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 .