Vindicating Gideon

Though Gideon seems to execute the kings of Midian out of personal vengeance, scripture’s holographic hermeneutic reveals him to be in the right.

In Judges 8, after Gideon’s harsh treatment of Sukot and Penuel — threshing the elders of one with thorns, and slaying the elders of the other after breaking down their tower — we may be shocked that he is willing to let Zevah and Tsalumunna, the kings of Midian, remain alive…if only they had not killed his brothers.

And he said unto Zevah and Tsalmunna, “Where are the men that ye slew in Tavor?” And they said, “As that thee, as that they; each was as the form of the sons of the king.” And he said, “My brothers, the sons of my mother they. Living Yahweh! Would ye have kept them alive, I would not slay you.” (Judges 8:19)

As a rule, we should see the judges as saviors, sent by God to teach about the Savior (cf. Gal 3:24). They are models for us — though often mysterious ones — rather than rogues and bounders. Gideon himself just the day before was “clothed” with the Spirit of Yawheh (Jdg 6:34).

But how can his actions here be fair? How can they reflect this spiritual anointing? Even if his treatment of Sukot and Penuel is justified on account of their treachery, he is now showing more favor to his unbelieving enemies — idolatrous heathen who have preyed on God’s own people — than to the Israelites who were terrorized by them.

The only reason he seems to have to kill Zevah and Tsalmunna is personal vengeance. Surely this is a miscarriage of justice.

Even James Jordan, from whom I learned the right way to interpret the character of the judges, cannot see that Gideon is right in this case.

But he is.

Firstly, remember what 2 Kings 6 indicates about killing a prisoner of war in cold blood: it is not justice, but murder. When the chariots of fire struck the Syrian army blind, so that Elisha could capture them at Samaria,

the king of Israel said unto Elisha, at his seeing them, “Shall I smite, shall I smite, my father?” And he said, “Thou shalt not smite; those whom thou hadst taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow, would thou smite?” (2 Kings 6:21–22)

In other words, the king would not execute prisoners that he had captured by regular warfare — that would be wicked. So why would he think it just to execute ones that were delivered to him by spiritual warfare?

Israel was not authorized to kill whomever they wanted of their enemies: only the seven nations of the land were to be utterly devoted to destruction (the Canaanites); and only enemies who would not surrender were to be killed (because that’s how war works). But Zevah and Tsalmunna were not of those Canaanite tribes, being sons of the East; and they were no longer a threat, having surrendered. The justness of killing in war is an application of the principle of self-defense — and we can hardly justify killing an unarmed man in self-defense.

But, there is another just reason to kill someone. It is spelled out in Numbers 35, which requires that a murderer be put to death by what is generally translated the “avenger of blood.” A better translation would be the payer-back of the blood, because this same word is most often translated redeem (i.e., to pay back in order to reclaim someone or something), and even kinsman-redeemer (i.e., the payer-back for someone’s freedom or land).

The payer-back of the blood himself shall put the murderer to death; in his meeting upon him he shall put him to death. And if in hatred he [the killer] thrust him [the victim] through, or cast anything at him by lying in wait, and he died; or in enmity he smote him with his hand, and he died; the smiter shall certainly be put to death; he is a murderer; the payer-back of the blood shall put the murderer to death in his meeting upon him. (Numbers 35:19–21)

Gideon is acting in accordance with this law; he is the lawful payer-back of the blood of his brothers. It is actually his job to execute these two kings as a matter of civil justice, for their murder of his brothers. This is made especially obvious in the text itself, by the somewhat unusual choice of words from Zevah and Tsalmunna: “Rise thou and meet upon us.” This is very specific term is used twice in Numbers 35: “The payer-back of the blood himself shall put the murderer to death; in his meeting upon him he shall put him to death…the payer-back of the blood shall put the murderer to death in his meeting upon him.”

Well, here Zevah and Tsalmunna invite Gideon to meet upon them — and so he does.

But…why does he try to get his son to do it?

And he said unto Yeter, his firstborn, “Rise, slay thou them.” And the youngster drew not his sword, in that he feared, in that he was yet a youngster. (Judges 8:20)

Gideon is being trained for war, so that Israel may be trained for war. God left the nations in the land to teach them holy war (Jdg 3:2). They must learn the trade of their Father in heaven: the trade of crushing serpent heads.

This is central to understanding Israel at all. Consider where it comes from as a nation: Israel is Jacob. As a nation, it follows the same pattern as Jacob the man. God raised up enemies against Jacob — but not because he was angry with him. It is true that God has been angry with Israel — but even in these cases, the enemies he raises up are not ultimately punitive, but rather instructive and restorative. They are not to make Israel suffer unnecessarily, but for the purpose of bringing them to repentance, and especially of training them for war (cf. Ps 144:1). When Jacob wrestled against Esau and Laban, it was not because he had done something wrong and needed to be taught a lesson; it was because God was training him as his son. And in fact, Jacob did so well that when God raised up a third enemy, the “final boss,” there was no one suitable but God himself! Maturing and training through conflict is at the heart of Jacob’s story, so it is at the heart of Israel’s story — and in particular, it is very obviously at the heart of Gideon’s story, as a fractal reflection of this great pattern.

Israel is God’s firstborn son, who must learn their Father’s ways. God has been trying to teach his son to war against evil, to strike the head of the serpent — and he has now successfully trained Gideon. But this is not the work of one man, or one generation — so who will carry on the work when Gideon is gone? Obviously Gideon’s firstborn son. Again, this is a fractal pattern. As the firstborn, Yeter is by rights God’s possession according to Exodus 13:2, 15. So while it seems shocking, maybe even foolish and cruel to us, that Gideon tries to have his son execute these kings, in fact he is doing with Yeter exactly what God has been doing with himself, and with Israel as a whole. Gideon is seeking to teach his son holy war, as God has taught Israel, embodied in Gideon himself.

Sadly, Yeter fails. In Judges 7:10, we learned that Gideon feared to descend into the camp; fear has been a repeated motif in his story — and here we see that the son is not greater than the father. Gideon’s son fails to take up his work, because he is too immature and fearful. And this darkly foreshadows what is to come in the book of Judges, as Israel itself continues to fail to take up God’s work, because they are too immature and faithful.