Ehud: Assessing An Assassin

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm Jr. is Chair and Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Ehud’s Defenders And Critics

The assassin Ehud has generated extensive controversy among interpreters. While his use of deception and violence may be repugnant to modern sensibilities and ideas of propriety, some argue that this would not have been the case for an ancient Israelite audience.[1] According to Webb the account is satiric, even comic. He observes, “The grotesquely comic character of the story makes moral judgments irrelevant. We are clearly meant to identify with the protagonist and to enjoy the sheer virtuosity of his performance.”[2] The story is crafted to appeal to Israel’s disdain for the Moabites. Chalcraft contends that the details of the accounts in Judges 3-5 “do not cast any reflection on the characters of either Ehud or Jael.” Instead they depict the enemies as “sub-human.” This in turn gives the stories a “heroic dimension” and justifies the killers’ actions. Chalcraft also asserts that Ehud’s actions “serve to highlight the stupidity of the enemy.”[3]

However, as one might expect, Ehud has his detractors. It is undeniable that he rescued Israel from oppression, but some view him as a flawed deliverer. Klein calls him “less than honorable.” She emphasizes the relative lack of divine involvement in the story in contrast to the report of Othniel’s deeds.[4] Block charges that Ehud’s “treachery and brutality” have a “Canaanite” quality.[5] O’Connell makes a distinction between political and theological perspectives in evaluating ethical behavior. He argues that the satirical flavor of the text reflects the “tribal-political standpoint” of Judges, rather than the “deuteronomic evaluation that ‘everyone did what was right in one’s own eyes.’ ”[6]

Wong has made a strong case for viewing Ehud’s deceptive actions in a negative light. He asks if “the fundamental incongruity between Ehud’s restriction in the right hand and his core identity as a ‘son of the right-handers’ ” hints “at another set of incongruity equally significant with respect to the plot, namely, the incongruity between Ehud’s use of deceptive tactics to assassinate, and his core identity as a deliverer raised up by YHWH.” He adds, “The incongruity revealed by the wordplay may carry deeper symbolic significance in portraying Ehud as someone whose actions and choices are liable to fall short of the standard expected of him on the basis of who he is . . . because the tactics he used likewise fell short of the standard expected of a deliverer raised up by YHWH.”[7]

Wong demonstrates that Joab’s assassinations of Abner and Amasa have parallels with the Ehud story. Both Ehud and Joab employed deceit to kill their victims. Joab asked to speak with Abner in private and then killed his unsuspecting victim (2 Sam. 3:27; cf. Judg. 3:19). Later he killed Amasa with a left-handed sword thrust as he grabbed Amasa’s beard with his right hand (2 Sam. 20:9-10). The description of how Joab had strapped his sword to his side (v. 8) is similar to the description of Ehud given in Judges 3:16.[8] Wong establishes the priority in time of composition of the Judges passages and shows that Joab’s deeds are presented in a negative light by the author of 2 Samuel.[9] He concludes, “If Joab’s two assassinations are indeed meant to be understood negatively, then by virtue of the fact that each makes allusions to Ehud, one can infer that there must have been aspects of Ehud’s assassination that were also viewed negatively by the author of the Joab accounts. And since the allusions seem to concentrate especially on the use of deception, one can only conclude that this use of deception by Ehud must have been what was viewed negatively by the author of the Joab accounts.”[10]

In Defense Of Ehud

Is all this criticism of Ehud justified? Marais responds to Klein by saying, “In her view Yahweh can only be good and cannot be associated with treacherous conduct, but what if the text itself contains this paradox? Should this paradox be explained and smoothed away with modern, Western logic, or should it be allowed to stand as a paradox?”[11] Indeed Yahweh is not above using deception and brutality when He deems such tactics to be appropriate, though one should not suggest, as Marais does, that this is somehow contrary to God’s goodness.[12] The revolt against oppressive Eglon, when viewed as an act initiating a war of liberation, may have been viewed as such an occasion. As Schneider points out, Ehud acted “for the Israelite deity, not for his own glory or credit.”[13] By the end of the story one is convinced that God’s providence is the unseen force driving Ehud’s actions and giving them success.[14]

The account in Judges 3 of Ehud’s victory over the Moabite army following the assassination of Eglon presents him in a positive light. When Ehud arrived in Ephraim, he blew a horn as a signal for Israel to gather. “Blew” in verse 27 and “drove” in verse 21 translate the same Hebrew verb (תָּקַע). The wordplay links Ehud’s two decisive actions. He killed the oppressive king and he then followed up on that deed. The horn blast rallied Israel to finish what Ehud had started. These two actions were the defining moments in Ehud’s revolt and are linked together as part of a whole. If rallying the troops is viewed positively, then killing the enemy king should be viewed the same way.

Standing before Israel as the leader who had disposed of Moab’s leader, Ehud challenged Israel to follow him. He guaranteed victory, promising that Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel, had already delivered Moab into their hands (v. 28). The very common idiom, “to give into the hand of” means “to deliver over to the power of.” Ehud used the qatal (perfect) form of נָתַן here to describe an action that, though not yet completed in reality, is described as such from Ehud’s perspective for dramatic effect. In this way he emphasized that victory was as good as done. This dramatic use of the qatal of נָתַן appears elsewhere in Judges in rallying cries (4:14; 7:15) and oracles of deliverance (1:2; 7:9; 18:10; see also Josh. 6:2; 8:1). Ehud’s battle cry echoes the Lord’s commission to Judah (Judg. 1:2) and was a significant expression of faith.[15]

The use of the expression נָתַן בְּיָדin Judges is instructive. In 4:14 Deborah made the declaration before the battle with Sisera; in 7:14-15 it was spoken by the man whom Gideon overheard talking and then by Gideon himself before battle. In 11:30 the tone of certainty disappears as Jephthah prefaced his vow with the condition, “If you give the Ammonites into my hands” (literal translation). Later in a tragic reversal the Philistines declared that their god had given Samson into their hands (16:23-24). A clear progression is discernible. Ehud, a model of faith and leadership, was confident of God’s ability. So was Deborah, but oddly enough, she, a woman, had to encourage the hesitant male leader Barak. Equally hesitant Gideon gained confidence, but only after receiving a confirmatory vision. With Jephthah the statement changes from a cry of faith to a condition prefaced with “if.” When Samson was captured, the Philistines’ god took the Lord’s place in the formula, which was now uttered by boastful pagans, not by a courageous Israelite leader. The decline is obvious, and the contrast between Ehud and Samson highlights how far Israel had fallen.

As for Klein’s observation regarding the apparent lack of direct divine involvement in Ehud’s revolt, it is true that there is no reference to God instructing Ehud to kill Eglon, let alone any indication that the Lord’s Spirit was at work (in contrast to Othniel). This silence, rather than suggesting divine disapproval, may emphasize that human initiative when coupled with faith is not necessarily antithetical to God’s program and may even facilitate it. Ehud seized the opportunity that his appointment as tribute-bearer offered and put his faith into action. Bowman observes, “The narrator does not explicitly state that the spirit of God is given to either Ehud or Deborah. . . . Yet, both successfully deliver Israel from the oppression of its enemies, and both voice their own conviction that God gave them their victories. . . . Even though both of these judges credit God with the victory (3:28; 4:9), their stories stress the importance and necessity of the human involvement in the achievement of success.”[16]

Furthermore empowerment by the Spirit of the Lord is not a barometer of how a person or his actions should be assessed. Certainly Othniel, a recipient of the Lord’s Spirit (3:10), is presented positively, even paradigmatically. But it is Othniel’s unhesitating action and God-given victory, not necessarily the reception of the Lord’s Spirit as such, that constitutes the paradigm. Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson were also empowered by the Lord’s Spirit (6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14). Yet all three are presented as deficient leaders, despite their divine enablement.[17] The same was true of Saul (1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 11:6) and David (16:13). All were flawed leaders whose stories end in tragedy in varying degrees. On the other hand nowhere in the Former Prophets is the Lord’s Spirit said to have empowered Joshua, Caleb, Deborah, or Samuel, all of whom are viewed positively.[18]

Despite the fact that there is no mention of Ehud, in contrast to Othniel, being empowered by the Lord’s Spirit, the narrator did link the two in such a way as to suggest that they form a paradigmatic tandem. The statement “the Lord raised up a deliverer” appears in both accounts (3:9, 15), but is absent in the following accounts of the judges. This expression echoes the statement in the prologue that the Lord “raised up judges” who “delivered” the people (2:16, 18). The word “deliverer” or “savior” (מוֹשִׁיַע) is used of only Othniel and Ehud.[19]

Also noteworthy is the fact that there are literary parallels between Ehud and Jael, who is viewed in a positive light (5:24-27) despite her deception. (1) Both Ehud and Jael made their victims think they were loyal subjects and lured them into a defenseless position. (2) Ehud and Jael killed the leader of the enemy behind closed doors. (3) The same verb (תָּקַע) is used to describe Ehud’s deadly sword thrust and Jael’s fatal hammer blow (3:21; 4:21). (4) The fallen corpses of Eglon and Sisera are described in almost identical terms. The statements, “and look, their lord was falling to the ground, dead” (literal translation, 3:25b), “and look, Sisera was falling, dead” (literal translation, 4:22b) are very similar.[20] If one uses Wong’s method of interpreting an earlier character’s actions in light of allusions to that character in the description of a later character, these parallels suggest that Ehud, like Jael, should be assessed positively. Jael is blessed in contrast to cursed Meroz, because she participated in the liberation of Israel (5:23-27). When face to face with Israel’s enemy, she acted decisively, in contrast to Meroz (and some of the other tribes). This decisive participation is patterned after Othniel and Ehud. Ehud in particular showed great daring as the sole participant, at least initially, in the revolt against Moabite oppression.

Also parallels can be noted between the account of Ehud’s assassination of Eglon and David’s victory over the Philistine champion Goliath. Both do the unexpected and unconventional, and strike down an imposing enemy.[21] But beyond these general similarities there are intertextual echoes that suggest conscious linking on the part of the editor(s) of the Former Prophets: (1) The collocations שָׁלַח יָד (Judg. 3:21; 1 Sam. 17:49) and לָקַח חֶרֶב (Judg. 3:21; 1 Sam. 17:51) are used of both Ehud’s and David’s actions and are clustered only in these two passages in the Hebrew Bible. (2) The expressionנָתַן יָד is used of the Lord delivering over the enemy in both passages (Judg. 3:28; 1 Sam. 17:47). (3) The idiom נָפַל אֶרֶץ is used to describe the demise of the enemy in both passages (Judg. 3:25; 1 Sam. 17:49).

Another explanation may better account for the allusions to Ehud in 2 Samuel. Following the lead of Schneider, one could see Ehud as a foil for the less-than-admirable Benjamites who appear later in the history (in both Judges and 2 Samuel). She writes, “The book presents a decent judge from the tribe of Benjamin early in the narrative to highlight the extent of the downward spiral, especially by the tribe of Benjamin, exhibited in the book’s final stories.”[22] The ideal of Israelite leaders from Judah and Benjamin defeating foreign enemies (cf. Judg. 1:9-20; 3:7-30) is shattered in the epilogue when Benjamites violate a helpless Judahite (19:1-2, 18), thereby precipitating a civil war in which Judah led the charge against the Benjamites (20:18), including their left-handed slingers (20:16). Like Ehud, these Benjamites could skillfully use a deadly weapon, but in contrast to Ehud they used their skill against their fellow Israelites rather than foreign enemies. The conflict between Benjamin and Judah continued when Saul opposed David and when Shimei, like Ehud a Benjamite “son of Gera,” cursed David (2 Sam. 16:5; see also 19:16, 18; 1 Kings 2:8).

Joab’s assassination of Abner contributes to this theme of conflict between the two tribes. As such, Joab stands in contrast to Ehud. Furthermore, when Joab killed his own relative Amasa, it is apparent that the intertribal conflict portrayed prior to this had spread to the tribe of Judah and threatened the stability of the nation. The significance of the link between Ehud and Joab is not so much in the similarity of the actions themselves (the description of which merely establishes a parallel), but in the contrast between the objects of those actions. Ehud killed a foreign oppressor and delivered Israel; Joab of Judah struck down a Benjamite, escalating the conflict begun in Judges 20, and then killed one of his own relatives. The point is not that Joab should have been killing foreign oppressors; after all, circumstances had changed since Ehud’s time. There was no need to be killing anybody, especially from personal motives of greed, as in the case of Joab. Ehud killed to liberate a nation; Joab’s killing was strictly to promote his own interests. The allusions to Ehud in the Joab accounts highlight this contrast and remind readers how far Israel had fallen from the days when leaders like Othniel and Ehud rid the nation of foreign oppressors. If Ehud and Joab really were “separated at birth,” as Wong suggests, then Joab, not Ehud, gets to play Romulus!

One other point needs to be made in response to Wong’s interpretation of Ehud. In his insightful literary analysis of Judges, he demonstrates that there are numerous allusions to the individual judges, including Ehud, in the book’s epilogue. These include (1) the idolatry of Micah // the idolatry of Gideon; (2) the Levite’s violation of levitical regulations // Samson’s violation of Nazirite regulations; (3) the Danites doing what was right in their own eyes // Samson’s going after what was right in his eyes; (4) the Levite’s wooing and abandoning his concubine // Samson’s wooing and abandoning his wife; (5) Benjamin’s incongruent decision to support Gibeah // Ehud’s incongruent use of deception; (6) Israel’s harshness with Benjamin // harshness of Gideon and Jephthah in dealing with fellow Israelites; (7) Israel’s rash oath // Jephthah’s vow.[23] Wong argues that all seven allusions occur when characters in the epilogue acted bizarrely, and those allusions involve bizarre actions in the case of the major judges.[24] The narrator did not make overt connections; he trusted the reader to be able to process the point being made.[25] The allusions involving judges other than Ehud definitely cast the judges in a negative light, so why would the parallel involving Benjamin and Ehud (see number five in the list above) not be negative as well? Before one assumes that this is the case, however, it is noteworthy that Ehud was the only Benjamite judge. This means that the allusion may be ironic, involving contrast rather than simply a direct analogous correspondence. As noted above, Ehud was a foil for the Benjamites of Judges 19-21. This contrastive framework, where Benjamin had fallen from the earlier ideal, provides the context in which the other allusions to the central section in these chapters (numbers 4, 6-7 in the above list) operate.

Conclusion

Contrary to the opinion of Ehud’s recent critics, the narrator presented Ehud in a thoroughly positive light and linked him with Othniel to form a paradigmatic tandem. Only of these two is it said, “the Lord raised up a deliverer,” and only these two are designated by the title “deliverer.”

While there is no reference to Ehud (in contrast to Othniel) being empowered by the Lord’s Spirit, this is not an indication that Ehud was flawed. It simply illustrates the importance of human initiative and faith in the outworking of the divine purpose. In the books of Judges and 1 and 2 Samuel empowerment by the Lord’s Spirit is not a barometer of how a character or his actions should be assessed. Some leaders are presented in a negative light despite being empowered by the Spirit, while others are depicted positively, despite the absence of any reference to Spirit empowerment.

The similarities between Ehud’s assassination of Eglon and Joab’s murderous deeds do not cast Ehud in a negative light. The key to understanding the significance of the allusion is not the similarity of action (which merely establishes the link), but rather the contrasting objects. Ehud killed a foreign oppressor and delivered a nation; Joab killed a Benjamite, thereby escalating tribal conflict, and his own flesh and blood, thereby contributing to the disintegration of the Davidic royal court.

In addition to the intertextual connections between Ehud and Joab, links between Ehud and later characters are presented in a positive light. Both Ehud and Jael used cunning to rid Israel of tyrannical rule, and both Ehud and David used the element of surprise to bring down an imposing enemy of Israel.

Ehud is a model of courage born out of faith in the Lord. He saw himself as an instrument of divine deliverance. In contrast to later judges he displayed and expressed absolute confidence in the Lord. Together with Othniel he provided a paradigm of leadership in Israel.

Notes

1. See for example Ferdinand Deist, “ ‘Murder in the Toilet’ (Judges 3:12-30): Translation and Transformation,” Scriptura 58 (1996): 269.
2. Barry G. Webb, The Book of the Judges: An Integrated Reading, JSOT Supplement (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), 131. See also Marc Zvi Brettler, The Book of Judges (London: Routledge, 2002), 33-37; and Eric S. Christianson, “A Fistful of Shekels: Scrutinizing Ehud’s Entertaining Violence (Judges 3:12-30),” Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003): 64.
3. David J. Chalcraft, “Deviance and Legitimate Action in the Book of Judges,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions, ed. David J. A. Clines, Stephen Fowl, and Stanley E. Porter, JSOT Supplement (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 183-84. See also Lowell Handy, “Uneasy Laughter: Ehud and Eglon as Ethnic Humor,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament (1992): 233-46. Handy argues that the story is not history, but is a joke that takes the form of “ethnic humor.” Handy seems offended by the story’s tone (ibid., 244-46). However, its comic, even nationalistic, tone is understandable when one sees the story as a celebration of divine justice told in a cultural context where people were viewed not so much as individuals but corporately as part of the ethnic group to which they belonged.
4. Lillian R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, JSOT Supplement (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988), 40.
5. Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 171.
6. Robert H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, Vetus Testamentum Supplement (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 280 n. 43.
7. Gregory T. K. Wong, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges, Vetus Testamentum Supplement (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 119-20.
8. Gregory T. K. Wong, “Ehud and Joab: Separated at Birth?” Vetus Testamentum 56 (2006): 399-403. For a list of parallels between Judges 3 and 2 Samuel 20 see Tony W. Cartledge, 1 & 2 Samuel (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 627.
9. Wong, “Ehud and Joab: Separated at Birth?” 403-10.
10. Ibid., 410.
11. Jacobus Marais, Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 96.
12. See for example Jehu’s divinely instigated bloodbath against the house of Omri, which used both deception and violence (2 Kings 9-10), and Samson’s Spirit-energized murder of thirty Philistine men (Judg. 14:19).
13. Tammi J. Schneider, Judges (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000), 52. See also Gregor Andersson’s hermeneutical analysis of the debate over how Ehud’s actions are to be understood (The Book and Its Narratives: A Critical Examination of Some Synchronic Studies of the Book of Judges [Örebro, Sweden: Örebro University, 2001], 44-49). He concludes that the approach of O’Connell and Klein is “disturbing” because it allows the “larger text” to give “the narrative a new meaning that cannot be harmonized with its narrative meaning” (ibid., 49). For his theoretical discussion of what constitutes a “disturbing” interpretation, see page 19 of his discussion.
14. See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 131-32; Yairah Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12-30): Form and Message,” in Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus, ed. J. Cheryl Exum (Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1989), 97-123; and Yairah Amit, The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 172-73.
15. Daniel I. Block questions the degree of Ehud’s faith and suggests that his words “need not have been anything more than a rallying slogan” (“The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration under Tribal Rule,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. Abraham Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 49. This overly cynical view is based on the false assumption that Ehud’s deeds have a “Canaanite” quality about them.
16. Richard G. Bowman, “Narrative Criticism: Human Purpose in Conflict with Divine Presence,” in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, ed. Gale A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 36-37.
17. In fact both Gideon and Jephthah exhibited lack of faith immediately after receiving the Spirit.
18. The Pentateuch may indicate that Joshua possessed the divine Spirit, though the evidence is ambiguous. In Numbers 11 seventy elders received the Spirit (vv. 25-26), but Joshua seems to be distinct from this group (vv. 28-29). Numbers 27:18 may indicate Joshua possessed the divine Spirit, but the Hebrew text reads simply רוּחַ, with no article and no qualifying genitive. Deuteronomy 34:9 states that Joshua had “a spirit of wisdom,” but this is not identified as the divine Spirit. As for Caleb, Numbers 14:24 describes him as possessing “another spirit,” but there is no indication this is the divine Spirit. Deborah and Samuel were prophets, so one can assume that the Lord’s Spirit was energizing them in this regard, but the text does not specifically state this as if to highlight it as paradigmatic for leadership.
19. The hiphil participle of יָשַׁע is used of the Lord in 6:36, and of the men of Ephraim in 12:3, but not of another individual judge. A hiphil finite verbal form of יָשַׁע is used several times of judges (2:16, 18; 3:31; 6:14-15; 8:22; 13:5). Rather than undercutting the point, however, the frequent usage of the finite form highlights the fact that the substantival participle is applied only to Othniel and Ehud and seems to place them in a distinct category.
20. Webb notes some of these parallels (The Book of Judges, 137). See also Elie Assis, “Man, Woman and God in Judg 4,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 20 (2006): 116-17.
21. Eglon should not be viewed as an obese, immobile, easy target, but as a robust, imposing warrior. See Lawson G. Stone, “Eglon’s Belly and Ehud’s Blade: A Reconsideration” Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 649-63. On David’s unconventional use of the sling when close combat was expected, see Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 10-13.
22. Schneider, Judges, 47.
23. Wong, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges, 83-135.
24. Ibid., 135-41.
25. Ibid., 136.