.
. . a withdrawal of dew signifies God’s displeasure, as when Elijah predicts
the drought to king Ahab: ‘as the Lord the God of Israel lives, before whom I
stand, there shall be neither dew nor rain these years, except by my word’ (1
Kgs. 17.1), or even the prophet Haggai explains, ‘therefore the heavens above
you have withheld the dew’ (Hag. 1.10). Indeed, it is because of the uncertainty
of dewfall that Jewish and non-Jewish traditional commentators interpreted the
dew allegorically as rain, i.e., as a symbol of God’s providence and grace. For
the second century Church Father Irenaeus dew represented ‘the Spirit of God’ (Against
Heresies 17.3), while according to the nineteenth century rabbinic commentator
Malbim (Meir Loeb Ben Yechiel Michael) it represents ‘divine abundance which comes
down from above’ (comment to v. 37). Thus, when Gideon made his requests he
could not have been absolutely certain that dew would fall and so his requests
for dew and its granting on two successive nights certainly can be considered a
legitimate sign of divine grace.
In
a similar vein, just as the occurrence of dew is not authentic, neither is
evaporation of dew, even on stony ground, an automatic process. Evaporation
clearly did not happen on the same threshing floor in the second test when Gideon
requested that the fleece be dry but the surrounding land be wet. Nor was it likely
that natural evaporation could have happened for the first test. Because on the
morning after Gideon’s request there was an extraordinary accumulation of dew,
so much that Gideon was able to wring out a cup full of water from it: ‘early
the next day, he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew from the fleece, a
bowlful of water’ (v. 38). If such a large amount of dew fell on the fleece,
then a proportionate amount of dew must have fallen on the surrounding land,
making total natural evaporation extremely unlikely, if not impossible. (David
Marcus, “Gideon’s Two-Part Tests As Signs of Assurance (Judges 6.36-40),” in Epigraphy,
Iconography, and the Bible, ed. Meir Lubetski and Edith Lubetski [Hebrew
Bible Monographs 98; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2022], 67-68)
The
special effect of reversible signs is that the signs are effective not only in
their doing but by also in their undoing. The reversal compound the
wondrousness of the original act. In the plague narrative, Moses’s ability to
reverse the effects of some of the plagues is considered as great a feat as the
plague itself. He is able to reverse the effects of the frogs (Exod. 8.8-14),
the insects (Exod. 8.25-28), the thunder and hail (Exod. 9.27-35), and the
locusts (Exod. 10.16-20), and these reversals are considered to be every bit as
wondrous as the actual plagues themselves. At the time of the Exodus, the
waters of the sea of Reeds not only split apart but also fortuitously come back
together (Exod. 14.21-30). The two events are celebrated with the grand triumphal
hymn of the Song at the Sea (Exod. 15.1-9), Joshua is able to replicate the
same double miracle at the River Jordan. Its waters, too split apart and later
come back together (Josh. 3.15-4.18).
In
the story of the man of God and the lying prophet at Bethel, the power of the
man of God is greatly enhanced by his being able both to paralyze King Jeroboam’s
hand and to undo the paralysis at the king’s request (1 Kgs 13.4-6). In the
same way, Gideon’s requests confirm this common motif of reversible signs. Both
requests are necessary components of the reversible signs motif, so that Gideon’s
first request cannot be attributed to thoughtlessness or oversight but, on the
contrary, must be considered purposeful and deliberate.
A
demonstration of reversible signs was often sued in Mesopotamian and biblical
literature by putative leaders to show that they were qualified to assume their
position. In the Babylonian Epic of Creation (Enuma Elish), Marduk was
asked before he was installed as leader of the gods to demonstrate that he
could both destroy and create a constellation.
To
Marduk their firstborn said they (these words),
‘Your destiny, O Lord, shall be foremost of the gods,
Command destruction or creation, they shall take place.
At your word the constellation shall be destroyed,
Command again, the constellation shall be intact.’
He commanded and at his word the constellation was destroyed, He
commanded again and the constellation was created anew. (En. El.
4.20-24)
In
Exodus, Moses is given two such reversible signs. One of these was a rod which
became a serpent, which then became a rod again.
The
Lord said to him, ‘What is that in your hand?’ And he replied, ‘A rod’. He
said, ‘Cast it on the ground’. He cast it on the ground, and it became a snake;
and Moses recoiled from it. Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Put out your hand and
grasp it by the tail’—he put out his hand and seized it, and it became a rod in
his hand—‘that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, did appear to you’. (Exod.
4.2-4)
The
other sign was affected on Moses’s hand, which became leprous before becoming normal.
The
Lord said to him further, ‘Put your hand into your bosom’. He put his hand into
his bosom; and when he took it out, his hand was encrusted with snowy scales!
And He said, ‘Put your hand back into your bosom’.—He put his hand back into
his bosom; and when he took it out of his bosom, there it was again like the
rest of his body. (Exod. 4.6-7)
The
purpose of reversible signs it to establish the legitimacy of these leaders. In
Marduk’s case it is to show that the other gods placed the power of executive
authority in his hands. In Moses’s case it is to authenticate his claims to be
God’s messenger. But Gideon’s case is not the same as those of Marduk and Moses
because Gideon’s had already been given divine assent as leader and savior of
his people. God had previously
guaranteed Gideon that ‘I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian to a
man’ (Judg. 6.16), and the spirit of God had already come upon Gideon (v. 34).
So, unlike the cases of Marduk and Moses, which have to do with legitimacy and
approval for a mission, Gideon requested his signs to test God for assurance of
success in his mission. (Ibid., 69-71)
Gideon’s
reversible signs have more in common with the story of Abraham’s servant, who
also tested God by requesting Him to designate the bride for Isaac, via a sign.
Both stories fit a pattern for a certain type of test of assurance. In this
pattern an individual calls on God for a sign of assurance which will take the
form of a two-part test. Both stories have an assurance which will take the
form of a two-part test. Both stories have a common formal structure consisting
of six separate elements which include an address to the deity (Gen. 24.12a,
42a; Judg. 6.36a, 39a) and a general request for help (Gen. 24.12b, 42b; Judg.
6.36b, 39a. The other four elements are: a description of the setting of the test
[Gen. 24.13, 43; Judg. 6.37a, 39c]; the test itself [Gen. 24.14a, 43b-44a;
Judg. 6.37b, 39d]; a confirmation of help by the deity [Gen. 24.14b; 44b; Judg.
6.37c, 40a]; and a fulfillment of the test [Gen. 24.15-19, 45-46; Judg. 6.38,
40b]).
The
actual requests in both stories are introduced by clauses that have tow things
in common. Firstly, they both contain the conditional particle אִם and a 2nd. person
suffixed form of the particle of existence יֵשׁ (אִם־יֶשְׁךָ־נָּא֙ מַצְלִ֣יחַ
Gen. 24.42; אִם־יֶשְׁךָ֞ מוֹשִׁ֧יעַ Judg. 6.36). Secondly, neither conditional clause
has a following apodosis which would otherwise be expected. Gideon says: ‘If
you will deliver (Israel) by my hand’ but there is no conclusion which we would
normally introduce by the English word ‘then’. Similarly, Abraham’s servant
says: ‘if you will prosper my way’ but here too there is no apodosis, no
fulfillment of the condition, no ‘then’ clause. Given the lack of an apodosis,
translators are pressed to render these clauses in a variety of ways. Typical
are the renderings of the NJPS and the NRSV. The NPJS translated both clauses
as emphatics: ‘if You really intend to deliver’ (Judg. 6.36) and ‘if You would indeed
grant success to the errand on which I am engaged!’ (Gen. 24.42). For its part
the NRSV resorted to a purpose clause in the Judges passage ‘in order to see
whether you will deliver Israel by my hand’, and to a declarative clause in the
Genesis one: ‘if now you will only make successful the way I am going’!
However,
the most important feature both the Genesis and the Judges accounts share is
one not found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, namely the motif of a two-part
test. . . . Both narratives then use a two-part test as signs of assurance from
God. (Ibid., 71-72)
Further Reading:
“Testing God,” Gideon, and Praying about the Book of Mormon
Gideon and the Dry Fleece, God giving "signs" to His people, and Praying about the Book of Mormon
