# commentaries

text:
<p>Adoni-Bezek said, Seventy kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, scavenged under my table. As I have done, so God has requited me. They brought him to Jerusalem and he died there- </p><p>See on :6. He had supposedly vanquished 70 tribal chiefs, probably only rulers of very small areas. He treated them like dogs (cp. <a href='B:470 15:27'>Mat 15:27</a>). We wonder whether this king came to repentance at the very end of his life, and accepted the God of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it, putting it to the sword, and set the city on fire-</p><p>Insofar as Israel followed their Angel, they had success. We repeatedly read that the cities they conquered were 'sent up in flames' (<a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>; <a href='B:60 6:24'>Jos 6:24</a>; <a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a>; <a href='B:60 11:11'>Jos 11:11</a>), surely because they were following the Angel who was himself as a devouring pillar of fire (<a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). Yet quite naturally we balk at the height of our calling, to follow the Angel. Their victory however was like those of Joshua- not followed up on. For soon the Jebusites were 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.</p>


text:
<p>Afterwards the men of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites who lived in the hill country, in the South and in the lowland- </p><p>These three areas are how the area of Judah was divided up topographically. Judah had been given the power and potential victory throughout the land, but instead they focused only upon their own place in the Kingdom rather than seeking it for their brethren too (see on :2).</p>


text:
<p>Judah went against the Canaanites who lived in Hebron (the name of Hebron before was Kiriath Arba), and they struck Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai- </p><p>We must compare this and :11 with the record of what actually happened in <a href='B:60 15:13-15'>Jos 15:13-15</a>: "And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he [Joshua] gave Hebron. And Caleb drove out thence the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak. And he went up thence against the inhabitants of Debir". It was Caleb who took Hebron and went against Debir. But the record here speaks as if the "he" was the tribe of Judah. We would expect to read "they went..." in :11, but the "he" clearly alludes to how it was Caleb who did this. We can conclude therefore that Caleb's victory was assumed by Judah as theirs, in their attempt to show that they had won victories against the local inhabitants within their tribal canton. This attempt to personally claim the spiritual conquests of others is not unknown amongst God's people today.</p>


text:
<p>From there he went against the inhabitants of Debir. The name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher- </p><p>See on :10. "Now the name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher" (<a href='B:60 15:15'>Jos 15:15</a>). "Debir" is the word usually translated "oracle", referring to the sanctuary, which was centered around the word of God in the ark. The previous name also means something similar, 'Place of the scroll / books'. It's as if faithful Caleb renamed an idol shrine to a more Yahweh centered name. This confirms the suggestion made on <a href='B:60 15:9-10'>Jos 15:9-10</a> that the names associated with pagan worship were renamed by the faithful, but not renamed by the unfaithful.</p>


text:
<p>Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife- </p><p>As noted above, Caleb was then 85, so Othniel was not a young man at all; and Achsah was presumably a virgin. So valiant young, faithful men were apparently not to be found:&nbsp; For surely they were the kind of candidate Caleb was looking for.</p><p>Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (<a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a>; <a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a>; <a href='B:130 2:25'>1Ch 2:25</a>). But "Kenizzite" (also <a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a>) could refer to the Gentile tribe of <a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a>; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (<a href='B:130 4:15'>1Ch 4:15</a>). And <a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a> could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. Caleb means "dog", and this is apparently alluded to when he is commended for faithfully following Yahweh, as a dog would follow its master (<a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a>). The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah. Perhaps the note at :16 about the descendants of the Kenites coming to live with Caleb's family is included to clarify the point that Caleb was a Kenite or Kenizzite.</p>


text:
<p>When she came, she got him to ask her father for a field, and she alighted from off her donkey and Caleb said to her, What would you like?- </p><p>Examples of spiritual ambition are inspirational; just as soldiers inspire each other by their acts of bravery. Achsah followed her father Caleb’s spiritual ambition in specifically asking for an inheritance in the Kingdom (<a href='B:60 14:12'>Jos 14:12</a>; <a href='B:60 15:18'>Jos 15:18</a>); and this in turn inspired another woman to ask for an inheritance soon afterwards (<a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>). And so it ought to be in any healthy congregation of believers. Ponder the parallel between <a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a>; <a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord… hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness”. To know God’s righteousness is to seek / follow it; of itself, it inspires us to ambitiously seeking to attain it.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, Give me a blessing, for that you have set me in the land of the South; give me also springs of water. Then Caleb gave her the upper springs and the lower springs- </p><p>The idea of being given a blessing is of receiving an inheritance, as in <a href='B:60 14:13'>Jos 14:13</a> AV: “And Joshua blessed him, and gave unto Caleb… Hebron for an inheritance”. "A south land" presumably refers to Debir, which was apparently without a good water supply. Debir is on a hill, and there is a valley at the foot of the hill with springs. The territory made presumably been conquered by Caleb and was his own- but he gave away what he had conquered.</p>


text:
<p>The descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the men of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad, and they went and lived with those people- </p><p>This note may be inserted at this point to support the idea that Caleb was also a Kenite / Kenizzite. See on :13. "These people" may refer to the people of Caleb, which would make sense if Caleb was ethnically related to them. LXX "with the people of Amalek" would corroborate with the connection between the Amalekites and Kenizzites made in <a href='B:90 15:6'>1Sa 15:6</a>; <a href='B:40 24:20-22'>Num 24:20-22</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Judah went with Simeon his brother and they attacked the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed the town. The name of the town was Hormah-</p><p>Hormah ["devoted"] was the Canaanite Zephath ["watchtower"]. The strength of the Canaanites was devoted to Yahweh, and they were supportive of David when on the run from Saul (<a href='B:90 30:30'>1Sa 30:30</a>). What was taken from the world was devoted to Yahweh by the faithful Israelites involved in this area. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>Also Judah took Gaza with its border and Ashkelon with its border and Ekron with its border- </p><p>LXX says the opposite, "and Judah did not dispossess...". But that is perhaps an attempt to reconcile this statement with the reality that these Philistine areas remained in Philistine hands (<a href='B:70 3:3'>Jdg 3:3</a>). 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.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh was with Judah and drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron- </p><p>The inhabitants of the valley had been defeated by Joshua. But Judah would not 'drive them out'. "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>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;</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". 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>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>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>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>


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.</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>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>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".</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>


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.</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>


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>


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>


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>


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>


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>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>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>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.</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.</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>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.</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.</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.</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>


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.</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>


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;</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>


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>


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>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>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan who reigned in Hazor- 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.</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.</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>


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>


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>).</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?</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>


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.</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.</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>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. 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 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 " 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>


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>


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>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; curtain". Here again, as with Rahab, Ehud and the Gibeonites, we have deception used as an expression of faith.</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.</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>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.</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".</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>


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>


text:
<p>The mountains melted at the presence of Yahweh, even Sinai at the presence of Yahweh the God of Israel- </p><p>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).</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.</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.</p>


text:
<p>My heart is with the governors of Israel, who offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless Yahweh!- </p><p>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>).</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>


text:
<p>‘Awake, awake, Deborah! Awake, awake, sing a song! Arise, Barak, and lead away your captives, you son of Abinoam’- </p><p>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>


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.</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>


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>).</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.</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.</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.</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>


text:
<p>The river Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. My soul, march on with strength- </p><p>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).</p>


text:
<p>Then the horse hoofs stamped because of the prancing, the prancing of their strong ones- </p><p>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>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.</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.</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.</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>


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>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>


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>


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>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>


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>


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>"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>


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>


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.</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>


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>


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;</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.</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>The giving or withholding of dew was a reflection of whether or not Israel were receiving the blessings or cursings of the covenant. 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>


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.</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>


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 content [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.</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>


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>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.</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.</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. Perhaps bowing on the knees recalled idol worship, and the more sensitive would not have done this. 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>


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 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.</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>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 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>"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>).</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. 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.</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. 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;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;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.</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>


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.</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>. 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>).</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>


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>


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>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.</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>


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.</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.</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.</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>


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.</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>). 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>


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.</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.</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>


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.</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>).</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'. 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.</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>


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.</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</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>


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.</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.</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.</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.</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.</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.</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.</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>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.</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>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.</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.</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.</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.</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>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!". But I think the idea is probably not this. Rather, 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.</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.</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.</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.</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;</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.</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.</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>).</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.</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>).</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>


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.</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.</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>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>


text:
<p>The elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, Therefore we have turned again to you now- </p><p>This really was what they had done to God. And they saw Jephthah as manifesting God to them; they responded to his rhetorical questions of :7, as discussed there.</p><p>So that you may go with us and fight the Ammonites, and you shall be our 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:&nbsp;&nbsp; Both the ordinary people, and what remains of their leadership in the last days, will be unanimous in this same conclusion:&nbsp; "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;&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:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><a href='B:350 1:10-11'>Hos 1:10-11</a> alludes back to Israel's choosing of Jephthah as their head, implying that their choosing of Christ will be at the time of their national acceptance by God:&nbsp; "It shall be said unto them, You are the sons of the living God:&nbsp;Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together (cp. "the children of Israel assembled themselves together" to choose a leader to fight Ammon, <a href='B:70 10:17'>Jdg 10:17</a>), and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land (Exodus language - as if their suffering in their own land will match what they experienced in Egypt):&nbsp;for great shall be the day of Jezreel" - where Gideon won his great victory over the Midianites, which prefigured that of the last days (<a href='B:70 6:33'>Jdg 6:33</a>). This confirms our view that the final Ammonite attack prefigures the very last threat to Israel, which will come immediately after their repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, If you bring me home again to fight the Ammonites and Yahweh delivers them to me, shall I be your head?- </p><p>Perhaps men like Jephthah (<a href='B:70 11:9'>Jdg 11:9</a>) and Samson (<a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a>) were not wrong to seek to be the judges who delivered Israel from the Philistines. For we sense here that being the "head" was attractive to Jephthah. Paul seems to want to inculcate the spirit of ambition in preaching when he told Corinth that they should be ambitious to gain those Spirit gifts which would be most useful in public rather than private teaching of the word (<a href='B:530 14:1'>1Co 14:1</a>; <a href='B:530 14:12'>1Co 14:12</a>). In similar vein Paul commends those who were ambitious (from the right motives) to be bishops (<a href='B:610 3:1'>1Ti 3:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, Yahweh shall be witness between us; certainly we will do as you say- </p><p>They swear by Yahweh, when previously they had been serving other gods; and also because they knew that Jephthah was devoted to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and chief over them, and Jephthah spoke all his words before Yahweh in Mizpah- </p><p>We note that the word "king" is not used. Perhaps they had learned the lesson from Gideon's refusal of the offer to be king, and had learned too from the tragic demise of Abimelech, the man who wanted to be king.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites saying, What have you against me, that you have come to me to fight against my land?- </p><p>The land was God's, and those who fight against God's people, fight against Him. Jephthah is very aware that as a leader of God's people, he is manifesting Yahweh. This rhetorical question, as his question to his own people in :7, was intended to elicit their repentance. And this fulfilled the Mosaic command to ask enemies to surrender before fighting them.</p><p>As Jephthah briefly appealed to the surrounding enemies to see&nbsp; Biblical sense before destroying them, will the Lord Jesus Christ do likewise? He will "plead with them" in the valley of Jehoshaphat (<a href='B:360 3:2'>Joe 3:2</a>):&nbsp;A remnant of repentant Philistines will apparently repent (<a href='B:450 9:5-7'>Zec 9:5-7</a>);&nbsp;other hints that some of the latter day enemies will repent are found in <a href='B:290 19:23-25'>Isa 19:23-25</a> ("Assyria the work of my hands" implies they will be the subjects of a new spiritual creation);&nbsp; <a href='B:290 14:1-2'>Isa 14:1-2</a> (those who took Israel captive will willingly be their slaves in the Kingdom age).</p>


text:
<p>The king of the Ammonites answered the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land when he came up out of Egypt, from the Arnon to the Jabbok and to the Jordan; now therefore restore that territory again peaceably- Ammon justified their invasion by a quasi-Biblical argument, based on their claim that "Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt":&nbsp;Jephthah replied by saying that because God had dispossessed Ammon then, they should not keep raising this old land question (<a href='B:70 11:23'>Jdg 11:23</a>):&nbsp;Yet this issue of who really owns the land of Israel is as live now as it was then, and indicates once again how the final latter day invasion will use this sort of argument to justify it.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah sent messengers back to the king of the Ammonites- </p><p>His answer is very Biblical and reflects a thorough acquaintance with the scriptures he had access to. This man who had to make a living as a highwayman and robber, the son of a whore who had been rejected by his father's sons, had turned to the scriptures because of his experiences. We cannot judge people. We simply don't know who deep down is searching for God, nor what thief or lowlife is secretly reading the Bible on their phone.</p>


text:
<p>and said to him, This is what Jephthah says: Israel didn’t take away the land of Moab, nor the land of the Ammonites- </p><p>The lengthy argument which follows will come to its conclusion in :21- it was really Yahweh and not Israel who had taken the land. To cavil at this was to effectively fight against Yahweh, and Jephthah doesn't wish even his enemies to do this:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>but when they came up from Egypt Israel went through the wilderness to the Red Sea and came to Kadesh- </p><p>Jephthah's knowledge of the scriptural record seems very impressive, and he quotes verbatim fragments from passages like <a href='B:40 13:26'>Num 13:26</a>; <a href='B:40 14:25'>Num 14:25</a>. Against him, the Ammonites stood no chance of twisting scripture and history to justify themselves:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom saying, ‘Please let me pass through your land;’ but the king of Edom didn’t listen. In the same way he sent to the king of Moab, but he would not, and Israel stayed in Kadesh- </p><p>The lesson is that if we are unreasonable to God's people, there will be eternal consequences. The Ammonites considered that all this was mere history. And that is the trouble with human attitudes to God's word, much of which is history. We tend to focus on the immediate, the situation before us at this moment; and consider that the passage of time works a kind of pseudo atonement for our previous failings. It doesn't, and we need to therefore repent as soon as we perceive our sins. See on :28.</p>


text:
<p>Then they went through the wilderness and skirted around the land of Edom and the land of Moab and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and they encamped on the other side of the Arnon, but they didn’t come within the border of Moab, for the Arnon was the border of Moab- </p><p>This is all careful quotation from <a href='B:40 21:4'>Num 21:4</a>; <a href='B:40 21:11-20'>Num 21:11-20</a>; <a href='B:50 2:1'>Deu 2:1</a>. See on :16.</p>


text:
<p>Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon, and Israel said to him, ‘Please let us pass through your land to our place’- </p><p>This is all careful quotation from <a href='B:40 21:21-24'>Num 21:21-24</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 2:26'>Deu 2:26</a>. See on :16.</p>


text:
<p>But Sihon didn’t trust Israel to pass through his border, but Sihon gathered all his people together and encamped in Jahaz and fought against Israel- </p><p>Jephthah is hereby appealing for the Ammonites to learn a lesson from history; for they too had 'gathered together against' Israel. The whole narrative of the book of Judges is that the lessons from history are simply not learnt. And so man stumbles on in darkness, ever seeking to be the empirical learner until it is too late, without the guidance of Divine principles and the precedents set in His word. See on :29.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh the God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they struck them; so Israel took possession of all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country- </p><p>This was only true on one level. "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>They captured all the border of the Amorites from the Arnon to the Jabbok, and from the wilderness to the Jordan-</p><p>The territory is described from south to north, and then from east to west.</p>


text:
<p>So now Yahweh, the God of Israel has driven out the Amorites from before His people Israel, and should you take it over?-</p><p>By asking the Ammonites to accept Yahweh's legitimate claim upon this territory, Jephthah was effectively asking them to accept Yahweh as their God. In all God's judgments, there is the desire for human repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Won’t you inherit that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever Yahweh our God has given to us, that we will take- </p><p>The idea of a god giving his people territory to possess was not at all foreign to the peoples of the land. Chemosh was god of the Moabites (<a href='B:40 21:29'>Num 21:29</a>; <a href='B:110 11:7'>1Ki 11:7</a>; <a href='B:110 11:33'>1Ki 11:33</a>; <a href='B:300 48:7'>Jer 48:7</a>; <a href='B:300 48:13'>Jer 48:13</a>; <a href='B:300 48:46'>Jer 48:46</a>). But Moab and Ammon were closely connected. And Chemosh had failed to protect 'his' land from the Amorites. Jephthah states the issue as being a conflict between Yahweh and Chemosh, both apparently laying claim to the same land. So the only way out of the conflict was for Ammon to accept Yahweh as their God, instead of accepting Chemosh, the god of another nation (Moab) as their god. But we wonder whether Jephthah is not still reasoning from the false assumption that Yahweh was only the God of the land of Israel, rather than going further as David did, and perceiving Him as in fact king of all the planet, with a claim therefore on every human heart:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Now are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor king of Moab? Did he ever strive successfully against Israel, or did he ever fight against them?- </p><p>This is a somewhat more human argument. Balak king of Moab ought to have contested this land issue historically, but he never did.</p>


text:
<p>While Israel lived in Heshbon and its towns, in Aroer and its towns and in all the cities that are along by the side of the Arnon, for three hundred years, why didn’t you recover them within that time?- </p><p>As noted on :25, this is now a more human argument, to the effect that if a territory had been taken in war and kept for 300 years by its conquerors, then it could not reasonably be demanded back. But this is a human argument, and Jephthah should have surely just kept with the spiritual argument- that the land was Yahweh's, and He had given it to His people. We often see the same tendency; human, secular or logical arguments are deployed to uphold or support a position which is simply true because God's word has declared it to be so. This is where so much of 'apologetics' fails to be ultimately relevant. We think particularly of attempts to use science to bolster the Biblical accounts of God's miracles, or creation itself.</p>


text:
<p>I therefore have not sinned against you, but you do me wrong to fight against me. Let Yahweh the Judge be judge this day between the people of Israel and the people of Ammon-</p><p>Jephthah speaks in the first person, as if this is a personal argument with him. But he does so because he realizes he is manifesting God. He also argues that Yahweh is the Judge between Yahweh and Chemosh in their conflicting claims to property. The argument means that it is foolish to enter into the judgment court, seeing this is the case. Paul uses the same kind of argument, in presenting the Lord Jesus as both our advocate for the defence as well as our judge. We cannot, therefore, be condemned; if we are truly "in" Him.</p>


text:
<p>However the king of the Ammonites didn’t listen to the words of Jephthah which he sent him- </p><p>Just as the king of Edom refused to listen to God's words (s:w. :17). For Jephthah is clearly speaking God's words here.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Spirit of Yahweh came on Jephthah and he crossed over Gilead, Manasseh and Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he crossed over to the Ammonites- </p><p>As he went, he asked the Israelites there to support him, but they didn't (<a href='B:70 12:2'>Jdg 12:2</a>). This repeats the theme of what happened at the time of Deborah, and also Gideon. And again we see the inability of people to learn from history. For the Spirit was clearly upon Jephthah as it was upon Gideon and Deborah. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah made a vow to Yahweh and said, If You will indeed deliver the Ammonites into my hand- </p><p>This need not imply doubt, but rather faith (for which he was noted in Hebrews 11). "If" in Hebrew doesn't have to imply that something is open to question, but can function as the word "when...". But if indeed the "if" here betrays a lack of full faith, then this was the basis for his foolish vow. Perhaps a man of full faith would not therefore have needed to make this vow. He would have taken victory as an absolute given. So in this case, we see how taking the lower level of faith so often leads us into further problems.</p>


text:
<p>then whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering- </p><p>I will engage with the question as to whether or not Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt offering; but I wish to preface the presentation of evidence by observing that this is one of the many times that the Bible intentionally presents us with a question which is ambiguous and cannot be conclusively decided. For God wishes us to engage with Him, to reflect upon His word, and consider it carefully. And in the process of that consideration and careful engagement with God's word, we are led closer to Him. It is the process and not the product, the road rather than the destination, which is important in these cases. Whether we come down on the right or wrong side in our conclusion as to whether Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter... is not the intention of the record. This of course is hard of acceptance by those literalists and legalists who insist that every Bible verse must have a clear, black and white interpretation, with no ambiguity.</p><p>That said, at this point I would note that animals don't live in houses where people live. Nor do they come forth from the doors of a house to meet the master of the house. So it seems he does indeed have his daughter in view from the start. And we might wonder whether this isn't something similar to how Saul pronounced death on whoever had eaten, "even if it be Jonathan my son", knowing surely that Jonathan had eaten as he had not heard the command and curse upon those who ate. Further, the phrase "offer it up for a burnt offering" is never used figuratively. Sacrifice as a concept is, but he doesn't use the word sacrifice. And yet contra this is the clear Divine disgust at human offerings, and Yahweh's condemnation of the other tribes for offering up their children to their gods. And as noted on :14, Jephthah had an excellent knowledge of the scriptures. So I conclude that the whole question is left intentionally ambiguous, with evidence both ways- in order to exercise our minds.</p><p>We could however go with Adam Clarke's suggestion that we translate the Hebrew as meaning "I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering"; that is, 'If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him'". However :34 clearly presents Jephthah as in a state of tragic shock when his daughter comes out of the house to greet him, and if Clarke's get out is valid, then this reads very strangely. See on <a href='B:70 12:1'>Jdg 12:1</a>; <a href='B:70 12:4'>Jdg 12:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them and Yahweh delivered them into his hand- </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>):&nbsp;See on <a href='B:70 12:2'>Jdg 12:2</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He struck them from Aroer to Minnith, twenty cities, and to Abelcheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the Ammonites were subdued before the children of Israel- </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>Jephthah came to Mizpah to his house and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter- </p><p>This was unusual for a man of some distinction, and we wonder if Jephthah had become impotent. Or it could be that his wife had become barren, and he had refused to remarry or take other wives. He stands in stark contrast to other judges of Israel, who had 70 or 30 sons. We see this as a sign of his integrity. The whole narrative is set up for us to sense that the&nbsp; girl coming out of the house to meet Jephthah sent a chill of terror and tragedy down Jephthah's spine. The tragedy of the scene is emphasized by the record mentioning that she was his only child. I discussed on :31 the pros and cons for thinking that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, and concluded that the evidence seems carefully stacked on both sides. Therefore I conclude that the incident is consciously crafted to help us engage carefully with the text, and there is no definite conclusion possible. His apparent integrity in only having one child is carefully balanced against his rashness of having made an oath which he now thinks he must carry out:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When he saw her he tore his clothes and said, Alas my daughter! You have made me very sad and troubled, for I have made a vow to Yahweh and I can’t go back on it- </p><p>We could argue that he could have redeemed his daughter from the vow he involved her with (<a href='B:30 27:4'>Lev 27:4</a>). But he decided in his mind: "I can't go back". Actually he could have done; but he so firmly chose the higher level that it was as if there was no way back. <a href='B:230 15:4'>Psa 15:4</a>, in evident allusion to Jephthah, describes those who will attain the Kingdom as fearing Yahweh, and swearing to their own hurt and changing not. Some may swear and change and attain the Kingdom; but we are invited to follow Jephthah to the highest level. The principle of Jephthah's vow is seen in many other Bible characters.</p><p>Or it could be that for all his fluent knowledge of the history of God's people, he had not paid due attention to the details of the Mosaic law in <a href='B:30 27:4'>Lev 27:4</a>, and so was unaware of this. I discussed on :31 whether like Saul wanting to kill his son Jonathan, Jephthah just possibly might have wished to kill his daughter. For he knew she would come out of the house to greet him with tambourine if he won. And this would make his grief here either theatrical, or because he now realized the reality of what he had vowed.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, My father, you have made a vow to Yahweh; do to me what you have vowed, because Yahweh has taken vengeance for you on your enemies the people of Ammon- </p><p>Her attitude is indeed commendable on one hand, but she sees her father's victory as being his personal vengeance upon his personal enemies. The idea of fighting for Yahweh against His enemies, and His vengeance, seems far from her.</p>


text:
<p>She said to her father, Let this one thing be done for me: let me alone two months to go around on the mountains and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.</p><p>As discussed on :31, this could mean that she was resigned to death. Or the bewailing of her virginity could mean that she accepted that she was dedicated to Yahweh and therefore could never marry and have children. But there is no Mosaic concept of a woman being devoted to Yahweh by the oath of a third party, and therefore being unable to have children or marry. Even the oath of Naziriteship didn't preclude marriage. So again, as discussed on :31, we are left with evidence for and against the idea of her sacrifice. This, I suggest, is intentional.</p><p>For God wishes us to engage with Him, to reflect upon His word, and consider it carefully. And in the process of that consideration and careful engagement with God's word, we are led closer to Him. It is the process and not the product, the road rather than the destination, which is important in these cases. Whether we come down on the right or wrong side in our conclusion as to whether Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter... is not the intention of the record. This of course is hard of acceptance by those literalists and legalists who insist that every Bible verse must have a clear, black and white interpretation, with no ambiguity.</p><p>Whatever Jephthah's unwisdom, motives or murderous plans which may or may not have lurked in a very dark mind which wished to slay his daughter, this doesn’t exclude him from being listed amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11. The lesson therefore is the same as that which we take from Samson. No matter how possibly tangled were a man's motives at some points in his life, no matter how strangely parts of a man's biography may read or appear when we meet them in live encounter, we are not to judge. For God at the end of all things may well accept him as faithful to Him. We are not to judge simply because we cannot judge.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Go. He sent her away for two months, and she and her companions went and mourned her virginity on the mountains- </p><p>The vow surely implied that Jephthah would immediately offer up whatever came out of his house (:31). So by allowing two months to perform the vow, he was stretching the interpretation. Why not, then, annul it altogether? We note it was her virginity which was to be lamented, which would suggest it was a devotion to a virginal life that was in view, rather than death. But then to die childless was also seen as a tragedy worthy of bewailing.</p>


text:
<p>At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she was a virgin. It was a custom in Israel- </p><p>"And she was a virgin" is intentionally vague; fort tenses in Biblical Hebrew aren't at all precise. It could mean that she died, being a virgin. Or that she now lived the rest of her life as a virgin. But if the vow came into effect only after two months, then that could be read as implying she then died. Because she was a virgin at the start and the end of the two months. We note that the record doesn't state what Jephthah did to her; just that he did what he had vowed, and as discussed on :31,37, that vow is intentionally ambiguous. And the incident ends with this same open ended position, beckoning us to engage with the text and wonder what actually happened.</p>


text:
<p>that the daughters of Israel went each year to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year-</p><p>We wonder what there was to celebrate about this girl. For she could surely have run away, and would have found plenty to support her, just as Jonathan did when his father tried to murder him according to some unwise oath. Was the celebration of her obedience to her father's unwise oath? Or we could read "celebrate" as "lament" (AV). In which case this would be a lamentation of how a young woman had her life either ruined or ended because of the unwisdom of a male, and his pride in refusing to just take back his oath, in a mistakenly literalistic interpretation of <a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a>. Again, as discussed on :31,37,39, the record is intentionally vague, in order to invite our thought and engagement with it.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Ephraim were gathered together and passed northward, and they said to Jephthah, Why did you go to fight against the Ammonites and didn’t call us to go with you? We will burn your house around you with fire-</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>). We see how the Biblical record is consistent in its depiction of character and personality, over incidents which occurred far apart. This is yet another internal evidence for Divine inspiration.</p><p>The threat to burn his house with fire, from which his daughter had emerged, may be an allusion to what he had done to her; and they sought to punish him by burning him to death, the punishment for apostacy. I discussed on <a href='B:70 11:31'>Jdg 11:31</a>; <a href='B:70 11:37'>Jdg 11:37</a> how the whole question of 'Did Jephthah slay and offer his daughter?' is intentionally left ambiguous. And here again we have only a possible contribution towards the argument that he may have done this. But it is very tangential, purposefully so.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah said to them, I and my people were at great strife with the Ammonites and when I called you, you didn’t save me out of their hand- </p><p>We note the difference between this response to the Ephraimites, and that of Gideon in <a href='B:70 8:1-3'>Jdg 8:1-3</a>. Gideon was far humbler, and his softer answer turned away wrath. Whereas Jephthah is not so wise, and it results in bloodshed. We recall his unwisdom in his vow of Judges 11. Surely Jephthah ought to have learned from the history of how Gideon correctly responded in an identical situation- when again, the Ephraimites had not come forward to help him in routing Yahweh's enemies. We also note Jephthah speaks of how the men of Ephraim could have helped save him from the hand of the Ammonites. But it was Yahweh who delivered him out of the hand of the Ammonites, and placed the Ammonites into his hand (<a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>). In the flush of victory, Jephthah seems to have lost the humility which Gideon displayed as noted on <a href='B:70 8:2'>Jdg 8:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When I saw that you didn’t save me, I put my life in my hand and went against the Ammonites, and Yahweh delivered them into my hand-</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>Why then have you come up to me this day, to fight against me?- </p><p>Again we sense an arrogance, in the flush of victory. As if to say, 'I just beat the Ammonites, why then try to fight me?'.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead and fought with Ephraim, and the men of Gilead struck Ephraim because they said, You Gileadites are renegades of Ephraim from Ephraim and Manasseh-</p><p>The motivation for the conflict is here given as being merely racial and historical prejudice, rather than anything spiritual. And yet despite this yet further unwisdom and arrogance, Jephthah is listed as being amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11, assured of resurrection to eternal life. We note that Jephthah took the initiative in attacking his brethren, and he did so because their words stuck in his mind, he kept repeating them, and therefore did what God was surely against- attacking and slaying his own brothers. This casual attitude to the death of others may, or may not, tie in to the discussion on <a href='B:70 11:31'>Jdg 11:31</a> as to whether he also intended to slay his own daughter.</p><p>We see here the power of unkind words, although LXX offers "because they that were escaped of Ephraim said, Ye are of Galaad in the midst of Ephraim and in the midst of Manasse". This would imply there had been a previous, unrecorded conflict between Gideon and the men of Ephraim:&nbsp; But 'You as Gileadites are really under our control' was the idea. GNB "The Ephraimites had said, "You Gileadites in Ephraim and Manasseh, you are deserters from Ephraim!". And reflection upon those words made Jephthah so angry that he went and slew his brethren.</p>


text:
<p>The Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan before the Ephraimites. When the fugitives of Ephraim said, Let me cross over, the men of Gilead said to him, Are you an Ephraimite? If he said No- </p><p>The men of Gilead were related closely to the Ephraimites, hence the claim of :4. There was just a slight difference in accent between them. So this really was brother slaying brother, and shows Jephthah and his men in a very bad light. And yet, he is counted amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11, and we assume he must have repented for what he did here.</p>


text:
<p>then they said to him, Now say ‘Shibboleth;’ and he said Sibboleth, for he couldn’t manage to pronounce it right, then they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan- </p><p>"Sibboleth" means both a stream- which is all the 'river' Jordan is at places in northern Israel- or a burden of abuse (<a href='B:20 6:6'>Exo 6:6</a>); and 'shibboleth' is an ear of corn. There are many examples of this kind of thing in dialects today. Maybe the idea was&nbsp; that if they couldn't say "shibboleth" then they were asking to be placed under an abusive burden of death, 'sibboleth'.</p><p>At that time, forty-two thousand of Ephraim fell- </p><p>This was nothing less than a bloodbath, a huge massacre. Although "thousand" when used of military conflict probably refers to a military division, rather than to a literal 1,000.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah judged Israel for six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died and was buried in a city of Gilead- </p><p>Perhaps it was during these six years that he repented of his unspiritual behaviour and unwisdom, and had the faith which was the basis of his commendation in Hebrews 11.</p>


text:
<p>After him Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel-</p><p>All the judges / saviours look forward to the Lord Jesus, the ultimate judge / saviour of Israel. Ibzan, 'the splendid one' of Bethlehem, is a clear example.</p>


text:
<p>He had thirty sons and thirty daughters. He sent his daughters away in marriage, and brought in thirty women for his sons. He judged Israel for seven years- </p><p>He clearly wished to spread his influence far and wide. Perhaps "brought in" could imply from other tribes or even nations (AV "from abroad)", both of which were against the Mosaic intentions of keeping the inheritances within the tribes. We note the contrast with Jephthah, who had only one child, presumably because he refused to take other wives and retained his one barren wife as his only wife.</p>


text:
<p>Ibzan died and was buried at Bethlehem-</p><p>See on :8; he was a type of Christ. However, the book of Judges rarely mentions Judah, so this may be the Bethlehem in Zebulun (<a href='B:60 19:15'>Jos 19:15</a>), from where the next judge also came (:11).</p>


text:
<p>After him Elon the Zebulunite judged Israel for ten years- </p><p>Elon's name means 'grove of oaks', clearly with reference to pagan practices. The fact he is not recorded as having renamed himself could suggest that he remained an idolater, although was used by God to deliver Israel. Being used by God doesn't mean we are therefore faithful to Him and assured of His acceptance.</p>


text:
<p>Elon the Zebulunite died and was buried in Aijalon in the land of Zebulun- </p><p>Elon and Aijalon have the same Hebrew consonants, and may be as in LXX the same basic word. Elon was a clan of Zebulun (<a href='B:10 46:14'>Gen 46:14</a>; <a href='B:40 26:26'>Num 26:26</a>), so this may refer to a man from that clan. The lack of a personal name would therefore indicate he was as it were an anonymous person used by God to deliver His people at a certain time.</p>


text:
<p>After him Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite judged Israel- </p><p>"Abdon" means server, and "Hillel" means praise, usually of Yahweh. Although the Yahweh Name is absent from his name, we assume that he was a servant of Yahweh (s:w. <a href='B:70 10:16'>Jdg 10:16</a>). And yet as noted on :15, his personal commitment to Yahweh failed to ensure that the whole people were His servants.</p>


text:
<p>He had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkey colts, and he judged Israel for eight years- </p><p>The very large numbers of children by several of the judges suggests they were polygamists, and we therefore get the impression of men who were not very spiritual but were used by God to deliver His people. They throw Jephthah into positive contrast, as he had only one child; presumably because he refused to take other wives and retained his one barren wife as his only wife. And he is one of the few judges listed in Hebrews 11 as having had true faith.</p>


text:
<p>Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite died and was buried in Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the hill country of the Amalekites-</p><p>The mention of the Amalekites is tacit admission that Abdon did not effect a major, lasting deliverance of Israel from their enemies. Or perhaps, as with Joshua, his victories were not followed up by the people. We see spiritual weakness at every turn in the Judges narrative.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and Yahweh delivered them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years- </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>Biblical history is unlike any other national history of a people in that it seems to emphasize the spiritual weakness of Israel. The heroes are nearly all flawed- and that, surely, is so as to give us realistic inspiration to rise up to their spirit, knowing how flawed we also are. And yet there's a tendency amongst some of us to idealize these men, in the same way as the Catholic and Orthodox churches portray them as white faced, haloed saints. Judaism has done the same. Despite the evident weaknesses of Samson (and other judges, e.g. Gideon) as revealed in the inspired record, later Jewish commentary sought to idealize them. Take Sir_46:11-12: "The judges too... all men whose hearts were never disloyal, who never turned their backs on the Lord...". Perhaps the psychological basis for this tendency is that we simply don't want to be personally challenged by the fact that heroes of faith were so much like us...</p><p>We know, or we ought to, how weak our moral judgment is, how prone we are to forget the degree to which God has justified us from our sins. This weakness is seen in the difficulty we have in analyzing the characters we read of in Scripture. For example, from reading the record of Lot in Genesis, it would seem that Lot was a materialistic, weak, faithless man who is shown to be the exact opposite to Abraham, who is held up as the example of real faith. Yet in the New Testament record, Peter points out that Lot was a righteous man. We are therefore left to conclude that the Genesis record is highlighting the weaker aspects of Lot's character, without commenting on the good points. We may have the same sort of surprise when we read in Hebrews 11 that Samson was a man of outstanding faith- yet the record we are reading at the moment in Judges seems framed to paint Samson as a womanizer, a man who lacked self-control and who only came to God in times of dire personal need.</p><p>But just imagine if only the negative incidents in our own lives, over a period of 20 (or 40?) years, were recorded. Anyone reading it would conclude that we were a complete hypocrite to claim to have any hope of salvation. In our self-examination, we sometimes see only this negative record; we fail to see that God has justified us, that in His record book, we are ranked among the faithful, as Samson was in Hebrews 11. Any character study of Samson needs to bear this in mind. Samson, over 40 years of service, courted a girl not in the faith and tried to marry her; once went to a prostitute in Gaza; and had an on-and-off relationship with a worthless woman in Sorek for a few months (?). And yet he seems to have lived the rest of his life full of faith and zeal- although I say this not in any way minimizing the mistakes he made. This is hardly evidence that Samson was the renegade sex-maniac that he is sometimes made out to be.</p><p>Judges 17-21 contain various pictures of and insights into the apostacy of the tribe of Dan, providing the backdrop for a character study of Samson. These chapters seem chronologically out of place; they belong before the Samson story. 18:30 speaks of Jonathan the grandson of Moses, and 20:28 of Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (cp. <a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a>), which would place these events at the beginning of the period of the Judges, once Israel had first settled in the land. Dan's apostacy is suggested by the way in which he is omitted from the tribes of the new Israel in Revelation 7. Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (<a href='B:60 15:33-36'>Jos 15:33-36</a>), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (<a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (<a href='B:70 18:2'>Jdg 18:2</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7-10'>Jdg 18:7-10</a>). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that you have done unto us?" (15:11). "They had become reconciled to the dominion of sin since it did not appear to do much harm. They could still grow their crops etc.". It is even possible that his parents had elements of weakness in them; for his name doesn't include the 'Yah' prefix, and 'Samson' ('splendour of the sun') may be a reference to the nearby town of Beth Shemesh ('house of the sun-god'). It could be argued that because the father was responsible for his son's marriage partner (<a href='B:70 12:9'>Jdg 12:9</a>; <a href='B:70 14:2'>Jdg 14:2</a>; <a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; <a href='B:10 24:3-9'>Gen 24:3-9</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30'>Neh 10:30</a>), therefore Samson's father was equally guilty for Samson's 'marriage out'. Many of the commands against intermarriage were directed to parents, commanding them not to give their children in intermarriage. All the Judges were preceded by a period of Israel prostituting themselves to the surrounding nations (<a href='B:70 2:16-19'>Jdg 2:16-19</a>); and this was evidently true of the period in which Samson grew up. From this apostate tribe and background came Samson. The way his own people angrily rebuked him that " Don't you know that the Philistines are lords over us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>) was tacit recognition of the depth of their apostacy. They seemed to have no regret that they were fulfilling the many earlier prophecies that they would be dominated by their enemies if they were disobedient to Yahweh. The fact that Israel were dominated throughout Samson's life by the Philistines is proof enough that they were apostate at this time (<a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>;&nbsp;cp. <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>; <a href='B:70 16:31'>Jdg 16:31</a>).</p>


text:
<p>There was a man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah, and his wife was barren and childless-</p><p>Samson lived at a time when Israel were hopelessly weak. His great desire was to do the work of the promised seed, who would save Israel from their enemies. He resented the Philistine domination and sought, single-handed, to overcome it in faith, not only for himself, but for his weaker brethren. As predestiny would have it, in recognition of his zeal for these things, he came from Zorah, 'the hornet'- a symbol of the Divine power that would drive the foreign tribes out of the land, as Samson dedicated himself to do (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>). And his father's name, Manoah, meant "rest", or inheritance (cp. <a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a>; <a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a>). Samson-ben-Manoah was therefore Samson, the son of the promised inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh appeared to the woman and said to her, Look now, you are barren and childless but you will conceive and bear a son- </p><p>God's Angelic appearance to barren or childless women and promising them a very significant child is quite a theme. We think of Abraham and Sarah (<a href='B:10 17:19'>Gen 17:19</a>; <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>; <a href='B:10 18:14'>Gen 18:14</a>),&nbsp; Hannah (<a href='B:90 1:17'>1Sa 1:17</a>), Elizabeth (<a href='B:490 1:13'>Luk 1:13</a>) and Mary (<a href='B:490 1:31'>Luk 1:31</a>). These women were intended to have reflected upon the experience of those previous women, and to have taken strength and guidance from their response. This is the advantage of daily Bible reading and familiarity with the text and historical narrative of the scriptures. Even if we 'don't get anything out of it' at the point of reading, when events occur in our lives, we are able to see them in the context of Biblical history, and are comforted that we are not alone. Our experiences are not so totally unique. And it is the sense of walking alone in unchartered, unexperienced territory which is where much of our fear comes from. And yet because the hand of God works according to a historical pattern, we need not feel so alone; through patience and comfort of the scriptures we have hope (<a href='B:520 15:4'>Rom 15:4</a>), as if these historical records speak to us in a personified form and comfort us. See on :3,24.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore you must be careful and drink no wine nor strong drink, and don’t eat any unclean thing- </p><p>As discussed on :4, Manoah's wife was here promised that her son would be a Nazirite from birth; and she was to become the pattern for later women who were told likewise (<a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a>; <a href='B:490 1:15'>Luk 1:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>You shall conceive and bear a son, and no razor must come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he will begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines- </p><p>It would be simplistic for a character study of Samson to see Samson as some kind of sex maniac of a believer. He was a man of faith who, amidst a weak and indifferent brotherhood, tried to rise up to the spirit of Messiah in delivering Israel from their spiritual enemies. In order to devote himself to this, it seems that he chose the single life. In common with others who trod that path of zeal (e.g. Timothy and possibly Hezekiah), he couldn't maintain it all the time. He stumbled, and his stumbling in this area resulted in him reasoning that the end (i:e. the work he was doing) justified the means, and that therefore he could do God's work in a way which in fact gratified his own flesh. He had to learn the spirit of the cross-carrying Christ; the lesson of the whole burnt offering: that the whole of a man's life must be affected by the cross- not just those parts which we are willing to surrender. We can't mix the service of God with the service of self. There is no third road. Because Samson failed to realize this (until the end), he was a man who in many ways never quite made it; he never quite lived up to the spiritual potential which he had.</p><p>Although he was to be the beginning of serious deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, the whole story of Samson is prefaced by the fact that during the 40 years of Samson's' ministry (15:20 + 16:31), "the Lord delivered (Israel) into the hand of the Philistines" (13:1). It is emphasized in <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> that "at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel" ; and the men of Judah chode with him: "Don't you know that the Philistines are rulers over us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>). The point is hammered home in <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>: "He judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years". God's intention was that Samson was to deliver Israel from the Philistines; but somehow he never rose up to it, and only 'began' to do it (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). They remained under the Philistines, even during his ministry. He made a few sporadic attempts in red hot personal zeal, confirmed by God, to deliver Israel. But he never rose up to the potential level that God had prepared for him in prospect. And yet for all this, he was accepted in the final analysis as a man of faith. It may be possible to understand that the breaking of his Nazariteship was yet another way in which he never lived up to his God-given potential. He was "a Nazirite unto God from the womb to the day of his death" (13:7). Yet he broke the Nazirite vow by touching dead bodies and having his hair shaven (<a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a>). This may mean that he chose to break God's ideal intention for him, to take a lower and lower level of service to God until actually he had slipped away altogether. However, it may be that God counted his desire for the high standard of Nazariteship to him. He saw him as if this never happened, in the same way as He saw Abraham as if he had offered up Isaac, even though ultimately he didn't (<a href='B:650 11:17'>Heb 11:17</a>; <a href='B:660 2:21'>Jas 2:21</a>). Intention, not the human strength of will to do the act, seems to be what God earnestly looks for.</p>


text:
<p>Then the woman went and told her husband, A man of God came to me, and his face was like the face of the angel of God, very awesome. I didn’t ask him where he was from, neither did he tell me his name-</p><p>LXX "I did not ask him His Name". Therefore the husband did ask His Name when He appeared again. She assumed this was a prophet, a "man of God", but she had the suspicion that it was in fact an Angel.</p>


text:
<p>but he said to me ‘You will conceive and bear a son; drink no wine or strong drink, and eat no unclean thing, for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb to the day of his death’-</p><p>He was a Nazirite to God (i:e. in God's eyes?) all his life- although he broke his Nazariteship by contact with dead bodies (<a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>; <a href='B:70 15:15'>Jdg 15:15</a> cp. <a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a>) and probably by drinking wine at his wedding (<a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a> "feast" = 'drinking', Heb:). This was not only imputed righteousness, but God counting the essential intentions of a weak willed man to him as if he had actually achieved what he fain would do.</p><p>Or it could be that we are to read this as meaning that it was God's intention that Samson should be a Nazirite to the day of his death- but he failed to live up to that Divine intention and potential. Which is a sad theme of the Judges record. <a href='B:70 13:7'>Jdg 13:7</a> cp. <a href='B:70 16:17'>Jdg 16:17</a> implies that Samson himself felt he had broken his Nazariteship. Likewise Zacharias was "blameless" in God's sight, even though in this very period of his life he was in some ways lacking faith that his prayers would be answered (<a href='B:490 1:6'>Luk 1:6</a>). It is our holding fast that is our acceptable service (<a href='B:650 12:28'>Heb 12:28</a> mg:); not the occasional heroics of outstanding acts of obedience.</p><p>We know that we sadly oscillate between the flesh and the spirit. And yet Scripture abounds with examples of where God sees us as in a permanent state of either sin or righteousness. We are fountains that bring forth good water, and therefore by that very definition cannot occasionally bring forth bitter water; we are good fruit trees or bad ones. We aren’t a little of both, in God’s sight. This is surely because He sees us on the basis of the fact that we are in Christ, clothed with His righteousness, rather than as individuals who sometimes act righteously and sometimes not during the course of a day. Thus God saw Samson as a lifelong Nazirite, although we know there were times when he broke the Nazirite vow by, e.g., touching dead bodies and having his hair cut. The challenging thing is to behold our brethren as having the “in Christ” status (for we can’t impute anything else to them, lest we condemn them), and not to see them from the point of view of people who sometimes act righteously and sometimes don’t.</p><p>Likewise the Angel declared that he would “begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines” (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). Yet he died with the Philistines firmly in control over himself and Israel. This was potentially possible in the Angelic plan; but he didn’t live up to what had been made possible in prospect. Significantly, Samson’s mother omitted to repeat this part of the Angel’s conversation when she relayed the incident to her husband (<a href='B:70 13:7'>Jdg 13:7</a>)- perhaps because she didn’t believe that her child would be capable of this. And perhaps this was a factor in his failure to achieve what God had intended for him.</p>


text:
<p>Then Manoah entreated Yahweh and said, Oh Lord, please let the man of God whom you sent come again to us and teach us what we should do to the child who will be born- </p><p>The Angel had explained already; they were to raise him as a Nazirite. But as with Gideon, Manoah had a weak faith and wanted continual confirmation. And there was also the fact that he may well have doubted how a woman could speak to him God's words. He wanted to hear them for himself. And God made a concession to that weakness, as He does to many cultural mores which are a denial of deeper spiritual principle.</p>


text:
<p>God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field, but Manoah her husband, wasn’t with her- </p><p>I suggested on :8 that he may well have doubted how a woman could speak to him God's words. He wanted to hear them for himself. And God made a concession to that weakness. But He does so by all the same first appearing to the woman alone, and not directly to Manoah in the first instance.</p>


text:
<p>The woman quickly ran and told her husband, and said to him, The man has appeared to me, who came to me that day-</p><p>The record of Samson's birth frequently uses the phrases "the man" and "the woman" (:10,11), as if to send the mind back to Eden- with the implication that Samson was the seed of the woman, in type of Christ. "The woman" is a phrase nearly always associated in Scripture with the birth of someone who was to be a seed of the woman. "Of all that I said unto the woman, let her beware", coming from the mouth of an Angel (:13), surely confirms the Eden allusions.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah arose and went after his wife and came to the man and said to him, Are you the man who spoke to the woman? He said, I am- </p><p>To hear the words of God directly, Manoah has to follow after his wife. I suggested on :8,9 that he may well have doubted how a woman could speak to him God's words. He wanted to hear them for himself. And God made a concession to that weakness. But He does so in such a way that still requires him to follow behind his more spiritual wife (see on :23), in order to hear those words.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said, Now may your words come true. What should the child’s way of life and mission be?- </p><p>There may be here the slight hint that he did not have total faith in the words of promise. For we could understand him as meaning 'Well I hope what you say is true. Should it be true, then how should we, in that case, raise the child; what is his mission going to be, so that we might raise him towards it?'. I note on :23 that his wife has more faith and perception than he does. And it is highly significant that the description of the "mission", to deliver Israel from the Philistines, is told only to the woman and not to Manoah.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh said to Manoah, All that I said to the woman she must do- </p><p>Although God is making a concession to Manoah's weakness in appearing to him, He emphasizes that His primary word had been to the woman, not to Manoah. The concession to his chauvinistic weakness was therefore not total, but done in such a way that he was reminded that God had chosen his wife before him in revealing His word. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>She may not eat anything that comes from the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing; all that I commanded her let her observe- </p><p>"Let her observe" may have been the command to Manoah, to not stand in the way of her obeying the call to also be a Nazirite. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said to the angel of Yahweh, Please, let us detain you so that we may make a young goat ready for you-</p><p>The record of Samson has a large number of examples of the repetitions in Biblical narrative. They are situations where he was connected into the experience of those who had gone before- e.g. Manoah's desire to detain the Angel recalls <a href='B:70 6:18'>Jdg 6:18</a>; <a href='B:10 18:5'>Gen 18:5</a>. His desire to detain the Angel and offer sacrifice was exactly that of Gideon (6:18). His belief after he had seen the Angel ascend (<a href='B:70 13:20'>Jdg 13:20</a> = <a href='B:70 6:21'>Jdg 6:21</a>), and his subsequent fear, were again expressed in the words of Gideon (<a href='B:70 13:21-22'>Jdg 13:21-22</a> cp. <a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a>). As Gideon was, perhaps subconsciously, the hero of Manoah, so Samson followed his father's spirituality in this, wanting likewise to copy Gideon. It seems he lived out parental expectation, and imbibed the spirituality of his father without making it his own. Born and raised believers, beware.</p>&nbsp;<p>The whole scene is very similar to that of <a href='B:10 18:7-8'>Gen 18:7-8</a>. Manoah responded as Abraham did, and later he would have perceived the similarities, and therefore grasped that this "man" was indeed an Angel.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh said to Manoah, Though you detain me, I won’t eat your food, and if you prepare a burnt offering, you must offer it to Yahweh. Manoah didn’t know that he was the angel of Yahweh- </p><p>And yet as noted on :15, the whole scene was so very similar to that of <a href='B:10 18:7-8'>Gen 18:7-8</a> that we conclude that Manoah ought to have perceived ["know"] that this was an Angel. The fact he didn't is therefore an indication of lack of spiritual perception on his part. See on :23. The fact the Angel didn't eat of his food and meat, whereas the Angels who visited Abraham did so, could be read as a possible rebuke of Manoah for not perceiving this was an Angel. See on :17.</p><p>"Detain" is the word used for the Angelic restraining of the womb from bearing children (<a href='B:10 20:18'>Gen 20:18</a>), and had been used specifically about Sarah (<a href='B:10 16:2'>Gen 16:2</a>). And this whole incident was intended to help them see the similarities with Abraham and Sarah's Angelic visitation. The Angel may intend them to grasp the point- that they thought they were detaining / restraining Him, when He had been restraining them from having children until this point. Perhaps only later did they perceive this, if at all. There are many such Biblical allusions built in by God to our life experiences; and we may or may not ever perceive them in the course of our lives. Self examination of the path and details of our lives is clearly intended by God.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said to the angel of Yahweh, What is your name, that when your words come true, we may honour you?-</p><p>The record says that Manoah said this "to the Angel", whilst clearly thinking this was a mere man. He acts and reasons as if this is a man, and he needs to know his name so that he can give him honour. When surely his mind should have been upon honouring God. "When" may also bear the implication of "if", as if he still didn't completely believe these words (see on :12). As noted on :16, his lack of perception that this was an Angel is criticized implicitly.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh said to him, Why do you ask about my name, since it is beyond understanding-</p><p>Or, "wonderful", implying 'miraculous'. This again was urging Manoah to understand that this was not a human prophet, but an Angel with the power to do miracles. I have noted on :16,17 that Manoah is being implicitly criticized for not perceiving this was an Angel. And so the Angel replies with exactly the Angelic words to Jacob (<a href='B:10 32:29'>Gen 32:29</a>). Their subsequent fear (<a href='B:70 13:22'>Jdg 13:22</a>) is that of <a href='B:10 32:20'>Gen 32:20</a>. See on <a href='B:70 14:12'>Jdg 14:12</a>. Yet despite this, Manoah fails to make the connection, for only at the point :21 does he realize this was an Angel.</p>


text:
<p>So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering and offered it on the rock to Yahweh. Then the angel did a wonderful thing as Manoah and his wife looked on- </p><p>Manoah had initially wanted to prepare food for the visitor, but He had declined it, and told him instead to offer it to Yahweh. And Manoah does so.</p>


text:
<p>When the flame went up toward the sky from the altar, the angel of Yahweh ascended in the flame of the altar, and Manoah and his wife looked on- </p><p>The fact they had an altar on their property indicates that they did serve Yahweh, although not in the ideal sense of offering at His sanctuary. "Ascended" is the word usually translated "offering". The idea is that the Angel was identified with the sacrifice, meaning that it had been accepted. Despite all Manoah's lack of spiritual perception throughout the encounter, as lamented on :16-18.</p><p>And they fell on their faces to the ground- </p><p>The phrase used of men doing this with a sense of unworthiness and conviction of sin (<a href='B:10 44:14'>Gen 44:14</a>; <a href='B:60 7:6'>Jos 7:6</a>; <a href='B:80 2:10'>Rth 2:10</a>). Now that they had been humbled, God could work further with them. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>But the angel of Yahweh didn’t appear to Manoah or to his wife any more. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Yahweh- </p><p>See on :16,17,18. It was the very absence of God’s direct appearance in his life that in the end persuaded Manoah that truly, he did have a fully valid relationship with Him. And the apparent silence of God is intended to teach us likewise.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said to his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God- </p><p>He failed to learn the lesson from Gideon, who had likewise wrongly panicked (<a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a>; <a href='B:70 6:28'>Jdg 6:28</a>); and likewise of Jacob and others who saw the face of an Angel and lived (<a href='B:10 16:14'>Gen 16:14</a>; <a href='B:10 32:30'>Gen 32:30</a>). Isaiah too failed to learn this lesson from history (<a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But his wife said to him, If Yahweh wanted to kill us He wouldn’t have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from us, neither would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these- </p><p>Here we have a repeat of the essence of the situation between Deborah and Barak, where again a woman’s faith was greater than a man’s fear; see on :12. Such interconnections within the Biblical record reveal an overall Divine mind behind the entire volume. And we see too how Biblical history is intended to serve as a precedent for us, teaching us that we are not alone, not on unmapped territory never passed before. But all is working out as God has worked previously.</p>


text:
<p>The woman bore a son, and named him Samson, and the child grew and Yahweh blessed him-</p><p>"The child grew, and Yahweh blessed him" is the language used of Samuel, John and the Lord Jesus- all likewise chosen from the womb, with births announced by Angels to childless women. See on :2,3. It is possible that his parents still had elements of weakness in them; for his name doesn't include the 'Yah' prefix, and 'Samson' ('splendour of the sun') may be a reference to the nearby town of Beth Shemesh ('house of the sun-god'). It could be argued that because the father was responsible for his son's marriage partner (<a href='B:70 12:9'>Jdg 12:9</a>; <a href='B:70 14:2'>Jdg 14:2</a>; <a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; <a href='B:10 24:3-9'>Gen 24:3-9</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30'>Neh 10:30</a>), therefore Samson's father was equally guilty for Samson's 'marriage out of the faith'. Many of the commands against intermarriage were directed to parents, commanding them not to give their children in intermarriage.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh began to trouble him in the camp of Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol-</p><p>Samson was possessed of a finely tuned conscience. The first instance of this is when we read how the Spirit of Yahweh troubled him (Heb:) from time to time in the camp of Dan, in the very places where his people had earlier failed to follow up the victories of Joshua-Jesus by their spiritual laziness. He was troubled, deeply, by the Philistine dominance and Israel's unfaithfulness to Yahweh (s:w. <a href='B:10 41:8'>Gen 41:8</a>). God works directly on the human spirit by His Spirit. And so He provoked Samson to have these concerns in his spirit, and God's Spirit confirmed Samson's positive response to these proddings, which were initially of God's working directly on his heart. This is how the Holy Spirit likewise works today.</p><p>The context of Samson's marriage does seem to suggest that Samson himself sought occasion against the Philistines; for the Spirit of the Lord had been troubling his conscience as to why the people of Dan had not followed up Joshua's victories, and had allowed themselves to be overrun by the uncircumcised (13:25 Heb:). The only other references to "troubled" are in <a href='B:10 41:8'>Gen 41:8</a>; <a href='B:230 77:4'>Psa 77:4</a>; <a href='B:340 2:1'>Dan 2:1</a>; <a href='B:340 2:3'>Dan 2:3</a>. The Spirit of God worked with Samson's spirit, so that it was troubled as he went for his solitary walks of meditation. It was no accident that he was buried in the very place where his conscience was first awakened (<a href='B:70 16:31'>Jdg 16:31</a>); he maybe asked for this burial place, to show he had at last returned to his innocent spiritual beginnings.</p>


text:
<p>Samson went down to Timnah and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines-</p><p>Judah also did wrong in Timnath with a woman, and was deceived and shamed by her (<a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a> = <a href='B:10 38:17'>Gen 38:17</a>). Earlier Scripture, which it seems Samson well knew and appreciated, was crying out to Samson to take heed. But he was blind to the real import of it all. It is emphasized that Samson "went down" to her (<a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:7'>Jdg 14:7</a>; <a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a>), as if his literal descent to her in the valley was also a retrograde step spiritually. Samson's marriage was wrong. And so it was. And yet his hero Gideon&nbsp;(see on <a href='B:70 13:15'>Jdg 13:15</a>) had likewise 'gone down', the record emphasizes, to liberate Israel from their enemies (<a href='B:70 7:9-11'>Jdg 7:9-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:24'>Jdg 7:24</a>). In view of the other examples of Samson consciously imitating Gideon, it is likely that he was seeking an opportunity to deliver Israel from the Philistines. And yet he mixed his motivations. He loved the girl, he wanted to gratify his flesh with the forbidden fruit. He loved the world, and thereby became in some sense an enemy of God (<a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a>). But then he loved Gideon, he loved the holiness of Yahweh, he hated the world and the Philistines, he loved Israel, weak as they were, and wanted to deliver them from their spiritual bondage. And instead of casting him off as a man of such divided heart that he was not worthy of God's covenant love, God worked with him. And by using a purposeful ambiguity, He has recorded this for us in such a way as unites God's desire for Israel's deliverance with that of Samson.</p><p>It may be that as Gideon "went down" to destroy God's enemies (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>), so Samson justified his 'going down' to the Philistines to take their women, as well as to destroy their warriors (<a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:7'>Jdg 14:7</a>; <a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a>). As Gideon was somehow 'separate from his brethren' in his zeal, so was Samson. And yet Samson seems to have copied just the externalities of Gideon; not the real spirit. And therefore as Gideon foolishly multiplied women to himself in the spiritual weakness of his middle age, so perhaps Samson saw justification for his attitude. 'If heroic Gideon could indulge the flesh in this area, I surely can'. He fell into our common trap: to compare ourselves amongst ourselves, to measure ourselves against human standards as we find them among the contemporary brotherhood (<a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a>). Saul should have realized that Samson, like him, idolized Gideon, but only on a surface level- and should have taken the lesson. But he didn't see the points we've made in this paragraph. He could have done, but he didn't bother. And so with us. The word supplies us the potential power to overcome. It can often happen that the daily readings are almost purpose-designed for our present situation. Yet if we neglect to read them- that help lies untapped.</p><p>Samson fell for the 'little of both' syndrome, justifying it under the guise of Scriptural examples. He had done this in his youth; he "went down" to take a Philistine girl for wife (<a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:7'>Jdg 14:7</a>; <a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a>); and yet by doing so he was seeking an opportunity to slay Philistines. He may well have had in mind the sustained emphasis on the fact that Gideon went down to destroy the Midianites (<a href='B:70 7:9-11'>Jdg 7:9-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:24'>Jdg 7:24</a>). He went down morally and physically, and yet he justified this by thinking that as Gideon went down physically, so would he. Such is the complexity of the process of temptation. And all this is written for our learning:&nbsp; Significantly, the major temptations within the Lord's mind- as far as we can tell from the record of the wilderness temptations- was to misinterpret Scripture to His own ends; to soften the cross.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>He came up and told his father and mother, I have seen a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines; now therefore get her for me as my wife- </p><p>This marriage with an unbeliever was clearly wrong. It could be argued that because the father was responsible for his son's marriage partner (<a href='B:70 12:9'>Jdg 12:9</a>; <a href='B:70 14:2'>Jdg 14:2</a>; <a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; <a href='B:10 24:3-9'>Gen 24:3-9</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30'>Neh 10:30</a>), therefore Samson's father was equally guilty for Samson's 'marriage out of the faith'. Many of the commands against intermarriage were directed to parents, commanding them not to give their children in intermarriage. And Manoah is presented in Judges 13 as consistently lacking in spiritual perception.</p>


text:
<p>Then his father and mother said to him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brothers, or among all our people, that you go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? Samson said to his father, Get her for me, for she is right in my eyes- </p><p>The disappointment of Samson's parents is that of Esau's (<a href='B:10 26:35'>Gen 26:35</a>; <a href='B:10 27:46'>Gen 27:46</a>; <a href='B:10 28:1'>Gen 28:1</a>). For all Manoah's slowness to respond and perceive in Judges 13, he clearly was amongst the faithful minority. Samson's action was quite contrary to the spirit of the Law: marriage with the local tribes was categorically prohibited (<a href='B:20 34:16'>Exo 34:16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:3-4'>Deu 7:3-4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:2'>1Ki 11:2</a>). Joshua's warning that those who married the surrounding tribes would find them "a snare and a trap for you... thorns in your eyes" (<a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a> RSV) was fulfilled in Samson being tied up and blinded by Delilah; and yet it also had an element of fulfillment with his wife. The similarity is such as to suggest that Samson's marriage out of the Truth was definitely wrong because it was a fulfillment of the words of Joshua 23. "Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brothers... that you go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines?" implies that she wasn't the first one; he had often got involved with Philistine girls down in the valley, despite his conscience for Yahweh troubling him as he walked alone on the heights (<a href='B:70 13:25'>Jdg 13:25</a> Heb:). Samson gave no good answer to his parents: simply "Get her for me; for she is right in my eyes" (14:3, repeated in 14:7 for emphasis- he really did fall for the lust of the eyes). This insistence rather than explanation would suggest a bad conscience in Samson. Likewise the crowd only shouted out the more when asked why and for what crime they wished to crucify Jesus (<a href='B:470 27:23'>Mat 27:23</a>). The Biblical record is consistently psychologically credible, and true to observed human experience in this area. Unlike the contemporary, uninspired histories and legends of the other nations around Israel. See on :10,11.</p><p>She was 'right in his eyes' (14:3 AVmg:) not for beauty but in the sense that 'she suits my purpose' (Heb:). The same Hebrew is used not concerning beauty but rather utility in <a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:100 17:4'>2Sa 17:4</a>; <a href='B:110 9:12'>1Ki 9:12</a>. The way in which Samson set up the riddle, almost expecting that they might tease it out of him through his wife, the way in which he agreed that if they did this, he would give them the clothes of 30 Philistines... it all suggests that Samson set the whole thing up to seek an opportunity against the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>But his father and mother didn’t know that it was from Yahweh, for He sought an occasion against the Philistines, for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel-</p><p>The "He" can be read as both God and Samson; they both had the same desire, and God worked with mixed up Samson to this end. Working all this out from the evidence presented in the record is hard work. The fact a man does something "of the Lord" doesn't mean that he is guiltless. In the same context of God's deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, men who did things "of the Lord" were punished for what they did (<a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>):&nbsp;But the whole question of Samson's marriage is overshadowed by this fact that " It was of the Lord, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines". He used this incident to begin to raise up Samson as a Judge of Israel (<a href='B:70 2:16'>Jdg 2:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:18'>Jdg 2:18</a>; <a href='B:130 17:10'>1Ch 17:10</a>). This is surely one of Scripture's purposeful ambiguities, designed to provoke us to meditation: it is unclear whether " he" refers to Samson or Yahweh. There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. And yet this would require that God almost made Samson have a desire for that woman. For God's Spirit works directly upon the human spirit, and yet confirms our spirit in where we really want to go. This may not be impossible- it may be that Paul's God-given "thorn in the flesh" was a similar forbidden passion. It would be an example of God leading into temptation (<a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a>). However, it is more likely that God worked through Samson's wrong desires, through his human weakness, to bring about God's purpose and glory.</p><p>It is often maintained that "judge not" refers to not judging motives. If we are not to judge motives, but we are to 'judge' in some sense, this would mean that we must judge the outward works of men. And yet Biblical and human analysis reveals that outward behaviour is often not a reflection of inner motive (e.g. Samson's marriage). To judge outward behaviour without considering motives is almost pointless. There are countless cases of where the same action may be right or wrong depending on motive. Thus both David and Uzziah acted as the High Priest, but only Uzziah was condemned for it; David refused to choose his punishment as God asked him, preferring to leave it to God, whereas when Ahaz did something similar, he was condemned for it; Rahab's lie is commended as an act of faith, whilst other lies are sins; Samuel and Eli both had the same experience of their children being apostate and them being criticized for it, but only Eli is condemned for this.</p><p>God's intention was that Samson was to deliver Israel from the Philistines; but somehow he never rose up to it, and only 'began' to do it (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). They remained under the Philistines, even during his ministry. He made a few sporadic attempts in red hot personal zeal, confirmed by God, to deliver Israel. But he never rose up to the potential level that God had prepared for him in prospect. And yet for all this, he was accepted in the final analysis as a man of faith.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samson went down with his father and mother, to Timnah and came to the vineyards of Timnah, and suddenly a young lion roared against him-</p><p>We get the picture of Samson and his parents walking the four miles down into the valley, and Samson goes off for a wander in the vineyards. The vineyard was a symbol of Israel (<a href='B:230 80:15'>Psa 80:15</a>; <a href='B:290 1:8'>Isa 1:8</a>; <a href='B:290 5:7'>Isa 5:7</a>; <a href='B:290 27:2'>Isa 27:2</a>; <a href='B:300 12:10'>Jer 12:10</a>; <a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a>). This may have been already evident to Samson from <a href='B:10 49:11'>Gen 49:11</a>; although most likely the symbol of Israel as God's vineyard was already established by his time. Conscious that Timnath was the 'portion assigned' to Dan and yet they had failed to take it, Samson meditates there in the vineyards, a symbol of Israel, the people who should have been there. Inheriting Philistine vineyards was one of the blessings promised (<a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a>) and initially obtained by Joshua-Jesus (<a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a>). And yet those vineyards were now back in Philistine control. A lion suddenly appeared and roared against him, just as the Philistines later would (<a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>). The lion was a common symbol of Israel's enemies. The Spirit came upon Samson and he overcame it, in evident symbol to him that he really could deliver Israel from the Philistines. There is every reason to think that Samson appreciated all this symbology.</p><p>And yet did Samson ultimately slay the lion of the Philistines and bring the promised blessings of honey to Israel (cp. <a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a>; <a href='B:50 8:8'>Deu 8:8</a> etc:)? No, not really. He achieved some tokenistic success against their warriors; but Israel remained enslaved (<a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>). He didn't live up to that potential which God had enabled him to achieve. And yet although it may seem that his life was wasted, in that he didn't really bring much deliverance for anyone- the whole process of it saved him personally. Those whose families and converts have turned away from the Faith will identify with this comfort. But whilst the above case for Samson's spiritual commitment can be made, there is evidence galore that his motives were mixed in this matter of Samson's marriage. Consider: why did he as a Nazirite go for a walk in vineyards, among the forbidden fruit (cp. Christians putting themselves into compromising situations)? This was typical of him: a great zeal and understanding, mixed with a desire to walk as close to the edge as possible, and to ultimately have a little of both. He had a fascination with vineyards, which the record brings out. Like an ex-alcoholic staring at the bottles in the shop ‘just out if interest’, so Samson fooled about with what was forbidden- just as we all tend to.</p><p>Not only do circumstances repeat between the lives of God's children, but also within our lives. We may pass through a very similar experience more than once. The human chances of this ever happening again were remote. But the similarity and repetition may be so that we learn the lesson we failed to learn; or it could even be a punishment for not learning the lessons we should have learned. Again, Samson's life demonstrates this. The lion roared against him as the Philistines did (<a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a> s:w. <a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>); and not least in the uncanny similarities between the way his first wife enticed him and wrung his secrets from him, and the way 40 years later another worthless woman did the same to him (<a href='B:70 14:15-17'>Jdg 14:15-17</a> = <a href='B:70 16:5'>Jdg 16:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:15-16'>Jdg 16:15-16</a>). He just didn't see the similarities, or if he did, he didn't learn any lessons. Admittedly, it's far easier for us, presented with the records as they are, spanning 40 years within a few pages.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh came mightily on him and he tore it as he would have torn a young goat, having nothing in his hand, but he didn’t tell his father or his mother what he had done- </p><p>It was only after it roared against him that the Spirit came upon him and enabled him to kill it. He had to take the first nervous steps towards that lion in faith, and then the Spirit came upon him and confirmed his actions. The fact he didn't tell his parents what he had done may not only indicate his humility, but also suggests he was not naturally a strong man. To say he had just killed a lion would seem ridiculous.</p><p>The stress is on the way in which the Spirit came upon Samson (<a href='B:70 14:6'>Jdg 14:6</a>; <a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>; <a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>), as it did on other judges (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 6:34'>Jdg 6:34</a>; <a href='B:70 11:29'>Jdg 11:29</a>). "Not by&nbsp; might, nor by power, but by my spirit" (<a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>) may be referring to these incidents; demonstrating that when God's spirit acts on a man, it is not human muscle at all that operates. He is even listed amongst those who out of weakness were made strong (<a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a>).</p><p>Samson killed a lion, escaped fire and killed many Philistines by his faith (<a href='B:650 11:32-34'>Heb 11:32-34</a>)- so the Spirit tells us. Yet these things were all done by him at times when he had at best a partial faith. He had a worldly Philistine girlfriend, a sure grief of mind to his Godly parents, and on his way to the wedding he met and killed a lion- through faith, Hebrews 11 tells us (<a href='B:70 14:1-7'>Jdg 14:1-7</a>). The Philistines threatened to burn him with fire, unless his capricious paramour of a wife extracted from him the meaning of his riddle. He told her, due, it seems, to his hopeless sexual weakness. He then killed 30 Philistines to provide the clothes he owed the Philistines on account of them answering the riddle (<a href='B:70 14:15-19'>Jdg 14:15-19</a>). It is evident that Samson was weak in many ways at this time; the Proverbs make many allusions to him, the strong man ruined by the evil Gentile woman, the one who could take a city but not rule his spirit etc. And yet underneath all these weaknesses, serious as they were, there was a deep faith within Samson which Hebrews 11 highlights.</p><p>The latter day invader is likened to a beast devouring Israel (<a href='B:360 1:6'>Joe 1:6</a>), having the Assyrian invader as its prototype. But the Philistines are here likened to a lion ravaging God's people, the vineyard of God. Thus the period of invasions by Israel's smaller neighbours is a prelude to the final invasion by Assyria/Babylon:&nbsp;These larger powers are also symbolized by the lion (<a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He went down and talked with the woman, and she pleased Samson well-</p><p>This again indicates that he didn't simply and totally use her as a tool towards his purpose of killing Philistines. He did really love her, and was wrong in this.</p>


text:
<p>After a while he returned to take her- </p><p>Samson is described as wanting to "take" a wife; this Hebrew word is 51 times translated 'take away', 31 times 'fetch'. He evidently didn't intend to live there with her; he wanted her to come and live with him in the Israelite encampment, four miles up in the hills from the valley where she lived.</p><p>And he turned aside to see the carcass of the lion. In it there was a swarm of bees, in the body of the lion, and honey-</p><p>God sent the lion against Samson. He did this in order to go along with Samson's symbolic thoughts, and this may afford some justification for Samson's marriage. He was there, wandering in those vineyards, meditating how they were representative of the blessings which belonged to Israel, and yet they were now in the hands of God's enemies. And then, God furthers the parable: He sends a lion, symbolic of the Philistines, and Samson is given power to overcome him. And further, when Samson returned to the carcass to meditate deeper on 'the fallen one' (14:8 doesn't use the usual word for 'carcass'- s:w. " fall" <a href='B:240 29:16'>Pro 29:16</a>; <a href='B:330 26:15'>Eze 26:15</a>; <a href='B:330 27:27'>Eze 27:27</a>; <a href='B:330 31:13'>Eze 31:13</a>), "behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcass of the lion" (14:8). The Hebrew for "swarm" is normally used (124 times) about a congregation of people, often God's people Israel. And the Hebrew for 'Bee' is 'Deborah', a celebrated earlier judge. God was surely teaching him that through his victory over the Philistine lion, God's people could be inspired to be faithful, and would therefore be able to enjoy the promised blessing of honey, taken out of the Philistines. Samson saw all this; for he "took" (Heb. is usually used in the sense of 'to take dominion over') the honey, partook himself, and shared it with others. In all this there is a detailed type of the Lord's representative sacrifice on the cross. On the cross, He won the victory over the lion of the devil (<a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a> cp. <a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a>; <a href='B:690 3:8'>1Jn 3:8</a> may allude to Samson's victory). This enabled us to be empowered to partake the Kingdom blessings. As Samson walked away from the carcass some days after killing it (14:8 Heb. "a time" = 'days'- three days?), with the honey in his hands, eating it and offering it to others, so the Lord left the empty tomb. See on :9.</p><p>Samson discovered a congregation (Heb. 'edat) of bees- deborim, in Hebrew. The judge Deborah would've been fairly recent history for Samson; she would have been the heroine of anyone like Samson, who also arose to save Israel from their enemies at that time. Surely he was being gently led to reflect that there were a whole congregation of Deborahs ['bees'] around, and he should eat of them. And yet Samson went his loner road, and suffered the consequences of it- rather like Elijah, who was in denial of the fact there were actually at least another 7000 in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Or perhaps Samson was simply being asked to execute his deliverance of Israel after the pattern of Deborah, to 'eat' of her, to fellowship her example and spirit. But he chose not to 'get it'; as we so often do in the countless nudges and prods which God gives us in daily life.</p>


text:
<p>which he took it into his hands and went on, eating as he went. He came to his father and mother and gave some to them and they ate, but he didn’t tell them that he had taken the honey out of the body of the lion- </p><p>See on :8. The way he ate and gave to his parents and they also ate without him telling them where he got it from is a clear reversal of what happened in Eden (<a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a>; doubtless Eve didn't tell Adam either where the fruit came from): but here the fruits of spiritual victory rather than failure were enjoyed and shared. The promised blessings of honey were conditional upon Israel's obedience (<a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a> cp. <a href='B:230 81:16'>Psa 81:16</a>), although granted in prospect (<a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a>). Israel at Samson's time were disobedient and therefore didn't have the Kingdom blessings. And yet the whole acted parable taught that through the supreme zeal of one lonely man, into whose struggle not even his parents could enter (14:6,16), the blessings of obedience could be brought to the disobedient multitude of God's people. And here we have the essence of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p>His father went down to the woman, and Samson made a drinking feast as was the custom for the young men- </p><p>The process of marriage involved Samson in participating in the traditions of the surrounding tribes (this is emphasized: <a href='B:70 14:10-11'>Jdg 14:10-11</a>; <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>). The "feasting" was strictly 'drinking' (Heb:)- and Samson the Nazirite attended this. Even if he didn't partake, he was placing himself directly in temptations' way to break his Naziriteship. Just like walking alone in the vineyards.</p>


text:
<p>When they saw him they brought thirty companions to be with him- </p><p>The problem with marriage out of the faith is that you don't marry just a person, but a family. And so he now has 30 "friends", all of them unbelievers. But we suspect Samson had evil intent in all this, for his marriage was because he sought opportunity against the Philistines. The groom ought to have brought 30 friends with him, but he didn't. And so the bride's family provided them. LXX says they did this "because they feared him". They sensed he had evil intent toward them.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said to them, Let me tell you a riddle now. If you can give me the answer within the seven days of the feast, then I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty changes of clothing-</p><p>We wonder whether somehow, Samson knew he was going to tell his wife and she would tell the others, thereby creating the need for 30 garments, which he would obtain by murder. Perhaps he knew this only on a deeply subconscious level. But clearly he was using their deceit in suddenly expecting him to come up with 30 changes of clothes for his "friends" as an excuse to murder 30 Philistines. For the entire marriage was because he sought an opportunity to fight the Philistines.</p><p>They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They plowed behind his wife as a heifer, and so were led by her to Samson's secret place of meditation where the dead lion was (<a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But if you can’t give me the answer, then you shall give me thirty linen garments and thirty changes of clothing. They said to him, Tell us your riddle, that we may hear it- </p><p>It was Samson's duty as the groom to provide 30 changes of clothing (a huge expense), or at least, this was what they perhaps unexpectedly told him at the wedding. But perhaps he knew this full well ahead of time, and was using it as an excuse to kill 30 Philistines. How that exactly would work out, he perhaps didn't know. He clearly did love his bride, and she did indeed betray his love and trust. It is impossible to totally decode where he really stood in all this in psychological terms- for his motives were mixed and his plans and intentions were therefore perhaps not clearly defined in his own mind.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Out of the eater came forth food. Out of the strong came forth sweetness. They couldn’t give the answer in three days- </p><p>"The eater" (Heb. 'the devourer') and "the strong" not only referred to the lion, but more essentially to Samson himself. The same basic word for 'eater' is used as a verb to describe how Samson 'ate' / 'devoured' the honey from the lion (<a href='B:70 14:9'>Jdg 14:9</a>). And years later the Philistines realized how Samson's riddle described himself: for they rejoiced that "the destroyer (devourer) of our country" was now overcome (<a href='B:70 16:24'>Jdg 16:24</a>). Samson saw that through his God-given strength he could bring forth the honey of blessing to Israel. They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They plowed behind his wife as a heifer, and so were led by her to Samson's secret place of meditation where the dead lion was (<a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>On the fourth day they said to Samson’s wife, Entice your husband to tell us the riddle, or we will burn you and your father’s house with fire. Have you called us here to mock us?- </p><p>Thirty changes of clothes was a major expense. "To mock us" can be rendered "to make us poor". Or the idea may be that they would have to strip themselves naked and give their clothes to Samson.</p>


text:
<p>Samson’s wife wept before him and said, You must hate me, and don’t love me. You have given a riddle to my people but you haven’t told it me. He said to her, I haven’t even told it to my father or my mother; why should I tell you-</p><p>He speaks to his wife as if she should expect that he was closer to his Hebrew parents than to her: "'I haven't even explained it (the riddle) to my father or mother', he replied, 'So why should I explain it to you?'" (14:16 NIV). <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a> taught that a man must leave his parents and cleave to his wife in marriage; she must be closer to him than them. It could be that by saying this, Samson was reminding her that he didn't see their relationship as full marriage; he was only using her (cp. how he 'used' a Philistine as his best man, <a href='B:70 14:20'>Jdg 14:20</a>). Yet he did what only days before had been unthinkable: he told her his finest and most personal secret, which he wouldn't even tell his dear parents. Such is the fickleness of our nature. And yet there seems reason to think that somehow Samson foresaw his possible failure, and arranged to use the situation to forward God's work. It could even be that the girl was party to Samson's plan; she may have appeared to have a genuine interest in Samson's spiritual aims. The Philistines themselves realized this when they chode with Samson's wife that they had been called to the wedding 'to have our possession taken away' (14:15 Heb:). They saw the aim of Samson's marriage: to dispossess them and take their possession for Israel. It seems no accident that he chose Timnath, 'a portion assigned'- to Israel. This was part of the land promised to Dan, but which they had allowed the Philistines to overrun (<a href='B:60 19:43'>Jos 19:43</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>). And Samson would have seen himself as 'Samson-of-Zorah', the hornet- symbol of the Egyptian tribes which drove out the Canaanites in preparation for Israel's later victories (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>She wept before him for seven days, while their feast lasted, and on the seventh day he told her, because she pressed him severely. Then she told the riddle to her people. On the seventh day before the sun went down-</p><p>As "she cried the whole seven days of the feast" (14:17 NIV), she daily "pressed him". This is the very same Hebrew word used in many passages to describe how an apostate, Gentile-loving Israel would be pressed / oppressed by their enemies (<a href='B:50 28:53'>Deu 28:53</a>; <a href='B:50 28:57'>Deu 28:57</a>; <a href='B:300 19:9'>Jer 19:9</a>; <a href='B:290 51:13'>Isa 51:13</a>). Samson was in some sense apostate at this time, yet he had faith and was strongly motivated; and for this he was blessed by God with strength to defeat the Philistines. The daughters of the Philistines hate God's people (<a href='B:100 1:20'>2Sa 1:20</a>; <a href='B:330 16:27'>Eze 16:27</a>; <a href='B:330 16:57'>Eze 16:57</a>). The Ezekiel passages stress the paradox: that Israel (whom Samson represented) loved the women who hated them.</p><p>Samson really loved that girl (<a href='B:70 14:3'>Jdg 14:3</a>; <a href='B:70 14:17'>Jdg 14:17</a>; <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>; <a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>; <a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>), even though he also hated her (<a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; he must have gone through this process again with Delilah in the time that led up to her final betrayal). This true love for her makes Samson's marriages look more questionable.</p>


text:
<p>the men of the city said to him, What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion? He said to them, If you hadn’t ploughed with my heifer you wouldn’t have found out my riddle-</p><p>They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They plowed behind his wife as a heifer, and so were led by her to Samson's secret place of meditation where the dead lion was (<a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a>).</p><p>There is reason to think that to some degree, Samson may have realized that his life was pointing ahead to the great Messianic deliverer yet to come, the Lord Jesus Christ. Samson may have recognized the strength of the future Saviour when he gave his riddle to the Philistines. He meditated upon that dead lion with the sweet honey in it, and formulated his comment: "What is sweeter than honey? What (or, Who?) is stronger than a lion (Heb. 'the strong one'- this is one of Samson's many word plays)?". 'Who is stronger than the strong one?' was an idea picked up by the Lord Jesus in, I suggest, conscious allusion (<a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a>); although it is masked in the English text. He was the strong one who was stronger than the strong man of sin. Through His victory, the roaring lion of the devil lays dead. And in his skull is sweet honey; did Samson see in this the same meaning as David did in <a href='B:230 119:103'>Psa 119:103</a>? Did he so understand the nature and method of the Lord's work that he appreciated that the Lord's victory over all His people's enemies would be through the power of God's word, lying there in the place of the mind of the beast He overcame? Yet Samson killed the lion himself; surely he felt that to some degree he was the strong man who had overcome the beast,&nbsp; through his application to God's word. His frequent references and allusions to God's past revelation, both in his words and actions, would indicate that he was a man of the word.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh came mightily on him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck thirty men of them and took their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle-</p><p><a href='B:30 26:3-8'>Lev 26:3-8</a> had promised dramatic success against their enemies on the basis of obedience to the Law. The fact Samson had this power was therefore proof that he really was reckoned by God as zealously obedient to the Law; and yet he was like this in the midst of a sadly apostate Israel. I take this view of his strength. This is in itself no mean achievement: to rise to a level of spirituality much higher than that achieved by the surrounding brotherhood.</p><p>Significantly, he went down to the valley of Ashkelon, the very place that Joshua had conquered but Judah had been unable to drive out the Philistines from (1:18,19), and slew 30 warriors.</p><p>His anger was burning, and he went up to his father’s house-He seems angry that he had let himself fall too deeply for that Philistine girl (14:19), and "utterly hated her" (15:2). And yet this human anger may also have been mixed with a more righteous anger, in that to give his wife to another was adultery, and it happened that they carried out (perhaps unconsciously?) the punishment for adultery which the law required (<a href='B:30 20:14'>Lev 20:14</a>; Leviticus 21; Leviticus 9). He realized that the Philistines had led him into sin, and he just wanted to destroy the source of his temptation. When he slew the thirty men at Ashkelon, as he seemed to have planned right at the start in his seeking occasion against the Philistines, he was "burning with anger". His motive was partly bitterness and the revenge of a man humiliated and deceived by a woman; but his slaughter of the Philistines was also done in faith (<a href='B:650 11:32-34'>Heb 11:32-34</a>), with God given strength to confirm his faith.</p>


text:
<p>But Samson’s wife was given to his companion, whom he had considered a friend- </p><p>AV "used". We get the impression that he 'used' his wife as he 'used' this best man, because his motive was to use the situation in order to dispossess and murder Philistines. But he also genuinely loved the girl. His motives were terribly mixed.</p>


text:
<p>But after a while, in the time of wheat harvest, Samson visited his wife with a young goat. He said, I will go in to my wife into the room. But her father wouldn’t allow him to go in-</p><p>As the Spirit came upon Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:34'>Jdg 6:34</a>), so it is described as coming upon Samson (<a href='B:70 14:6'>Jdg 14:6</a>). It seems that the incident in ch. 15, where Samson visits his wife with a kid and uses this as an excuse to kill many Philistines, was planned by him to reflect Gideon's zeal. The way Gideon brought a kid to Yahweh (<a href='B:70 6:19'>Jdg 6:19</a>) may reflect how Samson came with a kid (<a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>). See on :4.</p>


text:
<p>Her father said, I was certain that you utterly hated her, therefore I gave her to your companion. Isn’t her younger sister more beautiful than she? Please take her instead- </p><p>Samson really loved that girl (<a href='B:70 14:3'>Jdg 14:3</a>; <a href='B:70 14:17'>Jdg 14:17</a>; <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>; <a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>; <a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>), even though he also utterly hated her (he must have gone through this process again with Delilah in the time that led up to her final betrayal). This true love for her makes Samson's marriages look more questionable. The turning of love to hatred is what happened when Amnon raped Tamar. The Biblical record is consistently psychologically credible, and true to observed human experience in this area. Unlike the contemporary, uninspired histories and legends of the other nations around Israel.</p><p>He seems angry that he had let himself fall too deeply for that Philistine girl (<a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>), and "utterly hated her". And yet this human anger may also have been mixed with a more righteous anger, in that to give his wife to another was adultery, and it happened that they carried out (perhaps unconsciously?) the punishment for adultery which the law required (<a href='B:30 20:14'>Lev 20:14</a>; Leviticus 21; Leviticus 9). He realized that the Philistines had led him into sin, and he just wanted to destroy the source of his temptation.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said to them, This time I will be blameless of harm to the Philistines-</p><p>He burnt those vineyards in a desire to be "blameless from the Philistines" (15:3 AVmg:). The same word is translated unpunished, guiltless, innocent, clean, acquitted; as if he knew he had sinned, but believed that by further fighting of Philistines he could gain his forgiveness. He had to be brought to the shame of Gaza Prison to learn that forgiveness was by absolute faith, not works and hatred of this present world.</p>


text:
<p>Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches, tied them tail to tail in pairs and put a firebrand between each pair of tails- </p><p>I noted on :1 how Samson was seeking to imitate Gideon, who apparently was his hero. He takes 300 foxes and puts firebrands in their tails. Why 300? Surely this was in conscious imitation of how Gideon took 300 men and put firebrands in their hands, and with them destroyed God's enemies (<a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>). The connection between the faithful 300 and the foxes could suggest that in Samson's eyes, he didn't even have one faithful Israelite to support him; he had to use animals instead.</p>


text:
<p>When he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing grain of the Philistines and burnt up both the shocks and the standing grain, and also the olive groves-</p><p>Samson used the whole situation as an opportunity to burn up the corn and vineyards of the Philistines, in conscious allusion to how the law stipulated that a man who did this to his Israelite neighbour must make retribution (<a href='B:20 22:5'>Exo 22:5</a>):&nbsp;He was emphasizing that these people were not his neighbours, they were not in covenant relationship, and he openly showed that he treated them accordingly. Likewise he took vengeance on the Philistines (<a href='B:70 15:5'>Jdg 15:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>), when the Law taught that Israel were not to take vengeance (same word) on each other (<a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a>), but could do so on their enemies (<a href='B:40 31:2'>Num 31:2</a>; <a href='B:50 32:43'>Deu 32:43</a> cp. <a href='B:60 10:13'>Jos 10:13</a>). Note, in passing, how he set those foxes up as cherubim, again imitating Gideon's flaming torches- a ball of whirling fire coming in judgment upon the Philistines. The fox was a symbol of apostate Israel in later Scripture (<a href='B:330 13:4'>Eze 13:4</a>); perhaps Samson made the same connection, and wanted to symbolize how through his faith and insight, weak Israel could be turned into the cherubim of God in bringing judgment on the Philistines and deliverance for themselves. The way he used their tails to bring such destruction may have been a reference to <a href='B:50 28:13'>Deu 28:13</a>; <a href='B:50 28:44'>Deu 28:44</a>, where apostate Israel, suffering for their sins as they were in Samson's time, are described with the same word: they would be the tail of the nations. He saw that he was the one who could bring salvation and blessing to Israel.</p><p>He later teased Delilah to tie him with seven “withs”, the Hebrew word implying made from a vine. He just would mess with the forbidden. The way he burnt up those vineyards in 15:5 may have been as a result of realizing that the answer lay in total devotion and rooting out of temptation, rather than wandering around in them as he did in Judges 14; cutting out the eye that offends. See on :3.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Philistines said, Who has done this? They said, Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite, because his wife was given to his companion. The Philistines came up and burnt her and her father with fire- </p><p>The seven day marriage feast, associated with a deceitful father in law offering the sister of the desired bride in marriage- this is all the same as Jacob experienced (<a href='B:10 29:27'>Gen 29:27</a>), right down to the fact that the younger sister was fairer (<a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a> cp. <a href='B:10 29:16-17'>Gen 29:16-17</a>). Samson should have learnt from the evident similarities with Jacob; but like Jacob, he still trusted his own strength. <strong>&nbsp;</strong>See on <a href='B:70 13:18'>Jdg 13:18</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said to them, If you behave like this, surely I will be avenged on you- </p><p>Saul followed Samson's weak side when at this same time he demanded to be avenged of his enemies (<a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>); yet this wasn't Samson at his best (<a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>; <a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>). On one hand, Samson uses this murder of his wife and father in law as a pretext for killing more Philistines. But yet we also sense that he had loved the girl, and wanted vengeance as any Hebrew man would have wanted for the murder of his wife.</p>


text:
<p>He attacked them viciously and slaughtered many of them, then he went and lived in the cave in the rock of Etam-</p><p>He smote the Philistines "hip and thigh" (AV) with a great slaughter, alluding to the sacrifices (s:w. "shoulder" <a href='B:20 29:22'>Exo 29:22</a>; <a href='B:30 9:21'>Lev 9:21</a>; <a href='B:90 9:24'>1Sa 9:24</a>; <a href='B:330 24:4'>Eze 24:4</a> - nearly all usages of this word in Samson's Bible referred to the "shoulder" of the sacrifices), as if he was offering them as a sacrifice to Yahweh. Hip on thigh" is apparently a better rendering, implying hand to hand combat. This would serve to emphasize his contact with the dead bodies, as he hurled them to the ground one by one. And yet the Spirit of Yahweh came upon him to enable this- a breach of the letter of the Nazarite law.</p><p>But then he "went down (again- see on <a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>) and dwelt in the top of the rock Etam. You don't go down if you are going up to the top of a rock. But perhaps spiritually he 'went down', to dwell in isolation from the people he was supposed to be judging / leading, in the rocks. Dwelling in the rocks is associated with a bad conscience in <a href='B:290 2:21'>Isa 2:21</a>; <a href='B:290 57:5'>Isa 57:5</a>. Yet for all this, God counted him as having judged Israel 20 years at this stage (15:20); even though there was this evident break when he simply ran away from his people.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Philistines went up, and encamped in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi- </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 men of Judah said, Why have you come up against us? They said, We have come up to take Samson prisoner, to do to him as he has done to us- </p><p>He says that he had killed Philistines because "I merely did to them what they did to me" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a> NIV). There was no mention of the fact that he was seeking occasion against God's enemies (even though he was speaking to Hebrews). He passed off his actions as pure revenge- which on one level, was all they were. The Philistines had earlier said that they wanted to take Samson "to do to him as he did to us" (<a href='B:70 15:10'>Jdg 15:10</a>). And Samson replies in the same primitive way: that he only did to them what they did to him. It seems that Samson spoke to them on their level. And yet when the Philistines came upon Samson, roaring against him like the lion in <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>, God's Spirit once again came upon him in confirmation of his faith. And yet his motives were hopelessly mixed. He was partly the angry young man, the jilted lover, wishing to express his native anger- and yet doing so by claiming that he was serving God. And indeed he was- but with mixed motives. We see this kind of thing in ourselves, and in many who claim to serve God.</p>


