The Moabites and Ammonites were not only neighbors who both lived to the southeast of Canaan, but they were also descendants of the same ancestor, Lot. The Amalekites lived on Israel's southern border and were descendants of Esau. The Moabites had allied with the Ammonites and the Amalekites and had captured the site of Jericho (the "city of palm trees,"v. 13). They had evidently rebuilt it since Joshua's conquest.77The Moabites had taken over the surrounding area and had forced Israel to serve them for 18 years (v. 14).
Jericho was in Benjamin's territory, so it was not unusual that God would raise up a judge from that tribe to lead Israel against the Moabites. We learn later that the Benjamites at this time were far from admirable on the whole (chs. 19-21). Yet God raised up a faithful man from this tribe to do His will. The English text's description of Ehud as left-handed (v. 15) is misleading. The Hebrew expression translated "a left-handed man"probably means "a man restricted as to his right hand."78Ehud may not have been able to use his right hand as well as his left. In spite of this abnormality God used him to bring a great victory to Israel.
Most commentators regard Ehud's methods as entirely legitimate.79Some, however, do not, as the following quotation illustrates.
"Ehud's conduct must be judged according to the spirit of those times, when it was thought allowable to adopt any means of destroying the enemy of one's nation. The treacherous assassination of a hostile king is not to be regarded as an act of the Spirit of God, and therefore is not set before us as an example to be imitated. Although Jehovah raised up Ehud as a deliverer to His people when oppressed by Eglon, it is not stated (and this ought particularly to be observed) that the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Ehud, and still less that Ehud assassinated the hostile king under the impulse of that Spirit. Ehud proved himself to have been raised up by the Lord as the deliverer of Israel, simply by the fact that he actually delivered his people from the bondage of the Moabites, and it by no means follows that the means which he selected were either commanded or approved by Jehovah."80
The facts that Ehud did what he did as an act of war and that God nowhere condemned him for it lead me to believe he was correct in assassinating King Eglon (lit. fat ox). Note that Ehud had no other Israelites with him when he confronted Eglon. He stood alone for God.
It seems that Ehud delivered the Israelites' taxes, left Eglon, passed the "idols"(lit. sculptured stones) at Gilgal, and then returned to Eglon.81He had prepared to execute Eglon before going to Jericho. Did he lose heart at first when he left Jericho? Did he receive fresh motivation to kill the king when he passed the Canaanite objects of worship at Gilgal and then return to Jericho to finish the job? This seems to be what happened.
The room in which Ehud met Eglon (v. 20) was on the flat roof of the house. Rooms built this way caught the prevailing currents of air and therefore provided a cool place of retreat from the hot weather.
Evidently Eglon did not expect Ehud to draw his sword with his left hand. He did not know he could do so. This was part of Ehud's strategy. The sword was a short cubit in length, about 16 inches.82It went all the way through Eglon's fat body. It apparently contained no crosspiece (hilt) between the handle and the blade. The handle lodged in the fat while the point opened a hole in his back where his excrement oozed out.
"Thus by way of a humorous if vulgar twist, something unexpected comes out' of Eglon--his excrement. Such a grotesque occurrence would have been precisely the kind of detail that a story of this sort would have delighted in recounting and would be unlikely to omit. Although it no doubt strikes modern readers as vulgar and distasteful, in the context of the story it adds a note of extreme humiliation with respect to the Moabite king that would have delighted an Israelite audience, especially as it takes place at the very height of the drama: the national hero not only dispatched the enemy king with much cunning but in the process caused him to become besmirched with feces."83
The writer may have recorded this last disgusting detail to draw a parallel with the unclean Moabites' departure from the land following Ehud's victory. Notice the cool way Ehud behaved after he slew the king in his cool room.
"With effective employment of ambiguity, irony, satire, hyperbole, and caricature, he [the writer] sketches a literary cartoon that pokes fun at the Moabites and brings glory to God. . . . Biblical historians seldom, if ever, wrote their pieces primarily so later readers could reconstruct historical events. Their agendas were generally theological and polemical, and few texts are as overt in the latter respect as ours."84
Archaeologists have not yet identified the town of Seirah (v. 26), but it may have stood to the northwest of Gilgal in Ephraim's hill country (v. 27).
The Moabites who at this time were living west of the Jordan River would have fled back home eastward to their native country. For this reason the Israelites seized the fording place (v. 28).
Verse 29 is difficult to interpret for two reasons. First, the word translated "thousand"can also mean "military unit"(cf. 20:10). Second, it is not clear whether the Israelites killed these Moabites as they tried to cross the Jordan on this occasion. Perhaps this was the total Moabite force that the Israelites killed in their war with Moab. In either case this was a great victory for Israel.
The writer's primary emphasis in this pericope seems to be that God used a man whom others would have regarded as unusual, because he was left-handed, to affect a great victory. Ehud did not excuse himself from doing God's will because he was different, as many Christians do. He stepped out in faith in spite of his physical peculiarity. Israel too had physical abnormalities, but when she stepped out in trust and obedience God blessed her with success.
Several factors suggest that Shamgar's victory took place sometime during the 98 years described in the previous section (vv. 12-30). First, 4:1 refers to Ehud, not Shamgar. Second, there is no reference to Israel doing evil in Yahweh's sight in this verse. Third, the length of the Philistine oppression was long. Fourth, the writer did not mention a number of years that the land enjoyed rest. Evidently during this 98-year period the Philistines also oppressed Israel.
David Washburn argued that the phrase "after him"may indicate the beginning of a new episode. If this is so, we should place Shamgar contemporary with Deborah rather than Ehud (cf. 5:6). He acknowledged, however, that it is impossible to determine when Shamgar slew the 600 Philistines.85
The Philistines had been in Canaan since Abraham's day at least (Gen. 21:32; et al.). However during the period of the judges a major migration of the Sea Peoples from the Aegean area brought many new inhabitants into Canaan, perhaps about 1230 B.C. These peoples settled in the coastal areas of Canaan, especially in the South. They became the infamous Philistines who opposed and fought the Israelites until David finally brought them under Israel's control.
"The name Shamgaris non-Israelite and may have been of Hittite or Hurrian origin. This does not automatically infer that he was a Canaanite, although this is possible; it may witness to the intermingling of the Israelites with the native population. In any case his actions benefited Israel."86
Peter Craigie believed that Shamgar may have been a Hurrian mercenary soldier rather than a Hebrew. His name "ben (son of) Anath"suggests that he might have been a religious Canaanite since Anath was a Canaanite goddess.87It seems unlikely, however, that he was a religious Canaanite because the writer identified him as a hero through whom God delivered His people. Another suggestion is that "son of Anath"indicated that Shamgar was like Anath, namely, of a warlike character.88Shamgar could have been the son of a mixed marriage or even a foreigner whom God used. Perhaps he was a proselyte to Yahweh worship. Whatever his background and whomever he may have served, his destruction of 600 Philistines accomplished God's will, specifically the destruction of the non-Israelite occupants of the land.
The writer did not record Shamgar's home town, but some commentators connect Beth-anath (lit. house of Anath) in Naphtali or Beth-anoth in Judah (Josh. 15:59) with him. Most assume Anath was the name of Shamgar's father.
An "oxgoad"was a stout stick 8 to 10 feet long used to train and drive oxen.
"At the thin end they have a sharp point to drive the oxen, and at the other end a small hoe, to scrape off any dirt that may stick to the plough."89
Evidently Shamgar seized an opportunity to kill 600 Philistines with this unusual instrument that he used as a weapon (cf. 2 Sam. 23:11). The text does not say when he did this, all at once or one by one in guerrilla type warfare.
Though the writer did not call Shamgar a judge in the text, he was one of Israel's heroic deliverers (cf. 5:4). Few students of the book exclude him from the list of judges, though he may not have functioned in the nation as one.90
The major lesson we should learn from Shamgar is that a shady personal background and lack of proper equipment do not keep God from working through people who commit to doing His will. Many Christians think that because they do not have a good background or the best tools they cannot serve God. If we commit ourselves to executing God's will and use whatever background and equipment we have, God can accomplish a great deal through us.
In this third chapter we see that God raised up unusual people and empowered them to do great acts for His glory. Often very distinguished people rise from humble backgrounds, as these judges did. Jesus' disciples are similar illustrations. A single individual committed to executing God's revealed will is all He needs. He uses all types of people but only those committed to His will who step out in faith. In the case of the judges, the will of God was the extermination of Israel's enemies.
