e. Deborah and Barak against Jabin and Sisera of Canaan (4:1–24)
e. Deborah and Barak against Jabin and Sisera of Canaan (4:1–24)
4:1–3. The oppression of Jabin. The focus of attention now switches from the southern to the northern tribes, and the threat from Jabin and Sisera, far from concerning relatively small tracts of territory, involved six of the tribes in actual conflict. It was the first major threat of the period of the judges.
Mention is made of a Jabin, king of Hazor in Joshua 11:1–11, where the capture and destruction of the city by Joshua’s army is noted. Many scholars have suggested that the accounts of Joshua 11 and Judges 4, 5 have been confused by the historian, or that the great name of Joshua attracted to itself a sweeping victory gained a century later mainly by the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali. There are, however, no insoluble difficulties in the narrative as it stands. The name of Jabin may be a hereditary title adopted by the successive kings of Hazor. Hazor itself, burnt by fire by Joshua’s army almost a century before but presumably not occupied by the Israelites, had been rebuilt by the Canaanites and had regained its old dominance. This is hardly surprising, for Hazor was in a strategic position about 4 miles south-west of Lake Huleh and, like Megiddo in the Esdraelon valley, commanded the principal route between Egypt and the Western Asian Empires. The site, identified by John Garstang in 1927, but not excavated until 1955–8, covered over 200 acres, compared with Megiddo’s less than 20 acres. Its population has been estimated at c. 40,000, compared with Jericho’s 1,500. These facts account for its being called ‘the head of all those kingdoms’ (Josh. 11:10) and may indicate why Jabin was called the king of Canaan (4:2, 23, 24; cf. 4:17, ‘king of Hazor’)8. Harosheth of the Gentiles (AV, RV), the city of Sisera, has not been positively identified; Tell el-Habarj, south-east of Haifa,9 and Tell ‘Amr, 12 miles north-west of Megiddo,10 have been suggested. The movement of the battle makes the latter the more likely. Either alternative is some distance from Hazor and it is probable that there was a coalition of Canaanite city-states, under the nominal leadership of the king of the most important city, Hazor, but under the military leadership of Sisera, its most able captain.11 Sisera may have been the petty king of Harosheth, but his principal role in the narrative is that of the military leader of the combined armies. These facts explain the infrequency with which Jabin, who may have been an old man, is mentioned (not at all in chapter 5, nor in connection with the actual combat) and the prominence of Sisera in these records.
The superior equipment of the Canaanites is shown in their deployment of nine hundred chariots of iron which would give them complete control of the valleys and plains, unless some unusual occurrence should immobilize this powerful striking-force. Such an event, viewed as a miracle of divine intervention, was to transfer the advantage to the Israelites in the decisive encounter.
4:4–9. Deborah and Barak. At this point we are introduced to Deborah, the saviour of her people and the only woman in the distinguished company of the judges. In the tribal structure of Israel women normally occupied a subordinate position, but they could and did on rare occasions rise to prominence and the Old Testament witnesses to the qualities of prominent women like Miriam (Exod. 15:20) and Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14). Nothing is known of Lappidoth, the husband of Deborah, apart from the mere mention of his name, but he was not the only one to be outshone, for Barak himself played a secondary part to this great and gifted woman and drew courage and inspiration from her presence. The view that Lappidoth, meaning ‘torches’, and Barak, whose name means ‘lightning’, are one and the same person, and that Barak the deliverer was the husband of Deborah, rests upon very flimsy evidence.
A difficulty in these chapters is the specific mention of only the two tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun in 4:7, 10 compared with the list of participating tribes in the poetic account, which also includes the tribes of Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir and Issachar. One suggestion to account for this is that there were two phases of the campaign, an initial one in which only two tribes took part, and a second one when they were joined by contingents from neighbouring tribes (fuller consideration is given to this problem later in this section12).
The geographical allusions of the chapter may indicate the magnitude of the task confronting a would-be deliverer. Deborah herself came from between Ramah and Bethel in the south of Ephraim, about 50 miles from the scene of the decisive conflict; the depradations of the Canaanite confederacy under Jabin may have extended this far south. On the other hand there may be an illustration of a greater unity of the tribes in this period than is commonly assumed. The plight of the northern tribes was clearly known to Deborah and, conversely, they were not only aware of her reputation but came to her in their predicament with their request for help (5b). The suggestion of such a basic unity and inter-knowledge is made more plausible by Deborah’s choice of Barak as the military commander of the tribes, for he was an inhabitant of Kedeshnaphtali, about 5 miles to the north-west of Lake Huleh in an area particularly affected by the Canaanite oppression. The Canaanite domination of the principal valleys and trade routes does not seem to have prevented free movement of the Israelite tribes in the highlands to the north and south of the Esdraelon and Jezreel valleys.
At the time of the crisis Deborah was already established as a prophetess and a judge in the nonmilitary sphere; indeed. it was the demonstration of charismatic qualities in this realm which, in all probability, led the tribes to seek her assistance. Her summons and challenge to Barak was in the name of Yahweh, the distinctive name for the God of Israel. Barak was commanded ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor’ (RSV); the verb means ‘to draw out’ or ‘extend’, suggesting a very loose formation such as might be adopted by lightly-armed soldiers, anxious to escape detection, moving through hostile territory to a central meeting-point. Mount Tabor, at the junction of the tribal portions of Issachar, Naphtali and Zebulun, was chosen as the rallying-point. It was a conical shaped mountain rising a little over 1,300 feet from the northeastern corner of the Esdraelon valley, and was such a prominent landmark that any confusion on the part of the assembling Israelites would be avoided.
The initial summons was to the men of Naphtali and Zebulun, two of the tribes principally concerned, although chapter 5 makes it clear that four other tribes took an active part, possibly in a later phase of the operation. The suggestion that there were two major battles, or, at least, two stages in the one campaign, is strengthened by the fact that in chapter 4, the conflict is waged between Mount Tabor and the river Kishon, whereas in chapter 5, while the river Kishon is still prominent (5:21), another site a few miles southward is also mentioned as the battleground, ‘in Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo’ (5:19). Others have conjectured that Naphtali and Zebulun took part in a battle at Kedesh (4:9, 10, 11), identified as Kedesh-naphtali, Barak’s home town (see note on verse 10), with Jabin of Hazor, before a second battle by the Kishon against Sisera in which a larger and more representative Israelite force took part. Perhaps it is hardly fair to expect military precision in the exultant poem of Deborah and it is always wise to remember that the Israelites, in preserving their traditions, were concerned to celebrate the saving power of Yahweh rather than to preserve the minute detail to enable later historians to make a precise reconstruction of each battle! We may, at times, regret the lack of fuller information, but we must not deny the right of the Hebrew historian to his point of view, which gave the principal credit to Yahweh (cf. 4:7b, ‘I will deliver him into thine hand’; cf. also 2 Sam. 8:6, 14).
7. The river Kishon has its source in the hill-country to the south of the Esdraelon valley, after which it is the principal river of the valley itself, flowing in a north-westerly direction until it empties itself in the bay of Acre, northwards of the Carmel ridge. The whole of the upper section of the river is seasonal, depending on the rainfall, so that in the dry summer it is little more than a wadi, but when swollen by the rains of winter and early spring it could become a raging torrent. In such conditions the low-lying areas surrounding the river would be completely waterlogged and the deployment of chariots would be impossible.
8, 9. The lack of alacrity with which Barak responded to the challenge is understandable, humanly speaking, for the disparity between the opposing forces was considerable. It may be observed that, in his hesitation, Barak is in excellent company in the Old Testament period. Moses, even at the end of the encounter with God at the burning bush, displayed remarkably little enthusiasm to accept the divine call (Exod. 4:13); Gideon felt himself to be the worst possible choice (Judg. 6:15); and Jeremiah protested on account of his youthfulness (Jer. 1:6). A great man realizes his own inadequacy when called by the Lord to some great task, but the divine call is never alone, it is accompanied by the divine provision. Paul’s words refer to all those who are called to God’s service, ‘Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our sufficiency is from God, who has qualified us to be ministers …’ (2 Cor. 3:5, 6, RSV). Barak made the presence of Deborah the condition of his acceptance, and in her acceptance there is a hint of her displeasure at his attitude as she announced that the deed of a woman would eclipse any honour due to him. It is natural to ascribe this position to Deborah herself, for the hindsight of posterity has seen her as the commanding force behind Israel’s deliverance. The prophecy, however, was fulfilled in Jael’s callous act of treachery to the vanquished Sisera, who trusted in the security of her hospitality. We would regard this as a despicable act, but to a people suffering under a cruel and prolonged bondage it would be regarded in a completely different light, and the details of the murder have been gloatingly preserved for us, as were those in the case of Eglon. Perhaps it is too facile, for those who have not endured extreme persecution or bondage, to pass judgment on the Israelites of old, or the survivors of the Nazi prison camps in our own generation. But, nevertheless, the Christian attitude is opposed to an exultant spirit of revenge.
4:10–16. The assembly and defeat of the Canaanite host. The ten thousand men of Barak are mentioned again (cf. verse 6) to underline the disparity between the Israelite army and the massive, well-equipped army of Sisera. Kedesh is hardly to be identified with Kedesh-naphtali, but to another place nearer the scene of the battle. The name, meaning ‘sanctuary’, is an exceedingly common one.
11. The note concerning Heber the Kenite is parenthetical, serving as an introduction to the family group to which Jael (17) belonged. The Kenites were a nomadic group associated with Judah, so an explanation was required regarding the presence of this family group so far north (see note on 1:16). The plain of Zaanaim (AV) should be read as ‘the oak or terebinth of Zaanaim’, a district noted in Joshua 19:33 as on the border of Naphtali. Apart from this information, and the obvious fact that it lay on Sisera’s escape route, there is no certain knowledge of its position.
12–14. Sisera, the leader of the Canaanite coalition, was doubtless informed of the movements of the Israelites, although the method of their deployment may have concealed their actual numbers. To meet this threat he gathered a massive army, including his complete chariot force, doubtless intending a decisive blow against the rebellious Israelites. It is unlikely that he would be so foolish as to attempt to use his chariots in the rainy season; 5:4, 5, 20, 21 suggest an unusual torrential downpour, possibly a thunderstorm, which came after the normal season of the latter rains in April and early May. Possibly Deborah gave the order to attack (14) as she saw the storm approaching, knowing that a heavy downpour would nullify the numerical advantage and the superior equipment of the Canaanites and thus make this the propitious moment to strike. The Lord was often depicted as the God of the thunderstorm, moving in awful splendour and power to the help of his people (cf. Josh. 10:11; 1 Sam. 7:10; Ps. 18:9–15), and this belief may be implied in the words of Deborah: … is not the Lord gone out before thee? (AV, RV). It must be realized, however, that the Israelites did not have a monopoly of this conception, for recent discoveries at Ras Shamra (the ancient Ugarit) have shown that the Canaanites looked upon Baal in much the same way. He was the storm-god, the rider upon the clouds (cf. Isa. 19:1). He is uniformly depicted as wielding a club in one hand and a stylized spear in the other, representing thunder and lightning respectively. A storm at this juncture, however, favoured the Israelites and enabled them to extend their advantage from the hill-country (where chariots could not operate effectively) to the valley, where the Canaanites had hitherto been supreme.
15, 16. The verb discomfited (AV, RV) does not convey to the modern reader the completeness of the Lord’s action. The origin of the word is the Mediaeval Latin verb disconfigere, meaning ‘to unloose’ or ‘to part asunder’, and it indicates a complete and utter rout (cf. RSV, routed). The scene may be reconstructed in the imagination. The ten thousand Israelites, lightly armed and highly mobile, poured down into the valley and joined battle with a chariot force which was unable to manoeuvre on the softened ground. Escape, with the possibility of fighting under better conditions on another day, was the only wise course, so Sisera attempted to fall back on his base camp at Harosheth of the Gentiles. To the south was the central hill-country; to the north, beyond the swollen river, was the hill-country of Galilee. But as they made their way in a general north-westerly direction, with the Israelites in hot pursuit, the valley narrowed, decreasing the space available for deployment. This caused chariot to jostle with chariot, churning up the surface of the ground and making it even more difficult for those in the rear of the panic-stricken army. Meanwhile the river would continue to rise as it was fed by innumerable small tributaries, rushing down from the surrounding hills. The words of Deborah (5:21) must have formed the epitaph of many, ‘the river of Kishon swept them away’. Nor did the jubilant Israelites relent, for their advantage was pressed right to the walls of Harosheth of the Gentiles. It was a sweeping victory, completely decisive in its effects, for there was no other major engagement between the Israelites and the Canaanites, although isolated pockets of resistance were not overcome until the time of David. Sisera deserted his position, probably when he realized that the chaotic situation made escape by chariot impossible, and attempted to escape on foot, probably in a northerly direction, since Heber the Kenite was encamped at Zaanaim, on the borders of Naphtali (see the note on 4:11).
4:17–22. The flight and death of Sisera. The captain of the shattered army, utterly exhausted from his strenuous and terrifying ordeal, was glad to avail himself of the offer of sanctuary in the tent of a woman. His ultimate destination was almost certainly the city of Hazor, in whose proximity the nomadic group of the Kenites had settled. The assurance of Jael that he need not fear, the hesitancy and courtesy of his address, the precautions he advised and the immediacy of sleep, all indicate a man at the end of his tether, shattered in mind and morale as well as weary of body. According to the conventions of the day he had every reason not to be suspicious; Jael herself appeared the personification of friendliness and consideration and, of even greater assurance, the offering and acceptance of hospitality in a nomad’s tent was, traditionally, a guarantee of protection. Moreover, any pursuer would hardly think to look in a woman’s tent for any man, let alone a weary fugitive, for this would be a breach of etiquette.
19. So Sisera was lulled into a false sense of security by this treacherous woman. Accepting her invitation he allowed her to cover him with a mantle (AV), a word which occurs only here and the meaning of which has caused conjecture. The most likely explanation is that it was a ‘fly-net’ rather than a rug (RV, RSV), the former being much more essential to a man in Sisera’s condition, dirty, caked with perspiration after his exertions, and seeking sleep. The request for water was answered generously, a skin of milk (RSV) being opened. The skins of animals were frequently used to store liquids, particularly milk, which could then be easily churned to produce curds. That this was the drink offered to Sisera is shown in the second half of 5:25 where ‘butter’ (AV, RV) is best rendered as ‘curds’ (RSV). Known generally as yoghurt, it is commonly given by modern-day Arabs (as leben or shensan) to those who are tired and it is usually the only sustenance when one of their number is ill. They also drink a kind of fermented milk which has soporific qualities, but it is not necessary to suggest that this was the refreshment proffered to Sisera. In his case there was no need to induce sleep; it came naturally and readily.
Jael then acted with callous efficiency. Sisera was not to know that the woman sheltering him was a member of a tribe which had strong ties with the Israelites and that he was, in fact, in the tent of an enemy. Her dexterity with the tent peg (RSV) and hammer, or wooden mallet, is explained by the fact that the erection and taking down of tents was the work of a woman. Stealthily she approached her sleeping, unsuspecting guest and with a few swift blows drove the tent peg into his temple and through his head, completely transfixing him. So violent were her movements that the peg itself went through into the ground. So Israel’s persecutor met a treacherous but swift death at the hands of a woman, itself a disgrace in the view of that age (cf. 9:54).
22. It is difficult to estimate the lapse of time before Barak appeared in pursuit of Sisera. It may have been several hours after the captain of the Canaanite army had first appeared at Jael’s tent. When he did arrive it was to find that the prophecy of Deborah had been fulfilled (cf. verse 9) and that the principal honour, of slaying Sisera, was not to be his.
4:23, 24. The end of Jabin. The historian, in completing the prose narrative, does not make extreme claims. The immediate capture of Hazor is not claimed any more than that of Harosheth of the Gentiles. What is asserted is that the back of the Canaanite domination was broken, and that the Israelites continued their pressure (the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed, AV, indicates that unabated pressure; cf. bore harder and harder, RSV) until Jabin and his kingdom were no more, a process which may have taken many years.
We have already alluded to the act of Jael as one of treachery and no attempt need be made to condone or whitewash either her or her action. We have, however, attempted to enter into the feelings of a downtrodden, cruelly oppressed people and to understand the very human reaction of savage delight in the death of their archenemy, and the gloating preservation of the gruesome details. We look back upon the incident through the eyes of Christ who taught us to love our enemies, to bless them that curse us, to do good to them that hate us and to pray for them who despitefully use us, and persecute us (Matt. 5:44). And, lest we think that this would be an impossible demand upon anyone in a comparable situation to that of the oppressed Israelites, let us remember that Christ, who gave us an example of longsuffering in his endurance of the mockery of a trial and a cruel death, is able by his indwelling to transform our weak, human natures into his own likeness.