c. Ehud and Eglon of Moab (3:12–30)
c. Ehud and Eglon of Moab (3:12–30)
3:12–14. The Moabite oppression. The sovereignty of the Lord is indicated in the way in which he used Moab to chastise his wayward people. A similar thought occurs in Isaiah 10:5ff. where the arrogant Assyrian king, ruler of a great world-power, is described as ‘the rod of mine anger’ (cf. his use of Cyrus of Persia, Isa. 45:1ff.). The king of Moab is said to be strengthened against Israel, a verb which is used in Ezekiel 30:24, where the Lord strengthens the arms of the king of Babylon. It is a comforting thought in these days of nuclear power to realize that God still orders and controls the destinies of nations and overrules the decisions of world rulers, including the most arrogant and atheistic among them. Moab, situated to the east of the Dead Sea between the Arnon and the Zered, was settled as a kingdom some fifty years before the Israelite invasion. Ammon, to the north-east of Moab, was established about the same time as Israel in the late thirteenth century BC. The Amalekites, who were akin to the Edomites, were a nomadic race occupying the considerable area south of Judah, and were possibly Israel’s bitterest enemy (Exod. 17:8–16; cf. 1 Sam. 15:2, 3).
It is clear that the coalition under Eglon crossed the Jordan in approximately the same area as Israel and took the city of Jericho (the city of palms). The allusion to Jericho here is surprising, since Joshua had pronounced a curse upon anyone attempting to rebuild it (Josh. 6:26). Some scholars have been disposed to treat lightly the account of the fulfilment of this curse in the time of Ahab (1 Kgs 16:34) but excavation in 1952–8 showed that the Late Bronze Age city of Jericho (i.e. the one conquered by Joshua) was almost completely eroded, indicating strongly a considerable period when the area was unoccupied. The site, however, would retain many of its advantages, for it possessed an adequate water supply and it dominated the lower Jordan valley. The Moabite occupation, using the abundant supply of building material from the ruined city, was of a temporary character in any case.
3:15–22. The assassination of Eglon. Gera (15) is noted as the son of Benjamin in Genesis 46:21, but the relationship of our text cannot be taken literally; it simply implies that Ehud was a descendant of Gera. As the tribal portion of Benjamin was particularly affected it is not surprising that Ehud, the deliverer, was raised up from that tribe. He is described as a left-handed man, lit. ‘restricted as to his right hand’. In the eyes of an Israelite, this was regarded as a physical defect and it appears often in connection with the Benjamites, without affecting their prowess in battle (cf. 20:16). 1 Chronicles 12:2 suggests that they were ambidextrous. The present (AV, RV) which Ehud took to Eglon is a euphemism for tribute (RSV), probably in the form of agricultural produce, hence the need for a number of porters (18). Ehud had carefully planned the assassination of the oppressing king, making a two-edged sword or dagger about fourteen inches long (the Hebrew word for cubit is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament and it is usually interpreted as a short cubit, i.e. the distance between the elbow and the knuckles of the closed fist). The ease with which the dagger penetrated the king’s body, hilt and all (22), suggests that it had no crosspiece and thus would be the more readily concealable under the long, flowing outer garment. Such incidental details as the length of the murder weapon and the fact of Eglon’s corpulence (mentioned only because the dagger was completely buried in his body) attest the historicity of the event. Ehud’s return after the dutiful presentation of the tribute would not occasion the king’s suspicions.
19–22. There is some ambiguity about the quarries that were by Gilgal (AV, RV). The Hebrew word (pĕsîlîm) means ‘sculptured stones’ (RSV) or ‘graven images’ (RV mg). As they are mentioned again in verse 26 it is apparent that they were a prominent landmark. In the latter reference they seem to mark the point where Ehud could consider himself safe, and for this reason it has been conjectured that they were boundary stones which marked the limits of Moabite influence. A parallel has been drawn with Babylonian boundary stones, but this cannot be sustained, since these were always placed in the centre of property as title deeds. A better parallel might be found in the stones marking city-state boundaries mentioned in Ugaritic Akkadian texts. But any suggestion that the reference is to boundary stones seems hardly plausible in the historical situation of actual Moabite aggression and faces us with the added problem of accounting for the Moabite possession of Jericho, 3 miles west-north-west of Gilgal. An easier and more likely explanation is that they were the actual stones set up by Joshua to commemorate the miraculous crossing of the Jordan (Josh. 4:19–24) and thus were a well-known landmark.
Ehud’s stratagem was carried out with considerable skill and courage. Pretending to have a secret message to the king from God (notice how he used the general word for God, Elohim, widely used throughout the region, rather than Yahweh, the particular name of Israel’s deity), he excited the king’s curiosity and secured a private audience. It is possible that the king left his audience-chamber and went to his summer parlour (AV, RV) to ensure privacy, thus accounting for Ehud’s coming to him again (20). The summer parlour (lit. ‘roof-chamber of coolness’; cf. RSV) was a room erected on the flat rooftop, provided with many windows to catch the breeze and thus well suited as a place for meditation or interviews of a personal nature. When Ehud announced that he had a message from God the king rose reverently from his seat to receive the divine oracle. No suspicions were aroused by the movement of Ehud’s left hand; there was no cry which would undoubtedly have alerted Eglon’s attendants; he died swiftly as the dagger of his assailant was buried completely in his body. The corpulence of the king is noted (17) to show how this was possible.
The phrase and the dirt came out (22, AV, RSV) has caused considerable conjecture. One of the words used (parsĕdona) occurs nowhere else. The reading of the AV and RSV infers that the intestines were pierced. But a study of the cognate languages, particularly Assyrian and Sumerian, suggests that the hapax legomenon refers to some kind of cavity or opening, which has led some scholars to suggest that a vestibule is indicated (cf. RV mg), which is not easy to relate to the porch of verse 23. The most plausible, if gruesome, suggestion is that it refers to the opening of the king’s body, the downward motion of the dagger being with such force that it passed completely through the abdomen and projected from the vent (cf. RV, it came out behind). Such sensational details have a habit of impressing themselves indelibly upon the human memory.
3:23–26. The escape of Ehud. There is some uncertainty concerning the escape route of Ehud, for the word translated porch (AV, RV) occurs nowhere else. Probably the roof-chamber of a king was more elaborate than the simple type of structure found elsewhere. Most likely it was some form of colonnade. To delay the detection of his crime Ehud drew the double doors of the roof-chamber together and locked them before making good his escape undetected. When the servants of Eglon observed the locked doors they drew the obvious conclusion that their master was covering his feet (AV, RV), a euphemism for the performance of the offices of nature (cf. 1 Sam. 24:3). But the passing of the time eventually overcame their acute embarrassment (Heb. ‘they tarried till the point of confusion’) and they came with the key to investigate. The key was a flat piece of wood fitted with pins which corresponded to holes in a hollow bolt. A hole in the door gave access to the bolt, which was on the inside. The insertion of the key in the bolt pushed out the pins of the lock and enabled the bolt to be withdrawn from its socket in the doorpost. The door could be locked without a key, but not unlocked. When the servants discovered the grisly fate which had overtaken the king the alarm was raised, but by this time Ehud was well clear. The two words rendered tarried (AV, RV) in verses 25 and 26 are dissimilar, the latter, containing an element of reproach, could be translated delayed (RSV). The location of Seirath (AV) has not been identified.
3:27–30. Victory over the Moabites. The death of the Moabite king would create an atmosphere of uncertainty and consternation in Moab which would be favourable to an attacker. The astute Ehud, who had doubtless seen that this would be the propitious moment to consolidate his advantage and cast off completely the yoke of Moab, gathered together an army. The need for speed in this operation would restrict the recruitment of volunteers to the immediate area of the Ephraimites, a mountainous region which had probably felt the pressure of the Moabites. The capture of the fords of the Jordan enabled the Israelites to wipe out the demoralized Moabites so that ten thousand of them, all strong, able-bodied men (RSV), perished. The Moabite domination was broken, and the territory of Israel was freed, but verse 30 does not necessarily imply that Ehud followed up his victory by an invasion of Moab. The situation had been saved by his resolution and cunning, but we are not called to admire his cold-blooded assassination of Eglon, although tyranny and oppression are themselves ugly things and are not lightly removed.6 After this deliverance the land enjoyed relative security for eighty years, which probably represents two generations.
29. Objections have been raised concerning the large number (about ten thousand) of Moabites involved in this encounter. Not only does it represent a huge slaughter; it was a vast army for the Moabites to have on the west side of Jordan. The 10,000 may designate an army force (cf. 4:6, 10; and see commentary on 20:2, where the uncertainty attaching to the Hebrew word ’elep, ‘thousand’, is discussed).