Domarboken 3:21 Kommentar

In this chapter, I. A general account of Israel's enemies is premised, and of the mischief they did them (Jdg 3:1-7). II. A particular account of the brave exploits done by the first three of the judges. 1. Othniel, whom God raised up to fight Israel's battles, and plead their cause against the king of Mesopotamia (Jdg 3:8-11). 2. Ehud, who was employed in rescuing Israel out of the hands of the Moabites, and did it by stabbing the king of Moab (v. 12-30). 3. Shamgar, who signalized himself in an encounter with the Philistines (Jdg 3:31).

INTRODUCTION TO JUDGES 3 This chapter gives an account of the nations left in Canaan to prove Israel, and who became a snare unto them, Jdg 3:1; and of the servitude of Israel under the king of Mesopotamia for their sins, from which they were delivered by Othniel, Jdg 3:8; and of their subjection to the Moabites, from which they were freed by Ehud, who privately assassinated the king of Moab, and then made his escape, Jdg 3:12; and of the destruction of a large number of Philistines by Shamgar, with an ox goad, Jdg 3:31.

And the haft went in, after the blade,.... The handle of the dagger, as well as the blade; so strong and violent was the thrust, he determining to do his business effectually: and the fat closed upon the blade; being an excessive fat man, the wound made by the dagger closed up at once upon it, through the fat: so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; being not able to take hold of the haft or handle, that having slipped in through the fat after the blade, so that he was obliged to leave it in him: and the dirt came out; the margin of our Bibles is, "it came out at the fundament"; that is, the dagger did, the thrust being so strong and vehement; but that is not so likely, the dagger being so short, and Eglon a very fat man. The Targum is,"his food went out;''which was in his bowels; but as the wound was closed up through fat, and the dagger stuck fast in it, it could not come out that way: rather therefore this is to he understood of his excrements, and of their coming out at the usual place, it being common for persons that die a violent death, and indeed others, to purge upon it; some, as Kimchi observes, interpret it of the place where the guards were, the guard room, through which Ehud went out, but that is expressed in another word in Jdg 3:23; the Syriac and Arabic versions read, "he went out in haste", that is, Ehud.

Let’s observe how Ehud, whose name means “praise,” discharged his leadership. History teaches us, in its writings about King Eglon, how this most wise Ehud with particular skill and, if I may say, cunning but praiseworthy deception, would kill the tyrant Eglon, whose name means “round” or “circular.” It was necessary, then, to have the quality of judges of our people as was this Ehud, whose name means “praise,” so to cut through all his rolling motion and circuit of evil ways and to destroy the king of the Moabites. But Moabite is translated as “flow” or “effusion.” Who can the ruler or leader of this flowing and dissolute people be seen or understood to be, therefore, other than the word of that philosophy which adjudges pleasure to be the highest good, a philosophy which the word of the gospel, which has been compared to a sword, killed and destroyed? And this prophetic word would become enclosed within their belly and lowest stomach by means of the “ambidextrous” judge’s arguments, to extinguish the Moabites by assertion of the truth, enclosing also every sense of perverse doctrine and dull understanding “which extols itself and rises against the spiritual knowledge of Christ,” so that by acting thus and by doing battle with the word of God, each judge of the church may also become a praising Ehud, about whom the Lord would say, “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few, so I will set you over many.”

What did you mean by saying, two thousand fall at the side? Naturally, when the right hand is designated and the left is not, the side is named in place of the left hand. It would not be right, certainly, for the just man to have a left hand: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek,” counsels the Lord, “turn to him the other also.” Notice that he did not say, “the left also,” for it is not the left cheek that is offered, but another right cheek. I shall express this very plainly, therefore, by saying that the just man has two right cheeks. The man, Ehud, for example, who is written of in the book of Judges, is said to have two right hands because he was a just man and killed that fat stupid king. “Though two thousand fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand.” There are very many who lie in wait at our right hand, not so many who plot against our left; [thus], a thousand fall at our side and ten thousand at our right hand. Where there is greater combat, there is, of course, greater victory. Few lie in ambush at our side, but many at our right hand.

NATIONS LEFT TO PROVE ISRAEL. (Jdg 3:1-4) these are the nations which the Lord left, to prove Israel--This was the special design of these nations being left, and it evinces the direct influence of the theocracy under which the Israelites were placed. These nations were left for a double purpose: in the first instance, to be instrumental, by their inroads, in promoting the moral and spiritual discipline of the Israelites; and also to subserve the design of making them acquainted with war, in order that the young, more especially, who were total strangers to it, might learn the use of weapons and the art of wielding them.

Ehud put forth his left hand--The whole circumstance of this daring act--the death of Eglon without a shriek, or noise--the locking of the doors--the carrying off the key--the calm, unhurried deportment of Ehud--show the strength of his confidence that he was doing God service.

But when the king stood up, Ehud drew his sword from under his garment, and plunged it so deeply into his abdomen that even the hilt followed the blade, and the fat closed upon the blade (so that there was nothing to be seen of it in front, because he did not draw the sword again out of his body), and the blade came out between the legs. The last words have been rendered in various ways. Luther follows the Chaldee and Vulgate, and renders it "so that the dirt passed from him," taking the ἁπ. λεγ. פּרשׁדנה as a composite noun from פּרשׁ, stercus, and שׁדה, jecit. But this is hardly correct, as the form of the word פּרשׁדנה, and its connection with יצא, rather points to a noun, פּרשׁדן, with ה local. The explanation given by Gesenius in his Thes. and Heb. lex. has much more in its favour, viz., interstitium pedum, the place between the legs, from an Arabic word signifying pedes dissitos habuit, used as a euphemism for anus, podex. The subject to the verb is the blade. (Note: At any rate the rendering suggested by Ewald, "Ehud went into the open air, or into the enclosure, the space in front of the Alija," is untenable, for the simple reason that it is perfectly irreconcilable with the next clause, "Ehud went forth," etc. (consequently Fr. Bttcher proposes to erase this clause from the text, without any critical authority whatever). For if Ehud were the subject to the verb, the subject would necessarily have been mentioned, as it really is in the next clause, Jdg 3:23.)