וַיֹּ֣אמֶר גַּ֣עַל בֶּן־עֶ֗בֶד מִֽי־אֲבִימֶ֤לֶךְ וּמִֽי־שְׁכֶם֙ כִּ֣י נַעַבְדֶ֔נּוּ הֲלֹ֥א בֶן־יְרֻבַּ֖עַל וּזְבֻ֣ל פְּקִידֹ֑ו עִבְד֗וּ אֶת־אַנְשֵׁ֤י חֲמֹור֙ אֲבִ֣י שְׁכֶ֔ם וּמַדּ֖וּעַ נַעַבְדֶ֥נּוּ אֲנָֽחְנוּ׃
(Judges 9:28)
And Gaʿal son of ʿEved said, “Who is Abimelek, and who is Shekhem, that we should serve him? Is he not the son of Yerubbaʿal, and Zevul his officer? Serve the men of Ḥamor, the father of Shekhem! But why should we serve him?”
The Context of Gaal’s Challenge
This verse records a bold political outburst from Gaal son of Eved, who stirred rebellion against Abimelek’s rule in Shekhem. The speech is sharp and rhetorical, dripping with contempt. By framing the question, מִי־אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וּמִי־שְׁכֶם (“Who is Abimelek, and who is Shekhem?”), Gaal undermines the legitimacy of Abimelek’s kingship and the loyalty of the city. The rhetorical device of “Who is X?” is a form of scorn, found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as a way to belittle authority.
This verse reflects not only political rebellion but also linguistic strategies of mockery. Gaal pits competing loyalties against one another, questioning why the men of Shekhem should submit to Abimelek at all.
Abimelek’s Identity and Jerubbaal’s Legacy
The line הֲלֹא בֶן־יְרֻבַּעַל (“Is he not the son of Yerubbaal?”) ties Abimelek’s identity back to Gideon, whose epithet Yerubbaal (“Let Baal contend”) was itself polemical. By invoking Gideon’s name, Gaal dismisses Abimelek as a mere heir, not a legitimate sovereign. The contempt is heightened when he reduces Zebul, Abimelek’s official in Shekhem, to a mere פְּקִידֹו (“his officer, subordinate”). In Gaal’s rhetoric, Abimelek is not a king of stature but a usurper propped up by a local functionary.
Appeal to Shekhem’s Ancestry
The alternative loyalty Gaal proposes is striking: עִבְדוּ אֶת־אַנְשֵׁי חֲמֹור אֲבִי שְׁכֶם (“Serve the men of Ḥamor, the father of Shekhem”). Ḥamor is remembered as the patriarch of Shekhem in Genesis 34. By invoking him, Gaal appeals to ancestral roots, suggesting that Shekhem should be ruled by its own founding line rather than by Abimelek, the son of Gideon. This shows how memory and genealogy were mobilized in political rhetoric, where ancestral legitimacy could outweigh military might.
The Repeated Rhetorical Question
The verse closes with another sharp protest: וּמַדּוּעַ נַעַבְדֶנּוּ אֲנָחְנוּ (“And why should we serve him?”). The repetition of the verb עָבַד (“to serve”) reinforces the theme of submission. The protest is not just against Abimelek but against the very idea of misplaced service. Gaal contrasts legitimate ancestral service with illegitimate forced loyalty. His speech therefore exposes the fragility of Abimelek’s reign: loyalty could be swayed by rhetoric appealing to identity, ancestry, and dignity.
Hebrew Grammatical and Morphological Notes
| Hebrew Expression | Form and Parsing | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| וַיֹּאמֶר | Wayyiqtol, Qal 3ms of אָמַר | Narrative sequence: “And he said.” Marks Gaal’s speech. |
| מִי־אֲבִימֶלֶךְ | Interrogative pronoun + proper noun | Scornful rhetorical formula: “Who is Abimelek?” |
| נַעַבְדֶנּוּ | Nifal imperfect 1cp + 3ms suffix | “That we should serve him” — expresses unwilling obligation. |
| בֶן־יְרֻבַּעַל | Noun construct phrase | Defines Abimelek by ancestry — son of Jerubbaal (Gideon). |
| פְּקִידֹו | Noun with 3ms suffix | “His officer” — diminishes Zebul’s authority as a mere subordinate. |
| עִבְדוּ | Imperative Qal 2mp of עָבַד | Command: “Serve!” Used ironically by Gaal to redirect loyalty. |
| אַנְשֵׁי חֲמֹור | Noun in construct form | “The men of Ḥamor” — appeals to Shekhem’s ancestral lineage. |
| וּמַדּוּעַ נַעַבְדֶנּוּ | Interrogative + imperfect 1cp + suffix | Repetition for rhetorical emphasis: “Why should we serve him?” |
Echoes of the Text
Judges 9:28 preserves a moment of sharp political rebellion in Israel’s history. The Hebrew records Gaal’s attempt to undermine Abimelek through rhetoric, genealogy, and scorn. His speech leverages ancestral identity (Ḥamor), belittles present rulers (Abimelek and Zebul), and appeals to Shekhemite pride. The rhetorical repetition of “Why serve him?” highlights resistance to illegitimate power.
The verse exemplifies how language shapes politics: speech can fracture loyalties, destabilize rule, and ignite rebellion. It reminds us that in ancient Israel, as today, political authority was never secure without the consent, and the rhetoric, of the people.