Original Meaning

Introduction (3:12–15a)

THE BEGINNING NARRATIVE frame sets the circumstances for Ehud’s work. The text emphasizes through repetition that not only was Israel doing evil in the eyes of the Lord, but because of that evil, Yahweh “gave Eglon king of Moab power over Israel.” The Hebrew for this phrase is unique to the Ehud cycle. In the other major judge cycles, the description is either Yahweh gave (ntn) or sold (mkr) the Israelites into the hands of their oppressors. Only here does the writer say that Yahweh actively “gave . . . power” to or strengthened (ḥzq) the oppressor against Israel.

After gathering as allies the Ammonites and Amalekites (peoples who will be involved in other later oppressions of Israel), Eglon attacks Israel, and together they take possession (yrš) of “the City of Palms” (i.e., Jericho, cf. 1:16).3 Ironically, it is the Israelites who are supposed to be taking possession (yrš) of the land. And it is Jericho (veiled here by the term “the City of Palms”) that Eglon and company have confiscated! Has the work of Joshua 6 been undone?!!!

It is also ironic that earlier, in Moses’ day, the Moabites under King Balak attempted to overcome Israel by hiring Balaam to curse them (Num. 22–24). And although the Moabites along with the Midianites had involved the Israelites in adultery and idolatry (Num. 25), the Moabites ultimately failed to thwart Israel. But now Moab through the addition of these allies has gained success over the Israelites.

While the duration of the oppression to despotic Eglon is mentioned (eighteen years), the description of the oppression is painted in subtle terms through a series of contrasts. Thus, the references to the “City of Palms,” to Eglon’s fatness, and to the cool upper chamber of his palace expose “the vast differences between the lives of the Moabites and the conquered Israelites—inside versus outside, cool versus hot, fatness versus barrenness, palms versus hills.”4

The cyclic description continues with Israel’s crying out to Yahweh in stress and pain (not repentance). Yahweh, as in the Othniel account, raises up a savior/deliverer (môšîaʿ, 3:14, cf. v. 9): Ehud, the son of Gera, a Benjamite. Through the use of these framework statements, the writer starts off the Ehud story just like the Othniel cycle, raising the readers’ expectations for more of the same. But quickly this all changes.

This savior is left-handed (lit., “a man restricted in his right hand,” 3:15). The phrase used here has created problems for centuries. One interpretation understands this as a physical deformity; that is, that Ehud’s left-handedness is the result of a physical abnormality.5 However, this is probably taking the phrase too literally. In 20:16 there are seven hundred picked troops, (lit.) “their right hands restricted” (same phrase as 3:15), who “could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.” As Halpern notes, “This excludes physical deformity: it would be comical to invent elite brigades organized on such a principle.”6 Moreover, only if Ehud has use of his right hand can he, by using his left, surprise Eglon. Ehud’s plot only works if he appears normal to the Moabite guards.

Another interpretation understands this phrase to mean “ambidextrous” (i.e., skilled in the use of both hands). The Greek Old Testament translates the phrase by a word meaning “ambidextrous” (in both LXX^A and LXX^B). Block has recently argued for this meaning.7 But this seems unlikely for this is a most odd way of expressing ambidextrity (“a man restricted in his right hand”)! It is doubtful whether ambidextrity would ever be expressed by describing restriction of the use of one of the hands. Rather, it is expressed positively with the use of both. Note, for example, 1 Chronicles 12:2, which describes, positively, warriors who “were able to shoot arrows or to sling stones right-handed or left-handed.” Thus it seems that the phrase in 3:15a simply means “left-handed” (esp. if it refers to artificially induced left-handedness through training).

But this left-handed savior is ironically a Benjamite (“son of the right hand”).8 Left-handedness, generally considered peculiar and unnatural in antiquity, was conspicuously recurrent in this tribe (see 20:16; cf. 1 Chron. 12:2). Such left-handedness may have been artificially induced (binding the right arms of the young children) so as to produce superior warriors. Left-handed persons may have had distinct advantages in physical combat, especially in regard to ancient armaments and defenses.9 From a literary standpoint, Ehud’s left-handedness is explicitly noted because it explains how he smuggles his dagger in. The palace guards, assuming he is right-handed, would have checked only his left side for weapons.

Bridging Contexts

AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, as a preliminary to the interpretation and application of each cycle, it is important to place the particular cycle under consideration within the larger macrostructure of the cycles section (see the introduction, pp. 34–43). In this way the cycle will be interpreted in its proper overall context within the downward moral movement of this section.

Increase in negative attributes. Each of the cyclical/major judges except Othniel, the first one, presents us with the same difficulty in evaluation: the complexity of their characterization. In the case of Othniel, there is only a positive characterization—hence the process of bridging the contexts is not difficult. But starting with Ehud, there is a mixture of positive and negative attributes, with a decline of the positive and an increase in the negative as the reader goes deeper into the cycles. This is, of course, linked to the very structure of the cycles section and enhances the communication of its central message of moral declivity within the period of the judges. It serves to underscore Yahweh’s mighty deliverances in spite of the growing short-comings of human agents.

In this case, Ehud is clearly not of the moral character of Othniel. He resorts to a complex process of deception in order to accomplish his task of deliverance. Nevertheless, Ehud is not the doubtful, manipulative Barak, whose characterization is more negative than Ehud’s (see comments on ch. 4). Thus, for example, Ehud delivers Israel by effectively removing the leader of the enemy of God’s people; Barak will win a victory, but the leader of the enemy will escape him.

It is also important to remember that each cycle narrative works on the divine and human levels. While on one level the actions of the Israelites and the judge of each cycle contribute applications to the modern context, there is also on another level a way in which Yahweh works that sees application in present-day situations. The theme of the glorification of Yahweh is present in all six cycles. Each one in some way reflects this glorification. “By means of satire, the narrative ridicules Israel’s enemy king and his court and glorifies Israel’s hero Ehud and God Yahweh.”37

The apparent absence/silence of Yahweh. The Ehud narrative raises a theological tension that will be felt throughout the remaining cyclical judge narratives—the tension between the character/actions of the judge and the depiction of Yahweh’s involvement.38 How can Yahweh, the holy God, use men who manifest such horrible, sinful character traits and do such awful things? In the case of this second major judge cycle, it is difficult to explain Yahweh’s choice of “Ehud the Benjamite” (certainly with the same assurance that one can explain the choice of Othniel). Why doesn’t God raise up another knight in shining armor like Othniel? Why does he use a devious, left-handed assassin like Ehud? In fact, why doesn’t he use another Judahite instead of a Benjamite (especially in view of the narration in chs. 1, 17–18)?

While the choice of a Benjamite may be explained on mainly formal grounds (i.e., Benjamin after Judah, as in ch. 1), this does not relieve the tension created by the character of Ehud. Because of the same type of plot development, Jael’s action in killing Sisera in Judges 4–5 will create this same tension. This tension is not easily explained, and commentators have struggled with it throughout the history of interpretation.

This can be illustrated in the case of the Ehud cycle by looking at the different ways that scholars have attempted to deal with the apparent absence/silence of Yahweh with regard to Ehud’s plan and its execution. Some have inferred from Yahweh’s absence/silence that he was not in accord with Ehud’s deceptive tactics.39 Other scholars have argued that this absence/silence is intended by the narrator so that the reader will infer that it is Yahweh himself who prevents complications from arising in Ehud’s plot. Thus Amit surmises that the narrator leaves gaps in the stages of narrative development but accumulates data concerning various “coincidences” that help Ehud’s plan so that the reader will sense Yahweh’s part in the plot.40 Along similar lines, Webb concludes that “Ehud has been ‘raised up’; his deceptions have been providentially directed and guaranteed, although even Ehud himself may not have been aware of it at the time.”41

Thus, two different interpretations can be given for the same observation in the text. (1) Some scholars have dealt with the tension by arguing that while God does not condone Ehud’s methods (i.e., this is not his preferred way), he nevertheless uses the human agent to accomplish the deliverance of his people. Thus Block concludes:

The narrator’s silence on the role of God in the assassination of Eglon is deafening. Prior to verse 28 there is no hint of any spiritual sensitivity in Ehud’s heart nor any sense of divine calling. On the contrary, Ehud operates like a typical Canaanite of his time—cleverly, opportunistically, and violently, apparently for his own glory. But the narrator appears not to be concerned at all about the morality of the affair. He simply describes what happened from his point of view, and in so doing reminds the readers that in the dark days of the governors the tools available to God are crude.42

(2) There can be no doubt that this account (as the other cyclical judge accounts) emphasizes that God is able to use flawed individuals to accomplish his purposes without approving of their flaws. But is the narrator unconcerned about the morality of the affair? Is he simply describing what happens in order to remind his readers that the tools available to God are crude in the days of the judges? I find this difficult to accept from both the immediate context as well as a canonical reading. How does one know that these “tools” (i.e., the judges) are “crude” if there is no moral evaluation within the stories? The stories in the Former Prophets—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings—are morally didactic. Canonically, the Law (esp. as expressed in Deuteronomy) serves as the filter for evaluating the actions of the individuals within the stories. While it is easy to fall into the trap of moralizing these stories, it is also easy to underestimate their didactic value, for they are not mere chronicles.

Accordingly, it is possible—and perhaps preferable—to see the Ehud story operating on both the human and divine levels. Thus, Ehud is undoubtedly not an Othniel. He depends on his own crafty, stealthy, deceptive plot to assassinate Eglon. He is treacherous and brutal. His characterization is an important element in the larger context of the book. Yet God uses him in spite of his flaws in order to emphasize his mercy and compassion on his people (even though they are not serving him and have not repented). Moreover, God manifests his justice in judging wickedness and oppression as evidenced in Eglon and the Moabites.

The faith of Ehud. Block’s interpretation, however, raises another question. Are we only to see Ehud’s faith and any evidence of his spirituality in the last lines of the story, where he calls out the Israelites and expresses faith and confidence that Yahweh has delivered the Moabites into their hands?43 Some argue that Ehud manifests faith in the process of the “sacrifice” of Eglon. That is, Ehud depends on God for his access to the king—a risky business, to say the least. If the palace guards had just happened to inspect Ehud’s other thigh and find his weapon, he would have been executed on the spot. Hence, in a sense, God sanctions Ehud’s courage by allowing his enemy to fall to his scheme. Yet, although Ehud must trust in God for the success of the plot, that plot is hardly on the same level of integrity as the story of Othniel’s deliverance of Israel.

Nevertheless, Ehud is willing to take the personal risk without personal assurance(s) from God that it will succeed. In this way, he stands in contrast to most of the remaining cyclical/major judges (i.e., Barak, Gideon, Jephthah), who increasingly look for more and more assurance(s) and guarantee(s) that they will succeed and are less and less willing to risk things without such assurance.44 His devious methods are not endorsed or condoned by God (i.e., this is scarcely God’s preferred method), but God works through and in spite of the judge’s weaknesses in order to accomplish the saving of Israel.45 Moreover, at the end of the day, the glory belongs to God.

Satire. Finally in the Ehud narrative, there is another tension—namely, its use of satire to narrate the execution and destruction of the oppressor and his troops. But one must remember that this satire is at the expense of the enemy of God. Eglon has oppressed the Israelites for eighteen years. He and his minions have robbed and abused God’s people this entire time. Consequently, God raises up Ehud to deliver Israel, to save the nation from any more of the Moabite monarch’s exploitations. God brings his judgment on Eglon through the crafty Ehud. Likewise, God will judge any exploiter or abuser of his people in his timing (cf., e.g., the death of Herod in Acts 12:1–23).

Contemporary Significance

DIVINE LEVEL. This passage emphasizes the work of God in saving his people. This story (as many others throughout the Bible) demonstrates the length to which God will go in order to deliver humankind. In spite of moral flaws in the deliverer, God accomplishes the salvation of Israel. This serves, in turn, to demonstrate his mercy and compassion, since Israel has not repented. But God hears the cry of pain and anguish among his people and acts on their behalf.

The judgment of God’s enemies in the past assures God’s people that he will judge his enemies in the future. Those who exploit, abuse, and seek to humiliate his people run the risk of humiliation by God. Eglon in particular and the Moabites in general have for eighteen years exploited Israel, God’s people. The oppression brings Israel to the point of crying out to Yahweh (not in repentance, but in stress and pain; see comments on p. 102). In compassion on his people, God raises up a judge who is willing without any assurances to risk his very life to save Israel. Israel cannot be saved from Eglon without judgment on Eglon.

Although Ehud’s deceptive plot and murder of Eglon may not have been God’s preferred means, it does not signify that the Lord cannot turn this to accomplish Israel’s deliverance. Throughout the biblical texts God accomplishes his judgments often using individuals far less godly than Ehud (e.g., the Assyrians and Babylonians as the mechanisms for his judgments on the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah respectively; cf. also Habakkuk’s complaints in Hab. 1–2 with reference to God’s judgments). We can take encouragement that God will, in his timing, judge the wicked of this world, though sometimes this may be accomplished through other wicked people.

Human level. On the human level, our context is quite different today from Israel’s day. As mentioned before, we do not face the task of physical and spiritual warfare as in Ehud’s case. Nevertheless, the question arises: How are we to wage spiritual warfare against those who abuse, exploit, and persecute the church? For Christians in certain parts of the world today, this is not a hypothetical question but a real and practical one.

As discussed in the Contemporary Significance section of 1:1–2:5, the concept of warfare is different between the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, while the warfare in which Christians are engaged is spiritual, not physical, the necessity of walking by faith in loyalty to Christ’s covenant is the only hope of victory. We are certainly not to fashion our own daggers as Ehud did, but rather to engage the world with a better weapon already supplied—the sword of the Spirit, the word of God (Eph. 6:17). This sword is “living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow” (Heb. 4:12). This is not to allegorize the passage and equate Ehud’s dagger with the Word of God (i.e., the Bible). Rather, it is to acknowledge the role that the truth of that Word plays in the answer to the question posed above in the modern context.

Certainly the positive message of Ehud is in his willingness to risk it all for God (see Bridging Contexts section). This is a lesson we can benefit from. So many Christians are hampered by an unwillingness to take any risk for God—to share their faith, to stand up for righteousness and justice, even to speak a word of encouragement to the downtrodden—simply because we fear what others might say or think about us. Ehud evinces the kind of boldness of action for God that should spur us to action in these types of situations.

Still, Ehud’s method of deception cannot be condoned as the ideal way to accomplish God’s will. While it heightens the suspense and functions to expose Eglon and the Moabites to greater satire, it poses a significant theological problem. While deceptive methods (whether in evangelistic methods, church-growth methods, political involvements, etc.) may work, this should not be interpreted as God’s condoning of such things. The ideal way is the way of integrity, the way in which God worked through Othniel to accomplish his deliverance of Israel in the first cycle.

Original Meaning

Introduction (3:12–15a)

THE BEGINNING NARRATIVE frame sets the circumstances for Ehud’s work. The text emphasizes through repetition that not only was Israel doing evil in the eyes of the Lord, but because of that evil, Yahweh “gave Eglon king of Moab power over Israel.” The Hebrew for this phrase is unique to the Ehud cycle. In the other major judge cycles, the description is either Yahweh gave (ntn) or sold (mkr) the Israelites into the hands of their oppressors. Only here does the writer say that Yahweh actively “gave . . . power” to or strengthened (ḥzq) the oppressor against Israel.

After gathering as allies the Ammonites and Amalekites (peoples who will be involved in other later oppressions of Israel), Eglon attacks Israel, and together they take possession (yrš) of “the City of Palms” (i.e., Jericho, cf. 1:16).3 Ironically, it is the Israelites who are supposed to be taking possession (yrš) of the land. And it is Jericho (veiled here by the term “the City of Palms”) that Eglon and company have confiscated! Has the work of Joshua 6 been undone?!!!

It is also ironic that earlier, in Moses’ day, the Moabites under King Balak attempted to overcome Israel by hiring Balaam to curse them (Num. 22–24). And although the Moabites along with the Midianites had involved the Israelites in adultery and idolatry (Num. 25), the Moabites ultimately failed to thwart Israel. But now Moab through the addition of these allies has gained success over the Israelites.

While the duration of the oppression to despotic Eglon is mentioned (eighteen years), the description of the oppression is painted in subtle terms through a series of contrasts. Thus, the references to the “City of Palms,” to Eglon’s fatness, and to the cool upper chamber of his palace expose “the vast differences between the lives of the Moabites and the conquered Israelites—inside versus outside, cool versus hot, fatness versus barrenness, palms versus hills.”4

The cyclic description continues with Israel’s crying out to Yahweh in stress and pain (not repentance). Yahweh, as in the Othniel account, raises up a savior/deliverer (môšîaʿ, 3:14, cf. v. 9): Ehud, the son of Gera, a Benjamite. Through the use of these framework statements, the writer starts off the Ehud story just like the Othniel cycle, raising the readers’ expectations for more of the same. But quickly this all changes.

This savior is left-handed (lit., “a man restricted in his right hand,” 3:15). The phrase used here has created problems for centuries. One interpretation understands this as a physical deformity; that is, that Ehud’s left-handedness is the result of a physical abnormality.5 However, this is probably taking the phrase too literally. In 20:16 there are seven hundred picked troops, (lit.) “their right hands restricted” (same phrase as 3:15), who “could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.” As Halpern notes, “This excludes physical deformity: it would be comical to invent elite brigades organized on such a principle.”6 Moreover, only if Ehud has use of his right hand can he, by using his left, surprise Eglon. Ehud’s plot only works if he appears normal to the Moabite guards.

Another interpretation understands this phrase to mean “ambidextrous” (i.e., skilled in the use of both hands). The Greek Old Testament translates the phrase by a word meaning “ambidextrous” (in both LXX^A and LXX^B). Block has recently argued for this meaning.7 But this seems unlikely for this is a most odd way of expressing ambidextrity (“a man restricted in his right hand”)! It is doubtful whether ambidextrity would ever be expressed by describing restriction of the use of one of the hands. Rather, it is expressed positively with the use of both. Note, for example, 1 Chronicles 12:2, which describes, positively, warriors who “were able to shoot arrows or to sling stones right-handed or left-handed.” Thus it seems that the phrase in 3:15a simply means “left-handed” (esp. if it refers to artificially induced left-handedness through training).

But this left-handed savior is ironically a Benjamite (“son of the right hand”).8 Left-handedness, generally considered peculiar and unnatural in antiquity, was conspicuously recurrent in this tribe (see 20:16; cf. 1 Chron. 12:2). Such left-handedness may have been artificially induced (binding the right arms of the young children) so as to produce superior warriors. Left-handed persons may have had distinct advantages in physical combat, especially in regard to ancient armaments and defenses.9 From a literary standpoint, Ehud’s left-handedness is explicitly noted because it explains how he smuggles his dagger in. The palace guards, assuming he is right-handed, would have checked only his left side for weapons.

Bridging Contexts

AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, as a preliminary to the interpretation and application of each cycle, it is important to place the particular cycle under consideration within the larger macrostructure of the cycles section (see the introduction, pp. 34–43). In this way the cycle will be interpreted in its proper overall context within the downward moral movement of this section.

Increase in negative attributes. Each of the cyclical/major judges except Othniel, the first one, presents us with the same difficulty in evaluation: the complexity of their characterization. In the case of Othniel, there is only a positive characterization—hence the process of bridging the contexts is not difficult. But starting with Ehud, there is a mixture of positive and negative attributes, with a decline of the positive and an increase in the negative as the reader goes deeper into the cycles. This is, of course, linked to the very structure of the cycles section and enhances the communication of its central message of moral declivity within the period of the judges. It serves to underscore Yahweh’s mighty deliverances in spite of the growing short-comings of human agents.

In this case, Ehud is clearly not of the moral character of Othniel. He resorts to a complex process of deception in order to accomplish his task of deliverance. Nevertheless, Ehud is not the doubtful, manipulative Barak, whose characterization is more negative than Ehud’s (see comments on ch. 4). Thus, for example, Ehud delivers Israel by effectively removing the leader of the enemy of God’s people; Barak will win a victory, but the leader of the enemy will escape him.

It is also important to remember that each cycle narrative works on the divine and human levels. While on one level the actions of the Israelites and the judge of each cycle contribute applications to the modern context, there is also on another level a way in which Yahweh works that sees application in present-day situations. The theme of the glorification of Yahweh is present in all six cycles. Each one in some way reflects this glorification. “By means of satire, the narrative ridicules Israel’s enemy king and his court and glorifies Israel’s hero Ehud and God Yahweh.”37

The apparent absence/silence of Yahweh. The Ehud narrative raises a theological tension that will be felt throughout the remaining cyclical judge narratives—the tension between the character/actions of the judge and the depiction of Yahweh’s involvement.38 How can Yahweh, the holy God, use men who manifest such horrible, sinful character traits and do such awful things? In the case of this second major judge cycle, it is difficult to explain Yahweh’s choice of “Ehud the Benjamite” (certainly with the same assurance that one can explain the choice of Othniel). Why doesn’t God raise up another knight in shining armor like Othniel? Why does he use a devious, left-handed assassin like Ehud? In fact, why doesn’t he use another Judahite instead of a Benjamite (especially in view of the narration in chs. 1, 17–18)?

While the choice of a Benjamite may be explained on mainly formal grounds (i.e., Benjamin after Judah, as in ch. 1), this does not relieve the tension created by the character of Ehud. Because of the same type of plot development, Jael’s action in killing Sisera in Judges 4–5 will create this same tension. This tension is not easily explained, and commentators have struggled with it throughout the history of interpretation.

This can be illustrated in the case of the Ehud cycle by looking at the different ways that scholars have attempted to deal with the apparent absence/silence of Yahweh with regard to Ehud’s plan and its execution. Some have inferred from Yahweh’s absence/silence that he was not in accord with Ehud’s deceptive tactics.39 Other scholars have argued that this absence/silence is intended by the narrator so that the reader will infer that it is Yahweh himself who prevents complications from arising in Ehud’s plot. Thus Amit surmises that the narrator leaves gaps in the stages of narrative development but accumulates data concerning various “coincidences” that help Ehud’s plan so that the reader will sense Yahweh’s part in the plot.40 Along similar lines, Webb concludes that “Ehud has been ‘raised up’; his deceptions have been providentially directed and guaranteed, although even Ehud himself may not have been aware of it at the time.”41

Thus, two different interpretations can be given for the same observation in the text. (1) Some scholars have dealt with the tension by arguing that while God does not condone Ehud’s methods (i.e., this is not his preferred way), he nevertheless uses the human agent to accomplish the deliverance of his people. Thus Block concludes:

The narrator’s silence on the role of God in the assassination of Eglon is deafening. Prior to verse 28 there is no hint of any spiritual sensitivity in Ehud’s heart nor any sense of divine calling. On the contrary, Ehud operates like a typical Canaanite of his time—cleverly, opportunistically, and violently, apparently for his own glory. But the narrator appears not to be concerned at all about the morality of the affair. He simply describes what happened from his point of view, and in so doing reminds the readers that in the dark days of the governors the tools available to God are crude.42

(2) There can be no doubt that this account (as the other cyclical judge accounts) emphasizes that God is able to use flawed individuals to accomplish his purposes without approving of their flaws. But is the narrator unconcerned about the morality of the affair? Is he simply describing what happens in order to remind his readers that the tools available to God are crude in the days of the judges? I find this difficult to accept from both the immediate context as well as a canonical reading. How does one know that these “tools” (i.e., the judges) are “crude” if there is no moral evaluation within the stories? The stories in the Former Prophets—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings—are morally didactic. Canonically, the Law (esp. as expressed in Deuteronomy) serves as the filter for evaluating the actions of the individuals within the stories. While it is easy to fall into the trap of moralizing these stories, it is also easy to underestimate their didactic value, for they are not mere chronicles.

Accordingly, it is possible—and perhaps preferable—to see the Ehud story operating on both the human and divine levels. Thus, Ehud is undoubtedly not an Othniel. He depends on his own crafty, stealthy, deceptive plot to assassinate Eglon. He is treacherous and brutal. His characterization is an important element in the larger context of the book. Yet God uses him in spite of his flaws in order to emphasize his mercy and compassion on his people (even though they are not serving him and have not repented). Moreover, God manifests his justice in judging wickedness and oppression as evidenced in Eglon and the Moabites.

The faith of Ehud. Block’s interpretation, however, raises another question. Are we only to see Ehud’s faith and any evidence of his spirituality in the last lines of the story, where he calls out the Israelites and expresses faith and confidence that Yahweh has delivered the Moabites into their hands?43 Some argue that Ehud manifests faith in the process of the “sacrifice” of Eglon. That is, Ehud depends on God for his access to the king—a risky business, to say the least. If the palace guards had just happened to inspect Ehud’s other thigh and find his weapon, he would have been executed on the spot. Hence, in a sense, God sanctions Ehud’s courage by allowing his enemy to fall to his scheme. Yet, although Ehud must trust in God for the success of the plot, that plot is hardly on the same level of integrity as the story of Othniel’s deliverance of Israel.

Nevertheless, Ehud is willing to take the personal risk without personal assurance(s) from God that it will succeed. In this way, he stands in contrast to most of the remaining cyclical/major judges (i.e., Barak, Gideon, Jephthah), who increasingly look for more and more assurance(s) and guarantee(s) that they will succeed and are less and less willing to risk things without such assurance.44 His devious methods are not endorsed or condoned by God (i.e., this is scarcely God’s preferred method), but God works through and in spite of the judge’s weaknesses in order to accomplish the saving of Israel.45 Moreover, at the end of the day, the glory belongs to God.

Satire. Finally in the Ehud narrative, there is another tension—namely, its use of satire to narrate the execution and destruction of the oppressor and his troops. But one must remember that this satire is at the expense of the enemy of God. Eglon has oppressed the Israelites for eighteen years. He and his minions have robbed and abused God’s people this entire time. Consequently, God raises up Ehud to deliver Israel, to save the nation from any more of the Moabite monarch’s exploitations. God brings his judgment on Eglon through the crafty Ehud. Likewise, God will judge any exploiter or abuser of his people in his timing (cf., e.g., the death of Herod in Acts 12:1–23).

Contemporary Significance

DIVINE LEVEL. This passage emphasizes the work of God in saving his people. This story (as many others throughout the Bible) demonstrates the length to which God will go in order to deliver humankind. In spite of moral flaws in the deliverer, God accomplishes the salvation of Israel. This serves, in turn, to demonstrate his mercy and compassion, since Israel has not repented. But God hears the cry of pain and anguish among his people and acts on their behalf.

The judgment of God’s enemies in the past assures God’s people that he will judge his enemies in the future. Those who exploit, abuse, and seek to humiliate his people run the risk of humiliation by God. Eglon in particular and the Moabites in general have for eighteen years exploited Israel, God’s people. The oppression brings Israel to the point of crying out to Yahweh (not in repentance, but in stress and pain; see comments on p. 102). In compassion on his people, God raises up a judge who is willing without any assurances to risk his very life to save Israel. Israel cannot be saved from Eglon without judgment on Eglon.

Although Ehud’s deceptive plot and murder of Eglon may not have been God’s preferred means, it does not signify that the Lord cannot turn this to accomplish Israel’s deliverance. Throughout the biblical texts God accomplishes his judgments often using individuals far less godly than Ehud (e.g., the Assyrians and Babylonians as the mechanisms for his judgments on the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah respectively; cf. also Habakkuk’s complaints in Hab. 1–2 with reference to God’s judgments). We can take encouragement that God will, in his timing, judge the wicked of this world, though sometimes this may be accomplished through other wicked people.

Human level. On the human level, our context is quite different today from Israel’s day. As mentioned before, we do not face the task of physical and spiritual warfare as in Ehud’s case. Nevertheless, the question arises: How are we to wage spiritual warfare against those who abuse, exploit, and persecute the church? For Christians in certain parts of the world today, this is not a hypothetical question but a real and practical one.

As discussed in the Contemporary Significance section of 1:1–2:5, the concept of warfare is different between the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, while the warfare in which Christians are engaged is spiritual, not physical, the necessity of walking by faith in loyalty to Christ’s covenant is the only hope of victory. We are certainly not to fashion our own daggers as Ehud did, but rather to engage the world with a better weapon already supplied—the sword of the Spirit, the word of God (Eph. 6:17). This sword is “living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow” (Heb. 4:12). This is not to allegorize the passage and equate Ehud’s dagger with the Word of God (i.e., the Bible). Rather, it is to acknowledge the role that the truth of that Word plays in the answer to the question posed above in the modern context.

Certainly the positive message of Ehud is in his willingness to risk it all for God (see Bridging Contexts section). This is a lesson we can benefit from. So many Christians are hampered by an unwillingness to take any risk for God—to share their faith, to stand up for righteousness and justice, even to speak a word of encouragement to the downtrodden—simply because we fear what others might say or think about us. Ehud evinces the kind of boldness of action for God that should spur us to action in these types of situations.

Still, Ehud’s method of deception cannot be condoned as the ideal way to accomplish God’s will. While it heightens the suspense and functions to expose Eglon and the Moabites to greater satire, it poses a significant theological problem. While deceptive methods (whether in evangelistic methods, church-growth methods, political involvements, etc.) may work, this should not be interpreted as God’s condoning of such things. The ideal way is the way of integrity, the way in which God worked through Othniel to accomplish his deliverance of Israel in the first cycle.

Original Meaning

The Assassination of Eglon (3:19–26b 1)

WITH THE STAGE now set, Unit 2 focuses on the act of the assassination of Eglon by Ehud. This unit, like Unit 1, is framed by a repetition of key words that delineate the unit.

A Ehud returns from the idols/sculptured stones (happ^esîlîm) (3:19a)

B Execution of the plot of assassination (3:19b–26a): “executing the main sacrifice”

A′ Ehud passes beyond the idols/sculptured stones (happ^esîlîm) (3:26b¹)

This unit opens with the assertion that “at the idols near Gilgal,” Ehud turns back. By returning alone Ehud adds a degree of plausibility to his claim that he has a “secret message/thing.” A number of different suggestions have been made for happ^esîlîm, the term translated “idols” in the NIV. Beside this meaning, commentators have suggested “quarries,”14 “boundary stones,”15 and “sculptured stones.”16 The translation “idols”17 may be preferred since Ehud returns immediately with a “secret message” that Eglon perceives is an oracle (obtained at the idols, at least in Eglon’s thinking?).18 If this is correct, then Ehud may have used Eglon’s pagan misconceptions to undermine him. Whatever their precise identity, these objects mark the limits of Eglon’s effective control. Later in the narrative, once Ehud passes these objects in 3:26, he has “escaped” and can openly muster the Israelite militia.

The focus on the execution of the plot (3:19b–26a)—“executing the main sacrifice”—is heightened by satire and irony, the principal target of which is Eglon (“young calf/bull”). This name is derived from ʿēgel (calf/bull) and may be a diminutive or affectionate, familiar form. The name perhaps also plays on the term ʿāgōl (round, rotund).19 Ironically, then, the name suggests that Eglon is a fatted calf ready for slaughter. Four times he is designated as “king [melek] of Moab” (3:12, 14, 15, 17) and then, climactically in 3:19, Ehud addresses him as “O king.”20 Through this use of this term, like Cushan-Rishathaim in the previous judge cycle, Eglon functions as the embodiment of an evil institution.

Again, sacrificial overtones are emphasized in section B. The satire centers mainly on Eglon’s famed obesity. Eglon has fattened himself on the tribute he has extorted from Israel. While his obesity symbolizes his greed, it also hints at his vulnerability to Ehud’s swift left-handed thrust of the blade (3:21).21 Eglon has become plump, defenseless, stupid game. Gullibly, he is taken in by the wily Ehud. Like a dumb animal, he is completely unaware of the danger. Being so greedy to receive the “secret message/thing” that Ehud offers him, he dismisses his bodyguard (3:19)22; then he rises from his throne to receive this secret “message from God” (d^ebar ʾ ^elōhîm) (3:20).23

Ehud’s words, like his double-edged dagger, have a double meaning: the one that Eglon naively accepts, and the one that the reader already knows, namely, that “the secret [thing] from God” is “the dagger”! Eglon is led to anticipate a divine revelation, a secret word or oracle from Elohim, while Ehud actually has a deadly secret of human origin that will be the means of divine dispatch for the Moabite king.

The actual description of the murder/sacrifice is given in grotesque detail, which unfortunately the NIV translation obscures.24 Verse 22 should read:

And even the handle [niṣṣāb] entered after the blade;

and the fat [ḥēleb] closed in over the blade,

because he did not remove the dagger from his belly;

and the excrement [parš^edōn]25 came out.

Thus, Ehud stabs Eglon with even the hilt of the dagger penetrating the belly. The term translated “fat” (ḥēleb) is the sacrificial term used for the choicest parts of the sacrifice, the entrails (see Lev. 3–6). And at this climatic moment without the dagger being removed, Eglon’s anal sphincter explodes.26 Concerning this message/thing from God, Eglon got the point!

The scatological satire continues with the comic scene of 3:24–25, in which Eglon’s servants belatedly discover their master’s corpse. Ehud has shut the doors and locked them.27 The courtiers erroneously assume that their corpulent monarch is taking his leisurely time in relieving himself in the chamber toilet.28 And the odor from the accidental discharge from the anal sphincter further decoys the guards to tarry while Ehud escapes. Halpern puts it this way:

We may imagine them whiling away their time with quips on quotidian reality—inferior Israelites, cuisine at the court, the king’s constipation. As moments mounted into embarrassing minutes, the delicate matter of disturbing their liege pressed ever more on their minds.29

These courtiers, like their ruler, are held up to satirical humor30 for their credulity. They are as gullible and helpless against the wily Ehud as their master. To their humiliation they only gradually realize the “foul” play. Having waited and waited (to the point of embarrassment), they finally fetch a key and unlock the door, only to find their lord fallen to the floor, dead!31

While deception is critical to the achievement of the murder, it is also crucial to the escape. Ehud’s deception counts on the locked doors (3:23), duping the guards and allowing him to escape all the way to Seirah (3:26). The unit closes with the assertion that while they wait, Ehud passes by the “idols” (happ^esîlîm, 3:26b¹).32

Bridging Contexts

AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, as a preliminary to the interpretation and application of each cycle, it is important to place the particular cycle under consideration within the larger macrostructure of the cycles section (see the introduction, pp. 34–43). In this way the cycle will be interpreted in its proper overall context within the downward moral movement of this section.

Increase in negative attributes. Each of the cyclical/major judges except Othniel, the first one, presents us with the same difficulty in evaluation: the complexity of their characterization. In the case of Othniel, there is only a positive characterization—hence the process of bridging the contexts is not difficult. But starting with Ehud, there is a mixture of positive and negative attributes, with a decline of the positive and an increase in the negative as the reader goes deeper into the cycles. This is, of course, linked to the very structure of the cycles section and enhances the communication of its central message of moral declivity within the period of the judges. It serves to underscore Yahweh’s mighty deliverances in spite of the growing short-comings of human agents.

In this case, Ehud is clearly not of the moral character of Othniel. He resorts to a complex process of deception in order to accomplish his task of deliverance. Nevertheless, Ehud is not the doubtful, manipulative Barak, whose characterization is more negative than Ehud’s (see comments on ch. 4). Thus, for example, Ehud delivers Israel by effectively removing the leader of the enemy of God’s people; Barak will win a victory, but the leader of the enemy will escape him.

It is also important to remember that each cycle narrative works on the divine and human levels. While on one level the actions of the Israelites and the judge of each cycle contribute applications to the modern context, there is also on another level a way in which Yahweh works that sees application in present-day situations. The theme of the glorification of Yahweh is present in all six cycles. Each one in some way reflects this glorification. “By means of satire, the narrative ridicules Israel’s enemy king and his court and glorifies Israel’s hero Ehud and God Yahweh.”37

The apparent absence/silence of Yahweh. The Ehud narrative raises a theological tension that will be felt throughout the remaining cyclical judge narratives—the tension between the character/actions of the judge and the depiction of Yahweh’s involvement.38 How can Yahweh, the holy God, use men who manifest such horrible, sinful character traits and do such awful things? In the case of this second major judge cycle, it is difficult to explain Yahweh’s choice of “Ehud the Benjamite” (certainly with the same assurance that one can explain the choice of Othniel). Why doesn’t God raise up another knight in shining armor like Othniel? Why does he use a devious, left-handed assassin like Ehud? In fact, why doesn’t he use another Judahite instead of a Benjamite (especially in view of the narration in chs. 1, 17–18)?

While the choice of a Benjamite may be explained on mainly formal grounds (i.e., Benjamin after Judah, as in ch. 1), this does not relieve the tension created by the character of Ehud. Because of the same type of plot development, Jael’s action in killing Sisera in Judges 4–5 will create this same tension. This tension is not easily explained, and commentators have struggled with it throughout the history of interpretation.

This can be illustrated in the case of the Ehud cycle by looking at the different ways that scholars have attempted to deal with the apparent absence/silence of Yahweh with regard to Ehud’s plan and its execution. Some have inferred from Yahweh’s absence/silence that he was not in accord with Ehud’s deceptive tactics.39 Other scholars have argued that this absence/silence is intended by the narrator so that the reader will infer that it is Yahweh himself who prevents complications from arising in Ehud’s plot. Thus Amit surmises that the narrator leaves gaps in the stages of narrative development but accumulates data concerning various “coincidences” that help Ehud’s plan so that the reader will sense Yahweh’s part in the plot.40 Along similar lines, Webb concludes that “Ehud has been ‘raised up’; his deceptions have been providentially directed and guaranteed, although even Ehud himself may not have been aware of it at the time.”41

Thus, two different interpretations can be given for the same observation in the text. (1) Some scholars have dealt with the tension by arguing that while God does not condone Ehud’s methods (i.e., this is not his preferred way), he nevertheless uses the human agent to accomplish the deliverance of his people. Thus Block concludes:

The narrator’s silence on the role of God in the assassination of Eglon is deafening. Prior to verse 28 there is no hint of any spiritual sensitivity in Ehud’s heart nor any sense of divine calling. On the contrary, Ehud operates like a typical Canaanite of his time—cleverly, opportunistically, and violently, apparently for his own glory. But the narrator appears not to be concerned at all about the morality of the affair. He simply describes what happened from his point of view, and in so doing reminds the readers that in the dark days of the governors the tools available to God are crude.42

(2) There can be no doubt that this account (as the other cyclical judge accounts) emphasizes that God is able to use flawed individuals to accomplish his purposes without approving of their flaws. But is the narrator unconcerned about the morality of the affair? Is he simply describing what happens in order to remind his readers that the tools available to God are crude in the days of the judges? I find this difficult to accept from both the immediate context as well as a canonical reading. How does one know that these “tools” (i.e., the judges) are “crude” if there is no moral evaluation within the stories? The stories in the Former Prophets—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings—are morally didactic. Canonically, the Law (esp. as expressed in Deuteronomy) serves as the filter for evaluating the actions of the individuals within the stories. While it is easy to fall into the trap of moralizing these stories, it is also easy to underestimate their didactic value, for they are not mere chronicles.

Accordingly, it is possible—and perhaps preferable—to see the Ehud story operating on both the human and divine levels. Thus, Ehud is undoubtedly not an Othniel. He depends on his own crafty, stealthy, deceptive plot to assassinate Eglon. He is treacherous and brutal. His characterization is an important element in the larger context of the book. Yet God uses him in spite of his flaws in order to emphasize his mercy and compassion on his people (even though they are not serving him and have not repented). Moreover, God manifests his justice in judging wickedness and oppression as evidenced in Eglon and the Moabites.

The faith of Ehud. Block’s interpretation, however, raises another question. Are we only to see Ehud’s faith and any evidence of his spirituality in the last lines of the story, where he calls out the Israelites and expresses faith and confidence that Yahweh has delivered the Moabites into their hands?43 Some argue that Ehud manifests faith in the process of the “sacrifice” of Eglon. That is, Ehud depends on God for his access to the king—a risky business, to say the least. If the palace guards had just happened to inspect Ehud’s other thigh and find his weapon, he would have been executed on the spot. Hence, in a sense, God sanctions Ehud’s courage by allowing his enemy to fall to his scheme. Yet, although Ehud must trust in God for the success of the plot, that plot is hardly on the same level of integrity as the story of Othniel’s deliverance of Israel.

Nevertheless, Ehud is willing to take the personal risk without personal assurance(s) from God that it will succeed. In this way, he stands in contrast to most of the remaining cyclical/major judges (i.e., Barak, Gideon, Jephthah), who increasingly look for more and more assurance(s) and guarantee(s) that they will succeed and are less and less willing to risk things without such assurance.44 His devious methods are not endorsed or condoned by God (i.e., this is scarcely God’s preferred method), but God works through and in spite of the judge’s weaknesses in order to accomplish the saving of Israel.45 Moreover, at the end of the day, the glory belongs to God.

Satire. Finally in the Ehud narrative, there is another tension—namely, its use of satire to narrate the execution and destruction of the oppressor and his troops. But one must remember that this satire is at the expense of the enemy of God. Eglon has oppressed the Israelites for eighteen years. He and his minions have robbed and abused God’s people this entire time. Consequently, God raises up Ehud to deliver Israel, to save the nation from any more of the Moabite monarch’s exploitations. God brings his judgment on Eglon through the crafty Ehud. Likewise, God will judge any exploiter or abuser of his people in his timing (cf., e.g., the death of Herod in Acts 12:1–23).

Contemporary Significance

DIVINE LEVEL. This passage emphasizes the work of God in saving his people. This story (as many others throughout the Bible) demonstrates the length to which God will go in order to deliver humankind. In spite of moral flaws in the deliverer, God accomplishes the salvation of Israel. This serves, in turn, to demonstrate his mercy and compassion, since Israel has not repented. But God hears the cry of pain and anguish among his people and acts on their behalf.

The judgment of God’s enemies in the past assures God’s people that he will judge his enemies in the future. Those who exploit, abuse, and seek to humiliate his people run the risk of humiliation by God. Eglon in particular and the Moabites in general have for eighteen years exploited Israel, God’s people. The oppression brings Israel to the point of crying out to Yahweh (not in repentance, but in stress and pain; see comments on p. 102). In compassion on his people, God raises up a judge who is willing without any assurances to risk his very life to save Israel. Israel cannot be saved from Eglon without judgment on Eglon.

Although Ehud’s deceptive plot and murder of Eglon may not have been God’s preferred means, it does not signify that the Lord cannot turn this to accomplish Israel’s deliverance. Throughout the biblical texts God accomplishes his judgments often using individuals far less godly than Ehud (e.g., the Assyrians and Babylonians as the mechanisms for his judgments on the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah respectively; cf. also Habakkuk’s complaints in Hab. 1–2 with reference to God’s judgments). We can take encouragement that God will, in his timing, judge the wicked of this world, though sometimes this may be accomplished through other wicked people.

Human level. On the human level, our context is quite different today from Israel’s day. As mentioned before, we do not face the task of physical and spiritual warfare as in Ehud’s case. Nevertheless, the question arises: How are we to wage spiritual warfare against those who abuse, exploit, and persecute the church? For Christians in certain parts of the world today, this is not a hypothetical question but a real and practical one.

As discussed in the Contemporary Significance section of 1:1–2:5, the concept of warfare is different between the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, while the warfare in which Christians are engaged is spiritual, not physical, the necessity of walking by faith in loyalty to Christ’s covenant is the only hope of victory. We are certainly not to fashion our own daggers as Ehud did, but rather to engage the world with a better weapon already supplied—the sword of the Spirit, the word of God (Eph. 6:17). This sword is “living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow” (Heb. 4:12). This is not to allegorize the passage and equate Ehud’s dagger with the Word of God (i.e., the Bible). Rather, it is to acknowledge the role that the truth of that Word plays in the answer to the question posed above in the modern context.

Certainly the positive message of Ehud is in his willingness to risk it all for God (see Bridging Contexts section). This is a lesson we can benefit from. So many Christians are hampered by an unwillingness to take any risk for God—to share their faith, to stand up for righteousness and justice, even to speak a word of encouragement to the downtrodden—simply because we fear what others might say or think about us. Ehud evinces the kind of boldness of action for God that should spur us to action in these types of situations.

Still, Ehud’s method of deception cannot be condoned as the ideal way to accomplish God’s will. While it heightens the suspense and functions to expose Eglon and the Moabites to greater satire, it poses a significant theological problem. While deceptive methods (whether in evangelistic methods, church-growth methods, political involvements, etc.) may work, this should not be interpreted as God’s condoning of such things. The ideal way is the way of integrity, the way in which God worked through Othniel to accomplish his deliverance of Israel in the first cycle.

Original Meaning

The Assassination of Eglon (3:19–26b 1)

WITH THE STAGE now set, Unit 2 focuses on the act of the assassination of Eglon by Ehud. This unit, like Unit 1, is framed by a repetition of key words that delineate the unit.

A Ehud returns from the idols/sculptured stones (happ^esîlîm) (3:19a)

B Execution of the plot of assassination (3:19b–26a): “executing the main sacrifice”

A′ Ehud passes beyond the idols/sculptured stones (happ^esîlîm) (3:26b¹)

This unit opens with the assertion that “at the idols near Gilgal,” Ehud turns back. By returning alone Ehud adds a degree of plausibility to his claim that he has a “secret message/thing.” A number of different suggestions have been made for happ^esîlîm, the term translated “idols” in the NIV. Beside this meaning, commentators have suggested “quarries,”14 “boundary stones,”15 and “sculptured stones.”16 The translation “idols”17 may be preferred since Ehud returns immediately with a “secret message” that Eglon perceives is an oracle (obtained at the idols, at least in Eglon’s thinking?).18 If this is correct, then Ehud may have used Eglon’s pagan misconceptions to undermine him. Whatever their precise identity, these objects mark the limits of Eglon’s effective control. Later in the narrative, once Ehud passes these objects in 3:26, he has “escaped” and can openly muster the Israelite militia.

The focus on the execution of the plot (3:19b–26a)—“executing the main sacrifice”—is heightened by satire and irony, the principal target of which is Eglon (“young calf/bull”). This name is derived from ʿēgel (calf/bull) and may be a diminutive or affectionate, familiar form. The name perhaps also plays on the term ʿāgōl (round, rotund).19 Ironically, then, the name suggests that Eglon is a fatted calf ready for slaughter. Four times he is designated as “king [melek] of Moab” (3:12, 14, 15, 17) and then, climactically in 3:19, Ehud addresses him as “O king.”20 Through this use of this term, like Cushan-Rishathaim in the previous judge cycle, Eglon functions as the embodiment of an evil institution.

Again, sacrificial overtones are emphasized in section B. The satire centers mainly on Eglon’s famed obesity. Eglon has fattened himself on the tribute he has extorted from Israel. While his obesity symbolizes his greed, it also hints at his vulnerability to Ehud’s swift left-handed thrust of the blade (3:21).21 Eglon has become plump, defenseless, stupid game. Gullibly, he is taken in by the wily Ehud. Like a dumb animal, he is completely unaware of the danger. Being so greedy to receive the “secret message/thing” that Ehud offers him, he dismisses his bodyguard (3:19)22; then he rises from his throne to receive this secret “message from God” (d^ebar ʾ ^elōhîm) (3:20).23

Ehud’s words, like his double-edged dagger, have a double meaning: the one that Eglon naively accepts, and the one that the reader already knows, namely, that “the secret [thing] from God” is “the dagger”! Eglon is led to anticipate a divine revelation, a secret word or oracle from Elohim, while Ehud actually has a deadly secret of human origin that will be the means of divine dispatch for the Moabite king.

The actual description of the murder/sacrifice is given in grotesque detail, which unfortunately the NIV translation obscures.24 Verse 22 should read:

And even the handle [niṣṣāb] entered after the blade;

and the fat [ḥēleb] closed in over the blade,

because he did not remove the dagger from his belly;

and the excrement [parš^edōn]25 came out.

Thus, Ehud stabs Eglon with even the hilt of the dagger penetrating the belly. The term translated “fat” (ḥēleb) is the sacrificial term used for the choicest parts of the sacrifice, the entrails (see Lev. 3–6). And at this climatic moment without the dagger being removed, Eglon’s anal sphincter explodes.26 Concerning this message/thing from God, Eglon got the point!

The scatological satire continues with the comic scene of 3:24–25, in which Eglon’s servants belatedly discover their master’s corpse. Ehud has shut the doors and locked them.27 The courtiers erroneously assume that their corpulent monarch is taking his leisurely time in relieving himself in the chamber toilet.28 And the odor from the accidental discharge from the anal sphincter further decoys the guards to tarry while Ehud escapes. Halpern puts it this way:

We may imagine them whiling away their time with quips on quotidian reality—inferior Israelites, cuisine at the court, the king’s constipation. As moments mounted into embarrassing minutes, the delicate matter of disturbing their liege pressed ever more on their minds.29

These courtiers, like their ruler, are held up to satirical humor30 for their credulity. They are as gullible and helpless against the wily Ehud as their master. To their humiliation they only gradually realize the “foul” play. Having waited and waited (to the point of embarrassment), they finally fetch a key and unlock the door, only to find their lord fallen to the floor, dead!31

While deception is critical to the achievement of the murder, it is also crucial to the escape. Ehud’s deception counts on the locked doors (3:23), duping the guards and allowing him to escape all the way to Seirah (3:26). The unit closes with the assertion that while they wait, Ehud passes by the “idols” (happ^esîlîm, 3:26b¹).32

Bridging Contexts

AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, as a preliminary to the interpretation and application of each cycle, it is important to place the particular cycle under consideration within the larger macrostructure of the cycles section (see the introduction, pp. 34–43). In this way the cycle will be interpreted in its proper overall context within the downward moral movement of this section.

Increase in negative attributes. Each of the cyclical/major judges except Othniel, the first one, presents us with the same difficulty in evaluation: the complexity of their characterization. In the case of Othniel, there is only a positive characterization—hence the process of bridging the contexts is not difficult. But starting with Ehud, there is a mixture of positive and negative attributes, with a decline of the positive and an increase in the negative as the reader goes deeper into the cycles. This is, of course, linked to the very structure of the cycles section and enhances the communication of its central message of moral declivity within the period of the judges. It serves to underscore Yahweh’s mighty deliverances in spite of the growing short-comings of human agents.

In this case, Ehud is clearly not of the moral character of Othniel. He resorts to a complex process of deception in order to accomplish his task of deliverance. Nevertheless, Ehud is not the doubtful, manipulative Barak, whose characterization is more negative than Ehud’s (see comments on ch. 4). Thus, for example, Ehud delivers Israel by effectively removing the leader of the enemy of God’s people; Barak will win a victory, but the leader of the enemy will escape him.

It is also important to remember that each cycle narrative works on the divine and human levels. While on one level the actions of the Israelites and the judge of each cycle contribute applications to the modern context, there is also on another level a way in which Yahweh works that sees application in present-day situations. The theme of the glorification of Yahweh is present in all six cycles. Each one in some way reflects this glorification. “By means of satire, the narrative ridicules Israel’s enemy king and his court and glorifies Israel’s hero Ehud and God Yahweh.”37

The apparent absence/silence of Yahweh. The Ehud narrative raises a theological tension that will be felt throughout the remaining cyclical judge narratives—the tension between the character/actions of the judge and the depiction of Yahweh’s involvement.38 How can Yahweh, the holy God, use men who manifest such horrible, sinful character traits and do such awful things? In the case of this second major judge cycle, it is difficult to explain Yahweh’s choice of “Ehud the Benjamite” (certainly with the same assurance that one can explain the choice of Othniel). Why doesn’t God raise up another knight in shining armor like Othniel? Why does he use a devious, left-handed assassin like Ehud? In fact, why doesn’t he use another Judahite instead of a Benjamite (especially in view of the narration in chs. 1, 17–18)?

While the choice of a Benjamite may be explained on mainly formal grounds (i.e., Benjamin after Judah, as in ch. 1), this does not relieve the tension created by the character of Ehud. Because of the same type of plot development, Jael’s action in killing Sisera in Judges 4–5 will create this same tension. This tension is not easily explained, and commentators have struggled with it throughout the history of interpretation.

This can be illustrated in the case of the Ehud cycle by looking at the different ways that scholars have attempted to deal with the apparent absence/silence of Yahweh with regard to Ehud’s plan and its execution. Some have inferred from Yahweh’s absence/silence that he was not in accord with Ehud’s deceptive tactics.39 Other scholars have argued that this absence/silence is intended by the narrator so that the reader will infer that it is Yahweh himself who prevents complications from arising in Ehud’s plot. Thus Amit surmises that the narrator leaves gaps in the stages of narrative development but accumulates data concerning various “coincidences” that help Ehud’s plan so that the reader will sense Yahweh’s part in the plot.40 Along similar lines, Webb concludes that “Ehud has been ‘raised up’; his deceptions have been providentially directed and guaranteed, although even Ehud himself may not have been aware of it at the time.”41

Thus, two different interpretations can be given for the same observation in the text. (1) Some scholars have dealt with the tension by arguing that while God does not condone Ehud’s methods (i.e., this is not his preferred way), he nevertheless uses the human agent to accomplish the deliverance of his people. Thus Block concludes:

The narrator’s silence on the role of God in the assassination of Eglon is deafening. Prior to verse 28 there is no hint of any spiritual sensitivity in Ehud’s heart nor any sense of divine calling. On the contrary, Ehud operates like a typical Canaanite of his time—cleverly, opportunistically, and violently, apparently for his own glory. But the narrator appears not to be concerned at all about the morality of the affair. He simply describes what happened from his point of view, and in so doing reminds the readers that in the dark days of the governors the tools available to God are crude.42

(2) There can be no doubt that this account (as the other cyclical judge accounts) emphasizes that God is able to use flawed individuals to accomplish his purposes without approving of their flaws. But is the narrator unconcerned about the morality of the affair? Is he simply describing what happens in order to remind his readers that the tools available to God are crude in the days of the judges? I find this difficult to accept from both the immediate context as well as a canonical reading. How does one know that these “tools” (i.e., the judges) are “crude” if there is no moral evaluation within the stories? The stories in the Former Prophets—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings—are morally didactic. Canonically, the Law (esp. as expressed in Deuteronomy) serves as the filter for evaluating the actions of the individuals within the stories. While it is easy to fall into the trap of moralizing these stories, it is also easy to underestimate their didactic value, for they are not mere chronicles.

Accordingly, it is possible—and perhaps preferable—to see the Ehud story operating on both the human and divine levels. Thus, Ehud is undoubtedly not an Othniel. He depends on his own crafty, stealthy, deceptive plot to assassinate Eglon. He is treacherous and brutal. His characterization is an important element in the larger context of the book. Yet God uses him in spite of his flaws in order to emphasize his mercy and compassion on his people (even though they are not serving him and have not repented). Moreover, God manifests his justice in judging wickedness and oppression as evidenced in Eglon and the Moabites.

The faith of Ehud. Block’s interpretation, however, raises another question. Are we only to see Ehud’s faith and any evidence of his spirituality in the last lines of the story, where he calls out the Israelites and expresses faith and confidence that Yahweh has delivered the Moabites into their hands?43 Some argue that Ehud manifests faith in the process of the “sacrifice” of Eglon. That is, Ehud depends on God for his access to the king—a risky business, to say the least. If the palace guards had just happened to inspect Ehud’s other thigh and find his weapon, he would have been executed on the spot. Hence, in a sense, God sanctions Ehud’s courage by allowing his enemy to fall to his scheme. Yet, although Ehud must trust in God for the success of the plot, that plot is hardly on the same level of integrity as the story of Othniel’s deliverance of Israel.

Nevertheless, Ehud is willing to take the personal risk without personal assurance(s) from God that it will succeed. In this way, he stands in contrast to most of the remaining cyclical/major judges (i.e., Barak, Gideon, Jephthah), who increasingly look for more and more assurance(s) and guarantee(s) that they will succeed and are less and less willing to risk things without such assurance.44 His devious methods are not endorsed or condoned by God (i.e., this is scarcely God’s preferred method), but God works through and in spite of the judge’s weaknesses in order to accomplish the saving of Israel.45 Moreover, at the end of the day, the glory belongs to God.

Satire. Finally in the Ehud narrative, there is another tension—namely, its use of satire to narrate the execution and destruction of the oppressor and his troops. But one must remember that this satire is at the expense of the enemy of God. Eglon has oppressed the Israelites for eighteen years. He and his minions have robbed and abused God’s people this entire time. Consequently, God raises up Ehud to deliver Israel, to save the nation from any more of the Moabite monarch’s exploitations. God brings his judgment on Eglon through the crafty Ehud. Likewise, God will judge any exploiter or abuser of his people in his timing (cf., e.g., the death of Herod in Acts 12:1–23).

Contemporary Significance

DIVINE LEVEL. This passage emphasizes the work of God in saving his people. This story (as many others throughout the Bible) demonstrates the length to which God will go in order to deliver humankind. In spite of moral flaws in the deliverer, God accomplishes the salvation of Israel. This serves, in turn, to demonstrate his mercy and compassion, since Israel has not repented. But God hears the cry of pain and anguish among his people and acts on their behalf.

The judgment of God’s enemies in the past assures God’s people that he will judge his enemies in the future. Those who exploit, abuse, and seek to humiliate his people run the risk of humiliation by God. Eglon in particular and the Moabites in general have for eighteen years exploited Israel, God’s people. The oppression brings Israel to the point of crying out to Yahweh (not in repentance, but in stress and pain; see comments on p. 102). In compassion on his people, God raises up a judge who is willing without any assurances to risk his very life to save Israel. Israel cannot be saved from Eglon without judgment on Eglon.

Although Ehud’s deceptive plot and murder of Eglon may not have been God’s preferred means, it does not signify that the Lord cannot turn this to accomplish Israel’s deliverance. Throughout the biblical texts God accomplishes his judgments often using individuals far less godly than Ehud (e.g., the Assyrians and Babylonians as the mechanisms for his judgments on the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah respectively; cf. also Habakkuk’s complaints in Hab. 1–2 with reference to God’s judgments). We can take encouragement that God will, in his timing, judge the wicked of this world, though sometimes this may be accomplished through other wicked people.

Human level. On the human level, our context is quite different today from Israel’s day. As mentioned before, we do not face the task of physical and spiritual warfare as in Ehud’s case. Nevertheless, the question arises: How are we to wage spiritual warfare against those who abuse, exploit, and persecute the church? For Christians in certain parts of the world today, this is not a hypothetical question but a real and practical one.

As discussed in the Contemporary Significance section of 1:1–2:5, the concept of warfare is different between the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, while the warfare in which Christians are engaged is spiritual, not physical, the necessity of walking by faith in loyalty to Christ’s covenant is the only hope of victory. We are certainly not to fashion our own daggers as Ehud did, but rather to engage the world with a better weapon already supplied—the sword of the Spirit, the word of God (Eph. 6:17). This sword is “living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow” (Heb. 4:12). This is not to allegorize the passage and equate Ehud’s dagger with the Word of God (i.e., the Bible). Rather, it is to acknowledge the role that the truth of that Word plays in the answer to the question posed above in the modern context.

Certainly the positive message of Ehud is in his willingness to risk it all for God (see Bridging Contexts section). This is a lesson we can benefit from. So many Christians are hampered by an unwillingness to take any risk for God—to share their faith, to stand up for righteousness and justice, even to speak a word of encouragement to the downtrodden—simply because we fear what others might say or think about us. Ehud evinces the kind of boldness of action for God that should spur us to action in these types of situations.

Still, Ehud’s method of deception cannot be condoned as the ideal way to accomplish God’s will. While it heightens the suspense and functions to expose Eglon and the Moabites to greater satire, it poses a significant theological problem. While deceptive methods (whether in evangelistic methods, church-growth methods, political involvements, etc.) may work, this should not be interpreted as God’s condoning of such things. The ideal way is the way of integrity, the way in which God worked through Othniel to accomplish his deliverance of Israel in the first cycle.

Original Meaning

Conclusion (3:30)

THE NARRATIVE FRAMEWORK statement in 3:30 concludes the story: “Moab was made subject to Israel, and the land had peace for eighty years.”36 Both statements are standard elements of the major judge cycles (for the first sentence, see 3:10, 30a; 4:23; 8:28a; 11:33b; for the second, see 3:11a, 30b; 5:31b; 8:28b).

The Ehud narrative is the only cyclical/major judge story to relate the death of the enemy ruler/leader before the battle. In the parallel with Jael’s actions in Judges 4–5, the death of the enemy ruler/leader is narrated after the battle. This is true also in the case of Gideon (actually twice: 7:25; 8:21). The Jephthah account has no narration of the death of the ruler/leader before or after the battle, only the relating of a second battle in which the Ephraimites are put to death. In the case of Samson, there is no battle at all, and the death of the rulers/leaders is narrated in conjunction with the death of Samson.

Bridging Contexts

AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, as a preliminary to the interpretation and application of each cycle, it is important to place the particular cycle under consideration within the larger macrostructure of the cycles section (see the introduction, pp. 34–43). In this way the cycle will be interpreted in its proper overall context within the downward moral movement of this section.

Increase in negative attributes. Each of the cyclical/major judges except Othniel, the first one, presents us with the same difficulty in evaluation: the complexity of their characterization. In the case of Othniel, there is only a positive characterization—hence the process of bridging the contexts is not difficult. But starting with Ehud, there is a mixture of positive and negative attributes, with a decline of the positive and an increase in the negative as the reader goes deeper into the cycles. This is, of course, linked to the very structure of the cycles section and enhances the communication of its central message of moral declivity within the period of the judges. It serves to underscore Yahweh’s mighty deliverances in spite of the growing short-comings of human agents.

In this case, Ehud is clearly not of the moral character of Othniel. He resorts to a complex process of deception in order to accomplish his task of deliverance. Nevertheless, Ehud is not the doubtful, manipulative Barak, whose characterization is more negative than Ehud’s (see comments on ch. 4). Thus, for example, Ehud delivers Israel by effectively removing the leader of the enemy of God’s people; Barak will win a victory, but the leader of the enemy will escape him.

It is also important to remember that each cycle narrative works on the divine and human levels. While on one level the actions of the Israelites and the judge of each cycle contribute applications to the modern context, there is also on another level a way in which Yahweh works that sees application in present-day situations. The theme of the glorification of Yahweh is present in all six cycles. Each one in some way reflects this glorification. “By means of satire, the narrative ridicules Israel’s enemy king and his court and glorifies Israel’s hero Ehud and God Yahweh.”37

The apparent absence/silence of Yahweh. The Ehud narrative raises a theological tension that will be felt throughout the remaining cyclical judge narratives—the tension between the character/actions of the judge and the depiction of Yahweh’s involvement.38 How can Yahweh, the holy God, use men who manifest such horrible, sinful character traits and do such awful things? In the case of this second major judge cycle, it is difficult to explain Yahweh’s choice of “Ehud the Benjamite” (certainly with the same assurance that one can explain the choice of Othniel). Why doesn’t God raise up another knight in shining armor like Othniel? Why does he use a devious, left-handed assassin like Ehud? In fact, why doesn’t he use another Judahite instead of a Benjamite (especially in view of the narration in chs. 1, 17–18)?

While the choice of a Benjamite may be explained on mainly formal grounds (i.e., Benjamin after Judah, as in ch. 1), this does not relieve the tension created by the character of Ehud. Because of the same type of plot development, Jael’s action in killing Sisera in Judges 4–5 will create this same tension. This tension is not easily explained, and commentators have struggled with it throughout the history of interpretation.

This can be illustrated in the case of the Ehud cycle by looking at the different ways that scholars have attempted to deal with the apparent absence/silence of Yahweh with regard to Ehud’s plan and its execution. Some have inferred from Yahweh’s absence/silence that he was not in accord with Ehud’s deceptive tactics.39 Other scholars have argued that this absence/silence is intended by the narrator so that the reader will infer that it is Yahweh himself who prevents complications from arising in Ehud’s plot. Thus Amit surmises that the narrator leaves gaps in the stages of narrative development but accumulates data concerning various “coincidences” that help Ehud’s plan so that the reader will sense Yahweh’s part in the plot.40 Along similar lines, Webb concludes that “Ehud has been ‘raised up’; his deceptions have been providentially directed and guaranteed, although even Ehud himself may not have been aware of it at the time.”41

Thus, two different interpretations can be given for the same observation in the text. (1) Some scholars have dealt with the tension by arguing that while God does not condone Ehud’s methods (i.e., this is not his preferred way), he nevertheless uses the human agent to accomplish the deliverance of his people. Thus Block concludes:

The narrator’s silence on the role of God in the assassination of Eglon is deafening. Prior to verse 28 there is no hint of any spiritual sensitivity in Ehud’s heart nor any sense of divine calling. On the contrary, Ehud operates like a typical Canaanite of his time—cleverly, opportunistically, and violently, apparently for his own glory. But the narrator appears not to be concerned at all about the morality of the affair. He simply describes what happened from his point of view, and in so doing reminds the readers that in the dark days of the governors the tools available to God are crude.42

(2) There can be no doubt that this account (as the other cyclical judge accounts) emphasizes that God is able to use flawed individuals to accomplish his purposes without approving of their flaws. But is the narrator unconcerned about the morality of the affair? Is he simply describing what happens in order to remind his readers that the tools available to God are crude in the days of the judges? I find this difficult to accept from both the immediate context as well as a canonical reading. How does one know that these “tools” (i.e., the judges) are “crude” if there is no moral evaluation within the stories? The stories in the Former Prophets—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings—are morally didactic. Canonically, the Law (esp. as expressed in Deuteronomy) serves as the filter for evaluating the actions of the individuals within the stories. While it is easy to fall into the trap of moralizing these stories, it is also easy to underestimate their didactic value, for they are not mere chronicles.

Accordingly, it is possible—and perhaps preferable—to see the Ehud story operating on both the human and divine levels. Thus, Ehud is undoubtedly not an Othniel. He depends on his own crafty, stealthy, deceptive plot to assassinate Eglon. He is treacherous and brutal. His characterization is an important element in the larger context of the book. Yet God uses him in spite of his flaws in order to emphasize his mercy and compassion on his people (even though they are not serving him and have not repented). Moreover, God manifests his justice in judging wickedness and oppression as evidenced in Eglon and the Moabites.

The faith of Ehud. Block’s interpretation, however, raises another question. Are we only to see Ehud’s faith and any evidence of his spirituality in the last lines of the story, where he calls out the Israelites and expresses faith and confidence that Yahweh has delivered the Moabites into their hands?43 Some argue that Ehud manifests faith in the process of the “sacrifice” of Eglon. That is, Ehud depends on God for his access to the king—a risky business, to say the least. If the palace guards had just happened to inspect Ehud’s other thigh and find his weapon, he would have been executed on the spot. Hence, in a sense, God sanctions Ehud’s courage by allowing his enemy to fall to his scheme. Yet, although Ehud must trust in God for the success of the plot, that plot is hardly on the same level of integrity as the story of Othniel’s deliverance of Israel.

Nevertheless, Ehud is willing to take the personal risk without personal assurance(s) from God that it will succeed. In this way, he stands in contrast to most of the remaining cyclical/major judges (i.e., Barak, Gideon, Jephthah), who increasingly look for more and more assurance(s) and guarantee(s) that they will succeed and are less and less willing to risk things without such assurance.44 His devious methods are not endorsed or condoned by God (i.e., this is scarcely God’s preferred method), but God works through and in spite of the judge’s weaknesses in order to accomplish the saving of Israel.45 Moreover, at the end of the day, the glory belongs to God.

Satire. Finally in the Ehud narrative, there is another tension—namely, its use of satire to narrate the execution and destruction of the oppressor and his troops. But one must remember that this satire is at the expense of the enemy of God. Eglon has oppressed the Israelites for eighteen years. He and his minions have robbed and abused God’s people this entire time. Consequently, God raises up Ehud to deliver Israel, to save the nation from any more of the Moabite monarch’s exploitations. God brings his judgment on Eglon through the crafty Ehud. Likewise, God will judge any exploiter or abuser of his people in his timing (cf., e.g., the death of Herod in Acts 12:1–23).

Contemporary Significance

DIVINE LEVEL. This passage emphasizes the work of God in saving his people. This story (as many others throughout the Bible) demonstrates the length to which God will go in order to deliver humankind. In spite of moral flaws in the deliverer, God accomplishes the salvation of Israel. This serves, in turn, to demonstrate his mercy and compassion, since Israel has not repented. But God hears the cry of pain and anguish among his people and acts on their behalf.

The judgment of God’s enemies in the past assures God’s people that he will judge his enemies in the future. Those who exploit, abuse, and seek to humiliate his people run the risk of humiliation by God. Eglon in particular and the Moabites in general have for eighteen years exploited Israel, God’s people. The oppression brings Israel to the point of crying out to Yahweh (not in repentance, but in stress and pain; see comments on p. 102). In compassion on his people, God raises up a judge who is willing without any assurances to risk his very life to save Israel. Israel cannot be saved from Eglon without judgment on Eglon.

Although Ehud’s deceptive plot and murder of Eglon may not have been God’s preferred means, it does not signify that the Lord cannot turn this to accomplish Israel’s deliverance. Throughout the biblical texts God accomplishes his judgments often using individuals far less godly than Ehud (e.g., the Assyrians and Babylonians as the mechanisms for his judgments on the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah respectively; cf. also Habakkuk’s complaints in Hab. 1–2 with reference to God’s judgments). We can take encouragement that God will, in his timing, judge the wicked of this world, though sometimes this may be accomplished through other wicked people.

Human level. On the human level, our context is quite different today from Israel’s day. As mentioned before, we do not face the task of physical and spiritual warfare as in Ehud’s case. Nevertheless, the question arises: How are we to wage spiritual warfare against those who abuse, exploit, and persecute the church? For Christians in certain parts of the world today, this is not a hypothetical question but a real and practical one.

As discussed in the Contemporary Significance section of 1:1–2:5, the concept of warfare is different between the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, while the warfare in which Christians are engaged is spiritual, not physical, the necessity of walking by faith in loyalty to Christ’s covenant is the only hope of victory. We are certainly not to fashion our own daggers as Ehud did, but rather to engage the world with a better weapon already supplied—the sword of the Spirit, the word of God (Eph. 6:17). This sword is “living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow” (Heb. 4:12). This is not to allegorize the passage and equate Ehud’s dagger with the Word of God (i.e., the Bible). Rather, it is to acknowledge the role that the truth of that Word plays in the answer to the question posed above in the modern context.

Certainly the positive message of Ehud is in his willingness to risk it all for God (see Bridging Contexts section). This is a lesson we can benefit from. So many Christians are hampered by an unwillingness to take any risk for God—to share their faith, to stand up for righteousness and justice, even to speak a word of encouragement to the downtrodden—simply because we fear what others might say or think about us. Ehud evinces the kind of boldness of action for God that should spur us to action in these types of situations.

Still, Ehud’s method of deception cannot be condoned as the ideal way to accomplish God’s will. While it heightens the suspense and functions to expose Eglon and the Moabites to greater satire, it poses a significant theological problem. While deceptive methods (whether in evangelistic methods, church-growth methods, political involvements, etc.) may work, this should not be interpreted as God’s condoning of such things. The ideal way is the way of integrity, the way in which God worked through Othniel to accomplish his deliverance of Israel in the first cycle.