When Israel grew strong: This verse begins with two key Hebrew expressions wayehi ki (“And it was that when”), which show a possible time lapse, as well as a new paragraph. Translators can look for an appropriate transition, for example, “Later on” or “But some time later.” We might also say “And when” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “But when” or “As.” For Israel see verse 1.1. This verse seems to be a summary statement applying to all of the tribes.

The Hebrew verb rendered grew strong has various meanings but here refers to the Israelites gaining strength militarily or becoming stronger in number. Many versions say “grew stronger” (New American Bible; similarly Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible). Contemporary English Version‘s “grew more powerful” correctly implies that at first they were not strong enough to subjugate the Canaanites, but later became so. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh’s “gained the upper hand” is possible but seems to put too much emphasis on political power. At this point in their history, the tribes of Israel seem to be loosely connected, joined by alliances. Some believe the tribes of Israel formed a kind of federation, but certainly there were no formal structures to speak of during that time period.

They put the Canaanites to forced labor indicates an important change in the relationship between the Israelites and the Canaanite population. This expression follows the Hebrew quite literally and is repeated throughout the section (verse 1.28, 30, 33, 35).

Forced labor refers to work that people are obliged to carry out by the authorities in control. Though in some situations forced labor is considered a contribution toward the payment of taxes, while in other cases it borders on slavery. The notion of forced labor will be known in many cultures around the world, especially where colonial powers once ruled, and thus there will be idiomatic expressions to express this reality. If not, we can simply say “they forced the Canaanites to work for them.” New International Version says “they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor,” while New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translates “they subjected … to forced labor,” which are both good models. Contemporary English Version‘s “they made slaves of the Canaanites” may be too specific. Translators need to be cautious using the word “slave” here and elsewhere in translation, as types of forced labor and slavery may differ considerably throughout the world.

For the first two clauses of this verse, we might say:

• Later when the Israelites became more powerful, they obliged the Canaanites to work for them.

• But later on, the Israelites grew stronger, so they pushed the Canaanites into forced labor.

But did not utterly drive them out: Here and elsewhere the text does not say whether the Israelites were unable to drive out these peoples or whether they simply chose not to do it. As they became stronger, they may have been able to drive them out, but perhaps chose not to do so. Certainly the Canaanites had now become a source of cheap labor and the two cultures may have also begun to merge.

But (Hebrew waw conjunction) introduces an unexpected event. Even though the Israelites became strong, they did not obey the LORD by removing the Canaanites. We might say “nevertheless,” “still,” or “however.”

The Hebrew expression rendered did not utterly drive them out is a forceful one, using a compound verb construction that is literally “driving out, they did not drive them out.” There is heavy emphasis on the fact that the people of Israel failed to do what Yahweh had requested of them. This is the theological justification for the fact that other peoples dominated Israel during the Judges period. Translators need to find a very strong expression, such as “they never did completely drive them out” or “they never did completely remove the Canaanites from the land.” For drive … out, see verse 1.19.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

These are the nations: This clause is not part of the original Hebrew text, but some versions repeat it from verse 3.1 in order to provide an appropriate link. Most translations will need a transition clause here, such as “Here are the peoples the LORD left” or “Those left in the land were” (Good News Translation).

The five lords of the Philistines: This phrase refers to the leaders of the five major Philistine towns, which were Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath (see verse 1.18 for three of them). Lords renders the word seren borrowed from the Philistines. Some say “tyrants,” but a better rendering is “rulers” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version) or “chiefs” (New Jerusalem Bible). Translators should use a word here that is distinct from the key terms “king” and “judge” in this book. The Philistines were located on the Mediterranean coast in what is known today as Palestine. Good News Translation has simply “the five Philistine cities,” but this is incomplete. Contemporary English Version is better with “the Philistines and their five rulers.” The rest of the groups are presented without mentioning their lords or leaders. They are linked together in each case by the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered throughout as and.

And all the Canaanites: In chapter 1 the text says that at least some of the Canaanites were driven out (verse 1.5, 17). In other books of the Old Testament, Canaanite territory is described more narrowly, referring to peoples living on the coast and in the Jordan Valley (Num 13.29), but in this book the Canaanites seems to be a cover term for many different groups (see comments on verse 1.1). The phrase all the Canaanites is probably a reference to all these groups. The word all may modify not just the Canaanites, but the following groups as well.

And the Sidonians refers to people who lived in the coastal town of Sidon and the surrounding area. This was a Phoenician town on the coast in what today is Lebanon.

And the Hivites who dwelt on Mount Lebanon: There is little certainty concerning the identity of the Hivites. Appearing first in Gen 10.17, they are presented as the descendants of Ham, through Canaan. Thus they seem to be part of the wider Canaanite group. Hivites is the name of a people, as the English “-ite” suffix shows, and not the name of a country or region. There is a textual problem here, however, since Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia suggests changing Hivites to “Hittites,” a non-Semitic group originally from much further north, and this reading is followed by some versions (New Jerusalem Bible, Bible de Jérusalem). Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives Hivites an {A} rating, so it should be followed here. Mount Lebanon may not to refer to one mountain peak, but rather to the chain of mountains running parallel to the coast in the region that is modern-day Lebanon. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version have “the Lebanon Mountains,” which is a good model to follow. Many languages will prefer to say “the mountain region of [or, in] Lebanon.” Dwelt on Mount Lebanon means the Hivites inhabited these mountains.

From Mount Baal-hermon as far as the entrance of Hamath describes in more detail the area in which the Hivites lived. This phrase indicates the boundaries of the Hivite territory. Translators may need to begin a new sentence to introduce these details, for example, “Their territory ran from [or, started at] Mount Baal-hermon….” Mount Baal-hermon (literally “mountain of the lord of Hermon”) was one of the high mountains in what is known as the Anti-Lebanon range. The entrance of Hamath renders the Hebrew words leboʾ hamath, which New Revised Standard Version and Revised English Bible transliterate as “Lebo-hamath.” According to Num 34.7-9, this place marks the northern boundary of the Promised Land. Some scholars take leboʾ to be the infinitive meaning “to enter,” so they propose the entrance of Hamath, that is, the entrance to the city of Hamath. Others speak of “Hamath Pass” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), that is, the mountain pass to the south of Hamath. Translators can choose between these different options, but normally translations are preferred over transliterations.

Translation suggestions for this verse are:

• The peoples remaining in the land included the Philistines with their five chiefs and all the Canaanites, including the Sidonians, along with the Hivites who lived in the mountains of Lebanon between Baal-hermon and Lebo-hamath.

• Those remaining in the land were the Philistines, governed by five lords, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who occupied the Lebanon Mountains in the territory beginning at the mountain of Baal-hermon and ending at Hamath’s Pass.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And I will draw out Sisera: Deborah continues to give the message of the LORD. She is quoting words from the LORD. The pronoun I refers to Yahweh and not Deborah. Some languages will prefer indirect speech, saying “He says that he will draw out Sisera.” Draw out renders the same Hebrew verb translated “gather” in verse 4.6. Here it has a slightly different meaning: the LORD will draw out or “lure” the enemy troops into a place where they will be vulnerable. Contemporary English Version has “The LORD will trick Sisera into coming out,” but this rendering may have negative connotations in relation to the LORD. Translators can say “I will lead Sisera out” or “I will entice Sisera.” Good News Translation has “I will bring Sisera.”

The general of Jabin’s army refers to Sisera. The Hebrew word for general is the same one translated “commander” in verse 4.2. Translators should choose one word and use it consistently.

To meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops: The word meet does not occur in the Hebrew but is implicit in the text. This is not a casual meeting. The LORD purposely draws the enemy troops to a place where they can be defeated. By the river Kishon is the place where the battle will occur. The river Kishon runs through the Jezreel Valley toward the sea, entering the Mediterranean near Mount Carmel. Several versions speak of “the Wadi Kishon” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; similarly Revised English Bible) or “the Torrent of Kishon” (New Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible [Traduction œcuménique de la Bible]), which are other possible renderings for the Hebrew here. A “wadi” (nachal in Hebrew) is not a standing river, but a dry valley-like area that fills up when there are flash floods. These areas can be very dangerous, and till today people caught in these circumstances may die from drowning or being beaten by the water against the rocky sides. The text does not make this explicit, but it is possible that the very nature of this place may have played a role in the defeat of Sisera’s troops. Perhaps the iron-rimmed chariots could not maneuver well in such a muddy and wet place. In some areas of the world, such as on coral atolls or in some desert areas, rivers may not be known, in which case the translator might say “place where there is a lot of water.”

With his chariots and his troops refers to Sisera’s chariots and fighting men. For chariots see verse 1.19. Chariots may refer here to the soldiers driving the chariots, not just the vehicles themselves.

And I will give him into your hand is the second part of the divine promise, the first being that the LORD will bring Sisera out to do battle with Barak. Once again, the pronoun I refers to the LORD, who promises to give Barak victory over the Israelites’ enemies. The key term hand is used once more. For the idiomatic expression here, see the comments on verse 1.2 and verse 1.4.

A translation example for this verse is:

• I will bring [or, draw] Sisera, commander of Jabin’s army, out to the Kishon River to fight with you, along with his chariots and foot soldiers. But I will give you victory over him.’ ”

If indirect speech is needed, the following model may be helpful:

• He said that he would lure the head general of King Jabin’s army, Sisera, into battle against you at the wadi of Kishon. He will come against you with chariots and troops, but the LORD will not allow him to defeat you. You will have the victory.”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The list of Israelite tribes continues in this verse, but with the last two lines there is an important shift, since the singers begin to criticize the tribes who refused to respond to the call to help their brothers. The last two lines also begin an important inclusio that sets apart verses 15d-16, so a blank line should be inserted after 15c.

The princes of Issachar came with Deborah: Instead of the princes of Issachar, the Masoretic Text has “my princes in Issachar,” which is a poetic way of describing the leaders of that tribe. Though Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives this reading an {A} rating, many versions prefer to render this phrase as in Revised Standard Version. For the Hebrew word rendered princes, see the comments on verse 4.2, where it is translated “commander.” As elsewhere, the word rendered princes does not refer to sons of the king, but rather to leaders, chiefs, or rulers. Since this is a military context, some translations say “generals” or “commanders.” Issachar was the fifth son born to Leah and Jacob’s ninth son (Gen 30.17-18). The region allotted to Issachar’s descendants was north of Manasseh and southeast of Zebulun, just west of the Jordan River and south of Mount Tabor. Once again, the tribal name can refer to the territory or to the people. In Hebrew there is no verb in this line, so Revised Standard Version supplies the verb came. Other possibilities are “joined,” “arrived,” and “came down.” For Deborah see verse 4.4. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “And Issachar’s chiefs were with Deborah.”

And Issachar faithful to Barak is literally in Hebrew “and Issachar thus Barak,” but some versions have “Naphtali, with Barak” (New Jerusalem Bible). Though Barak is from the region of Naphtali, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives Issachar an {A} rating, so it should be retained here. And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which here introduces other Israelites who joined in the battle against Sisera. Some may see Issachar’s army divided into two parts with its commanders going with Deborah, and the rest going with Barak. However, in such poetic structures, it is often the case the two lines complement each other. The presence of the Hebrew word for “thus” (ken) also suggests that as the people of Issachar came to assist Deborah, they also came to assist Barak. In other words, they came to assist the team, Deborah and Barak. New International Version provides a good model, stating “The princes of Issachar were with Deborah; yes, Issachar was with Barak.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh connects this line closely with the next one, saying “As Barak, so was Issachar—Rushing after him into the valley.” But this is not the majority view.

Into the valley they rushed forth at his heels: The valley refers to the Jezreel Valley as in the previous verse (see verse 4.7). They rushed forth is literally “he was sent.” The Hebrew verb for “send” (shalach), which can also mean “scatter” or “spread,” plays an important role in the narrative accounts of the deliverers, beginning with Ehud (verse 3.15) and throughout the rest of the book. Since the verb is singular here, it could refer to Barak or to Issachar. However, because this verb is followed by at his heels, the whole line probably means that the soldiers of Issachar were sent or dispatched to fight under Barak’s command. As in verse 4.10, at his heels (literally “at his feet”) means “under his command,” and the reference to “feet” may be ironic. The pronoun his probably refers to Barak, since he is the last person mentioned in the text. It seems logical to assume that Issachar’s warriors went as directed by Barak and spread throughout the valley. Good News Translation reflects this by saying “and they followed him into the valley” (similarly Contemporary English Version), but this rendering does not seem strong enough for the context. New International Version expresses the tone better with “rushing after him into the valley.”

Some translation models for the first three lines of this verse are:

• The leaders of Issachar joined Deborah,
Yes, the people of Issachar joined Barak,
rushing into the valley after him.

• Leaders from the tribe of Issachar rallied around Deborah,
and their people followed after Barak,
following him into battle in the valley.

Here is the end of the account of those tribes who came quickly to the aid of their brothers. The next line begins a new stanza concerning those who refused to come in aid. A blank line will show this separation.

Among the clans of Reuben there were great searchings of heart: These two lines begin an important inclusio that introduces the Israelite tribes who did not respond to the battle cry to join their brothers to fight Sisera (verses 15de, 16cd). Though there is no conjunction in Hebrew here, translators may wish to begin with a contrastive conjunction, such as “But” (Good News Translation) or “however” (Revised English Bible).

Among the clans of Reuben poses some problems for translators. The Hebrew word for clans comes from a root meaning “division.” But Reuben was already one “division” or “tribe” in Israel, so there is probably a sarcastic note here, implying that the tribe of Reuben was itself divided! Of course, this division among themselves meant that they could not take a unified decision and come to the aid of their brothers. This idea is well expressed by Revised English Bible, if not very poetically: “Reuben however was split into factions.” Good News Translation expresses the same idea with “But the tribe of Reuben was divided.” Reuben was the firstborn son of Jacob and Leah (Gen 29.32). His descendants settled on the eastern side of the Jordan Valley in Ammonite territory, around the modern-day capital of Jordan.

There were great searchings of heart is literally “great resolves of heart.” In Hebrew there is no verb, so Revised Standard Version supplies the phrase there were. Great searchings certainly refers to reflections or resolutions taken by the tribe of Reuben. The Hebrew word rendered searchings normally refers to laws or statutes, but here it seems to have a special meaning, referring to “resolutions” or “decisions.” The word great is certainly ironic, since their “great” reflections yielded nothing. The heart in Hebrew is the seat of the will (see verse 5.9) and could be rendered “mind” here. The meaning is “they thought/discussed a lot but could not make up their minds.” Good News Translation says “they could not decide to come,” which is possible. However, Contemporary English Version‘s rendering “But the tribe of Reuben was no help at all” does not communicate the meaning of the text and should not be used as a model. This line expresses irony, which might be conveyed in some African languages as “they thought and thought until…,” implying there was no outcome. Plagued by indecision, the people of Reuben never came to the aid of their fellow Israelites.

The last two lines of this verse form an inclusio with the last two lines of 5.16. Translators should take care to use exactly the same wording here and there, thus keeping the link between the two verses. Possible models for these two lines are:

• “The Reubenites were divided,
and just couldn’t make up their minds.

• “The descendants of Reuben were divided;
they thought and thought [until … ].

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And he said to him: Translators will have to decide if the referents for the pronouns he and him are clear. If not, the referents can be made explicit, for example, “Then Gideon answered the LORD” or “Then Gideon replied, saying.”

If now I have found favor with thee (literally “If, please, I find favor in your eyes”) is a standard expression of politeness found throughout the Old Testament, for example, when Abraham addressed the divine messengers (Gen 18.3), when Jacob addressed his son Joseph (Gen 47.29), and when Moses addressed God (Exo 34.9). “To find favor” means that the person has been accepted by the other, as when the LORD accepted Noah (Gen 6.8). However, this frozen expression need not be rendered literally here. Good News Translation‘s “If you are pleased with me” does not sound very natural. A better equivalent in English is “Please, can I make a request of you?” or “Please, can you grant me one favor.” Contemporary English Version‘s “It’s hard to believe that I’m actually talking to the LORD” goes far beyond the meaning of the text and should not be used here as a model.

Then show me a sign that it is thou who speakest with me: Gideon wants some proof that he is really speaking with God. The Hebrew word for sign does not necessarily imply something miraculous or unusual. It can be any symbol or action that will prove to Gideon that it is indeed Yahweh who is speaking. If a word for sign does not exist in the target language, we might say “do something so I’ll know” (Contemporary English Version), “give me some proof” (Good News Translation), or “prove to me.” That it is thou who speakest with me is literally “that [it is] you speaking with me.” The pronoun thou is an old English form for second person singular that was used to address God. The normal pronoun to address God should be used in the target language. Speakest is another old English form, but modern language should be used here as well. This verb renders a participle in Hebrew, which emphasizes present activity. For this whole clause we can say “then show me that it is really you who is speaking.” Good News Translation puts more emphasis on the identity of the speaker by saying “give me some proof that you are really the LORD.” Contemporary English Version is similar with “Please do something so I’ll know that you really are the LORD.”

Some possible translation models for this verse are:

• Gideon said to him, “If you have really chosen me, then do something to prove that you really are the LORD.

• Then Gideon replied, “Please, grant me one thing. Give me a sign that it is really you, LORD, who is speaking to me.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And his comrade answered introduces what the second soldier says in response. He makes an immediate connection between the dream and Gideon. This clause is literally “And his friend answered and he said.” This long quotation frame helps to draw out the story and heighten the suspense before the dream’s interpretation is given. For his comrade, see verse 7.13.

This is no other than the sword of Gideon …: This sentence renders an idiomatic expression in Hebrew that forcefully rules out all possible interpretations of the dream except for one. The demonstrative pronoun This refers back to the dream of the rolling loaf of bread that smashes into the Midianite tent. In many languages this pronoun may be rendered “Your dream” or “That dream.” Its relationship to the rest of the sentence is somewhat awkward, so it may be better to begin with a forceful statement, such as “There is only one thing that dream could mean” or “Your dream can only mean one thing.” The storyteller does not explain how this soldier knew the meaning of the dream. The sword of Gideon is a figurative way of referring to an attack by Gideon. Translators might say “Your dream can only mean one thing: Gideon … is going to attack [us].”

The son of Joash, a man of Israel: The phrase the son of Joash links this episode back to the beginning of the Gideon cycle (see verse 6.11). Gideon is described here as a man of Israel. In many languages it will be better to say “the Israelite” (Good News Translation, New International Version, Revised English Bible) or “that man from Israel.” Contemporary English Version has “the Israelite commander.”

Good News Translation reverses the order of the words in this clause: “It’s the sword of the Israelite, Gideon, son of Joash. It can’t mean anything else!” This is one possible model.

Into his hand God has given Midian and all the host: This is the conclusion the soldier draws from the dream. He understands that God will grant victory to Gideon and that he and his fellow Midianites will be defeated. This clause is literally “God has given into his hand Midian and all the camp.” For into his hand … has given, see verse 1.2. The pronoun his refers to Gideon. Once again the keyword hand is used to express the victory of the Israelites by their “hero.” It is natural that a non-Israelite refers to Yahweh with the generic Hebrew word for God (ʾelohim) rather than with the personal name, Yahweh. As an Israelite, Gideon uses the personal name in the next verse. Midian and all the host could refer to the invading Midianite army or to the Midianites and all their allies who were camped with them (see verse 7.12). Contemporary English Version expresses this sense with “the Midianite army and everyone else in our camp.” If translators follow the first meaning, a possible rendering is “our whole Midianite army.”

A translation model for this verse is:

• Then his comrade said, “This can only mean one thing: Gideon, the son of Joash, the Israelite, is going to attack us! God has already given him victory over the whole Midian army.”

Contemporary English Version also provides the following model:

• The other soldier answered, “Your dream must have been about Gideon, the Israelite commander. It means God will let him and his army defeat the Midianite army and everyone else in our camp.”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And they answered is literally “And they said,” but the Revised Standard Version rendering is more natural in English and perhaps in other languages as well.

We will willingly give them is literally “Giving we will give.” In Hebrew the verb for “give” is repeated to underline how willing the Israelites are to give their golden spoil. Revised Standard Version adds the adverb willingly to express this emphasis. New International Version says “We’ll be glad to give them,” and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has simply “Certainly!” The people seem to know Gideon is planning to make an idol. This incident has a strong link back to the time when Aaron asked the people to donate their gold earrings to make the golden calf (Exo 32.1-4).

And they spread a garment: The pronoun they could refer specifically to the Israelite warriors, or it may be an impersonal “they,” in which case a passive expression would be possible, for example, “Then a garment was spread out.” The Septuagint has a singular verb here, so New Jerusalem Bible sees Gideon as the main actor: “So he [Gideon] spread out his cloak.” In some languages the verb spread may require a locative phrase, such as “on the ground” (Contemporary English Version). A garment (literally “the garment”) renders a Hebrew noun that probably refers to a wide piece of material that served as an outer garment or robe.

And every man cast in it the earrings of his spoil is literally “and they threw there [each] man an earring of his spoil.” The pronoun “they” refers to the soldiers who had been to war with Gideon. Cast may be rendered “threw” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible) or “tossed” (Contemporary English Version). In it (literally “there”) may be translated “on it [the garment].” For the earrings of his spoil, see verse 8.24.

Translation models for this verse are:

• They said, “We will gladly give them to you.” Then they took a cloth and spread it on the ground, and each man threw down there the earrings he had gathered as spoil.

• The men replied, “Of course!” And spreading a cloth on the ground, they tossed the earrings they had taken from their enemies down on it.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And Gaal the son of Ebed said …: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And could be better translated “Then” or “Just then” in this context. Gaal seems to be addressing the people in Shechem who are busy feasting. He begins by using rhetorical questions to introduce an element of doubt into people’s minds and thus challenge Abimelech’s authority. Here he takes advantage of the discontent that the Shechemites felt toward Abimelech to try to replace him. Once again he is referred to by the full noun phrase Gaal the son of Ebed. In many languages this phrase can be kept. However, in other languages it will be better to say simply “Gaal” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version).

Who is Abimelech…?: This first rhetorical question belittles Abimelech. Through this question Gaal is claiming that Abimelech is worthless or a “nobody,” so he does not have the right to lead the people of Shechem. Translators should look for idiomatic ways to ask this question or change it into a declaration. We might say “Who is Abimelech, anyway?” or “This Abimelech is a nobody!”

And who are we of Shechem, that we should serve him?: With this rhetorical question Gaal continues trying to undermine Abimelech’s authority. Who are we of Shechem is literally “who is Shechem.” No one knows for sure if Gaal was originally from Shechem or whether he was a newcomer, but clearly he is including himself with these inhabitants. Good News Translation says “What kind of men are we in Shechem?” The mention of Shechem here may also underline the fact that Abimelech, though living in Shechem, was not really a native of that town, since his father Gideon came from another place.

That we should serve him reinforces Gaal’s sarcastic remarks. Here he clearly includes himself with the people of Shechem. One way to form this question might be “Why should we men of Shechem serve this Abimelech person?” Gaal is clearly trying to influence the people to give up their allegiance to Abimelech. Serve renders the Hebrew verb ʿabad, so there is an important wordplay here: Gaal, the son of Ebed (ʿebed meaning “slave”) is asking why they should serve (ʿabad) Abimelech. Serve here has a stronger meaning than in other contexts (see comments on verse 2.7). Here a relationship is in view, whereby one person is superior to and leads the other. Even today, around the world in many cultures, people still define themselves as to who are the “masters” and those who are the “slaves.” The idea here is “why should Abimelech be our master and why should we be his slaves?” We might say “We are men of Shechem. Why should we serve him [or, let him be our leader]?” If a statement is preferred, we might say, “No man from Shechem should serve him!” or “We people of Shechem have no reason to be his slave!”

Did not the son of Jerubbaal and Zebul his officer serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem?: According to Revised Standard Version‘s understanding, by use of a rhetorical question, Gaal argues that in the past, the family of Abimelech was subject to the founders of Shechem, rather than the other way around. Therefore Abimelech has no right to be their leader. In many cultures positions of superiority and inferiority are passed on from generation to generation. But there is a textual difficulty here, since the Hebrew verb rendered Did … serve is an imperative rather than an indicative. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives the imperative reading a {B} rating and both Good News Translation and New International Version follow this reading. For example, New International Version takes the question to mean “Isn’t he Jerub-Baal’s son, and isn’t Zebul his deputy?” and then goes on to render the imperative as “Serve the men of Hamor, Shechem’s father!” This reading makes good sense in this context. The son of Jerubbaal refers to Abimelech, the son of Gideon. Zebul his officer introduces a new character in this story. The name Zebul means the “high/exalted one.” While the Hebrew word for officer can refer to any appointed person, even a guard, Zebul is described in verse 9.30 as “the ruler of the city,” so he was obviously an appointee of Abimelech who held a very high position. In many languages it will be more natural to reverse the words to speak of “his officer, Zebul” or “the man Abimelech appointed, named Zebul.” The men of Hamor is a way of speaking about the inhabitants of Shechem. The town of Shechem was founded by Hamor, who also had a son named Shechem (Gen 33.19). The father of Shechem describes Hamor. This phrase may be rendered “the founder of [the town of] Shechem” (Contemporary English Version).

Why then should we serve him? is the natural rhetorical question to follow the previous one. In Hebrew the pronoun for we is emphatic. Here Gaal considers himself to be a true member of Shechem, but Abimelech (him) is a “half-breed,” since only his mother comes from the town. This question may be rendered “Should we be expected to serve him?” or “There is no reason for us to serve him!”

This verse contains several rhetorical questions, which may also be formulated as statements or presented in an order different from the Hebrew text. Contemporary English Version uses only statements here:

• Gaal said: Hamor was the founder of Shechem, and one of his descendants should be our ruler. But Abimelech’s father was Gideon, so Abimelech isn’t really one of us. He shouldn’t be our king, and we shouldn’t have to obey him or Zebul, who rules Shechem for him.

Though this rendering is far from the original, it can serve as a possible model. If the text with an imperative is followed, we might say:

• Gaal said, “Who is this Abimelech, anyway, and his officer Zebul? We should serve the descendants of Hamor, who founded this town. Why should we serve Abimelech?

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .