Judges. Abraham Kuruvilla

them, “Follow after me” (3:28, where he also invokes Yahweh), one again gets the sense of a self-focused individual.190 He appears intent on using himself as a model primarily, with his army following him; he supports his exhortation with Yahweh’s name only secondarily.

      [T]he subsequent growing concern of the Judges compiler/redactor with the leadership qualities of Israel’s deliverers leads one, in retrospect, to inquire whether Ehud’s characterization as a self-promoting saviour is an intended nuance. While Ehud claims Yhwh’s guarantee of success in 3:28ab on the basis of his foregoing success, there is something implicitly self-authenticating about it, for by no explicit means had Yhwh disclosed this to any character in the story world.191

      Besides, in the case of Gideon, his sharing of victory laurels with Yahweh is subsequently proven to be born of arrogance and conceit (8:17, 20). So much so, one wonders if the narrator’s subtle disparagement is also reflected in the absence of any statement at the end of the narrative that “Ehud judged Israel for X years.” Only Gideon shares that dubious distinction. Even Samson has a statement to this effect.

      3.3 Duplicity in life, demonstrating a lack of integrity, receives God’s disapprobation.

      After presenting the Israelite tribute to Moab, Ehud leaves, only to return to the king (3:19). Ehud speaks twice to Eglon, employing a mere six words total: “I have a secret message [rbd, dbr, also ‘thing’] for you, O king” (3:19), and “I have a message [thing] from God for you” (3:20). Clearly the utterances were intended to deceive: Eglon expected a “message,” but Ehud gave him a “thing” (the sword). Thus “the duplicity of both speeches’ use of rbd may play on a key feature of Ehud’s sword—its double-edgedness.”192 The tool Ehud fashioned for the assassination was a “sword of (two) mouths,” i.e., a two-edged sword (3:16; for an identical Greek term, see Sir 21:3; Heb 4:12; Rev 1:16; 2:12). Berman concludes: “[T]he double-, or multi-edged sword, which we find . . . in the biblical, apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature, always bears a metaphorical or figurative meaning pertaining to orality. In all but one case, the ‘sword of [two] mouths’ stands as a trope for the potency of speech.”193 In any case, “sword” and “mouth” are linked frequently: “by edge of the sword” is literally “by the mouth of the sword” (br<x'-ypil., lpi-khareb; see Jdg 1:8; 25; 4:15, 16; 7:22; 18:27; 20:37, 48; 21:10; and elsewhere in the OT). All that to say, there is intentional duplicity here. And so the sword is doubly concealed—physically, under Ehud’s cloak (3:16), and verbally, by referring to it as a “message/thing” (3:3:20). The linguistic parallels between Ehud’s preparation and his assassination of Eglon are also notable194:

      This was a carefully plotted undertaking, intended to deceive and to kill. The undercurrent of a perfidious plot is detected in the very commencement of the story, with the tribute literarily hiding (sandwiching) a plot to murder.

      Ehud’s use of deception is a significant part of the development of the story: he conceals his weapon on his right thigh, because of his left-handedness (3:16); he makes an innocent first visit to allay suspicion and, subsequently, a second one for his tactical and homicidal operation (3:18, 19); he leaves his weapon in the stout Eglon’s belly and lets the man’s fat close around it, preventing any blood stains getting on his person (though fecal matter did seep out—the smell of which apparently fooled the king’s courtiers, 3:22; see below); and he locks the doors behind him as he makes his escape (3:23) to keep the courtiers out longer.195 Of course, all of this could be interpreted positively as Ehud’s actions undertaken with a trust in Yahweh’s ability to give him victory.196 But, again, the absence of Yahweh in these transactions is a hint of pejoration from the narrator’s quill.

      The action is fast-forwarded from the moment the king rises to greet Ehud the second time around (3:20)—eight wayyiqtol verb forms cascade through 3:21–23 as the assassination is accomplished: Ehud stretched, he took, he thrust, the handle entered, the fat closed, he did not draw out, excrement (implied) came out, Ehud came out, closed the doors, and locked them (xl;v.YIw:, xQ;YIw:, h'[,q't.YIw:, aboY"w:, rGOs.YIw:, aceYEw:, aceYEw:, rGOs.YIw:; wayyishlakh, wayyiqqakh, wayyitqa‘eha, wayyabo’, wayyisgor, wayyetse’, wayyetse’, wayyisgor)!197 He knows what he is doing—it is intentional, deliberate, and delivered with malice aforethought. “Taken together therefore, the unexpected left-handed ‘son of the right-handers’ wielding a double mouthed weapon would constitute a fitting symbolic introduction to an incongruously deceptive deliverer who would attempt an assassination with the help of verbal double entendres.”198

      There is yet another argument for seeing Ehud negatively in this story: the parallels between Ehud and Joab—their respective assassinations are remarkably similar.199

      Scripture clearly is disapproving of Joab’s actions: see 2 Sam 3:28–39; 1 Kgs 2:5–6, 31–32. That there was a deliberate attempt to link Joab’s killing of Amasa with Ehud’s killing of Eglon seems evident. The elaborate details of Joab’s attire (2 Sam 20:8) seem to be quite unnecessary, unlike in the case of Ehud where covertness was critical. Also, it is Joab’s left hand that delivers the coup de grâce (his right hand held Amasa’s beard, 20:9), though it would not have mattered to the story had Joab held Amasa’s beard with his left hand and thrust the sword in with his right; for Ehud, his other-sidedness helped him smuggle in a weapon. The notice of Amasa’s disembowelment (20:10) also seems somewhat adventitious; that of Eglon was crucial to Ehud’s escape cloaked in nasty odors. All that to say, Joab’s actions seem to have been described with an intentional allusion to Ehud’s.