Judges, Ruth: Revised Edition (The NIV Application Commentary)

by K. Lawson Younger

THE ENGLISH TITLE FOR THE BOOK OF JUDGES derives from the Latin Liber Judicum. The Latin stems from the Old Greek (LXX) Kritai (“Judges”). The English term judges implies the notion of individuals who adjudicate legal disputes or determine guilt or innocence in criminal cases. But it is quite apparent that such was not their primary task. The Hebrew title of the book is shopetim. The meaning of this term can be seen in 2:16–17: “Then the LORD raised up judges [shopetim], who saved them out of the hands of these raiders. Yet they would not listen to their judges but prostituted themselves to other gods and worshiped them.” Thus the judges (shopetim) are viewed as both “deliverers” or “saviors” of their people from their enemies and “instigators,” “catalysts,” or “stimuli” for godly living. In essence, their purpose was not judicial, but soteriological.1 In fact, the first two judges are designated “deliverers”/“saviors” (moshia‘): Othniel (3:9) and Ehud (3:15). A number of the activities of others are described through the use of the verb yasha‘ (“deliver, save”; cf. Shamgar, 3:31; Gideon, 6:15; 8:22; Tola, 10:1; Jephthah, 12:2; and Samson, 13:5).2 Hence, this was apparently their role as leaders in external affairs, “restoring shalom, harmonious relations.”3 But Judges 2:17 seems to imply clearly that these shopetim were also to be leaders in internal affairs regarding spiritual/moral matters in conjunction with the covenant. The verb shapat itself underscores this. Block ...

In another sense, each judge symbolizes an aspect of Israel, a weakness, “a particular quality that leads to the narrative consequences of that episode and contributes to the resolution of the book.”8 Thus “the text supports the relevance of local events to the people as a whole.”9 While individual judges are tribal leaders, they are identified as national leaders in order to emphasize God’s dealings with the nation as a whole. Hence, on this basis, each of the judges may be seen as a symbol of Israel; furthermore, each serves to reveal a new aspect of the people’s relationship to Yahweh.10

The book of Judges presents two types of judges, usually designated by scholars as “major” and “minor” judges (Block describes them as “primary” and “secondary”11). Both designations connote things that are not accurate to the book’s narration. A more neutral designation is “cyclical” and “noncyclical” judges. It is important to remember that the functional distinctions between two types of judges should not be too sharply drawn.12 The differences seem to be primarily twofold: (1) in the use of the narrative framework of the cycle for the development ...

THE BOOK OF JUDGES HAS A COHERENT MESSAGE concerning the consequences of disobedience to God with the resultant moral degeneration that characterized the history of this period.

Marius has divided the book of Judges along the theme of degeneracy, using different categories of perspective. Judges 1:1–2:5 is developed along a historical/military perspective. Judges 2:6–3:6 utilizes a religious perspective. The cycles section (3:7–16:31) uses the religious perspective traced in individual lives. The final section of the book (17:1–21:25) represents all three perspectives in terms of “the spheres of cultus, family, and nation.”17 Israel as a nation expresses, in the final chapters, its fullest point of degeneracy in its corporate actions. It may be that Samson is “the epitome of degeneration,”18 but the extension of that degeneration takes its widest scope in chapters 17–21, reaching its conclusion in the final chapter.

THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES BEGAN with the death of Joshua and ended with the coronation of Saul (i.e., the beginning of the monarchy). Therefore, the book does not cover the entire period of the judges. It leaves out two judges whose stories are found in the book of Samuel: Eli and Samuel (1 Sam 1–7).

A In those days there was no king . . . Every man did what was right in his own eyes (17:6) B In those days there was no king . . . (18:1) B' In those days there was no king . . . (19:1) A' In those days there was no king . . . Every man did what was right in his own eyes (21:25)

THE MAIN SECTION OF JUDGES (3:7–16:31) contains six major judge stories built around a basic literary cycle: Othniel (3:7–11), Ehud (3:12–30), Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31), Gideon and Abimelek (6:1–9:57), Jephthah (10:6–12:7), and Samson (13:1–16:31). In the two center cycles there is a pairing of the judge with another person: Deborah (the prophetess, see 4:4) and Barak (the judge); Gideon (the judge) and Abimelek (the “king”). This main section also contains interspersed stories of minor or non-cyclical judges: Shamgar (3:31), Tola (10:1–2), Jair (10:3–5), Ibzan (12:8–10), Elon (12:11–12), and Abdon (12:13–15). These are interspersed among the major judge stories, occurring in a one-two-three sequence: (1) Shamgar, (2) Tola and Jair, (3) Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon. However, this main section (3:7–16:31) is not simply an anthology of judge stories and summary notices but a long and complex narrative movement. The tendency to study and preach the major/cyclical judges in isolation from the overarching message of the cycles section has created many false impressions about these characters. Often these judges are held up as models that Christians should emulate.59 But this is not the primary message that the book is communicating.60 Samson and Gideon are two clear examples. Samson is by far the best known of all the judges. Sermons and Sunday school lessons often concentrate on his various heroic deeds as positive attributes. But the picture from the context—especially when the ...

Gideon’s father has made a Baal altar and an Asherah pole in Gideon’s hometown.80 Jephthah is the son of a prostitute and becomes the leader of a gang of criminals. Samson is from the renegade tribe of Dan, and his parents evince spiritual dullness in the two theophanies prophesying his birth and mission. Moreover, there is a notable religious deterioration from Gideon on: Gideon/Abimelek (idolatry and the worship of Baal Berith) to Jephthah (human sacrifice) to Samson (doing what seems right in his own eyes, violating all his Nazirite vows).81

Another important theological theme is woven into the fabric of this book: the attempt to manipulate God. God saves, not because he has been manipulated but because he has compassionate loyalty (hesed) to his treaty. Attempts to manipulate God can be as simple as Barak’s words, “If you [i.e., Deborah] will go with me, I will go” (4:8), trying to guarantee God’s presence. Or it can be as rash as Jephthah’s vow. Israel’s attempts to manipulate God through their crying out to him fail (the second element of the cycle). This crying out to God in the midst of the oppression is not due to repentance. Obviously, true repentance is accepted by God. But in the book of Judges, increasingly Israel’s cries are met with prophetic indictments and sarcastic ridicule of their worship of other gods (6:7–10; 10:11–14). In every case, God demonstrates that he will not be manipulated by humans. The true and living God cannot be manipulated by finite creatures.

(1) There is a general misunderstanding of the dangers of idolatry, even in a modern context. Idolatry is not simply the making and worshiping of a graven image. Idolatry is the blurring or obscuring of the distinction between the living God who creates and the creation he has created (Exod 20:4–6). Anything that is substituted or added to the worship of the one true God is idolatry. The myth of secularism is that idolatry cannot exist in a secular society, for secular society has no god at its heart whose reality makes other objects of worship into idols. But idolatry does exist in so-called secular society. Secularization has a constant, ever-present friend labeled by sociologists as sacralization—the development by which “people, things, events and processes are bestowed with ‘sacred’ status” (e.g., money, self, human sexuality).106

the cult image was seen to be the joint product of human and divine artisans, the human artisans were perceived to be acting on behalf of the gods in fashioning the statues, and any skill that they displayed was ultimately that of specific craft deities. Thus we end up with human artisans even disavowing that they have crafted the deity, for, in Esarhaddon’s words, “the making of [images of] the gods and goddesses is your [i.e., Ashur’s and Marduk’s] right, it is in your hands.”107 It is clear that statues could not “become divine” through mere human activity. The living presence of the god in the image was magically accomplished through the famous pīt pî or mīs pî (“opening of the mouth” or “washing of the mouth”) ceremony.108 This nocturnal ritual109 was performed in the craftsman’s workshop so that the work of human hands was thought to magically come alive. The cult image became the vessel for the deity. In fact, precise methods of production of cult images were followed in the ancient Near East. The statues had to be made of specific materials, and detailed procedures had to be followed in their manufacture. If these things were not done and done properly, the magical indwelling of the cult image by the deity could not take place. One Akkadian text reads: “This [statue?] without the mouth-opening ceremony [pīt pî] cannot smell incense, cannot eat food, and cannot drink water.”110 Once this ceremony had taken place, the cult image became the primary focus of the deity’...

By the time this note is introduced the focus of the narrative has shifted from conquest to co-existence. When the whole process of conquest and settlement has run its course, Israel dwells within “the border of the Amorite.” The Amorites/Canaanites are still the inhabitants of the land among whom Israel dwells (see esp. 32a 33b).

Deuteronomy 7:1–5, 16, 25–26 specifically commands the Israelites to avoid treaties with the Canaanites and to destroy both the people and their idols.43

Sadly, the First Introduction closes with Israel’s “weeping” (wayyibku) (2:4), and the Second Conclusion climaxes with Israel’s “weeping bitterly” (wayyibku beky gadol, lit. “they wept a great weeping”) (21:2). Thus “the book of Judges introduces the history of Israel as a story to weep about.”51

21. Caleb is identified twice as “from the tribe of Judah” (Num 13:6; 34:19). He is frequently designated as “the son of Jephunneh” (Num 13:6; 14:6, 30, 38; 26:35; 32:12; 34:19; Deut 1:36; Josh 14:6, 13, 14; 15:13; 21:12; 1 Chr 4:15; 6:56). Three times (Num 32:12; Josh 14:6, 14) he is given the further designation “the Kenizzite” (qnzy). This form is a gentilic (e.g., in the modern context, “the American, the German, the Russian, etc.”; in the Old Testament context, “the Midianite, the Philistine, the Assyrian, etc.”). Thus, it is an ethnic designation. Another way of forming a gentilic in ancient Semitic languages was the combination of the word for “son” (either singular or plural) and the name of an eponymous ancestor (e.g., “sons of Israel” = “Israelites”; “sons of Ammon” = “Ammonites”; etc.). Thus Othniel is designated “son of Kenaz” (bn qnz), hence “Kenizzite” (note that the JPSV translates bn qnz in every instance as “Kenizzite”). He is further designated as “Caleb’s [younger] brother [’ah]” (e.g., Judg 1:13), which probably means that Othniel was a younger relative or kinsman of Caleb (the Heb. word ’ah has this range of meaning; see the discussion of levirate marriage in the Introduction to Ruth). This explains why Caleb is called the son of Jephunneh and Othniel is called the son of Kenaz, yet Othniel is called Caleb’s brother and Caleb is called “the Kenizzite.” It also explains the apparent discrepancy in the Old Greek, where Othniel is described as Caleb’s you...

The initial statement that “the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD” will be the opening declaration for every cyclical/major judge story in the book. The article on ra‘ (lit., the evil) may imply both a specific and consummate evil, namely, apostasy from Yahweh (Exod 20:3–6),10 although it may simply be an articular usage with an abstract noun. Whatever the case, the following statements elaborate on this initial declaration and further define this apostasy from Yahweh. The chiastic pattern A-B-C-B'-A' unifies the paragraph. The idea conveyed in the A, B and B', A' elements—that is, “forsaking/abandoning” (‘azab) Yahweh and “serving” (‘abad) Baal—are really two sides of the same coin. They define more precisely “the evil” that the Israelites do in the eyes of Yahweh. These elements encircle C, with its emphasis on false worship, with the resultant anger of the LORD. The idea of “going or walking after other gods” (halak’ahare) clearly contrasts with the biblical idea of “walking with [halak’et] the LORD.” And the idea of “worshiping” (shahah) these other gods is a blatant violation of Exod 20:5, “You shall not bow down to [shahah] them.”

The final and climatic statement of the paragraph, that they “served Baal and the Ashtoreths,” is especially important. The word ba‘al can be used in a secular sense of “lord, master, owner, citizen, or husband.” When applied to a deity (often in the ancient Near East), it functioned as a title, “divine lord, master.” It was also used as a reference to the Canaanite storm god. His divine name was Hadad (see further discussion below, pp. 120–21). The term “Ashtoreths” is a mistransliteration12 by the NIV for the Hebrew ‘ashtarot, the plural of ‘ashtart, that is, Astarte. Astarte was the popular (animal and human) fertility goddess and consort of Baal. She also was associated with war. She is often pictured in Egyptian iconography as riding a horse and carrying a bow and arrow or spear and shield.13 There are only four verses in the Hebrew Bible that contain the combination Baal and Astarte (Judg 2:13; 10:6; 1 Sam 7:4; 12:10). Judges 2:13; 10:6; and 1 Samuel 12:10 also employ the parallelism of “forsake” (‘azab) and “serve” (‘abad). This is not fortuitous. The central question is the worship of Yahweh rather than the gods of the surrounding nations. This worship entails the recognition of Yahweh as king. Thus, Judges 2:13 and 10:6 emphasize the breaking of the oath of allegiance to Yahweh’s kingship and recognition of the kingship of other gods (“forsake” Yahweh and “serve” Baals and Ashtoreths). Many scholars believe that the Hebrew vocalization of Ashtoreth (‘ashtoret) fou...

Provan sums it up well: The old gods are still with us. They have simply changed their clothes so that they merge more easily into the modern crowd. They still claim to provide meaning to life, to explain the universe, and to provide the basis for personal security. They still demand wholehearted commitment from their worshippers. Christians ought to be free of them; for a truly Christian view of the world provides the basis for such freedom.41

In addition, according to the text, he comes from Aram Naharaim (lit. “Aram of the Two Rivers”).21 Located in the area between the Euphrates and Habur rivers in northern Mesopotamia, the area known as the Jezirah in modern eastern Syria.22 Naharaim was the earlier name of the area in the second millennium sources, to which “Aram” has been prefixed.23 This would make Cushan-Rishathaim the oppressor who comes the greatest distance to oppress Israel.24 Again this may underscore his severity. The Israelites, who choose to serve (‘abad) foreign gods (3:7), are made to serve (‘abad) a foreign tyrant (3:8). This type of retributive justice is noticed throughout the book (cf., e.g., 1:7).

Technically, Othniel, Aksah, and Caleb were Kenizzites who by faith commitment have been included in Israel—in particular, the tribe of Judah.27

In the book of Judges, besides possibly Joshua (Judg 2:8), Othniel is the only male who is so positively pictured (i.e., walking with God so completely).40

This savior is “left-handed” (v. 15). Actually, the Hebrew means “a man restricted in his right hand (’itter yad yemino).” This phrase has created interpretive problems for centuries. One interpretation understands this as a physical deformity; that is, that Ehud’s left-handedness is the result of a physical abnormality.8 However, this is probably taking the phrase too literally. In 20:16 there are seven hundred picked troops, (lit.) “their right hands restricted” (same phrase as v. 15), who “could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.” As Halpern notes, “This excludes physical deformity: it would be comical to invent elite brigades organized on such a principle.”9 Moreover, only if Ehud has use of his right hand can he, by using his left, surprise Eglon. Ehud’s plot only works if he appears normal to the Moabite guards. Another interpretation understands this phrase to mean ambidextrous (i.e., skilled in the use of both hands). The Greek Old Testament translates the phrase by a word meaning ambidextrous (in both LXXa and LXXb). Block has argued for this meaning.10 This seems unlikely, for this is a most odd way of expressing ambidextrity (“a man restricted in his right hand”)! It is doubtful whether ambidextrity would ever be expressed by describing restriction of the use of one of the hands. Rather, it is expressed positively with the use of both. Note, for example, 1 Chronicles 12:2, which describes, positively, warriors who “were able to shoot arrows or to sling stones...

Ehud crafts a double-edged dagger16 that is a gomed in length. The NIV translates gomed “about a cubit” with a note stating, “that is, about 18 inches” (v. 16). This is incorrect. Ehud’s dagger was more likely about a foot or less in length.17 His improvisation is undoubtedly a prefiguring of the improvising of other weapons: Shamgar’s oxgoad (3:31), Jael’s tent peg (4:21–22), Gideon’s jars and torches (7:20), the certain woman’s millstone (9:53), and Samson’s donkey jawbone (15:15). But here, as opposed to the other instances, Ehud’s action is deliberate and calculated. He takes time and effort to fashion his weapon—perhaps even, as some commentators have suggested, making the length appropriate to the size of Eglon. Finally, he devises a means of getting the implement into Eglon’s presence: He straps it to the inner side of his right thigh under his clothing. To sum up, the dagger is short enough to hide under his clothing, long enough to do in Eglon, and double-edged to ensure the fatality of one quick thrust.18

The focus on the execution of the plot (3:19b–26a)—“executing the main sacrifice”—is heightened by satire and irony, the principal target of which is Eglon (“young calf/bull”). This name, as noted above, is derived from ‘egel (calf/bull) and may be a diminutive or affectionate, familiar form. The name perhaps also plays on the term ‘agol (“round”).27 Ironically, then, the name suggests that Eglon is a fatted calf ready for slaughter. Four times he is designated as “king [melek] of Moab” (3:12, 14, 15, 17) and then, climactically in 3:19, Ehud addresses him as “Your Majesty” (lit. “O king,” hamelek).28 Through this use of this term, like Cushan-Rishathaim in the previous judge cycle, Eglon functions as the embodiment of an evil institution.

The actual description of the killing (i.e., sacrifice) is given in grotesque detail, which unfortunately the NIV translation obscures.32 Verse 22 should read: And even the handle [nitstsab] entered after the blade; and the fat [heleb] closed in over the blade, because he did not remove the dagger from his belly; and the excrement [parshedon]33 came out.

God is able to use flawed individuals to accomplish his purposes without approving of their flaws.

The identity of Shamgar is obscure. The only scholarly agreement is that Shamgar son of Anath was not an Israelite.7 On

Age.21 The fact that Shamgar is paired in the Song of Deborah with Jael, a Kenite, seems to confirm his non-Israelite origins. Like Othniel, the first cyclical/major judge, Shamgar, the first noncyclical/minor judge, is a non-Israelite. He is the only noncyclical judge to save Israel from a specific oppressor (Tola will “save Israel,” but from whom is left blank). He is the only noncyclical judge for which there is any information concerning how he does it (though admittedly scanty). If the role of judge as described in the introduction is applied to the minor judges, Shamgar seems to be the most successful in fulfilling the role. If the parallel to Othniel (first major judge, first minor judge) is considered, then it is possible to see Shamgar as a type of ideal noncyclical judge.

Deborah’s commissioning of Barak (4:6–7) suggests that he ought to fulfill a role comparable to Othniel in 3:7–11.23 His response, however, to Deborah’s command from Yahweh with its great assurance of victory24 is hardly the stuff of an Othniel or even an Ehud: “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go” (v. 8). While his motive for expressing his desire for Deborah to accompany him is not indicated in the narrative, some interpreters see this as a sign of cowardice.25 But note what the Old Greek (LXX) adds, “for I [Barak] never know what day the angel of the LORD will give me success.” This seems to suggest that Barak desires Deborah’s presence as a source of oracular inquiry.26 In other words, he wants to guarantee that things will go auspiciously. Block comments that “the request to be accompanied by the prophet [sic] is a plea for the presence of God.”27 It also means, as O’Connell notes, that by conditioning his obedience to Yahweh on Deborah’s willingness to accompany him, “Barak was effectively denying her the authority that Yahweh had conferred upon her as a prophetess (v. 4a).”28 And in this, he was denying Yahweh’s word. Barak is attempting to manipulate the outcome. Deborah’s response that she will go seems to allay the problem of Barak’s hesitation. But then she issues another prophecy: “the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman” (v. 9). The reader has only one woman to suspect as the pos...

Like Shamgar, Jael is a non-Israelite, specifically a Kenite.

Finally, Jael emerges as the real heroine of the narrative. But this is ironic, too. She is hardly an orthodox hero. Rather, she shares the unorthodox qualities of Ehud and Shamgar. Similar to Ehud, Jael is “a lone assassin” who through deception “dispatches her victim” when alone “in a private chamber (hers, in this case, rather than her victim’s).”47 Moreover, like Shamgar, she improvised a weapon from a domestic implement. Like Shamgar, Jael is a non-Israelite. Shamgar, if a Hurrian or a Canaanite, was a member of Israel’s enemies. Likewise, Jael is a member of a Kenite splinter group, which is at “peace” with Jabin, the king of Canaan, Israel’s archenemy (4:11, 17)! Her action is morally ambiguous, but her courage and the sheer virtuosity of her performance are sufficient to silence criticism on that score (5:24). The crowning aspect of her unorthodoxy as a hero is her sex: Yahweh sells Sisera into the hand of a woman.48

This may seem to moderns a strange confusion of meteorological and astronomical phenomena, but it was perfectly understandable in ancient Near Eastern thought, where weather phenomena were part of the same celestial phenomena as lunar, solar, stellar, and planetary phenomena. Thus, in the Mesopotamian work dealing with astronomical omens, Enūma Anu Enlil, fourteen out of seventy tablets relate to the storm god Adad and include such occurrences as lightning, thunder, rainbows, cloud formations, earthquakes, and winds. This is undoubtedly because the distinction in distance between the observer and clouds, meteors, and stars was not perceived to be that different by ancient people.88 Thus, the heavenly epiphany of stars and storm are all under the authority of the LORD, who is elsewhere called in the NIV translation the LORD Almighty (lit. “the LORD of hosts” [yhwh tsaba’ot], e.g. 1 Sam 1:3; Isa 9:7).89

The fifth and final act is a double portrait of Jael’s deed and Sisera’s mother, which lead to the climactic conclusion of this song. Stanza VI (Strophes 15–17) portrays the image of Jael’s killing of Sisera (5:24–27). With intensity equal to that of the curse of Meroz, blessing is proclaimed for Jael. In fact, she is made the receiving end of blessing, which is given to only one other character in the poem, God himself! All of Stanza VI details the reason: she slew Sisera. Jael’s resourcefulness and courage in doing this are the basis for admiration and praise. The unrestrained praise of Jael is analogous to that given to Mary in Luke 1:42.

As only poetry can do, the scene shifts suddenly, without transition, into the tent of Jael. Sisera requests water—ironically the very thing that has just destroyed his army! The request also contains a taunt—the mighty commander of the army of the kings of Canaan is forced to appeal for water from a simple tent-woman! Jael gives him milk97 instead. Moreover, she brings it to him in a bowl fit for nobility. Her hospitality disarms her victim. It is implicitly a motherly kind of act.

Jael risks her own life to deliver a people that she is not even a part of. She could easily have remained uninvolved. Her husband’s treaty with Jabin meant that Sisera was not a threat. In fact, if she aided Sisera in his escape, perhaps this would be rewarded. After all, Jabin is still intact as the king of the region, and there is no guarantee that the Israelites will defeat him (note 4:24, which clearly implies a more prolonged process that eventually culminates in Jabin’s demise). Sisera’s defeat may be only a temporary setback. With all these factors, Jael’s involvement is remarkable—again for a people with whom she is not directly associated.120

The praise of Yahweh in song is a unique element to any of the other cycles. In the Song of Deborah, the focus is first on the nation of Israel, then on the ten tribes that either did or did not participate, and then on the two women. But throughout the entire song, it is Yahweh who is acknowledged and praised for his great work. Were it not for him, there would have been no deliverance. Manifold are his deliverances throughout the ages.

In this case, noninvolvement equates with self-centeredness. The issue of participation is raised in the song with evaluative, theological implications. Those who do not participate in the battle against Sisera are guilty of apathy and of indirect support of the enemies of God (and, by implication, their gods). The Lord expects his people to participate in the advancement of his kingdom. Noninvolvement because of self-centeredness is as unacceptable today as in Deborah/ Barak/Jael’s time.

The mother’s thoughts about Sisera’s plundering and raping of helpless, innocent women reveal what he has done innumerable times in the past. But this time he will not humiliate a single woman; instead, a single woman—a Kenite woman—will humiliate him and turn him into the plunder. The justice is, to a certain extent, retributive—but not completely. What Sisera receives is not really an adequate end to what he has perpetrated, any more than the death of Hitler was adequate justice to what he executed on the Jews.

Deborah’s willingness to be God’s spokesperson in calling Barak to deliver his people illustrates the faithfulness that God is seeking. Moreover, her willingness to go with Barak after his request demonstrates her bravery in the midst of great personal danger. There is nothing in the text that indicates any warrior status or abilities on the part of Deborah.124 She does not fight in the battle; she only pronounces to Barak God’s reassurance of victory and exhortation to engage. Hence she is no Xena: Warrior Princess; or Wonder Woman. In fact, the text seems to present the opposite: She is simply a prophetess, the wife of a man named Lappidoth.

Participation in the kingdom of God is praiseworthy. Nonparticipation is shameful, perhaps in some cases abominable. This is especially true when his people’s lack of involvement is based on their self-centered, self-serving interest and apathy. Christianity is not a spectator sport; it requires involvement. Just as God is holy, passionate, and zealous for righteousness, he expects his people to be the same. Just as God desires that none should perish and works so great a salvation on humanity’s behalf, so he wants this same desire in his people for the lost. When we choose not to participate in what he has ordained as part of the establishment of his kingdom, we become supporters of another program, a program that is not of God, a program dictated by the gods of this world.

(2) Gideon’s name (gid‘on) means “hacker” (derived from the verb gd‘, “to hack, break to pieces”). Not only is this an indication of his warring ability, it has a connection to the covenant stipulations (Deut 7:5; 12:3; cf. 6:25–32).

Gideon is the first person in the Old Testament to request a sign from God. Normally, God initiates the signs—not by request, but by his design.

God’s command to Gideon (6:25) contains two demands—a negative one followed by a positive one. (1) He must tear down his father’s altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole that is beside it (note the pair of idolatrous items).37 Yahweh’s command to Gideon is a reverberation of his commands in Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3. In both texts, the verb “to hack, cut” (gada‘) occurs in a form that echoes Gideon’s name (tegadde‘un). When the narrator gives us this information about the Baal altar and the Asherah pole, he subtly acknowledges that while Israel was crying out and appealing to Yahweh for help, there was an altar to Baal at Ophrah. Gideon’s own family worships major Canaanite deities. An implied question follows: If there is one in Ophrah (a small rural site), were there not others throughout the land? No wonder Yahweh’s response in Judges 6:8–10 was to indict Israel through the prophet’s speech.

Gideon’s response. Gideon’s initial response to the angel of the Lord’s call is theologically correct in its basic assertions, but it is wrong in its tone and in its awareness of the correct evaluation of the present situation. Rather than recognizing Israel’s “responsibility for the present crisis, as the narrator does in 6:1, Gideon blames God.”43 Thus, he demonstrates an ignorance of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. The Israelites’ sins have brought these things upon them; they are the cause of their problems, not God. Moreover, Gideon’s incorrect evaluation is, no doubt, the result of the pagan situation in his village. Like many others in Israel at this time, this village has its own cult center where other gods are worshiped. Although Gideon is aware of some of the traditions of Yahweh (6:13), for all practical purposes he and his family are worshipers of Baal and Asherah! Gideon’s problems lie in his lack of knowledge of God’s word, in his perception of God’s involvement in the life of the nation, in his willingness to serve, and in his faith.

While even his name, Gideon (“hacker”), seems to indicate a judge of strength, his activity at the time of his call and the subsequent processes demonstrate that he is hardly living up to the meaning of that name. In addition, the great similarity between Gideon’s call and that of Moses and Joshua as the narrator presents it, in the end, only emphasizes the contrasts between these three (rather than the similarities).

Return to the past. Taking the larger structure of the cycles section into consideration, while Gideon obviously does not equate to an Othniel, Ehud, or even Barak, neither is he a Jephthah or a Samson. Thus, in building the first altar to Yahweh, Gideon draws witness to Yahweh’s call through the theophany. Despite fearing the people of his village, Gideon obeys Yahweh’s commands to hack down the Asherah pole, to destroy the Baal altar, and to build an altar to Yahweh (the second altar, 6:25–32). This endangers his life, but his father, Joash, rescues him—albeit through a ploy that questions the divinity of Baal: “If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar” (6:31). While this makes Gideon living proof of Baal’s impotence as a deity, he nevertheless serves with a Baal name (Jerub-Baal), and its frequency is truly ironic. While service to the Lord begins with a break with the past (in religious and moral matters, cf. Phil 3:1–14; Heb 12:1), the dangers of a return to the past are great.

Such preoccupation with tangible manifestations can inhibit positive action for the cause of Christ, just as it did in the case of Gideon. God’s willingness to go as far as he did in giving Gideon these signs only manifested how little faith Gideon had in the LORD’s word. An unwillingness to act unless there are tangible signs can unnecessarily delay the implementation of God’s revealed will. To ask for a sign when God has already revealed his will reflects an immature faith and perhaps, in certain circumstances, a greater willingness to disobey than to obey.

Contrary to popular interpretation, these fleecings have nothing to do with discovering or determining God’s will. The divine will is perfectly and absolutely clear in Gideon’s own mind (note the wording in v. 36). These “signs” reveal his lack of faith. As Exum rightly notes: “No character in the book receives more divine assurance than Gideon and none displays more doubt. Gideon is, significantly, the only judge to whom God speaks directly, though this privilege does not allay his faintheartedness.”55 Hence, “despite being clear about God’s will, being ‘clothed/empowered’ by the Spirit of God, and being confirmed as a divinely chosen leader by the overwhelming response of his countrymen to his own summons to battle, Gideon uses every means available to try to get out of the mission to which he has been called.”56 It is not insignificant that throughout the pericope concerning the fleecings the divine personal, covenantal name of Yahweh is missing. Instead, the rather generic designation Elohim (“God”) is used. “Apparently Gideon has difficulty distinguishing between Yahweh, the God of the Israelites, and God in a general sense.”57 This fleecing process is nothing short of a pagan divinatory test of the deity. In the ancient Near East, there were many different divination processes invoked to inquire of the deities. Gideon’s fleece incidents are examples of “impetrated divination”—divination by various techniques of asking a question and directly evoking a response.58 App...

The two central episodes (c and c') deal with the issue of fear. The double reduction (7:1–8) of Gideon’s fighting force begins with the removal of all the fearful Israelites (7:1–3). According to Deuteronomy 20:8, this was a Yahweh-commanded reduction for morale reasons.62 The result is a twenty-two-thousand-man reduction. Interestingly, this reduction of the “fearful” (yare’) or “trembling” (harad) Israelites takes place at the spring of Harod (the name derives from the verb harad, to tremble; hence “the spring of trembling”). This spring at the foot of Mount Gilboa got its name from this event. The Midianite army is encamped north of the Israelites in the valley south of the hill of Moreh.