop them thinking that their own strength alone had saved them. And this is major theme in God’s working with us. Gideon had earlier argued that his "thousand" in Manasseh was diminished or reduced (see on <a href='B:70 6:15'>Jdg 6:15</a>). But he was to learn that this was the kind of "strength" which he was to go against the Midianites with. And when he does, he finds that his strength is greatly diminished again, twice; from 32,000 to 10,000, and then from 10,000 to 300. But this theme of diminishing his strength had begun when his "thousand" was diminished.</p><p>This passage is alluded to in <a href='B:530 1:26-29'>1Co 1:26-29</a>, where Paul explains that for this same reason God has chosen "not many" to bring about His way of salvation, through a small remnant of weak people bringing to nothing the mighty things. This would equate Gideon's 300 with the true believers of both natural and spiritual Israel.</p><p>We should be unsurprised when our own strength is diminished; by financial or health crisis, by rejection until we are virtually alone. God was now developing his understanding that the diminishing was necessary for faith in Him. We too find our natural strength diminished, that we may learn that when we are weak humanly then we are strong in God. There is entropy in everything, and this is why- be it health, physical strength, relationships etc. Gideon likely would have carefully calculated his number of troops and compared it against his enemies. And he thought he had a fighting chance of success, in his own strength. But what God now does is to force him to abandon all rational calculation and trust totally in God. And He works likewise with us. The whole incident with drinking from cupped hand or lapping as a dog was perhaps to indicate that it was the hands of just 300 men who would be used by God's hand.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore announce to the people, ‘Whoever is fearful and trembling, let him return and depart from Mount Gilead’. Twenty-two thousand of the people returned and ten thousand remained-</p><p>In all, three and a half tribes had sent men to support Gideon- half Manasseh, Naphtali, Asher and Zebulon (Jud. 6:35). According to Num. 1, each tribe had around 30,000 fighters. So only a few of their warriors had come anyway. These were the supposedly brave who had come to Gideon. And even of them, most were fearful. As always, it's a case of a minority of a minority of a minority... </p><p>This was strictly according to the law of Moses, which required commanders to invite their fearful soldiers to leave before conflict (<a href='B:50 20:8'>Deu 20:8</a>). "Thousand" may refer to a military unit; see on <a href='B:70 6:15'>Jdg 6:15</a>. 32,000 were reduced to 10,000, and 10,000 to 300. The proportion of reduction the second time was far greater than the first time; about two thirds of the men returned, i:e. about 30% remained. But then just 3% remained. And overall, only about 1 % of the force was required by God. There would have been thousands of troops moving away from the front, rather embarrassed to tell the villages they passed through that they had moved away from the front because they were fearful. To turn their backs before their enemies was one of Israel's curses for disobedience to the covenant. So the whole thing was set up to show them that indeed they had been disobedient to the covenant, and God was gently punishing them for this. And condemnation, turning backs before enemies, is in fact ultimately self inflicted by the condemned. </p><p>"Mount Gilead" is hard to understand. There may have been a Mount Gilead on the western side of Jordan, but it is not mentioned anywhere else. "Gilead" and "Gilboa" differ by one letter in Hebrew. Perhaps Gideon was to undo Saul's defeat, and was encamped on Mount Gilboa. Or we could read maher, 'in haste', for mehar, "from the mount", giving the sense "let him return in haste to Gilead" i:e. go home.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Gideon, The people are still too many. Bring them down to the water and I will test them for you there. Those of whom I tell you, ‘This one shall go with you’ shall go, and those of whom I tell you, ‘This one shall not go with you’ shall remain- </p><p>"The water" was presumably the spring of Harod, meaning "trembling" (:2,3). Those who apparently weren't trembling were to be tested as to whether they were weak enough to be used for the great salvation God was to achieve. Only Gideon was aware, it seems, of this basis for reducing the people further. It was a very personal move from God to him, to yet further reduce his trust in human strength. In the eyes of all his commanders and men, Gideon's behaviour at this point was bizarre and bound to lose them the battle. It says a lot for him that he went ahead with the idea.</p>


text:
<p>So he brought down the people to the water and Yahweh said to Gideon, Each one who laps the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, set him by himself; likewise each one who bows down on his knees to drink- </p><p>"Laps" is yalok, the very sound a dog makes when drinking. Only Gideon at this point knew the basis upon which he was dividing his men. It would have taken him some time to pass by ten thousand men [although "thousand" may mean a military subdivision rather than 1,000] and pick out the 300 who lapped. At the time, he may have had no idea why this was being made so significant.  Quite possibly it isn't significant, it was just a way of severing a majority of odd thinkers and awkward, counter instinctive non-logical behavers from amongst the majority. For this is a big theme of the story. Those who drunk in a more natural and normal manner are described as acting like dogs. Even though it has been well observed that "humans are in fact physically incapable of lapping water like dogs, in that the human tongue is not flexible enough to make the cupshaped form necessary to raise water into the mouth". So the likeness to a dog is pointed and is making a point, that they were acting in a crude way. By behaving 'normally'.  Perhaps bowing on the knees recalled idol worship, and the more sensitive would not have done this. The word is used in 1 Kings 19:18 for those who bowed the knee to Baal.  Those who lapped were acting like despised dogs. And it is by the dogs, like 'Caleb' [= 'dog'] who followed Yahweh faithfully [as a dog does a man], that God would save His people. Those who acted like dogs were the ones used, lapping like a dog laps, rather than drinking from cupped hands as men usually do:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p> The difficulty is that a dog laps on all fours. The majority also knelt down but used their cupped hands to get the water. So it is problematic to assume that some refused to kneel down because of the association between kneeling and idolatry. Both categories used their hands; those who lapped still put their hands to their mouths (:6). “Lap with the tongue from the water as the dog laps” and “lap putting their hands to their mouth” appear contradictory. Dogs don't lap from their hands / paws.
</p> <p> 
One solution is to see two groups spoken of here. Those who cupped their hands and then lapped water out of their hands; and those who lapped direct from the water as a dog laps. Or it could be that the lappers lapped out of their cupped hands whilst crouching [as a dog does], but not kneeling.
</p> <p> 
The LXX offers: "Everyone who laps with his tongue from the water as the dog laps, set him apart and everyone who crouches on his knees to drink set him by himself. And it was: the total number of lappers with their tongue was 300 men and all the rest of the people got down on their knees to drink water". This removes the issue of “lap putting their hands to their mouth”.
</p> <p> 
We can translate "likewise" as 'even...' or 'that is to say' [same construction in Gen. 4:4; Ex. 24:12; 25:12; 1 Sam. 17:40; 28:3], so the group spoken of in :5 are one and the same- those who were not chosen. They lapped as a dog laps, bowing down on their knees to get the water into their hands but lapped the water from their hands. A two legged being has to bow down on his knees to drink. But the other group in :6, the 300 who were chosen, drunk not as a dog drinks. They drank with their hands to their mouths. Which is exactly not how a dog drinks. They did not act as if lapping like a dog. So we would translate: "Everyone who laps with his tongue from the water as the dog laps, set him apart, that is to say everyone who crouches on his knees to drink” [Those thus set apart were those rejected]. Now the number of the lappers with their hand to their mouth was 300 men, whereas all the rest of the people got down on their knees to drink water [as dogs lap]". So the difference was between those who used their hands, and those who used their tongues. Those who used their hands were the hands chosen to be God's hand (:7). So my suggestion is to replace NEV "likewise" with "that is to say". This is exactly how the same Hebrew is translated in Gen. 4:4; Ex. 24:12; 25:12 ["cast for it four rings of gold, that is to say two rings on the one side and two rings on the other side"]; 1 Sam. 17:40 ["he put them in the shepherds' container that he had, that is to say in the pouch"]; 28:3 ["All Israel had mourned for him and had buried him in Ramah, that is to say in his city"]. And this would continue an undoubted theme of Judges- that God uses the odd, the cack-handed, awkward, often the subject of the comment "some mothers do have them", the dyspraxic and the otherwise marginal for His purpose, the dog-like in this case, who had a most unusual way of drinking water from hands, lapping rather than sucking it up. Those who lapped used their hands (:6)- and perhaps the idea was that it was to be by the dysfunctional hands of God's people that victory would be achieved. We could note that eating [or drinking, in this case] in an unusual way is typical of some forms of autism. The autistic think differently and act differently. And they are [wrongly] despised. But it was those whom God chose. I have spent my ministry working with people who are generally out of church Christians, spiritual but not religious. And so many of them were autistic, and great believers they were, the ones God used just like Gideon's 300. They met daily like issues in an out of the box, different way to the majority. Three hundred out of 10000 is 3 % which was likely roughly the percentage of the group who were autistic.   </p>


text:
<p>The number of those who lapped, putting their hands to their mouth, was three hundred men, but all the rest of the people got down on their knees to drink-</p><p>Gideon's faith would have been fully stretched. Although the exact, round, number, 300, would have confirmed to him that this indeed was what God intended.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Gideon, By the three hundred men who lapped I will save you, and deliver the Midianites into your hand. Let all the other people go, each to his own place- </p><p>They were not to be kept as some kind of reserve force, they were to be sent home. The demand for faith was total, and we are sometimes put in similar positions, where we have only faith in God and all possibility of human help has been removed. 
This is why we so need each other; and we need to get to know each other and to share our stories in detail. The parts of the body of Christ are made for each other.</p>


text:
<p>So the three hundred men took food and their trumpets, and he sent all the rest of them to their tents; and the camp of Midian was beneath him in the valley- </p><p>The NASB follows the Hebrew best in suggesting that the 300 took the food brought by the other fighters who had either left or been forced to go home. They had come bringing their own food- but the 300 somehow took that food for themselvs: "And so they took the provisions of the people in their hand". Quite possibly the 300 had not brought their own food with them- maybe suggesting they were forgetful, not well organized, hardly elite troops, or without much background support at home. No women in the family lading them with food to take with them... and they were the ones God used.</p><p>We expect to read of warriors taking weapons in their hands. But instead they take food and trumpets. Again we see how God’s strategy is totally different to human strategy. It would have been a fair test of their faith to continue with an apparently bizarre plan which had no human hope of success. The spiritually minded would have recalled the conquest of Jericho with trumpets. "Their trumpets" would have been those of the 300 trumpeters amongst the 10000 men. They handed over their trumpets, perhaps each platoon of around 33 men had a trumpeter amongst them. Originally, perhaps the 32,000 had 300 trumpeters amongst them. And he handed his trumpet to one of the 300.</p><p>AV: "And he sent all the rest of Israel every man unto his tent, and retained those three hundred men", using the same word as in :11 for "strengthened". Perhaps Gideon strengthened their faith in the intention of God to use them to save Israel from such overwhelming odds.</p>


text:
<p>The same night Yahweh said to him, Arise, go down into the camp; for I have delivered it into your hand- </p><p>The Israelite troops were mustered on a hill with a commanding view, so that they would see the vast army of their enemies. And now Gideon was told to go down to them, clinging on to his faith in those words that "I have delivered it into your hand", maybe repeating them over and over.</p>


text:
<p>But if you are afraid to go down, go with Purah your servant down to the camp- </p><p>God knows our frame and remembers that we are dust. He sets an ideal standard that He knows we can reach- in Gideon's case, to go down to the camp of the enemies. But He knew Gideon's weakness and so by grace delayed the plan for a day, to allow Gideon to get more support for his weak faith. Rather like He didn’t send Israel on the direct route to Canaan, lest they see war and lose heart. We can therefore never complain that we are forced by overpowering circumstance into lack of faith. God knows our levels and will not test us beyond that which we can bear, but will make a way of escape (<a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a>). This is a wonderful promise, and it removes any excuse of 'circumstantial ethics' for our lack of response to God’s challenges to faith.</p>


text:
<p>and you will hear what they say. After that your hands will be strengthened to go down into the camp. Then he went down with Purah his servant to the outskirts of the armed men who were in the camp-</p><p>See on :12. Purah, 'boast of Yah', would have been one of Gideon's servants who bravely helped him cut down the altar of Baal and the Ashtaroth on another night not so long ago. See on :10; the same phrase for strengthening hands is used of how God graciously strengthened the hands of Lot to leave Sodom (<a href='B:10 19:16'>Gen 19:16</a>), when he like Gideon had some faith but not enough to rise up to the simple command to 'go out' as commanded by God.</p><p>Gideon had strengthened the 300 men (see on :8), but clearly his own faith needed strengthening. He would have strengthened them whilst himself doubting. This is absolutely true to real human experience. The record has every psychological and spiritual credibility.</p>


text:
<p>The Midianites, the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like locusts for multitude, and their camels were without number, as the sand which is on the seashore for multitude-</p><p>The same description is used of Saul's Philistine enemies in <a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a>. Gideon was Saul's hero-see on <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a>. Saul tried to externally imitate Gideon when he prohibited the men to eat anything while they were pursuing the Philistines (<a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> = <a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>; <a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a> = <a href='B:70 7:12'>Jdg 7:12</a>; <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>; <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a> = <a href='B:70 8:4-5'>Jdg 8:4-5</a>).</p><p>The enemy were "as the sand by the sea side for multitude", using the words of the Abrahamic promises (<a href='B:10 22:17-18'>Gen 22:17-18</a>):&nbsp;These people were therefore a pseudo-Israel, having the appearance of being Abraham's true seed. Hagar had been promised "I will multiply your seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude", after the pattern of the promises to Abraham (<a href='B:10 16:10'>Gen 16:10</a>). This is confirmed by their description as being "by ranks of five" (<a href='B:70 7:11'>Jdg 7:11</a>), using the identical Hebrew phrase as used in <a href='B:20 13:18'>Exo 13:18</a> and <a href='B:60 4:12'>Jos 4:12</a> concerning Israel's marching against their enemies:&nbsp;The aptness of this to Israel's present enemies is obvious- their local enemies claim they are the true seed of Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>When Gideon had come, there was a man telling a dream to his fellow. He said, I had a dream: a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian and came to the tent and struck it so that it fell, and turned it upside down so that the tent lay flat- </p><p>Gideon is likened to a loaf of barley bread tumbling into Midian, overturning it - pointing forward to Jesus, the barley-bread loaf (<a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a> cp. :9), falling as the little stone on to the image (<a href='B:70 7:13'>Jdg 7:13</a>):&nbsp;Barley bread was despised as the most desperate kind of food a man could eat to stay alive. And this was how Gideon felt- he was God’s most desperate plan. His faith was weak, his repentance for idolatry had been secret and nervous, and yet God was going to use him.</p><p>We note that Gideon had very little bread when the Angel first appeared to him and commissioned him; he was beating out a few grains of wheat for a little bit of flour. In Jud. 8:5, he and his men lack bread. But it was Gideon as the tiny humble loaf of barley bread, the bread of the poor, that overturned the tent of Midian in Jud. 7:13. Again and again, Gideon was being shown that it is through the diminished and weak that God will bring victory. And we think of the five barley loaves of the little boy used by the Lord to feed thousands of people.</p><p>"Tumbled" is used to describe the sword of the cherubim which "turned every way" (<a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a>); another hint that Gideon and his men were a replication of the cherubim on earth; see on :20.</p><p>"The tent" is the usual word for 'tabernacle'. They had carried the tabernacle of their god with them into battle, and Gideon overturned it. The victory was therefore to be against their gods, and thereby demonstrating the supremacy of Yahweh. Gideon and Purah had overturned the altar of Baal in Abiezer, and as with events in our lives, this was to prepare him for the far greater overturning of the pagan tabernacle of the Midianites. The same phrase is used for the tabernacle of David which "fell", s:w. "lay flat" (<a href='B:370 9:11'>Amo 9:11</a>). The tent may refer specifically to a kingly tent, as if the ruling house of Midian was to be destroyed.</p>


text:
<p>His fellow answered, This is none other than the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel. God has delivered Midian into his hand with all the army-</p><p>But Gideon's men were not to use swords, only trumpets and earthenware... and to proclaim the sword of Yahweh. Gideon now understood that Yahweh's sword was his sword, Yahweh's sword was men who didn’t use swords. It's rather like the nervous, doubting Gideon being told "Go in this your might... you mighty man of valour". God sees things which are not as though they are; He sees maturity before it has developed. And our eye of faith is to see likewise.  If the Midianites believed that they were delivered into Gideon's hand, and God believed it, then Gideon had to believe it.</p>


text:
<p>When Gideon heard the telling of the dream and its interpretation, he worshipped, and he returned into the camp of Israel. He said, Arise, for Yahweh has delivered the army of Midian into your hand!- </p><p>We need to realize that God deals with us as individuals. No matter how functional and holy, or dysfunctional and evil, is our church, we are still treated by the Father as His individual children. So many have struggled with this, tending to see themselves rather as inevitably part of a community, faceless cogs in a machine. And this is actually quite attractive to humanity- hence the popularity of Roman Catholicism. Reflect a while on how God told Gideon: “I will be with thee” [you singular], and yet Gideon responds: “Oh my Lord, if the Lord be with us…” (<a href='B:70 6:12-13'>Jdg 6:12-13</a>). Gideon had to be taught that God saw him as a separate, unique individual, and didn’t deal with him automatically merely as part of a community as a whole. But it was a slow process. When Gideon saw in a dream a man saying that God had delivered Midian into his [singular] hand, Gideon then tells Israel that God had delivered Midian into their hands (<a href='B:70 7:14-15'>Jdg 7:14-15</a>). He still found it so hard to believe that God treated him as so important to Him. Or we could argue that Gideon was not out for personal justification, but for the victory of Israel.</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn’t realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He divided the three hundred men into three companies and he gave each of them a trumpet and an empty pitcher, with a torch inside the pitcher-</p><p>The pitchers would have been used for carrying water, for water supply was critical to the movement and sustenance of an army on the move. To have empty pitchers, they would have had to empty the water out of them. Now they had no water, they had to trust fully in Yahweh. They had to get down from the mountain, destroy the enemy, and then they would again be able to lap of the water. The earthenware pitchers represented men, made of clay, but with the torch of God’s Spirit burning within them. And that potential was to be revealed by breaking the pitchers. "Empty" translates the common Hebrew word for vain or worthless. They had no strength of their own. This is the whole message of the Gideon story, that men are made strong out of weakness, but it is their weakness and emptiness which is used; for truly we come to God with nothing in our hands.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Watch me, and do as I do when I come to the outermost part of the camp- </p><p>Gideon and Purah had been to the outermost part of the camp the night before.  Gideon had been so fearful, but now he has been made strong out of that weakness. True leadership is only from those who were once weak and have thus been made strong. Israel would only be delivered from the Midianites if they repented, and Gideon's repentance was being treated as symbolic of the nation. And so the people with him had to act as if 'in him'. He was their representative, as the Lord Jesus is for us.</p>


text:
<p>When I blow the trumpet, I and all who are with me, then blow your trumpets too, on every side of the camp, and shout ‘For Yahweh and for Gideon!’-</p><p>See on :17. AV "The sword of the Lord and of Gideon". He had learned the lesson from :14, that his sword was that of Yahweh. And yet they were not to use swords, but just to have torches and worthless [s:w. "empty"] pitchers in their hands. Yahweh's sword was not a visible one in the hands of His people. And that is an abiding lesson:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>So Gideon and the hundred men who were with him came to the outskirts of the camp in the beginning of the middle watch, when they had but newly set the watch. They blew the trumpets and broke in pieces the pitchers that were in their hands- </p><p>To break an earthenware pitcher was a symbol of death (<a href='B:250 12:6'>Ecc 12:6</a>). Through their human frailty, for the pitchers were "empty" (s:w. vain, worthless), the torch fire of God’s Spirit was to be revealed.</p><p>The blowing of trumpets by the 300 points forward to the resurrection. The breaking of the clay to reveal the burning lamps within the pitchers, is clearly at the root of <a href='B:540 4:6-8'>2Co 4:6-8</a>: "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness (cp. the sudden appearance of those lights on that night)…we have this treasure in earthen vessels (cp. <a href='B:70 7:19'>Jdg 7:19</a>), that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us (cp. <a href='B:70 7:2'>Jdg 7:2</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;We are troubled on every side" (cp. "on every side", :18 and <a href='B:70 6:2-6'>Jdg 6:2-6</a>):&nbsp;All this would suggest that the 300 men are to be connected with the resurrected of the new Israel, whose "earthen vessels" are broken (by means of resurrection and judgment) at the end of Israel's latter day downtreading and immediately prior to the great destruction of their enemies by them:&nbsp;To break an earthenware pitcher was a symbol of death (<a href='B:250 12:6'>Ecc 12:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The three companies blew the trumpets and broke the pitchers and held the torches in their left hands and the trumpets in their right hands with which to blow, and they shouted, The sword of Yahweh and of Gideon!- </p><p>Literally, they strengthened the torches in their hands, the very phrase used in :8,11 of God strengthening their hands. But their strength was in gripping on to the torches, not their human weapons.</p><p>"The sword of Yahweh", instead of their swords [for they held pitchers and torches, not swords] has been interpreted as a reference to the cherubim; see on :13. The point has been made that this whole scenario of flashing fire and swords was a&nbsp;conscious imitation of the cherubim:&nbsp;  In this case, we see that true faith is a trust that we are in fact manifesting God, He is manifesting Himself through us, and therefore we are not going in our own strength. From this we can infer that the cherubim will be associated with the latter-day deliverance of Israel- perhaps the enigmatic "sign of the son of man in heaven" (<a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They each stood in his place around the camp and all the army ran, and they shouted and put them to flight- </p><p>The shouting was as in the conquest of Jericho- the victory cry uttered before they had won the victory. This was done in faith, acting as if they had received already that which they had asked for (<a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They blew the three hundred trumpets, and Yahweh set every man’s sword against his fellow and against all the army, and the army fled as far as Beth Shittah toward Zererah, as far as the border of Abel Meholah by Tabbath-</p><p>This is a prototype for how the latter day invasion by Israel's neighbours will be overcome (also <a href='B:140 20:23'>2Ch 20:23</a>). Psalms 83 perfectly describes the Islamist unity as they attack Jerusalem in the last days (<a href='B:230 83:3-5'>Psa 83:3-5</a>; <a href='B:230 83:12'>Psa 83:12</a>), but concludes with the Psalmist praying that God would destroy them as He did Oreb and Zeeb (<a href='B:230 83:11'>Psa 83:11</a>) - who were defeated as a result of God making their troops turn on each other.</p><p>The invaders massacred each other, as in <a href='B:140 20:23'>2Ch 20:23</a>. They were a confederacy, and there were likely preexisting tensions and suspicions. This is a theme in the latter-days passages: <a href='B:450 14:13'>Zec 14:13</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:90 14:22'>1Sa 14:22</a>:&nbsp; We see that division is in fact from God as a form of judgment. Those who create division are therefore creating and living out their own condemnation. And the same will happen in the last days. Whilst such confusion is easily possible given modern high-technology warfare, it would seem more likely that a few initial mistakes of this sort could open up old rivalries which are then fought out to the death:&nbsp;Indeed, we could sensibly look for even more rifts to occur between Israel's enemies, e.g. over oil.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel were gathered together out of Naphtali, Asher and all Manasseh, and they pursued Midian- </p><p>We recall how Deborah's appeal for support from Asher and some of the leaders of these tribes had been refused. And after God gave the great victory, she taught everyone the song of Deborah in Judges 5 which lamented their lack of response. So perhaps that had worked, and now they responded. We may fail a call the first time, but then it is repeated, and we accept it. We note that these men of Israel from these areas were probably those who had originally come with Gideon and then been sent back (<a href='B:70 6:35'>Jdg 6:35</a>). They would have reflected upon their own weakness of faith, and now would have been grateful to be called out to service again. God doesn't just dismiss people from His service because of their weak faith; He tries to use them again. Or we could conclude (see on :24) that Gideon's acceptance of them now as fellow soldiers was really a rejection of God's hand in sending those very soldiers home as unneeded in His plan.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon sent messengers throughout all the hill country of Ephraim saying, Come down against Midian and seize the waters of the Jordan ahead of them as far as Beth Barah. So all the men of Ephraim were gathered together and took the waters of the Jordan as far as Beth Barah- </p><p>This would have been near to where Israel first entered the land under Joshua. The spiritually minded would have seen the hand of God again at work in the same locality. This was where John the Baptist was to baptize repentant Israelites (<a href='B:500 1:28'>Joh 1:28</a>). And the whole victory was because of repentance.</p><p>It could be argued that this appeal for more human help reflects a lack of faith. He has just sent home the majority of his soldiers, having been taught how God works through much diminished numbers. And now he appeals for more soldiers to come to him. This could be seen as the start of a downward spiral of faithless behaviour, as if he had reached his spiritual peak and was now declining, although Heb. 11:32 assures us he will be in God's Kingdom. The idea of smooth, incremental spiritual growth is mythical, and was only seen in the Lord. In Gideon's case, his spiritually grew an declined... although he still died a saved man. His appeal for Israelites to come and support him led him to the sin of whipping and punishing his own brethren who didn't come and support him. That would have been avoided if he and his few soldiers had just gone onwards in God's strength, and accepted that God was clearly with him.</p>


text:
<p>They took the two princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb and they killed Oreb at the rock of Oreb and Zeeb they killed at the winepress of Zeeb- </p><p>Zeeb had presumably tried to hide in a winepress. But he was slain there. And we recall how it was in a winepress, disused because there was no vintage because Israel had broken the covenant, that Gideon was first called whilst threshing wheat in it. Thus we see the triumph of the small, cowering, little man.</p><p>They pursued Midian, and they brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon beyond the Jordan-</p><p>The Philistines in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> recalled how David had carried the head of Goliath to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:57'>1Sa 17:57</a>). To carry the heads of a king's enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in <a href='B:70 7:25'>Jdg 7:25</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>; <a href='B:100 20:21'>2Sa 20:21</a>; <a href='B:120 10:6-8'>2Ki 10:6-8</a>. This appears another suggestion that although Gideon refused in so many words to be king, he acted as king and was treated as one. Challenging us, as to how much of our devotion and principle is in name and word only... Again we see the inspired, historical record has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be, the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Ephraim said to him, Why have you treated us this way, that you didn’t call us when you went to fight with Midian? They rebuked him sharply-</p><p>The Ephraimites came over as offended because they weren’t invited to fight in a battle, even though they had shown no inclination; and they did this with both Gideon and Jephthah&nbsp; (<a href='B:70 8:1'>Jdg 8:1</a>; <a href='B:70 12:1'>Jdg 12:1</a>). Again we see absolutely credible characterization of people and families in the Biblical record. This is in sharp contrast to the mythical elements and exaggerated presentations in contemporary literature.

Here we have an example of a situation being stated, and then we have the explanation of how it came about. They made this complaint after the incident of :4, when they had captured the princes of Midian. So this is not strictly chronological.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, What have I now done in comparison with you? Isn’t the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?-</p><p>The Proverbs often comment upon historical situations in the Hebrew Bible, and "a soft answer turns away wrath" may well be based upon this incident (<a href='B:240 15:1'>Pro 15:1</a>). We recall that Gideon was initially called by God whilst he was threshing wheat in the disused family winepress in Abiezer- disused because there was no vintage, as this was a curse for disobedience to the covenant. He is ever aware of how the victory began with the few men of Abiezer gathering around him, and only then did others come to his call to arms. He assumes Ephraim has a vintage, a wine harvest, which is incomparable to that of Abiezer. He treated even those apostates as more worthy of God’s blessing than himself and his home village. We have a window here onto his deep and genuine humility, which is the more commendable as it seems he was a strong warrior in his own right (see on :18,21).</p><p>Gideon's idea is that they had had the honour of capturing the princes of Midian (:3), and this was far greater than his victory over the Midianite armies. Gideon's reply may appear a soft answer turning away wrath. But the better and more truthful answer would have been 'Because God saves by many or few and showed me that He doesn't need many men nor even swords in hands'. We sense Gideon slipping spiritually, more concerned with keeping in with people than challenging wrong positions. A far cry from the Gideon who cut down the pillar of Baal, willing to stand alone against his father, his family and the men of his town. Perhaps Gideon focused now upon personally capturing and slaying the two kings of Midian, Zeba and Zalmunah, motivated by the fact that he had lost the honour of slaying the two princes, Oreb and Zeeb. His apparently humble words were therefore only a cover for his hurt pride. And how much of our apparent humility is but a cover for hurt pride? We will later see that his apparently humble rejection of kingship was likewise not at all humble, and in reality he acted as a king. </p>


text:
<p>God has delivered into your hand the princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb! What was I able to do in comparison with you? Then their anger was abated toward him, when he had said that- </p><p>God had delivered the enemy into Gideon's personal hand (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>), but Gideon speaks of the enemies having been given into Israel's hand (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>). Gideon was not out for personal justification, but for the victory of Israel:&nbsp;And so he has the humility to placate the Ephraimites by saying that they had the honour of having Oreb and Zeeb in their hands.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon came to the Jordan and crossed over with the three hundred men, exhausted yet pursuing- </p><p>LXX "faint and hungry", hence their request for bread in :5. Saul tried to imitate this when he prohibited the men to eat anything while they were pursuing the Philistines (<a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> = <a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>; <a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a> = <a href='B:70 7:12'>Jdg 7:12</a>; <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>; <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a> = <a href='B:70 8:4-5'>Jdg 8:4-5</a>). But he was totally missing the point- he was trying to make a cardboard copy of another man's faith, following only the externalities, without Gideon's faith and humility.</p><p>The pursuit of the enemy east of Jordan repeats what Abraham did with his 318 servants, roughly the same number as Gideon had with him. He found himself, as we do, walking in the steps of his spiritual father Abraham; see on :32. David too was to pursue after his enemies exhausted, and so we see how circumstances repeat between the lives of God’s people. This is how the Bible becomes a living word, the history is not dead but alive, because it has been carefully selected by God to show us that man is not alone, God is with us, no circumstance we face is in essence unique; others have trodden this path before.</p>


text:
<p>He said to the men of Succoth, Please give loaves of bread to the people who follow me, for they are exhausted and I am pursuing Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian- </p><p>To turn down a request for bread from travellers was a deep insult, according to the hospitality culture of the times. And it still is, in many such areas today. Zebah and Zalmunna had fled upon camels, and so it seemed they would not be caught by Gideon and his men. And the men of Succoth clearly feared they would survive and return to punish them if they supported Gideon. They failed to learn the lesson of Deborah's song, which castigated those Israelites who had failed to respond to her call to arms.</p><p>We note that Gideon had very little bread when the Angel first appeared to him and commissioned him; he was beating out a few grains of wheat for a little bit of flour. In Jud. 8:5, he and his men lack bread. But it was Gideon as the tiny humble loaf of barley bread, the bread of the poor, that overturned the tent of Midian in Jud. 7:13. Again and again, Gideon was being shown that it is through the diminished and weak that God will bring victory. And we think of the five barley loaves of the little boy used by the Lord to feed thousands of people.
</p> <p> 
We wonder whether Gideon was in fact intended to pursue the Midianites beyond the Jordan. They had left Israelite territory. Their weakness and exhaustion is emphasized. Gideon turns to human help rather than Divine help, and gets furious when he doesn't get that human help. This seems in contrast to how they so easily destroyed the Midianite army within the territory of Israel. Perhaps Gideon was now motivated not by a desire to glorify God, but to glorify himself and get vengeance for the deaths of his family at Tabor. And yet God still worked through his weakness, and gave him and his exhausted 300 men an amazing victory. "The people who follow me" perhaps reflects a growing desire to be leader and have a personal following. And yet at the same time he retains his sense that Yahweh will give him victory and not his own strength (:7).</p>


text:
<p>The princes of Succoth said, Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna already in your possession, that we should give bread to your army?- </p><p>Meroz was cursed bitterly by God in <a href='B:70 5:23'>Jdg 5:23</a>. It was a village through which Sisera or his men had fled, and they feared to join in the fight. The same situation was to recur when Succoth and Penuel refused to help Gideon. The history of Meroz and the Israelites who refused to help Deborah was a lesson not learnt by Succoth and Penuel.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said Because of that, when Yahweh has delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into my hand, I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers- </p><p>Gideon's faith is now so strong that he can be sure that he will catch those whom he was pursuing, even though they had camels. "Tear" is AVmg. "thresh", with all its connotations of judgment. The area around Succoth is famed for its thorn bushes.</p><p>This is a far cry from the humble, insecure Gideon so desperate for a Divine hand to hold. He threatens even his own people with being thrown down on a bed of thorns, trodden by him on it and whipped on it by him with briers. He was presumably justifying his natural anger as being exercised in judging / threshing the enemies of God. But judging for God isn't the same as just pouring out your native anger on other men who all the same were made in God's image. The idea of threshing appears to be of bashing out flour from ears of corn. A far cry from the timid Gideon who was threshing ears of grain in this way, cowering from the Midianites. Now he boasts he will do this to his own brethren. </p> <p> We may enquire why Gideon wanted specifically to "scourge" those Israelites who were disloyal to him. In Jud. 7:25 the men of Ephraim killed Oreb and Zeeb the princes of Midian. Even though they were riding on the back of Gideon's faith and courage. We learn in Is. 10:26 that they were scourged before their death. For in the last days, Yahweh "will raise up a scourge according to the slaughter of Midian at the rock of Oreb". So we have a psychological classic. Gideon felt he was the one who deserved to scourge his enemies. But other men had gotten that glory. So he felt the need to scourge someone. And he picked on his own brethren. This kind of transference goes on all the time in human being. And again we see how the Biblical record is so psychologically credible. 
</p> <p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn’t realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He went up from there to Penuel and spoke to them in the same way, and the men of Penuel answered him as the men of Succoth had answered- </p><p>Spiritual weakness is easily contagious. They replied just as the others had, assuming Gideon would not achieve his Divinely empowered mission. It could be argued that this appeal for more human help at Jud. 7:24 reflects a lack of faith. He has just sent home the majority of his soldiers. And now he appeals for more soldiers to come to him. This could be seen as the start of a downward spiral of faithless behaviour, as if he had reached his spiritual peak and was now declining, although Heb. 11:32 assures us he will be in God's Kingdom. His appeal for Israelites to come and support him led him to the sin of whipping and punishing his own brethren who didn't come and support him. That would have been avoided if he and his few soldiers had just gone onwards in God's strength, and accepted that God was clearly with him.</p>


text:
<p>He said to the men of Penuel, When I come again in peace I will break down this tower- </p><p>Penuel was so named to celebrate how Jacob had seen the face of God and lived (<a href='B:10 32:30'>Gen 32:30</a>). Gideon had earlier thought he would be slain as he had been so unworthy to see the face of the Angel (<a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a>). As with our lives, God was leading him to perceive ever more His grace. Coming "in peace" reflected how he had learned the lesson from seeing the face of the Angel; for he had built an altar called 'Yahweh is peace', and now he was confident that indeed he was at peace with God despite all his weaknesses; see on <a href='B:70 6:23-24'>Jdg 6:23-24</a>.</p><p>Gideon is presented in Jud. 6,7 as timid, doubting and fearful, always needing God to hold his hand, and tightly. Yet by chapter 8, Gideon's dialogue with the men of Succoth and Penuel reveals him as confident of success and not at all fearful, and he threatens to tear down their tower (Jud. 8:9). This is very different to the Gideon who had feared to tear down his father's Baal altar. His judgment of Israelites who didn't support him in Jud. 8:14-17 is a reflection of his changed character. And this leads him to the poor behaviour with which he ended his life; spiritually, it would've been far better had he remained timid and desperate for God to hold his hand, rather than to become old and brave and self confident. So many stumble once they have a taste of power and success. We are set up to hope for a tale of a man moving from fear to faith, but instead the path is from fear to self-assertion. Yet despite this failure, Heb. 11 still lists him as a Kingdom person.       </p>


text:
<p>Now Zebah and Zalmunna were in Karkor and their armies with them, about fifteen thousand men, all who were left of all the army of the people of the east; one hundred and twenty thousand fighting men having been killed- </p><p>This means that initially, 135000 were facing Gideon's 300. That works out at precisely 450 of the enemy for every one of Gideon's men. And it cannot be coincidence that Elijah describes himself as facing off as one man of God against 450 prophets of Baal on Carmel (<a href='B:110 18:22'>1Ki 18:22</a>). Despite his arrogance and spiritual weakness, Elijah learned the lesson from Gideon's courageous example. This is how the Bible becomes a living word, the history is not dead but alive, because it has been carefully selected by God to show us that man is not alone, God is with us, no circumstance we face is in essence unique; others have trodden this path before:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Gideon went up by the way of those who lived in tents on the east of Nobah and Jogbehah and attacked the army, which was unsuspecting- </p><p>'The way of the tent-dwellers' means the Bedouin route, he took the rough short cut, because those he was pursuing had camels and he was presumably on foot. Hence he came upon them whilst they were "unsuspecting".</p>


text:
<p>Zebah and Zalmunna fled and he pursued after them, and took the two kings of Midian, Zebah and Zalmunna, and routed all the army- </p><p>"Zebah" is the word for sacrifice, and the execution of Zebah in :21 may therefore be understood as an offering of them to Yahweh. Perhaps this is what he was named after the event, seeing that personal names were often given in response to life experiences.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon the son of Joash returned from the battle from the ascent of Heres- </p><p>"Heres", the sun, probably refers to some place of idolatry. The whole record of the victories is to show the supremacy of Yahweh over the gods of the peoples, whom Israel were worshipping.</p>


text:
<p>He caught a young man of Succoth and asked of him, and he described for him the princes of Succoth and its elders, seventy-seven men- </p><p>This was presumably in the form of a list of names.</p>


text:
<p>He came to the men of Succoth and said, See Zebah and Zalmunna, concerning whom you taunted me saying, ‘Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your possession, that we should give bread to your men who are weary?’- </p><p>Gideon preserved the kings alive in order to teach the men of Succoth. But we wonder, as always with Gideon, whether there was not an element of arrogance now creeping in to an otherwise humble man (see on :2) For surely there was no absolute need to humiliate his enemies and also go to such lengths to demonstrate the wrongness of the men of Succoth. The loss of humility, humility morphing into pride, is one of the most tragic of spiritual declensions. We must constantly examine ourselves as to whether we are losing humility.</p>


text:
<p>He took the elders of the city and thorns of the wilderness and briers, and with them he taught the men of Succoth a lesson- </p><p>This kind of torture was perhaps not unto death. Perhaps it was all an unnecessary display of power and smacks of arrogance (see on :15). Or maybe he didn’t slay them as he did the men of Penuel (:17) because he believed they could be "taught" from this. But "taught" is LXX "threshed"; see on :7.</p>


text:
<p>He broke down the tower of Penuel and killed the men of the city- </p><p>This is the language of Christ's return in judgment upon the people of Jerusalem, who are elsewhere likened to a tower in Zion (<a href='B:470 22:7'>Mat 22:7</a>):&nbsp;In the latter day context, those Jews who survive the tribulation but still refuse to learn the lesson of total commitment to their Messiah / judge / saviour, will be destroyed at broadly the same time as their enemies.</p><p>We note that Gideon apparently "taught" the men of Succoth (:16), but slew those of Penuel. Perhaps they took refuge in their tower and refused to meet with Gideon nor repent, hence he slew them.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said to Zebah and Zalmunna, What kind of men were they whom you killed at Tabor? They answered, They were like you. Each one resembled the children of a king- </p><p>This massacre is not previously recorded. But clearly there had been the deaths of Gideon's relatives at Tabor. We note that Gideon had the air of a leader to him, resembling a king. His humility noted on :2 is therefore the more commendable. But we note what is so true to human experience and observation, that those who may exude authority and confident leadership skills are often terribly insecure, clinging on to God with a childlike faith and ever seeking His reassurance. See on :30. We learn from this that Gideon's body language was as if he were a king. This gives the lie to his later pious refusal to be a king. He effectively acted as one and felt as one, so his denial of this and apparent piety and humility were all merely an appearance. By various means, he dodged around the spirit of God's requirements; like Levites owning land in Cyprus. Possibly his sense of kingship began when he told his men to charge at the Midiantes shouting 'For the LORD and for Gideon!' (Jud. 7:18). Because the idea of [for our god] and for [our king] has always been common from ancient times- "In the name of God and the King" was the catchcry of the British empire. The way Abimelech asks whether Israel want to be ruled by one man or by all his 70 sons (Jud. 9:2) is a tacit implication that Gideon had reigned as king, and now the question was about whether one of his sons rule them, or all 70.</p>


text:
<p>He said, They were my brothers, the sons of my mother. As Yahweh lives, if you had saved them alive, I would not kill you- </p><p>The implication of :18 is that those slain at Tabor were Gideon's own children. See on :20. But it seems his brothers were also slain. The Divine command was to slay the Canaanites, so Gideon's statement here that he was only going to kill them because they had slain his relatives is therefore somewhat spiritually lacking. As is his materialistic demand for the spoil and making an ephod. And yet he died in faith. Just as Samson did, despite so many weaknesses.</p>


text:
<p>He said to Jether his firstborn, Get up and kill them! But the youth didn’t draw his sword for he was afraid, because he was still a youth-</p><p>Although Gideon's brothers were slain (:19), it seems from :18 that his children were also killed. This is why he asks his firstborn son, who was with him and had survived, to act as the avenger of blood and slay those who had killed his brothers. This however was somewhat of a twist of the law of blood revenge, which surely didn’t apply to deaths in battle. Although the children may have been too young to fight. "Jether" means "excellency" and this was the meaning of Jacob's firstborn Reuben, who was the "excellency" of his power (<a href='B:10 49:3'>Gen 49:3</a> s:w:). In this we see Gideon being guided by Biblical precedent, despite his weaknesses.</p><p>Gideon in Judges 6 and 7 presents as a child, desperately wanting God to hold His hand. Wanting reassurance after reassurance, even though God had given it him. As a child, you instinctively put your hand out for someone to hold it as you approached a road. You earnestly implored the adult steadying your bicycle as you learned to ride and balance "You won't let go, will you?". Or as you learned to swim without a board. Gideon comes over as this, time and again. And God used him. But just as we now have crossed thousands of roads alone, he grew old and brave, whipped Israelites who didn't support him, appeared as a mighty warrior, fearless and confident in pursuit of his enemies. But the key is to remain in contact with the little child within you, to stay small in your own eyes, to always have that need for God, that instinctive putting out of your hand to Him. It is for this reason that we have the incident of Gideon telling his young son to murder the captured kings, when [LXX] he was too young to wield a sword. He wanted to brutalize his own son at an early age by getting him to commit murder. As Gideon looked at his little boy, shy and so unsure and pining away from the challenge... he should have seen his real self.</p><p>
The reference to Gideon using a sword is another allusion to Gideon's earlier spiritual strength. But he and his 300 had won the victory by shouting The sword of Yahweh and of Gideon. Gideon's sword was that of Yahweh. And there had been no sword in his hand, just trumpet and empty / useless earthen vessels. But like David later wanting Goliath's sword, so Gideon reverts to human strength.</p>


text:
<p>Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, Get up and do it yourself, for as the man is, so is his strength. Gideon arose and killed Zebah and Zalmunna and took the crescents that were on their camels’ necks- </p><p>The implication could be that Gideon was indeed built as a strong and mighty warrior. His deep humility (see on :2) is therefore the more commendable. The crescents which he took remain the symbols of Israel's neighbouring enemies. But they had religious significance, and Gideon would have been better to destroy them. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, Rule over us, both you and your son and your son’s son also, for you have saved us out of the hand of Midian- </p><p>Gideon had the deportment of a king, and had acted like one (:18). But we see here Israel's lack of faith in Yahweh as their king, and their desperate desire for the immediate, the human and the visual rather than the invisible things of God’s rulership and kingship over them. "You and your son's son" means hereditary kingship. But Dt. 17 had been clear, that they could only have any king over them whom Yahweh had chosen. That seems to outlaw the common idea of hereditary kingship. It could be that the apparent request of the people was actually a way of saying 'You want to establish yourself and your family as kings- and we now accept that, given the prowess you have demonstrated'. In Semitic thought, such 'requests' can be made in order to confirm acceptance of what has been demanded. Thus a subjected nation would formally request the conqueror to reign over them. It was a way of accepting what was being asked of them. </p> <p> "You have saved us..." ought surely to have elicited from Gideon the response that he had not saved them- Yahweh had. Again, this is a far cry from the Gideon who began his ministry by saying "Oh Lord, how shall I save Israel?" (Jud. 6:23). He fails to give glory to God; and as discussed on :2, he fails through sin of omission rather than commission.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said to them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you. Yahweh shall rule over you- </p><p>Time and again, the Bible is full of warnings against doing what seems right before God, when our motives are far from Him. Take the way that Gideon was invited to be king over Israel, but he refused, citing the fact that Yahweh is Israel's King. All well and good... but the record goes on to record how he made an idolatrous ephod in his home town, to which all Israel came (<a href='B:70 8:22-24'>Jdg 8:22-24</a>). And he had a son, Abimelech- which means 'my father is king'!. And indeed Abimelech did try to become King of all Israel (<a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>).  The name Abimelech is stressed 37 times in Jud. 9, and we read multiple times there of how Abimelech 'reigned' [as king] (Jud. 9:6,8,10,12,14,16,18), when God was the 'reigner', the King of Israel. Abimelech's argument in Jud. 9:2 was that one leader was better than many, and he suggested himself as that one leader. He felt the man born to be king. Jotham chooses to claim that the Israelites wanted to anoint Abimelech as their king (Jud. 9:8). But all this was a failure to which they had been set up by Gideon wanting his son to become king. The fact all Gideon's 70 sons are slain by Abimelech shows how Gideon's hopes and projections upon Abimelech and for the establishment of his family as kings... all came to a tragic end. His family was not blessed, but he himself will be saved. </p> <p> Our behaviour smacks of this time and time again. We do what is externally right, but our inward motives are impure. There's an urgent need for self-examination at depth within each of us... and yet the busyness of our lives, our poor time management and lack of rigorous regime in spiritual life, so easily leads us not to seriously attempt this. And we end up doing things which are only externally right. See on <a href='B:70 9:18'>Jdg 9:18</a>.</p><p>And yet we could quite understandably read this as Gideon's commendable refusal to replace Yahweh as their king. He resisted the temptation to misinterpret <a href='B:50 17:14-15'>Deu 17:14-15</a> as meaning that indeed he was the man who would be desired as king by Israel.</p><p>The parable of <a href='B:70 9:8-11'>Jdg 9:8-11</a> implies that Israel repeated this request, but Gideon's sons refused, following their father’s example. Only the illegitimate Abimelech accepted it.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said to them, I would make a request of you, that every man would give me the earrings of his spoil. They had golden earrings because they were Ishmaelites- </p><p>Midianites were Ishmaelites (<a href='B:10 37:25'>Gen 37:25</a>; <a href='B:10 37:28'>Gen 37:28</a>; <a href='B:10 37:36'>Gen 37:36</a>). It seems that having overcome the temptation to be king (:23), Gideon succumbed to another temptation- to become wealthy, to effectively act as king by demanding wealth from his followers. We catch ourselves doing this; just as the alcoholic quits alcohol and takes to drugs. See on :26.</p><p>Although Gideon refused to be king, he called his son Abimelech, 'my father is king'. And he in other ways effectively declared himself as king, whilst on the other hand strongly and piously denying he was king. His request for a portion of the plunder was exactly what a king required from his soldiers (Jud. 5:30; 1 Sam. 30:19,20; 2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Chron. 20:2). Likewise taking many wives and having many sons, especially 70, was typical of the behaviour of men seeking to establish themselves as king. We think of how David took more wives and had children once he was king. Ahab also established his kingship by having 70 sons, and "seventy sons" may be another way of saying 'the sons of the king' in 2 Kings 10:1-7, where Jehu ends Ahab's dynasty by slaying "the sons of the king, seventy men". So having 70 sons was a way of claiming to be king.   </p>


text:
<p>They answered, We will willingly give them. They spread a garment and each man threw the earrings of his spoil into it- </p><p>When Gideon received the golden earrings of the Ishmaelites (<a href='B:70 8:24-27'>Jdg 8:24-27</a>), his mind should have flown back to how golden earrings were turned into the golden calf (<a href='B:20 32:2'>Exo 32:2</a>). He was potentially given the strength to resist the temptation to turn them into an idol. But he must have blanked out that Biblical precedent in his heart; he ignored his spiritual potential. The word for "earrings" in :24,26 only occurs in the golden calf incident (Ex. 32:2,3). Clearly what Gideon did is being paralleled with Aaron's creation of the golden calf. Like Aaron, Gideon never specifically repents, and yet is saved in the end. We wonder whether with some people, God accepts them because of outstanding faith and loyalty to Him at an earlier point in their lives. So long as they don't totally reject Him, He accepts them in the end despite their spiritual decline in later years. Or we wonder whether Gideon repented at the very end and is therefore saved on that account. We are not told, in order to exercise our minds. </p>


text:
<p>The weight of the golden earrings that he requested was one thousand seven hundred shekels of gold, besides the crescents, the pendants and the purple clothing that was on the kings of Midian, and besides the chains that were about their camels’ necks- </p><p>Purple clothing was the clothing of kings. As noted on :24, Gideon turned down being king- but he then as it were compensated for that by taking the clothing and wealth appropriate to a king. His victory over temptation in this area was therefore only external, and not from the heart. And we can do the same. We can contrast his being clothed with the purple clothing of Midian with the way he was clothed with God's Spirit in Jud. 6:34 (Heb.). We learn from Jer. 10:9 that purple clothes were associated with idolatry: "Their idols... are dressed in violet and purple cloth woven by skilled weavers" (GNB). The Midianite kings had purple clothing- because they were king-priests. When Gideon is asked to be king, he declines, but declares himself a priest- he had already made an altar to Yahweh at his home village, and now he places an ephod there. So by doing this he was effectively declaring himself also a king, given the understanding of king-priests. </p> <p> 
  1700 shekels of gold was a huge weight, about 43 pounds [20 kg.]. Demanding and receiving such huge wealth was behaviour apppropriate to a king. It is noted in :18 that Gideon had the deportment of a King; his body language betrayed his self perception as a king. Gideon has moved far on from the man who was once young and so desperately unsure, describing himself as from the poorest family in the poorest tribe, as he beat out a few ears of grain in the disused family winepress. </p>


text:
<p>Gideon made an ephod of it and put it in his city, in Ophrah, and all Israel prostituted themselves by worshipping it there; and it became a snare to Gideon and to his house- </p><p>Twice in 1 Timothy, Paul speaks about a snare; the snare of the devil (<a href='B:610 3:7'>1Ti 3:7</a>), and the snare of wanting wealth (6:9). The desire for wealth in whatever form is the very epitome of the devil, our inherent sin which we must struggle against. The idea of a snare is that it results in a sudden and unexpected destruction. The unexpectedness of the destruction should set us thinking: surely the implication is that those who are materialistic don't realize that in fact this is their besetting sin, and therefore their rejection in the end because of it will be so tragically unexpected. It's rather like pride; if you're proud and you don't know it, then you really are proud. And if we're materialistic and don't know it, we likewise really have a problem. The idea of riches being a snare connects with copious OT references to idols as Israel's perpetual snare (<a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a>; <a href='B:50 7:16'>Deu 7:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>; <a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>; <a href='B:230 106:36'>Psa 106:36</a>; <a href='B:350 5:1'>Hos 5:1</a>). Paul's point is surely that the desire of wealth is the equivalent of OT idolatry.</p><p>The ephod was likely comprised of precious stones which had also been in the earrings of the Midianites and around the necks of their camels. He had built an altar to Yahweh in his home, and it seems this was an imitation high priestly breastplate. He was effectively setting himself up as a priest:&nbsp;</p><p>Gideon had a weakness for wanting signs from God, and it seems that the urim and thummim in the High Priest's breastplate flashed out yes / no binary answers to questions. So perhaps he never quite got over that desire to have visible signs, and this weakness [like all unvanquished weaknesses] expanded into something grotesque- a golden ephod that became a spiritual snare. </p> <p> The language of Israel prostituting themselves reminds us of the golden calf incident, where again golden earrings are taken from the people, and an idol is made (Ex. 32:2-6). Clearly what Gideon did was as wrong as what Aaron did. He failed to perceive that he had been called in terms of being another Moses for Israel, as discussed on chapter 7. But he fails to keep perceiving that, and behaves as faithless Aaron. We too are to perceive which Bible characters we are being led to emulate. The fact he put about 20 kg. of gold into the "ephod" surely of itself suggests that this was more of an idol than en ephod. Although Heb. 11 assures us that Gideon will be in the Kingdom, seeing he "died in faith", we have to observe that he effectively rebuilt a pagan shrine in Ophrah, after having cut it down in his youth. We see the same spiritual entropy in David and others who will all the same be in the Kingdom. Spiritual entropy is a tragic thing to behold and it is a frequent sight. But Jud. 8:35 concludes his story with the comment that he did good to Israel- even though actually his vanity led all Israel to prostitute themselves against Yahweh. So in the final judgment of God, although Gideon laid a stumbling block to them in the form of the ephod, it was Israel who were more guilty than he was. We cannot judge, but seeing an example like this of how carefully God balances His judgment, we can be assured that His final judgment will be just and factor in everything. Without the comment of Heb. 11 and Jud. 8:35, we would likely have written off Gideon as a spiritual failure, one like Saul who started well but went wrong. We are taught here, as we are with Samson, that God's judgment is different to ours; we are not to judge exactly because we cannot judge, we do not see all the inner nuances of human minds and lives. But God does.  </p> <p> It is the surrounding Canaanite people who are repeatedly described as a "snare" to Israel. Just as Midianite women had been at the time of the golden calf, which incident is clearly alluded to in Gideon's creation of the ephod from earrings. All Gideon's hard work in delivering Israel from the Midianites was therefore undone by him- because his ephod became a snare to Israel, just as the Canaanite tribes had been. He left no good legacy, and his tragic family history after his death reflects that. Again we reflect that even if a man's work for the Lord is undone by his own foolish pride, he himself may still be saved as Gideon was. As Paul puts it, all a man builds may be burnt up, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire. Gideon means 'hacker down' and Jerubbaal means 'Baal fighter' or 'Let Baal plead'. Gideon ultimately failed to achieve his potential. He as it were built up idolatry. But still he will be saved. This is both comfort and challenge to us.</p>


text:
<p>So Midian was subdued before the Israelites, and they exalted their heads no more-</p><p>The nations in the land being "subdued" was the outcome of Israel being obedient to the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). We read this word "subdued" used of how the land was at times subdued before Israel (<a href='B:70 3:30'>Jdg 3:30</a>; <a href='B:70 4:23'>Jdg 4:23</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a>; <a href='B:70 11:33'>Jdg 11:33</a>). But each time it is clear that the people generally were not obedient to the covenant. One faithful leader was, and the results of his faithfulness were counted to the people. This is what happened with the Lord's death leading to righteousness being imputed to us.</p><p>The land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon- </p><p>The forty years rest of <a href='B:70 3:11'>Jdg 3:11</a>; <a href='B:70 5:31'>Jdg 5:31</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a> may not be a literal period. I have elsewhere noted that the forty year reigns of Saul, David and Solomon create chronological problems if read literally. The idea may be that forty years was a time of testing, as it was for Israel in the wilderness. We think of the Lord's 40 days of testing too. In this case, they were tested by peace. And they consistently failed, as God’s people often do.</p>


text:
<p>Jerubbaal the son of Joash went and lived in his own house- </p><p>He commendably didn’t try to establish himself with a palace, as he had rejected the possibility of becoming king. But he turned that house into a quasi sanctuary, having built an altar to Yahweh there, and now having made a breastplate. We see how his apparent resistance of the temptation to be king was not from the heart, because he acted like a king in other ways. Indeed it could be argued that the statement that he "lived in his own house" is tautological, in that of course people live in their own homes. The suggestion seems to be that he established his home as a kind of capital and religious center for Israel. The note that Gideon was buried in his own city in the tomb of his fathers (:32) is the same rubric used about the deaths and burials of Israel's later kings. 
</p> <p> The mention of his name, Baal judger, is placed in juxtaposition with the fact he effectively made an idol and Israel worshipped it. As if he retained his name as a believer but didn't live up to it. Possibly he created an ephod because from it, the urim and thummim flashed out assurance and answers to questions. And Gideon had always been in such need of this from God. So we see some spirituality mixed with carnality in him, which was the consistent problem with God's people as it is to this day.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon had seventy sons conceived from his body, for he had many wives-</p><p>I suggested on :18,20 that some of Gideon's sons had been killed at Tabor, and this is why he asked his firstborn to act as the avenger of blood in slaying their killers. It is psychologically understandable that he sought to build up his family again, but his "many wives" hardly speak of spirituality, and having 70 sons looked ahead to the ungodly behaviour of Ahab (<a href='B:120 10:1'>2Ki 10:1</a>). Ahab having 70 sons suggests that having 70 sons meant he was establishing himself as a king. The surrounding legends often feature a god / king as having 70 sons. We note that the record records Gideon's denial of kingship; but the inspired record gives many details which appear to show God's take on that, revealing that in fact he did act as king, despite his words to the contrary. The description of him having many wives, amassing gold to himself and leading Israel astray is all presented in terms of how Dt. 17:17-20 said that this was not what the King of Israel should do. We are left to conclude that he was the king who was never crowned, but his kingship was not as God wished. But again we note- that despite all this, he is listed in Heb. 11 amongst those who will be saved. The victory over Midian, and his transformation from a doubter to a man of faith, was surely over no more than a few weeks of his life. We are left to enquire whether this was so very pleasing to God that He saved him anyway. Despite all the spiritual entropy we observe in Jud. 8. We must enquire in what areas we protest our spiritual innocence, and yet in reality, act in the very way we deny. Are we materialistic? Do we really care about people? Are we really loving and devoted to love as we say we are?</p>


text:
<p>His concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son and he named him Abimelech- </p><p>Abimelech means 'my father is king'. And indeed Abimelech did try to become King of all Israel (<a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>). As discussed on :23, Gideon overcame the temptation to become king, but only on an external level. In reality his behaviour was as if was a king in all but name.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon the son of Joash died in a good old age and was buried in the tomb of Joash his father in Ophrah of the Abiezrites- </p><p>This is the same description used for the death of Abraham (<a href='B:10 15:15'>Gen 15:15</a>; <a href='B:10 25:8'>Gen 25:8</a>) in whose faultering steps of faith Gideon had followed; see on :4. He is presented, for all his moral weakness and faultering faith, as a seed of Abraham. And he is listed amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11. We are thereby comforted in our own self doubt, as we review the weak nature of our own faith and commitment:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>As soon as Gideon was dead, the people of Israel turned again and played the prostitute after the Baals, and made Baal Berith their god- </p><p>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a>; <a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a>; <a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a>; <a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a>; <a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a>; <a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a>; <a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a>; <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a>; <a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>; <a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a>; <a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>). The very language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a>; <a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a>; <a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a>; <a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a>; <a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His.</p><p>Baal Berith is literally the Baal of the covenant. Israel went wrong because they reasoned that serving Baal was a form of worshipping Yahweh and keeping covenant relationship with Him.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites didn’t remember Yahweh their God Who had delivered them out of the hand of all their enemies on every side- </p><p>They never formally abrogated Yahweh nor their covenant with Him, and would never have considered themselves atheists. Just as many of us never would. But they didn’t "remember" Him nor His great salvation of them by grace; this was not constantly in their minds. And so it can be with us. This is why the breaking of bread service plays an important role in helping us not to forget these things.</p>


text:
<p>neither did they show kindness to the house of Jerubbaal, that is, Gideon, according to all the kindness which he had showed to Israel- </p><p>Gideon loved Israel. We recall how he showed kindness to them by not becoming their king but leaving Yahweh as their king. God had delivered the enemy into Gideon's personal hand (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>), but Gideon speaks of the enemies having been given into Israel's hand (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>; <a href='B:70 8:3'>Jdg 8:3</a>). Gideon was not out for personal justification, but for the victory of Israel. But ingratitude and failure to lastingly perceive such love toward us is sadly a feature of human nature.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem to his mother’s brothers, and spoke with them and with all the family of the house of his mother’s father saying- </p><p>Abimelech means 'my father is king'; '; it was the dynastic title of the Philistine kings as we see from Gen. 20,26, Ps. 34 title etc. Kings named their sons Abimelech to continue their reigning dynasty. And indeed Abimelech did try to become King of all Israel (<a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>). As discussed on :2, Gideon overcame the temptation to become king, but only on an external level. In reality his behaviour was as if was a king in all but name. His weakness in this matter was repeated to a stronger degree in his son. Just as our weaknesses will be repeated and magnified in our children, as David’s were in Solomon's love for horses and women. The comment was made about Gideon that he looked like the son of a king (Jud. 8:18 "They were like you. Each one resembled the children of a king"). Gideon was invited to be Israel's king, but he declined, saying that God was their king. But he named his son Abimelech, my father is king, as if he was deeply impressed that he looked like a king. He felt he was the man born to be king, but resented having to turn it down for the sake of Yahweh. But he expressed his hankering for it by vicariously living it out through his son Abimelech, and thus he set his son up for spiritual failure. So much vicarious sin goes on in our age, through watching movies or playing games that enable us to vicariously do that which we ourselves would not do in real life. Although Gideon will still be finally saved, according to Hebrews 11. Abimelech absorbed all this. He was eager to be king, which his father externally declined although internally wanted it; and he tried to replicate his father Gideon by destroying the tower in Shechem (Jud. 9:49) just as Gideon had destroyed the tower of Penuel (Jud. 8:17). But Abimelech then tried to continue to replicate his father by seeking to destroy the tower in Thebez - and this cost him his life. He should have listened to Jotham's parable and let God be king in his life and in the collective life of Israel. His obsession with destroying the towers of Shechem and Thebez reflected how Gideon had burnt the tower of Peniel. But Gideon's murder of fellow Israelites at Peniel as punishment for not supporting him was surely wrong- and again, this set up Abimelech for failure. For he clearly thought there was nothing wrong in doing this. </p>


text:
<p>Please speak to all the men of Shechem and say, ‘Is it better for you that all the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy persons, should rule over you, or that one rule over you?’ Remember also that I am your bone and your flesh- </p><p>There is no evidence that the other sons were seeking to be king. Their father Gideon had been offered the kingship for himself and his sons, and he had refused it. Abimelech was likely responding to the fear that they might stop him from his plan, and so many crimes and sins are committed on the basis of eliminating possible opposition.</p><p>Time and again, the Bible is full of warnings against doing what seems right before God, when our motives are far from Him. Take the way that Gideon was invited to be king over Israel, but he refused, citing the fact that Yahweh is Israel's King. All well and good... but the record goes on to record how he made an idolatrous ephod in his home town, to which all Israel came (<a href='B:70 8:22-24'>Jdg 8:22-24</a>). And he had a son, Abimelech- which means 'my father is king'!. And indeed Abimelech did try to become King of all Israel (<a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>). Our behaviour smacks of this time and time again. We do what is externally right, but our inward motives are impure. There's an urgent need for self-examination at depth within each of us... and yet the busyness of our lives, our poor time management and lack of rigorous regime in spiritual life, so easily leads us not to seriously attempt this. And we end up doing things which are only externally right.</p><p> Abimelech claimed that he was of the same bone and flesh of the men of Shechem. His mother was a "concubine" from Shechem (Jud. 8:31). We can ponder whether the men of Shechem were in fact Gentiles, and whether Abimelech's mother was a Gentile prostitute from Shechem. Jud. 9:28 certainly implies they were Gentiles: "Be loyal to your ancestor Hamor, who founded your clan!". He is certainly playing on his mother having been from Shechem- for he now says he is of the same flesh and bone as the men of Shechem. And we ponder whether therefore his attempt to become king would have to fall short of the standard in Dt. 17:15: "You shall in any wise set him king over you whom the Lord your God shall choose; one from among your brethren shall you set king over you; you cannot set a stranger over you who is not your brother". In this case, Gideon should never have set up Abimelech to be king by naming him as he did, 'My father is king'. But Abimelech plays on his Shechem connections to be made king by them. And they accept this- "he is our brother" (:3). But Abimelech didn't work out well as king. Perhaps this incident happened to show Israel that if they wanted a king, it must be a man chosen by God and not a half Gentile. For as Jotham's parable showed, they wanted a king. </p>


text:
<p>His mother’s brothers told all the men of Shechem all these words, and their hearts inclined to follow Abimelech, for they said, He is our brother- </p><p>Shechem was apparently in the hands of the Hivites, so these men may not have been true Israelites. The idea is that their hearts were inclined (by God) to follow him (the same Hebrew phrase is in <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>; <a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a>; <a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>). Just as God inclined the hearts of the men of Shechem to follow Abimelech (<a href='B:70 9:3'>Jdg 9:3</a>), so He put an evil spirit / attitude of mind between them and Abimelech (:23). Clearly God can work directly upon the human heart according to His will. This is the basis of the way that the evil spirit (from the Lord) and the holy spirit work upon the hearts of men. We can pray that God "incline our hearts unto Him... incline my heart unto Your words" (1 Kings  8:58; Ps. 119:36 s.w.).</p>


text:
<p>They gave him seventy pieces of silver out of the house of Baal Berith, with which Abimelech hired reckless adventurers who followed him- </p><p>Abimelech was apparently an idolater. And yet <a href='B:70 10:1'>Jdg 10:1</a> implies that he was also a judge who saved Israel. His work for Israel isn't much recorded, and therefore we sense that as with the record of Samson, we have here the down points in his life.</p>


text:
<p>He went to his father’s house at Ophrah and killed his brothers the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy persons, on one stone; but Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal escaped, for he hid himself- </p><p>Tragically it was probably upon the rock upon which Gideon first sacrificed to Yahweh (<a href='B:70 6:20'>Jdg 6:20</a>) that his seventy sons were to be slain by Abimelech, with the help of men who worshipped Baal Berith. Presumably the 70 silver pieces were payment for the death of the 70 people, a coin for each murder. The deaths upon one stone suggests it was done as a sacrifice- where Gideon had sacrificed to Yahweh. Abimelech possibly justified killing his brothers as being some kind of service to God. Just as many have done. It just shows that spirituality cannot be automatically passed on as if it is genetic, although it can be inculcated. Jotham being the youngest son may mean he was no more than a child or teenager, but his spiritual perception was very fine.</p>


text:
<p>All the men of Shechem assembled themselves together, and all the house of Millo, and went and made Abimelech king by the oak of the pillar that was in Shechem- </p><p>Oaks and pillars are associated with idolatry throughout the Old Testament. "The house of Millo" is likely also a reference to an idol temple. Yet <a href='B:70 10:1'>Jdg 10:1</a> implies Abimelech was a saviour and defender of Israel. At some point he must have repented of all this and done work for God. His proclamation as king was however a rejection of Yahweh as king; the very thing his father Gideon had refused to do. Yet even such a spiritually weak man was used to save His people:&nbsp;</p><p>This oak near Shechem was where the fathers of Israel had jettisoned their idols (Gen. 35:4). But clearly this was just a surface level appeal to spirituality by Abimelech, for the people were clearly idolatrous. And this was the oak of Josh. 24:25,26: "Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a great stone, and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of Yahweh". Abimelech was having himself made king at Yahweh's sanctuary, as Saul would at Gilgal (1 Sam. 11:15). Abimelech was behaving in a totally fleshly way under the guise of alluding to spiritual principles. This kind of thing is frequently seen in religion gone wrong.</p>


text:
<p>When they told Jotham he went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted to them, Listen to me, you men of Shechem, so that God will listen to you- </p><p>God listens to those who hear His word, there is a mutuality between God and man. We hear His word, He listens to us. This implies Jotham's words were Divinely inspired. Mount Gerizim was the scene of the reciting of the curses and blessings, and Jotham is surely reminding the people that they are breaking covenant with God and can only be cursed. Jotham taught that if Israel heard his parable then God would hear them; but He wouldn't if they rejected the parable. They rejected the parable, but by grace, God does hear their cry later in Jud. 10. He stands on Mount Gerizim which was from where the blessings were uttered [Dt. 11:29; 27:12; the curses were pronounced nearby from Mount Ebal "you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal"]; and yet his words became a curse on Israel (:57). They were perhaps pronounced from Gerizim because it was God's intention they should bring about repentance and thus bring blessing. </p>


text:
<p>The trees went out one day to anoint a king to be over them; they said to the olive tree, ‘Reign over us’- </p><p>The trees refer to the people who wanted a king, one of themselves, a tree like them, but with superior qualities. Gideon had remonstrated that God was their king, and so they should not seek a human leader, another tree like them, but accept Yahweh as king. Jotham perceives the desire for leadership, and that is a theme throughout Judges. In his parable, the trees ask other trees to reign over them, but this isn't directly recorded historically. They had asked Gideon to be king, but now it is Abimelech who goes to Shechem and asks them to let him be king. But the parable paints things as if the trees are desperate for a king over them; I believe this is the point, as otherwise the parable appears untrue to its interpretation. Jotham is perhaps seeking to reveal to the people that consciously or subconsciously, their desire was for a human king when God was their king. The men of Samson's time were content with the Philistines ruling over them rather than Samson, Micah pays the young Levite to be a father to him, "The people, the princes of Gilead, said one to another, Who will begin to fight against the Ammonites? He shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead" (Jud.  10:18). Our sense of brave independence notwithstanding, we all have a desire to be led by another, to have a parental figure in our lives. And that desire is finally only met in the Father and Son. </p>


text:
<p>But the olive tree said to them ‘Should I give up my oil with which they honour God and man to go and hold sway over the trees?’- </p><p>These trees refused the other trees' desire for their rulership. This perhaps refer to unrecorded times when the sons of Gideon had been approached and asked to be king; and they had each refused, in line with how their father refused to be king, and refused the invitation to his sons also (<a href='B:70 8:23'>Jdg 8:23</a>). It was the priests who were to offer oil in order to honour God (<a href='B:30 2:1-16'>Lev 2:1-16</a>), and used it to anoint men for special purposes. Thus the olive who honoured both God and man with oil might possibly refer to a priest who was asked to become king, but refused it. It was more important to honour God and people, then to "hold sway over" people. And this is the point which those who desire leadership so often forget. Jotham's point is that spiritually minded people had already been asked to be king, but had refused- for Yahweh was Israel's king. The 'trees' who had refused the invitation were more interested in being of service to God and man; and they perceived that being a king was not going to achieve that.</p>


text:
<p>The trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come and reign over us’- </p><p>These continual requests to men to "reign over us" reflect the basic tendency within human nature, to want to be submissive; to desire a human leader. The fact Israel were specifically not given a king, because the invisible God was their king, was in fact right against human nature. We see the same tension, between personal spirituality and on the other hand, a desire to be within a denominational structure that provides human leadership.</p>


text:
<p>But the fig tree said to them, ‘Should I give up my good, sweet fruit to go to hold sway over the trees?’- </p><p>A good fig tree bears good fruit. But this wouldn't be possible if the tree was "promoted" (AV) to sway around over the other trees. Leadership positions so often mean that a person cannot quite be the person they were intended to be; something of their real self is lost and compromised. And this is why we should never seek leadership over others, because God has a specific role for us; and we will only become true leaders as a result of His guiding hand, rather than our seeking it. This is why we must be leery of any who clearly set out to be leaders of God's people, as if it is their right or just their chosen career path.</p>


text:
<p>The trees said to the vine ‘Come and reign over us’- </p><p>Olive, vine and fig tree are all trees representative of Israel. But they each refused the invitation to be king. The idea would be that the true Israel would not seek to be king over itself. For Yahweh was their true king. The vine here is perhaps a reference to Gideon, a descendant of Joseph, who was a fruitful vine (Gen. 49:22)- and who was invited to be Israel's king in these very words (Jud. 8:22,23). </p>


text:
<p>The vine said to them, ‘Should I give up my new wine, which cheers God and man, to go to hold sway over the trees?’- </p><p>Wine was part of the offerings to God (<a href='B:40 15:7'>Num 15:7</a>; <a href='B:40 15:10'>Num 15:10</a>) which cheered God in that He was pleased with Israel's drink offerings.</p>


text:
<p>Then all the trees said to the thorn bush, ‘Come and reign over us’- </p><p>This refers to Abimelech, the illegitimate son of Gideon; and we recall that thorns were part of the curse. The people were so desperate for human leadership, and so insistent that they didn’t want God’s invisible leadership, that they would have even a symbol of the curse to reign over them. We must remember that it was Abimelech who had offered to be the king of Shechem (:1-3), but in the parable, Jotham suggests they had asked him to reign over them. Jotham is right and wrong; for in Jud. 8:22 they had invited Gideon, his son and grandson to reign over them. Possibly the three better trees who rejected the invitation refer to unknown sons of Gideon; or to previous judges like Othniel, Deborah and Gideon. It could be that Abimelech made the offer he did to them because they had already made it clear that they were open to this. Quite likely Gideon had wanted his son Abimelech to be king, and the people responded to this.
We note the stress that all the trees wanted the thorn bush to reign over them. Possibly we are to infer that the olive, vine and fig were amongst them. In which case we are left to conclude that they were so focused upon themselves and their own immediate preoccupations that they were willing for an obviously bad leader to lead them. And that is indeed how bad men get into power. The idiom "each man dwelling under his own vine and fig tree" (Mic. 4:4 etc.) suggests a vine and fig were the personal possession of a man; there was no collective communal element in the vine and fig. For the parable speaks of them as individual trees and not a plantation of them like a vineyard. Perhaps the argument is that the three good trees ought to have accepted the invitation to be king, and because they didn't, the bramble became king and burnt them all up. Each tree refuses kingship with the excuse that they didn't want to "give up" their own fruit; and leadership of others does involve a personal 'giving up'. They didn't want to do that for the sake of the community. That would fit a theme of Judges, that men were so focused on their immediate local needs and issues that they didn't think of the needs of the wider community. Judges 5 condemns those who didn't come to help Barak, and Gideon condemns those who refused to come and help him in his pursuit of the enemy. Their desperation for someone to rule over them is shown by otherwise superior trees begging an inferior to reign over them. The parable reflects how strong is human desire to be ruled over. When this need is not met in God, men make foolish choices which are not sincere in that they are themselves skeptical of their own choices.
</p>


text:
<p>The thorn bush said to the trees, ‘If in truth you anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade; if not, let fire come out of the thorn bush and devour the cedars of Lebanon’- </p><p>"If in truth..." suggests the thorn bush [Abimelech] was skeptical about the request for him to be king. Or it could be that the voice behind the parable, which is God's inspiration, is suggesting that the trees were not sincere in wanting the thorn bush to be king. They wanted a king, any king, and were so desperate for this that they would even choose someone they were skeptical of. Fire did come from the thorn bush and devour other trees, at least in literally burning 1000 people of Shechem. This means that the trees did not "in truth" / sincerely anoint Abimelech. They did so because they were so desperate for absolutely any leader. And thus God through Jotham is trying to get them to realize the strength of their human desire for a human leader rather than God. In the end, anyone would do. Even if they considered him not the best.
"Take refuge" is AV "put your trust". The Hebrew for "trust" usually means to trust in God. Jotham's point is that they were trusting in a human king rather than in God. The higher our trust in human leadership and structure, the weaker will be our faith in God. And this is the problem with all human leadership and religious structures. 
The idea of shade is used of the shade / protection offered by God (Ps. 91:1; 121:5; Hos. 14:8); Lam. 4:20 recalls how Judah used to refer to their king by saying that "in his shade we will live among the nations". They meant that their king would protect them from the Gentile nations. And the surrounding nations used the idea of the shade/shadow of a king to refer to his protection. This was the context- the tribes wanted a king to save / shade them from their enemies. The other trees / options are presented as focusing on producing their own fruit; whereas the thorn bush has no good fruit but claims to offer shade when it cannot. Possibly Jotham's point is that no human leader can provide this shade- only by turning to God can they find this shade. Indeed we could understand the Abimelech experience as a warning to Israel of what to expect if they had a king. But their later demand for a king shows they didn't learn from this history. Jotham being the youngest son (:5) may mean he was no more than a child or teenager, but his spiritual perception was very fine. Cedars, vines, figs etc. would get no shade from a thorn bush.
But the thorn bush offers no shade. The Kingdom of God is likened to a tree giving shade (<a href='B:480 4:32'>Mar 4:32</a>), but the thorn bush cannot do this. Abimelech's pretension at being king is therefore presented as at best unhelpful. He demanded miserable submission to himself, and if he didn’t get it, he would burn up the fine cedars of Lebanon- possibly a reference to Gideon's sons whom he slew. This is where bad leadership leads- the destruction of that which is beautiful. This very figure is used in <a href='B:450 11:1'>Zec 11:1</a>, of how the house / temple of the cedars of Lebanon was to be "devoured" (<a href='B:450 11:1'>Zec 11:1</a>)- as a result of Judah's corrupt, spiritually illegitimate leadership. Cedars of Lebanon were seen as the best trees- so the idea may be that Abimelech would destroy the best candidates for leadership. Fire coming out of a thorn bush alludes to how forest fires are spread by thorn bushes near the ground, resulting in great trees catching fire. This is alluded to in Is. 9:18,19: "For wickedness burns like a fire, it devours the briers and thorns; yes, it kindles in the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in a column of smoke...  the land is burnt up; and the people are the fuel for the fire. No one spares his brother". Abimelech had not spared his brothers; he was starting a forest fire that would destroy the whole land. However :20 interprets what was to be burnt up, the cedars, as "the lords of Shechem and Beth-millo". The parable ends with a curse from Abimelech / the thorn bush and "on them came the curse of Jotham" (:57), but the parable is uttered from Mount Gerizim not Mount Ebal, the mount of blessing not curse. It's as if Jotham offers Israel a choice between a blessing and a curse, but Israel choose the curse of Jotham in that their choice of him was not sincere. For Jotham predicates the curse upon their insincerely choosing Abimelech. How were Israel insincere in choosing Abimelech as king? Their insincerity was in that they were so desperate for a human king, that they chose just anyone despite being sceptical of their own choice. And it is this manic desire for any human leadership rather than God's which is the nub of the parable- rather than simply being a case of punishment for slaying Gideon's sons.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, consider whether you have done what is true and right in making Abimelech king, and whether you have done justly to Jerubbaal and his house as he deserves- </p><p>This was an appeal for their repentance. Jotham however makes no mention of how they had thereby rejected Yahweh as their king. He doesn't repeat that argument of his father Gideon, and lacked Samuel's spiritual insight; for he saw that this was the worst implication of desiring any human king. Instead he argues that Gideon's family were worth more respect than to slay his sons at the whim of the worthless king whom they had chosen. Yet he calls Gideon "Jerubbaal", in allusion to how Gideon had put down the Baal worship which they indulged in (:4).</p>


text:
<p>(For my father fought for you and risked his life and delivered you out of the hand of Midian-</p><p>Jotham makes no reference to God nor Yahweh in his parable. As noted on :16, Jotham lacks spiritual insight here. For Gideon himself clearly saw the deliverance as worked by Yahweh and not himself. It was Yahweh's sword which had been his sword. And instead of emphasizing his father’s human bravery as the basis for the deliverance, surely he ought to have stressed Gideon's faith in Yahweh. Yet despite this, Jotham was clearly a spiritual person; although as always with God’s people at this time, his spirituality was very compromised by his humanity.</p><p>"Fought for you and risked his life" is the phrase Jonathan uses about David (1 Samuel 19; 1 Samuel 5). Yet Jonathan seems to have seen Gideon as his hero [compare <a href='B:90 14:10-20'>1Sa 14:10-20</a> with <a href='B:70 7:3'>Jdg 7:3</a>; <a href='B:70 7:10-11'>Jdg 7:10-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:14'>Jdg 7:14</a>; <a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a>. Jonathan's son was called Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>), meaning 'rebellion against Baal', an epithet for 'Gideon']. Yet in <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> he says that "David put his life in his hand", exactly as Gideon did (<a href='B:70 9:17'>Jdg 9:17</a>). In other words, Jonathan saw David as the perfect fulfilment of all he spiritually wished to be, he felt that David&nbsp; lived up to the example of his hero Gideon, whereas he did not.</p>


text:
<p>yet you have risen up against my father’s house this day and have slain his sons, seventy persons, on one stone, and have made Abimelech the son of his female servant king over the men of Shechem, because he is your brother)- </p><p>So many times has this been repeated in the history of God’s people, to this day. Petty nepotism, the support of a close relative within the church, leads to the destruction and exclusion of other far more spiritual families. However Jotham reasons as if Gideon had in fact been king, and therefore his successor ought not to have been his illegitimate son, but one of his legitimate sons. I noted on <a href='B:70 8:23'>Jdg 8:23</a> that although Gideon turned down being king, he effectively set himself up as king in all but name. He took the wealth of Israel, clothed himself in kingly purple clothes and had a son called "My father is king", i:e. Abimelech. And Jotham appears to go along with this in how he reasons:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>If you have done what is true and right with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then rejoice in Abimelech and let him also rejoice in you- </p><p>As discussed on :18, Jotham implies that the right thing would have been to appoint one of Gideon's legitimate sons as king in his place. For he keeps on about how they should have treated his family / house far differently than they had. Doing what was "true and right" is a quotation from <a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a>, where doing this involved quitting idolatry; which they evidently hadn't done (:4). So although Jotham reveals much human reasoning, his heart was very much with Yahweh rather than Baal worship.</p>


text:
<p>But if not, 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- </p><p>The end result would be self destruction, of the kind which had characterized his father Gideon's great victory against the Midianites. Fire coming out of a thorn bush uses the very words of <a href='B:20 22:6'>Exo 22:6</a>; and the one who did that was to make restitution and bear guilt. Jotham was aware of Bible verses and yet not all of his reasoning was completely spiritual.</p>


text:
<p>Jotham ran away and fled and went to Beer and lived there, for fear of Abimelech his brother-</p><p>Beer may be Beeroth in Benjamin's highlands (<a href='B:60 9:17'>Jos 9:17</a>). Often the Bible leaves us with limited information about a person, such as Jotham, and we are to imagine how his life in exile ended, and whether, given the evidence we have, he held on in faith or not. We hear no more of Jotham. He was in the right, others were in the wrong; he was badly treated as were his family. He bravely and cleverly made his appeal to avoid the destruction of God's people, but his appeal went unheard. God worked to prove him right in the long term, for the inspired historian concludes that Jotham's words were fulfilled by God (:56,57). Yet he lived out his days in obscurity although, we can imagine, with the Lord. For his appeal was really to trust God as their king and not man. He is like so many, who live out their lives in obscurity having done the right thing, having held to God's way, were unappreciated and suffered for it. Awaiting a future reward.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech was prince over Israel for three years- </p><p>It appears to have&nbsp; been in this period that he judged Israel and saved them from their enemies (<a href='B:70 10:1'>Jdg 10:1</a>), although he had not been a very spiritual person before that. The implication really is that he must have repented to some degree. All we read about is of his rise and fall, not his rulership "over Israel". Or it could be that the record here is written to reflect Abimelech's perspective. He imagined himself as king over all Israel when he only controlled Shechem and Ophrah. Ophrah, Arumah, Mount Zalmon, Beer and Thebez are all close together in the same region. We note he is called prince, not king. Unlike the other judges, Abimelech doesn't judge / save, he simply reigns and is made king (:6).</p>


text:
<p>God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem, and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech-</p><p>Although God created the division between Israel and Judah as a punishment for their apostasy (cp. how He gave Egypt and the Shechemites a spirit of disunity likewise, <a href='B:290 19:1-2'>Isa 19:1-2</a>; <a href='B:290 19:14'>Isa 19:14</a>; <a href='B:70 9:23'>Jdg 9:23</a>), God never essentially recognized that division; for there was one Israel, one body. But division is indeed a sign of Divine judgment upon a community. Their hearts had been inclined (by God) to follow him (:3; the same Hebrew phrase is in <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>; <a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a>; <a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>). But just as God inclined the hearts of the men of Shechem to follow Abimelech (<a href='B:70 9:3'>Jdg 9:3</a>), so now He put an evil spirit / attitude of mind between them and Abimelech. Clearly God can work directly upon the human heart according to His will. This is the basis of the way that the evil spirit (from the Lord) and the holy spirit work upon the hearts of men. However, the 'evil spirit' is 'sent' from God. Quite possibly here a specific Angel / spirit is referenced; just as in 1 Kings 22 an Angel is sent forth as a deceptive spirit, to seduce Ahab to go and die at Ramoth. Here too there is deception- Zebul tries to deceive Abimelech (:31), Zebul tricks Gaal... and the end result is judgment upon the men of Shechem and Abimelech.</p>


text:
<p>so that the violence done to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal might be avenged, and that their blood might be laid on Abimelech their brother who killed them, and on the men of Shechem who helped him to kill his brothers- </p><p>God punished this massacre by putting a divided attitude in the hearts of those responsible, so that they killed each other. Just as He had destroyed the Midianites in the time of Gideon. Turning people against themselves is a common way God has brought about destruction of those under judgment; so division is indeed a sign of Divine judgment upon a community.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Shechem set an ambush for him on the tops of the mountains, and they robbed all who came along that way. This was reported to Abimelech- </p><p>They didn’t catch Abimelech himself, but robbed others. The division and falling out between Abimelech and the men of Shechem was revealed in the way they took to highway robbery, apparently against Abimelech's wish, and refused his authority. The mountain top road would have been that between Shechem and Ophrah, Gideon's town, which Abimelech would have treated now as his own, seeing he had slain all Gideon's sons and Jotham was in exile. Again we marvel at the internal corroboration of the Biblical records.</p>


text:
<p>Gaal the son of Ebed came with his brothers and went over to Shechem, and the men of Shechem put their trust in him- </p><p>Gaal, "loathing", was son of a slave. He may well have been a local Canaanite. That the men of Shechem wanted such a man as their leader says much about them. We note that Jotham accuses Abimelech's mother of having also been a servant of Gideon. 
</p>


text:
<p>They went out into the field and harvested their vineyards, trod the grapes and held a festival, and went into the house of their god, ate and drank and cursed Abimelech- </p><p>We note how pagan worship was associated with eating and drinking wine, getting drunk. The church at Corinth mixed Christianity and paganism to the extent that the breaking of bread service was turned into a time of feasting and getting drunk.</p>


text:
<p>Gaal the son of Ebed said, Who is Abimelech and who is Shechem, that we should serve him? Isn’t he the son of Jerubbaal and Zebul his officer? Serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem, but why should we serve Abimelech?- </p><p>The idea may be, 'Who is Abimelech to rule over Shechem. We may as well serve Hamor the Gentile who was the first owner of Shechem (Gen. 34:2)'. Or we can take "Shechem" as a reference to Zebul. GNB suggests: "Gaal said, "What kind of men are we in Shechem? Why are we serving Abimelech? Who is he, anyway? The son of Gideon! And Zebul takes orders from him, but why should we serve him? Be loyal to your ancestor Hamor, who founded your clan!". In this case, Gaal is appealing to the men of Shechem to serve the descendants of the Gentile Hamor, rather than a foreigner like Abimelech. The implication would be that Gaal is a descendant of Hamor. Possibly Gaal is saying that Gideon and Zebul were servants to Hamor, the ancient father of the town of Shechem (Genesis 34), whereas it was about time that Shechem became independent. They should no longer be under the thumb of Abimelech, through his servant Zebul whom he had appointed over the city (:30). Or he may mean 'Let us show our loyalty to ancient Hamor who founded this city, whom Jacob's sons wickedly destroyed- and I will be your leader, and let us shake off the yoke of the sons of Jacob'. This would make sense if indeed Gaal was a Canaanite and not an Israelite, and the population of Shechem was largely Canaanite.</p>


text:
<p>If only this people were under my hand! Then I would remove Abimelech. He said to Abimelech, Increase your army and come out!- </p><p>These things may all have been said whilst drunk (:27,28). Abimelech was apparently not in Shechem at the time, having left Zebul to govern Shechem (:30,31).</p>


text:
<p>When Zebul the ruler of the city heard the words of Gaal the son of Ebed, his anger was kindled- </p><p>We wonder if Zebul was also in the idol temple, and heard these words himself there (:27,38). Abimelech and his men are not portrayed as exactly spiritual people.</p>


text:
<p>He sent messengers to Abimelech secretly saying, Look, Gaal the son of Ebed and his brothers have come to Shechem and they are inciting the city against you- </p><p>"Secretly" could be “in Tormah”, the name of a place, perhaps another name for Arumah in :41. For Abimelech was clearly not living in Shechem.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, go up by night, you and the people who are with you, and lie in wait in the field- </p><p>"Up by night" is the same words as found in the Divine command to his father Gideon, to "arise" by night and attack the Midianites (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>). But he was only imitating his father on a surface level; see on :34.</p>


text:
<p>In the morning, as soon as the sun is up, you can rise early and rush on the city, and when he and the people who are with him come out against you, then may you do to them as you see fit- </p><p>The battle strategy of Abimelech, setting an ambush (<a href='B:70 9:32'>Jdg 9:32</a>), rising early and rushing upon the city of his one time brethren (<a href='B:70 9:33'>Jdg 9:33</a>), was replicated by the Israelites in <a href='B:70 20:37'>Jdg 20:37</a>. The same Hebrew words are used. But it was a case of copying an example just because it was recorded in Divine history, following precedents which were in fact not at all good. Hollow imitation of the behaviour of others is an abiding temptation for us today.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech and all the people who were with him got up by night and they laid wait against Shechem in four companies- </p><p>We get the impression he was trying to imitate his father Gideon, who made an attack upon the Midianites in three companies at night, having been bidden arise or 'get up' by night (s:w. <a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>). And he certainly imitates Gideon in :48. But he was totally missing the point- he was trying to make a cardboard copy of another man's faith, following only the externalities, without Gideon's faith and humility. His failure to exactly follow his father is perhaps shown in the fact he had four companies whereas Gideon had three. </p>


text:
<p>Gaal the son of Ebed went out and stood in the entrance of the gate of the city, and Abimelech and the people who were with him got up from the ambush- </p><p>The men of Shechem had earlier tried to ambush Abimelech, and now he ambushes them- continuing the theme of wicked men destroying themselves.</p>


text:
<p>When Gaal saw the people he said to Zebul, Look, people are coming down from the tops of the mountains. Zebul said to him, You are seeing the shadows of the mountains as if they were men- </p><p>This may be as if to say to Gaal 'you're drunk, you're not seeing straight'. Perhaps Zebul remained in a drunken stupor for some days after the massive drinking session of :27. Zebul was trying to lull Gaal into a false sense of security, by saying that the approaching soldiers he thinks he sees are in fact just mountain shadows. We enquire why we have this detail of the conversation. Possibly we are to connect it with Abimelech's claim to be a man in whose shadow others could dwell (:15).  Shechem is located beneath the shadows of Abimelech's men. And it will mean only the fire of destruction for Shechem- just as Jotham had prophesied. </p>


text:
<p>Gaal spoke again and said, Look, people are coming down by the middle of the land, and one company is coming by the way of the oak of Meonenim- </p><p>Oaks are usually associated with idolatry in the Hebrew Bible. "Meonenim" is the word for magician, sorcerer etc. These pagan place names should have been removed and renamed. Even in secular history, a new entity which comes to power renames the previous cities and streets, to eradicate the memory of the philosophy, history and culture which they have replaced. The USSR did this when they took over the republics. But Israel just didn’t do this in the land- because they themselves believed in the idols of those whom Yahweh had given them victory over. We see here the Baal worshippers divided against themselves. Abimelech approaches from a pagan point of worship, assuming he would have blessing for doing so. And the men of Shechem are worshippers of Baal Berith. This is the kind of mutual destruction foretold by Jotham.  </p>


text:
<p>Then Zebul said to him, Now where is your boast when you said ‘Who is Abimelech, that we should serve him?’ Isn’t this the people that you have despised? Go out now and fight with them- </p><p>This again suggests Zebul had been in the idol temple when Gaal had made his drunken boast (:27). Abimelech and his men are not portrayed as exactly spiritual people.</p>


text:
<p>Gaal went out before the men of Shechem and fought with Abimelech- </p><p>Gaal going "before the men of Shechem" suggests he got his brief moment of power and leadership which he had so craved- but just for a morning.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech chased him and he fled from him, and many fell wounded, up to the entrance of the gate- </p><p>The same phrase is in <a href='B:130 5:22'>1Ch 5:22</a>: "For there fell many slain [wounded], because the war was of God". This was indeed "of God", but it doesn't make Abimelech thereby righteous. He was used to judge the Canaanites living in Shechem and their would be leader Gaal, and perhaps that is one of the ways in which Abimelech was a judge of Israel who saved them from their enemies (<a href='B:70 10:1'>Jdg 10:1</a>). In this sense we see a similarity with Samson, whose following of his own natural desires was used in order to save Israel from their enemies:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech lived at Arumah, and Zebul drove out Gaal and his brothers, so that they should not dwell in Shechem- </p><p>As often in the Hebrew Bible, this is a summary of the situation, and we will now read how this came about.</p>


text:
<p>Next day the people went out into the field and told Abimelech- </p><p>The men of Shechem who had succeeded in entering the gates of the city of Shechem (:40) now came out into the field, where they were attacked by Abimelech (:44). They truly hated him, and it was surely only Abimelech's pride which was leading him to punish them like this. See on :40. But it's hard to understand that the Shechemites came out of the city as if nothing had happened, when the day before they had suffered a severe defeat. And they are again defeated by a surprise attack just as had happened the day before. "Next day" is literally 'because of the tomorrow'. We could read this as a second account of Abimelech’s attack on Shechem. Or we could read "the next day" as referring to the day after the treason of the Shechemites in :25. Or we could read "went out into the field" to mean that civilians returned to their daily work at harvest time- and Abimelech is thereby pictured as attacking and murdering civilians going about their daily work. This was the kind of destructive behaviour foretold in Jotham's parable.</p>


text:
<p>He took the people and divided them into three companies and laid wait in the field, and when he saw the people coming out of the city, he rose up against them and struck them- </p><p>This division of his men into three companies was exactly what his father Gideon had done, in his legendary victory against the Midianites. But as noted on :34,48, he was totally missing the point- he was trying to make a cardboard copy of another man's faith, following only the externalities, without Gideon's faith and humility.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech and the companies that were with him rushed forward and stood in the entrance of the gate of the city, and the two companies rushed on all who were in the field and struck them- </p><p>LXX gives "the company that was with him", singular. This sandwiching of the enemy against their own city gate recalls the strategy used to take Ai. But Abimelech's spirituality and imitation of the righteous, as noted on :43, was apparently of a purely surface level nature.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech fought against the city all that day, and he took the city and killed the people who were in it, and he beat down the city and sowed it with salt-</p><p>This was an attempt to claim that he had executed Divine judgment against an apostate city (<a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a>), although Abimelech and Zebul were far from righteous themselves. We note how attractive it is to men to condemn others:&nbsp; The spreading of salt was likely another surface level spiritual allusion, claiming he had devoted the city to utter destruction to Yahweh. For strewing salt meant dedication to Yahweh, as in Ez. 43:24.  </p>


text:
<p>When all the men of the tower of Shechem heard of it, they entered the stronghold of the house of Elberith- </p><p>Elberith was presumably a form of their god Baal Berith (:4). Their trust in their false god was to be their destruction. Although Abimelech was hardly spiritual, and Zebul was apparently present in the idol temple (:27), he seems to have rejoiced in the idea of punishing them for idolatry. And we see the same personality types amongst God’s people today.</p>


text:
<p>It was told Abimelech that all the men of the tower of Shechem were gathered together- </p><p>These "men of the tower of Shechem" were perhaps the priests; it seems the tower was part of the pagan temple of Elberith (:46).</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech went up to Mount Zalmon, he and all the people who were with him, and Abimelech took an axe in his hand and cut down a branch from the trees, took it up and laid it on his shoulder, and he said to the people who were with him, What you have seen me do, hurry and do the same!- </p><p>Abimelech here quotes the words of his father Gideon in <a href='B:70 7:17'>Jdg 7:17</a>; and the carrying of tree branches and then rushing down from a height upon the enemy recalls Gideon with his three companies of men holding pitchers. See on :34. The way Abimelech made his men "cut down branches from the trees" alludes to Jotham's parable of the trees. The trees were cut down and burnt by Abimelech stirring up the people to do so. Zalmon means shadow, and according to the parable, Abimelech had bidden the men of Shechem come beneath his shadow. But the end result would be Shechem's destruction and also Abimelech's. "Shoulder" is the word for 'Shechem'. Literally, Abimelech laid the branch of the damaged tree on 'his Shechem'. He destroyed his own Shechem, his own people, just as Jotham had predicted.</p>


text:
<p>All the people likewise each cut down his branch and followed Abimelech, and they put them at the base of the stronghold and set the stronghold on fire on them, so that all the people of the tower of Shechem died, about one thousand men and women- </p><p>"The people of the tower", as suggested on :47, were apparently those committed to idolatry. "The stronghold" of idolatry is equated with the tower (:46). This was the house of Millo which was to be destroyed by Abimelech's fire (:20). Their destruction by fire would have been designed by Abimelech as some kind of destruction of the apostate as required by the law of Moses, as if he were Joshua conquering Canaan and burning the cities of the Canaanites. But Abimelech's spirituality comes over as so compromised that it was merely a surface level imitation of the true.</p>


text:
<p>Then Abimelech went to Thebez and encamped against Thebez and took it- </p><p>Abimelech had an apparent run of success, and it led him to think he was invincible. This is seen so often amongst men; from sports stars to evangelists to businessmen. The Biblical histories are all so absolutely psychologically credible, unlike the uninspired histories of the time. He presumably attacked Thebez to slightly increase his tiny empire of a few villages which he considered his 'reigning over Israel'. </p>


text:
<p>But there was a strong tower within the city, and all the men and women of the city fled to it and shut themselves in, and went up to the roof of the tower- </p><p>Abimelech assumed that as he had destroyed the tower in Shechem so he could that in Thebez. See on :50. Maybe Thebez had also been subject to Abimelech but had likewise rebelled against his authority.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech came to the tower and fought against it and drew near to the door of the tower to burn it with fire-</p><p>I suggested on :49 that destruction by fire would have been designed by Abimelech as some kind of destruction of the apostate as required by the law of Moses, as if he were Joshua conquering Canaan and burning the cities of the Canaanites. But Abimelech's spirituality comes over as so compromised that it was merely a surface level imitation of the true. He felt that because he was punishing apostacy with fire, he was himself invincible; and therefore he was judged harshly. And we see such things amongst the children of God today.</p>


text:
<p>A woman cast an upper millstone on Abimelech’s head and broke his skull- </p><p>This obviously was a fulfilment of the seed of the woman hitting the seed of the serpent upon the head (<a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>). And yet Abimelech had been about to burn her to death for supposed apostacy. We also note that a man who ended up judged like this was also used as a judge / saviour of Israel (<a href='B:70 10:1'>Jdg 10:1</a>).Milling was the work of women (Mt. 24:41), so like Jael, she grabbed whatever was handy and used it- although it's unclear whether she did this "for the Lord" as Thebez [possibly Tirzah 6 miles north of Shechem] may well have been in Gentile hands as was Shechem. Abimelech had broken down Shechem (:45), just as now his skull was 'broken'. Again, Jotham's words came true. What Abimelech did to Shechem was done to him.</p>


text:
<p>Then he called hastily to the young man who carried his armour and said to him, Draw your sword and kill me, so that men will not say of me, ‘A woman killed him’. His young man thrust him through and he died- </p><p>Saul's armourbearer would not slay Saul because he was Yahweh's anointed king. Although Abimelech claimed to be king, and was accepted by some as king, he clearly was not recognized as king by God nor his own people. We note that the first, or possibly the next, king of Israel met his end likewise, asking his servant to kill him (2 Sam. 1:9). Saul is thus made to be a failed king of Israel just as Abimelech was. Abimelech is indeed remembered for having been slain by a woman, both in this record in Judges 9, and in 2 Sam. 11:18-21. What he greatly feared came upon him, as it will upon all whom God rejects. He who slew his brothers on a stone is killed by a stone.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead they departed each man to his place- </p><p>The tower was not burnt with fire, because it was God’s intention that Abimelech should do this to Shechem- not Thebez (:20). And so Thebez was not burnt as Abimelech had intended.</p>


text:
<p>Thus God rewarded the wickedness of Abimelech which he did to his father, in killing his seventy brothers-</p><p>Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", <a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a> cp. <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>). The reference to "seventy" in <a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a> also doesn't seem exact, for Jothan escaped out of the 70. Seven and a half years (<a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a>) becomes "seven years" (<a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a>); three months and ten days (<a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a>) becomes "three months" (<a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a>). And <a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a> gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”.</p>


text:
<p>and all the wickedness of the men of Shechem God repaid on their heads, and on them came the curse of Jotham the son of Jerubbaal- </p><p>As noted on :55, the tower of Thebez was therefore not burnt with fire, because it was God’s intention that Abimelech should do this to Shechem- not Thebez (:20). And so Thebez was not burnt as Abimelech had intended.</p>


text:
<p>After Abimelech, Tola the son of Puah, the son of Dodo, a man of Issachar arose to save Israel, and he lived in Shamir in the hill country of Ephraim- </p><p>God Himself 'arose and saved' Israel from Egypt (<a href='B:230 76:9'>Psa 76:9</a>, s:w. "raised up a saviour"), and the phrase is also used of Moses in <a href='B:20 2:17'>Exo 2:17</a>. But the people didn’t want this radical deliverance from their enemies, because like the generation saved from Egypt, they were with their enemies in their hearts, and worshipped their gods as Israel had taken the idols of their Egyptian enemies with them, through the Red Sea (<a href='B:330 20:17'>Eze 20:17</a>). So the potential possible in these raised up saviours / judges was never totally realized.</p><p>This verse implies Abimelech was a saviour and defender of Israel. At some point he must have repented of all this and done work for God. His proclamation as king (<a href='B:70 9:6'>Jdg 9:6</a>) was however a rejection of Yahweh as king; the very thing his father Gideon had refused to do. Yet even such a spiritually weak man was used to save His people.</p><p>"Tola" means 'worm', continuing the theme that the judges all had something about them which made them despised of men. The left handed, the son of a whore or of a concubine, etc. And it is exactly this kind of person whom God uses.</p>


text:
<p>He judged Israel twenty-three years and died, and was buried in Shamir- </p><p>'Shamir' is the word for "brier" or "thorn", and is often used in Isaiah in a very negative place. This man called "worm", Tola, lived in a place of briers / thorns, wasteland, bearing God’s curse. But from such a place arose a man used by God to save His people.</p>


text:
<p>After him arose Jair the Gileadite, and he judged Israel twenty-two years- </p><p>"Jair" means 'enlightener', or possibly 'light', which would fit with him being described as 'arising'. Like all the judges / saviours of Israel, he looked ahead to the rising of the light of Christ in Israel's darkness. There was another Jair who had liberated large tracts of land from the Canaanites during the conquest. Perhaps he was named after him. I have often noted the similarities between the lives of God’s servants as recorded in the Bible; Jair judged for 22 years, and the previous judge for 23 years (:2), about the same period.</p>


text:
<p>He had thirty sons who rode on thirty donkey colts, </p><p>To ride on a colt, an animal not yet broken in, was unusual. The idea surely is that they all rode on such colts at one time, perhaps the time when they received their thirty cities. It was as if they had to break in their city, as they were breaking in the colt, representing how they had to subdue the local inhabitants. And they look forward, as do all the judges, to the Lord Jesus; who also rode on a donkey colt as He entered the city of His inheritance, Jerusalem.</p><p>And they had thirty cities, which are called Havvoth Jair to this day, which are in the land of Gilead- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God’s Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God’s word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Jair died and was buried in Kamon- </p><p>Kamon can mean simply the rising, referring to elevated land. But given the belief in the resurrection of the body, we wonder if there was not also the idea of burying a man from where he would finally rise from the dead. In the same way as Joshua was buried in the border of his inheritance, to rise again and enter it.</p>


text:
<p>The people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and served the Baals and Ashtaroth, the gods of Syria, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines; they forsook Yahweh and didn’t serve Him- </p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>). Israel generally never totally rejected Yahweh whilst they served other gods. But at this point it seems they did. We note the large number of gods they worshipped. Typically a people only worshipped one god. But Israel worshipped many, never satisfied with one, but like Gomer in her sexual addiction, always seeking other gods. For the way of the flesh never satisfies.</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel and He sold them into the hand of the Philistines and into the hand of the people of Ammon- </p><p>Yahweh sold them, but the record often says that they sold or prostituted themselves to the idols of the nations. He will confirm men in the path they wish to go.</p>


text:
<p>They troubled and oppressed the Israelites that year. For eighteen years they oppressed all the Israelites that were beyond the Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which is in Gilead- </p><p>The first sentence of this verse is omitted by LXX and many versions, hence GNB "For eighteen years they oppressed and persecuted all the Israelites who lived in Amorite country east of the Jordan River in Gilead".</p>


text:
<p>The Ammonites passed over the Jordan to fight also against Judah and Benjamin and against the house of Ephraim, so that Israel was very distressed- </p><p>This "distress" is the word used of the distress of the historical Jacob / Israel in this same area (<a href='B:10 32:7'>Gen 32:7</a>), when like Israel he was confronted with his sins and led to cast himself upon God’s grace.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites cried to Yahweh saying, We have sinned against You because we have forsaken our God and have served the Baals-</p><p>This was how Yahweh felt. They themselves didn’t think they had forsaken Him. The Bible at times speaks from God’s viewpoint, at others from the perspective of the people whose actions are being described. To forsake Yahweh was to break covenant with Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>). Israel did forsake Yahweh (<a href='B:70 2:13'>Jdg 2:13</a>), but still He remained faithful to them, as Hosea remained faithful to Gomer despite her infidelity to their marriage covenant. Instead of forsaking them as He threatened, He instead by grace sent them saviours, judges, looking forward to His grace in sending the Lord Jesus, Yah's salvation.</p><p>The punishment for forsaking Yahweh was that "Yahweh will send on you cursing, confusion and rebuke in all that you put your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the evil of your doings by which you have forsaken Him. Yahweh will make the pestilence cleave to you until He has consumed you from off the land into which you now go in to possess it" (<a href='B:50 28:20-21'>Deu 28:20-21</a>). We expect these things to therefore happen at this time; but we note God’s amazing patience and gentleness in not bringing these things immediately, and instead raising up judges as saviours for this wayward people.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to the Israelites, Didn’t I save you from the Egyptians, and from the Amorites, from the Ammonites, and from the Philistines?- </p><p>The salvation from the Egyptians was at the Red Sea, long ago (<a href='B:20 14:30'>Exo 14:30</a>). The Israelites were repeatedly reminded of this (<a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:8'>Jdg 6:8</a>; <a href='B:70 10:11'>Jdg 10:11</a>). But they failed to perceive that God’s actions in history were in fact their personal salvation, an act of grace shown to them also. David grasped that point, and his Psalms often thank God for the exodus, as if it had happened to him personally. But the problem is that Israel like all people tended to only see what was before their face at that moment. They had no sense of God’s historical salvation of them, and the guarantee that He would likewise come through for them, if they remained faithful to Him. </p><p>In the Hebrew there are seven salvations mentioned here (:11,12), in contrast to the seven gods they worshipped in :6. It was all God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>The Sidonians also and the Amalekites and the Maonites oppressed you, and you cried to Me, and I saved you out of their hand- </p><p>"Maonites" is the word for the Midianites, alluding to the great deliverance from them worked by God through Gideon. "Oppress" is the word used of how Israel were oppressed in Egypt (<a href='B:20 3:9'>Exo 3:9</a>). But the intention, as with Israel's latter day oppression, is that it would lead them to cry out for Yahweh's salvation, 'Jesus': "For they will cry to Yahweh because of oppressors, and He will send them a saviour and a defender, and He will deliver them" (<a href='B:290 19:20'>Isa 19:20</a> s:w:). All the judges were therefore types of the ultimate deliverance of Israel by the Lord Jesus in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>Yet you have forsaken Me and served other gods; therefore I will save you no more- </p><p>God told Israel straight "I will save you no more". But they begged Him, and He did. And likewise in Hosea, He said He would give them up completely, but just couldn't bring Himself to do it. God changing His mind is a theme that runs through Hosea. This is not caprice nor instability, but rather a window into the way that the pole of God’s saving grace works out stronger than that of His necessary judgment of an awful, sinful people.</p>


text:
<p>Go and cry to the gods which you have chosen. Let them save you in the time of your distress!- </p><p>They had doubtless done this already, and were turning to Yahweh only as a last resort, rather than the first and only resort.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites said to Yahweh, We have sinned; do to us whatever seems good to You, only deliver us, please, this day- </p><p>This confession of sin before asking for deliverance was apparently from the heart, for God responded to it (:16).</p>


text:
<p>They put away the foreign gods from among them and served Yahweh; and His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel-</p><p>God’s soul, His very person, was grieved (Heb. cut down, reaped- as in harvest, s:w. "his soul was vexed unto death", <a href='B:70 16:16'>Jdg 16:16</a>) for the misery / grief of Israel (<a href='B:70 10:15-16'>Jdg 10:15-16</a>). The Hebrew word translated "misery" is also translated "grief". The soul of Almighty God so far away from us grieved for their grief. Their pain elicited in Him a response, no matter that their pain was totally their fault.</p><p>In the death of Jesus we see the rejection of the Son whom God had so dearly hoped His people would reverence- but they rejected Him. As something of each of us dies in the death of those we love, so "God was in Christ", sharing in His sufferings and death. It was not of course that God died. But He fully shared in the sufferings of His Son unto death. God was so hurt by Israel's sufferings that in sympathy with them, "His nephesh ["soul"] was shortened" or expended. The phrase is used in <a href='B:40 21:4'>Num 21:4</a> and <a href='B:70 16:16'>Jdg 16:16</a> about death or the diminishment of life. God’s pain was such that this was how He felt, because He so internalized the sufferings of His people. And how much more in the death of His Son? He even feels like that for the sufferings of Gentiles- in the same way as Moab would weep for their slain sons, so God says that His heart would cry out for Moab, "therefore I weep [along] with the weeping of Jazer... my soul moans like a lyre for Moab" (<a href='B:290 15:5'>Isa 15:5</a>; <a href='B:290 16:9'>Isa 16:9</a>; <a href='B:290 16:11'>Isa 16:11</a>). God "pitied" Nineveh- a Hebrew word meaning to pity with tears (<a href='B:390 4:11'>Jon 4:11</a>). The mourning of the prophets over Tyre (<a href='B:330 27:1'>Eze 27:1</a>) and Babylon (<a href='B:290 21:3-4'>Isa 21:3-4</a>) was an embodiment of God’s grief even over those not in covenant with Him. And how much more does He weep and suffer with His people Israel in their sufferings (<a href='B:300 12:12'>Jer 12:12</a>; <a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; <a href='B:350 4:2-3'>Hos 4:2-3</a>); "my heart yearns / moans for him" (<a href='B:300 31:20'>Jer 31:20</a>).</p><p>God grieved over the carcasses of those wretched men whom He slew in the wilderness for their thankless rebellions against Him their saviour (<a href='B:650 3:17'>Heb 3:17</a>). The apostle makes the point: "With whom was He grieved?". Answer: with the wicked whom He slew! A human God or a proud God would never grieve over His victory over His enemies. Even in the fickleness of Israel's repentance, knowing their future, knowing what they would subject His Son to, "His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel". He delays the second coming because He waits and hopes for repentance and spiritual growth from us. But He praises the faithful for patiently waiting for Him (<a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:230 37:7'>Psa 37:7</a>). Here we see the humility of God’s grace, and His ability to have absolute humanity.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Ammonites were gathered together and encamped in Gilead. The Israelites assembled themselves and encamped in Mizpah- </p><p>Effectively this begins a new chapter or theme; this summarizes the situation which came about after the events of <a href='B:70 11:1-4'>Jdg 11:1-4</a>. Israel had repented:&nbsp;"The children of Israel said unto the Lord, We have sinned:&nbsp;do thou unto us whatsoever seems good unto You;&nbsp; deliver us only... and His (God’s) soul was grieved for the misery of Israel" (<a href='B:70 10:15-16'>Jdg 10:15-16</a>):&nbsp;Straight after this, "the children of Ammon were gathered together" to attack:&nbsp; The people were "sore distressed" after an extended period of devastation at the hands of these people (<a href='B:70 10:8-9'>Jdg 10:8-9</a>), as they will be in the last days before they come to repent:&nbsp;It would appear from this type that after their repentance they will be faced with a final onslaught, and then tested as to whether they will really put their faith in Jephthah - Jesus.</p><p>This 'gathering together' is spoken of in latter-day passages - <a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a> and <a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a>. The previous Arab invasions which typify those of the future, also mention this 'gathering together': Sisera's forces did this (<a href='B:70 4:13'>Jdg 4:13</a>), as did those of Ammon (<a href='B:70 10:17'>Jdg 10:17</a>; <a href='B:130 19:7'>1Ch 19:7</a>), the Amorites (<a href='B:70 11:20'>Jdg 11:20</a>), the Arab powers with Assyria in Hezekiah's time (<a href='B:400 4:11'>Mic 4:11</a>), Gog's forces (<a href='B:330 38:7'>Eze 38:7</a>), the Arab-Canaanite tribes (<a href='B:10 34:30'>Gen 34:30</a>) and especially the Philistines (<a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a>; <a href='B:90 13:11'>1Sa 13:11</a>; <a href='B:90 17:1'>1Sa 17:1</a>; <a href='B:90 25:1'>1Sa 25:1</a>; <a href='B:90 28:1'>1Sa 28:1</a>; <a href='B:90 29:1'>1Sa 29:1</a>; <a href='B:100 23:11'>2Sa 23:11</a>). This is quite some emphasis. Thus while we can expect to see greater potential unity amongst Israel's enemies, developing around the Israel issue and perhaps a common allegiance to a charismatic 'Nebuchadnezzar' figure for a brief period, their complete meeting of minds will not be until the final push against Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>The people, the princes of Gilead, said one to another, Who will begin to fight against the Ammonites? He shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead- </p><p>The end result of Israel's suffering at the hand of Ammon was that they realized their desperate need for a firm leader. Both the ordinary people, and what remains of their leadership in the last days, will be unanimous in this same conclusion: "The people and princes of Gilead said one to another, What man is he that will begin to fight against the children of Ammon? he shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead" (<a href='B:70 10:18'>Jdg 10:18</a>):&nbsp;The fact that they then asked Jephthah to be this "head" (<a href='B:70 11:8'>Jdg 11:8</a>) would suggest that secretly they knew all along who they should follow.</p>


text:
<p>Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valour, and he was the son of a prostitute; and Gilead was the father of Jephthah- </p><p>He was a "man of valour" (<a href='B:70 11:1'>Jdg 11:1</a>), a word also translated "virtue", and coming from a root meaning 'to whirl around':&nbsp; This may possibly suggest a connection with the cherubim, as if through their righteousness ("virtue"), Jephthah and Jesus were a manifestation of God. We see a purposeful juxtaposition between him being a man or valour / virtue, and being the son of a prostitute. Just as "Tola" means 'worm', we see continued the theme that the judges all had something about them which made them despised of men. The left handed, the son of a whore or of a concubine, etc. And it is exactly this kind of person whom God uses:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Gilead’s wife also bore him sons, and when his wife’s sons grew up they drove out Jephthah, and said to him, You shall not inherit in our father’s house because you are the son of another woman- </p><p>He was despised as "the son of a strange woman" (<a href='B:70 11:2'>Jdg 11:2</a>) as Jesus was accused of being born out of wedlock (<a href='B:500 8:41'>Joh 8:41</a>). All the judges / saviours look forward to Him.  Inheritance passed through the male line, regardless of the mother. Which is why Abraham's less favoured sons by Hagar and his concubines also received an inheritance from him (Gen. 25:6; Dt.  21:15-17). His disinheritance was therefore due to personal dislike. The brothers of Jephthah are apparently the same as the "elders of Gilead" to whom he says "Didn’t you hate me and drive me out of my father’s house?" (:7). Their argument would have been that since his mother was a prostitute, there was no guarantee that Gilead was in fact his father. Presumably Gilead had accepted Jephthah as his son, but [after his death?] the other sons overturned this. Psychologically, this set up Jephthah to want to prove himself as a man. And when offered the chance to become the senior son of his brothers through achieving a military victory, he jumped at it. And I suggest that was behind his desperate offering of his daughter to Yahweh if Yahweh gave him that much coveted victory. It wasn't simply about a desire to vindicate Yahweh and liberate His people; it was about Jephthah's pride and need to prove himself. Yet still he is counted amongst the faithful who will finally be saved (Heb. 11:32). Despite all his wrong motivations.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jephthah fled from his brothers and lived in the land of Tob, and a group of adventurers gathered to Jephthah, and they went out with him- </p><p>Having been rejected by his brethren, Jephthah " dwelt in the land of Tob" (<a href='B:70 11:3'>Jdg 11:3</a>), a word which can mean 'heaven':&nbsp;Our Lord's return from heaven in response to Israel's plea for help clearly echoes this.</p>


text:
<p>After a while the Ammonites made war against Israel- </p><p>The summary of the whole situation was given in <a href='B:70 10:17'>Jdg 10:17</a>, and <a href='B:70 11:1-4'>Jdg 11:1-4</a> have explained how this came about.</p>


text:
<p>When the Ammonites made war against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah out of the land of Tob-</p><p>Rejected by his brethren, he had been forced to live the life of a brigand and outlaw, and his military exploits and bravery were perhaps well known to all. Should he have resorted to robbery in order to stay alive? Perhaps not, but the experience was used by God in order to prepare him to deliver His people. The elders of Gilead likely included his brothers who had rejected him. The&nbsp; whole incident looks forward to Israel's desperation leading them to repent of their rejection of the Lord Jesus; see on :7.</p>


text:
<p>and they said to Jephthah, Come and be our chief, so that we can fight the Ammonites- </p><p>We see developed further the theme that Israel, and people generally, need a visible leader. It came to a head in their rejection of Yahweh as their invisible king in Samuel's time. And we likewise see the tendency of all religions to provide a visible 'king'; for personal faith in the invisible kingship of Yahweh, recognizing ourselves thereby as part of His Kingdom or Kingly dominion, demands real faith. Note how "so that we can fight..." becomes "that you may fight..." (:8). They were desperate for a human leader; they had offered leadership over them to anyone willing to even try: "Who will begin to fight against the Ammonites? He shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead" (Jud. 10:18). Only when that didn't produce anyone do they think of Jephthah. They were more than scraping the barrel.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, Didn’t you hate me and drive me out of my father’s house? Why have you come to me now when you are in distress?- </p><p>This was effectively a 'no' from Jephthah. He is sceptical of their offer, and so he goes on to get them to swear before Yahweh that he will not only lead them in battle, but be restored to the "house" or family and be their permanent leader. </p><p>The Lord Jesus was 'thrust out' from His native town (<a href='B:490 4:29'>Luk 4:29</a>) as Jephthah was driven out from Gilead. It was "the elders" who were also responsible for the Lord's rejection. Jephthah's questions were rhetorical. The answer was 'Because we failed to have your faith in Yahweh and are suffering for it, so we need you, as a believer in Yahweh whom we rejected, to lead us. You have what we don't have'.</p>


