Original Meaning

The Rise of Abimelech (9:1–24)

PART 1, WHICH relates the rise of Abimelech, has a threefold division, with interlinks between the divisions (vv. 1–6, 7–21, 22–24).

The first division (9:1–6) narrates Abimelech’s treachery against the house of Jerub-Baal (9:1–6). As O’Connell recognizes,9 it has a series of components that will be repeated as the story progresses to its climax in 9:53–55.

a. People/citizens’ action: Abimelech comes to Shechem accompanied by his “brothers.” He claims closer genealogical ties with Shechem than those of the current ruler and incites its lords to conspire with him against the sons of Jerub-Baal. The citizens/lords of Shechem trust the conspirator (9:1–2)

b. Report: Abimelech’s offer is told to the citizens/lords of Shechem (9:3a)

c. The citizens’ hearts are inclined toward Abimelech, since he is their brother (9:3b)

d. People/citizens supporting violence: They give Abimelech seventy pieces of silver from the temple of Baal-Berith (9:4a)

e. Leading to an entrance: Abimelech hires reckless men, who follow him; he enters his father’s home at Ophrah (9:4b–5a¹)

f. Fatality/depopulation: Abimelech kills his (paternal) brothers, the seventy sons of Jerub-Baal, on a single stone (9:5a²)

Jotham, the youngest son, escapes by hiding (9:5b)

Citizens/lords of Shechem and Beth Millo make Abimelech king by the great tree and pillar in Shechem (9:6)

Abimelech goes to Shechem with a purpose. He addresses two groups in order to enlist them in his plot: his mother’s brothers (ʾ ^aḥêʾimmô) in Shechem and all his mother’s clan (kol-mišpaḥat bêt-ʾ ^abî ʾimmô, lit., “all the clan of his mother’s father’s house”). Thus he appeals to the immediate family as well as the complete extended family or clan. The first group with its maternal orientation was foreshadowed in Gideon’s words of 8:19. The second was foreshadowed in Gideon’s reply to Yahweh that “my clan10 is the weakest/poorest in Manasseh, and I am the least/youngest in my family [bētʾabî, lit., my father’s house]” (6:15).

Putting it mildly, Abimelech is not happy with his position as an outsider, and he is dominated by a ruthless craving to change his marginal existence (cf. Jephthah later). He deliberately splits his next-of-kin into two irreconcilable groups: the mother’s side, whom he uses to raise him to the throne, and the father’s side, whom he, with deep hatred, murders in the most gruesome execution imaginable. The scene is inconceivable—one victim after another after another on the same single stone. Body upon body upon body dispatched with unspeakable horror. Again and again and again until all seventy (save one) have been eliminated from possible usurpation of “his throne.”11 He is inspired by his father in the desire to be king, but at the same time he rejects, hates, and despises his father.12

Abimelech’s invocation to his relatives to remember (zākar) that he is their brother (i.e., of the same stuff as they) stands in opposition to the Israelites forgetting (lōʾ zākar, lit., “did not remember”) the true God in 8:34.

The contrast between Abimelech’s and Jotham’s thinking is heightened by the fable and its curse. In Abimelech’s encouragement to the citizens/lords of Shechem to make him king, he appeals to human logic: (1) By contrasting the seventy to the one, he infers that monarchy (lit., “one man”) is better (ṭôb) than oligarchy (highly debatable in light of the results in his case!); (2) he argues that the factor of kinship is a good principle to act on politically (“remember, I am your flesh and blood,” 9:2). In light of other passages, especially a number of passages in 2 Samuel, this is also a highly questionable basis for such action. The use of “better/good” (ṭôb) in 9:2 is ironically in direct contrast to “good” (ṭôb) in 8:35. Gideon had done “good”; Abimelech’s “good” is to murder the seventy sons of Gideon.

Abimelech will not speak again in the story until almost the very end (9:48, 54). In all of these speeches, he commands others to take pains on his behalf. The first (9:2) and the last (9:54) reveal Abimelech’s preoccupation with his image. In the case of this first speech, he is concerned with his “electability” image.

The citizens/lords of Shechem trust the conspirator and give him seventy shekels of silver (about 1.75 pounds or .798 kilograms) to hire reckless adventurers (lit., “men empty and audaciously reckless,” cf. 11:3). With their aid Abimelech murders his (paternal) brothers, the seventy sons of Jerub-Baal, on a single stone. But one of these sons, Jotham (the youngest son), escapes by hiding. With seemingly all opposition removed, Abimelech is made king (melek) by the citizens/lords of Shechem and Beth Millo13 by the great tree and pillar14 in Shechem (9:6).

The second division (9:7–21) contains Jotham’s four-part plant fable and conditional curse. After 9:6, Abimelech has lost all initiative. In fact, as already stated, he will not speak again until the end of the story (9:48, 54). The one who seemed so strong through all his machinations will, in the end, be quickly swept aside.

Jotham, the lone survivor of the Ophrah massacre, appears on the scene in 9:7 to confront the men of Shechem with the evil they have done.15 Invoking the men of Shechem to listen, he appeals to a higher moral plane—the issues of honor, integrity, honesty, and a divine standard of justice—and calls on God to witness their response. He adapts a four-part plant fable to his purpose (9:7–15), but the main point of the speech is not in the fable itself but in its application to the present situation in the form of a curse (9:16–20).

There is a close functional parallel, then, between the speech of Jotham and the speech of the prophet16 in the Gideon narrative (6:7–10). The prophet brings an indictment against the Israelites in the name of Yahweh; Jotham brings an indictment against the men of Shechem in the name of Jerub-Baal. The fable and its application have many covenantal overtones. Ironically, Jotham’s speech is delivered in a city that has a reputation for covenantal ceremonies (cf. Josh. 8 and 24) and boasts a temple to El-Berith (“god of the covenant”).

In the context of the passage, not only is Jotham’s speech crucial, so is his very name. Jotham is a combination of the short form of the divine name Yahweh and the short form of the term tāmîm, with the resultant meaning of “Yahweh is perfect, blameless, honest, has integrity.”17 One of the key words in Jotham’s speech is also this tāmîm.

Yahweh is blameless concerning the events that have transpired, as the prophet at the beginning of the cycle argues (6:7–10). He has acted with integrity and honesty. Abimelech and the people of Shechem (yes, even the Israelites throughout the cycle) have been dishonest, have lacked integrity, and are not blameless but guilty. Yahweh’s indictment through the prophet has proved true, and Jotham’s speech serves to highlight this all the more.

The fable itself (9:7–15) is relatively straightforward. The setting is related in 9:7, in which Jotham takes his place on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouts down to the Shechemites. In the fable, the trees go out to anoint a king over them. They approach four different plants (the first three of which have significant value in the Palestinian agricultural context, producing valuable products for human beings).18 Each is offered the kingship, but the first three have a declining response: the olive tree (9:8–9), the fig tree (9:10–11), and the vine (9:12–13).19 Finally, the trees make an offer to the thornbush (9:14), whose response is parabolic (9:15). “If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade.”20

This is a physical absurdity: How can trees get under the smidgen of shade supplied by a thornbush? And worse, to attempt to do so would only bring the pain of being pricked by its thorns. “But if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush21 and consume the cedars of Lebanon!” This is another physical absurdity: How can fire come out of a thornbush and burn up an entire forest? Jotham’s implied thrust, however, is this: Since the trees (i.e., the citizens/lords of Shechem) have done the absurdity of trying to make the thornbush (i.e., Abimelech) their king, then perhaps fire will come out of the thornbush and consume the trees and forest!

Jotham’s application of the fable is contained in a curse (9:16–20). Verse 15 serves as the structuring basis for verses 16–20. The curse is conditional (though rhetorical). The conditional clause is stated twice (interrupted by a parenthetical history of the relationship between Gideon and the Shechemites). The clause contains two possible situations: (1) “if you [i.e., citizens/lords of Shechem] have acted honorably and in good faith when you made Abimelech king,” and (2) “if you have been fair to Jerub-Baal and his family.” The parenthetical aside demonstrates that the implied answer to the conditional clause is that the Shechemites have not acted with integrity in a blameless and honest manner.22

Jotham reminds them that Gideon took great personal risk—indeed, needing the prompting of God at every moment—yet the citizens/lords of Shechem “have revolted” against Gideon’s family, murdering his sons and installing Abimelech, an illegitimate son (hence a “thorn”), to the throne. Verse 19 resumes the condition (“if then you have acted honorably . . .”) and concludes with a sarcastic statement, “may Abimelech be your joy, and may you be his, too!” Verse 20, however, gives the second situation and the real, intended curse: “But if you have not [and you haven’t], then let fire come out from Abimelech and consume you, citizens/lords of Shechem and Beth Millo, and let fire come out from you, citizens/lords of Shechem and Beth Millo, and consume Abimelech!”

Because the crime has already been committed and the outcomes are irrevocable, the curse is really a pronouncement of sure judgment. While Jotham’s escape in 9:21 to the indeterminate Beer (“well”) removes him from the narration,23 the narrator will now show how God takes up the cause of Jotham (9:23–24). Jotham’s narrative absence means God’s narrative presence so that at the end of the story the retribution brought on the evildoers is described as “the curse of Jotham son of Jerub-Baal” (9:57).

The narrator’s first assertion (9:22–24). This third division of the narrative’s Part 1 contains an assertion of the narrator. The laconic opening statement that “Abimelech . . . governed Israel three years” (9:22) is especially significant in that the time period is by far the shortest of any oppression or judgeship in the book.24 God does not put up with Abimelech and the Shechemites very long; his retribution is the swiftest in the book. “Israel” in this verse technically only refers to those Israelites who have recognized Abimelech’s authority, that is, Shechem and its environs. But its use is certainly a means of the narrator to remind the reader that it was Israel’s covenantal disloyalty and unfaithfulness that have led to these events (cf. 6:1–10).

God becomes personally involved in the affairs of Shechem in order to avenge the violence committed by Abimelech and the lords of Shechem against the members of Jerub-Baal’s family. He intervenes by sending an “evil spirit” (rûaḥ rāʿâ)25 between Abimelech and the citizens/lords of Shechem (9:23). Yahweh is the architect of the estrangement between Abimelech and Shechem’s folk. Former allies become mortal enemies. Undeniably, he does this in order to bring revenge on Abimelech and the citizens/lords of Shechem for the murder of Jerub-Baal’s seventy sons (9:24). In this way, the polar opposites of “good” (ṭôb) and “evil” (raʿ ) are played out in the narration: Gideon/Jerub-Baal had done “good” (ṭôb) to the Israelites (8:35), who repaid it with evil (raʿ ); what Abimelech argued was “good/better” (ṭôb) (9:2) became evil (raʿ ) for the Israelites (9:23).

Bridging Contexts

DIVINE LEVEL. Whereas the course of events may seem to be determined by the free decisions and stratagems of the characters in the story, this is not the case. Through a few well-placed evaluative comments, the narrator makes clear that God is in charge. He is in sovereign control whether the Israelites acknowledge him or not. If Shechem is torn by civil war and Abimelech himself is slain, the narrator attributes this to God, whose hand may be hidden to those involved in the story but in retrospect is obvious to the biblical (or more precisely the Deuteronomic) perspective. Thus the events in the story move unswervingly toward God’s intended outcome.

In the larger context of the whole Gideon/Abimelech cycle, God demonstrates his kingship in spite of the Israelites’ rejection of him and worship of Baal, whether before Gideon or after him. At the end of Judges 8 and the beginning of Judges 9, it may appear as though Yahweh has lost, with Gideon making his ephod and the Israelites returning to the worship of the Baals as soon as Gideon is dead. But Yahweh has not abdicated his throne.

After the death of Gideon, the Israelites do not show covenant loyalty or faithfulness to God or other humans. They demonstrate disregard for God’s covenant and for the house of the leader whom the Lord raised up on their behalf. Humanity’s tendency is to quickly forget all the good that others (human or divine) may do for them. When the Israelites make Baal/El-Berith their god, breaking their covenant with Yahweh to enter into a covenant with a Canaanite deity, they become spiritually Canaanites. In such a situation, with the enemy being within rather than external, God withdraws his gracious hand. God gives the Israelites the king they deserve, and he gives Abimelech the people he deserves. What characterized the Israelites in general characterizes their leader, Abimelech, who manifests no regard for familial loyalty and certainly none for God. Certainly the culture in which we live today does not encourage loyalty to either family or God.

Human level. On the human level, Abimelech’s problem runs much deeper. His problem is not simply a disregard of or an apathy toward human and heavenly fathers. Rather, it is a profound hatred of both. Rooted in hatred for his father, Gideon, he is dominated by a ruthless craving to change his marginal existence. His total disdain for the fifth commandment (“honor your father and mother”) motivates him to plot the demise of all seventy of his half-brothers on his father’s side. He attempts to compensate for his marginality through the seizing of power. Thus anyone who opposes him becomes the focus of his anger and hatred. But as much as he despises and hates his father, he is nevertheless the son of Jerub-Baal, and his personal, unbridled revenge will only increase until he is slain by the “one woman.”

Abimelech’s appeal to the “citizens/lords” of Shechem in 9:2—“Remember, I am your flesh and blood” (ʿṣm + bśr)—has an ironic parallel in the Israelites appeal to David to be their king in 2 Samuel 5:1: “We are your own flesh and blood” (ʿṣm + bśr). Clearly in the case of Abimelech kinship is not a good principle to act on politically (well-illustrated by Jotham’s fable). A far better principle is that of God’s election, which David had and Abimelech did not.

While the Israelites are guilty of covenant disloyalty and act without integrity in their siding with Abimelech (who is the embodiment of guile), Yahweh appears blameless, having utter integrity in his dealings with human beings. Even in his sovereign opposition to Abimelech this is true. As an adversary to the wicked, God raises up opponents to wicked people.

It is important to remember that all of the slaughters and destructions that are described in chapter 9 are the result of Gideon’s sins in 8:27–32. What a comment on how destructive sin is! Gideon’s sins have impacted his own family in the generation immediately after him in ways that he could not have remotely predicted. Serious reflection on this chapter of the book of Judges alone ought to encourage us to lay aside our sin.

Contemporary Significance

DIVINE LEVEL. Sometimes it may appear as though evil is in control and that God has taken a vacation. Injustice dominates and wicked people, morally empty and reckless like Abimelech’s hirelings, seem to prevail. Anyone living at the time of Abimelech’s rule must have felt this way. Certainly many Christians living in Nazi Germany felt this way,47 as does anyone living in a similar totalitarian state. And when believers forget the Lord and live according to the world’s dictates, this only intensifies the power of the wicked. When believers choose this path, becoming functionally unbelievers, they may find that God allows them to get what they deserve, just as the Israelites experienced in the Abimelech story.

Believers’ apostasy can never negate God’s sovereignty. He is in control whether they acknowledge him or not, just as he is in control whether unbelievers acknowledge him or not. The Lord moves things to his intended outcome, and whatever gods have been used to replace him will prove to be worthless in the day of trouble, just as Baal/El-Berith proved to be for the Shechemites, who took refuge in his temple from Abimelech.

Human level. This story clearly demonstrates that any leader who raises himself or herself up through evil processes can expect that the Lord will eventually bring retribution. This may be much sooner than later; but whatever the case, it will take place.

Our society today is indoctrinated to quickly forget all the good things that may have been done for them. The entertainment business and the sports industry in particular create an environment where hard work and subsequent achievement are short-lived. This has even crept into the church pulpit, where one outstanding sermon after another may be the expectation, and good overall ministry may be devalued. This is serious, but how much more dangerous it can be when a leader quickly forgets the good done for him or her. What characterizes the society in general often characterizes its leaders.

When individuals today act without loyalty and integrity, they may side with a leader who acts without loyalty or integrity. But the Lord, who is blameless and always acts with utter integrity in his dealings with human beings, will raise up sovereign opposition to such individuals. As an adversary to the wicked, God raises up opponents.

This text certainly underscores the results of sin. Our sins cannot be measured in a lifetime. They have an impact on the next generation and beyond. Whether it is our families or our communities or our nation, the impact will be felt. The harvest of the seeds of sin may not necessarily come in our generation but in innumerable ones beyond us.

Original Meaning

The Fall of Abimelech (9:25–57)

PART 2 RELATES the fall of Abimelech. Like Part 1, it has a threefold division with interlinks between the divisions (9:25–41, 42–55, 56–57).

The first division (9:25–41) describes Shechem’s two acts of treachery against Abimelech (9:25–41). Both acts manifest roughly the same series of components as in the first division of Part 1 (9:1–6). Shechem’s first act of treachery, whose narration is truncated, is described in 9:25.

a. People/citizens’ action: Citizens/lords of Shechem ambush travelers in Manasseh (9:25a)

b. Report: The treachery is reported to Abimelech (9:25b)

Many of the details of this incident or plot are obviously omitted in the story as it now stands. It is now nothing more than a terse summary, but it does introduce two Hebrew key words: rōʾš (head, mountain top, company) and, ʾārab (ambush). To put it simply, the Shechemites initiate hostilities against Abimelech—and this happens also immediately after God sends the “evil spirit” between Abimelech and the citizens/lords of Shechem.

Shechem’s second act of treachery, given in full, is narrated in 9:26–41.26

a. People/citizens’ action: Gaal comes to Shechem accompanied by his brothers. He claims closer genealogical ties with Shechem than those of the current ruler and incites its lords to conspire with him against Abimelech. The citizens/lords of Shechem trust the conspirator (9:26–29)

b. Report: Treachery is reported to Abimelech by Zebul, who counsels coming at night with all his people to ambush at morning (9:30–33)

c. Abimelech’s division of his people into four companies (roʾšîm) to lay an ambush against Shechem (9:34)

d. People/citizens supporting violence: interchange between Gaal and Zebul as Abimelech and his people emerge from the ambush (9:35–38)

e. Leading to an entrance: Abimelech slays many while chasing Gaal to the entrance of Shechem (9:39–40)

f. Fatality/depopulation: Abimelech stays in Arumah while Zebul expels Gaal and his brothers from Shechem (9:41)

The entrance of the character Gaal is deliberately patterned after that of Abimelech in 9:1–3. This is a comment not only on the character traits of Abimelech (i.e., both Abimelech and Gaal are raw opportunists, who resort to dirty politics in their quest for power), but also on the character qualities of the citizens/lords of Shechem (disgruntled and fickle). In the midst of a reveling festival in the temple of El-Berith they curse27 Abimelech (who has only ruled for three years). Seizing the moment, Gaal (like Abimelech earlier) uses rhetorical questions to heighten his popularity and undermine that of the current government. Gaal claims to be more of the genealogical stuff akin to the Shechemites than Abimelech: “Isn’t he [Abimelech] Jerub-Baal’s son, and isn’t Zebul his deputy? Serve the men of Hamor, Shechem’s father!” (9:28).28

Zebul, Abimelech’s second, the governor of the city, hears of the treachery and reports it to Abimelech. Zebul advises that a night deployment may be in Abimelech’s best interest with an ambush at morning (9:30–33). This is the only time in the story that anyone is recorded telling Abimelech what to do—and this coming apparently from his evil twin (so to speak).

Abimelech’s response is quick. He deploys his troops (the same vagrants whom he hired [9:4b], plus whoever else among the Israelites that he can muster) into four companies (roʾšîm) in order to ambush the city (9:34). In the early morning, Gaal observes their movements and appeals for confirmation to Zebul, who shrugs it off as “the shadows of the mountains.” But a second look causes Gaal to reassert his observation, being more specific in his description.29 At this point, Zebul retorts: “Where is your big talk now . . . ? Go out and fight them!” (9:35–38).

Gaal leads the citizens/lords of Shechem out to fight Abimelech, but Abimelech’s ambush (Zebul’s original idea) succeeds, and Abimelech slays many while chasing Gaal to the entrance of Shechem (9:39–40). Abimelech stays in Arumah30 while Zebul expels Gaal and his brothers from Shechem (9:41). At this, one might expect the conflict between Abimelech and Shechem to be resolved since the antagonist Gaal is out of the picture.31 But Abimelech is the son of Jerub-Baal—as much as he despised his father—and his personal revenge is only now beginning.

The second division (9:42–55) narrates the fulfillment of Jotham’s curse: Abimelech’s three acts of repression and his death at the hand of a woman. Again, each act of repression uses the same series of components as in Part 1, Division A (9:1–6). Abimelech’s first act of repression is described in 9:42–45.32

a. People/citizens’ action: The people go out to the field (9:42a)

b. Report: Their vulnerability is reported to Abimelech (9:42b)

c. Abimelech divides his people into three companies (roʾšîm) to lay an ambush in the field (9:43a)

d. People/citizens supporting violence: Abimelech [and his people] emerge from the ambush (9:43b)

e. Leading to an entrance: Abimelech takes position at the entrance to Shechem while two companies (roʾšîm) slay those in the field (9:44)

f. Fatality/depopulation: Abimelech captures Shechem that day, killing its people, tearing down the city, and sowing it with salt (9:45)

The next day the common people (ʿam) of Shechem resume their daily routine and go out into the fields. Abimelech divides his troops into three companies (roʾšîm) and sets another ambush in the fields. The use of the term “people” (ʿam) indicates that this group includes women. Moreover, it is a group hardly expecting battle; hence they are no doubt unarmed (except for some agricultural implements). Abimelech’s company seizes the city gate and the other two companies (roʾšîm) press the attack. The helpless victims (not unlike Gideon’s sons) are slaughtered in the fields, putting up whatever feeble resistance that they can.

But the massacre is great, and the city is captured and destroyed. The scattering of salt over the ground of the city is an attempt to condemn it to perpetual barrenness and desolation (cf. Deut. 29:23; Ps. 107:33–34; Jer. 17:6; Zeph. 2:9).33 Hence, just as Abimelech has made Jerub-Baal’s family barren, so now he makes Shechem barren. Again, one might expect the conflict between Abimelech and Shechem to be resolved since the city is out of the picture. But Abimelech is the son of Jerub-Baal—as much as he despised his father—and his personal revenge is still far from over.

Abimelech’s second act of repression is related in 9:46–49. It too uses the same series of components as the first act.34

a. People/citizens’ action: Citizens/lords of the tower of Shechem enter the stronghold of the temple of El-Berith (9:46)

b. Report: Vulnerability of the citizens/lords of the tower of Shechem is reported to Abimelech (9:47)

c. Abimelech and his people ascend Mount Zalmon, where he cuts off branches and sets them on his shoulder (9:48a)

d. People/citizens supporting violence: Abimelech orders his people to imitate him in cutting off and carrying branches (9:48b–49a¹)

e. Leading to an entrance: Abimelech, followed by his people, sets fire to the stronghold (9:49a²)

f. Fatality/depopulation: A thousand men and women of the tower of Shechem die (9:49b)

On hearing of the demise of the people, the citizens/lords in the tower of Shechem (= Beth Millo) enter the stronghold of the temple of El-Berith (9:46).35 On hearing this, Abimelech perceives their vulnerability (9:47). He and his people ascend Mount Zalmon. He cuts off branches and sets them on his shoulders (9:48a). Now, for the first time since 9:2, Abimelech speaks. As before it is a command: “Quick! Do what you have seen me do!” (cf. Gideon’s instructions in 7:17). His troops imitate him as though in a trance (9:48b–49a). They pile these branches up against the stronghold and set them on fire (9:49a). All of the people, men and women—one thousand in number—die in the conflagration (9:49b). Once again, one might expect the conflict between Abimelech and Shechem to be resolved since the stronghold of Beth Millo has been removed from the picture. But Abimelech is the son of Jerub-Baal—as much as he despised his father—and his personal revenge is still far from over. In fact, one is beginning to wonder if anything can stop it!36

Abimelech’s third act of repression is given in 9:50–55. It also uses the same series of components as the first act, although with variation as the conflict finds its resolution in Abimelech’s death at the hand of a woman.37

Abimelech besieges and captures Thebez (9:50)

a People/citizens’ action: The men and women and the citizens/lords flee to the tower and ascend to the roof (9:51)

c Abimelech comes to the tower and fights against it (9:52a)

e Leading to an entrance: Abimelech approaches the tower entrance to burn it with fire (9:52b)

Abimelech’s skull (rōʾš) is crushed by a stone thrown by a woman (9:53)

Abimelech orders his servant to kill him lest a woman be credited with his death (9:54a)

f Fatality/depopulation: Abimelech is stabbed and dies (9:54b)

The men of Israel see that Abimelech is dead and return home (9:55)

In Blitzkrieg fashion, the narrative states that Abimelech goes, besieges, and captures Thebez (9:50).38 All the people (men and women) flee to the tower and ascend to the roof. Abimelech attacks the tower and approaches the entrance to the tower in order to burn it (9:52). Based on the repetition of the previous reprisals, the reader’s expectations are set for another of Abimelech’s massacres. However, unexpectedly the narrative introduces “a woman” (lit., “one woman,” or “a certain woman,” [iššâ ʾaḥat]), who drops an upper millstone on Abimelech’s head and cracks his skull (rōʾš) (9:53). Stunned, Abimelech orders his servant to kill him lest a woman be credited with his death. He is stabbed and dies (9:54). Then, when the troops see that Abimelech is dead, they return home without completing the attack on Thebez (9:55).

The climax of the Abimelech account is clearly found in 9:53. This verse is the point of convergence for several phrases. Abimelech argued, “Which is better for you: to have all seventy of Jerub-Baal’s sons rule over you, or just one man (ʾîš ʾeḥād)?” Ironically, it is now stated in 9:53 that “a woman” (lit., “one woman” [ʾiššâ ʾaḥat]) drops (or perhaps better “heaves,” since lit. in Heb., “throws”) an upper millstone on him. Abimelech had slaughtered the sons of Gideon on a single stone (ʾeben ʾeḥāt, 9:5, 18), and his skull is crushed by this single “upper millstone” (lit., “a stone of riding,” pelaḥ rekeb).39

The upper millstone, made of basalt or sandstone, was heavy (though its weight varied, depending on whether it was part of a “hand mill” or a “grinding house mill,” with the latter being the heavier). Grinding was delegated to slaves in larger households and wives in smaller ones. For most women, grinding was a daily recurring domestic task. It was humiliating for a man to do such work (cf. the humiliation of Samson grinding in 16:21).40 Therefore, it was also humiliating to be struck by such a stone hurled by a woman. As in the case of Jael in 4:21, this woman uses what is normally a domestic, everyday-type object and turns it into weapon (cf. also Shamgar in 3:31).

The fire with which Abimelech destroys the tower of Shechem in 9:47–49 is obviously the fulfillment of Jotham’s curse about fire consuming the citizens/lords in 9:20. But what about the fulfillment of Jotham’s curse about Abimelech being consumed by fire? The answer appears to be in a pun on the word “woman” (ʾiššâ). The word for fire is ʾēš. Thus, the words for woman (ʾiššâ) and fire (ʾēš) form a wordplay.41 Abimelech’s attempt to burn the tower of Thebez with fire (ʾēš) “backfires” when a woman (ʾiššâ) drops a stone on his head (rōʾš).

That verse 53 is the climax is also reinforced by a numeric depreciation in conjunction with another wordplay. The millstone that crushes the despot’s head (rōʾš) denotes the end of a decreasing series of numbers. When Abimelech quells Gaal’s rebellion, he has “four” companies (roʾšîm) at his disposal (9:34). The next day he sends “three” companies (roʾšîm) against the Shechemites, with “two” of the companies (roʾšîm) slaughtering the citizens/lords in the field (9:43–44). For a short while Abimelech may think he is powerful, but then, ironically, the “one” woman drops her upper millstone and smashes his (“one”) head (rōʾš) (9:53).42

Abimelech’s preoccupation with his image is played out in his death. Fearing that a stigma will be attached to him, he commands his armor-bearer to stab him “so that they can’t say, ‘A woman killed him.’ “Ironically, this did not happen, for even in another biblical passage, his death is credited to the “certain woman” (see 2 Sam. 11:21). Not all that many years later, the first king of Israel will make a similar request to his armor-bearer on Mount Gilboa, not many miles from Thebez, to spare him the disgrace of being captured alive by the Philistines, though this armor-bearer, in contrast to Abimelech’s, refuses (1 Sam. 31).

In the end, the man who had shamelessly played the female card to seize the throne (9:1–2) shamefully falls victim to a representative of this gender. In fact, the story of Abimelech, the macho man, is framed by two women: the first, who gave him life (8:31), the second, who took it (9:53).43

The narrator’s second assertion (9:56–57). The last division (C) is the narrator’s final assertion. God has repaid the evil committed by Abimelech44 and the evil committed by the men of Shechem. The curse of Jotham, son of Jerub-Baal, comes on them. By attributing Abimelech’s death to God, the narrator interprets the nameless woman of Thebez both as a divine agent by which the curse is fulfilled and as a surrogate for the Shechemites, whom the curse has identified as the source of Abimelech’s demise.45

Ironically, the Baal name (Jerub-Baal) is conjoined with the Yahwistic name (Jotham) in 9:57.46 At the end of the Gideon account and especially at the beginning of the Abimelech account, it looked as if Baal had, in fact, contended and won. But as the sequel to the Gideon story—the finale to the Gideon/Abimelech cycle—ends, Yahweh proves himself never to have abdicated his throne. Rather, he is the ultimate King, who can easily undo both the egotistical ambition of an Abimelech—the outgrowth of Gideon’s sin—and the impotent Baalism, with which the Israelites so quickly apostasize (as manifested in Joash’s Baal altar or the Shechemites’ temple of Baal/El-Berith, both of which lie destroyed by the end of the cycle).

The primary theme of the Abimelech account is the notion of revenge: “getting even” (when in the human context) or “retribution” (when in the divine context). The pattern of divine retribution in the cycles section so far has been one of sin → punishment → compassion → deliverance. In the Abimelech narrative, however, the pattern appears to be sin → exact retribution. Ironically, the Israelites as a whole benefit from the retribution worked upon their bramble king: “When the Israelites saw that Abimelech was dead, they went home” (9:55).

The process of retribution has had the precision of a surgical operation. Those directly responsible have been destroyed. Retribution brings the evil to an end, and normal life can be resumed. As though waking from a nightmarish zombie state, the Israelites see that Abimelech is dead and go home. It is Israel’s salvation from itself (and in this, it foreshadows the catastrophic need of the same in the double conclusion in Judges 17–21).

Yahweh himself has had to resolve two complications that result from Gideon’s covenantal failings—his ephod production with its consequent return to Baalism and his conjugal relations with a Canaanite woman. The moral degeneration within this major judge cycle underscores how great the unmerited favor of the Lord is toward Israel.

Bridging Contexts

DIVINE LEVEL. Whereas the course of events may seem to be determined by the free decisions and stratagems of the characters in the story, this is not the case. Through a few well-placed evaluative comments, the narrator makes clear that God is in charge. He is in sovereign control whether the Israelites acknowledge him or not. If Shechem is torn by civil war and Abimelech himself is slain, the narrator attributes this to God, whose hand may be hidden to those involved in the story but in retrospect is obvious to the biblical (or more precisely the Deuteronomic) perspective. Thus the events in the story move unswervingly toward God’s intended outcome.

In the larger context of the whole Gideon/Abimelech cycle, God demonstrates his kingship in spite of the Israelites’ rejection of him and worship of Baal, whether before Gideon or after him. At the end of Judges 8 and the beginning of Judges 9, it may appear as though Yahweh has lost, with Gideon making his ephod and the Israelites returning to the worship of the Baals as soon as Gideon is dead. But Yahweh has not abdicated his throne.

After the death of Gideon, the Israelites do not show covenant loyalty or faithfulness to God or other humans. They demonstrate disregard for God’s covenant and for the house of the leader whom the Lord raised up on their behalf. Humanity’s tendency is to quickly forget all the good that others (human or divine) may do for them. When the Israelites make Baal/El-Berith their god, breaking their covenant with Yahweh to enter into a covenant with a Canaanite deity, they become spiritually Canaanites. In such a situation, with the enemy being within rather than external, God withdraws his gracious hand. God gives the Israelites the king they deserve, and he gives Abimelech the people he deserves. What characterized the Israelites in general characterizes their leader, Abimelech, who manifests no regard for familial loyalty and certainly none for God. Certainly the culture in which we live today does not encourage loyalty to either family or God.

Human level. On the human level, Abimelech’s problem runs much deeper. His problem is not simply a disregard of or an apathy toward human and heavenly fathers. Rather, it is a profound hatred of both. Rooted in hatred for his father, Gideon, he is dominated by a ruthless craving to change his marginal existence. His total disdain for the fifth commandment (“honor your father and mother”) motivates him to plot the demise of all seventy of his half-brothers on his father’s side. He attempts to compensate for his marginality through the seizing of power. Thus anyone who opposes him becomes the focus of his anger and hatred. But as much as he despises and hates his father, he is nevertheless the son of Jerub-Baal, and his personal, unbridled revenge will only increase until he is slain by the “one woman.”

Abimelech’s appeal to the “citizens/lords” of Shechem in 9:2—“Remember, I am your flesh and blood” (ʿṣm + bśr)—has an ironic parallel in the Israelites appeal to David to be their king in 2 Samuel 5:1: “We are your own flesh and blood” (ʿṣm + bśr). Clearly in the case of Abimelech kinship is not a good principle to act on politically (well-illustrated by Jotham’s fable). A far better principle is that of God’s election, which David had and Abimelech did not.

While the Israelites are guilty of covenant disloyalty and act without integrity in their siding with Abimelech (who is the embodiment of guile), Yahweh appears blameless, having utter integrity in his dealings with human beings. Even in his sovereign opposition to Abimelech this is true. As an adversary to the wicked, God raises up opponents to wicked people.

It is important to remember that all of the slaughters and destructions that are described in chapter 9 are the result of Gideon’s sins in 8:27–32. What a comment on how destructive sin is! Gideon’s sins have impacted his own family in the generation immediately after him in ways that he could not have remotely predicted. Serious reflection on this chapter of the book of Judges alone ought to encourage us to lay aside our sin.

Contemporary Significance

DIVINE LEVEL. Sometimes it may appear as though evil is in control and that God has taken a vacation. Injustice dominates and wicked people, morally empty and reckless like Abimelech’s hirelings, seem to prevail. Anyone living at the time of Abimelech’s rule must have felt this way. Certainly many Christians living in Nazi Germany felt this way,47 as does anyone living in a similar totalitarian state. And when believers forget the Lord and live according to the world’s dictates, this only intensifies the power of the wicked. When believers choose this path, becoming functionally unbelievers, they may find that God allows them to get what they deserve, just as the Israelites experienced in the Abimelech story.

Believers’ apostasy can never negate God’s sovereignty. He is in control whether they acknowledge him or not, just as he is in control whether unbelievers acknowledge him or not. The Lord moves things to his intended outcome, and whatever gods have been used to replace him will prove to be worthless in the day of trouble, just as Baal/El-Berith proved to be for the Shechemites, who took refuge in his temple from Abimelech.

Human level. This story clearly demonstrates that any leader who raises himself or herself up through evil processes can expect that the Lord will eventually bring retribution. This may be much sooner than later; but whatever the case, it will take place.

Our society today is indoctrinated to quickly forget all the good things that may have been done for them. The entertainment business and the sports industry in particular create an environment where hard work and subsequent achievement are short-lived. This has even crept into the church pulpit, where one outstanding sermon after another may be the expectation, and good overall ministry may be devalued. This is serious, but how much more dangerous it can be when a leader quickly forgets the good done for him or her. What characterizes the society in general often characterizes its leaders.

When individuals today act without loyalty and integrity, they may side with a leader who acts without loyalty or integrity. But the Lord, who is blameless and always acts with utter integrity in his dealings with human beings, will raise up sovereign opposition to such individuals. As an adversary to the wicked, God raises up opponents.

This text certainly underscores the results of sin. Our sins cannot be measured in a lifetime. They have an impact on the next generation and beyond. Whether it is our families or our communities or our nation, the impact will be felt. The harvest of the seeds of sin may not necessarily come in our generation but in innumerable ones beyond us.

Original Meaning

The Prologue (8:33–35)

THE PROLOGUE PROVIDES a context for understanding this complex and lengthy passage. No sooner has Gideon died than the Israelites again prostitute themselves after the Baals. In fact, a particular “Baal” is now introduced. The Israelites set Baal-Berith (lit., “lord or master of the covenant”) as their god and do not remember Yahweh. Lewis has recently discussed the identity and function of Baal-Berith (also called El-Berith in 9:46).4 He argues that preference should be given to the deity El-Berith. It is more likely that the phrase baʿal b^erît (lit., “lord of the covenant”) served as an epithet of the god El-Berith, a patron god who has established a kinship bond with the “citizens/lords of Shechem” baʿ ^alê š^ekem).5

Thus the narrator’s choice of using Baal-Berith is to play on the “Baals” of the previous sentence and to create an ironic twist on the idea of covenant. Covenant faithfulness was the problem at the beginning of the cycle (cf. 6:7–10) and is still the problem after the death of Gideon. The parallelism of the statements of 8:34 and 35 is informative in comparing the Israelites’ covenantal unfaithfulness to Yahweh to their covenantal unfaithfulness to Gideon’s household.

[The Israelites] did not remember the LORD their God, who had rescued them from the hands of all their enemies on every side.

They also failed to show gratitude [ʿāśâ ḥesed, lit., “deal faithfully with”] to the family of Jerub-Baal (that is, Gideon) for all the good [ṭôb] he had done for them.

In other words, the Israelites have forgotten Yahweh’s past mighty saving acts on their behalf and have displaced Yahweh, their covenant God, with this “Baal of the Covenant,” reversing the order of divine-human relationships. This lack of remembrance will be clearly demonstrated in the remainder of the account, which exhibits no knowledge of or any allegiance to Yahweh at all.6 They have also failed to remember Yahweh’s human agent in the deliverance, Gideon, and have acted in disloyalty to his family, in contradiction to relational norms (ḥesed).7

There can be no doubt that Gideon’s ephod has contributed greatly to this rapid return to “Baalism” and the resultant unfaithfulness to his family. The statement in 8:35 that Jerub-Baal (“Let Baal contend”) was none other than Gideon (“Hacker”) is only a grim reminder of the major judge’s failure against Baalism. The worship of Baal has overrun the very ones whom God delivered from Midian. The complete lack of the mention of the name “Gideon” in Judges 9 is a significant choice and omission; only “Jerub-Baal” occurs (9:1, 2, 5 [2x], 16, 19, 24, 57). The narrator also brings a Baal motif into his story by regularly calling Abimelech’s supporters “citizens” (lit., baʿ ^alêš^ekem, the masters/lords of Shechem). To the original hearers, the repetition in sound of baʿal, even though in these occurrences8 the god is not in view, must have had the effect of reminding them of the tremendous Baalism permeating Israel at this time.

On top of this, it is from the temple of Baal-Berith that the citizens/lords take the “seventy shekels of silver” to finance the slaughter of Gideon’s seventy sons (see below). Obviously, the number of shekels corresponds to the number of victims, indicating that the value of each human life to Abimelech was only worth one shekel.

Bridging Contexts

DIVINE LEVEL. Whereas the course of events may seem to be determined by the free decisions and stratagems of the characters in the story, this is not the case. Through a few well-placed evaluative comments, the narrator makes clear that God is in charge. He is in sovereign control whether the Israelites acknowledge him or not. If Shechem is torn by civil war and Abimelech himself is slain, the narrator attributes this to God, whose hand may be hidden to those involved in the story but in retrospect is obvious to the biblical (or more precisely the Deuteronomic) perspective. Thus the events in the story move unswervingly toward God’s intended outcome.

In the larger context of the whole Gideon/Abimelech cycle, God demonstrates his kingship in spite of the Israelites’ rejection of him and worship of Baal, whether before Gideon or after him. At the end of Judges 8 and the beginning of Judges 9, it may appear as though Yahweh has lost, with Gideon making his ephod and the Israelites returning to the worship of the Baals as soon as Gideon is dead. But Yahweh has not abdicated his throne.

After the death of Gideon, the Israelites do not show covenant loyalty or faithfulness to God or other humans. They demonstrate disregard for God’s covenant and for the house of the leader whom the Lord raised up on their behalf. Humanity’s tendency is to quickly forget all the good that others (human or divine) may do for them. When the Israelites make Baal/El-Berith their god, breaking their covenant with Yahweh to enter into a covenant with a Canaanite deity, they become spiritually Canaanites. In such a situation, with the enemy being within rather than external, God withdraws his gracious hand. God gives the Israelites the king they deserve, and he gives Abimelech the people he deserves. What characterized the Israelites in general characterizes their leader, Abimelech, who manifests no regard for familial loyalty and certainly none for God. Certainly the culture in which we live today does not encourage loyalty to either family or God.

Human level. On the human level, Abimelech’s problem runs much deeper. His problem is not simply a disregard of or an apathy toward human and heavenly fathers. Rather, it is a profound hatred of both. Rooted in hatred for his father, Gideon, he is dominated by a ruthless craving to change his marginal existence. His total disdain for the fifth commandment (“honor your father and mother”) motivates him to plot the demise of all seventy of his half-brothers on his father’s side. He attempts to compensate for his marginality through the seizing of power. Thus anyone who opposes him becomes the focus of his anger and hatred. But as much as he despises and hates his father, he is nevertheless the son of Jerub-Baal, and his personal, unbridled revenge will only increase until he is slain by the “one woman.”

Abimelech’s appeal to the “citizens/lords” of Shechem in 9:2—“Remember, I am your flesh and blood” (ʿṣm + bśr)—has an ironic parallel in the Israelites appeal to David to be their king in 2 Samuel 5:1: “We are your own flesh and blood” (ʿṣm + bśr). Clearly in the case of Abimelech kinship is not a good principle to act on politically (well-illustrated by Jotham’s fable). A far better principle is that of God’s election, which David had and Abimelech did not.

While the Israelites are guilty of covenant disloyalty and act without integrity in their siding with Abimelech (who is the embodiment of guile), Yahweh appears blameless, having utter integrity in his dealings with human beings. Even in his sovereign opposition to Abimelech this is true. As an adversary to the wicked, God raises up opponents to wicked people.

It is important to remember that all of the slaughters and destructions that are described in chapter 9 are the result of Gideon’s sins in 8:27–32. What a comment on how destructive sin is! Gideon’s sins have impacted his own family in the generation immediately after him in ways that he could not have remotely predicted. Serious reflection on this chapter of the book of Judges alone ought to encourage us to lay aside our sin.

Contemporary Significance

DIVINE LEVEL. Sometimes it may appear as though evil is in control and that God has taken a vacation. Injustice dominates and wicked people, morally empty and reckless like Abimelech’s hirelings, seem to prevail. Anyone living at the time of Abimelech’s rule must have felt this way. Certainly many Christians living in Nazi Germany felt this way,47 as does anyone living in a similar totalitarian state. And when believers forget the Lord and live according to the world’s dictates, this only intensifies the power of the wicked. When believers choose this path, becoming functionally unbelievers, they may find that God allows them to get what they deserve, just as the Israelites experienced in the Abimelech story.

Believers’ apostasy can never negate God’s sovereignty. He is in control whether they acknowledge him or not, just as he is in control whether unbelievers acknowledge him or not. The Lord moves things to his intended outcome, and whatever gods have been used to replace him will prove to be worthless in the day of trouble, just as Baal/El-Berith proved to be for the Shechemites, who took refuge in his temple from Abimelech.

Human level. This story clearly demonstrates that any leader who raises himself or herself up through evil processes can expect that the Lord will eventually bring retribution. This may be much sooner than later; but whatever the case, it will take place.

Our society today is indoctrinated to quickly forget all the good things that may have been done for them. The entertainment business and the sports industry in particular create an environment where hard work and subsequent achievement are short-lived. This has even crept into the church pulpit, where one outstanding sermon after another may be the expectation, and good overall ministry may be devalued. This is serious, but how much more dangerous it can be when a leader quickly forgets the good done for him or her. What characterizes the society in general often characterizes its leaders.

When individuals today act without loyalty and integrity, they may side with a leader who acts without loyalty or integrity. But the Lord, who is blameless and always acts with utter integrity in his dealings with human beings, will raise up sovereign opposition to such individuals. As an adversary to the wicked, God raises up opponents.

This text certainly underscores the results of sin. Our sins cannot be measured in a lifetime. They have an impact on the next generation and beyond. Whether it is our families or our communities or our nation, the impact will be felt. The harvest of the seeds of sin may not necessarily come in our generation but in innumerable ones beyond us.