Judges 8: Gideon subdues the Midianites.

In this chapter, Gideon continued to dismantle Midian’s oppression over Israel, facing opposition from some of his fellow Israelites in the process. First, the men of Ephraim complained that he did not call them to war. Gideon replied by praising them for their vineyards, and for capturing the two Midianite princes. So, Ephraim’s indignation subsided.

Then Gideon went to the city of Succoth, and asked for bread to feed his army. But the men of Succoth refused, instead taunting him because he had not yet captured the kings of Midian. Gideon told them them he would punish them with thorns and briars, after he had killed the two kings. The people of Penuel were equally dismissive when Gideon asked them for help, and he swore to tear down their tower.

In due course, Gideon captured the two Midianite kings, Zebah and Zalmunna. Gideon told his oldest son to kill them, but he was young, and too afraid to do it. So Gideon killed the two kings, and punished the people of Succoth and Penuel.

When he returned from battle, the people of Israel asked Gideon to rule over them. However, he refused, saying that the Lord would rule Israel. He then collected gold from people’s earrings, used it to make an ephod (a priest’s garment), and set it up in his own city, Ophrah. The people began to worship it, and it became a snare for Gideon.

And Israel had peace for forty years under Gideon. Gideon had seventy sons, and died at an old age. As soon as he passed away, the Israelites forgot all the goodness that the Lord had shown them, and turned to worship other gods.

*****

The message of Gideon’s exchange with the Ephraimites is that sincerity and openness are the most powerful response to confrontation. Gideon, led by his trust in the Lord, could see the reason for Ephraim’s outburst, so he dealt with it by praising their strengths. This encounter shows how our faith in the Lord gives us a broader perspective, granting us the ability to respond rather than react (see Swedenborg’s work, Arcana Caelestia 8159[3]).

When Gideon lashes out at the people of Succoth and Penuel, it may appear that he is acting purely from anger, and a wish to retaliate. In reality, he is filled with zeal to drive out the Midianites and free Israel. It is unthinkable to him that his own people would refuse to give his soldiers food. In our own lives, we can at times be astounded by our own resistance to serving the Lord’s purpose. We are constantly torn between two forces: heaven and hell (Arcana Caelestia 3839[3]).

The killing of the two Midianite kings reflects the need for justice in spiritual matters. If we fail to heed the truths we know and believe, we will suffer the consequences of fear and guilt. These are not inflicted by the Lord, but follow on from our own choices (Arcana Caelestia 2447). Gideon’s son’s inability to kill the kings means that behind spiritual justice, there must be an understanding of the essential value of all life (Arcana Caelestia 5826[2]).

Gideon’s ephod is a symbol showing how easily we can deviate from obeying the Lord. The text does not tell us the reason for Gideon’s actions, but perhaps he felt it was better for the people to worship something superficially related to worshiping the Lord, rather than following a foreign god. Seeing a priest’s garment reminds us that a priest serves the Lord. But we can so easily focus on the majesty of the ephod itself, and think no more about the priest’s duty nor about the Lord. We sometimes drift further from the Lord without even realizing it (see Swedenborg’s work, Divine Providence 327).

3425. 'The herdsmen of Gerar disputed with Isaac's herdsmen' means that those who taught did not see anything of the sort there, because things in the internal sense appear contrary to those in the literal. This is clear from the meaning, when the internal sense of the Word is the subject, of 'disputing' as refusing to recognize any such thing - by saying that they do not see it; from the meaning of 'herdsman' as people who teach, dealt with in 343; ¹ and from the meaning of 'Gerar' as faith, dealt with in 1209, 2504, 3365, 3384. Thus 'the herdsmen of the Valley of Gerar' means those who do not acknowledge any sense in the Word other than its literal sense. The reason they do not see anything else - namely any interior sense - is that things appear to be contraries; that is to say, things in the internal sense appear to be contrary to those in the literal sense. Yet though they appear to be contrary they are not in fact so but exist in perfect correspondence with one another. The reason why they appear to be contrary however is that people who see only the literal sense of the Word are themselves dwelling in a state of contrariety. Anyone whose state is this - that is, in whom the external or natural man is totally at variance with the internal or spiritual man - sees the things that belong to the internal or spiritual man as though they stood contrary to himself, when in fact he himself as to his external or natural man is in a state of contrariety. And if he were not in that state, but his external or natural man were subservient to the internal or spiritual man, they would exist in perfect correspondence with one another.

[2] For example, a person in a state of contrariety believes that to obtain eternal life he must renounce riches, and all physical and worldly pleasures, and so the delights of life; for he believes that all these things are contrary to spiritual life. But in themselves they are not contrary to that life but correspond to it; for they are means to an end, that is to say, they exist so that the internal or spiritual man may be enabled to find joy in performing the good deeds of charity, and in addition to live contentedly in a healthy body. It is ends in view which alone cause the internal man and the external man either to be contrary or to correspond to each other. They are contrary when the riches, pleasures, and delights spoken of become ends in view, for in that case spiritual and celestial things that belong to the internal man are despised and ridiculed, or even simply rejected, by a person. But they correspond when they do not become ends but means to higher ends, that is to say, to things that belong to life after death, and so to the heavenly kingdom and to the Lord Himself. In this case bodily and worldly things appear to him to be hardly anything compared with those just mentioned and when he does think about them he considers them to be merely means to ends in view.

[3] From these considerations it is evident that things that appear to be contraries are not in themselves so, but that the reason why they appear to be such is that contrariety exists within the persons themselves. Those in whom it does not exist act in similar ways, utter similar things, seek wealth in similar ways, and pursue similar pleasures to those in whom contrariety does exist, so much so that to outward appearance scarcely any distinction can be made between them. The reason for this is that solely their ends in view distinguish the former from the latter, or what amounts to the same, that which they really love distinguishes one person from another, for what people love they have as their end in view. But although to outward appearance, that is, as to their bodies, people are similar, they are nevertheless completely different inwardly, that is, as to their spirits. The spirit of one in whom correspondence exists, that is, with whom the external man corresponds to the internal man, is shining and beautiful, like heavenly love when presented in visible form. But the spirit of one in whom contrariety exists, that is, with whom the external man is contrary to the internal man - even though he looks like the other in external appearance - is dark and ugly, like self-love and love of the world, that is, like contempt for others and like hatred, when presented in a visible form.

[4] It is similar with very many things in the Word, that is to say, those in the literal sense appear as contraries to those in the internal sense. Yet they are in no way contraries but have a perfect correspondence with one another. For example, in the Word reference is made many times to Jehovah or the Lord being angry, being wroth, destroying, and casting into hell, when in fact He is never angry, let alone casts anyone into hell. The former ideas belong to the sense of the letter, but the latter to the internal sense. The latter appear to be contraries, but this is because man dwells in a state of contrariety. It is like the Lord's appearing as the Sun to angels in heaven, and therefore as spring-like warmth and as light like that of the dawn, but to those in hell like something altogether darkened and therefore as cold like that of winter and as thick darkness like that of night - as a consequence of which angels are governed by love and charity, but those in hell by hatred and enmity. Thus to those in hell He is, as the sense of the letter refers to Him, one who is angry and wrathful, who destroys and casts into hell, but to the angels He is, as the internal sense portrays Him, one who is never angry and wroth, still less one who destroys and casts into hell.

[5] When the subject in the Word therefore is things that are contrary to the Divine such appearances inevitably present themselves. Even so, it is the Divine - which the wicked turn into that which is of the devil - that is then at work. Furthermore to the extent they draw near the Divine those in hell subject themselves to torments. Something similar is true of the words of the Lord's Prayer, Do not lead us into temptation. According to the letter the meaning is that He leads into temptation, but the internal sense is that He does not lead anyone into it, as is well known, see 1875. Similarly with everything else which occurs in the literal sense of the Word.

Bilješke: