i. The rise and fall of Abimelech (9:1–57)
i. The rise and fall of Abimelech (9:1–57)
This chapter is of outstanding interest, for it offers clear evidence of the influence of a Canaanite community existing within the tribal structure of Israel. The city of Shechem was marked out by nature to play an important part in the history of its day. It was situated in a fertile valley between Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, which formed a natural link between the coastal plain and the Jordan valley. Many of the trade-routes converged on Shechem, which, standing at one of the crossroads of Palestine, dominated a considerable area of the surrounding countryside. It was hallowed in Israelite tradition as the place where Yahweh first revealed himself to Abraham after his arrival from Haran (Gen. 12:6, 7). Jacob had lived on friendly terms with the children of Hamor at Shechem until the vindictive action of Simeon and Levi had disrupted this harmony (Gen. 33:18–34:31), but at a later date the patriarchs are again found in the vicinity (Gen. 37:13, 14). The Tell el-Amarna letters show that Shechem fell into the hands of the Habiru in the fourteenth century BC and this group is believed to have been related to the Hebrews. The relationship was probably not an ethnic one, however, since the Habiru are mentioned in periods and places which can have no connection with the Hebrews. ‘Habiru’ possibly designates all semi-nomads of a particular type.24
The capture of Shechem by Joshua is nowhere hinted at nor mentioned in passing and yet at a very early date a covenant-renewal ceremony was held between Mounts Ebal and Gerizim (Josh. 8:30–35). This would have been impossible unless Shechem had been either captured or else been on friendly terms with the invaders. The evidence points to this latter as being the more probable.
The fact that the Shechemites were still described as ‘the men of Hamor’ (9:28), together with their allegiance to the Canaanite deity Baal-berith, and the obvious point of the appeal made by Abimelech at the end of verse 2, make it clear that the population of Shechem was dominantly Canaanite. It had probably been incorporated into Israel by treaty at the time of the Conquest. Here, then, is a witness to the friction which existed between the Israelites and the original inhabitants of the land. This was probably the reason why Shechem, although it was hallowed as the resting-place of the bones of Joseph (Josh. 24:32), maintained its place as the central sanctuary for a limited period only, being replaced by Bethel and then Shiloh.25
9:1–5. The massacre of the sons of Gideon. The reference to the men of Shechem (2) is literally ‘the baals of Shechem’, the word having here its original meaning of ‘lord’ or ‘owner’ (as in Josh. 24:11; Judg. 20:5; 1 Sam. 23:11, 12; 2 Sam. 21:12). The fear implanted in the minds of the Shechemites by Abimelech may have had little foundation in fact, his own personal ambition and, possibly, a jealous hatred of his brethren (who probably regarded him as inferior; cf. verse 18) being the real motives. The fact that the family of Gideon was still in residence at Ophrah (5), and not in one of the more important centres, indicates that the influence of Gideon himself was limited. Shechem, one of the old city-states of Canaan, may have been more inclined to accept a king than the Israelites, and the son of the great Gideon, who was one of them by the ties of flesh and blood, was an obvious candidate. Abimelech’s plan met with a ready acceptance and he acted with a vigour characteristic of his father, but without any of his father’s scruples. The resources of the sanctuary were used to finance the operation (4; cf. 1 Kgs 15:18; 2 Kgs 18:15, 16) and the hired assassins appear to have met with little opposition at Ophrah, which may indicate that the family of Gideon maintained a very modest establishment without armed retainers. The precise reference to the place of execution as upon one stone (5, 18) may be a significant parallel to the sacrificial slaughtering of animals in the open (cf. 1 Sam. 14:33–35). The disposal of the blood of slaughtered beasts was a matter of great consequence, for ‘the life of the flesh is in the blood’ (Lev. 17:11), and in this ritual slaughter of his half-brothers Abimelech may have been seeking to avoid adverse repercussions by punctilious care in disposing of the blood of his victims.
9:6. Abimelech made king. The bloody deed accomplished, Abimelech was proclaimed king by the Shechemites. With them were associated all the house of Millo (6, AV, RV), which is best regarded as a proper name, Beth-millo (RSV). The word millo derives from a verb meaning ‘to be filled’, and originally referred to a rampart or earthwork; but its association with fortifications may have developed into a reference to fortresses generally. Thus Beth-millo may be identical with the tower of Shechem (46ff.). The site of the coronation was hallowed by tradition, the mention of an oak (RV, RSV) or ‘terebinth’ (AV, plain) and a pillar connecting with Joshua 24:26 where Joshua, in the covenant-renewal ceremony at Shechem, set up a memorial stone by the oak which was adjacent to the sanctuary (see also Gen. 35:4). The associations of such sites were very tenacious and it is of interest to note that Rehoboam went to Shechem, following the death of Solomon, to secure the acclamation of the Israelites although the city itself was in ruins at this time (1 Kgs 12:1, 25).
The extent of Abimelech’s kingdom was very limited; only Shechem, Beth-millo, Arumah (41) and Thebez (50) are mentioned as under his jurisdiction and it is unlikely that it extended beyond a portion of western Manasseh. The reference in verse 22 must be understood in this limited sense. His turbulent three-year rule, secured by guile and maintained by force, was hardly more than an incident in the development of the monarchy, for the kingdom itself did not survive his death. In the same way Abimelech, the opportunist, must not be given a place amongst the judges of Israel who owed their position to their character and achievements in delivering the people.
9:7–21. The fable of Jotham. The sole survivor of the blood-bath at Ophrah was Jotham, the youngest son of Gideon, whose hope of safety lay in putting the greatest possible distance between himself and Abimelech. Before his flight, however, he uttered his famous parable, which was both a protest against the shameful treatment meted out to the house of Gideon and a prophecy of the effect of Abimelech’s rule. Approximately a century and a half before, six of the tribes had stood on the slopes of Mount Gerizim and thundered out their ‘Amens’ to the blessings of the law, pronounced by the Levites (Deut. 27:12; 28). Now Jotham stood on the same mountain, using it as a pulpit from which to denounce the shameful action of the Shechemites. It is unlikely that he was on the summit of the mountain, 1,000 feet above the city; a convenient crag is indicated, from which he could be heard by at least some of its citizens and from which he could beat a hasty retreat. Voices can carry a long way in the atmosphere of the Near East and Gerizim itself was used as an open-air pulpit in the great religious ceremony of Joshua 8:30–35, which itself was a fulfilment of the provisions of Deuteronomy 27 noted above. Similarly, our Lord could address thousands without apparent difficulty (Mark 4:1; 6:34–44).
The parable deals with their choice of a king and it is interesting to observe that the principle of the monarchy itself is not condemned. The main point is that a worthless person, Abimelech, has been chosen. The implication is that the sons of Gideon, including Jotham himself, would have been a more desirable choice, although this is not specifically stated.
8–15. The fable itself is of importance as an ancient illustration of a story with a moral, and it bears comparison with Nathan’s parable to David (2 Sam. 12:1–4) and the message of Jehoash, king of Israel, to Amaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 14:9, 10). The olive tree was the first to reject the position of ruler over the trees, for the reason that the oil which he provided was used to honour God and man. Oil was used to anoint priests and to feed the lamp which illuminated the sanctuary. At a later date the kings of Israel were anointed with oil, but amongst Israel’s neighbours there is evidence to show that the great kings were not anointed but their vassals only, which fact suggests that in Israel the king may have been regarded as the vassal of the Lord. The fig tree was equally reluctant to accept the honour of kingship because of its important position in the agricultural economy, the fig being the staple fruit of the whole area. The vine similarly declined the offer to sway over the trees (RSV), symbolizing the exercise of authority. The produce of the vine, like that of the olive, was used for both religious and secular purposes; it was used in libations offered to God (e.g. Exod. 29:40) and it was the principal beverage in every home. The rabbis of a later age suggested that the olive, fig and vine of Jotham’s fable were representations of Othniel, Deborah and Gideon respectively, but a more general application is likely; men of dignity and influence within the community were not anxious to forsake their spheres of usefulness for the dubious honour of the monarchy.
Finally, the position was offered to the bramble, which not only produced nothing of value and was quite worthless as timber, but was a positive menace to the farmer who had to wage continual war against its encroachments. Its carpet-like growth was an especial menace in the heat of summer when scrub fires, fanned by the wind, could travel at incredible speeds along the tinder of dried brambles. The giant cedars of Lebanon were indeed threatened by this fire that came out of the bramble (15). This threat was accompanied by an absurd invitation to put your trust in my shadow, for the bramble, clinging closely to the ground, cast almost no shadow and offered no protection to the forest giants at whose feet it lay. Jotham’s point had been graphically made; Abimelech could offer no real security to the men of Shechem; instead, he would be the means of their destruction.
16–20. The meaning of the parable was self-evident and the words of Jotham were only a loose application. In the fable the focus of attention was the worthless Abimelech. Here the emphasis was upon the men of Shechem who had shamefully treated the family of one who was completely worthy of their honour because of the great deliverance which, at the risk of his own life, he had wrought for them. The expression adventured his life far (AV) is a graphic one. Literally it reads ‘he cast his life in front’, and the thought is of a complete disregard of his personal safety. The contrast is the more pointed by the reference to Abimelech as the son of Gideon’s maidservant, or slave-concubine, a deliberate slur on Jotham’s part since the mother of Abimelech was, in fact, a free-woman of Shechem. Such was the man they had acknowledged as their brother! Jotham then stated that time would reveal the wisdom or folly of their action. If their action was honourable their relationship with Abimelech would be mutually cordial, but if the situation was otherwise they could expect mutual destruction, a word which was grimly prophetic. Bramble and cedars alike would perish in the conflagration that would develop between the newly crowned king and his subjects.
21. There is no record of the reaction of the Shechemites, but it may be gauged by the precipitate flight of Jotham to a retreat beyond the reach of Abimelech. Beer, meaning ‘well’, was exceedingly common as a place-name in ancient Israel and the site of Jotham’s refuge is quite unknown.
9:22–25. Friction between Abimelech and the Shechemites. Self-seeking opportunists and those capable of treacherous murder never make easy companions, and it was not long before a breach occurred between Abimelech and the men of Shechem. Perhaps it is of significance that Abimelech does not seem to have resided in the principal city of his domain but delegated the oversight thereof to Zebul (30). The nature of his rule (reigned, AV, is too strong; the word is literally ‘princed’) was that of a local chieftain or petty king over a limited area, and there was no question of a general acceptance of his role by all the tribes. The overruling action of God, sovereign in history, is indicated in verse 23 (cf. 1 Sam. 16:14; 18:10; 1 Kgs 22:19–23). The point which precipitated the dispute was the action of the Shechemites in setting armed bands in ambush beside the trade-routes in the vicinity of Shechem, thus depriving Abimelech of the dues which he would normally exact from the caravans which passed through his territory. This would have the effect of reducing the number of travellers and caravans in such a troubled area, thus emptying the pockets of Abimelech as well as hitting at his pride, for he could not guarantee safety of travel in his domain.
9:26–29. The rebellion of Gaal. Abimelech appears to have taken no action against the marauding bands which were terrorizing the countryside and it was not until there was a direct challenge to his authority that he was stirred to action. Nothing is known of Gaal the son of Ebed apart from the information given in this chapter. The men of Shechem were apparently easily swayed and Gaal gained their confidence by his slick talk, just as Abimelech had done previously. The time of this change of allegiance was the season of the vintage harvest at the end of summer. The great New Year Festival of Israel’s immediate neighbours, the chief event in their cultus, was associated with the ingathering of the summer fruits. Its counterpart in Israel was the Feast of Tabernacles, which, under the influence of the Canaanite religion, displaced the Passover Festival as the great popular festival until the reformations of Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Kgs 23:21ff.; 2 Chr. 30:1ff.; 35:1ff.). Grapes were gathered and trodden out in the winepresses to produce wine at this season, which became a time of merry-making, over-indulgence and licentiousness, hardly compatible with the spirit of truly religious thanksgiving.
Verse 27 illustrates the possibilities for evil in such a situation. Gaal, taking advantage of Abimelech’s absence, took the opportunity of addressing the crowds which assembled for this celebration, denigrating Abimelech and urging the Shechemites to return to an earlier allegiance. The first part of his address is capable of two interpretations. Either ‘Who is Abimelech, and (in contrast) who are we of Shechem, that we should serve him?’ (RSV). Or, with the LXX, ‘Who is Abimelech, this (self-styled) son of Shechem that we should serve him?’ The first alternative is the more likely, but in either case there was the challenge to cast off their loyalty to Abimelech. Gaal then craftily traced the parentage of Abimelech through his father, not his Shechemite mother, in direct contrast to the earlier appeal of Abimelech himself (verses 1–3). Next, he appealed to them to serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem rather than Abimelech. Hamor means ‘ass’ and W. F. Albright maintains that the expression ‘the sons of Hamor’ is equivalent to ‘the sons of the treaty’, since the sacrifice of an ass was an essential feature in the ratification of a treaty amongst the Amorites.26 There is probably a further allusion in the name of the local deity of Shechem, Baal-berith, ‘the lord of the covenant or treaty’. Gaal thus set himself up as the upholder of the ancient faith and the old ways, a conservative appeal often made by demagogues like him. Finally, having undermined their confidence in Abimelech and having made this emotional appeal, he hinted how different things would be if he were made the leader of the Shechemites. How quickly would he drive out this upstart Abimelech! With empty bravado he flung out his challenge to the absent king to set his army in array to meet him. The tone and the methods of Gaal have their parallel in the speech and actions of Absalom (2 Sam. 15:1–6).
9:30–41. Zebul’s decisive action. The insurrection was nipped in the bud by the prompt action of Zebul, whose anger was prompted by the derogatory remark made concerning him, inferring that he was just Abimelech’s lieutenant and no more (28). A message was hastily despatched to Abimelech to acquaint him of the situation. The AV notes that this message was sent privily, a word which is emended by the RSV to read at Arumah (cf. verse 41), although, if this is accepted, the attached preposition would also need to be changed from ‘in’ to ‘to’. The root of the word is ramah which in the Pi‘ēl means ‘to deceive’, and the most likely meaning here is ‘by a ruse’, to avoid arousing the suspicions of Gaal and the men of Shechem who, if rebellion were contemplated, would be concerned to intercept any warning message to Abimelech. Zebul not only warned of the potentially dangerous situation, he urged a certain course of action upon Abimelech, no doubt reasoning that it would be preferable to take the initiative rather than to allow Gaal time to consolidate his position. The freedom which Zebul himself enjoyed in the remainder of the story does suggest that the uprising was still in an early stage. Abimelech followed the advice of his deputy and deployed his forces by night in four companies, thus lessening the risk of detection. F. F. Bruce observes, ‘So the contingent in the city under Zebul was literally a “fifth column”.’27
Zebul’s own part was played with conspicuous skill. Coming alongside Gaal near the city gates he first lulled his suspicions, when the force in ambush was first observed, by attributing it to Gaal’s imagination. When concealment was no longer possible he flung Gaal’s boastful taunt back to him, thus allowing him no alternative but to fight or lose face. The advantages of initiative and surprise lay with Abimelech, and the valuable time gained meant that Gaal was unable to give adequate attention to either the defences of the city or his own assault force. His hastily marshalled force, pressed into a combat for which it was unprepared, was soon dispersed and the survivors fled back into the city. All the heart had gone from the rebellious party and Abimelech was able to retire to Arumah, the site of which is unknown, although it is clear from the context that it was in the vicinity of Shechem. Zebul was able to mop up the disaffected elements and to expel the troublemaker in chief, Gaal, and his supporters from the city. He is not mentioned again in the narrative, but his prompt and astute action saved the day temporarily for Abimelech.
37. The middle of the land is literally ‘the navel of the land’, a reference to some prominent landmark, probably a mountain-top. The plain of Meonenim (AV) should be read as ‘the oak of the diviners’ (cf. RSV), i.e. a sacred tree where divination was practised, possibly, but not necessarily, the one mentioned in verse 6.
9:42–45. The destruction of Shechem. Abimelech, by his action in destroying Shechem, abandoned all pretence of ruling over a kingdom, for the sphere of his influence was truncated without this important city. It appears as an act of revenge against those who had questioned his leadership. Men like Abimelech, who rise from an inferior status to a position of authority, are often capable of vengeful actions which destroy the basis of their own power. Zebul’s action had brought the situation under control, but his master was concerned to teach Shechem a lesson. The people, apparently confident that the matter was concluded, went out into the fields as usual to engage in their daily occupations, although it has been suggested that the reference is to the marauding bands leaving the city on their errand of brigandage, in which case a different construction must be set upon Abimelech’s action. However, this second alternative is not well supported by the context. Another ambush was set and at the opportune moment one company captured the gate, thus cutting off the retreat of the Shechemites in the fields. These were butchered by the remaining two companies, who were later able to reinforce their companions in the city and exact a similar, terrible vengeance there. The sowing of the city with salt does not mean that all cultivatable soil was made unfruitful; this would have required an operation of impossible magnitude. Rather, it indicates a symbolic ritual action in which the destroyed city was condemned to perpetual desolation (cf. Deut. 29:23; Ps. 107:34; Jer. 17:6). Shechem was rebuilt during the reign of Jeroboam I, more than a century and a half after the campaign of Abimelech (1 Kgs 12:25).
9:46–49. The destruction of the tower of Shechem. Normally the stronghold of a walled city would be within the walls, but the impression gained from this narrative is that the tower of Shechem was outside the city, possibly on some adjacent outcrop of rock. But the impression may be more apparent than real, due to the narrator’s method of dealing with one subject at a time. Having dealt exhaustively with the destruction of the city itself, he now deals with the destruction of its stronghold. It may be observed that no reference is made to the stronghold in connection with the two ambushments, which would be seriously threatened if a manned fortress was in the vicinity. The house of El-berith (46, RV, RSV) may be equated with the ‘house of Baal-berith’ (4; see note on 8:32–35). El was the nominal head of the Canaanite pantheon, but his position was virtually taken over by Baal, the great, active god, in a process taking many generations. El or Baal, therefore, was the deity invoked by the Shechemites in ratifying their covenant. The ‘hold of El-berith’ appears to be synonymous with the tower of Shechem itself. Here the remnants of the population gathered to make their final resistance. Abimelech adopted a stratagem which has been employed many times since by a besieging army. Leading his men to mount Zalmon (cf. Ps. 68:14), a heavily wooded hill popularly located to the south of Gerizim (Jebel Suleimân), he and they lopped branches from the trees and piled them against the fortress walls. The intense heat generated by the conflagration that was kindled destroyed the tower and all its occupants. So perished the men of Shechem and another Canaanite enclave was obliterated.
9:50–57. The death of Abimelech. Thebez lay approximately 10 miles north-north-east of Shechem, on the road leading to Beth-shean, and whilst there is no record of its implication in the revolt against Abimelech the narrative suggests that this was the case. The city itself fell easily into the hands of Abimelech, but the defenders retreated into their fortress, which in this case was certainly within the city walls (cf. 8:8, 9; 9:46). The method of reducing the fortress by fire, which had been so successful at the tower of Shechem, was again applied, but Abimelech, possibly lacking in caution, was mortally wounded when his skull was fractured by a portion of a millstone thrown by a woman. The Hebrew word (pelaḥ rekeb, lit. ‘a stone of riding’) shows that it was probably the upper millstone, which was normally about two or three inches thick and eighteen inches in diameter, with a hole in the centre. Less likely is the suggestion that it was the roller used for replastering the mud roof. The grinding of corn was delegated to women, and it was considered a humiliation for a man to do it (cf. 16:21). This woman, in her desperation, had brought up this upper millstone (grinding was not normally done on the roof) as a defensive weapon. As was noted in the case of Sisera (4:21), it was accounted a dishonour to die at the hands of a woman, so Abimelech, realizing the nature of his injury, urged his attendant to run him through with his sword. Within a hundred years the first official king of Israel made a similar request to his armour-bearer on Mount Gilboa, within a few miles of Thebez, to spare him the disgrace of being captured alive by the Philistines (1 Sam. 31). With the death of Abimelech this vicious episode came to an end. The men of Israel (55), who had supported him in his campaign against the dominantly Canaanite population of Shechem and its allies, in spite of his treacherous action in engineering the deaths of the sons of Gideon, dispersed to their homes at the death of their leader.
56, 57. The moral of the incident is pressed home. Whilst we may be indebted to the final editor for this particular version, it is certain that the moral would have been drawn and applied in the earliest accounts. The Hebrews overlooked what might be called secondary causes and saw in these events the direct action of God, the evidence of his sovereignty within history, in the judgment upon Abimelech and the fulfilment of the curse of Jotham upon the Shechemites.