False Security
“And he said to her, ‘Give me a drink please — a little water because I am thirsty.’ She opened up a skin of milk to drink and covered him. And he said to her, ‘Stand at the entrance to the tent. If it should be that a man comes and asks you, saying, ‘Is there a man here?’ you shall say, ‘No.’’”
(Judges 4:19-20)
As is often the case with God’s justice, it is rather ironic in nature. Up until this point, because of Sisera’s great military machine, the Israelite men had been cowering and quivering…often behind their women as did Baraq with Deborah. Now the Israelite men have risen up to fight the battle and Sisera is discovered to be cowering under the coverings in the tent of Jael. Before his death, he gets (perhaps even for the first time) to discover the same fear that the Israelite men have been living under for the past twenty years.
What is also interesting is the false sense of security that he is given. Instead of water she gives him milk. Instead of screaming a warning, she invites him in. Instead of immediately exposing him, Jael covers Sisera up. She has plans for his demise, but she does not give away her motive. How interesting it is that, as a culture, the Christian church has often fallen for the same ruse. The society around us often gives us all of the false signs of comfort while ushering the evangelical church in America underneath the coverings of the government’s “protection.” Then, when the timing is right, out comes the tent peg. Were the church to take her stand and never to compromise, how different things would be.
An Open Letter to President Obama, Governor McCrory, and other Interested Parties: Bathrooms and the Strange Legacy of Sartre
Presuppositions govern our perspectives on life and until we recognize that, we tend toward intellectual dishonesty at best and our debates tend more toward sophism than truth. Once we recognize that, we can engage with much more humility in honest conversation…that is, if we are willing. Sadly, honest and civil conversation around politics and religion, I am told, is a rare thing in our current society. People prefer to yell rather than to earn the right to whisper. My hope for this letter is to whisper.
To do that, I must be up front as to where my presuppositions lie. If you have read much of my blog, that ought to be obvious, but in case this is new to you, know that I am a Christian pastor in an old German-Reformed congregation. I consider the Bible to be the true revelation from God, with every word inspired through many authors across many generations, but all by one God. Thus, I affirm doctrines like that of inerrancy and infallibility when it comes to the Bible. That puts me amongst a group that are often labeled as “fundamentalists,” and that may be accurate, but if it is, my fundamentalism is much more akin to that of Gresham Machen than to that of Pat Robertson. I value intelligent dialogue, not mere rhetoric to gain influence.
As I said, my hope is to whisper, but perhaps it is more than that, my hope is also to interject a perspective into the conversation that I have not heard much of in the news that has covered the debates around bathrooms and who uses them.
The Simple Solution
Of course, I ought to note that there are simple solutions to the question at hand, yet simple solutions are often not what people strive for in American politics. One solution, which would favor the view of the political right would be to change the labeling of bathroom doors from “men” or “women” to “XX” or “XY.” Chromosomes are things with which we are born and they do not change as a result of a “gender identity” decision or even as a result of gender reassignment surgery. The chromosomes with which you are born are chromosomes with which you will die.
The other option, which would favor the political left would simply be to convert all bathrooms to single-use bathrooms to be used by anyone when the need arises. This is certainly how the vast majority of us live when we are in our homes, we could certainly adapt to that in public institutions without that much grief, though obviously there would need to be some remodeling work done to achieve this end. A variation on this can be found in many places in Europe where there are common restrooms for both men and women. In these areas, there are private stalls for use, but common sinks that both men and women share. I confess that as an American raised in the conservative countryside of rural Maryland, the first time I encountered a bathroom such as this, it took some getting used to, but it still wasn’t long before I adapted.
But we don’t want Simple Solutions, do we?
The reality is, this is not really a question about bathrooms, is it? While I do not know the current statistics, I would imagine that the population in America that would identify as transgender is relatively small. That does not mean that the question of how to accommodate those who are “transitioning” should not be taken seriously, it rightly should. But it seems odd that so great a battle has been waged on this matter in our culture. Surely there are overall relatively few people “challenging” which bathroom to enter. As to the other side of the debate, I would imagine that a male who presented himself as a female would receive little attention (if any) for using the ladies room in a public place. I would suggest that the same would apply to a woman who presented herself as a man.
Presuppositions and Principles?
Permit me to suggest that the real question behind the matter of bathrooms is the question of public acceptance. Will we, or will we not, accept the notion of gender choice in our society. Those who are proponents of the LGBT community would say that society as a whole must accept their lifestyle choices as legitimate and thus bathrooms and other public accommodations must be made. Those, particularly, like myself on the Christian right, would say that gender is not fluid, but is tied to biological sexuality (remember the Chromosomes above?). This is the real question at hand, though I suppose it might be easier to fight over bathrooms than to tackle the question seriously (and yes, that is a rebuke of both sides).
Lewis or Sartre?
So, which comes first? In Sartre’s work, Existentialism is a Humanism, he argues that at the heart of the existentialist perspective is the notion that existence precedes essence. In other words, we first come into being and then we are given the awful freedom and responsibility of giving meaning to that existence. Even so, according to Sartre, giving meaning belongs primarily to the individual. Applied to gender, the cultural grandchildren of Sartre would state that defining their own gender identity is part of giving meaning to one’s own existence.
In contrast to Sartre, C.S. Lewis, who is oftentimes claimed by Existentialists as one of their own (though I would disagree with that claim), when discussing gender and sexuality in the novel, Perelandra, describes sexuality as an outward expression of an inward reality (the inward reality being gender). Thus, existence and essence are inextricably bound together, but with essence preceding existence — borrowing the notion of St. Augustine that essence begins in the mind of God.
So, who is right? Clearly, I lean toward Lewis. To be fair, our culture leans toward Sartre. I appeal to the Bible as my ultimate authority; our culture tends to appeal to experience and personal expression as its ultimate authority. Which is right? I suppose that both sides of the conversation are equally committed to their position, but while I have been known in other contexts to vigorously debate the rationality of appealing to the Bible as one’s ultimate authority and in turn, submitting to its precepts, I promised that I would whisper, so I will only point out the different starting points that each side of the debate holds.
Confounding Terms
I will say, though, that one of the problems in the conversation is that terms have not been well defined and are often confounded with one another. Sexuality and Gender are prime culprits. Sexuality deals with one’s biology. This includes, but is not limited to genitalia. It also includes inner organs that are germane to males or females respectively as well as those pesky chromosomes. As chromosomes do not change nor do the actual organs a person has in their body, “gender reassignment” ought not be referred to as a “sex-change” though that is often the term that is applied.
In contrast to sexuality, gender is defined more by societal norms than it is by one’s biology. This deals with our roles, our manner of dress, and the way we interact with one another. Historically, gender has largely been tied to biology (as Lewis would affirm), but in today’s world, the question that is being raised (largely thanks to Sartre and our Existential culture) is whether we must bind them together or if they can be treated seperately. Curiously, if one separates the idea of gender from that of sexuality, gender then becomes solely a matter of self-expression, and the idea of “gender-reassignment surgery” becomes as much of a misnomer as the phrase “sex-change surgery.” The surgery itself becomes nothing more than a cosmetic modification to make it easier to appear as the gender of one’s choice.
Laws
Laws have two purposes. The first purpose is to punish wrong-doing. The second purpose is to discourage people from behavior that is immoral. Herein lies another point of debate. How is immoral behavior defined. Clearly, I would appeal to the Bible. Society seems to appeal to social expectations, a view that I believe is fraught with danger given the fickle nature of said expectations and the sinful nature of man. Each law, though, at its very core, must answer the question, “How am I rewarding moral behavior and punishing behavior that is immoral?” And yes, with that in mind, every law legislates someone’s morality on some level.
From My Point of View
Given that I have already shared my presuppositions, it should be obvious as to where my point of view lies. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is immoral in the first place and it seems to me that much of the draw of Transgenderism is the notion of making homosexual desires more acceptable in the eyes of the culture. Even if not overtly intended to be a gateway into homosexual behavior, living life in gender roles different than those which would normally be bound to one’s sex is a form of deception, which, too, is an immoral action according to the Bible.
Whispering and the Conversation in Front of Us
The real question is whether or not we can have a dialogue on this matter in a productive way while still whispering and not raising our voices or our fists. Personally, I am very concerned that the opening up of bathrooms is little more than a first step — a minor skirmish in a larger campaign — towards something that not only will radically change the nature of the culture around us, but will also invite young men and women to express themselves and their urges in even greater immorality. I fear too, that it will be the loudest voice and not the most sound argument that will win the day and the whispers of truth will be drowned out and forgotten.
Jael’s Covering
“And Jael went out to call to Sisera, and she said to him, ‘Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me! Do not be afraid.’ And he turned aside toward her tent and she covered him with a curtain.”
(Judges 4:18)
It is clear from the context that Jael is seeking Sisera out. God has ordained his defeat at the hands of a woman and here we begin to see it unfold. One may be tempted to ask, how is she justified in murdering Sisera in cold blood? Doesn’t the Sixth Commandment prohibit such action? Indeed, the Sixth Commandment does prohibit murder, but here we are in a time of war and Jael is simply acting as a combatant, bringing the escaped enemy commander to justice.
Sisera, of course, assumes that Jael’s invitation is friendly…his master does indeed have a pact with her husband…yet, Jael lives up to her name (which means, “Yahweh is On High” — note that “jael” can also refer to an ibex or a mountain goat, which may seem odd at first, but when you recognize the stubborn determination of a mountain goat, again, you see how significant her name is to what she has been called to do) and what follows is her plan to put this wicked man to death.
There is some discussion as to exactly what the term, hDkyImVv (semiykah), means. Some suggest that it refers to a mat or a carpet that might have covered the floor of the tent, others refer to it as a curtain that would have separated the male and female quarters in the tent, which indeed, would be an ironic use of the curtain, which would then have maintained the separation between Jael and Sisera. In modern Hebrew, the term refers to a blanket, which again fits the context, we just do not know for sure. What we do know is that Jael covered him up in a way that would not have been overtly obvious to a casual passerby and went forward with her plan to capture and kill this evil man.
The notion of covering, in the Old Testament, is also often tied to that of atonement. This, I believe, becomes more prominent in Deborah’s song in the next chapter, so we will leave it for then, apart from stating that there is symbolism in recognizing that atonement comes through the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). The problem is that none of us can atone for our own sins as we are wicked and rebellious to the core (Romans 3:10; Micah 6:7; Isaiah 47:11). The wicked do not understand that, but we to whom the revelation of God has come not only know, but know the one who can and did make atonement for the sins of his people: Jesus Christ.
Overwhelming Force
“When it was reported to Sisera that Baraq, the son of Abinoam, had gone up to Mount Tabor, Sisera called out all of his chariots — 900 chariots of iron — and all of the people who were with him, from Harosheth-Hagoyim to the River Qiyshon.”
(Judges 4:12-13)
After verse 11, we return to the account we expect. Sisera gets word that Baraq is gathering an army with the obvious purpose of overthrowing King Jabin’s rule. Anticipating the revolt, Sisera decides to pull out all of the stops. In his mind, it was not sufficient to sen a kind of expeditionary force to stall or defeat the army, Sisera goes to overwhelm the Israelite army with force. He calls together his entire battalion of 900 chariots as well as all of the peoples that are loyal to him.
Remember, ancient kings did not satisfy themselves in controlling just one other country; kingdoms were being built into empires at this point in time. Israel would have simply been one province over which Jabin was ruling. That means that Sisera has a great many resources from which he can draw at any one time. Harosheth is a wooded region on the border of Philistine territory in the northwest — Harosheth-Hagoyim meaning “the woodlands of the Gentiles” — and the river Kishon is on the southern border of that region, so Sisera is gathering his troops to teach the rebellious Israelites a lesson.
As we have mentioned before, this battle is lopsided…very lopsided…but not in the way we might humanly think. It is lopsided because the God of the universe is going to war against the enemies of his people. Yet, knowing that to be true, is it not sad that we often are intimidated by human shows of force? Is it not even shameful that we often do not take a stand for Truth and the Gospel because we fear such human displays of force. Yet, my friends, do not fear man; fear God.
Heber the Kenite?
“Now, Cheber, the Qenite, was alienated from the Qenites, from the sons of Chobab, the father-in-law of Moses. And he moved his tent as far as the holy tree in Tse’anniym, which is Qedesh.”
(Judges 4:11)
What??? Now wait just one minute!!! Where did this come from? Were we reading this account for the first time, our natural response would be to think, “Wait one minute, who is this Heber guy, what is going on with this?” Most of us know the story, so we know of the foreshadowing that this verse provides, but what a nice little tidbit of what is to come, mentioned as little more than an aside here, but becoming an essential element a little later in the chapter…and all because of a family feud of some sort.
Hobab, we know, was the brother-in-law of Moses (Numbers 10:29) and thus was the son of Jethro, the Kenite (Judges 1:16) who was serving as a priest in Midian (Exodus 3:1). We don’t know for sure whether the Kenites all dwelt in the region of Midian or whether Jethro simply chose to sojourn there, but we also know that part of the land promised to Abraham was the land belonging to the Kenites (Genesis 15:19). We do know from Judges 1:16 that these Kenites went up with the sons of Judah to conquer and settle that region of Negev near Arad.
There seems to have been some sort of division amongst the sons of Hobab as they dwelt in the southern regions of Judah. We are not told as to what caused the separation, only that Heber had been alienated. The term that is used is the passive form of dårDp (parad), which means “to be scattered or separated, to be alienated, or to go to the side from the main branch.” While many of our translations presume that this was merely Heber diverging, or moving away from home, perhaps for more space, the fact that the verb is found in the passive implies that this is something that has happened to him, thus the suggestion that he has been alienated or estranged seems reasonable, though again, we do not know why, apart from God’s purposes.
And at the heart of this verse, what we must see is just that…God’s sovereign purposes. God is sovereign even in placing his people where he chooses. In this case, from the southern regions of Judah to the area around Kadesh…not that far from Hazor (where Jabin, the king under whom Sisera served, lived). So, on a human level it would seem that Heber is making a statement, separating himself from the covenant people to live on the border of Canaanite territory, yet God even uses events such as this to bring about his ends, for here, in Heber’s tent, Sisera would eventually be slain, but we get ahead of ourselves…
Into the Hand of a Woman
“And she said, ‘I surely will go with you, even so, the road which you walk will not bring you renown, for Yahweh will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose and walked with Baraq to Qedshah. And Baraq summoned Zebulun and Naphtaliy to Qedshah and they went up at his feet — 10,000 men. And Deborah went up with him.”
(Judges 4:9-10)
If you had never read this account before, the temptation would be to assume that the “woman’s hand” into whom Sisera was being given would be Deborah’s. We know from reading ahead that this will not be the case by any means, yet such has not yet been indicated by the text. There will indeed be a degree of ironic justice, but not in the way we would likely expect, were we reading this text with fresh eyes.
Adding credence to the notion that Judges often overlapped one another, we find Baraq calling out his forces from the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, calling them to gather in Kadesh. These two tribes are to the northern region of the tribal areas, but why he perhaps did not call from Asher or Manasseh, for example (two other northern tribes), seems to indicate (given the direct command of God to call men from these two tribes only) that Baraq and Deborah’s influence was more regional than national. This, we do not know for sure, but it seems plausible.
The key, of course, is that the men are now assembled…the 10,000 agains the multitudes that God will assemble from Sisera’s armies. The battle to come is clearly one-sided, for while the multitudes may seem to outnumber the 10,000 on the side of the people of Israel, God also fights on the side of his people, making the multitudes of the pagan nations seem puny at best. Isn’t it sad that we fear the foes we face today given that we worship the same God that defeated Sisera and Eglon and the Philistines?
Baraq is not Alone
“And Baraq said, ‘If you will go with me, I will go; if you will not go with me, I will not go.’”
(Judges 4:8)
We have spoken already of the theme of this account…that of men not standing up and taking leadership in the life of Israel. Here we see Baraq, the flash of lightning, showing his true colors. This is the reason that he did not obey God’s command in the first place. And here, even after the Judge and prophetess is confronting him in his disobedience, we find Baraq still being obstinate and stubborn in disobedience. Such is what happens when one places oneself before God.
Lest in hindsight, we condemn Baraq based on his cowardice and disobedience, we must be reminded that his actions are little different than men in America today. In our culture women tend to be the driving force when it comes to the spirituality of their families and many men are absent or otherwise too preoccupied to work or projects to be bothered. Many men take Baraq’s exact attitude toward Deborah when it applies to church worship on Sunday morning — “I’ll go if you really want me to, but unless you go, I won’t go.”
Yet, as men, we are called to be the spiritual leaders of our homes. We should be setting the bar for our families and living out a model of spirituality and faithfulness for our children and our wives to imitate. We should value the word of God and commit ourselves to studying it so that we can teach our families and then lead our families in the wisdom of the Word. Yet, more often than not, men in the west — men who are professing Christians — do not do so. Thus, if there is repenting to do, Baraq is not alone.
Hasn’t God already Given You an Order?
“She sent for and she called Baraq, the son of Abinoam, from Qedesh-Naphtaliy, and said to him, ‘Has not Yahweh, the God of Israel, given an order to you? ‘Gather to Mount Tabor and bring with you 10,000 men from the Sons of Naphtaliy and from the Sons of Zebulun and I will gather to you, to the river Qishon, Sisera, the commander of the army of Jabin and his chariots and his multitude. And I will give him into your hand.’’”
(Judges 4:6-7)
If the presence of a female judge was a shadow of the theme of men shirking their duties, Deborah’s calling out Baraq is a clear indication of what is taking place…or perhaps we ought to say, what is not taking place. Notice Deborah’s words, for she is not calling Baraq to build an army and attack the armies of Sisera. Deborah is saying to Baraq, “Look, God’s already called you to do this, why are you dragging your feet?” Her words are not only the words of a prophet and a judge, but they stand as a reminder to all of us today that when God commands us to do this or to do that, we have an obligation to obey. We are not given freedom to drag our feet.
In Hebrew, Baraq’s name means, “a flash of lightning.” Clearly, in the case of this general, the name speaks little of his military prowess and boldness but more aptly speaks of how quickly his nerve flees from him. Again, names often give us a little insight into what is taking place in the historical account. Deborah’s name, by the way, means “a swarm of bees” which is in many ways a very appropriate name given how the little group of Israelites will torment and chase off the “multitude” of Sisera. Interestingly, Deborah’s husband’s name means “To Redeem Them,” which is interesting as God does use the little swarm of bees to redeem his people.
As we read, then, Deborah reminds Baraq of the command that God had already given to him. There is a bit of a play on words in this command that is worth drawing our attention to. God says to Baraq, “Gather to Mount Tabor … and I will gather Sisera to you.” The same word, Æ;KAvDm (mashak), is used in both places, drawing attention to the actions required. Basically, God is stating to Baraq, “You go muster an army and I will go and gather together Sisera so we can have a battle.” It is a reminder to us not only of God’s hand of deliverance, but also that God is sovereign over the armies even of his enemies. Such is the way with God. And though, on a human level, Sisera fielded a mighty army, if God has the power to draw them out and to gather them in a given place, he has the power to scatter and destroy them as well. Such is the way with God, may we always be in his hand and not positioning ourselves against it.
The Palm of Deborah
“And she would sit under the Palm of Deborah, between Hormah and Beth-El on the mountain of Ephraim and the Sons of Israel would come up to her for judgment.”
(Judges 4:5)
If there is any question as to the type of leader that Deborah was, we need to put that to rest up front. In the previous verse, we see her introduced as a prophetess, so there is clearly a spiritual element to her leadership, but here we see her issuing judgments and thus we must recognize that there is a civil authority that she has. It should be noted, though, that while other judges offer sacrifices at times, Deborah does not fulfill a priestly role in the context of her account.
We have already pointed out that Deborah is the exception to the rule as to her role in such leadership, but seeing these facets does help us to better understand the role of the ancient judge. For while there would later be three branches of government in ancient Israel (Prophet, Priest, and King), here we see the judges fulfilling all roles as needed. And thus, in many ways, the Judge forms as a kind of “type” or foreshadowing of Christ — the one who perfectly fulfills all three functions.
It is interesting to note that the Palm of Deborah is probably not a reference to this particular Deborah, but instead to the Deborah who was Rebekah’s nurse (introduced in Genesis 24:59), who died in this area (Genesis 35:8) and thus the name of the area was given to be “Allon-Bacuth” — or the “Oak of Weeping.” Such a notable landmark would have been a quite appropriate place for the solemn task of judging over disputes amongst God’s people. Sadly, disputes in our world have become so common that we often do not take seriously the gravity of such situations. But here are those to whom God has given infinite grace, bickering amongst one another. How can this be?
Deborah: The Exception, not the Rule
“Now Deborah was a woman, a prophetess, and the wife of Lappidoth. She judged Israel at that time!”
(Judges 4:4)
Now, to all of my friends and acquaintances who would like to suggest that there is a Biblical precedence for women to be in church leadership or serve as Pastors on the basis of Deborah, did you notice the emphasis on the language here in this verse? “Now Deborah was a woman, a prophetess, and the wife of Lappodoth. She judged Israel at that time.” The author of this text goes out of his way to stress the fact that Deborah was a female and she was serving in this capacity — a capacity in which one did not expect a female to serve. The point is that Deborah’s place here is meant to be shocking to the reader. “What!?! A female judge!?! No way, that’s not proper!?!” And it wasn’t proper, but as the account of Deborah unfolds we see the theme arising of men who will not rise to the position of responsibility.
So, the question that one should ask is not, “Does Deborah establish a precedence for female church leadership?” Clearly, she is presented as an exception and one does not establish the normative rule on the basis of exceptions. The question one should ask is, “Would there ever be a context where, as in Deborah’s time, an exception was being made, and if so, what would that look like?”
The answer to that second question is seen by some to be an open door, because I have heard people argue that virtually every female pastor is one such exceptions. And while I want by no means to malign the character of such women, it must be clear that when you have a large number of “exceptions,” they are no longer exceptions. Of the 12 judges in the book of Judges, a book covering a span of more then 300 years, there is one such exception. There is nothing normative about Deborah and her situation. In fact, in her case, there are no men to be found (we will see that in Deborah’s song), the commander of the Army seems to be a bit of a coward, and though Deborah is introduced under Lappidoth’s authority (he is still the covenant head of her household), he doesn’t play much of a role in this account (in fact, this verse is the only mention of his name).
Surely, we don’t live in such a world. Men are able and willing to take up leadership in Christ’s church and to do so in submission to the Biblical mandate of male covenant headship in the church. Further, those pushing for women in church office are often not under the spiritual headship of their husbands (as is Deborah) and thus are trying to achieve an agenda, not humbly serving as an exception. And finally, it is clear in this account that God is doing a remarkable work not only to liberate Israel, but to shame the men who will not stand up and her role is clearly not meant as normative as you never again see another female judge arise. So to answer the second question mentioned above, the answer is first, we are not in such a time where there are no men stepping up to the job and secondly, there would have to be a radical change in the circumstances to bring such a change.
Thus, the power of this account, then, is not one of establishing a precedence for females in church leadership, but instead in humbling the men who should have been the ones rising to the task of leading God’s people.
900 Iron Chariots
“And the Sons of Israel cried out to Yahweh for he had 900 chariots of iron and he forcefully oppressed the Sons of Israel for twenty years.”
(Judges 4:3)
Twenty years of oppression. We have no sense of longevity and the big picture anymore. If something does not begin and end in a period of days or weeks, in our minds it lasts forever and we become bored with what we face. Imagine the 430 years of slavery that the people spent in Egypt; that is nearly twice as long as the United States have existed as a country.
We have already discussed the presence of chariots in Canaan (see Judges 1:19), but it is worth remembering the significance of the iron chariot as a weapon of war. Chariots themselves were a fairly new invention at this point in history, but later they would reinforce the basket and wheels with iron plates to protect the riders and the vehicle. These chariots were often drawn by as many as 4 horses and presented a formidable opponent to foot soldiers so long as the chariot had room to maneuver and build momentum. In many ways, these iron chariots were some of the earliest light-armored vehicles in military history. And Sisera did not simply have a few of such weapons; he had 900. That’s enough to devastate any military front line.
So, the people cry out in their distress with the implied notion that after 20 years of oppression, the people are repenting of their sins and turning back to the God of Israel. How sad it is that it so often takes us so long as well to repent of our idolatry before we submit to the God of Heaven.
Learning War…the Christian Life
“And the Sons of Israel once again did the Evil in the eyes of Yahweh when Ehud died. Ans Yahweh sold them into the hand of Yabiyn who reigned in Chatsor; the commander of his army was Siysera, who dwelled in Charosheth-Hagoyim.
(Judges 4:1-2)
Again, note that Shamgar seems to be an overlapping judge as the account of the people’s fall into sin and God giving them into the hands of Jabin follows the death of Ehud. As for names, while we know the king of Hazor as Jabin in the English language (in fact, the letter “J” is more or less a more modern invention, originally being a variant of the letter “I” when “I” was used as a consonant and not as a vowel…). Similarly, the “Ch” of Chatsor would be pronounced as a hard sound, like the ch in “Loch Ness.”
Hazor is in the northern portion of Canaan, just north of what we would know as the Sea of Galilee. We are also introduced to Sisera, the general of Jabin’s armies and the man who will become the enemy of God’s people due to his harsh oppression and his mighty force of chariots.
As we continue into this account, let us not lose sight of two things…first that the oppression is a direct result of the sin of the people…they continue to do “The Evil” in the eyes of God. And second, we must remember that God is disciplining his people in this specific way so that they will learn the art of war (see Judges 3:2). God could have chosen a variety of ways to discipline his own, but this was what God deemed proper, not only with respect to defending their homeland, but also to the end of taking the whole of the territory that God had promised to the people.
To put this notion into perspective requires us to look at history. At the creation, God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the whole of the world (Genesis 1:28). Of course, after the Fall everything changed. Yet, as God brings Abraham into the land, the promise of dominion is renewed, but on a smaller scale — the land of Canaan is promised, but with much larger borders than we typically think of — these borders extend from the Euphrates river to the Nile and as far north as what we would call modern-day Turkey (Genesis 15:18-21). Yet, once again, the people fell into sin and never took over the land.
Later, after the Resurrection of Christ, Jesus affirms in what we know as the Great Commission that the “Dominion Mandate” of Adam has been renewed in Christ, for “all” authority in “heaven and on earth” was given to Him (Matthew 28:18). We are told in that same passage that the dominion will be enacted through the spread of the Gospel and the process of making disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19-20). In turn, at the Ascension, the same commission is given to the Apostles — a restored Dominion Mandate, where they are to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth.
Sadly, much like the history of the Judges, the history of the church has been marked by falling into sin again and again and Christians have been unable to fulfill this mandate and commission. We are given the instruction that we are to tear down the strongholds of the devil in this world and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God (sounds an awful lot like the discipleship portion of the Great Commission! — 2 Corinthians 10:4-6), we are given the promise that the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the forward march of the church when we seek to tear down these strongholds (Matthew 16:18), and we are given spiritual armor to fight these battles (Ephesians 6:10-20; 1 Thessalonians 5:8; Romans 13:12). We are even given the weapons to do battle in the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). This sounds a lot like military language, does it not? Has not God chosen to teach us war as well? Yet, this war is spiritual in nature as we fight against the spiritual forces of evil that have entrenched themselves in this world (Ephesians 6:12).
Ultimately a new Judge will come to restore us to peace…that is the Lord Jesus Christ who will destroy those who oppress his people and who will restore peace and freedom from “The Evil” all of the land that belongs to him — the whole earth. And, just as the people remain faithful during the lifetime of the Judge who delivers them, so too will the people remain faithful to Christ for his entire lifetime…and he lives and reigns forever! Praise be to God!
We are told that the things we find in the Old Testament are meant as shadows of the fulfillment found in Christ (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:5; 10:1). Let us not lose sight of that. And let us also not lose sight of the reality that we have been called to a lifetime of war, not peace, as we live out the great Commission in this world…but note something, war is to be had with the enemy, not with those inside of the church body we might not agree with…how often the church has gotten that principle backwards.
Shamgar
“After him, Shamgar, the son of Anath, who slew Philistines — 600 men — with the goad of an ox. He also saved Israel.
(Judges 3:31)
Shamgar is a judge that we know almost nothing about. He is only mentioned here and in Judges 5:6 (which is a historical note). The historical note from Judges 5 is valuable, as the text implies that Shamgar lived at the same time as Jael, which would mean that Shamgar’s judge-ship overlapped that of Deborah, helping to reconcile the years covered by the book of Judges with the historical chronology.
What I like about Shamgar is that, like Samson, he is remembered for a mighty and miraculous victory over the enemies of God’s people. While Samson slew 1,000 with a jawbone, Shamgar slew 600 with an ox-goad, an 8-foot stick with a pointy end. The end is not like a spear, that would ordinarily pierce the skin, but is sharp enough to prod an ox to move in the direction that the farmer desires. This is the kind of battle that legends are made out of, yet, here we find it taking place in time and space in human history. This, of course, is not to give credit to Shamgar, but to God who empowered Shamgar to win this battle.
In terms of application, the temptation is to say, “See, God did this through Shamgar, he can do it through you if you are faithful.” Maybe, maybe not. That kind of application may be exciting, but often is not realized in people’s lives because God has other plans, makes people think that God is at our beck and call, and simply diminishes the text into a kind of motivational speech.
The proper way to apply a text like this is to point at how little is mentioned about the man. The whole note is tucked away at the end of the account of Ehud and before the account of Deborah. It is almost as if the Biblical writer was saying, “oh, by the way, there was this guy, what’s his name…oh, Shamgar, who also killed Philistines…” God wins the battles, God gets the credit, God’s name is glorified, and God’s victory is the one to remember…not man’s. And thus, as we have our little victories in life, to whom do we give the glory? Whose name do we desire to be remembered? Is it the name of God? Is it our own name? The latter is vanity.
Humbling Moab
“And they struck down Moabites at that time — 10,000 men, all fat and all men of strength and not a man was able to flee to safety. Thus, Moab was humbled on that day under the hand of Israel…and the land had rest for 80 years.”
(Judges 3:29-30)
And as we see this account come to completion, once again we find some plays on words in the description of the Moabites. In particular, just as their king was a fat man, ready for the slaughter, so too was his army. There were 10,000 men, all fat and ready for the kill. And it is these men that Ehud and his soldiers slew as they tried to cross the ford in the Jordan river.
Some of our translations will render the first clause in verse 30 as “Moab was subdued” on that day, yet a better translation of oÅnDk (kana) would be, “to humble.” In practical purposes, Israel did not engage in conquest against Moab at this time nor did it seek to take any possessions from Moab. Israel simply overthrew the oppressors — and humiliated them in the process. Thus, indeed, they were humbled before God’s people.
Thus, the land had rest for 80 years. Rest from what? Rest from oppression both from outside and rest from oppression of the idolatry within.
The Trumpet Call
“And it came to pass that he arrived and blew the shofar on the mountain of Ephraim. And the Sons of Israel went out with him from the mountain and he was before them. And he said to them, ‘Follow me, for Yahweh has given your enemies, the Moabites, into your hand. So, they went down after him and took control of the fords of the Jordan which are toward Moab and they did not permit anyone to pass through.”
(Judges 3:27-28)
Ehud blows a signal on the shofar — a ram’s horn — to signal to the people that it was time to gather to battle. The horn played an important role in ancient society, depending on the kind of horn and on how the horn was blown, would send a signal to the people of the land that they were to mobilize for battle, for a gathering, for worship, for travel, etc… In the days before cell-phones and PA systems, the trumpet or horn was the tool of choice to communicate over long distances. Thus, Paul, in addressing the way we communicate, writes:
“And now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you if I do not speak with a revelation, or with knowledge, or in prophesy, or with a teaching? Even inanimate instruments give sound. If a flute, or if a harp, does not give distinct sounds, how will someone know what is being played? And if an indistinct trumpet is sounded, who will prepare for battle? And so, it is the same way with you. If through your tongue you speak unintelligible words, how will anyone know what is being spoken? It will be as if you are speaking into the air.”
(1 Corinthians 14:6-9)
Babel and the confusion of languages was a curse upon mankind due to their arrogance and disobedience of God. What we see in the spiritual gift of tongues in Acts is as reversal of this judgment in a specific time and place not only to foreshadow the new creation to come, but also to be a sign of judgment upon the Jewish authorities (1 Corinthians 14:21; Isaiah 28:11-12). The Gospel is meant to be a clear and intelligible message of hope to a dying world and it is a rallying cry to the church to take up arms against the forces of darkness. If the trumpet call does not go out in a distinct way, then how will the people respond appropriately? Ehud gives the trumpet blast clearly and distinctly, and the people rally to go to war. May we be quick to do the same.
Flee from the Place of Idols
“Thus, Ehud fled to safety while they hesitated and he went beyond the idols and fled to safety to the Se’iyratha.”
(Judges 3:26)
Ehud, thus, makes his escape while the servants hesitate, not wanting to stumble upon Eglon in a compromised state — of course, he is in a tremendously compromised state indeed! I think that the reference to the place of idols is important for us here as it is mentioned twice. On one level, it seems to be a location where graven images are kept that becomes a turning point for Ehud. On the other hand, it seems that there is significance to the notion that he is leaving behind these idols as Eglon has been slaughtered. Indeed, on a spiritual level, that is what God has called his people to do — pass away from the place where idols have any influence on their lives. And, indeed, that is what God calls us to as well.
The place to which Ehud flees is called, “Se’iyratha” in the hill country of Ephriam (see the next verse). The word has a definite article, so scholars debate as to whether it is the name of a city or the name of a region. Given its context, it seems that to consider this a location rather than a town makes more sense. Assuming that to be the case, the word would break down to mean something like “goat mountain.” It will be from here, then, that he gathers his troops and prepares to wage battle against the Moabite troops that are sure to give chase.
Given the significance of goats in the ancient times as well as their significance to the day of Atonement, one might suggest it rather ironic to see Ehud, after passing away from the idols, fleeing to the mountain known for its goats. That is speculation, indeed, but in a story that is so filled by word play, it is something that is perhaps worth speculating on while also not pushing too hard. For the Christian today, Christ has become not only our Passover Lamb, but also our sacrifice of Atonement and when we repent of our idols, it is to Christ and only to Christ that we too must flee. Will you?
A Humiliating Death
“And he left. Then the servants came and behold, the doors to the upper room were secured! And they said, ‘Maybe he is relieving himself, standing in the cool part of the upper room.’ They wavered until they were ashamed, but still the doors were not opened to the upper room. They took the key and opened it, but behold, their lord had fallen dead on the ground.”
(Judges 3:24-25)
It’s not nice to bother your king when he is doing something privately in his upper chambers. Yet an emissary from an enemy nation had just been in there and now some strange sounds were coming from the room. So, what do you do? These servants of the king found themselves in exactly that spot, and in their case, they stood around, wavering back and forth, trying to decide the right course of action. Do they go in and perhaps disturb their master doing something very private? Do they wait and fail to rescue their master if something bad is happening? You can almost envision these servants looking at one another and saying, “So, what do you want to do, George?” And when the decision to open the door was made, saying, “I’ll open, but you go first.”
There is a curious choice of words found at the end of this verse. When recording that Eglon had fallen dead, instead of stating that he had fallen on the floor, it states that he fell on the X®rRa (erets), which means “ground” or “earth.” This seems to tie us back again to verse 22 and the translation of NØwdVv√rAÚp (parshedon). One of the possible translations of this term is “dirt,” which would be considered a euphemism for dung. If X®rRa (erets) is meant to be a play on words (and this account is filled with plays on words), then it could be suggested that after the dirt (dung) came out, the dead king fell on top of it (on the earth). In other words, they found him laying in his own feces. Again, a humiliating death for the big fat cow, Eglon. A proper death for the enemies of God. All the while Ehud is escaping.
The Escape!
“And Ehud went out of the window and he had closed the doors to the upper room behind him and secured them.”
(Judges 3:23)
Once again, depending on how you understand the visual imagery of what is going on will depend on how you translate this passage. For example, some commentators who interpret NØwdVv√rAÚp (parshedon) in the previous verse to Eglon’s dung coming out of him have presumed that this upper room was a place to go to the bathroom in the first place. Preferring to translate h…ÎyˆlSo (aliyyah) as “upper room” (as discussed above), I would simply see this as a cooler place to go after official activities were through. That means that the term NØwr;√dVsIm (misderon) as essentially a window — the opening in the upper room through which the breeze comes in and out to cool the space, not some sort of porch or ventilation shaft as some have suggested.
Yet, before Ehud leaves, he secures the doors so that others cannot easily come in to Eglon’s rescue while Ehud makes his escape. And thus, our hero is off, preparing to rendezvous with his soldiers and secure the victory over their wicked oppressors…leaving behind the body of the wicked king in a shameful condition…God’s judgment upon those who oppress his people.
It strikes me as interesting, noting accounts like this, that anyone would ever want to oppress God’s people. It always turns out bad for the oppressor. But knowing this full well, nation after nation, government after government, association after association have oppressed God’s elect through the ages. It is as if they said to themselves, “I know I’ll probably meet a terrible end for doing this, but I want to do this anyway.” Then again, isn’t that the mindset of ever sin we commit as well? God says , “no, don’t do this.” Yet, as Christians, we so often do it anyway. In eternity we may be forgiven in Christ, but God often disciplines us to break of us of these practices that dishonor his name.
For us, this is a passage that not only ought to encourage us as we face trials and oppressions in this life, but also one that ought to warn us against excusing sin, for God will call us to task on these matters. The clay must honor the design of the potter.
A Shameful Death
“And Ehud stretched out his left hand and took the dagger from on his right thigh and he drove it into his belly. And the grip also went in after the blade and the fat closed around the blade because he did not pull the dagger out of his belly. And that which is between came out.”
(Judges 3:21-22)
The battle, if you wish to call it one, is short lived. Ehud drives the long dagger into fat Eglon and the dagger goes in, blade and grip alike, into the belly of the fat king. The strike is so fierce that the fat of the wretched king closes around the blade, which is left in his body.
As Eglon collapses with this death stroke, the Hebrew account tells us a little bit more information, though it is debated as to just what the Hebrew word, NØwdVv√rAÚp (parshedon), refers. The Hebrew term is derived from the word v∂rDÚp (parash), which is used to refer to a horseman straddling a horse between his legs, so the idea being is that when the dagger struck Eglon, that which was between his legs came out.
In interpreting this reference, many of our modern translations follow the Latin Vulgate (which uses the word stercus) and translate the term as “dung.” The inference here is that when someone dies, the bowels release their contents. The classic Hebrew grammarian, Gesenius, preferred to render the text as that the blade of the dagger came out from between his legs. Remembering that this dagger was a cubit in length (18”), the idea of the blade entering through Eglon’s belly and exiting from between his buttocks is not too far fetched. Regardless of how one defines the term, the resultant image is the same; Eglon died a humiliating death.
And that, my friends, is how God’s enemies deserve to die — humiliating and shameful. But that, my friends, is what we all deserve as well, for we all have stood as enemies of God and of his people. Yet, because of the grace of God expressed through the finished work of Christ, we who are Christians are saved from that which we deserve. Elon, though, received what he deserved both in his life and is still receiving what he rightfully deserves as he is tormented in Hell even unto this day.
Ethics, Apple, and the Future
There has been a great deal of discussion in the news lately that surrounds the legal battle between Apple Computer and the FBI. After the terrorist shooting in San Bernadino, California, the FBI asked the computer company to assist them in breaking into the terrorist’s iPhone. On the surface, this sounds like a pretty reasonable request, but the ramifications of the request are far greater than just the matter of the security of an electronic device or the responsibility (or lack-thereof) of a private company or individual to assist the government.
My point with this reflection is not to say that Apple is the knight in white shining armor nor is it to condemn their actions. My purpose is to raise the question of computers and privacy from a principled perspective, namely as to what Biblical ethics are at stake here. And by the way, Apple was never established as a Christian company nor are its leaders professing Christians in any way that I am aware of, which means that this is not an apologetic for Apple, but rather a reflection from a Christian perspective.
On the most basic level, this discussion in the news is where the balance lies between personal privacy and the government’s right to restrict your activity to “protect” the general populace? Or, perhaps we should simply the question even further: “do the needs of the many (protection) outweigh the needs of the few (privacy)?”
For the purpose of clarity, we should assert that the protection of the populace is part of God’s design for the government as the government’s job is to praise good behavior and to punish those who do evil (1 Peter 2:14). Yet, how far ought our civil government go in seeking to punish those who do evil? Certainly the Biblical writers would never have dreamed of the technology available to us today, so we need to rely on clear inferences when making application. Yet, as the scriptures are designed to prepare us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17), we ought to expect the scriptures to give us guidance as to matters such as this.
There is one more reason that this court battle is important. For most of us in America, we have been taught that ethics are situational. In other words, right and wrong only apply to the context in which one finds oneself. Yet, situational ethics are not the ethics of the Bible. In God’s economy there are absolute rights and wrongs, proper things to do and improper things to do. And when the Ethic is absolute, there is no “wiggle room” to adjust the ethical rule because of the convenience or inconvenience of the situation.
So, if we return to the question, “do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” how ought we to think as Christians? On the surface, as Christians, we might be tempted to look to the sacrifice of Christ and say, “yes, the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few.” But, if we are tempted to say as much, I would caution you to examine Christ’s sacrifice more closely. For, why did Jesus sacrifice himself? It was an act of sovereign grace to redeem the elect (a comparatively small number, compared to the whole of mankind). Were Jesus compelled to sacrifice himself because of the needs of the many, then not only could you argue for a form of universalism, but also, were he compelled, his sacrifice would have been one of compulsion, not grace. Further, while indeed the sacrifice of Christ did provide for the needs of the elect, it was motivated not by our needs, but for the purpose of glorifying the Father.
Jesus was under no obligation to agree to die to preserve a remnant from fallen man, he chose to out of his sovereign grace for the glory of the Father. So, in this case, the need of the few (to glorify the Father) was the reason for the act that benefitted the many (the elect through the ages). And a principle of absolute ethics applied in one context, applies to all contexts because of the nature of absolute ethics.
So, dispatching the notion of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, we must go back to 1 Peter and ask, would such an action Apple assisting the FBI in getting access to encrypted data in a person’s iPhone, be an action consistent with rewarding good behavior and punishing evil behavior. Apple asserts that doing so would create a weakness that either the government or a criminal could exploit. The FBI states that they are only requesting access to one phone.
As I stated, my purpose is not to advocate for one side or the other, but simply to ask the ethical question. In a world where electronics track almost our every move, record places we shop, and hobbies in which we engage, at times today’s world feels a little like Orwell’s world in the novel 1984. We must not place our heads in the sand with regard to the rapid advance of technology and must be intentional about applying what we know about Biblical principles to the world around us…even to Apple and the FBI, whose feud has ramifications for the things that follow in our culture.
To the Upper Room
“And Ehud went in to him where he was sitting in the upper room on the roof, where he was alone, and said to him, ‘I have something from God for you.’ And he rose from on his chair.”
(Judges 3:20)
Eglon has retreated to a room on the roof of his palace. Remembering that this is long before the days of air-conditioning, such an act should not surprise us. These were places that were higher up and open to the breeze; much more comfortable in the stagnant air of the house. So, the fat king goes up and Ehud follows in tow. When the king is comfortable, he turns to Ehud and gives him the chance to speak.
Ehud’s response is to say again, “I have something from God for you.” And once again, we have the vagueness in the language — rDb∂;d (dabar) — “a word, a thing, an idea, an instruction, etc…” Eglon rises from his chair, perhaps in anticipation of what Ehud will say, and what follows is clearly not what Eglon expects, but then again, we get ahead of ourselves.
As we retell this story, we must not neglect the human element, for that adds to the fun of the account. We don’t know what it is that Eglon thought that Ehud had meant by rDb∂;d (dabar), but clearly Ehud takes Eglon by surprise. You can almost envision this very fat and greedy king rising up, wringing his hands in excitement at this new gift, a personal bit of tribute, that Ehud is about to pay. Or, perhaps Eglon doesn’t completely trust Ehud and is beginning to realize the foolishness of coming upstairs for a private audience, then getting up to call his guards, just before he is silenced forever. We don’t know each and every detail, but it is important to reflect on such things not simply to aid good story-telling, but to preserve us from falling into the trap of thinking of this as nothing more than a story, and not an historical account that included real people in time and space.
So, don’t lose sight of the human element as you read and then retell these accounts. For that is typically the means by which God works — the lives of real people in the lives of other people — you and me even. My prayer is that thinking this way will open yourself up to be better used by the Lord of Lords in building his Kingdom.
Subterfuge
“And it came to pass that when the bringing of the gift had come to an end, he sent home the people who carried the gift. But he turned back from the idols which were at Gilgal and said, ‘A secret thing is with me for you, O king.’ And he said, ‘Silence!’ And all the ones who stood by him went from him.”
(Judges 3:18-19)
The tribute is brought and here we clearly know that this “gift” is more than just what is at the right side of Ehud. Yet, still, the language of the text is intentionally ambiguous in some key areas. The most important area is that of the “secret thing” or “secret message” or “something secret” that Ehud has for Eglon.
The term that is translated as “thing” here is rDb∂;d (dabar). This Hebrew word can mean a whole litany of things depending on its context. It can refer to a word, an idea, a physical thing, or even to a command or set of instructions. Clearly, here will be a context where Eglon misunderstands the meaning of this word…or at least, he understands it in a different way than Ehud is using it.
This leads us to an important ethical question. Is Ehud lying by being intentionally vague? In argumentation, this is called equivocation, or the logical fallacy of equivocation, where depending how words are used, the sentence that contains them can be understood in very different ways. This, is the thing that puns are made up, but it is also something that kids tend to be quite adept at, particularly when trying to fool their parents while also trying to avoid lying (at least technically so).
The historic confessions of the Christian faith would remind us that the ninth commandment deals with more than just outright lying before a magistrate, thus bearing false witness. The Westminster Larger Catechism, for example teaches that the ninth commandment forbids speaking untruth in any form, forgery, hiding sins, boasting, or concealing the truth. The Heidelberg Catechism affirms the same and also goes on to say that the expectation of this commandment is that we love the truth. So, isn’t this use of double-entendre, though technically not lying, still breaking the ninth commandment?
It seems that we have two directions with which we can take this question. The first, and arguably the simplest, is to suggest that while this subterfuge is sin, and thus not a model for us to follow, God still uses the sins of his people to accomplish his good purposes. Certainly we find lots of examples of this, Samson being one of the first that comes to mind. Samson broke every one of his Nazarite vows, he slept with a prostitute and with a woman who was not his wife, and he was a bit of a terrorist when it came to his assaults on the Philistines (I am thinking about the foxes…). Yet, all of this was part of God’s good design to punish the Philistines for their oppression of Israel. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband, Uriah, killed to hide his sin. That adulterous affair ended up adding Bathsheba to David’s already growing list of wives, again, not what I would argue was the Biblical model established in Genesis 2. Yet, from that relationship came Solomon. So, one might simply argue that such subterfuge was sin and would always be sin, yet God sovereignly uses even our sin to accomplish his designs.
The trouble with that answer is that first, it almost seems to excuse the sin (for God will make good things happen anyhow) and it seems to follow into a matter of the end justifying the means, which the Bible never advocates. Plus, there are times when others seem to lead one down a road that could be construed as misleading before the Truth is revealed.
An example of this can be found in the way that Nathan rebukes David after David’s affair with Bathsheba (see 2 Samuel 12:1-15). Nathan told a parable about a rich man stealing from a poor man to illustrate what it was that David had done to Uriah. To expand on that idea, when Jesus’ disciples ask him to explain why he teaches in parables, Jesus answers that the purpose is to conceal the truth from those who are spiritually blind and deaf (Matthew 13:10-17).
One can easily argue, given the context, that Ehud’s situation with Eglon is much the same as Nathan’s with David. In both cases, the truth is being somewhat concealed (though in both cases the truth was revealed in the end) and in both cases, judgment was being brought (in the case of Ehud, it would be Eglon’s death; in the case of Nathan, it would be the death of David and Bathsheba’s first son). Even in the case of Jesus’ parables, the intention is judgment as well (by Jesus’ own admission).
So, what principle ought we draw from this encounter? Is there now justification for lying? No, there is not justification for lying, it is breaking the ninth commandment. How about justification for concealing the truth? Perhaps, but I would argue that what we find here is that when truth is being concealed in each of these cases, the intent is not to mislead, but instead to position yourself in a situation where truth can be revealed in judgment over sin. In the case of David and Nathan, that is pretty obvious. Nathan is concealing the truth within a parable for the purpose of causing David to condemn himself. In the case of Ehud and Eglon, Ehud is concealing the truth within double-entendre, to give him the opportunity to get close enough to Eglon to carry out his God-given task: judgment on the wicked king. In the case of Jesus, we again see the same principle. Jesus is speaking truth clothed in a parable so that the wicked who are under condemnation do not repent and are held under condemnation until the day they stand in judgment where the truth will be fully revealed.
In most cases, then, we still need to be very careful about subterfuge because it can easily fall into the realm of lying or at the very least, intending to deceive. Yet, in the case of Ehud, there is Biblical president in the way that God works with his people and certainly also in the way that Jesus, who was sinless, commonly taught.
Mockery in the Service of God
“Thus, Ehud made for himself a dagger (and it had two mouths) a cubit in length. And he bound it to himself under his robe on his right side. And he took the gift to Eglon, the king of Moab. Now, Eglon was a very fat man.”
(Judges 3:16-17)
As the elements of this story are laid out, you can almost hear the elders of the family telling the story to the children around a fire or a dinner table, all the while, the children (who have heard the account numerous times), giggling in anticipation for what comes next. You have the making of the 18” long dagger, the tribute or gift mentioned again (and again in the context of the dagger) and that it is hidden under his robes, so there is some intrigue afoot. Further, we are told that the “fattened calf,” Eglon is a fattened man as well. As a storyteller, this is the point in the story where you feign fatigue and tell the children it is time for bed and we will resume the next night. It is also the point where the children cry out, “Noooooo!”
And so, the fun of the story continues. When the dagger is introduced, it is introduced as having “two mouths,” a reference to the double-entendre of this account, though the natural interpretation is that it is two-edged. Its mouth can cut in both directions. Further, Ehud hides it in an inconspicuous spot to avoid detection (perhaps we can equate Ehud with an ancient James Bond…just a thought). Anyway, the story unfolds.
One thing that I think we miss, in our “politically-incorrect-aphobic” society is the value of being able to genuinely mock those who honestly deserve to be mocked. Even God mocks those who raise their puny fists into the air against him (Psalm 2:4). Eglon, though raised up by God to punish the people for their idolatry, has still raised his fist against the people of God and thus against God himself. Similarly, while there are many who aim their wrecking balls at the true church, God assures us that those who take refuge in Him will never be destroyed (Psalm 34:19). And thus, those who target the church with their foolishness deserve to be mocked.
We, of course, need to be wise as to how we go about mocking, for some of those we mock may one day be called “brother” or “sister” in Christ. Yet, where those ideas are raised against the knowledge of God, we should not be shy about tearing them down. And where the ideas of the enemies of God are clearly foolishness, then the only right response is to point out their foolishness, which is mockery. Perhaps even, the embarrassment caused may be the tool that the Holy Spirit uses to illuminate the fool as to his foolishness. Otherwise, it leaves the fool with no excuse.
Mockery should not be spiteful nor should be be arrogant, it is simply the normal response, when one knows the truth, to the incredulous ideas that the fools espouse. And, it is my contention that if Christians paid more attention to what they believed, they would be more apt to recognize foolishness for what it is and respond accordingly.
Change the World
“Then the Sons of Israel cried out to Yahweh. So Yahweh raised up for them a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gerar, the Benjaminite, a man which was left-handed. And the Sons of Israel sent a gift in his left-hand to Eglon, the king of Moab.”
(Judges 3:15)
As I mentioned above, this account is filled with humor if you look for the double entendre, some of which we find here, though it is sometimes lost in English translations. Many of our translations simply state that Ehud is the one who will take the tribute to Ehud. In ancient times, it was common for the conquered people to have to take a tribute either seasonally or annually to the conquering King. And, that may indeed be what Ehud’s assignment is, yet, that is not specifically what the text states. It states that Ehud is bringing a gift for Eglon “in his left hand.” We have already been told in this verse that Ehud is a south-paw, so we know that something is afoot. If we know the rest of the story, then we know that the item that will become most accessible to his left hand will be his long dagger, but that gets ahead of the story. The fact that this man’s left-handedness is mentioned twice in the same verse is meant as an indication that something is coming with respect to the left hand…namely that this gift or left-handed tribute, is not the ordinary kind that we might expect. And certainly not the kind that Eglon will expect.
Ehud’s name means, “He that Praises,” so right up front there is an indication of the kind of man that God chooses to use. He is not predominantly a warrior, though he is clearly skilled in combat, he is a man who praises God first and foremost in all he does. And beloved, if you wish to be used by God in significant ways in life, this is the kind of person that you, too, must be. God will win the battles, build the churches, change the culture, and evangelize the lost, and he will do so through the person whose first aim is to praise and give glory to His great name. There is an old saying that goes, “God does not call the equipped; he equips those he calls.” And those he calls are those who will honor him and not themselves. Ehud is presented to us as such a man.
Too often Christians feel inadequate to change the world. And that is because we are. Yet God is more than adequate and he will work through you if you honor him in all things. The question that we are all faced with is, “will we seek first the kingdom”? God will honor nothing less.
An Undesired Solution
“And he gathered to himself the Sons of Ammon and Amalek and they went and struck down Israel and dispossessed the City of Palms. Thus, the Sons of Israel served Eglon, king of Moab, for eighteen years.”
(Judges 3:13-14)
We tend to have short memories. We want everything in an instant and to move on to the next thing. The notion of being disciplined for 18 years seems like a lifetime for most of us. The notion of having to wait 18 years for a deliverer seems to us to be interminable. And recognize, too, much like today, during that 18 years, the people would have looked to this leader or that leader to lead them out of their servitude. There would have been some “political strategists” who would have advocated blending their society more with that of the Moabites and others who would have been chanting, “Let’s make Israel great again.”
The reality, though, deliverance does not come from politics or from political parties who jockey for power. Deliverance comes from God. That is an important lesson to learn for all of us today who sometimes get caught up in the frenzy of political promises. It is also a lesson to remember within the church as local congregations often look to their pastors to “fix” all of the problems and bring growth. But the role of our governors is to be ministers of God to bring terror to evil-doers (Romans 13:1-4), to punish wrongdoing and praise those who do good (1 Peter 2:14). It is the role of the pastor to train and equip the church to do the work of ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12). The solution to the problems in America today are the same solutions as were the solutions in ancient Israel…repent of your sin, do justice, love God’s mercies, and walk humbly with your God. Yet, much like was the case with Adam and Eve, people today and during the day of the Judges, never want to look to self, but always seek to place the blame on another.
Thus, Moab and their allies move into national Israel and even take back the City of Palms, better known to us as Jericho (Deuteronomy 34:3). And, following the defeat, find themselves under Moab’s yoke. I wonder, will the Christian church today realize their sin before they find themselves under the yoke of a pagan federal government? Maybe we already are and are just too blind to see it.
The Preacher's Study 