In the view of preaching espoused in this commentary, the exposition of the theology of the pericope (represented as a statement by the “Theological Focus”), with all the power and potency of the text, is the critical task of the homiletician. Needless to say, the preacher must also provide the congregation with specifics on how the theological thrust of each pericope may be put into practice so that lives are conformed to Christlikeness in the power of the Spirit, for the glory of God.
167. That God is pleased with the obedience and righteousness of his people is an essential biblical concept. See Kuruvilla, Privilege the Text! 253–58.
Pericope 3
Ehud (and Shamgar)
Judges 3:12–31
[Ehud’s Lack of Integrity; Shamgar the Foil]
REVIEW, SUMMARY, PREVIEW
Review of Pericope 2: In Jdg 2:6—3:11 (Prologue II and the Othniel story), the religious decline of the Israelites is detailed—the infidelity of the post-Joshua generation of Israelites. Things spiral from bad to worse, creating a paradigm that reflects this descent in each of the subsequent judge stories. Othniel, the first judge, however, is a parade example of a godly leader, whose story follows the paradigm precisely. With divine aid, he becomes Israel’s deliverer.
Summary of Pericope 3: The third pericope of Judges (3:12–31) depicts the second major judge in the series, Ehud. His duplicitous words and deceptive actions are subtly deprecated in his story: his left-handedness is suspect; his meticulously planned skullduggery is disfavored; he is equated to Joab, and with excrement. And, finally, the cameo of Shamgar makes this minor judge a foil for the major judge who lacks integrity. With the implicit disapproval of Ehud’s actions and the approval of Shamgar’s, integrity in leadership forms the thrust of this pericope.
Preview of Pericope 4: The next pericope, Jdg 4:1–24, is the story of Barak. Raised up by God’s representative, Deborah, he refuses to fulfill his commission unless she go with him into battle, despite God’s unambiguous promise of triumph. As a result of his faithless fear, Barak loses out on the honor of victory and the capture of the enemy general, Sisera, being preempted in the latter’s execution by another woman, a non-Israelite, Jael.
3. Judges 3:12–31
| THEOLOGICAL FOCUS OF PERICOPE 3 | ||
| 3 | Integrity in life, driven by reverence for God and reliance upon him, receives divine approbation (3:12–31). | |
| 3.1 | God who remains ever faithful to his people is worthy of their reverence. | |
| 3.2 | Unilateral, self-reliant strategies show a lack of dependence upon deity. | |
| 3.3 | Duplicity in life, demonstrating a lack of integrity, receives God’s disapprobation. | |
| 3.4 | God uses those who avoid self-reliance, duplicity, and disdain for deity. |
OVERVIEW
This pericope follows the standard paradigm of 2:11–19 and simulates the ideal model of Othniel (3:7–11), though with some critical differences (see below).
Pericope 3 is carefully structured, centered on the assassination of Eglon by Ehud168:
In this story, there is plenty of suspense, tension, intrigue, caricature, and “scatological humor.”169 Block calls it “a literary cartoon” that is “polemical and coarse.”170
3. Judges 3:12–31
| THEOLOGICAL FOCUS 3 | ||
| 3 | Integrity in life, driven by reverence for God and reliance upon him, receives divine approbation (3:12–31). | |
| 3.1 | God who remains ever faithful to his people is worthy of their reverence. | |
| 3.2 | Unilateral, self-reliant strategies show a lack of dependence upon deity. | |
| 3.3 | Duplicity in life, demonstrating a lack of integrity, receives God’s disapprobation. | |
| 3.4 | God uses those who avoid self-reliance, duplicity, and disdain for deity. |
NOTES 3
3.1 God who remains ever faithful to his people is worthy of their reverence.
Deviations from the model judge’s account—the Othniel story—point to the less than stellar nature of the second judge, Ehud. Both leader and people evidence a lack of reverence for Yahweh.
In the Othniel and Ehud stories, there is, in each case, a single enemy king (Cushan-rishathaim and Eglon, respectively), though in the first account, Cushan-rishathaim is never the subject of a verb and so does not act, at least not literarily. Eglon, on the other hand, is active and vocal in this pericope, symbolic of his active oppression of the Israelites (3:14, 17, 19)—an oppression they deserved as punishment from God for their infidelities and evildoing. Things are quickly beginning to slip and slide away from the relative perfection of the Othniel account.171
Right at the start, we are told twice that Israel “did evil in the sight of Yahweh” (3:12). Indeed, in its first iteration in that verse, the text declares: “And the sons of Israel continued to do evil in the sight of Yahweh”—they had never stopped doing evil, it seems, after they first engaged in it in 3:7. And unlike the preceding Othniel narrative, in the Ehud account there is no mention of the Israelites being “sold” into the hands of the enemy; instead we are told that Yahweh “strengthened” (qzx, khzq) Eglon, the king of Moab, against Israel (3:12). The verb occurs in the exodus stories, to describe God “hardening” (qzx) Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 4:21; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8) and that of the Egyptians (14:17). That is, of course, not a good sign.
The result of Yahweh “strengthening” the hand of the king of Moab was that Moabites “took possession” (vry, yrsh) of the city of the palm trees (Jdg 3:13).172 Once Yahweh had prohibited the Israelites from infringing upon Moabite territory, land he had given those peoples (Deut 2:9). Now the Moabites were encroaching upon land allotted to the Israelites, and with Yahweh himself behind that invasion. Evildoing has its consequences. “Taking possession” (or “driving out,” also vry), was exactly what the Israelites were supposed to do, and at which they had failed (see vry in Jdg 1:19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33; and 2:6, 21, 23).173 Countering his own “strengthening” of the hand of the Moabite oppressor, Eglon (3:12), Yahweh then “raises up” an Israelite deliverer, Ehud (3:15). But quite surprisingly, for the rest of the pericope, Yahweh does not seem at all involved with the goings on. We are not told that Yahweh “was with the judge” (as the paradigm had it, 2:18), or that his Spirit came upon that individual (as with Othniel, 3:10). And the final victory won by the Israelites is not attributed by the narrator to any work of Yahweh, either (3:29–30).
This virtual absence of Yahweh in the story also raises suspicions about how his people, in particular his leader, regarded him. While one assumes that God’s commissioning a deliverer and endowing that judge with the Spirit is a guarantee of the individual’s upright behavior and exemplary life, that is not necessarily so: from Othniel to Samson, several of the judges are empowered by God and endued by the Spirit, yet there is a progressive and inexorable deterioration of behavior and morality despite this special divine intervention and/or connection. So too, here, with Ehud; his being “raised up” by Yahweh does not necessarily imply that all his actions were scrupulous and virtuous. Rather, Yahweh’s curious absence from the main event of Eglon’s assassination (3:16–25), as well as from the dénouement of the story, the routing of the Moabites (3:26–30), give the reader pause and raise suspicions.
In the case of Othniel’s victory over Cushan-rishathaim, at the onset of Israel’s military engagement with the enemy, the narrator asserted that Yahweh “gave” the enemy king into Othniel’s hand (3:10). Here, however, things are more indirect: Yahweh’s role in the pericope (for the only time after 3:15) is described in Ehud’s voice and not by the narrator, and that as part of Ehud’s exhortation to