g. Gideon and the Midianites (6:1–8:28)
g. Gideon and the Midianites (6:1–8:28)
Gideon and Samson are dealt with in greater detail than any other of the judges. Three chapters (100 verses) are devoted to Gideon and four chapters (96 verses) to Samson. Most scholars accept the view that the Gideon narrative is composed of two strands, although it is generally admitted that it is impossible to distinguish them. There can be no fundamental objection to this, as composition and editorship are as much the province of inspiration as actual authorship. If the editor of Judges had two accounts of the same events he would probably allow complementary elements to lay side by side, although he would hardly be so undiscerning as to admit actual contradictions. Yet the acceptance of duplicate narratives must not be made lightly simply because of marked differences from our accepted conventions of literature. In the poem of Deborah attention has been drawn to the tendency to elaboration which is the consequence of the device of parallelism; a statement is made, then repeated in similar language or with significant additions before the thought is carried on. The basic attitude of mind expressed thus in poetry was inevitably revealed also in prose, and this may account for some of the alleged doublets. It is a matter of regret that much of the critical investigation of the structure of the Old Testament literature has been carried on in a vacuum, confining itself to the Scriptures, instead of including within its scope the contemporary literature of other adjacent peoples, to see whether similar phenomena are apparent there.
6:1–6. The oppression of Midian. The victory over Sisera and the Canaanite host, so manifestly the work of the Lord, would doubtless lead to a resurgence of Israel’s faith. But the passing of the years blurred the memory of the great deliverance and the next generation reverted to an easy-going syncretistic religion that again threatened to obliterate Israel’s distinctive religion. The historian saw the chastening hand of the Lord in a new and formidable oppression, spearheaded by the Midianites, who were traditionally related to the Israelites (Gen. 25:2). Midian was located south of Edom at the northern extremity of the Gulf of Aqaba. A semi-nomadic group, they were joined in their raids of Israel by the Amalekites, who occupied the area to the south of Judah, and the children of the east, a nomadic group from the Syrian desert. A new ‘secret weapon’ was employed in these forays in the use of the camel, and in this chapter there is the first documentation of the large-scale use of this animal in a military campaign. It gave the Midianites and their allies the immense advantage of a speedy, long-range fighting force and it is clear that the use of this angular and imposing beast struck terror in the hearts of the Israelites. The extent of these raids can be observed with the aid of an atlas: the tribe of Manasseh was principally affected, but the territories of Asher, Zebulun, Naphtali and Ephraim were also involved (6:35; 8:1), and penetration was made as far as Gaza, at the southern end of Philistia. The final battle took place in the valley of Jezreel (6:33). The non-mention of Issachar is surprising, since its territory must have been affected. This invasion appears to have been an annual event during the seven years of the Midianite oppression and in typically nomadic style the invaders came with their cattle and their tents (5), living off the land. The simile of locusts (RV, RSV) is an appropriate one, indicating the absolute devastation of these rapacious hordes as they moved from one area to another. The cumulative effect of these raids would be considerable: all agriculture would be affected and the plundering of Israel’s herds, crops and fruits would make for long, lean winters. Moreover, it was unsafe to dwell in open villages or even towns, the natural targets of an attacker seeking supplies or plunder; so the Israelites were forced into a primitive existence in the inaccessible mountainous regions (2).
6:7–10. The prophetic condemnation. The children of Israel appear to have turned to the Lord in their extremity as a last resort, which hardly indicates a vital religious faith. The reason for their misfortune was brought home to them by an unnamed prophet whose words were similar to those of the angel of the Lord at Bochim (2:1ff.). The fundamental failure of the Israelites was their forgetfulness of the implications of the covenant-relationship, the God who had done great things for them required loyal obedience, which they failed conspicuously to give. The reference to the gods of the Amorites (10; cf. note on 1:4) may confirm the locale of this persecution as the central hill-country.
6:11–24. The call of Gideon. The alternation of the phrases used to describe Gideon’s divine visitor shows that the angel of the Lord was used synonymously with the Lord. The theophany was in human form, as was usual in the earlier part of the Old Testament period, and the language was strongly anthropomorphic, which allowed full personality to the Deity. The site of Ophrah (11) is not definitely known, but the detail given serves to distinguish it from the Benjamite Ophrah (Josh. 18:23; 1 Sam. 13:17). The oak, or sacred tree, was the site where the oracles of God were traditionally given (cf. 4:5). Gideon’s father, Joash, was descended from Abiezer, the son of Manasseh, whose tribal portion was west of the Jordan (Josh. 17:2). Some extent of the influence of the Midianite raids can be gained by the reference to Gideon beating out wheat in the winepress, which was normally a hollow carved out of the rock with a channel connecting it to a lower trough. The grapes were placed in this depression and trodden out by foot, the juice running down into the lower receptacle. Threshing was normally carried out with a threshing-sledge drawn by oxen, in an exposed place so that the wind could carry away the chaff, but Gideon was improvising in the winepress, away from the sight of marauding bands. The same reference indicates the smallness of the harvest. It could be beaten out with a rod or staff in a confined place.
The dialogue between the angel of the Lord and Gideon is not without its humorous undertones, as Gideon, described as a mighty man of valour16 (12) and as the prospective saviour of his people, protests, in contrast, his utter inadequacy and weakness. However, it is when a man is fully conscious of his own weakness and the difficulties of the situation that the Lord can take and use him. The man who relies upon his own innate strength is not likely to draw upon the Lord’s grace, nor give him the glory for anything that is achieved. It is also equally true that the Lord saw not only the man that was—weak and timorous, but the man that could be—strong, resolute and courageous.
13–16. The complaint of Gideon was doubtless shared by most of his contemporaries: the Lord had forsaken them; his mighty exploits were in the past, not the present. Nor was Gideon convinced by the assurance in the Lord’s reply (14) that deliverance was at hand. Instead he described himself as the least likely person for such an assignment. The words may indicate his natural humility, but may also be based on the hard facts of experience. Gideon knew just how poor his father was at this time of crisis. The second assurance of the Lord (16) seems to have had a greater effect upon Gideon. In passing, it should be observed that there are timeless assurances in verses 14 and 16 for all those who are called to the work of the Lord. There is might in the consciousness of the Lord’s commission (14); there is a greater might in the consciousness of divine companionship (16). Have not I sent thee? and Surely I will be with thee have their New Testament parallel in Matthew 28:19, 20 and they have been a source of strength and inspiration to many who, like Gideon, have been called to the Lord’s service.
17–24. Gideon was not fully aware of the identity of the One who was commissioning him, but he did realize that there was something unique about him, hence his request for a sign and his offering of a present (Heb. minḥâ), a word which was often used of the freewill offering in Israel’s sacrificial system, but was also used of the tribute brought to a king or a superior (cf. note on 3:15). The leisureliness of the East is reflected in the time it must have taken to prepare such a meal (cf. Gen. 18:6ff.). The ephah of flour (19) alone weighed between 34 and 45 pounds, which, in a time of scarcity, was a not inconsiderable gift. The food was disposed of in accordance with the instructions of the angel of the Lord (20), the rock upon which the food was placed being probably a part of the winepress itself. It has been suggested that it was an ancient rock-altar with cup-shaped hollows for receiving libations; but such an altar, while well known in antiquity, is not necessarily indicated. It was when the meal was consumed with fire at the touch of the angel’s rod, followed immediately by the disappearance of the angel himself (21), that Gideon realized with terror the nature of his heavenly visitor (22). It was widely believed in Israel that no man could see God face to face and live (Gen. 16:13; 32:30; Exod. 20:19; 33:20; Judg. 13:22; Isa. 6:5). Gideon, assured that no harm would befall him, immediately erected an altar, the name of which, The Lord is peace (RSV), reflected the opening words of the divine promise. That altar, which doubtless became a centre of interest and worship following the sweeping victory of Gideon, still existed in the editor’s day, which indicates a considerable lapse of time, otherwise there would be no point in the observation.
6:25–32. Gideon’s first assignment. No lengthy period intervened between Gideon’s call and the assignment of his first task, which was, significantly, near at hand. The man who was to throw off the yoke of Midian and bring his people back to a true faith in the Lord must first of all set things right in his own home. There are strange inconsistencies in the narrative which reflect the syncretistic tendencies of the age and suggest strongly that, for Joash, Yahweh was regarded as one of the Baal gods. His own name is compounded with the name of Yahweh (lit. ‘Yahweh has given’) but the alternative name of his son, Jerubbaal (meaning ‘may Baal give increase’), incorporates the name of Baal. Later on the name was deliberately emended to Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. 11:21), the Hebrew word bosheth, meaning ‘shame’, being substituted for Baal, the Canaanite god whose worship had led Israel astray (other examples of this tendency may be seen in the names Ish-baal = Ishbosheth; Merib-baal = Mephibosheth). The sacred oak is contrasted with the Asherah (grove, AV, see note on 3:7), a wooden pillar representing the sacred tree, which was regularly associated with the Canaanite cultus, and the altar which Gideon built contrasts with the Baal altar of his father. Even the reference to the bull which Gideon employed and then sacrificed may fit into this pattern, for the bull was the sacred animal of the fertility cults. El himself, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, was often distinguished by the epithet ‘Bull’. This particular animal may already have been designated for sacrifice to Baal.
The altar which Gideon had constructed at the place of the theophany (24) was in no way connected with the one which he was now commanded to erect upon the top of this rock, in the ordered place (26, AV). The rock was not the rock of the winepress, but a stronghold (RV, RSV) or fortress, perhaps a natural strong-point like an inaccessible crag, which formed a place of retreat and refuge for Joash and his neighbours when the Midianites were in the vicinity. The phrase in the ordered place refers to the construction of an altar, i.e. with stones laid in due order (RSV). The references to the bullock and especially to the ten menservants suggest that the family of Gideon was not so insignificant as he had inferred in verse 15. Indeed, Joash appears as the custodian of the Baal-sanctuary which served the whole community. Gideon carried out his orders to the letter, but not in the broad light of day, for such was the reverence paid to Baal that he feared not only the other inhabitants of the city but even the members of his own household (27). That his fears were well founded appears in the prompt reaction of the townsfolk when they saw the devastation wrought in their sanctuary (28). Their enquiries soon implicated Gideon (a secret known to ten men is no secret) and this led to the demand for his death, a suggestion which was met by the sound common sense of Joash. If Baal was a real god it was an insult worthy of death to intervene on his behalf (31); a god who was really God could vindicate himself, without the necessity for human interference. If this advice had been followed by the devotees of the world’s religions, not excepting many who claimed to be Christians, the world would have been spared a great deal of torture, bloodshed and untold misery. Joash’s defence of his son was possibly the first step in his own spiritual rehabilitation.
6:33–35. Gideon’s response to the Midianite invasion. The annual invasion of the Midianites and their allies is indicated here. For the eighth year in succession they crossed the Jordan and encamped in the valley of Jezreel at the eastern end of Esdraelon, which was not only a particularly fertile area, but also provided a convenient point for raids on the surrounding areas. It is known that Gideon’s brothers were slain at Tabor, in this area (8:18), but it is by no means certain that it was on this particular occasion. Gideon became a typical, charismatic judge when the Spirit of the Lord came upon him (34). The verb is suggestive, meaning ‘to clothe with’ (cf. RV mg): ‘the Spirit of the Lord clothed itself with Gideon’ betokening complete possession (cf. 1 Chr. 12:18; 2 Chr. 24:20, where the same verb occurs, and see note on 3:10). Jacob M. Myers observes, ‘The spirit of the Lord became incarnate in Gideon, who then became the extension of the Lord.’17 Thus equipped, Gideon was ready for the immense task that awaited him and the summons went out to the tribes (35). The fact that the men of Abiezer, Gideon’s home town, were the first to respond, must have been an encouragement to him and shows that his earlier resolute action had caused no lasting rift. Manasseh, his own tribe, likewise rallied to his support, quickly followed by representatives from Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali (see the note on 6:1–6), although the full contingents from these tribes may not have participated in the battle until after the initial success (cf. 7:23). The omission of Ephraim, the most powerful of the tribes, may reveal the timidity of Gideon even at this stage. Perhaps he feared the reaction of the Ephraimite rulers if he, a member of a less powerful tribe, should be presumptuous enough to set himself up as a leader. In view of the sequel (7:24; cf. 8:1ff.) the failure to summon the Ephraimites was significant.
6:36–40. The sign of the fleece. Gideon’s faith was not constant; it knew moments of uncertainty as well as heights of greatness. The patience of the Lord is remarkably shown in this section, in which Gideon twice sought confirmation of the challenge presented to him. The Lord very graciously accommodated himself to Gideon’s request, understanding fully the frailty of human nature (cf. Ps. 103:14). The reason for the change in the detail of the sign was probably Gideon’s realization that the fleece would absorb a heavy dew much more readily than the rock of the threshing-floor and would therefore dry much less quickly when the sun arose. The reverse would be the greater miracle and Gideon asked for this, conscious that he was coming very close to angering God by his lack of trust and yet searching desperately for confirmation of the divine promise. This was readily forthcoming, for the Lord deals more tenderly and graciously with his children than any earthly father.
7:1–8. Strange generalship. Gideon and his army took up their positions at the spring of Harod, which has been identified with the modern ‘Ain Jalud, at the foot of Mount Gilboa. Just northwards across the valley of Jezreel, less than 5 miles from the Israelite force, was the Midianite encampment by the hill of Moreh. The Midianites were obviously aware of the presence of the Israelite army and their intelligence service knew the name of its leader (7:14), but it does not seem to have been regarded as a serious threat; probably they felt secure in their greatly superior numerical strength and the confidence engendered by the success of the seven preceding years.
Before the engagement in the conflict Gideon was commanded to reduce his army from 32,000 men to a paltry 300, the number appearing the more insignificant in view of the strength of the opposing army (described in hyperbolic language in verse 12). The point is often stressed in the Old Testament that mere numbers themselves are no guarantee of success; it is the presence of the Lord that ensures victory and he is able to work through a handful of dedicated men. The glory of that victory was to be manifestly the Lord’s, not men’s (2; cf. Deut. 8:17; Ps. 115:1).
There were two stages in the reduction of Gideon’s army. First, in accordance with the provision of Deuteronomy 20:8, all those who had no real heart for the battle were to be released. Fear is contagious and could have disastrous effects upon an army, even reaching panic proportions, as in the case of the Midianite host. Nevertheless it is a somewhat shattering discovery to find that more than two-thirds of Gideon’s army melted away when given such an opportunity! The reference to mount Gilead (3, AV, RV) is enigmatic, as Gilead was across the Jordan, and there is no other known place with the same name. Most likely the reference is to Mount Gilboa, the site of Gideon’s camp. Whilst the first stage in the reduction of the number was concerned with the morale of the army, the reason for the second step is not immediately apparent, as is witnessed by the diverse explanations of commentators. It may be that we are not to look for any explanation other than the desire to reduce the number by one means or another. However, it may be that the second test placed a premium upon alertness and the display of a soldierly spirit that took care not to be caught off-guard. Those who were rejected were those who, casting caution to the winds, dropped to their knees to drink. Those who were retained were those who lapped as a dog laps, a description that has perplexed many. Obviously it cannot mean that the 300 used their tongues to lap up the water from the spring, since this would involve falling upon their knees like the others and, in any case, the use of the hand is specifically indicated (6). The best explanation appears to be that the 300 used their hands as a dog uses its tongue to scoop up the water while they remained on their feet, watchful and prepared for any emergency. Such was the confidence in victory that the rejected 9,700 were allowed to return home!
The earlier part of verse 8 (AV) needs clarification. It cannot have been the 300 men who were supplied with victuals, for their lack of provisions is expressly noted in 8:4, 5, and, moreover, the nature of the projected campaign required them to be unencumbered. Most likely the reference to victuals refers to the earthenware vessels (jars, RSV) in which the provisions were stored, a suggestion strengthened by the mention of trumpets. Three hundred men would not all possess trumpets, nor would there be a sufficient number of pitchers or jars to effect the ruse employed to terrify the Midianites, so before the larger company departed any deficiency in these items was made good. This, of course, anticipates verses 16–18 and shows that Gideon was planning at an early stage for the surprise attack. How else could 300 men take on a multitude?
7:9–15. Confirmation of victory. The summons to attack the Midianites, although accompanied by an absolute assurance of victory, provided for a further strengthening of Gideon’s faith, and it is noteworthy that he availed himself of the opportunity. The witness to the underlying qualms of Gideon is true to human nature, for the general who appears strong and resolute before his men is often subject to fears within. It is also indicative of the veracity of the narrative, for such hesitancy on the part of one of Israel’s heroes is not likely in a fabrication. Gideon and his servant Phurah went down into the valley and crossed to the encampment of the enemy where, in spite of their superior strength, a watch was being maintained. The armed men that were in the host (11, AV) may be a reference to the main striking force of the Midianites, which would carry out the plundering raids whilst the base camp was guarded by less able forces. This élite group, better equipped and disciplined, may have been disposed around the perimeter of the camp (RV, RSV) to afford maximum protection. The sheer weight of numbers of the invaders is again stressed (12) to indicate the magnitude of Gideon’s task.
The two men overheard a couple of the Midianite sentries conversing about a dream which one had had. Dreams were considered of great importance in ancient times, especially if the dreamer was a man of rank or authority, for the gods were conceived to make known their will or desires by this means. Every dream was believed to be capable of interpretation, although this was, of course, the point where difficulties arose. It is generally maintained that the cake of barley bread (13) represented the poor yeoman farmer of Israel, whose staple crop was barley, whilst the tent was the natural symbol for a nomadic community like the Midianites. The Hebrew word for cake, found nowhere else in Scripture, is quite appropriate, as the context demands something circular. G. R. Driver suggests a connection with an Arabic verb meaning ‘dry and crackled’, or ‘putrid’, and observes ‘a stale loaf, going bad and hard, would be much more likely than a soft and crumbly loaf of new bread to go bouncing into the camp’.18 The meaning of the dream was apparent to the second soldier (14) and such an interpretation, coming from a Midianite source, provided Gideon with the final assurance which he sought. With gratitude in his heart for such an encouraging sign he first worshipped the One who had dealt so graciously with him and then returned to his own small company to share with them the conviction of a complete triumph (15; cf. verse 9).
7:16–22. The rout of the Midianites. The Israelites were divided into three companies, a stratagem adopted on many occasions in the Old Testament period (cf. 1 Sam. 11:11; 2 Sam. 18:2), but never did an army advance with such a motley assortment of equipment! It seems unnecessarily pedantic to suggest that verse 16 is a clear indication of duplication on the assumption that it would take three hands to hold a trumpet, a flaming torch and a pitcher to conceal the light of the torch, and to protect it from the wind. The trumpets at this early stage were usually made of the horns of rams or cattle, attached to the wearer in such a way that, when they were not in use, the hands were free to wield weapons. At the moment when the trumpets were blown the torch and the pitcher could be held temporarily in the one hand without undue difficulty. Gideon’s instructions (17, 18) were that the Israelites were to imitate his action, and his reference to the blowing of trumpets is given as an illustration of this. It does not mean that this strand in the narrative had no knowledge of the use of pitchers and torches. Nor need it be assumed that the trumpets were blown once only and that verses 20 and 22 are therefore witnesses to the duplicate accounts. It is expressly stated that the Israelites maintained their positions in the early part of the proceedings (21) and it can be imagined that they would continue to make as much noise as possible, under Gideon’s direction, to add to the atmosphere of confusion. The general order of events seems to have been, first a loud concerted blast on the trumpets, then the shattering of 300 pitchers followed by a thunderous battle-cry, after which the trumpets sounded forth again. Until such time as they pursued after the fleeing remnants of a once-proud army, it is probable that trumpet-blasts and battle-cries alternated.
The effect of such a clamour, with 300 waving torches creating the impression of a great host, must have been shattering. The time is noted precisely as the beginning of the middle watch (19), i.e. 10 p.m. on the assumption that the hours of darkness were divided into three and not four watches. Those not involved in the first or second watches would be in the deep sleep of the earlier part of the night, whilst those who had just been relieved would still be moving about the camp, thus increasing the fear of those awakened by the din, that the enemy had already penetrated the camp. The clamour would also cause unrest among the large numbers of camels (12), possibly leading to a stampede. It is not surprising that in the resultant confusion soldiers lashed out at everyone who loomed up in the darkness, not knowing who was friend or foe: all the host ran, and cried, and fled (21, AV). The verbs in this verse describe graphically the process of panic which struck the Midianites: ran, which appears tautologous to fled, is never found in the Old Testament with the meaning of running away in flight. Its meaning here undoubtedly suggests the first reaction of the Midianites when their slumber was so rudely shattered; ‘they leapt up’, in alarm, uttered a loud cry of alarm and fled precipitately.
22. The natural line of flight for the Midianites was eastwards down the valley and over the Jordan into the region from which they had attacked Israel, and that they took this route is confirmed by the instructions to the Ephraimites to secure the fords of the Jordan (24). All three towns mentioned were in Transjordania and each may be located with reference to Jabesh-gilead: Zererath (or Zaretan) was 10 miles due south; Abel-meholah was about 6 miles east and Tabbath about 7 miles south-south-east. The mention of Succoth and Penuel at a later stage of the flight (8:5, 8; see also 8:11) indicates the general south-easterly direction the Midianites took. A wide dispersion of the survivors is likely in such a situation.
7:23–25. Reinforcements for Gideon. No doubt the inhabitants of the hill-country to the north and south of the valley of Jezreel were keeping a close watch on the situation, so it would not take long to bring them into action following the rout of the Midianites. The initial summons (6:35) had gone to the tribes of Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali. Now it appears that a fresh call for assistance was issued. Those who had formerly been so fearful would take courage on hearing of Gideon’s success and it is probable that most of the members of his augmented army were among the original 32,000. Gideon now found the necessary confidence to approach the Ephraimites, whose tribal position south of Manasseh would enable them to intercept the remnants of the fleeing Midianite army. Specific instructions were given to them to secure the fords. The location of the waters unto Beth-barah (AV) is completely unknown, but the reference shows that it must be distinguished from the Jordan. Most likely they were asked to take the fords of the minor tributaries of the Jordan, thus sealing off the escape route along the western bank of the river. The Ephraimites carried out their commission and slew two of the Midianite princes, Oreb (Raven) and Zeeb (Wolf), at places which are referred to elsewhere only in Isaiah 10:26, and which cannot be identified. The arrangements for the secondary phases of the campaign must have taken some time, so that by the time the Ephraimites had taken up their positions some detachments of the enemy had already crossed the Jordan, pursued by Gideon and the original army (8:4). It was in Transjordania, therefore, that the heads of the two princes were presented to Gideon.
8:1–3. Resentment and appeasement. The tribe of Ephraim appears to have enjoyed a supremacy over the other tribes during the earlier period of the settlement. Its territory in the central highlands was one of the few areas where the Conquest was in any way complete and the Ephraimites, preserved by their central position from many of the incursions of Israel’s hostile neighbours, experienced a far greater freedom to consolidate themselves than did the other tribes. The two most prominent sanctuaries of the judges’ period, Bethel and Shiloh, which functioned as the rallying-point of the tribes, were situated within its boundaries and this fact undoubtedly further increased its prestige. The similarities between the incident noted here and that concerning Jephthah (12:1–6) are apparent, but the sequels are so diverse that no confusion of each need be postulated. Both incidents are completely in accord with the temper of the Ephraimites, of whom Gideon obviously stood in some awe. It has already been suggested that his hesitation to call upon the Ephraimites for help was caused by his reluctance to appear to be assuming the leadership; now this omission called forth a sharp rebuke from them. Perhaps this was not altogether disinterested, since there was obviously a prospect of considerable booty following Gideon’s victory. The answer of Gideon is an excellent illustration of the maxim that ‘a soft answer turneth away wrath’ (Prov. 15:1). No mention was made of his own prowess, or of his position at the head of a group of tribes which excluded Ephraim. Instead he conveyed the impression that his own contribution was insignificant in comparison to that of the Ephraimites, and that the operation of his own contingent (the vintage of Abiezer, 2) was a somewhat small-scale effort. Mollified by this flattery the Ephraimites calmed down, Gideon’s tactful action having averted a potentially dangerous situation. This is in marked contrast to the response of Jephthah in a similar crisis.
8:4–9. The refusal of hospitality. It is probable that 8:1–3 are out of chronological order in their present position, having been set there following the recording of Ephraim’s intervention in 7:24, 25. The adventures of the original 300 are now resumed. Some indication of the disorderliness of the precipitate flight of the Midianites can be gained by reference to the Israelite forces taking part in the mopping-up operations. Gideon appears to have made no attempt to integrate his force with that of the men of Naphtali, Asher and Manasseh (7:23). The lack of an effective rearguard action by the Midianites allowed his puny force to forge ahead as fast as possible, whilst the hastily assembled, allied supporting force made its own way in pursuit of the widely separated stragglers. Somewhere in this confused chapter of events came the sealing-off of the fords by the Ephraimites.
The army of Gideon had been equipped for a surprise attack, not a lengthy pursuit of a routed army, but Gideon doubtless expected to obtain supplies from the Israelite tribes situated eastward of the Jordan. In this he was disappointed, for the citizens of Succoth and Penuel refused to assist him, considering it expedient not to lay themselves open to reprisals from the Midianites. Gideon may have won a great victory, but Zebah and Zalmunna were still at liberty. The reply of the officials of Succoth (6) showed that they gave Gideon’s minute peasant-army little chance of capturing the leaders of an elusive and still numerous semi-nomadic group operating in conditions favourable to them. The recollection of at least seven years’ domination was not dimmed by what could prove to be a passing victory. This unpatriotic action indicates the breakdown of the tribal unity which led to the virtual separation of the eastern tribes from their brethren west of the Jordan. Gideon’s harsh words (7, 9), compared with the mild answer to the Ephraimites (2, 3), reveal his reaction to such treachery. The exact meaning of the punishment in store for the men of Succoth (7) is not clear, but as the word tear (AV, RV) means ‘to thresh’ or flail (RSV), it may have been a threat to drag them over thorns as a threshing-sledge is dragged over grain, or to lay them upon thorns and thresh them by drawing threshing-sledges over them. In any case an unpleasant fate is indicated by these words and one that was destined to end in certain death.
5. Succoth was in the tribal portion of Gad, on the eastern edge of the Jordan valley just northwards of the Jabbok. Penuel (8) lay by the Jabbok about 5 miles to the east of Succoth. It was the scene of Jacob’s supernatural encounter (Gen. 32) and its importance is shown by the fact that a tower was built there, into which the inhabitants could retreat in an emergency (cf. 9:47, 51). The distance of these towns from the scene of the initial battle must have been at least 50 miles.
6. Zebah (meaning ‘sacrifice’) and Zalmunna (‘withheld its hospitality’) have significant names in the context of the narrative, and it has been suggested that they are not original but were given in jest by the victorious Israelites. However, recent research on Midianite proper names, based on archaeological evidence, suggests that they may be genuinely Midianite.
8:10–12. The final rout of the Midianites. The remnants of the once-mighty Midianite army must have considered themselves safe when they reached Karkor, by the Wadi Sirhan, well to the east of the Dead Sea, but they reckoned without the tenacity of Gideon and his men, who must have secured provisions en route. Not all the cities east of Jordan were as boorishly self-interested as Succoth and Penuel. The site of Nobah is not known, but Jogbehah was situated between 15 and 16 miles southeast of Penuel. Gideon, following by the way of them that dwelt in tents (AV, RV), i.e. along the caravan routes (cf. RSV), fell upon the Midianites who, secure in this remote area, had apparently neglected to set a watch. This second appearance of Gideon and his men, so far from the hill of Moreh, struck further terror into their demoralized antagonists and led to further headlong flight. To say that Gideon discomfited (12, AV, RV) the host appears tautologous after the smiting of the host and the capture of its kings had been noted. G. F. Burney, by altering the final letter of the Hebrew word, emends it to read ‘he devoted to destruction’.19 More plausible is G. R. Driver’s association with an Arabic verb meaning ‘to part’, ‘scatter’ or ‘disperse’, indicating the final dispersion of an army which had lost all morale and cohesion.20 The capture of the Midianite kings would make it difficult for the surviving Midianites to regroup and reassert themselves, but Gideon wisely withdrew before his own position became vulnerable. A great and decisive victory had been consolidated by the dogged and courageous persistence of Gideon and his men, always outnumbered by their enemies.
8:13–17. Vengeance upon Succoth and Penuel. Before the sun was up (13, AV) should be read by the ascent of Heres (RSV), a place which has not been identified. The sweeping victory and the consequent spoils that fell into the hands of the victorious 300 did not lessen Gideon’s determination to show to others that the deplorable conduct of the men of Succoth and Penuel could not escape unpunished. There is a certain rough justice in his concern that all the guilty men of Succoth should suffer, and the names of the city officials were written down by the captured youth. It is particularly unfortunate that the translation of the AV and RV, described (14), should obscure this last fact, which is a vital witness to the wide dissemination of the arts of writing and reading (cf. RSV, wrote down). The development of the alphabetical script, with its limited number of letters compared to the multitude of elements in ideographic or syllabic writing, was one of the great steps forward in civilization, and brought writing within the compass of this young man of Succoth, as well as of Gideon himself. Possibly the youth used a sharp-pointed instrument to scratch the words upon a fragment of pottery or a piece of shale, a method frequently employed for much of the Old Testament period. Armed with this list Gideon reminded the rulers of Succoth of their taunt (15, cf. verse 6), the presence of the captured kings indicating that he had power to carry out his intention. He then proceeded to show equal resolution in carrying out his threat and these inhospitable men were subjected to a form of torture which almost certainly ended in their death (cf. the fate which befell a similar group in Penuel, where Gideon again showed himself to be a man of his word). The punishment was drastic and it witnesses to the heinousness of the offence in Gideon’s eyes.
8:18–21. The slaughter of the Midianite kings. It may be assumed that the scene had now reverted to Ophrah, since Jether, Gideon’s first-born son, would not have accompanied the 300 warriors in their exacting campaign through Transjordania. Up to this point Gideon’s main concern had been the deliverance of his downtrodden countrymen from the Midianite menace; but now a secondary concern is introduced, the exaction of blood revenge for the death of his brothers at the hands of the Midianites. The question of verse 18 is literally, ‘Where are the men …?’ (cf. RSV), and this is best rendered idiomatically, ‘What about the men you slew at Tabor?’ Having dealt with the national crisis, Gideon was now free to settle his own private account with Zebah and Zalmunna. There is no means of establishing the time or the circumstances of the death of his brothers. It could have been in a preliminary skirmish when Gideon’s army was assembling, or in a Midianite campaign of a previous year. If it was the latter case Gideon was clearly lacking in courage to avenge his brothers’ deaths before the divine intervention. Verse 19 may suggest that his brothers had been captured by the Midianites and subsequently put to death, not killed in the heat and anonymity of battle, and that the two kings were therefore directly responsible. Gideon’s basically humane nature is revealed in the latter part of the verse, but, according to the harsh standards of his day, he had no alternative but to exact vengeance. The reply of the two kings (18), who knew full well that they were marked out for death, hardly answers Gideon’s question. It is clear that they recalled the incident and Gideon’s words probably made them aware of the likeness between the men they had slain and the man who now confronted them. There is also an incidental witness to the imposing appearance of Gideon. The command of a father to his son to slay two kings in cold blood is indicative of the general standards of the age, which were not those of the New Testament.21 It would be accounted an honour for a youth to slay such important prisoners of war, and a corresponding disgrace for the captives themselves.
The Midianite kings showed considerable courage in the way they faced death. It was no shame to die by the hand of a warrior like Gideon, but a youth unskilled in warfare would hack and bungle the execution, and even these brave men flinched at such a prospect (the pronoun thou in verse 21 is emphatic; cf. RSV, Rise yourself). The situation was saved by Jether’s inability to carry out the distasteful assignment, so the end came swiftly at the hand of Gideon. The ornaments (AV; the word indicates that they were crescent-shaped, RV, RSV) which adorned their camels became part of the spoils of war. Such crescents are mentioned in the Bible only in this chapter and Isaiah 3:18, but crescent-moon-shaped ornaments have been found at many excavated sites in Palestine. They are widely used by the Arab peoples up to the present day.
8:22, 23. Invitation to kingship. It is not clear how representative was the delegation from the men of Israel who requested Gideon to establish a dynastic rule. It could have been limited to a relatively small area (cf. the extent of Abimelech’s rule in chapter 9), and it is not easy to envisage the powerful and proud tribe of Ephraim accepting a king from another tribe. However, this section is of great importance in any consideration of the period of the judges. In an acute crisis involving a number of the tribes the courageous action of an individual had integrated the resources of the tribes and had averted disaster. Such was the sense of gratitude that the throne was offered to the deliverer. It was not accepted, but it was only a matter of time before an even greater emergency, involving a majority of the tribes, precipitated a similar situation and led to a demand for a single ruler to co-ordinate the forces of the tribes. It was the Philistine pressure which provided such a stimulus and led to the demand to ‘make us a king to judge us like all the nations’ (1 Sam. 8:5). Gideon’s reply was a model of noble unselfishness which recognized the essential fact that the nation had a king if they would only acknowledge him. Their king was Yahweh, who was all to them and more than the kings of other nations were to their subjects (cf. 1 Sam. 10:19). The government in Israel was essentially a theocracy, not a monarchy, and even when the monarchy was introduced it was qualified by this consideration. Gideon’s action in resolutely thrusting from him the prospect of personal advancement was exemplary and merits the highest praise.
However, not all scholars have accepted the transparent meaning of verse 23 that Gideon refused the monarchy. G. Henton Davies suggests that his refusal was, in reality, ‘an acceptance couched in the form of a pious refusal with the motive of expressing piety and of gaining favour with his would be subjects’.22 This he supports by an examination of three other incidents, the ‘anonymous refusal’ of Exodus 4:13ff. and the transactions of Genesis 23 and 2 Samuel 24, where property ostensibly offered as a gift passes hands for a considerable price. That Gideon exercised many of the privileges of a typical monarch of the Ancient Near East has often been pointed out: his use of the ephod oracle (see note on 8:27); his use of jewellery and royal raiment (8:26); the creation of a harem (8:30); the name given to one of his sons, Abimelech meaning ‘my father a king’ (8:31); the assumption that his sons would succeed him (9:2); the wrangling between Abimelech and Jotham over the succession; even the reference to the kingly stature of Gideon and his brothers (8:18), all these have been held to indicate the position which Gideon, in fact, held. But against this view, verse 29 suggests strongly that Gideon, having refused the monarchy, retired into private life, albeit with a considerable reputation and private fortune. The nation was not yet ready for a monarchy and Gideon’s deference to the Ephraimites (see note on 8:1–3) may have had a part in his refusal of this honour.
8:24–28. Gideon’s ephod. The final chapter of Gideon’s life appears as a distinct anticlimax to the heroic actions of the earlier section, and the man who had given such a magnificent lead to his fellows now sets a deplorable example of self-indulgence in which he, his family and the whole nation were involved. Perhaps it is easier to honour God in some courageous action in the limelight of a time of national emergency than it is to honour him consistently in the ordinary, everyday life, which requires a different kind of courage. Gideon, who came through the test of adversity with flying colours, was not the first nor the last to be less successful in the test of prosperity. The request of the people to him is countered by his request for earrings captured from their foes; the possible alternative, ‘noserings’, is less likely since these appear to have been used only by women in the Old Testament period (as in Gen. 24:22; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12). These Midianites are described as Ishmaelites, an unusual reference since the Midianites traced their descent through Keturah (Gen. 25:2), the Ishmaelites through Hagar (Gen. 16:15). The probable explanation is that the term Ishmaelites had come to be used very loosely to describe any trading nomadic group (cf. Gen. 37:25, 27, 28; 39:1).23 The amount of gold (26) collected in this spontaneous offering was incredible, amounting to between 40 and 75 pounds’ weight, depending on whether the light or heavy shekel was employed. It illustrates both the extent of the victory and the esteem in which Gideon was held. A further indication of the vast amount of booty gained is found in the reference to the crescents (see note on verse 21), pendants (AV, collars), purple garments and camel ornaments, which had nothing to do with the matter in hand (i.e. the construction of an ephod), but reflected the generous response of Gideon’s men, who gave more than was requested of them.
27. The nature of the ephod has been a matter of conjecture. The ephod of the high priest (Exod. 39:1–26) was made of costly material worked with gold, blue, purple, scarlet and precious stones; it reached from the breast down to the hips and was secured by two shoulder-bands and a waist-band. With it were associated the Urim and Thummin (Exod. 28:30; Lev. 8:8) which were used for oracular purposes. But whilst the oracular connection remained, the nature of the ephod itself appears to have changed over the years and at times the reference appears to be to a free-standing image, or to the receptacle containing the oracle, for in the period of the monarchy the priest was said to bear the ephod, not to wear it (1 Sam. 2:28; 14:3; where the verb nāśā’ means to ‘bear’ or ‘lift up’). Another possible reference is to a piece of cloth which was used to cover the eyes when the oracle was consulted. In all these instances there was the desire to ascertain the will of God by means of the sacred lot, but the situation is further complicated by the fact that the ephod commonly designated an ordinary article of everyday dress. In the case of Gideon there are three possible alternatives: that it was a garment after the pattern of the high-priestly ephod but with an unusual degree of gold ornamentation; that it was a replica of the high-priestly garment made of pure gold; or that it was a free-standing image. Its very preciousness became a snare, for it became an object of worship to a people only one stage removed from polytheism (cf. Josh. 24:15) and obliterated one of the characteristics of Israel’s faith, namely the entire prohibition of images. It may be assumed that Gideon had no intention of departing from the Lord, any more than Aaron or Jeroboam intended apostasy by their creation of calf images (Exod. 32:4; 1 Kgs 12:28). But the expression and all Israel played the harlot after it there (RSV) suggests that the form of worship inspired by his ephod was Canaanite in origin.
The editorial note in verse 28 completes the account of the subjugation of Midian, and notes the peace which the following generation enjoyed.