story, Moab is merely the subject of a passive verb: “Moab was subdued . . . under the hand of Israel” (3:30). So, outside of Ehud’s declaration in 3:28, there is no sign of Yahweh or his activity. As we will see, Ehud’s self-interest, self-reliance, and duplicity preclude any involvement by deity. Apparently God is not needed in those precincts.
Another structural element underscores the disdain of Yahweh in the story. The mention of “idols” (from lysip', pasil) in 3:19 and 3:26 brackets the heart of the pericope—the story of Eglon’s killing. These religious objects were manmade cult images; and Ehud passes by them on his way in to kill, and again as he leaves from his kill. The noun is derived from the verb ls;p' (pasal) meaning to “hew/carve” (Deut 10:1, 3); in the OT lysp/lsp always indicates hewn/carved idols.175 Obviously these are anti-Yahwistic: Jdg 2:2, 11–13, 17, 19. Judges 3:6 had already warned of the Israelites’ predilection for Canaanite gods and, indeed, 3:12 asserts that such evildoing had “continued’ into the time of this narrative. “[T]he twin references to the pēsîlîm articulate the decisive and dramatic core of the adventure. Everything that precedes 3:19–26 is preliminary; everything which follows is anticlimactic.”176 Bookending the critical core of the Ehud story (3:19, 26), one wonders why these idols are markers for the narrative. Where did they come from and what was Ehud doing in relation to them? “Cultic indolence,” O’Connell, called it:
The predominant deuteronomic concern, that of cultic disloyalty, remains implicit in Ehud’s failure to remove from the land the twice-mentioned idols that frame the portrayal of Eglon’s assassination (3:19aab and 3:26b). This failure to remove the idols characterizes negatively both Ehud (as microcosm) and the tribe whom he delivers (as macrocosm) and ostensibly leads to the religious apostasy that begins the following deliverer account (cf. 4:1).177
Even if they were Moabite installations, it would certainly have been a lot easier to sabotage these idols than to assassinate the highest-ranking Moabite official. After all, the command to the Israelites to destroy them was unambiguous (lysp in Deut 7:5, 25; 12:3; lsp in Deut 4:16, 23, 25; 5:8; 27:15).178 If Ehud accomplished the murder of the king with relative ease, surely he could have done something about the idols.
But, despite this disdain for Yahweh, all is not lost. One must remember that this is only the account of the second judge, the one who immediately follows the paradigmatic model of the first judge, Othniel. So not everything has gone awry yet. Ehud, we will see, “escapes” (3:26 [×2]) after his daring single-(left)handed assassination of Eglon; but, following the attack of the Israelites, none of the Moabites “escapes” (3:29). And as the pericope concludes, Israel succeeds in overthrowing the yoke of the oppressor: though the Moabites “smite” (hkn, nkh) Israel at the beginning of the narrative (3:13), in the end they are the ones who are “smitten” (3:29). And, finally, the land is said to enjoy rest for eighty years, an unusually long period, the longest span of rest in Judges (the next closest is forty: 3:11; 5:31: 8:28).
All that to say, evidently Yahweh was at work, even though he seems to have been (literarily) absent: there are fingerprints of providence all along.
3.2 Unilateral, self-reliant strategies show a lack of dependence upon deity.
Right at the start of the Ehud story we get a sense that something is not right. Yahweh raises up Ehud, “the Benjaminite, a left-handed man” (3:15). There is an assonant repetition of ynIymiy>, ymini, in ynIymiy>h;-!B, (ben-haymini, “the Benjaminite,” literally “son of the right [hand]”) and in Anymiy>-dy: rJeai (’itter yad-ymino, “bound in his right hand”), both relatively rare terms. The first, the gentilic or demonymous form of the tribal affiliation, ynymyh-!b, is unusual and used only in about a dozen out of seventy references to Benjaminites in the OT; elsewhere it is the collective !miy"n>bi (binyamin, “Benjamin”) or !miy"n>bi ynEb. (bne binyamin, “sons of Benjamin).179 And the only other use of Anymiy>-dy: rJeai in Scripture is in 20:16, where it is used of the Benjaminites who aid and abet wickedness.180 So it appears that Ehud is not all “right” (!), and is not what he appears to be or is supposed to be: he is a “son of the right hand” who is “bound in his right hand.”181 His left-handedness may be a subtle disparagement.
In many cultures, including cultures in the ancient Near East, the left hand is associated with impurity or deviance. The right is the place of honor and sovereignty, virility, strength, goodness; the left the place of vassalage, subservience, evil, and weakness. . . . [T]he left hand may not be used for eating; it is commonly associated with matters of personal hygiene that discourage its use in the preparation or ingestion of food. The left hand is expressly disfavored in ancient Israelite ritual.182
The sense of Ehud’s deficiency is amplified by these negative connotations of left-handedness. In any case, 3:15 ends up depicting Ehud, the left-handed son of right-handers, as an unlikely hero who has a strange whiff about him. “[I]f the point of the wordplay is indeed to highlight a ‘falling short’ in a core area of one’s identity, . . . can one not further extend this sense of ‘falling short’ and see it as subtly foreshadowing certain of Ehud’s actions in the ensuing narrative?”183 It seems likely, then, that Ehud’s subsequent deceptions in this story are subtly being deprecated from the very start.
Instead of simply highlighting Ehud’s left-handedness, the incongruity revealed by the wordplay may carry deeper symbolic significance in portraying Ehud as someone whose actions and choices are liable to fall short of the standard expected of him on the basis of who he is. Thus, if the choice of Ehud is surprising, it is surprising not only because his restriction in the right hand obviously fell short of the norm expected of a “son of the right-handers,” but also because the tactics he used likewise fell short of the standard expected of a deliverer raised up by YHWH.184
The anomaly of a member of a right-handed tribe being a left-handed man seems to be hinting at the theological oddity of a deliverer raised up by Yahweh (3:15) resorting to underhanded tactics.
It is striking that a unilateral human endeavor without any input from deity is undertaken to solve the eighteen-year-long thorny problem that Eglon and Moab posed for the Israelites. Such an attitude, showing independence from Yahweh, is suggested by the phrase in 3:16, br<x, dWhae Al f[;Y:w: (wayya‘as lo ’ehud khereb), “Ehud made for himself a sword,” seeing wOl as reflexive, “for himself.” There is no inquiry of Yahweh, no input from Yahweh, no imperative from Yahweh. And the sword is for himself, not for tribe, nation, or deity. This, in itself, is not necessarily negative, but in light of Yahweh’s invisibility throughout the account, it certainly is suspicious.
The judge/deliverer then goes to great lengths to prepare for his lethal meeting with the oppressor-in-chief, ostensibly to present a tribute (3:15, 18). Ehud manufactures a weapon fit/appropriate for the corpulent Eglon (3:17, 22): its length is stressed—a “cubit” long (about 12–18 inches)—“custom-designed for Eglon: short enough to conceal; long enough to do him in.”185
The hand-motif recurs in this narrative. For starters, as we have seen, Ehud is “a left-handed man” (Anymiy>-dy: rJeai vyai, ’ish ’itter yad-ymino), and the tribute to Eglon is “sent” (xlv, shlkh) “by his hand” (Ady"B., byado, 3:15). At the climax of the story, Ehud “stretches” (xlv) his “hand” (dy:, yad) to consummate his regicide (3:21). The narrative concludes with a statement that Moab was subdued that day under the hand (dy:) of Israel (3:30).186 The hand of Ehud and the hand of Israel monopolize the story, with but a single mention by Ehud about Yahweh giving the Moabites into the “hand” (dy:) of the Israelites (3:28).
And what of 3:28, itself—was that an unadulterated sign of reliance on Yahweh by Ehud? Thus far, there has been “no hint of any spiritual sensitivity in Ehud’s heart nor any sense of divine calling. On the contrary, Ehud operates like a typical Canaanite of his time—cleverly, opportunistically, and violently, apparently for his own glory.”187 Nonetheless, Ehud’s declaration in 3:28, in the perfect tense, that “Yahweh has given your enemies the Moabites into your hands,” is significant (see similar assertions in 4:14; 7:14–15: all creditable utterances).188 While he has employed deception in his assassination (see below), he is not completely lacking in faith or in knowledge of the Almighty. Remember, the slippage of the judges has only begun with Ehud and, as the first to follow Othniel’s