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

Truculent Ephraim

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

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

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

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

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

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

Succoth and Penuel

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

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

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

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

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

Rout of a demoralised foe

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

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

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

Zebah and Zalmunna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

Chapter 7

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

Chapter 8

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

There follows an episode which many in their bewilderment would almost be glad not to find written in their Bibles. It says: “And Gideon made an ephod thereof (that is,of the gold of the plunder), and put it in his city, even Ophrah. And all Israel went thither a whoring after it, which thing became a snare unto Gideon and to his house.” This word ‘whoring’ is not to be taken in its worst sense, for godly Gideon would never tolerate foul Canaanite practices of this sort. But other facts tell a different story. Gideon had begun as a violent enemy of the Canaanite idolatry. Was not his name Jerubaal? Further, his name stands written for all time in Hebrews 11, among the Lord’s men of faith. The conclusion that Gideon turned idolater must be accepted — can only be accepted — if no other explanation offers itself. Inquiry naturally centres around the word ephod. The ephod was the characteristic garment of the High Priest. And with it was associated an outstanding High Priestly function: that of enquiring of the Lord on behalf of the people, by means of Urim and Thummim.

Here was Gideon, suddenly exalted to the honorable position of judge among his people. He had ever shown a natural inclination to seek plain unequibocal divine guidance in the execution of his duty. Witness for example, his craving a sign from the angel who bade him destroy the altar of Baal. And the double sign which he sought, as some would think needlessly, of the dew on the fleece and on the ground. Consider also how he must needs be given a providential sign from the lips of his enemies before he could bring himself to go out against the Midianites. Could such a man rule an entire people in utter reliance on his own powers and his own wisdom, even if he were disposed so to do? Manifestly, Gideon would have need of constant recourse to explicit divine direction through the Urim and Thummim of the High Priest. But this would mean residence in Shiloh where was the tabernacle of the Lord. Or, at least, it would mean frequent journeys thither.

The problem of Ephraim

Unhappily however, from Gideon’s point of view, Shiloh lay right in the heart of the territory of Ephraim, the tribe with which he had already had trouble. As he considered their hectoring, domineering disposition and their evident lack of respect for him as a God-given leader, Gideon might well hesitate about committing himself to reliance overmuch on Shiloh.

Strange, that men of outstanding faith, in some respects, should be so markedly lacking in faith when faced with problems of a different kind. Similar inconsistency has bee observed in some of the finest servants of the Lord. Such is human nature. And such was Gideon. His human solution of the problem was to make another ephod; to appoint another priest, and presumably to erect another sanctuary in Ophrah of the Abiezrites, at the altar Jehovah-Shalom, which was already consecrated there. Thus he avoided the unhappy difficulty of association with recalcitrant Ephraimites. And from this day forward, men have followed his example, choosing to separate themselves from other people of God’s choice rather than muster the moral courage to trust in God and do what is right.

That Gideon’s motives in this matter were of the highest, can hardly be questioned. But good motives have never been adequate excuse for ignoring divine commandment; and years before this the Holy Spirit had guided Joshua to indicate Shiloh as “the place which the Lord thy God shall choose”. In extenuation of Gideon’s action, it should be urged that fair evidence exists to show that both before and after his time sanctuaries other than Shiloh were in use by the tribes of Israel (see Chapter 26), so that he was only extending an arrangement with which the people were already familiar.

Nevertheless, as the inspired narrative makes plain, he was causing them to err. His misguided example brought an evil harvest in later days, as the later story of Micah the Ephraimite, and his private priest, demonstrated only too clearly. Besides, in this shirking of difficulty, Gideon threw away a magnificent opportunity of welding into one coherent God-fearing nation, the now discrete tribes of Israel. None was better fitted for the task than he. But he allowed himself to be daunted by Ephraim’s cold shoulder, and in consequence, many, many more years were to elapse before there appeared a man after God’s own heart fitted to do that which should have been done by Gideon.

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

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

Tribes intermixed

It is possible to trace

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

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

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

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

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

The Ammonites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The stage was set for another heroic chapter.

Notes

1.	Tola….Puah. Here is an echo of the names of an earlier generation in Issachar; Gen. 46:13.
7.	Sold them. This picks up the grim idiom of Deut. 32:20.
8.	That year; i.e., the year Jair died.
12.	Maonites should almost certainly read “Midianites” (as in LXX).
14.	Cry unto the gods. Compare Deut. 32:37; Jer. 2:28.
15.	Do thou unto us. So also David; 2 Sam. 24:14

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

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

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

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

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

Assassination

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

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

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

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

Jotham’s parable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King Abimelech has problems

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

Gaal

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

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

Civil war

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

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

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

Abimelech’s sudden end

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

Chapter 8

29.	Why is this verse here?

Chapter 9

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

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

Divergent interpretations

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

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

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

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

Samson and the lion

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

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

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

Samson’s riddle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frustration and revenge

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

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

Another debt paid off

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

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

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

The fight at Lehi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another woman!

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

Gates of Gaza

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

Chapter 14

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

Chapter 15

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

Chapter 16

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

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

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

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

More than one view possible

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

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

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

What possible burnt offering?

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

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

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

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

Difficulties to be considered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fulfilment of a vow

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

Tabernacle service by women

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

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

“Lament”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

31.	Shall surear be the Lord’s. The firstborn were also the Lord’s, but it was commanded that they be redeemed; Exod. 13:2,13; Num. 18:15,16. An alternative reading of Jephthah’s vow is on these lines: “Whatsoever cometh forth….to meet me….shall surely be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.” The Hebrew text could mean this (there are plenty of examples of ‘and’ and ‘or’ being interchangeable). But, as indicated in the text, there are difficulties of interpretation in the way of this reading.
34.	Beside her. This Hebrew word is actually masculine — an emphasis on her virginity. Compare how in Greek parthenos is masculine in form.
35.	Alas, my daughter! Apart from other aspects of his loss, just when the wrong of v. 2 is set right he finds himself bereft of family inheritance. Like Jesus he weeps in the moment of triumph (Luke 19:38-41).
	Rent….brought low….trouble. Jephthah even in his sudden sorrow was quick-witted enough to make an impressive play of words: gara’, kara’ (twice), akhar. And also there is here a probable allusion to Sisera felled by a woman (s.w. 5:27).
37.	Upon the mountains. Because (it has been suggested) this could not be done in modesty at home or in the town.
40.	Four days. Either the four days from Day of Atonement to Feast of Tabernacles, or four separate days in the year at the main feasts of the Lord.

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

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

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

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

A convenient password

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jephthah and Christ

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

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

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

“Minor” judges

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delilah does a deal

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

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

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

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

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

The secret divulged

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

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

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

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

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

Shame and helpless captivity

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

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

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

New birth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climax!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning from Samson

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

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

Notes

4.	Sorek, the valley where Samson was born. A few miles away Beth-Shemesh commemorates Samson.
15.	Thine heart. Bible idiom for ‘mind’; see also v. 17.
21.	Eyes….fetters of brass. Compare king Zedekiah (2 Kgs. 25:7), another sample and type of the folly of Israel. Now they could safely have secured Samson with small twine.
22.	Destroyer. The verb means ‘to dry up, to reduce to a wilderness’ (so also LXX) — a hint of some of Samson’s activities in recent years.
24.	Our god hath delivered. This seems to suggest that this method of taking Samson, through a woman, had been counselled by an astute priest of Dagon.
25.	Made sport. Heb. sachaq definitely means ‘dance’; but shachaq means ‘beat small’! LXX evidently read the Hebrew with one letter different: s.w. Matt. 26:67 (cp. Psa. 69:12; Isa. 50:6).
29.	Pillars. Probably of cedar on stone sockets: 1 Kgs. 7:2.
	RVmg: One of my two eyes is not certain.
30.	The house fell. Tacitus records that in the reign of Tiberius 50,000 people died in the collapse of a big wooden amphitheatre. But when it came to numbers, perhaps Tacitus was as big a liar as Josephus.
31.	Brought him up. Perhaps this should read: ‘exalted him’.

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

Ostracized by his family

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

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

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

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

The Judges pattern repeated again

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

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

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

Appeal to Jephthah

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

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

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

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

Parley with the enemy

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

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

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

Jephthah a Bible man

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

Chapter 10

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

Chapter 11

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