f. The Song of Deborah (5:1–31)
f. The Song of Deborah (5:1–31)
The Song of Deborah is one of the finest examples of an ode of triumph preserved in Israelite literature and it is generally agreed that it is contemporary with the events it describes. Whilst the poem has undoubtedly suffered in transmission, as indicated by the large number of marginal notes in the English versions, the Hebrew still retains a vividness, an almost staccato effect of action and a spirit of sheer exultation that indicates a participant, or at least an eyewitness. It is beyond question one of the oldest elements in our present book of Judges and is therefore of great importance in its witness to the economic, social, political and religious conditions of the period. In all probability it was included in one of the anthologies of poetry which existed in ancient Israel. Two of these collections are mentioned specifically in the Old Testament. In Numbers 21:14 there is a reference to ‘the Book of the Wars of the Lord’, which presumably was an anthology of poems celebrating victory, always conceived as the work of the Lord himself. In Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 ‘the Book of Jashar’ is mentioned. The derivation of the title is uncertain; generally it is translated ‘upright’, in which case the title would be a prototype ‘Book of Golden Deeds’. But it has also been suggested that ‘Jashar’ is a shortened form of Israel, or a corruption of the word ‘song’.
The authorship of the poem is also a matter of conjecture. The first verse describes it as the song of Deborah and Barak, but in verse 12 both of the principals are addressed directly. This fact is not decisive, however, since direct allusions to the author by name occur in other Ancient Near Eastern texts. Verse 7 (AV, RV), in which Deborah speaks in the first person, appears conclusive, but most modern scholars (cf. RSV) render the verb as a second singular feminine, which is grammatically allowable. The matter is unimportant, but who better than Deborah would be fitted to describe the event, to pass judgment on the non-participating tribes and to express praise to the Lord for his intervention?
The poetic form is completely obscured in the AV and for this reason the RV, RSV and other modern translations are greatly to be preferred. A complete account of the features of Hebrew poetry would be out of place in a commentary of these dimensions but the main characteristics may be observed. Two principal devices were employed:
i. Parallelism. The unit of Hebrew poetry is normally not the single line but the couplet, with a short pause at the end of the first line and a longer pause at the end of the second. Occasionally a triplet, still as a well-defined unit, is substituted. This means that the association is one of thought not of sound, as in traditional English poetry; a mental picture is produced which is answered by another supplementary word-picture. Parallelism takes various forms, two of which appear prominently in the Song of Deborah. The first is synonymous or identical parallelism, where the thought of the first line is reproduced in the second with no marked variation, so that the lines reinforce each other. The second is climactic or stair-like parallelism, where part of the line is repeated and then a fresh detail added, thus carrying the movement of thought forward. The reader may care to look for examples of these in the poem.
ii. A system of rhythm or metre. In traditional English poetry there is a careful balance of the number of feet in each line, this balance being achieved in a number of possible combinations. In Hebrew each separate thought is expressed in a strongly accented word, which, with prefixes and suffixes, may be equivalent to a short sentence. Each of these words has a tone-syllable, which is particularly stressed and is itself determinative of the accent which falls upon all other syllables in the word. In over half of the Song of Deborah there are three of these words or beats to a line, with a little over a quarter employing a four-beat measure. Occasional variations are introduced, such as a four-word measure followed by a three-word measure, or the reverse. There is no suggestion that the poem is composed from different sources; such variations are a feature of ancient poetry, a fact amply attested by the Ugaritic texts. The general effect of this system, which unfortunately cannot be adequately reproduced in a translation, is to create an impression of vigour and movement.
Reference has been made to the alleged points of difference between the accounts in chapters 4 and 5. These include the absence of any reference to Jabin king of Hazor, or to Mount Tabor, in chapter 5; the inclusion of four other tribes besides Zebulun and Naphtali, the tribes who, alone, are mentioned in chapter 4; the location of the battle of chapter 5 south-westwards to Taanach and the waters of Megiddo, and the slight dissimilarities in the accounts of Sisera’s death. These differences are probably due to the incompleteness of the record. Possibly, as we have already suggested, there were two stages in the campaign, with a concerted action on the part of the tribes of the Esdraelon area following an initial success by the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali. It must also be remembered that the language of poetry is not always precise; elaborations and hyperbole are employed to increase the effect. Our preoccupation with historical details must not be allowed to cloud our appreciation of either account.
Before we begin our examination of the poem itself attention must be drawn to the view of God and his relationship to his people which is witnessed here. It was formerly thought that the religion of Israel evolved gradually over many centuries, culminating in the insights of the eighth-century prophets, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah. Scant attention was paid to the literature purporting to have come from an earlier period and the idea of the covenant-relationship existing in this early period was regarded as unlikely. The Song of Deborah, originating from the last decades of the twelfth century BC, is important because of its incidental allusions to the relationship between the nation and its God. The kings and princes of the surrounding nations are invited to take heed of the greatness of the God of Israel (3). The Lord (note the use of the name of the God of the covenant) is shown intervening on behalf of his people and fighting their battles, a theme which may be paralleled in the Pentateuch, the Historical Books and the Psalms. And despite the almost savage spirit of exultation that obtrudes itself, the writer is concerned for his glory. The covenant-relationship was clearly in existence at this time, and within that relationship the tribes have responsibilities to each other. Those not responding to the summons of Deborah were censured in terms that suggest an ought rather than a must. The principal point of the censure is not that they failed to come to the help of the other tribes, but that they failed to come to the assistance of the Lord himself (23), the covenant God. There are many indications of apostasy and moral laxity in Judges, but the evidence of a strong faith in God, a realization of his almighty power, his involvement in Israel’s situation and the existence of the covenant-bond, all of which may be seen in the Song of Deborah, do something to redress the situation.
5:1, 2. Invitation to praise. The opening verse of the chapter, in prose, was probably introduced by the editor when he incorporated the Song into his account of the judges. The original title may be preserved in verse 2, bless the Lord (RV, RSV), indicating that it was a song of praise. The remainder of the verse gives the setting of the occasion and records the spontaneous response of the people. Considerable discussion has centred on the first part of verse 2, which reads literally ‘in the breaking forth of the breakers in Israel’. One possible interpretation is that it refers to the response of the rulers of the people (RV, RSV), which restores the parallelism with the second part of the couplet. Another alternative translation is ‘When long locks of hair hung loose in Israel’, an allusion to the custom of allowing the hair, which was considered sacred, to grow during the period of fulfilment of a vow to the Lord (cf. Num. 6:5, 18; Acts 18:18). It was the practice of soldiers going out to battle to leave their hair uncut, which may suggest that they were engaged in a holy war. The custom speaks of complete dedication and in this sense also restores the parallelism of the verse, complementing the ready offering of the people.
5:3–5. The intervention of the Almighty. The kings and all persons of consequence (the meaning of princes) are invited to pay attention to the hymn of praise addressed to Israel’s God. Other nations surrounding Israel will fear and marvel when they hear of the mighty acts wrought for his people. The ascription of praise to the Lord is of great interest, since it appears to connect Sinai, the mount of the covenant, with Edom, an identification found elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g. Deut. 33:2; Ps. 68:7ff.; Hab. 3:3ff.). There is, of course, nothing sacrosanct in the traditional site of Sinai, Jebel Mûsā, in the Sinai Peninsula, and either site can be equated with the evidence of the wanderings in the wilderness. In poetic language the Song links the present deliverance with the past revelation at Sinai, when at the covenant-ceremony, God spoke to the accompaniment of a great storm and, possibly, an earthquake. The same Almighty God had gone before them on the present occasion and the singer attempts to convey something of the exceeding greatness of his power. The vividness and significance of the picture is increased if it be accepted that an unusually severe storm caused consternation and confusion in the army of the Canaanites. The whole of creation appeared to array itself on the side of the puny, ill-equipped Israelite force.
5:6–8. The effect of the Canaanite oppression. The theme of these verses is the impoverished, pitiful condition of Israel under the Canaanite yoke. The linking together of the names of Shamgar and Jael is surprising. We have already considered the unusual features of the former’s deliverance of the Israelites (see exegesis on 3:31). The point seems to be that, although these two were living, neither of them effected any really permanent release from the Canaanites. Various emendations have been made to remove the name of Jael from the poem, but none is really satisfactory.
In this turbulent period communications were disrupted. A slight change in vocalization allows highways (AV, RV) to be read as ‘caravans’ and this preserves the true meaning of the verb, caravans ceased (RSV), i.e. commercial trading was impossible and those who had to travel did so on the less-frequented routes, to avoid being molested. Agriculture was similarly affected by the depredations of the Canaanites, the small, unwalled villages of the Israelites being no protection against the forays of their aggressive neighbours. This desperate situation obtained until Deborah arose to effect the deliverance of the nation. Verse 8 gives a summary and a judgment upon Israel. They had forsaken the Lord and had chosen themselves new gods (cf. Deut. 32:17; Judg. 2:12, 17). The result of this was war, weakness and servitude. It has been objected that the situation immediately prior to Deborah’s deliverance was one of abject submission to a cruel bondage, not one of war in the gates. This objection has little weight, for in these chapters we see not the process but the end, when Israelite opposition had been effectively crushed. They had been deprived of their weapons (cf. 1 Sam. 13:22), although it may be unwise to accept this as an absolute statement. If it were, the battle at the Kishon could hardly have been undertaken. Probably the meaning is that these weapons dared not be displayed publicly. Forty thousand may be an indication of the available manpower of the tribes at that time. Certainly the miracle of the victory over Sisera’s well-equipped host is enhanced by these details, as is also the complete change in Israelite morale as a result of Deborah’s inspired leadership. These abject specimens, cowering under the cruel bondage, were the same men who plunged headlong into the valley to attack a vastly superior force. The difference made by a living faith in the living God is nothing less than sensational, and the words of Joshua, ‘One man of you puts to flight a thousand, since it is the Lord your God who fights for you’ (Josh. 23:10), were literally fulfilled on this occasion.
5:9–11. Invitation to testify. The thought of verse 2 is taken up again here, for the campaign could not have been undertaken without the support of the rulers; hence the prominence given to them throughout the poem. The words are most natural in the mouth of Deborah. With dramatic effect the transformed situation is depicted. No longer did the wayfarer travel furtively along the lesser-known tracks: there was a freedom of movement and a natural congregating at the wells, the obvious meeting-places of travellers. The whole population was exhorted to join in a hymn of praise to the Lord for the great deliverance. All classes were to participate: those who rode on white asses, i.e. the ruling classes (cf. 10:4; 12:14), as well as their less fortunate brethren who travelled on foot. The word translated rich carpets (judgment, AV, is quite misleading) means anything which is stretched out, possibly carpets or saddle-cloths, which may indicate yet another class, somewhat vaguely defined, but perhaps those who remained at home, in contrast to the two classes of travellers. The townsfolk were to assemble at the gates, the traditional place of assembly for judgment and discussion, but now the occasion of their gathering was a thanksgiving service.
Two points in verse 11 call for comment. The words (usually italicized) with which the sentence opens in the AV, They that are delivered, show that the translators have resorted to conjecture. The meaning of the Hebrew word translated archers (AV, RV) is uncertain, but most probably it has to do with some kind of musicians (RSV), most likely that class of wandering musicians who played the lyre. These minstrels were back at their accustomed places, but with a new song! Another point of interest concerns the triumphs of his peasantry in Israel (RSV), where the reference is to the sturdy yeomen (cf. verse 7), who formed the backbone of the army. The deeds of these heroic men were set alongside the righteous acts (AV, RV) or triumphs (RSV) of the Lord. Glory is given where it is due, but the contribution of the lesser participants is not overlooked.
5:12–18. The roll-call of the tribes. Inspired by the example of their leaders, the prompt response of many of the tribes is traced in this section, the absence of others being the more reprehensible in the light of such spontaneous support. The direct address to Deborah is not necessarily incompatible with her authorship of the poem.13 Before the tribes could be aroused to action she herself, at the word of the Lord (4:6), must be awakened from an apathetic acceptance of the situation. Similarly Barak, who fought so valiantly and gave such outstanding leadership, had to be shaken out of his weak acquiescence in the Canaanite bondage. Before the mass of the people could be revived there had to be a stirring in the hearts of those with the qualities of leadership. Verse 13, which appears so obscure in the AV, notes the general response of the people to the summons, the response of the particular tribes being listed in the succeeding verses:
Then down marched the remnant of the noble;
the people of the Lord marched down for him against the mighty (RSV).
The response was magnificent, and yet such were the effects of the twenty years of cruel oppression that the numbers were pathetically low, a fraction of the manpower available in the days of Israel’s supremacy.
14. The first part of the verse reads literally ‘From Ephraim their root in Amalek’, which has the obvious meaning ‘From Ephraim came those whose root was in Amalek’. The reference to Amalek is surprising and it has been held that it indicates a group of Amalekites, a semi-nomadic group like the Kenites, who had settled amongst the Ephraimites, as did Heber the Kenite a little further to the north. Since the Amalekites were the sworn enemies of Israel (see note on 3:13), this is unlikely. No more acceptable is the suggestion that Ephraim occupied the area once occupied by the Amalekites, there being no evidence of such a northward penetration by this group. A slight emendation makes sense of the line and preserves the unity of thought in verses 13–15, ‘From Ephraim they sprang forth into the valley’ (cf. RSV). The general picture is of the precipitous descent of the Israelites into the valley to engage the host of Sisera, with Benjamin in the lead, followed by Ephraim, Machir, Zebulun and Issachar. Machir normally refers to the settlement of the half-tribe of Manasseh eastward of the Jordan, but here it refers more naturally to the western section, with the territory of the six allied tribes giving some idea of the range of the Canaanite depredations. The primacy of the Benjamites is noteworthy, although reference has already been made to their prowess in battle (see note on 3:15–22; cf. note 20:12–17). A comparison of verse 14 and Hosea 5:8 suggests that their war-cry may have expressed this ascendancy, ‘After thee, Benjamin!’ Naphtali is not mentioned until verse 18 where, in conjunction with Zebulun, it is given an especially honoured place in the record.
15b–17. But if there was a ready acknowledgment of the participating tribes, there was also a stern rebuke for those who set their own safety before the claims of their brethren. The four tribes mentioned had their tribal portions well away from the battlefield and were probably not directly affected by the Canaanite oppression, but it is clear that the appeal made for their assistance fell upon deaf ears, for not even a token force was sent. The circumstances of these tribes may have made it impossible for them to respond to the appeal of their distressed brethren. The reference to Dan suggests that they had not yet migrated northward, and if this was correct they were probably already enduring the pressures from the Amorites and ‘the Peoples of the Sea’ which eventually made their original tribal portion untenable (see note on 1:34, 35). The plight of Asher was noted in 1:31, 32. Concerning Reuben and Gilead, two tribes whose holdings were in Transjordania, very little is known except that this area was itself subject to encroachments from the Moabites and Ammonites. Criticism of those who do not come to our aid in a time of distress can often be a condemnation of our own lack of alacrity in coming to the help of our brethren.
Before leaving this section, it must again be observed that this appeal to four tribes not immediately affected witnesses strongly to the essential unity of the tribes. Only Judah and Simeon are not mentioned. Their geographical remoteness was accentuated by political factors, notably the barrier caused by an unreduced Jerusalem and other towns on their northern frontier and, possibly, pressure by the Philistines on their western frontier.
5:19–22. The overwhelming of the Canaanites. The course of the battle has been dealt with in detail in the commentary on chapter 4 and no repetition is called for. The massed armies of the kings of the Canaanite city-states were met by the might of the forces of nature, operating at the behest of Israel’s God. The violent storm and the turbulence of the swollen Kishon were the chief architects of victory and the gallant ten thousand Israelites receive no mention in this section. The Canaanite kings came looking for the spoil of battle (19) but fled empty-handed, trusting to the speed of their galloping horses (22) which proved inadequate to save them.
The engagement moved westwards as the Israelites pursued the retreating Canaanites, but the decisive moment was at Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo. It has been suggested that Megiddo and Taanach, being only 5 miles apart, were too close to flourish at the same time and that the reference in verse 19 implies that Megiddo was not occupied at this particular time. Archaeological research indicates that Megiddo (Stratum VII) was destroyed in the period 1150–1125 BC, which allows the dating of Deborah’s victory c. 1125 BC.14
21. One brief exultant cry of victory punctuates this vivid description of an army’s annihilation. ‘March on, my soul, in strength!’ is more accurate than the reading of the AV, O my soul, thou hast trodden down strength.
5:23–27. Treachery and patriotism. The treachery of Meroz is deliberately contrasted with the patriotic action of Jael. A bitter curse was called upon Meroz for its lack of support, not simply to the Israelite army but to the Lord himself. Meroz may be the modern Khirbet Maurus, 7 miles south of Kedesh-naphtali. But whether this identification is accepted or not, it is clear that Meroz proved a notable exception to the ready response of the other tribes. Most likely it was in the area directly affected (unlike the four tribes whose rebuke is mild in comparison), and therefore its cowardly non-participation, possibly for fear of reprisals, was the more reprehensible. Jael, on the other hand, had shown no hesitation in murdering in cold blood the principal enemy of the Israelites, regardless of the consequences. The seemingly generous action of offering Sisera curds instead of milk, thus lulling him into a false sense of security, was the prelude to an act that, as has been noted,15 broke every accepted standard of hospitality. Every detail is dealt with with relish, and finer feelings vanished in the savage delight occasioned by Sisera’s death. The repetition in the poetical account, together with the uncertainty in translating several of the verbs in this description, account for most of the differences between this and the prose account.
5:28–30. The scene in Sisera’s household. There is an equally dramatic and vindictive note in this delineation of the apprehension of the mother of Sisera. It may be that the attention devoted to Jael and the state of a mother’s heart betokens the authorship of a woman. If so, the savage exultation in the gruesome or harrowing details illustrate Rudyard Kipling’s semi-humorous dictum that ‘the female of the species is more deadly than the male’! But allowing for this element, the description is vivid and moving. The delay in the loved one’s return has an underlying question, an agonized uncertainty, ‘Will he return?’ With anxious gaze Sisera’s mother stands at the window-lattice, looking for the chariot, or the reassuring beat of the horses’ hooves. The author of the poem knows that Sisera will never return; but imagination supplies a plausible explanation which could be advanced by the attendants and by Sisera’s mother herself. The captain of the host must superintend the division of the spoil so the very delay is suggestive of a rich booty. The ill-treatment which awaited the women folk of a defeated army is passed over without any twinge of conscience or pity. The word translated damsel (AV, RV) is contemptuous. Elsewhere in the Old Testament it means ‘womb’, and in the Moabite Stone it has the meaning ‘girl-slaves’. The nearest English equivalent is ‘wench’, and it is clear that these unfortunate captives would be used to gratify the lusts of their captors. War brings many vile effects in its train. The mother of Sisera would be much more interested in the richly embroidered dyed cloth which, as one of the principal indications of wealth and position, would be most likely reserved for the commanding officer; in imagination she would anticipate the use which she could make of it. At this point the poem ends, leaving to the imagination the thought that, instead of dyed work embroidered (RSV), there would be the sackcloth and ashes of mourning.
5:31. Final chorus. Many scholars regard this verse as a liturgical addition to the Song, expressing the sentiments of a later age and with distinct parallels in the Psalms (cf. Ps. 68:2b, 3). It may be objected to this that, if this verse is removed, the Song is left without its logical conclusion. The writer is concerned to stress the Lord’s intervention on their behalf and the inevitable corollary of this is that those who oppose him must perish, but those who love him and co-operate with him will prosper.