The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.
The verse opens Jotham's parable of the trees seeking a king, spoken from Mount Gerizim to reprove the men of Shechem for their folly and injustice in choosing Abimelech as ruler after the sons of Gideon were slain. The trees going forth to anoint a king represent Israel seeking a king from among themselves, with the olive, the fig, and the vine refusing to leave their useful service picturing the unselfish and unambitious conduct of Gideon and his sons, while the worthless bramble eagerly seizing the honor is the cruel Abimelech set up by violence and bloodshed. Its closing turns the story into a prophecy of mutual destruction between Abimelech and Shechem, fulfilled when Shechem was destroyed. It teaches that those doing the most valuable work do not seek authority over others, and that ambition to be exalted shows a person is unfit to rule. The speaking trees are figurative and not to be taken as fact, so no consciousness or human speech in trees is to be concluded from them, just as making the dead speak and act as though alive in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus does not mean they are alive or conscious in death.
Parable Form and Setting
The verse opens Jotham's parable, apologue, or fable of the trees going forth to seek a king, spoken from Mount Gerizim to the people of Shechem while they were feasting in honor of Abimelech, to reprove their folly and injustice in choosing him as ruler after his brothers, the sons of Jerubbaal or Gideon, were slain. In the story the trees speak in turn to the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine, and the bramble, with each answering, using a vivid fictitious account of choosing a king to represent the work of kings. Its moral must be made clear, because parables can attract attention yet mislead when left unexplained. Unlike trees, people can choose and are accountable for their thoughts, desires, and deeds.
The form gives fictitious human powers and actions to lifeless, inanimate trees, presenting them as living beings that go forth, meet in council, hold an election, reason, speak to one another, choose a king, and ask the olive to reign over them. It is personification in which inanimate things are given human actions and speech, as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The imagined and impossible actions and speech are a legitimate figurative means of conveying truth in a striking way and impressing a moral lesson, and do not mislead hearers into treating the story as fact, for they recognize its figurative purpose. This figurative speech does not make the speaker false, for it is a legitimate feature of the form and serves its purpose without asserting that the events literally happened.
Like blood, stones, beams, or wages said to speak or cry, the trees' talking among themselves and choosing a king is an account of imagined speech by inanimate things that conveys truth through an invented story. Their conversation is not a literal account of trees talking, and no consciousness or literal speech in trees is to be concluded from it because it is a parable. The trees never had consciousness and never will have, yet are represented as talking to show how unjust and oppressive dealings of men are regarded.
The verse belongs to the larger record in Judges 3 through 17 of Israel's backsliding from God and the resulting suffering, oppression, and captivity followed by returns to God, forgiveness, and deliverance. It stands specifically in the fearfully checkered history of Israel in the time of the judges and in the account of how the family of Gideon degenerated by trusting in things which are seen instead of in power that is unseen. There Abimelech, the son of Gideon's maid, caused Gideon's sons to be slain in order to make himself ruler over Israel, in the course of which Shechem was utterly destroyed before it was later rebuilt as Jeroboam's capital.
The verse stands as satirical invective and oration among the great speeches of the Old Testament, showing the intrinsic literary value and eloquence of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Meaning and Moral Warning
The going forth of the trees to anoint a king over them is Israel seeking a king from among themselves. The trees speak in turn to the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine, and the bramble, with each answering, using a fictitious story about choosing a king to represent the work of kings. The call for the olive to reign is met by its refusal to leave its oil, joined by the fig refusing to leave its fruit and the vine refusing to leave its wine. This pictures the unselfish and unambitious conduct of Gideon and his sons, who sought no kingly honor.
The olive represents noble, upright leaders such as Moses and Joshua, who show what a leader of Israel should be. Like the olive refusing to leave its useful work to be promoted, they claimed no kingly honors, did not aspire to rank or power, but lived to bless their fellow men in self-sacrificing, devoted service. In striking contrast the worthless bramble eagerly seized the honor, which is the vile and cruel Abimelech. He was an upstart king set up by treachery, violence and bloodshed when Israel had fallen low, the son of Gideon's maid who caused Gideon's sons to be slain in order to make himself ruler, and the choice of such a murderer of his brothers as ruler exposes the folly of the men of Shechem.
Jotham's closing words turn the parable into a prophecy of mutual destruction between Abimelech and Shechem. That was fulfilled when Shechem was utterly destroyed, before it was later rebuilt as Jeroboam's capital. The parable teaches that those doing the most valuable work in the Lord's cause do not seek authority over their fellow believers, and that ambition to be exalted over others shows a person is unfit to rule. The vivid story was meant to reprove the men of Shechem for choosing Abimelech, but its moral must be made clear, because parables can attract attention yet mislead when left unexplained.
Doctrinal Use and Application
Jotham's parable beginning here reproves the people who slew his brethren the sons of Jerubbaal, with the trees going to anoint a king and speaking in turn to the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine, and the bramble, with each answering. The trees never had consciousness and never will have, yet are represented as talking to show how God regards unjust and oppressive dealings of men, so no conscious intelligence or human speech in trees is to be concluded from it because it is a parable. It is an imaginary scene of a council held and speeches made that teaches a lesson rather than describing events that literally happened, and figurative scenes in parables should not be mistaken for actual narrative.
A parable or apologue can legitimately give fictitious characters powers and actions they could not naturally possess, so that saying the trees spoke to one another, though trees cannot literally speak, is not false but serves its purpose without asserting that the events literally happened. Here lifeless, inanimate trees are personified as living beings who go forth, hold an election, reason and speak with the sentiments and language of rational beings, as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The same holds for the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where beings once alive and conscious who will live again at the resurrection are represented as talking in hades-sheol where there is no knowledge nor remembrance. Making the dead thus speak and act as though alive does not mean they are alive or conscious, any more than do the blood of Abel crying, the depth and sea and destruction and death speaking, the stone hearing, the thistle proposing, the trees singing, and the stone and beam answering.
People, unlike trees in the fable choosing a king, can choose and are accountable for their thoughts, desires, and deeds. The olive together with the vine stands as an example of bearing good fruit, set against the brier and the thistle as examples of being unprofitable. Contention between churches should therefore be like the contention of the vine with the olive, which of them shall bear the best fruit, and not like the contention of the brier with the thistle, which of them shall be most unprofitable.
The verse opens Jotham's parable of the trees seeking a king, spoken from Mount Gerizim to reprove the men of Shechem for their folly and injustice in choosing Abimelech as ruler after the sons of Gideon were slain. The trees going forth to anoint a king represent Israel seeking a king from among themselves, with the olive, the fig, and the vine refusing to leave their useful service picturing the unselfish and unambitious conduct of Gideon and his sons, while the worthless bramble eagerly seizing the honor is the cruel Abimelech set up by violence and bloodshed. Its closing turns the story into a prophecy of mutual destruction between Abimelech and Shechem, fulfilled when Shechem was destroyed. It teaches that those doing the most valuable work do not seek authority over others, and that ambition to be exalted shows a person is unfit to rule. The speaking trees are figurative and not to be taken as fact, so no consciousness or human speech in trees is to be concluded from them, just as making the dead speak and act as though alive in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus does not mean they are alive or conscious in death.
Parable Form and Setting
The verse opens Jotham's parable, apologue, or fable of the trees going forth to seek a king, spoken from Mount Gerizim to the people of Shechem while they were feasting in honor of Abimelech, to reprove their folly and injustice in choosing him as ruler after his brothers, the sons of Jerubbaal or Gideon, were slain. In the story the trees speak in turn to the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine, and the bramble, with each answering, using a vivid fictitious account of choosing a king to represent the work of kings. Its moral must be made clear, because parables can attract attention yet mislead when left unexplained. Unlike trees, people can choose and are accountable for their thoughts, desires, and deeds.
The form gives fictitious human powers and actions to lifeless, inanimate trees, presenting them as living beings that go forth, meet in council, hold an election, reason, speak to one another, choose a king, and ask the olive to reign over them. It is personification in which inanimate things are given human actions and speech, as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The imagined and impossible actions and speech are a legitimate figurative means of conveying truth in a striking way and impressing a moral lesson, and do not mislead hearers into treating the story as fact, for they recognize its figurative purpose. This figurative speech does not make the speaker false, for it is a legitimate feature of the form and serves its purpose without asserting that the events literally happened.
Like blood, stones, beams, or wages said to speak or cry, the trees' talking among themselves and choosing a king is an account of imagined speech by inanimate things that conveys truth through an invented story. Their conversation is not a literal account of trees talking, and no consciousness or literal speech in trees is to be concluded from it because it is a parable. The trees never had consciousness and never will have, yet are represented as talking to show how unjust and oppressive dealings of men are regarded.
The verse belongs to the larger record in Judges 3 through 17 of Israel's backsliding from God and the resulting suffering, oppression, and captivity followed by returns to God, forgiveness, and deliverance. It stands specifically in the fearfully checkered history of Israel in the time of the judges and in the account of how the family of Gideon degenerated by trusting in things which are seen instead of in power that is unseen. There Abimelech, the son of Gideon's maid, caused Gideon's sons to be slain in order to make himself ruler over Israel, in the course of which Shechem was utterly destroyed before it was later rebuilt as Jeroboam's capital.
The verse stands as satirical invective and oration among the great speeches of the Old Testament, showing the intrinsic literary value and eloquence of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Meaning and Moral Warning
The going forth of the trees to anoint a king over them is Israel seeking a king from among themselves. The trees speak in turn to the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine, and the bramble, with each answering, using a fictitious story about choosing a king to represent the work of kings. The call for the olive to reign is met by its refusal to leave its oil, joined by the fig refusing to leave its fruit and the vine refusing to leave its wine. This pictures the unselfish and unambitious conduct of Gideon and his sons, who sought no kingly honor.
The olive represents noble, upright leaders such as Moses and Joshua, who show what a leader of Israel should be. Like the olive refusing to leave its useful work to be promoted, they claimed no kingly honors, did not aspire to rank or power, but lived to bless their fellow men in self-sacrificing, devoted service. In striking contrast the worthless bramble eagerly seized the honor, which is the vile and cruel Abimelech. He was an upstart king set up by treachery, violence and bloodshed when Israel had fallen low, the son of Gideon's maid who caused Gideon's sons to be slain in order to make himself ruler, and the choice of such a murderer of his brothers as ruler exposes the folly of the men of Shechem.
Jotham's closing words turn the parable into a prophecy of mutual destruction between Abimelech and Shechem. That was fulfilled when Shechem was utterly destroyed, before it was later rebuilt as Jeroboam's capital. The parable teaches that those doing the most valuable work in the Lord's cause do not seek authority over their fellow believers, and that ambition to be exalted over others shows a person is unfit to rule. The vivid story was meant to reprove the men of Shechem for choosing Abimelech, but its moral must be made clear, because parables can attract attention yet mislead when left unexplained.
Doctrinal Use and Application
Jotham's parable beginning here reproves the people who slew his brethren the sons of Jerubbaal, with the trees going to anoint a king and speaking in turn to the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine, and the bramble, with each answering. The trees never had consciousness and never will have, yet are represented as talking to show how God regards unjust and oppressive dealings of men, so no conscious intelligence or human speech in trees is to be concluded from it because it is a parable. It is an imaginary scene of a council held and speeches made that teaches a lesson rather than describing events that literally happened, and figurative scenes in parables should not be mistaken for actual narrative.
A parable or apologue can legitimately give fictitious characters powers and actions they could not naturally possess, so that saying the trees spoke to one another, though trees cannot literally speak, is not false but serves its purpose without asserting that the events literally happened. Here lifeless, inanimate trees are personified as living beings who go forth, hold an election, reason and speak with the sentiments and language of rational beings, as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The same holds for the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where beings once alive and conscious who will live again at the resurrection are represented as talking in hades-sheol where there is no knowledge nor remembrance. Making the dead thus speak and act as though alive does not mean they are alive or conscious, any more than do the blood of Abel crying, the depth and sea and destruction and death speaking, the stone hearing, the thistle proposing, the trees singing, and the stone and beam answering.
People, unlike trees in the fable choosing a king, can choose and are accountable for their thoughts, desires, and deeds. The olive together with the vine stands as an example of bearing good fruit, set against the brier and the thistle as examples of being unprofitable. Contention between churches should therefore be like the contention of the vine with the olive, which of them shall bear the best fruit, and not like the contention of the brier with the thistle, which of them shall be most unprofitable.