Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 3:12 - 3:30
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
the servitude to eglon, king of moab. ehud, the judge with the double-edged dagger. shamgar, the deliverer with the ox-goad
__________________
Eglon, King of Moab, reduces Israel to servitude, and seizes on the City of Palms: they are delivered by Ehud, who destroys the oppressor
Jdg_3:12-30
[2 Jdg_3:15.— àִèֵּø : Dr. Cassel, schwach, weak. “Impeded” would be the better word. Against the opinion of some, that Ehud’s right hand was either lamed or mutilated, Bachmann quotes the remark of Schmid that it would have been a breach of decorum to send such a physically imperfect person on an embassy to the king. It may be added that this explanation of àִèֵּø is at all events not to be thought of in the case of the 700 chosen men mentioned in Jdg_20:16.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_3:15.—Dr. Cassel translates this clause: “when [als; i. e. Jehovah raised up Ehud as a deliverer, when] the sons of Israel sent a present by him to Eglon, the king of Moab.” But it is altogether simpler and better to take the clause as an independent progressive sentence, as in the E. V. So Bachmann also.—Tr.]
[4 Jdg_3:18.— éְùַׁìַּç : dismissed them by accompanying them part of the way back, cf. Gen_12:20; Gen_18:16; etc.—Tr.]
[5 Jdg_3:19.— ãְּáַøÎñֵúֶø : Dr. Cassel translates, “a secret word.” But “errand” is better; because like ãָּáָø , it may be a word or message, or it may be a commission of a more active nature. Bachmann quotes Chyträus: rem, negotium secretum habeo apud te agendum. So, he goes on to remark, in Jdg_3:20 “ ãְּáַøÎàֱìäִֹéí ìִé àֵìֶéêָ , is not necessarily, ‘I have a word from God to say to thee;’ but may mean, ‘I have a commission from God to execute to thee.’ It would be preferable, therefore, to conform the English Version in Jdg_3:20 to Jdg_3:19, rather than the reverse.—Tr.]
[6 Jdg_3:20.—The rendering given above is Dr. Cassel’s, except that he puts the verb ( éùֵׁá ) in the pluperfect, which can scarcely be approved. He translates áַּòֲìִéַּú äַîְּ÷ֵøָä by Obergeschoss des kühlhauses, which we can only represent by the awkward phrase: “upper story of the cooling-house.” It would be better, however, to take îְ÷ֵøָä as containing an adjective idea, descriptive of the ’alijah: “cool upper story.” Cf. Bachmann.—Tr.]
[7 Jdg_3:22.—The term ôַּøְùְׁãåֹï occurs only here, and is of exceedingly doubtful interpretation. Bachmann assumes that the åַéֵּöֵà which precedes it has Ehud for its subject, and then—by a course of reasoning far too lengthy and intricate to be here discussed—comes to the conclusion that ôַּøְùְׁãåֹï denotes a locality, which in the next verse is more definitely indicated by îִñְãְּøåֹï . The latter term, he thinks, is best understood “of the lattice-work by which the roof was inclosed, or rather of the inclosed platform of the roof itself.” Accordingly he conceives the text to say that Ehud issued forth from Eglon’s private apartment “upon the flat roof, more definitely upon the inclosed plat from or gallery.”—Tr.]
[8 Jdg_3:29.—Dr. Cassel: angesehene Leute, cf. the Commentary; but it seems better to hold fast to the E. V. The expression is literally: “fat men,” i. e. well-fed, lusty men, of great physical strength. So Bachmann also.—Tr.]
Jdg_3:15. And Jehovah raised them up a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gera, a Ben-jemini, a man weak of his right hand. àֵäåּã ; for which the LXX. read àäåֹã , Aod (Jerome has Eud). It seems to me that the older derivation of this name from äåֹã , giving it the sense of “one who praises,’ or “one who is praised’ (gloriam accipiens, Jerome), is to be unqualifiedly preferred to the later, proposed by Fürst, from a conjectural root, àֵäåּã àָã is related to äãַã , äåּã , as àָäַì , to be bright, is to äַì , äָìַì , and àַäֲøåֹï (Arabic, Hârûn) to äָøַø , äַø . Elsewhere I have already compared hod with the Sanskrit vad, ἄäù , ἀåßäù , ὕäù , and the Gothic audags (Irene, p. 6, note.) At all events, as Ehud belongs to hod, so such names as Audo, Eudo, Heudo, seem to belong to audags (cf. Förstemann, Namenbuch, 1:162, 391).
He was a Ben-jemini, of the tribe of Benjamin, as the Targum expressly adds. When the son of Jacob was born, his dying mother named him Benoni, “son of my sorrow;” but his father, by way of euphemism, called him Ben-jamin, “son of good fortune” (Gen_35:18). Jamin came to signify “good fortune,” only because it designated the right side. The inhabitants of the holy land had the sea (jam) on the right, hence called that side jamin, literally, sea-side; and the high lands of Aram (or Sham, cf. Magyar, Altherth., p. 228) on the left, hence semol, the left, from Sam. Different nations derived their expressions for right and left from conceptions peculiar to themselves. Thus äåîéüò and dexter are based on the idea of showing, pointing, with the right hand ( äåßêíõìé ); sinister, from sinus, on the action of laying the right hand on the side of the heart. The left hand has everywhere been regarded as the weaker, which, properly speaking, did not wield arms. When oriental custom placed the stranger on the left, it assigned him the seat of honor in so far as the left side seemed to be the weaker and less protected (cf. Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 4; Meiners, Ueber die Versch. der Menschennaturen, ii. 588). From the idea of weakness, sprang such terms as ëáéï ʹ ò , lœvus, Ger. link, [Eng. left], because that side is harmless, smooth, and gentle (cf. ëå ͂ éïò , lœvis). Hence also the custom among Asiatic nations of inclining toward the left side, and resting on the left hand, when seated, (Meiners, iii. 213): the right hand was thus left free. It was by a euphemism that the name of Jacob’s son was Ben-jamin. Among the Greeks also the “left” was euphemistically called åὐþíõìïò , good-omened, because it was wished to avoid the ominous ἀñéóôåñüò . A similar custom must have obtained in Israel, since just in the tribe of Benjamin there were, as we are informed Jdg_20:16, large numbers of men who, like Ehud, were àִèֵּø éַã éְîִéðåֹ , i.e. left-handed,—the sons of the right hand being thus most addicted to the use of the left. But for the very reason that it seems to have been a habit of the tribe to use the left hand, it cannot be supposed that àִèֵּø is meant to indicate lameness of the right hand. The LXX. felt this when they rendered the phrase by ἀìöéäÝîéïò , “double right-handed.” The same consideration influenced those more recent scholars who instanced (as Serarius already did, p. 84) the Homeric Asteropæus, who fought with both hands. However, this also contradicts the spirit of the narrative, and, as the peculiarity occurs only in Benjamin, the name as well. Those Ben-jemini, who, like Ehud, use the left hand, do it in contrast with others, who make use of the right without any lameness in the left. That which Stobæus (Eclogœ Physicœ, ed. Heeren, i. 52, 992) relates of certain African nations, might also be said of the Benjamites: that they are “good and for the most part left-handed fighters ( ἀñéóôåñïìÜ÷ïõò ), and do with the left hand whatever others do with the right.” These are manifestly the same tribes of whom Stephanus of Byzantium (ed. Westermann, p. 128) speaks as an Egyptian people near Ethiopia, and whom he styles ’ Åõùíõìßôáé (thus designating them, like Benjamin, by the euphemistic term for left-handed). Accordingly àִèֵּø éַã éְîִéðåֹ means no more than “unpracticed, weak, awk ward, with the right hand,” as other people are with the left. They are such as among other nations the people frequently called Linketatz, Linkfuss [literally, “left-paw,” “left-foot”] (Frisch, i. 616), in France gauchier [lit. “left-hander”; cf. the English awk, gawk, and their derivative forms]. It is remarkable that in the Roman legend the hero, who, like Ehud, undertakes to kill the enemy of his country, is also named Scævola, left-handed. The traditional explanation that he was so named because he burned his right hand, is not very suitable; he should in that case, be named “one-handed.” Still, no one will agree with Niebuhr (Röm. Gesch., i. 569), who, following Varro, proposed an altogether different derivation. The tradition must refer to an actually left-handed hero. Scœvus, says Ulpian (Digestor., lib. 1. tit. 1, 12, 3), does not apply to one who is maimed; hence, he who cannot move the right hand is called mancus. As such a left-handed person we are to consider Laïus ( ËÜúïò ), the father of Œdipus ( Ïἰäßðïõò ).
Jdg_3:16. And Ehud made him a dagger [German: Dolch] which had two edges, a gomed long. The word dolch [dagger, dirk] has passed over into the German, from the Slavic, since the sixteenth century, and was not yet known to Luther. It answers to çֶøֶá in this passage, better than “sword” would ”do, because it has become quite synonymous with stichdegen (dirk or poniard). Oriental daggers have always been double-edged and short-handled (Jdg_3:22). Gomed is translated óðéèáìÞ by the Septuaginta. Among the Greeks, the óðéèáìÞ was half an ell, i.e. twelve digits or three fourths of a foot (cf. Böckh, Metrolog. Unters., p. 211). With this measure, gomed, in its general sense of cubitus, which is also given in the garmida of the Targum, corresponds. The dagger of Ehud was not curved, as the sicœ usually were and as the daggers of the Bedouins still are (cf. Jos. Ant. xx. 10). Its length could only be such as was consistent with concealment.
And girded it under his raiment. “To the presence of Dionysius the Tyrant, glided Mœros, the dagger in his garment,” sings our poet, and is withal perfectly historical, even though the Fable (n. 257) of Hyginus does not expressly say this. With such daggers in their garments the Sicarii raged among the crowds at the fall of Jerusalem. Prudentius (Psychomachia, 689) sings of Discordia: “sicam sub veste tegit!” Rothari, the would-be murderer of the Longobard king Luitprand, wore coat of mail and a dagger beneath his clothing (Paulus Diaconus, Hist. Lomb. vi. 37). Ehud had to wear the dagger on his right side because he was left-handed. However, among German warriors who were not left-handed, the dagger was also frequently worn on the right, because the sword hung on the left, as may be seen in old pictures and on gravestones (Klemm, Waffen und Werkzeuge, Leipzig, 1854, p. 173).
Jdg_3:17. And Eglon was a very fat man. Considering the sense of áָּøִéà wherever it occurs in Scripture, there can be no doubt that it is intended here to express the corpulency of the king. The LXX. in giving ἀóôåῖïò , follow another interpretation. They do not (as Bochart thought, Phaleg, p. 534) take it as descriptive of a handsome man, nor do they imagine that all urbani, on account of their comfortable mode of living, have a tendency to become fat (cf. Serarius, p. 87); but since the statement “and Eglon was a fat man” is closely connected with the narrative of the presentation of the gifts, they make it refer to the manner in which the king received the presents. ’ Áóôåῖïò is friendly, accessible (Plato, Phœd., 116 b.). In Egypt, where the translators lived, it was probably still a matter of present experience, that presentations of tribute and gifts to the rulers did not always meet with a gracious reception.
Jdg_3:18. When the presentation of the present was over, he dismissed the people. Meuschen (Nov. Test, ex Talm., p. 971) very properly observes that ÷øַá , here employed to express the presentation of gifts to a king, is elsewhere used to denote the bringing of oblations to God, hence ÷ָøְáָּï , offering. It was not lawful to appear before an Asiatic king without bringing a gift (Seneca, Ep. xvii.); only in this way, therefore, could Ehud inform himself of the situation and humor of the king. The presentation of gifts is a lengthy ceremony. The tenacious adherence of oriental nations to ancient customs, enables us to depict the present scene by the help of Persian descriptions of similar occasions. Our narrator properly speaks of the bearers of the present as äָòָí , the people; for the more numerous the persons who carried the gifts, the more honored was the king. “Fifty persons often bear what one man could easily carry,” says Chardin (Voyage, iii. 217). At this ceremony Ehud had no opportunity to attempt anything, for he neither came near the king, nor saw him alone; nor yet was he willing, among so many bystanders, to involve his companions in the consequences of a possible failure. On the contrary, he accompanied them back to the borders, in order to be sure that he was alone when making the dangerous attempt. Whether he suffered or escaped, he wished to be unhindered by their presence, and also to appear as acting without their concurrence.
Jdg_3:19. But he himself turned back from the boundary-stones. This is evidently the sense in which ôְּñִéìִéí is to be taken. ôֶּñֶì is always a carved image, ãëõðôüí . The entire number of instances in which this word is used by Scripture writers fails to suggest any reason for thinking here of “stone-quarries,” a definition which moreover does not appear to harmonize with the locality. But as the connection implies that the borders of Eglon’s territory, which he had wrenched from Israel, were at the pesilim, we must understand by them the posts, óôῆëáé , stones, lapides sacri, which marked the line. In consequence of the honors everywhere paid them, these were considered Pesilim, idol images, just as at a later time the Hermœ, ( ἕñìáêåò , heaps of stone) were prohibited as idolatrous objects (cf. Aboda Sara, Mischna, 4). With this, the interpretation of the Targum, îַçְöָáַéָּà , heaps of unhewn stones, may also be made to harmonize. This border line was in the vicinity of Gilgal, which had not fallen into the hands of Moab. Ewald has rightly insisted upon it that Gilgal must have lain northeast of Jericho (Gesch. des Volkes Israel, ii. 317). That this was the relative position of Gilgal, and its direction from Jericho, has already received confirmation from the first chapter of our Book.
And said, I have a secret message. It could not be matter of surprise that Ehud did not make this request until his return. The ceremony of the public audience did not allow it to be made at that time. The presentation of the presents must have been so conducted as to impress the king with the conviction that Ehud was especially devoted to him. Signs of discontent and ill-will on the part of the subjugated people cannot have escaped the conqueror. The more highly would he value the devotion of one of the Israelitish leaders. That Ehud had sent his companions away, and had not returned until they had crossed the border, was easily explained as indicating that he had a matter to present in which he did not wish to be observed by them. All the more eager, therefore, was Eglon to hear that which Ehud seemed to hide from Israel. It was only by such a feint that Ehud could succeed in approaching the tyrant and obtaining a private interview. Israel’s deliverer must first seem to be its betrayer. The same artifice has been used by others. When the Persians wished to destroy the pseudo-Smerdis, and doubtingly considered how they could pass the guards, Darius said that he would pretend to have a secret commission, concerning Persia, from his father to the king; adding, as Herodotus (iii. 72) says: “For when lying is necessary, lie”!
Who said, Silence! Thereupon all that stood by him went out. Ehud does not demean himself as if he wished that those present would depart. He appears to be on the point of telling his secret before them all. But this Eglon will not permit. Oriental manners could not be more perfectly set forth. The king’s injunction of silence ( äָñ , ’st!) on Ehud, is of itself a sufficient command to those present to leave the room. Eglon must therefore have expected matters not to be heard by all ears. All who “stood” about him, went out. They were his servants (Jdg_3:24), who do not sit when the king is present. “Happy are these thy servants,” says the queen of Sheba to Solomon, “who stand continually before thee, and hear thy wisdom.” In the Tutinameh (translated by Rosen, i. 42, 43) it is said: “The King of Khorassan was once sitting in his palace, and before his throne stood the pillars of the empire, the servants of the crown, high and low, great and small,” etc.
Jdg_3:20. Now, he had seated himself in the upper story of the cooling-house. To understand what part of the house is thus indicated, we have only to attend to the description of oriental architecture given by Shaw, in his Travels (i. 386, Edinb. edit. 1808). Down to the present day many oriental houses have a smaller one annexed to them, which sometimes rises one story higher than the main building. In Arabic as in Hebrew this is called alijah, and serves for purposes of entire seclusion or rest. “There is a door of communication from it into the gallery of the house, besides another which opens immediately, from a privy stairs, down into the porch or street, without giving the least disturbance to the house.” The alijah of Eglon consisted of an inner chamber. opening on an exposed balcony ( îñãּøåֹï ), from which a door led into the house itself (at present called dor or bait) Within the door of the alijah there was however still another apartment ( çֶãֶø , Jdg_3:24), which served the purpose of a necessary-house. Being high and freely accessible to currents of air, the alijah was a cool retreat. Similar purposes were subserved in Germany by the pergulœ, balconies, galleries, arbors (Lauben); hence Luther’s translation, Sommer-laube (summer-arbor or bower). He followed the rendering of the LXX. who have ôø ͂ èåñéíø ͂, while the Targum gives more prominence to the idea of repose ( áֵּéú ÷ַéְèָà , êïßôç ). The public reception of the gifts had taken place in the house. Afterwards, while Ehud accompanied his companions, the king had betaken himself to the alijah “which was for himself alone” (his private chamber). When Ehud returned he was received there, as he had anticipated.
And Ehud said, I have a message from the Deity unto thee. Then he arose from his seat. ãְּáַø àֱìֹäִéí is a commission from a higher being. He does not say Jehovah, for this is the name of the Israelitish God, with whom Eglon has nothing to do. We are not however to assume that the God of Eglon is meant; for what can Ehud the Israelite announce from Chemosh! It is therefore probable that by Elohim a superior prince is to be understood, whose liegeman or satrap Eglon was, as was already intimated above,—a human possessor of majesty and authority. As it is not to be supposed that the capital of Moab was transferred from Rabbah to the small bit of territory which had been acquired across the Jordan, Eglon in Jericho is not to be looked on as lord of all Moab. The relation in which he stood to the mother-country was most likely that of a vassal or feudal baron. That he is styled king does not contradict this. The potentates of single cities were all called “kings,” as the Greeks called them ôýñáííïé , without on that account being anything more than dependents of more powerful states and princes. It suits the rôle which Ehud wishes to be ascribed to him, that he should also have relations with the transfluvial Moab, a fact which of course must be kept profoundly secret. Thus Eglon’s rising is explained. The same honor was due to a message from the superior lord as to his presence. Like reverence was shown to royal letters even, as appears from the narrative of Herodotus concerning a message to Oroetes; and from it, the fidelity of those whom the message concerned was inferred (Herod. iii. 128). The same mark of honor was paid to parents and aged persons. From this custom the ecclesiastical usage of standing during the reading of the Gospel, is also to be derived. Eglon rises out of respect for the ãְּáַø àֱìֹäִéí . This has been the constant explanation. The diverging view of Bertheau does not commend itself. The Talmud—understanding the words, however, of the God of Israel—already deduces from them the lesson, that if a stranger thus rose up to receive a message from God, much more is it the duty of an Israelite so to do (Sanhedrin, 60 a).
Jdg_3:21-24. Immediately Ehud put forth his left hand. Ehud made use of a pretext, in order to cause Eglon to rise. He was surer of his thrust if his victim stood. Eglon’s attention must be wholly diverted, that the attack, entirely unresisted, might be the more effective. In such sudden assaults, bulky people like Eglon are at a disadvantage. Cimber pressed closely on Cæsar, as if to make most urgent entreaty for his brother (Plut., Cœsar, 86). Parmenio was stabbed by cleander, while cheerfully reading a letter (Curtius, vii. 2, 27). The instance most like Eglon’s case, is that of King Henry III. of France. Clement, to secure an interview, had provided himself with a commission from a friend of the king. When he arrived, the king was sitting on his close-stool. Hoping to hear of an understanding with his opponents, Henry bade the messenger draw near; whereupon the monk stabbed him in the abdomen (cf. Ranke, Französ. Gesch., i. 171). Ehud’s thrust, though left-handed, was powerful. The dagger, together with its short handle, buried itself in the fat of the man, and came out behind. ìַäַá signifies a flame; then the blade of a sword, which glitters and burns like a flame. In a mediæval writing, the following words occur: “Sîn swert flamnieret an sîner hant (Müller’s Mittelh. Wörterb., iii. 336). In technical language we also speak of flaming blades (geflammten klingen).
And came out behind, åַéֵּöֵà äַôַּøְùְׁãֹðָä . The ancient doubt as to this word, which occurs but once, and about which opinions are still divided, appears from the divergent renderings of the Septuagint and the Targum. It is certain, however, in the first place, that the Greek rendering ðñïóôÜäá , can have little weight; for it arose from the similarity of the word in the text to îְּøåּëְãָà , current at the time, and meaning ðñïóôÜò , vestibule. In the second place, the addition of Ehud after the second åַéֵּöֵà (Jdg_3:23), shows that another subject begins, and that therefore the first åַéֵּöֵà can refer only to the sword, not to the man. Further, since äַôַּøְùְׁãֹðָä is provided with ä local, it manifestly denotes that part of the body toward which the course of the sword was directed, while åַéֵּöֵà testifies to the actual perforation of the body. Now, as the sword was thrust from before into the abdomen ( áֶּèֶï ), there would be no doubt as to the part where it emerged, even if the etymology, which has here to deal with an onomatopoetic word, did not make this perfectly plain. Parshedon is the Greek ðñùêôüò , and belongs to the same family as the Lithuanian persti, Lettish pirst, Polish pierdziec, Russian perdjet, Greek ðÝñäåéí , Sanscrit pard, Latin pedere, Gothic fairtan, Old High German fërzan (cf. Pott, Etymolog. Forsch., i. 245; Grimm. Wörterb., iii. 1335). The sword emerged behind through the fundament. The king fell down without uttering a sound. Ehud did not delay, but went out unhindered through the balcony. The attendants had entirely withdrawn from the alijah: Ehud takes advantage of this circumstance, and locks the door to it, in order to delay the moment of discovery. The heedless conduct of the unsuspecting attendants supports his boldness. As soon however as they see him go out,—an earlier return to their lord is not lawful,—they endeavor to enter the alijah. Ehud had gone away so calmly, that they suspect nothing. They are not even surprised when they find the doors fastened. Serarius has properly directed attention to the aversion felt by the ancients to the least degree of exposure when complying with the necessities of nature. This applies especially to kings, inasmuch as subjection to these necessities, too plainly proved them men. Of Pharaoh, the Jewish legend says that he wished to appear like a god, above the need of such things. “He covers his feet,” is a euphemism, taken from the descent of the long garments (Cf. Bochart, Hierozoicon, i. 677).
Jdg_3:25-30. And they waited long, áּåֹùׁòַã . These words add the notion of displeasure and ill humor to the idea of waiting (cf. 2Ki_2:17; 2Ki_8:11). At length they comprehend that something extraordinary must have taken place. They procure another key, with which they open the doors, and find their lord—dead. Ehud’s artifice, however, had succeeded. While they delayed ( äִúְîַäְîְäָí , from îַäְîַä , morari, is onomatopoetic), he had got beyond the border, as far as Seirah. This place, which according to Jdg_3:27 belonged to the mountains of Ephraim, is unknown. It bounded the territories of Benjamin on the north. Ehud reached it by way of the border which ran by Gilgal, which shows that both these places were north of Jericho. It is evident that he had agreed with the Israelites to give the signal there, in case he were successful. His trumpet-blast was transmitted among the mountains. Israel flocked together, and heard of the unprecedentedly fortunate deed. The people saw in it the firm resolve, which gives victory. The plan of battle had also been already determined by Ehud. It was of the last importance to cut the terrified and leaderless Moabites off from the assistance of their transjordanic friends. Hence, the first care of Israel is to seize the ford of the river. The ford in question was manifestly no other than that which, directly east of Jericho, half an hour north of Wady Heshban, is still in use. Seetzen called it el-Mökhtaa, Robinson el-Helu (Ritter xv. 484, 547, Gage’s transl. iii. 4, 49). That the occupation of this ford decides the victory, proves clearly that Eglon was not king of all Moab, but only of the Moab on this side of the Jordan. It was a terrible retribution, a sort of “Sicilian vespers,” which Israel, rising up after long subjection, inflicted on Eglon and his people. The falling foes were men of might. àִéùׁ ùָׁîֵï expresses the distinction (das Ansehn), àִéùׁ çַéִì the warlike character and abilities, of the smitten enemies. Moab was thoroughly vanquished, and Israel had rest for eighty years.
The exploit of Ehud doubtless surpasses all similar deeds of ancient history in the purity of its motive, as well as in the energy and boldness of its execution. Harmodius and Aristogiton, however celebrated by the Athenians, were moved to kill Hipparchus by private interests (cf. Thucyd. vi. 56). Blind warrior fury fills Mucius Scævola, as also Theodotus (Polyb. v. 81), the would-be murderer of Ptolemæus, and they fail of success. Ehud was equally bold and pure. He risked his life for no interest of his own, but for his people. And not merely for the external freedom of his nation, but for the maintenance and honor of its divine religion, which was inseparably linked with freedom. It was against the mortal enemy of Israel—against one lying under the ban, and shut out from the congregation of Israel—that he lifted up his sword. He exposed himself to a fearful peril, in order, if successful, to give therewith a signal of courage and comfort to his people. To be sure, if he did not succeed, the hatred and oppression of the enemy would increase in violence. But for that very reason men saw the more clearly that God had raised him up to be a deliverer. And yet, where in Israel are those praises of Ehud, which in Athens resounded for centuries in honor of Harmodius? Scævola’s deed is celebrated as one of the nation’s heroic performances. The historian makes him say (Livy, xi. 12): “As an enemy have I slain the enemy.” It is true, the remarkable act has had the honor of being minutely handed down, even to the least details of its progress. But all this was to point out the sagacity and energy of the strong left-handed man. Not one word of praise is found. On the contrary—and this fact deserves attention—the remark usually made of other Judges, is here wanting: it is not said that “the Spirit of Jehovah was upon him.” Nor is it said, as of Othniel, that he “judged Israel.” Neither are we told that the rest and peace of Israel were connected with his life and death. Subsequent exegesis called him the Wolf, with which Benjamin is compared (Midrash, Ber. Rabba, cap. 89, p. 87-a). As the wolf throws himself on his prey, so had Ehud thrown himself on Eglon. They saw in Ehud’s deed the act of a mighty man, influenced by zeal for God; but the “Spirit of Jehovah” inspires neither suck artifice nor such murder. So much the less could the act of Ehud, however brilliant under the circumstances, be made to exculpate similar deeds. So much the less could the crimes that defile the pages of Christian history, such as those committed against Henry III. and Henry IV., use it as a cover for themselves. Although Eglon was a heathen, a foreigner, a tyrant, an enemy actually engaged in hostilities, the Scripture speaks of Ehud only as a deliverer, but never of his deed as sprung from the Spirit of God. How much more disgraceful are murder and treason against one’s own king, countrymen, and fellow Christians! It was an insult to Christianity, a sin against the Holy Ghost, when in answer to Clement’s question, whether a priest might kill a tyrant, it was determined that “it was not a mortal sin, but only an irregularity” (Ranke, Franz. Gesch., i. 473); or when Pope Paul V. exclaimed, with reference to the murder of Henry IV. by Ravaillac: “Deus gentium fecit hoc, quia datus in reprobum sensum.” Worse than the dagger is such doctrine.
2. Ehud kills Eglon, the tyrant of Israel; yet he is not properly a murderer, but only a warrior. However, it is better to conquer as Othniel and Gideon conquered. He did it, not for private revenge, nor from fanaticism, but for the just freedom of Israel and its religion. He did it against Moab, and not against one who shared his own faith and country. God raised him up; but yet the Word of God does not approve his deed. He was a deliverer of Israel; but there hangs a shadow nevertheless over his official activity. Therefore, no murderous passion can appeal to him. By him no tyrant-murder, no political assassination, is exculpated. And this not simply because in Christian states and churches there can be no Eglons or Moabs.—Starke: “The Jesuit principle that it is right to put an heretical prince out of the way, will never be valid until a person can be certain of having such a calling from God to it, as Ehud undoubtedly had.”—His cause was pure; which cannot be said of any other assassination in history,—Christian history not excepted,—down to the murder of the North American President Lincoln; not even of those instances which remind us (as Mallet, Altes und Neues, p. 92, so beautifully did with reference to G. Sand, the murderer of Kotzebue) of the words of the Lord: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
Gerlach: We are not to think that the deed of Ehud, in the manner of its accomplishment, is set before us as an example; but we must also beware lest, because the manner is no longer allowable, we be led to deny the operation of the Holy Ghost by whom this deliverer of his people was impelled.
3. Because Ehud’s cause was pure, his deed was followed by peace and freedom. That can be said of no other similar deed. He first searched out the enemy in his hiding-place, and then triumphed over him in the battlefield. He shows himself,—1, a true Israelite by faith; 2, a true son of Benjamin, who was compared with the wolf, by his strength. He drew his sword, not for the sake of war, but of peace. Therefore, Israel had peace through him until he died.
Ehud may not improperly be considered a type in spirit of him who likewise sprang from Benjamin—of Saul who first ravened like a wolf, but became patient and trustful like a lamb; of the Apostle who called the Word of God a two-edged sword that pierces through the conscience; of Paul, whose symbol in the church is the sword through which as martyr he lost his own life, after he had saved the lives of thousands by the sword of the Spirit.
Footnotes:
[Jdg_3:12.— åַéְçַæֵּ÷ : the same word is used Exo_4:21, etc., Jos_11:20; but is here, as Bachmann remarks, to be explained not by those passages, but by Eze_30:24. It implies here the impartation not so much of strength as of the consciousness of it.—Tr.]
[Jdg_3:15.— àִèֵּø : Dr. Cassel, schwach, weak. “Impeded” would be the better word. Against the opinion of some, that Ehud’s right hand was either lamed or mutilated, Bachmann quotes the remark of Schmid that it would have been a breach of decorum to send such a physically imperfect person on an embassy to the king. It may be added that this explanation of àִèֵּø is at all events not to be thought of in the case of the 700 chosen men mentioned in Jdg_20:16.—Tr.]
[Jdg_3:15.—Dr. Cassel translates this clause: “when [als; i. e. Jehovah raised up Ehud as a deliverer, when] the sons of Israel sent a present by him to Eglon, the king of Moab.” But it is altogether simpler and better to take the clause as an independent progressive sentence, as in the E. V. So Bachmann also.—Tr.]
[Jdg_3:18.— éְùַׁìַּç : dismissed them by accompanying them part of the way back, cf. Gen_12:20; Gen_18:16; etc.—Tr.]
[Jdg_3:19.— ãְּáַøÎñֵúֶø : Dr. Cassel translates, “a secret word.” But “errand” is better; because like ãָּáָø , it may be a word or message, or it may be a commission of a more active nature. Bachmann quotes Chyträus: rem, negotium secretum habeo apud te agendum. So, he goes on to remark, in Jdg_3:20 “ ãְּáַøÎàֱìäִֹéí ìִé àֵìֶéêָ , is not necessarily, ‘I have a word from God to say to thee;’ but may mean, ‘I have a commission from God to execute to thee.’ It would be preferable, therefore, to conform the English Version in Jdg_3:20 to Jdg_3:19, rather than the reverse.—Tr.]
[Jdg_3:20.—The rendering given above is Dr. Cassel’s, except that he puts the verb ( éùֵׁá ) in the pluperfect, which can scarcely be approved. He translates áַּòֲìִéַּú äַîְּ÷ֵøָä by Obergeschoss des kühlhauses, which we can only represent by the awkward phrase: “upper story of the cooling-house.” It would be better, however, to take îְ÷ֵøָä as containing an adjective idea, descriptive of the ’alijah: “cool upper story.” Cf. Bachmann.—Tr.]
[Jdg_3:22.—The term ôַּøְùְׁãåֹï occurs only here, and is of exceedingly doubtful interpretation. Bachmann assumes that the åַéֵּöֵà which precedes it has Ehud for its subject, and then—by a course of reasoning far too lengthy and intricate to be here discussed—comes to the conclusion that ôַּøְùְׁãåֹï denotes a locality, which in the next verse is more definitely indicated by îִñְãְּøåֹï . The latter term, he thinks, is best understood “of the lattice-work by which the roof was inclosed, or rather of the inclosed platform of the roof itself.” Accordingly he conceives the text to say that Ehud issued forth from Eglon’s private apartment “upon the flat roof, more definitely upon the inclosed plat from or gallery.”—Tr.]
[Jdg_3:29.—Dr. Cassel: angesehene Leute, cf. the Commentary; but it seems better to hold fast to the E. V. The expression is literally: “fat men,” i. e. well-fed, lusty men, of great physical strength. So Bachmann also.—Tr.]
[It certainly appears that he had done so temporarily, but by no means that he had done so permanently.—Tr.]
The importance of this observation has been overlooked with reference to other lands as well as Palestine. The general fact that the sea-side was the right side, has been constantly ignored. That was the reason why Jacob Grimm (Gesch. der Deutschen Sprache, p. 990, etc.) failed to understand why among the Indians, Romans, etc., the south side of the mountains was the right, and the north side the left. The same idea prevailed among the Greeks. That in Roman augury “to the left” was more favorable than “to the right,” originated only in another view of the object which was supposed to produce good fortune. The sea-side was the free side.
Cf. Benfey, Griech. Grammat., i. 240.
This is the opinion of Grimm (Deutsch. Wörterb., ii. 1222). However, the view of Klemm (Waffen und Werkzeuge, p. 172) may nevertheless serve to find the original stymology of the word. [Luther has Schwert, sword.—Tr.]
[Schiller, in his ballad entitled Die Bürgschaft.—Tr.]
Hence they also translate èåֹá by ἀóôåῖïò , Exo_2:2, where, to be sure, it rather signifies “beautiful.”
Transferred to God, Exo_23:15 : “None shall appear before me empty.”
[To this interpretation of the pesilim, Bachmann (who agrees with our author in rejecting the commonly received “stone-quarries”) objects that it is not in accordance with he usual meaning of the word. He thinks that the pesiim were idolatrous images set up either by the apostate Israelites themselves, or by Eglon, “as boundary-marks of the territory immediately subject to him, and as signs of his supremacy.” He seems inclined to prefer the latter alternative, because of “the fact that Ehud does not feel himself and those with him secure until he has passed the pesilim.”—Tr.]
Thus the king of Hazor was king paramount over all the kings of his vicinity (Jos_11:10).
[Bertheau says: “Divining the purpose of Ehud, he rose up to defend himself.”—Tr.]
[“His sword flamed in his hand.”—Tr.]
[Robinson’s map locates El-Helu not directly east, but southeast of Jericho, not north but south of Wady Heshban (cf. Bibl. Res. i. 535). It appears that the words “directly east” belong to Seetzen, and must in Ritter’s opinion be made to conform to Robinson’s location of El Helu. Cf. Gage’s Ritter, iii. 49. Van de Velde’s map places El-Helu southeast of Jericho, a short distance north of W. Heshban.—Tr.]
[Bertheau: “ ùָׁîֵï , the fat, i. e. (in contrast with persons of starved appearance) the well-fed and opulent man; cf. Latin opimus; hence, the man of consequence.” But compare note 8 under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.]
In Plutarch’s Parallels of Greek and Roman History (n. 2), the same history is given of a Greek, Neocles, who made an attempt against Xerxes like that of Scævola against Porsenna.
Excellent remarks are found in the work of Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. 1. cap. 4. (ed. Traj, 1773), p. 178. Serarius declines to treat the subject, under the feeble pretext of lack of time, p. 92. (Compare Bayle, Dictionnaire, s. v. Mariana, ii. 2051, e.)
[Wordsworth: “Some have raised objections to this act of Ehud, as censurable on moral grounds: and they have described him as a ‘crafty Israelite,’ taking an unfair advantage over an unwieldy corpulent Moabite; others have apologized for it, on the plea that it is not to be measured by what way call the standard of our ‘enlightened modern civilization’ compared with what they term the ‘barbarous temper of those times.’ But surely these are low and unworthy motives.” He then quotes with approbation from Bp. Sanderson and Dr. Waterland, the gist of whose remarks (Sanderson’s however being made with immediate reference to the act of Phinehas, Numbers 25.) is, that the Lord raises up deliverers for Israel, and divinely warranted their actions, which actions, however, form no precedents for those who have not similar divine authority. But it is surely not an improper question to ask, whether, when God raised up a hero, endowed him with faith and zeal, with strength and energy, to secure certain results, He also, always and necessarily, suggested or even approved the methods adopted not only as a whole but even in detail.—Tr.]