Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 9:1 - 9:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Usurped Rule Of Abimelech, The Fratricide And Thorn-bush King.
__________________
The election and coronation of Abimelech. Jotham’s parable.
Jdg_9:1-21.
[2 Jdg_9:2.—The E. V. unnecessarily departs from the order of the Hebrew, and thereby obscures the antithesis which is primarily between “seventy” and “one,” and secondarily between “sons of Jerubbaal” and “your bone and flesh,” thus: “Which is better for you, that seventy men, all sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or that one man rule over you? Remember, also,” etc.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_9:6.—Keil: “The explanation of àֵìåֹï îֻöָּá is doubtful. îֻöָּá , anything ‘set up,’ is in Isa_29:3 a military post [garrison], but may also mean a monument, and designates here probably the great stone set up (Jos_24:26) under the oak or terebinth near Shechem (cf. Gen_35:4).” De Wette also renders: Denkmal-Eiche, “monument-oak.”—Tr.]
[4 Jdg_9:7.—Dr. Cassel translates: “and may God hear you.” This is very well, but hardly in the sense in which he takes it, see below. Whether we translate as in the E. V., or as Dr. Cassel, the realization of the second member of the address must be regarded as contingent upon that of the first.—Tr.]
[5 Jdg_9:9; Jdg_9:11; Jdg_9:13.— äֶçֳãַìְúִּé àֶúÎãִּùְׁðִé . According to Ewald (Gram., 51 c.) äֶçֳãַìְúִּé is a contracted hiphil form (for äַäֶúֶãַìúִּé ), the second ä being dropped in order to avoid the concurrence of too many gutturals, and the resulting äַçֲã× (cf. Ges. Gr. 22, 4) being changed into äֶçֳã× in order to distinguish the interrogative particle more sharply. Others regard it as hophal (see Green, 53, 2, b). But as there are no traces anywhere else of either of these conjugations in this verb, it is commonly viewed as a simple kal form = äֶçָãַìְúִּé . Keil seeks to explain the anomalous vowel under ç by saying that “the obscure o-sound is substituted for the regular a in order to facilitate the pronunciation of successive guttural syllables.” Dr. Cassel renders: “Have I then lost [better: given up] my fatness?” But as the notion of futurity must manifestly be contained in the following åְäָìַëְúִּֽé , the ordinary rendering, “Should I give up?” is preferable.—Tr.]
[6 Jdg_9:9.— àֲùֶׁøÎáִּé éְëַáְּãåּ àֱìֹäéí åַàְðָùִׁéí : “which God and men honor (esteem) in me.” Compare Jdg_9:13. Dr. Cassel renders as the E. V.—Tr.]
[7 Jdg_9:17.— åַéַּùְׁìֵêְ àֶúÎðַôְùׁåֹ îִðֶּâֶã : literally, “cast his life from before (him); cf. the marginal reading of he E. V.: i. e. “disr garded his own life.”.—Tr..]
Jdg_9:2-3. For they said, He is our brother. Abimelech, when he turned to Shechem with his criminal plans, was perfectly acquainted with the vain-glorious lust after power indulged in by the Ephraimites. He knew that it irritated them, to hear of the “rule of the seventy sons of Gideon.” Gideon, it is true, desired no dominion, nor could his sons exercise it; but the centre of distinction was nevertheless at Ophrah, in his house, where the ephod was. The negotiations into which Abimelech now enters with Shechem are very instructive. They show, first, that the distinction which the ephod conferred on the house of Gideon, although it implied no claim to dominion, properly speaking, was yet the very thing which, by exciting envy, became a snare to that house; and, secondly, that Shechem, as Gideon’s heir, will nevertheless not surrender this distinction, but desires to transfer it to one of its own people. The narrative is throughout of a tragic cast. Precisely those things which should exhort to greatness and faithfulness, are shamefully metamorphosed by sin into incentives to treason and mischief. In the hearts of the “lords of Shechem,” no voice of truth or justice raises itself against the unnatural plan of Abimelech. They convict him not of falsehood, by pointing out that his brothers do not exercise dominion, but support his project, because he is their brother, and by him they will rule. It is manifest that the whole of Shechem is morally depraved. As Abimelech, so his kindred; and as they, so all the Shechemites were disposed.
Jdg_9:4-5. And they gave him seventy silver-pieces out of the house of Baal-berith. Israel was forbidden to enter into covenant (berith) with the nations round about (cf. Jdg_2:2). The first symptom of apostasy among them, was always the inclination to remove the barriers between themselves and their heathen neighbors. The concessions required to make the establishment of covenant relations possible, were altogether one-sided: it was always Israel, and Israel only, that surrendered any part of its faith. The worship of a Baal-berith was the symbol of fellowship with the heathen, whereby the command to make no covenants was violated. His temple was the point of union for both parties. The support of Abimelech in his undertaking came from all the worshippers of Baal-berith; for was it not directed against the house of Jerubbaal, the declared enemy of Baal? Such being its character, it had moreover a proper claim on the treasures of the temple of Baal-berith. What a disgrace, when the son of the “Baal-vanquisher” takes money from the temple of that same Baal, for the purpose of murdering his brothers! What a victory of Satan over the youthful votary of ambition! And cheap enough was the price of blood. The idle rabble who hired themselves as body-guard to Abimelech, received a silver-piece, i. e. a shekel, for the head of each of Gideon’s sons. However vague the impression we get of a piece of money in that age by computing its equivalent in our coin, it is nevertheless frightful to think how little it cost (scarcely more than half a dollar), to procure the performance of the most horrible deed.
And he slew his brethren. Abimelech is a perfect type of the tyrant, as he frequently appears in Greek history, continental and insular, and also, in more recent times, on Italian soil. Machiavelli (Prince, ch. viii.) says, that “whoever seizes a crown, unjustly and violently, must, if cruelty be necessary, exercise it to the full at once, in order to avoid the necessity of beginning it anew every day.” In support of this maxim, he refers, first to Agathocles, and then to the petty tyrant of Fermo, Oliverotto, who in order to become master of the city, caused his uncle, who was also his foster-father, friend, and benefactor, to be traitorously slain at a banquet.—Only one escaped, the youngest, Jotham by name. The confession of Jehovah, which this name of his youngest son implies, evidences the constant piety and faithfulness of Gideon, and confirms our conjecture that not he, but Shechem, invented the name Abimelech.
Jdg_9:6. And all the lords of Shechem held an assembly. Gideon’s sons being murdered, an election of a king now takes place. As the electors, so their king. The noble undertaking had succeeded; the house of Gideon was destroyed. What a contrast! After the glorious victory over Midian, Gideon, though urgently besought by the men of many tribes, will not consent to continue to be even their imperator; now, the Shechemites raise the assassin of his brothers to the dignity of a king! A kingship like that of the heathen cities on the coast, with no law, but with plenty of blood, without the oil of consecration, but steeped in sin, is thus violently and vain-gloriously set up by Shechem and its fortress (Beth-Millo); and that too, with a reckless hardihood as great as that which characterized the preliminary murders, in a spot consecrated by sacred memories. There where Joshua, before he died (Jos_24:25-26), made a covenant with the people on God’s behalf, where he had solemnly bound them to the observance of the law, and where they had promised to obey God alone,—there, at the great stone, set up by Joshua under the oak, two apostate, self-seeking cities, stained with murder and unbelief, elect a son of Jerubbaal, who suffered himself to be bought in the interest of Baal, to be their king! For the coronation, the narrative tells us, took place “ òִí àìåֹï îֻöָּá , at the monument-oak, near Shechem.” And though nothing further is said about the place, it may nevertheless be inferred, from the connection and the tragic character of the occurrence, that the narrator, in bringing its locality to the mind of the reader, designs to make the shameful character of the transaction more strikingly evident, just as throughout this passage he constantly writes Jerubbaal, not Gideon, in order to render more prominent the contrast between these servants and that great victor of Baal.
Jdg_9:7. And they told it to Jotham. While the preparations for the coronation are in progress, tidings of them are brought to Jotham, the last scion of the stock of Gideon. What shall he do? The whole nation is fallen into listlessness and inactivity. The horrible massacre has called forth no rising. Even those tribes who had perhaps heard of it, but took no part in it, continue quiescent. Sin has dulled every nerve of courage and gratitude. The son of the hero still receives intelligence; a few helpers are with him in his flight; a few others perhaps sigh with him in secret: but beyond this, he is alone. The spirit, however, of his father, has not left him. While below they crown the fratricide, he appears above, on the rock, like an impersonation of conscience. So the modern poet, with like grandeur of conception, makes Tell appear on the rock above the tyrant. Jotham’s arrow, however, is not sped from the fatal bow, but from a noble spirit. It is the arrow of parabolic discourse, dipped in personal grief and divine retribution, that he sends down among them. Mount Gerizim was the mount of blessing (Deu_27:12); but through the sin of Shechem, it becomes, in the parable of Jotham, a mount of judgment. Its present name, already borne in the Middle Ages, is el Tûr (the Mountain). It rises to a height of eight hundred feet above the present Nâblus (Rob. ii. 276). Jotham probably appeared on some projecting point, near enough to be heard, and distant enough to be not easily caught.Hearken unto me, he says, and may God hear you. He wishes them to hear his parable, as he desires God (Elohim) to hear the coronation rejoicings that rise up from the valley.
Jdg_9:8-21. The parable belongs to the most remarkable productions of Israelitish life, not only on account of its political significance, but also for what may be called its literary character. Fable and so-called apologue are of oriental, non-Israelitish, as also non-Grecian, origin. They spring from a pantheism in which trees and animals furnished symbols for expressing the popular ideas. Although rooted in the religious vivification of nature, their employment was nevertheless brought to maturity by the pressure of social necessities. In the East, fable and tale were always the weapons of mind against violence and tyranny (cf. my Eddischen Studien, p. 15). They furnished the people with individual consolation against general misery. In their original appearance among the Greeks also, they fail not to exhibit this character. In the same way, Jotham speaks to the tyrants of Shechem in this popular language, which all understand. He does not speak like a prophet, for he is none, and Baal has stopped the ears of his auditors. He does not even speak of the power and mighty deeds of Jehovah, from whom his own name is derived. He speaks of “Elohim” and his retributions—of the Deity in the general sense in which the heathen also acknowledge him. He speaks altogether in their language, popularly, with popular wisdom. But what a difference between the moral strength which justifies Jotham to put forth his parable, and (for instance) the motives of the Greek Archilochus. There we hear the wounded vanity of a rejected suitor; here, one solitary voice of indignation and truth against the tyrant and murderer. By this moral motive, Jotham elevates the parable to the level of the divine word, and furnishes the first illustration of how a popular form of discourse, the offspring of directly opposite principles, could be employed for moral purposes, and (in the parables of Christ) become a medium for the highest doctrines and mysteries. Jotham gives a parable and points out its application (from Jdg_9:16 onward); but also apart from the latter, the narrative conveys an independent political idea with a force which has scarcely been equaled by any subsequent expression of it. It manifests a political consciousness so mature, as to surprise one who looks at the apparently simple and common-place relations of the time and people.
The trees will have a king. No reason is given, but the history of Israel, to which reference is had, furnishes one. People felt that in the dangers of war, one common leadership was important. They supposed that their frequent sufferings at the hands of Moab and Midian, were owing to defects in their form of government. They would have a king, in order to be able, as in their folly they think they shall be, to dispense with obedience to the commands of God. Gideon says: God is your Ruler. The apostate people will fill his place with a king, and think that in their selection, they act in accordance with the will of God.
Offers of kingly dignity are seldom refused. Solon, properly speaking, never received a tender of royalty; and Otto, Duke of Saxony, the father of Henry I. was already too old to bear such a burden (as Widukind says, Ipse vero quasi jam gravior annis recusabat imperii onus). The good trees, however, notwithstanding their strength, will not be elected; they deem the species of royalty which is offered them, too insignificant to warrant the sacrifice of what they already possess. The olive tree, fig tree, and grape-vine, enjoy sufficient honor, happiness, and distinction, not to prefer this sort of coronation to their present activity. They will rather continue in a condition which secures their personal worth, than go to “wave over the trees.” It is a beautiful image of popular favor, uncertain, unequal, affected by every wind, which is afforded by the branches of trees, never at rest, always waving. The proffered royalty is dependent on popular favor. It is a royalty which must bend to every breeze, if it would avoid a fall. For they to whom the office is offered, are too noble to use the means necessary to maintain their authority when popular favor deserts them. They must first have lost their nobility of nature, before they can follow the call now made to them. It was a noble king of recent times, who, from similar motives, strenuously resisted to accept what was offered him.
It is very significant that this doctrine proceeds from Jotham, the son of Gideon. He has his eye of course, on the refusal of the crown by his father; only he brings the negative side of that refusal into special prominence. He makes it evident that even then the fickle and discordant character of popular favor and popular will was thoroughly apprehended. But one needed to be the son of a divinely called hero, to be able to set forth with cutting force the unprincipled conduct of revolutionary malcontents. Against a true kingship, as afterwards established in Israel, and which in its idea forms the highest perfection of the theocracy, Jotham says nothing. The people that applies to Samuel for a king, is a very different one from these criminal Shechemites, who attempt to get a king in opposition to God. These latter, for this reason, can only use a king who has nothing to lose, and is worthy of them: whose fit symbol is the thorn-bush. Sin loves arbitrariness; therefore they deserve a tyrant. The thorn-bush is the type of persons who, after they have accepted power offered by bloody hands, are qualified to preserve it by bloody means.
The æsthetic beauty of the parable is also to be noted. Trees afford the best representation of a republic; each tree has its own sphere of action, and no one is in a position to exercise any special influence over the others. Whoever among them would attempt this in the character of king, must, so to speak, leave the soil in which he is planted, and hover over them all. Their will would then be for him, what otherwise the nourishing earth is for all. Any productive tree would thereby lose its fruit. For the unfruitful thorn-bush alone, the office would involve no loss. The fable is especially beautiful as typical of Israelitish relations. The tribes are all equal. Like the trees, they all receive their strength from God. If they withdraw themselves from Him, in order to crown the thorn-bush, they will experience that which issues from the thorn-bush—namely, fire.
The profound significance of the parable is inexhaustible. Its truth is of perpetual recurrence. More than once was Israel in the position of the Shechemites; then especially, when He whose kingdom is not of this world, refused to be a king. Then, too, Herod and Pilate became friends. The thorn-bush seemed to be king when it encircled the head of the Crucified. But Israel experienced what is here denounced: a fire went forth, and consumed city and people, temple and fortress.
And they said to the olive-tree. The olive tree is already a king among trees in his own right; hence, Columella calls it “the first among trees.” His product is used to honor both “God and man.” His oil consecrates “kings and priests,” and feeds the light that burns in the sanctuary of God. The olive tree is the symbol of peaceful royalty; its leaf and branch are signs of reconciliation and peace: hence, Israel in its divine glory is compared to the “beautiful olive tree” (Hos_14:6).
Denying the request of the trees, the olive tree says: “Have I then lost ( äֶçֳãַìְúִּé , an unusual form, which with Keil I regard as a simple Kal) my oil, that I should wave over the trees?” Has Israel then lost its life of peace in God, its sacred anointing through God’s servants, its pious light and life in God’s law? Has it grown poor as to its God, that it must suffer itself to be governed by heathen arts? The product of the olive tree and the deeds of Abimelech stand in the sharpest contrast with each other.
The same result follows an application to the fig tree. This also is a symbol of that divine peace which fills the land when God governs. The ancients believed that if a wild, untamed bullock were fastened to a fig tree, he would become quiet and gentle (Plutarch, Symposion, lib. vi. quæst. 10). Athens, on similar symbolical grounds, had a sacred fig tree as well as olive tree. In Scripture, especially, the fig tree appears as a symbol of holy peace, as the prophet Micah says (Jdg_4:4): “They shall sit every man under his vine and fig-tree, and none shall make them afraid.” So Jotham makes the fig tree say suggestively: Have I then—Israel—lost the possibility of sitting in the peace of God? Was there not an abundance of rest and happiness during forty years under Gideon? shall I surrender all that in order to fall into the arbitrariness of sin? For it can act like Shechem only when the peace of God no longer exists; but, in that case, it withers away, like the fig tree rebuked by Christ, and ceases to bring forth fruit.
The same is true of the grape-vine. The oriental vine attains the height of elms and cedars, and affords a grateful shade. Hence it is the widely-diffused symbol of government, as that which gives peace and comfort. “The mountains,” says the Psalmist (Psa_80:11), “are covered with the shadow of it.” A golden vine canopied the throne of the Persian monarch. Vines of gold were frequently presented to kings in recognition of their sovereignty (cf. my essay, Der Goldene Thron Salomo’s, in Wiss. Bericht, l. p. 124). A celebrated golden vine, mention of which is made by Tacitus also, stood in the temple at Jerusalem. The Mishna says of it: At the entrance to the temple porch there stood a golden vine, trained on poles; whenever any one consecrated anything, he consecrated it as “leaf” or “grape.” Elieser b. R. Zadok related, that once it was so vast, that 300 priests were necessary to take it away (Mishna, Middot. iii. 8).
The olive tree said that with him God and men were “honored;” the vine expresses the same thing when he speaks of the “joy” which “God and men” find in him. Usually all that is said of wine is, that “it makes glad the heart of man;” it is, however, also over wine, and wine only, that the “blessing of God” is pronounced, and Melchizedek, as “priest of the Most High God,” brings “bread and wine” (Gen_14:18). Nevertheless, the phrase “ God and men,” is probably to be regarded as proverbial, and as signifying that wine cheers all persons, not excepting the highest and noblest. Since the Middle Ages, we [Germans] use the expression Gott und die Welt—God and the world—in a similar manner. Hartmann von Aue (in his Iwein, 9:262) says: Verlegeniu müezekeit ist gate und der werlte leit (mouldering idleness is offensive to God and the world).
The transition from the shade-giving vine to the thorn-bush presents us with a very striking contrast. It is indeed in connection with the thorn-bush, that the narrative displays its nicest shading. While the trees say îָìְëָä to the olive tree, and îָìְëִé to the fig tree and vine, unusual forms of the imperative which convey, as it seems to me, the idea of a respectful petition, they address the thorn-bush in common style: îְìָêְ òָìֵéðåּ . When it comes to calling on the thorn-bush to be king, the respect which was felt for the olive tree and his compeers, has no longer any place. It may also be remarked that the shady vine is often at no great distance from the thorn-bush. Not unfrequently, even at this day, fertile wine-hills in the holy land, rejoicing also in olive and fig trees, are hedged in by thorn-bushes (cf. Rosenmüller, Morgenland, on Pro_15:19).
And the thorn-bush, said: If you really anoint me king over you. There lies in this the sharpest censure for the trees. The thorn-bush itself can scarcely believe that its election as king is honestly meant ( áֶּàֱîֶú ). Equally striking is it, that Jotham makes the thorn-bush speak of the trees as wishing to “anoint” him. Anoint with what? With oil. But the “oil tree” has already refused to be king over such subjects! The idea is: they anoint with oil, the symbol of peace, while they have murder and the opposite of peace in their hearts.—The thorn-bush declares his readiness to give them all he has. They are at liberty to shelter themselves in his shadow. But he gives no protection against the sun, and his branches are full of thorns. In case of disobedience and apostasy, he will cause fire to go forth, and without respect of persons consume all rebels, even the cedars of Lebanon. For these are his only arts and abilities—to prick and to burn. Æsop has a fable (No. 8) which teaches a similar moral, albeit playfully weakened. It treats of the “Fox and the Thorn-bush.” The fox, to save himself from falling, lays hold of the thorn-bush, and gets dreadfully torn by the sharp needles. In answer to his outcry, the thorn-bush says: How canst thou hope to lay hold of me, who am accustomed only to lay hold of others.
Jotham’s application in Jdg_9:16 forms a perfect parallel to the speech of the thorn-bush in Jdg_9:15. A minute explanation, that the Shechemites are the trees; that the heroes who heretofore benefited Israel (not merely Gideon, nor as the Rabbis think, Othniel and Barak only), correspond to the olive tree and his equals; and that the thorn-bush means Abimelech, is altogether unnecessary. The scene which he delineates, is it not transpiring before him in the valley below? All he needs to do, is to call their attention to the certainty that the threatening of the thorn-bush will be fulfilled on them; for that is yet future.
As the thorn-bush says to the trees, “If you honestly anoint me king,” so Jotham, with crushing irony, says to the people: If now you have acted honestly and sincerely in making Abimelech king. The heathen, as well as the worshippers of the true God, believed that good or evil deeds are recompensed by good or evil results. Even when the Persian Oroetes unlawfully murders the tyrant Polycrates, and afterwards perishes himself in a similar manner, Herodotus (iii. 128) remarks: “Thus did the avenging spirits of Polycrates the Samian overtake him.” It was maintained that the tyrant Agathocles had perished on the same day in which he had committed his horrible treason against his confederate Ophellas. This belief, prevalent even among heathen, pointed out the most vulnerable side of conscience. Though they turn away from the altar of Jehovah, they will not be able to escape the law of Elohim, who is even now listening to their loud acclamations. If they think—such is the bitter irony of Jotham’s indignant heart—that the collective trees (Jdg_9:14, ëָּì äָòֵöִéí ) an mean it honestly, when they anoint a thorn-bush, then they also, perhaps, acted “honestly and sincerely” when they called Abimelech their king, slew the house of the hero who regarded not his own life to save them, and crowned the murderer, the son of the bondwoman. Such “honesty and virtue” will not fail of their appropriate recompense. The words of the thornbush will be fulfilled. The sequel will show the reward. Israel will then perceive the enormity of that which in its present state of moral prostration it allows to pass unchallenged. If such a horrible deed can be deemed “good,” he repeats—and the repetition marks the intensity of his grief—then may you rejoice in Abimelech, as now down there in the valley you (hypocritically) shout for joy; but if not, then may you experience what it means to have the thorn-bush for king! Then will sin dissolve what sin began; crime will dissever what treason bound together. Then will fire from the thorn-bush consume the sinful trees, and fire from the trees the tyrannical king. Thus he spake, and thus they heard. But sin and excitement drowned the voice of conscience. The friendship between them and their king, and the joy they felt in him, were yet young. Israel kept silence, and Jotham, the hero’s son, fled to Beer. Where this place lay, cannot be determined. Probably in the south—near the desert, which would afford the fugitive security against Abimelech’s persecution. Of Jotham, nothing more is known; but from amidst the tragedy which throws its dark shadows over the house of his father, his discourse sounds forth, an imperishable call to repentance, addressed to the world in the language of the world, and an admonisher to kings and nations of the certainty of retribution.
Abimelech was tyrant, and Jotham must flee. The bloody knife reigns and the spirit which speaks in parables and lives in faith is banished. But Abimelech comes to shame, smitten by a desperate woman (Jdg_9:53), while Jotham’s parable, like a winged arrow, pierces all fratricides, from Abimelech down to Richard III. of England. While Abimelech, a false king, passed on, burdened by a load of hatred, Jotham spent his life, as befitted a mourner, in a profound quiet. Seb. Schmidt says, that “God knows how to give peace and safety to those who innocently become fainthearted, although men fail to espouse their righteous causes.” Such is the preaching of the word of God concerning the world’s condition, (1) when a Gideon reigns; (2) when an Abimelech rules. The government of the faithful is the salvation of all; and likewise sin is the destruction of men, not excepting those who commit it. There is a judgment. God is not mocked.
Starke: Those are ignoble souls, who seek to reach an office, not through their own gifts and virtues, but through the favor and influence of their friends.—The same: To lift one’s self up by unlawful and sinful means, is sure to bring a curse. The same: Good men are all alike in this, that they do what is godly and righteous, because they know well that there is but one godliness and one righteousness.—The same: The unity of bad men can speedily be changed, by the judgment of God, into enmity and mutual destruction.—Gerlach: Jotham stands forth like a warning prophet, who interprets coming events before they occur, and who is at the same time a sign that the Lord has not left the faith of Gideon unrewarded, notwithstanding the terrible judgment that overtakes his house.
[Bp. Hall: Those that are most unworthy of honor, are hottest in the chase of it; whilst the consciousness of better deserts bids men sit still, and stay to be either importuned or neglected. There can be no greater sign of unfitness, than vehement suit. It is hard to say whether there be more pride or arrogance in ambition.—The same: The Shechemites are fit brokers for Abimelech: that city which once betrayed itself to utter depopulation, in yielding to the suit of Hamor, now betrays itself and all Israel in yielding to the request of Abimelech.—The same: Natural respects are the most dangerous corrupters of all elections. What hope can there be of worthy superiors in any free people, where nearness of blood carries it from fitness of disposition? Whilst they say, “He is our brother,” they are enemies to themselves and Israel.—The same: Who would not now think that Abimelech should find a hell in his breast, after so barbarous and unnatural a massacre? and yet, behold, he is as senseless as the stone upon which the blood of his seventy brethren was spilt. Where ambition hath possessed itself thoroughly of the soul, it turns the heart into steel, and makes it incapable of a conscience. All sins will easily down with the man that is resolved to rise.—Henry: Way being thus made for Abimelech’s election, the men of Shechem proceed to choose him king. God was not consulted, there was no advising with the priest, or with their brethren of any other city or tribe, though it was designed he should rule over Israel.—Scott: If parents could foresee their children’s sufferings, their joy in them would be often turned into lamentations; we may therefore be thankful that we cannot penetrate futurity, and are reminded to commit those whom we most love into the hands of the Lord, and to attend to our present duty, casting our care upon Him, respecting ourselves and them.—Bush: The general moral of Jotham’s parable is, (1.) That weak and worthless men are ever forward to thrust themselves into power, while the wise and good are more prone to decline it. (2.) That they who unduly affect honor, and they who unjustly confer it, will prove sources of misery to each other.—Kitto: There are indeed legitimate objects of the highest ambition, and of the most exalted aspirations. Crowns and kingdoms lie beneath the feet of him who pursues with steady pace his high career toward the city of the Great King, where he knows there is laid up for him a crown of glory that fadeth not away—a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will bestow upon all that love his appearing.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Jdg_9:2.— áַּòֲìֵé : used interchangeably with àַðְùֵׁé , cf. Jdg_9:46 with 49; 2Sa_21:12, with Jdg_2:4-5. See also Jdg_20:5, and Jos_24:11. Dr. Cassel: Herren; De Wette, and many others, Bürger, “citizens.”—Tr.]
[Jdg_9:2.—The E. V. unnecessarily departs from the order of the Hebrew, and thereby obscures the antithesis which is primarily between “seventy” and “one,” and secondarily between “sons of Jerubbaal” and “your bone and flesh,” thus: “Which is better for you, that seventy men, all sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or that one man rule over you? Remember, also,” etc.—Tr.]
[Jdg_9:6.—Keil: “The explanation of àֵìåֹï îֻöָּá is doubtful. îֻöָּá , anything ‘set up,’ is in Isa_29:3 a military post [garrison], but may also mean a monument, and designates here probably the great stone set up (Jos_24:26) under the oak or terebinth near Shechem (cf. Gen_35:4).” De Wette also renders: Denkmal-Eiche, “monument-oak.”—Tr.]
[Jdg_9:7.—Dr. Cassel translates: “and may God hear you.” This is very well, but hardly in the sense in which he takes it, see below. Whether we translate as in the E. V., or as Dr. Cassel, the realization of the second member of the address must be regarded as contingent upon that of the first.—Tr.]
[Jdg_9:9; Jdg_9:11; Jdg_9:13.— äֶçֳãַìְúִּé àֶúÎãִּùְׁðִé . According to Ewald (Gram., 51 c.) äֶçֳãַìְúִּé is a contracted hiphil form (for äַäֶúֶãַìúִּé ), the second ä being dropped in order to avoid the concurrence of too many gutturals, and the resulting äַçֲã× (cf. Ges. Gr. 22, 4) being changed into äֶçֳã× in order to distinguish the interrogative particle more sharply. Others regard it as hophal (see Green, 53, 2, b). But as there are no traces anywhere else of either of these conjugations in this verb, it is commonly viewed as a simple kal form = äֶçָãַìְúִּé . Keil seeks to explain the anomalous vowel under ç by saying that “the obscure o-sound is substituted for the regular a in order to facilitate the pronunciation of successive guttural syllables.” Dr. Cassel renders: “Have I then lost [better: given up] my fatness?” But as the notion of futurity must manifestly be contained in the following åְäָìַëְúִּֽé , the ordinary rendering, “Should I give up?” is preferable.—Tr.]
[Jdg_9:9.— àֲùֶׁøÎáִּé éְëַáְּãåּ àֱìֹäéí åַàְðָùִׁéí : “which God and men honor (esteem) in me.” Compare Jdg_9:13. Dr. Cassel renders as the E. V.—Tr.]
[Jdg_9:17.— åַéַּùְׁìֵêְ àֶúÎðַôְùׁåֹ îִðֶּâֶã : literally, “cast his life from before (him); cf. the marginal reading of he E. V.: i. e. “disr garded his own life.”.—Tr..]
Jotham, also, speaks of Abimelech, with special contempt, as the “son of the slave-woman” (Jdg_9:18).
[Keil: “Millo is unquestionably the name of the fortress or citadel of the city of Shechem, the same with the Tower of Shechem in Jdg_9:46-49. The word îִìּåֹà (Millo), as also the Chaldee îִìֵּéäָà , ‘filling,’ signifies a tampart formed of two walls, the space between which is filled up’ with rubbish. There was also a Millo at Jerusalem, 2Sa_5:9 1Ki_9:15. ‘All the house of Millo,’ are all the inhabitants of the citadel, the same who in Jdg_9:46 are spoken of as ‘all the citizens of Migdol or the Tower.’ ” Bertheau: “The high plateau of Mt. Gerizim, by which the city (Shechem) is commanded, seems to offer the most suitable site for this Millo, as it also did for later fortifications (Rob. ii. 277, 278, comp. p. 294). This location of the fortress, at some little distance from the city, which lay in the narrow valley, would explain the distinction constantly maintained in our chapter between the inhabitants of Shechem and the house, i.e. population, of Millo or the Tower.”—Tr.]
îֻöָּá is most probably to be taken as îַöֵּáָä or îַöֶּáֶú .
[Kitto (Daily Bible Illustrations: Moses and the Judges, p. 365]:—“It will occur to the reader to ask what right the people of Shechem had to nominate a king, by their sole authority. In the first place, it must be remembered that the land had formerly been governed by a number of petty kings, ruling over some strong town and its immediate district and dependent villages; and it is likely that the Shechemites claimed no more than to appoint Abimelech as such a king over themselves, assuming that they for themselves, whatever might be the view of others, had a right to choose a king to reign over them. Besides, Shechem was one of the chief towns of Ephraim; and that proud and powerful tribe always claimed to take the leading part in public affairs, if not to determine the course of the other tribes—except, perhaps, of those connected with Judah in the south. It was under the influence of this desire for supremacy, that the revolt against the house of David was organized in that tribe, and resulted in the establishment of the separate kingdom for the ten tribes, in which Ephraim had the chief influence. Indeed, that establishment of a separate monarchy was accomplished at this very place where Abimelech is now declared king. Taking all this into account, it may seem reasonable to conclude that the Shechemites had the support of the tribe in this transaction, or might at least reckon with reasonable confidence upon its not being withheld. Then, again, a king chosen at Shechem, and supported by this powerful tribe, might reasonably calculate that the other tribes would soon give in their adhesion, seeing that, in the time of his father their monarchical predilections had been so strongly manifested.”—Tr.]
[Cf. Thomson, The Land and the Book, ii. 209.—Tr.]
[The third cup at the Passover meal was called the “Cup of Blessing,” because it was accompanied by a prayer of praise and thanksgiving. Cf. 1Co_10:16.—Tr.]