Judges · Chapter 1

1. They were miserably corrupted, and miserably oppressed. Yet we may hope, the tabernacle service was kept up, and that many attended it.

Verse 1. Now after the death of Joshua] How long after the death of Joshua this happened we cannot tell; it is probable that it was not long. The enemies of the Israelites, finding their champion dead, would naturally avail themselves of their unsettled state, and make incursions on the country. Who shall go up] Joshua had left no successor, and every thing relative to the movements of this people must be determined either by caprice, or an especial direction of the Lord.

Verse 1. After the death of Joshua — Not long after it; for Othniel, the first judge, lived in Joshua’s time. Asked the Lord — Being assembled together at Shiloh, they inquired of the high-priest by the Urim and the Thummim. Against the Canaanites first — Finding their people multiply exceedingly, and consequently the necessity of enlarging their quarters, they renew the war. They do not inquire who shall be captain-general to all the tribes; but what tribe shall first undertake the expedition, that, by their success, the other tribes might be encouraged to make the like attempts upon the Canaanites in their several lots.

Verse 1. After the death of Joshua, whose death was to the Jews the commencement of new troubles; they asked counsel of the Lord, as directed, Numbers 27:21, by Phinehas the priest.

THE LEADERSHIP, 1, 2.

1. After the death of Joshua — Probably not long after. Till Joshua died the affairs of the nation were closely associated with one great master mind, upon which came the chief responsibility of government. Moses and Joshua were to Israel like the chief generals of a great army, and the great body of the people had little sense of a national responsibility. But as soon as these great leaders are gone there comes a dawning sense of national unity and responsibility, and now not one man, but the whole people, the children of Israel, ask counsel of Jehovah. The children of Israel are here to be understood as the tribes west of the Jordan, represented by their elders. Asked the Lord — By means of the urim and thummim. See note on Joshua 1:1. The people and the elders had not forgotten the last counsels of Joshua. Joshua 23:24. Who shall go up — Joshua died leaving no chosen successor. As he had himself been called of God to succeed Moses, (Joshua 1:2,) so he trusted God to select his successor in office. The divine commission did not resound in the ear nor stir the heart of any man. Hence the nation resorts to prayer to God in this season of suspense. The expression go up is to be taken in a military sense, not as implying an actual ascent, but an aggressive warfare: who shall take the lead in battle with our Canaanitish foes? The enemy is conceived as occupying higher ground than the aggressors, though sometimes the march to battle may not have been a literal going up. Against the Canaanites — These enemies were not all exterminated in Joshua’s day, and when the great commander was dead the elders of Israel began to feel anxiety about the national safety. They feared their enemies might seize the moment when Israel was without a leader to recover their former possessions. First — Or, at the beginning. The thought is, Who shall make the beginning of aggressive warfare? This form of words seems to imply that a personal leader was not sought, but rather what the Greeks called the hegemony, the precedence among the tribes: which tribe shall make a beginning? Bishop Hervey, in the “Speaker’s” or “Bible Commentary,” maintains that the events of this chapter and the first five verses of chapter ii must have occurred before Joshua’s death, and he suggests that the reading in this first verse should be, Now after the death of MOSES. But this whole argument rests mainly upon two assumptions, both of which may be rejected as unnecessary. He assumes, (1) That a war with the Canaanites for the possession of tribe territory is incompatible with the conquest of Canaan and the settlement of the tribes under Joshua’s leadership, and (2) That the narrative commencing at Judges 2:6, is a direct continuation of the verses preceding it. On this latter assumption see note at Judges 2:6. The former has been sufficiently refuted in our notes on Joshua 11:23; 21:44. Joshua, indeed, subdued the Canaanites on all sides, and the tribes received their portions during his lifetime, but the Canaanites were by no means all exterminated, and after the death of Israel’s great chieftain they would naturally rally to recover, as far as possible, their lost possessions; and subsequent history shows how long-continued were their conflicts with the Canaanitish nations that remained in the land. The exact chronology of various events recorded in these opening chapters is very uncertain, and in view of the Hebrew historians’ well-known lack of precision in such matters, and the absence of sufficient data to construct a definite chronology of these events, it is altogether needless to suppose or assume that they occurred before Joshua’s death. The passage in verses 10-15 is manifestly episodical, interrupting the direct narrative of the chapter, and therefore proves nothing in the case.

2. It seems, each tribe had its government within itself, and acted separately, without any common head. This occasioned many differences among themselves.

Verse 2. The Lord said, Judah shall go up] They had inquired of the Lord by Phinehas the high priest; and he had communicated to them the Divine counsel.

Verse 2. Judah — The tribe of Judah is chosen for the first enterprise, because they were both most populous, and so most needed enlargement; and withal most valiant, and therefore most likely to succeed; for God chooseth fit means for the work which he designs. Moreover, the Canaanites were numerous and strong in those parts, and therefore it was necessary they should be suppressed before they grew too strong for them.

2. Judah — The tribe; the individual had long been dead.

Deuteronomy 1:35. This designation of Judah to the pre-eminence was in substance a repetition of the prophetic blessing of dying Jacob: “Thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise; thy hand shall be upon the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee.” Genesis 49:8. But although God thus clearly designated Judah for the leadership, the tribe failed to understand that from among its thousands a personal leader and national executive should be sought, and measures at once be taken to organize a strong central government, and realize as soon as possible the ideal presented in the book of the Law. Here was Judah’s divine call, but the tribe neglected it, entered into a league with Simeon, andthrough all the period of the Judges kept sinking into comparative insignificance. In Samson’s time this tribe seems to have been the most cowardly in Israel, and utterly afraid to resist the Philistine conquerors. Compare Judges 15:11, note. Not until David attained the throne did Judah recover from the effects of the failure to improve fully this divine call. I have delivered — It was the divine purpose that the ultimate and complete conquest of the Promised Land should be wrought by Judah’s sceptre, but it was not done till the days of David. The land — Not only the lot of Judah, but the whole land of Canaan.

3. The government of the Judges was not constant but occasional. By their judging Israel is meant chiefly, their avenging Israel of their enemies, and purging them from their idolatries.

Verse 3. Come up with me into my lot] It appears that the portions of Judah and Simeon had not been cleared of the Canaanites, or that these were the parts which were now particularly invaded.

Verse 3. Judah said unto Simeon — As nearest to him, both by relation, being his brother by both parents, and by habitation. Come up with me against the Canaanites — Which people, with the Perizzites, still possessed a considerable part of the lot which fell to Judah. And I will likewise go with thee — To drive the Canaanites out of that part of the country which was the portion of Simeon. So Simeon went with him — They joined their forces together in this expedition, under the conduct, no doubt, of some eminent leader.

Ver. 3. Judah said to Simeon, come up with me, for their lots were adjacent, and therefore equally concerned. The Canaanites, it would seem, had returned to some of their former possessions.

LEAGUE OF JUDAH AND SIMEON, 3.

3. Simeon — This tribe was on the southern border of Judah, and occupied several cities within the bounds of that tribe. See on Joshua 19:1. They were natural allies, not only from their proximity, but because they were both the offspring of Leah. My lot… thy lot — The portion of each was still infested with enemies. They unite to conquer them. This league of Judah and Simeon was clannish and sectional. Though it resulted in many victories, it would have been better had it been a league of all the tribes. The cowardly inactivity of the rest of the tribes, described in verses 27-36, was doubtless largely owing to this sectional league. They were not included, and so lost sympathy with the work of conquest, and no central national government was formed. Hence the disorders and disasters that ensued. The league should have been not of Judah and Simeon, but of Judah and all the tribes, with Judah as leader.

4. During the government of the Judges, God was in an especial manner the king of Israel. It is not improbably supposed, that the prophet Samuel was the penman of this book.

CHAPTER 1.

The conquests made by Judah and Simeon, ver. 1-20. Benjamin failed, ver. 21. The house of Joseph took Bethel, ver. 22-26. But Manasseh did not drive out the Canaanites, ver. 27, 28. Nor Ephraim, ver. 29. Nor Zebulun, ver. 30. Nor Asher, ver. 31, 32. Nor Naphtali, ver. 33. Nor Dan, ver. 34-36. V. 1. After the death-Not long after it; for Othniel, the first judge, lived in Joshua’s time. Asked the Lord-Being assembled together at Shiloh, they enquired of the high-priest by the Urim and the Thummim. Against the Canaanites first-Finding their people multiply exceedingly, and consequently the necessity of enlarging their quarters, they renew the war. They do not enquire who shall be captain general to all the tribes; but what tribe shall first undertake the expedition, that by their success the other tribes may be encouraged to make the like attempt upon the Canaanites in their several lots.

V. 2. Judah-The tribe of Judah is chosen for the first enterprise, because they were both most populous, and so most needing enlargement; and withal most valiant, and therefore most likely to succeed: for God chooseth fit means for the work which he designs. Moreover the Canaanites were numerous and strong in those parts, and therefore to be suppressed, before they grew too strong for them.

V. 3. To Simeon-As nearest to him both by relation, being his brother by both parents, and by habitation. The Canaanites-Specially so called, because they are distinguished from the Perizzites, ver. 4. V. 4. In Bezek-Not in the city, for that was not yet taken, ver. 5, but in the territory of it.

Verse 4. Judah went up — The people of that tribe were principally concerned in this expedition, and therefore are only mentioned, though those of the tribe of Simeon went up with them. And the Lord delivered, &c. — We meet with no such pious expression (which occurs often here) in any heathen writer. In them every success is attributed to the conduct and valour of the generals, or the strength and courage of the forces; but in the Scriptures every success is attributed to God only. They slew them in Bezek — Not in the city, for that was not yet taken, (verse 5,) but in the territory of it.

DEFEAT OF ADONI-BEZEK, 4-7.

4. Judah went up — That is, in the military sense, as in verse 1. Judah proceeded to the war. The Lord delivered — The devout Hebrew was remarkable for acknowledging the Divine hand in all his victories. The civilisation which laughs at all faith in the supernatural, and makes the strongest battalions the arbiters of battles, is very defective. The Canaanites and the Perizzites — On these nations see note on Joshua 3:10. There seems to have been a gathering of these foes under Adoni-bezek for the purpose of conquering and oppressing Israel, and to crush the rising rebellion Judah led an army promptly against the gathering host, and fought the decisive battle in Bezek. This place is mentioned only once again, at 1 Samuel 11:8, where the context shows it to have been near the Jordan valley, and within a day’s journey of Jabesh-gilead. Its site has not been identified, but there is no good reason for maintaining that this Bezek must have been within the tribe of Judah. It may have been expedient for Judah to march beyond his borders, and attack the enemy on their own grounds. Ten thousand men — Ancient battles were more destructive of human life, because there were generally no prisoners taken, or, if taken, their sufferings in slavery were worse than death on the field.

V. 5. Adoni-bezek-The lord or king of Bezek; as his name signifies. In Bezek-Whither he fled when he lost the field. Against him-That is, against the city wherein he had encamped himself, and the rest of his army.

Verse 5. And they found Adoni-bezek] The word axm matsa, “he found,” is used to express a hostile encounter between two parties; to attack, surprise, &c. This is probably its meaning here. Adoni-bezek is literally the lord of Bezek. It is very probable that the different Canaanitish tribes were governed by a sort of chieftains, similar to those among the clans of the ancient Scottish Highlanders. Bezek is said by some to have been in the tribe of Judah. Eusebius and St. Jerome mention two villages of this name, not in the tribe of Judah, but about seventeen miles from Shechem.

Verses 5, 6. Adoni-bezek in Bezek — He was the king or lord of that place, as his name imports, and, as it appears, he had fled into it for safety when he had lost the field. They fought against him — That is, against the city wherein he had taken refuge, and against the rest of his army. Cut off his thumbs and great toes — That he might be incapable of war hereafter, being rendered unable to handle arms, or to run swiftly. This severe treatment had been practised upon other kings by himself, as appears, by his own confession, in the next verse, which, it is probable, made the Israelites think it reasonable to serve him in the same way: and perhaps they acted by the direction of God in the matter.

Ver. 5. Adoni-bezek; the lord of Bezek. Joshua 15:19.

5. Found — Discovered and apprehended unexpectedly. Adoni-bezek — The name means, lord of Bezek. He seems to have commanded these Canaanite and Perizzite forces in this war.

V. 6. Great toes-And this they did, either by the direction of God, or upon notice of his former tyranny and cruelty.

Verse 6. Cut off his thumbs] That he might never be able to draw his bow or handle his sword, and great toes, that he might never be able to pursue or escape from an adversary.

Verses 5, 6. Adoni-bezek in Bezek — He was the king or lord of that place, as his name imports, and, as it appears, he had fled into it for safety when he had lost the field. They fought against him — That is, against the city wherein he had taken refuge, and against the rest of his army. Cut off his thumbs and great toes — That he might be incapable of war hereafter, being rendered unable to handle arms, or to run swiftly. This severe treatment had been practised upon other kings by himself, as appears, by his own confession, in the next verse, which, it is probable, made the Israelites think it reasonable to serve him in the same way: and perhaps they acted by the direction of God in the matter.

6. Cut off his thumbs and… great toes — This barbarous mutilation, unusual with the Jews, was designed to incapacitate for military service. The victim of this cruelty could neither march nor fight. In this instance the Israelites exercised this cruelty according to that barbaric style of justice called the lex talionis. In modern warfare it is usual to release prisoners “on parole,” that is, on their word of honour not to fight again; but among some barbarians such mutilation or disabling was the only security against their fighting again. And modern civilized states, when called to war with certain barbarous or half-civilized tribes, have sometimes been obliged to resort to some terrible form of the law of retaliation. See note on Joshua 10:26.

V. 7. Threescore and ten-Which is not strange in those times and places. For it is well known, that anciently each ruler of a city, or great town, was called a king, and had kingly power in that place; and many such kings we meet with in Canaan: and it is probable, that some years before, kings were more numerous there, ‘till the greater devoured many of the less. Under my table-An act of barbarous inhumanity thus to insult over the miserable, joined with abominable luxury.

Verse 7. Threescore and ten kinds] Chieftains, heads of tribes, or military officers. For the word king cannot be taken here in its proper and usual sense.

Having their thumbs and their great toes cut off] That this was an ancient mode of treating enemies we learn from Ælian, who tells us, Var. Hist. l. ii., c. 9, that “the Athenians, at the instigation of Cleon, son of Cleænetus, made a decree that all the inhabitants of the island of Ægina should have the thumb cut off from the right hand, so that they might ever after be disabled from holding a spear, yet might handle an oar.” This is considered by Ælian an act of great cruelty; and he wishes to Minerva, the guardian of the city, to Jupiter Eleutherius, and all the gods of Greece, that the Athenians had never done such things. It was a custom among those Romans who did not like a military life, to cut off their own thumbs, that they might not be capable of serving in the army. Sometimes the parents cut off the thumbs of their children, that they might not be called into the army. According to Suetonius, in Vit. August., c. 24, a Roman knight, who had cut off the thumbs of his two sons to prevent them from being called to a military life was, by the order of Augustus, publicly sold, both he and his property. These are the words of Suetonius: Equitem Romanum, quod duobus filis adolescentibus, causa detractandi sacramenti, pollices amputasset, ipsum bonaque subjecit hastæ. Calmet remarks that the Italian language has preserved a term, poltrone, which signifies one whose thumb is cut off, to designate a soldier destitute of courage and valour. We use poltroon to signify a dastardly fellow, without considering the import of the original. There have been found frequent instances of persons maiming themselves, that they might be incapacitated for military duty. I have heard an instance in which a knavish soldier discharged his gun through his hand, that he might be discharged from his regiment. The cutting off of the thumbs was probably designed for a double purpose: 1. To incapacitate them for war; and, 2. To brand them as cowards.

Gathered their meat under my table] I think this was a proverbial mode of expression, to signify reduction to the meanest servitude; for it is not at all likely that seventy kings, many of whom must have been contemporaries, were placed under the table of the king of Bezek, and there fed; as in the houses of poor persons the dogs are fed with crumbs and offal, under the table of their owners.

So God hath requited me.] The king of Bezek seems to have had the knowledge of the true God, and a proper notion of a Divine providence. He now feels himself reduced to that state to which he had cruelly reduced others. Those acts in him were acts of tyrannous cruelty; the act towards him was an act of retributive justice.

And there he died.] He continued at Jerusalem in a servile and degraded condition till the day of his death. How long he lived after his disgrace we know not.

Verse 7. Threescore and ten kings — Anciently each ruler of a city or great town was called a king, and had kingly power in that place; and many such kings we meet with in Canaan; and it is probable that, some years before, kings had been more numerous there, till the greater destroyed many of the less. Add to this, that it is likely some of these seventy kings had reigned in one and the same place, and had successively opposed him. Have gathered their meat under my table — An act of barbarous inhumanity, thus to insult over the miserable, joined with abominable luxury. So that it appears, by his own confession, he had been proud and insolent, as well as cruel, to a most high degree; and therefore what befell him may well be considered, which indeed he acknowledges, as a just punishment inflicted upon him by the order of Divine Providence. As I have done, so hath God requited me — This, his acknowledgment of God’s justice in his punishment, hath made some think he became a penitent and convert to the true religion. He speaks not of gods, as was customary with the heathen, but of God, in the singular number; and this appearance of penitence and faith in the true God might possibly be the reason why the Israelites spared his life.

Ver. 7. Having their thumbs and great toes cut off. We find many ancient restless foes treated in this way with the loss of their right thumb, to disable them from war, but nowhere, except here, an extention of the cruelty to the toes. It was time for these nations to be destroyed: the power of conscience confessed the equity of divine retribution.

7. Threescore and ten kings — The chief of every petty village was styled a king. This accounts for the number of maimed wretches who scrambled or cravenly begged for the crumbs beneath this brutal conqueror’s table. We need not understand that all these seventy kings were under his table at one time, but during his reign. “Conceive,” says Kitto, “what must have been the state of the country and people among whom such a scene could exist. What wars had been waged, what cruel ravages committed! Those are certainly very much in the wrong who picture to themselves the Canaanites as ‘a happy family,’ disturbed in their peaceful homes by the Hebrew barbarians from the wilderness!” God hath requited me — The guilty conscience, goaded to confession by signal retribution, quickly finds for its woe a moral cause. So the guilty sons of Jacob remembered their sin against Joseph when they found themselves involved in distress in Egypt. Genesis 42:21. So Herod was ready to see in the wonder-working Jesus the murdered John Baptist risen from the dead. Matthew 14:2. They brought him to Jerusalem — That is, his own people brought him thither, for Jerusalem was yet in the hands of the Canaanites. The Israelites could have had no worthy object in carrying off with them the mutilated king, and the next sentence, commencing with the subject the children of Israel, indicates that the verb brought, in this verse has a different subject. Accordingly, the next verse shows how Judah followed up his victory, and proceeded to attack Jerusalem, whither the defeated Canaanites had fled.

V. 8. And took-Yet some of the inhabitants retired into the castle, and held out there ‘till David’s time.

Verse 8. Had fought against Jerusalem] We read this verse in a parenthesis, because we suppose that it refers to the taking of this city by Joshua; for as he had conquered its armies and slew its king, Joshua 10:26, it is probable that he took the city: yet we find that the Jebusites still dwelt in it, Joshua 15:63; and that the men of Judah could not drive them out, which probably refers to the strong hold or fortress on Mount Zion, which the Jebusites held till the days of David, who took it, and totally destroyed the Jebusites. See 2 Samuel 5:6-9, and 1 Chronicles 11:4-8. It is possible that the Jebusites who had been discomfited by Joshua, had again become sufficiently strong to possess themselves of Jerusalem; and that they were now defeated, and the city itself set on fire: but that they still were able to keep possession of their strong fort on Mount Zion, which appears to have been the citadel of Jerusalem.

Verses 8-10. Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and taken it — Yet some of the inhabitants retired into the castle, and held out there till David’s time. Judah went against the Canaanites in Hebron — Under the conduct of Caleb, as is recorded Joshua 15:14, &c., for that relation and this are doubtless one and the same expedition, and it is mentioned there by anticipation.

Ver. 8. Jerusalem. This is more full than Joshua 10. They destroyed the Jebusites, and burnt the city, except those who took refuge in the fortress, where the temple was afterwards built. This strong place David took, but spared the people, as it would seem from Araunah’s being left in possession of his estate. They had then embraced Judaism. See on Joshua 18:28.

CAPTURE AND BURNING OF JERUSALEM, 8.

8. Had fought — This pluperfect rendering of the verb has grown out of the notion that the Israelites brought Adoni-bezek to Jerusalem, and therefore the city must have been already in their possession. But much better is it to follow the more natural rendering of the Hebrew, and understand that this stronghold of the Jebusites was still held by its old possessors, (Joshua 15:63,) and that when these Canaanites and Perizzites were smitten at Bezek, they fled to this strong city, which had escaped even the all-conquering sword of Joshua. The rendering should therefore be, Then fought the children of Judah against Jerusalem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and sent it in the fire; that is committed it to the flames. After the forces of Judah passed on to the south, Jerusalem seems to have fallen again into the hands of the Jebusites, and then Benjamin was unable to expel them. Verse 21. The complete conquest was subsequently made by David. See notes on Joshua 15:63; 2 Samuel 5:6. Set the city on fire — Not to purify symbolically, as some suppose, but to destroy, as in the case of other cities that were burned. Compare Judges 20:48. It is not said, however, that the city was entirely consumed, and, perhaps, the higher city, or fortress of the Jebusites, was not taken at all.

Verse 9. The Canaanites, that dwelt to the mountain] The territories of the tribe of Judah lay in the most southern part of the promised land, which was very mountainous, though towards the west it had many fine plains. In some of these the Canaanites had dwelt; and the expedition marked here was for the purpose of finally expelling them. But probably this is a recapitulation of what is related Joshua 10:36; 11:21; 15:13.

Verses 8-10. Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and taken it — Yet some of the inhabitants retired into the castle, and held out there till David’s time. Judah went against the Canaanites in Hebron — Under the conduct of Caleb, as is recorded Joshua 15:14, &c., for that relation and this are doubtless one and the same expedition, and it is mentioned there by anticipation.

CONQUESTS IN THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH, 9.

9. Afterward — After the burning of Jerusalem. Went down — Proceeded southward. As went up (verse 4) indicates a starting off to battle, so went down indicates a continuation of the war. The mountain… the south… the valley — The three principal geographical divisions of the territory of Judah. See note on Joshua 15:19. Here the thread of the narrative is broken off to introduce the episode about Caleb and Othniel, and the notice of the Kenites.

CONQUEST OF HEBRON, AND EXPLOIT AND REWARD OF OTHNIEL, 10-15. This passage is nearly identical with Joshua 15:14-19. It may have been copied from the Book of Joshua, or from some older work. See the notes on the passage in Joshua. It is characteristic of the Hebrew historians to interweave such episodes as this and the following one about the Kenites into a narrative which touches persons or places with which they were associated.

The date of this conquest of Hebron and Debir is uncertain, but from Joshua 14:6-15, and 15:13-19, it appears that it occurred during the lifetime of Joshua. Caleb was eighty-five years old at the time of the Conquest, or at its close, and some little time may have passed before he conquered Debir, but not probably many years. But whatever the date, the episodical character of this section, (verses 10-16,) and the resumption of the narrative of Judah and Simeon’s exploits at verse 17, show the futility of arguing from this passage that all the rest of the events of the chapter must have happened before the death of Joshua.

V. 10. Judah went-Under the conduct of Caleb, as is recorded, Joshua 15:14, &c., for that relation, and this, are doubtless one and the same expedition, and it is mentioned there by anticipation.

Verses 8-10. Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and taken it — Yet some of the inhabitants retired into the castle, and held out there till David’s time. Judah went against the Canaanites in Hebron — Under the conduct of Caleb, as is recorded Joshua 15:14, &c., for that relation and this are doubtless one and the same expedition, and it is mentioned there by anticipation.

Verses 12. - 15. And Caleb, &c.] See this whole account, which is placed here by way of recapitulation, in Joshua 15:13-19, and the explanatory notes there.

Verses 12. - 15. And Caleb, &c.] See this whole account, which is placed here by way of recapitulation, in Joshua 15:13-19, and the explanatory notes there.

Verses 12. - 15. And Caleb, &c.] See this whole account, which is placed here by way of recapitulation, in Joshua 15:13-19, and the explanatory notes there.

Verses 12. - 15. And Caleb, &c.] See this whole account, which is placed here by way of recapitulation, in Joshua 15:13-19, and the explanatory notes there.

V. 16. Moses’s father-in-law-That is, of Jethro, so called from the people whom he descended, Numbers 24:21,22. And, whatsoever he did, it is evident, that his posterity came into Canaan with the Israelites, and were there seated with them, see Judges 4:11,17 5:24 1 Samuel 15:6 1 Chronicles 2:1-54,55. City of palm-trees-That is, from Jericho, so called, Deuteronomy 34:3, not the city which was destroyed, but the territory belonging to it, where it seems they were seated, in a most pleasant, and fruitful, and safe place, according to the promise made by Moses to their father, Numbers 10:29-32, and whence they might remove, either to avoid the neighboring Canaanites; or out of love to the children of Judah. South of Arad-In the southern part of the land of Canaan, where Arad was, Numbers 21:1. They went-That is some of them, for others of them dwelt in a contrary quarter, in the most northern part of the land. Among the people-Heb. that people, namely, those children of Judah that lived there.

Verse 16. The children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law] For an account of Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, see Exodus 18:1-27; Numbers 10:29, &c.

The city of palm trees] This seems to have been some place near Jericho, which city is expressly called the city of palm trees, Deuteronomy 34:3; and though destroyed by Joshua, it might have some suburbs remaining where these harmless people had taken up their residence. The Kenites, the descendants of Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, were always attached to the Israelites: they remained with them, says Calmet, during their wanderings in the wilderness, and accompanied them to the promised land. They received there a lot with the tribe of Judah, and remained in the city of palm trees during the life of Joshua; but after his death, not contented with their portion, or molested by the original inhabitants, they united with the tribe of Judah, and went with them to attack Arad. After the conquest of that country, the Kenites established themselves there, and remained in it till the days of Saul, mingled with the Amalekites. When this king received a commandment from God to destroy the Amalekites, he sent a message to the Kenites to depart from among them, as God would not destroy them with the Amalekites. From them came Hemath, who was the father of the house of Rechab, 1 Chronicles 2:55, and the Rechabites, of whom we have a remarkable account Jeremiah 35:1, &c.

Verse 16. The children of the Kenite — Jethro, Moses’s father-in-law, seems to have been called a Kenite from the people from whom he was descended, Numbers 24:21, 22. His posterity, it appears, came into Canaan with the Israelites, and were settled there with them. Went up from the city of palm-trees — That is, from Jericho, so called, Deuteronomy 34:3; not indeed the city, which had been destroyed; but the territory belonging to it, where, it seems, they were seated in a most pleasant, fruitful, and safe place, according to the promise made by Moses to their father, Numbers 10:31, 32; and whence they might remove either to avoid the neighbouring Canaanites, or out of love to the children of Judah. In the south of Arad — The southern part of the land of Canaan, where Arad was, Numbers 21:1. And dwelt among the people — Hebrew, that people; namely, those children of Judah that lived there.

Ver. 16. The Kenites. These learned shepherds had followed Moses, and received their lot adjacent to Amalek. They preserved the learning of Moses and Jethro, 1 Chronicles 2:55, and would drink no wine, nor build houses. Jeremiah 35. By this emigration they escaped the evils which Balaam had foretold would befal their country. They were wise and wary to come and enjoy the pastures when the war was over.

THE KENITES, 16.

16. Children of the Kenite — These were a nomadic tribe camping in Midian in the days of Moses’ flight from Egypt. They were of Amalekite, or primitive Arabian, stock, and by virtue of their relation by marriage to Moses, this tribe became an ally, or a protege of the Hebrews, dwelling first in the vicinity of Jericho, the city of palm trees, and subsequently following the victorious arms of their protectors to the extreme south of Judah’s lot, to the edge of the Idumean desert. Here they dwelt undisturbed, taking no part in the wars of those days, and indifferent to political changes, until Saul warned them to separate from the Amalekites, whom God had directed him to destroy. 1 Samuel 15:6. The Rechabites, a tribe of staunch temperance men, descended from them. 1 Chronicles 2:55. Arad — A Canaanite royal city in southern Palestine, twenty miles south of Hebron. Dr. Robinson identities it with Tell-Arad, a barren eminence rising above the surrounding country. The inhabitants of this city drove back the Israelites when they tried to enter Canaan from Kadesh-barnea. Numbers 21:1. They were subdued by Joshua forty years afterwards. Joshua 12:14. Dwelt among the people — That is, the people of the tribe of Judah; though Heber, the Kenite, was found in Naphtali, Judges 4:17, having chosen to separate from his brethren and settle in the north of Palestine. It was proper that those who had befriended the Israelites in their weakness, when wandering through hostile lands, should enjoy their protection in the days of their triumph. “The sons of the Kenite adhered to Israel, not as Kenites, but as descendants of Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses. It is the constant aim of the historian of the conquest of Canaan by Israel to show that every promise was fulfilled, and that no one who at any time showed kindness failed of his promised reward. A reward had been promised to the sons of the Kenite, (Numbers 10:31,) and the fulfilment of the promise now takes place.” — Cassel.

V. 17. Judah went with Simeon-According to his promise, ver. 3, and the laws of justice and gratitude. Hormah-Either,

1. The same place so called, Numbers 21:3, and so what was there vowed, is here executed: or,

2. Some other place called by the same name upon the like occasion, which was frequent among the Hebrews. This seems more probable.

Verse 17. The city was called Hormah.] This appears to be the same transaction mentioned Numbers 21:1, &c., where see the notes.

Verse 17. Judah went with Simeon — According to their promise, verse 3, and the laws of justice and gratitude: having finished, as far as they were able, the conquest of what belonged to the tribe of Judah, they went to assist the Simeonites to acquire the possession of what was comprehended in their lot. The name of the city was called Hormah — Either the same place, so called Numbers 21:3; in which case what was there vowed is here executed; or some other place called by the same name upon the like occasion, which seems more probable.

CONQUEST OF ZEPHATH AND THREE CITIES OF PHILISTIA, 17-19.

17. Judah went with Simeon — The narrative of their exploits is resumed after the episode about Caleb and Othniel. Zephath — A Canaanitish city in the far south of Palestine, assigned first to Judah (Joshua 15:30) and afterwards to Simeon, 19:4. Its inhabitants harassed Israel in their journey through the desert, and Israel vowed to place all their cities under ban. Numbers 21:1-3. Joshua destroyed its king, but seems not to have destroyed the city. Joshua 12:14. So, too, he smote the king of Jerusalem, (Judges 12:10,) but did not capture and subjugate his stronghold among the hills. Now, after Joshua’s death, Judah and Simeon unite their forces and utterly destroy the city, and thereby execute the ancient vow of Israel against it. Hence the name Hormah, the place devoted to destruction. The previous use of this name in the Bible is to be understood proleptically. The city still exists in ruins under the scarcely altered name Sebaita, some twenty-five miles southwest of Beer-sheba, and three and one half miles south of the fort El Meshrifeh, which commands the only pass by which the plain of the ancient city can be approached. The ruins are extensive and imposing, about five hundred yards long and from two hundred to three hundred yards wide. Notwithstanding the fallen debris and rubbish, the streets are still plainly to be traced. In February, 1870, Prof. Palmer of the Palestine Exploration Party visited and carefully examined the site and all its surroundings. He remarks: “The name Sebaita is etymologically identical with the Zephath of the Bible. Zephath signifies a watch tower, and it is a noteworthy fact that the fortress El Mesh-rifeh, discovered by us in the same neighbourhood, exactly corresponds to this, both in its position and in the meaning of its name. I would make one more suggestion respecting this site: Zephath has always been considered as identical with Hormah; but may we not understand the word Zephath in its proper signification, and consider the city, after all, as separate from the tower or fortress that was attacked and destroyed? The city which was protected by so commanding a fort might well be spoken of as the City of the Watch Tower; and, as so important a position would certainly not be neglected by later inhabitants of the land, I think it not improbable that in El Meshrifeh we see the site of Zephath itself, and in Sebaita that of the city of the Zephath to which the Israelites, after their victory, gave the name of Hormah.”

V. 18. Judah took-It is only said, they took the cities, and probably contented themselves with making them tributary; but it is not said that they slew the people, as they ought to have done; and as it is said of the other cities here. And the people being thus spared, did by God’s just judgment recover their strength, and expel the Jews out of their cities. It is farther observable, that Ekron here taken, was one of Dan’s cities, Joshua 19:43, and it was taken here by Judah and Simeon, partly out of love for their brother Dan, and partly to secure their new conquests, and other adjoining territories, from such potent neighbours.

Verse 18. Judah took Gaza-and Askelon-and Ekron] There is a most remarkable variation here in the Septuagint; I shall set down the verse: Kai ouk eklhronomhsen ioudav thn Gazan, oude ta oria authv, oude thn Askalwna, oude ta oria authv, kai thn Akkarwn, oude ta oria authv, thn Azwton, oude ta perisporia authv, kai hn Kuriov meta Iouda. “But Judah DID NOT possess Gaza, NOR the coast thereof; neither Askelon, nor the coasts thereof, neither Ekron, nor the coasts thereof; neither Azotus, nor its adjacent places: and the Lord was with Judah.” This is the reading of the Vatican and other copies of the Septuagint: but the Alexandrian MS., and the text of the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, agree more nearly with the Hebrew text. St. Augustine and Procopius read the same as, the Vatican MS.; and Josephus expressly says that the Israelites took only Askelon and Azotus, but did not take Gaza nor Ekron; and the whole history shows that these cities were not in the possession of the Israelites, but of the Philistines; and if the Israelites did take them at this time, as the Hebrew text states, they certainly lost them in a very short time after.

Verse 18. Judah also took Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron — These three cities were in the country of the Philistines, upon the sea-coast, and the Israelites did not hold them long before the Philistines recovered them again. For as the Israelites contented themselves with taking these cities, and making the people tributary without destroying them, it was not difficult for them to regain their liberty.

Ver. 18. Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof. This, as appears from chap. 3:3, must be wrong in the Hebrew copy, which the Septuagint rectifies thus: “But Judah did not possess Gaza, nor the coasts thereof; nor Askelon, nor Ekron, nor Ashdod, nor the coasts thereof.” See Josephus 5:2.

18. Gaza — See note on Joshua 10:41. For Ashkelon and Ekron see on Joshua 13:3. Since these cities lay in the great Philistine plain, some have thought this verse contradicts the verse following, in which it is said that Judah was unable to drive out the inhabitants of the valley. Accordingly the Septuagint reads: “Judah did not inherit Gaza and her borders, nor Ashkelon and her borders, nor Ekron and her borders, nor Azotus and her suburbs.” But this emendation is unnecessary, for to take these cities and their coasts by storm (dkl) is not inconsistent with a failure to drive out all the inhabitants of the valley, and take permanent possession of their coasts.

V. 19. Could not drive-Because of their unbelief, whereby they distrusted God’s power to destroy those who had chariots of iron, and so gave way to their own fear and sloth, whereby God was provoked to withdraw his helping hand.

Verse 19. And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.] Strange! were the iron chariots too strong for Omnipotence? The whole of this verse is improperly rendered. The first clause, The Lord was with Judah should terminate the 18th verse, and this gives the reason for the success of this tribe: The Lord was with Judah, and therefore he slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, &c., &c. Here then is a complete period: the remaining part of the verse either refers to a different time, or to the rebellion of Judah against the Lord, which caused him to withdraw his support. Therefore the Lord was with Judah, and these were the effects of his protection; but afterwards, when the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim, &c., God was no longer with them, and their enemies were left to be pricks in their eyes, and thorns in their side, as God himself had said.

This is the turn given to the verse by Jonathan ben Uzziel, the Chaldee paraphrast: “And the WORD of Jehovah was in the support of the house of Judah, and they extirpated the inhabitants of the mountains; but afterwards, WHEN THEY SINNED, they were not able to extirpate the inhabitants of the plain country, because they had chariots of iron.” They were now left to their own strength, and their adversaries prevailed against them. From a work called the Dhunoor Veda, it appears that the ancient Hindoos had war chariots similar to those of the Canaanites. They are described as having many wheels, and to have contained a number of rooms.-Ward’s Customs.

Verse 19. Could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley — Because of their unbelief, through which they distrusted God’s power to destroy those who had chariots of iron, and so gave way to their own fear and sloth, whereby God was provoked to withdraw his helping hand.

19. And he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain — Hebrews, he seized or possessed the mountain. In ordinary cases of foreign invasion the mountains are the fortresses which are last to surrender. But the Israelites, having confidence only in mountain warfare, concentrated their energies upon these fastnesses and secured their possession. But could not drive out — Literally, for not to drive out the inhabitants of the valley; that is, they were not to be driven out, or, as one might say, there was no driving them out. The word rendered valley is qm[, emek, and does not necessarily refer at all to the Philistine plain, which is called the Shephelah, verse 9. Emek denotes any valley, basin, or depression between mountains, and may here refer to plains situated among the mountains of Judah or elsewhere. Because they had chariots of iron — This we are doubtless to take as the occasion, not the necessitating cause, of Judah’s ultimate failure to conquer all his foes. Iron chariots could not withstand the forces of Joshua (Joshua 11:4-9) nor of Barak, (Judges 4:15,) when the people of Jehovah fought with faith in his power, and Judah might likewise have conquered; but we understand that, after many triumphs, when Judah was brought to face these chariots of iron — instruments of warfare strange and terrible — he hesitated, wavered, gave way to fear, and thus lost faith in God, and then there was no driving out his enemy.

Verse 20. They gave Hebron unto Caleb] See this whole transaction explained Joshua 14:12, &c.

EXPLOITS OF CALEB, AND COWARDICE OF BENJAMIN, 20, 21.

20. Hebron — For the allotment of this city to Caleb, see Joshua 15:13, 14, notes. The account is repeated here as a contrast to the pusillanimity of Benjamin, who, in permitting the Jebusites to hold Jerusalem, failed to accomplish a much less difficult task than the expulsion of the terrible Anakim from Hebron. Its repetition in this connexion may also contain the thought that it was only after Judah had conquered and taken possession of his territory that Caleb could quietly enjoy his possession of Hebron.

Verse 21. The Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin] Jerusalem was situated partly in the tribe of Judah, and partly in the tribe of Benjamin, the northern part belonging to the latter tribe, the southern to the former. The Jebusites had their strongest position in the part that belonged to Benjamin, and from this place they were not wholly expelled till the days of David. See Clarke’s notes on “Judges 1:8”. What is said here of Benjamin is said of Judah, Joshua 15:63. There must be an interchange of the names in one or other of these places. Unto this day.] As the Jebusites dwelt in Jerusalem till the days of David, by whom they were driven out, and the author of the book of Judges states them to have been in possession of Jerusalem when he wrote; therefore this book was written before the reign of David.

21. And the children of Benjamin — Better, perhaps, to give this an adversative rendering, But the children, etc. — which brings out the contrast between Caleb’s heroism and trust in God, and Benjamin’s cowardly distrust and disobedience. Jerusalem was on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin, a portion belonging to each. After its conquest by Judah the Jebusites soon regained possession, and seem to have made a sort of league with the children of Benjamin by which they were allowed to dwell with or by the side of them without molestation. Compare Joshua 15:63, and note on verse 8. Unto this day — The day of this historian must have been before David’s expulsion of the Jebusites.

V. 22. House of Joseph-That is, the tribe of Ephraim.

Verse 22. The house of Joseph, they also went up against Bethel] That is, the tribe of Ephraim and the half tribe of Manasseh, who dwelt beyond Jordan. Beth-el was not taken by Joshua, though he took Ai, which was nigh to it.

Instead of ãswy tyb beith Yoseph, “the house of Joseph,” ten of Dr. Kennicott’s MSS. and six of Deuteronomy Rossi’s have ãswy ynb beney Yoseph, “the children of Joseph;” and this is the reading of both the Septuagint and Arabic, as well as of two copies in the Hexapla of Origen.

Verses 22-25. The house of Joseph — That is, the tribe of Ephraim. Show us the entrance into the city — That is, where it may be most easily entered. For they did not inquire the way to the gate, which, no doubt, was common and plain enough; but for the weakest part, where the walls were lowest, or most out of repair, or had the least guard. Or they desired him, perhaps, to show them some private way to get into it, which none knew but the inhabitants. He showed them the entrance — Upon which, we may suppose, notice was immediately sent to the army, which lay near. They smote the city — Came upon them suddenly, and attacked them where they least expected it; so that the assailants met with little resistance.

CONQUEST OF BETH-EL, 22-26.

22. House of Joseph — The combined forces of Ephraim and western Manasseh. This seems evident, not only from the words, but also from the fact that Manasseh and Ephraim are mentioned separately, in verses 27 and 29, in reference to other matters. Beth-el belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, (Joshua 18:22,) but was so near the border of Ephraim that the security and peace of all the neighbouring tribes required the expulsion of the Canaanites from it. So important was it to accomplish this conquest that the whole house of Joseph unite in the war.

Verse 23. Beth-el-the name of the city before was Luz.] Concerning this city and its names, see Clarke’s notes on “Genesis 28:19”.

Verses 22-25. The house of Joseph — That is, the tribe of Ephraim. Show us the entrance into the city — That is, where it may be most easily entered. For they did not inquire the way to the gate, which, no doubt, was common and plain enough; but for the weakest part, where the walls were lowest, or most out of repair, or had the least guard. Or they desired him, perhaps, to show them some private way to get into it, which none knew but the inhabitants. He showed them the entrance — Upon which, we may suppose, notice was immediately sent to the army, which lay near. They smote the city — Came upon them suddenly, and attacked them where they least expected it; so that the assailants met with little resistance.

23. Sent to descry — Or, they reconnoitred. They set a secret watch against Beth-el, to obtain such information as would enable them most easily to capture the city. Luz — Cassel distinguishes between Beth-el and Luz as follows: “As Jebus and Jerusalem are always identified, so it is everywhere remarked of Beth-el that it was formerly Luz; and as Jebus indicated particularly the fortress, Jerusalem the city — although the latter name also embraced both — so a similar relation must be assumed to have existed between Beth-el and Luz. The latter was evidently a fortress high and strong, whose city descended along the mountain slope.”

V. 24. The entrance-On which side it is weakest, that we might best invade and take it.

Verse 24. Show us-the entrance into the city] Taken in whatever light we choose, the conduct of this man was execrable. He was a traitor to his country, and he was accessary to the destruction of the lives and property of his fellow citizens, which he most sinfully betrayed, in order to save his own. According to the rules and laws of war, the children of Judah might avail themselves of such men and their information; but this does not lessen, on the side of this traitor, the turpitude of the action.

Verses 22-25. The house of Joseph — That is, the tribe of Ephraim. Show us the entrance into the city — That is, where it may be most easily entered. For they did not inquire the way to the gate, which, no doubt, was common and plain enough; but for the weakest part, where the walls were lowest, or most out of repair, or had the least guard. Or they desired him, perhaps, to show them some private way to get into it, which none knew but the inhabitants. He showed them the entrance — Upon which, we may suppose, notice was immediately sent to the army, which lay near. They smote the city — Came upon them suddenly, and attacked them where they least expected it; so that the assailants met with little resistance.

Ver. 24. Show us the entrance into the city: so he saved his own life by betraying his fellow-citizens. To him an awful subject of reflection for future years.

24. The entrance into the city — Not the ordinary gates, for to find these they needed no information; but that entrance which is least guarded, and by which it is easiest to take the whole city by surprise. And we will show thee mercy — This indicates that the Hebrews were not absolutely commanded to kill all the Canaanites; but there was an implied condition of stubborn refusal to surrender, and to acknowledge the supremacy of the Israelites.

V. 25. His family-Together with his estate, as the following verse manifests.

Verses 22-25. The house of Joseph — That is, the tribe of Ephraim. Show us the entrance into the city — That is, where it may be most easily entered. For they did not inquire the way to the gate, which, no doubt, was common and plain enough; but for the weakest part, where the walls were lowest, or most out of repair, or had the least guard. Or they desired him, perhaps, to show them some private way to get into it, which none knew but the inhabitants. He showed them the entrance — Upon which, we may suppose, notice was immediately sent to the army, which lay near. They smote the city — Came upon them suddenly, and attacked them where they least expected it; so that the assailants met with little resistance.

25. When he showed them — This unpatriotic act is not to be stigmatized as a betrayal of his country, since he did it under duress. The agitation of mind produced by a sudden threat of immediate death disqualifies an ordinary man for responsible action. A very cool and heroic man would have refused a compliance with this request, and would have suffered the consequences. But heroism, though an elevated virtue, cannot be strictly enjoined as a duty. Hence its absence cannot be regarded as a crime.

V. 26. The Hittites-Where the Hittites seated themselves after they were driven out of Canaan, which seems to be northward from Canaan, and near upon it.

Verse 26. The land of the Hittites] Probably some place beyond the land of Canaan, in Arabia, whither this people emigrated when expelled by Joshua. The man himself appears to have been a Hittite, and to perpetuate the name of his city he called the new one which he now founded Luz, this being the ancient name of Beth-el.

Verse 26. The man went and built a city — Which is an argument that the children of Ephraim dismissed him and his family, with all their goods and estate. The land of the Hittites — Where the Hittites fixed themselves after they were driven out of Canaan, which seems to have been northward from Canaan, and not far distant from it.

26. The man went into the land of the Hittites — The Hebrew historian had special interest in the fortunes of those who, like this man and Rahab, advanced the interests of Israel. The land of the Hittites is an obscure expression. It seems, in some passages, to refer to the whole interior of Palestine. Joshua 1:4. Eusebius and Jerome refer it to the island of Cyprus. Cassel thinks it here refers “to the familiarly known Chittim, north of Israel,” and he accordingly seeks for the Luz which this man built in the northern coasts of Phenicia, and suggests its identity with the ruins of Kulb Lousy, which Thomson discovered far in the north of Palestine. But the subject is too much involved in obscurity for a positive settlement.

V. 27. Manasseh-That is, that half of this tribe which dwelt in Canaan.

Verse 27. Beth-shean] Called by the Septuagint Skuqwnpoliv, Scythopolis, or the city of the Scythians. On these towns see the notes, Joshua 17:12, 13.

Verse 27. Neither did Manasseh, &c. — That is, that half of this tribe which dwelt in Canaan. Beth-shean — A place near Jordan, Joshua 17:11. Taanach — Of which see Joshua 12:21. Dor — A great town, with large territories, Joshua 11:2, and 12:23. Megiddo — A royal city, Joshua 12:21, and 17:11. But the Canaanites would dwell in the land — Namely, by force or agreement. So that it appears, although, during the life of Joshua, the Israelites had conducted themselves with a great degree of bravery, and had expelled several bodies of the Canaanites; yet, after his death, they became pusillanimous and remiss in driving them out, and made peace with them, which was the first step of their defection.

COWARDLY INACTIVITY OF THE REST OF THE TRIBES, 27-36.

27. Manasseh — For the boundaries, see Joshua 17:7-11; also note on the same for a description of Beth-shean and Ibleam. Taanach and Megiddo — See Joshua 12. 21. Dor is described in note on Joshua 11:2. It is worthy of note that these cities were all outside of the proper limits of Manasseh. Joshua 17:11. This may be the reason why they were left unconquered. It may have been impossible to secure the military co-operation of Issachar and Asher, within whose bounds they were. But the Canaanites would dwell — Rather, And the Canaanites consented to dwell, or were determined to dwell, in that land. They were unwilling to leave the fine country in which they dwelt, and were disposed to make any effort or sacrifice to abide in their ancient homes.

Verse 28. When Israel was strong they put the Canaanites to tribute — Herein they violated the law, whereby they were enjoined to destroy or expel that people when they were able. And as they were strong enough to impose tribute on them, they undoubtedly might have driven them entirely out of the land. But it cost them less trouble, and brought them more profit, to make them tributaries, than to expel them; and therefore they preferred it, being influenced by sloth and covetousness. And this seems to be here spoken of as their common fault at this time.

28. When Israel was strong — The lack of strength was the excuse for their cowardice and disobedience to a positive command, notwithstanding they had the assurance of aid from God. Perhaps, too, their previous weakness was owing to their fear of the war chariots. See note on verse

19. Nearly all these towns were on the great plain of Esdraelon; and bordering, as they did, the track of oriental commerce with the great cities of Phenicia, they were probably well fortified. But, in course of time, it seems that Israel became strong enough to bring them into subjection. They put the Canaanites to tribute — The love of money is now added to their love of ease and disobedience. When they became strong they were no more disposed to obey the voice of God than they were before. By long familiarity with them their pagan foes had ceased to be abominable in their eyes, while the command to exterminate them had become in their estimation more and more unreasonable and barbarous. Yet they soon learned, to their sorrow, that they had planted the seeds of social and national ruin by refusing to apply to themselves the divinely appointed safeguard of their well-being — the radical extermination of their enemies.

V. 29. In Gezer-Which they possessed ‘till Solomon’s time, 1 Kings 9:16.

Verse 29. Neither did Ephraim] See the notes on the parallel passages, Joshua 16:5-10.

Verse 29. Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites — So far from it, that it appears they did not so much as exact any tribute from them, but made a covenant of friendship with them, which was a still greater crime. The Canaanites dwelt in Gezer — Which they possessed till Solomon’s time; 1 Kings 9:6. And to dwell among a people often signifies to have a quiet settlement, as 2 Kings 4:13.

29. Gezer — See Joshua 10:33, note.

Verse 30. Neither did Zebulun drive out] See on Joshua 19:10-15.

30. Kitron and Nahalol are both of unknown situation.

Verse 31. Neither did Asher] See on Joshua 19:24-31. Accho] Supposed to be the city of Ptolemais, near to Mount Carmel.

31. Accho is a flourishing seaport on a bay of the same name, just north of Mount Carmel. It was named Ptolemais, in honour of one of the Ptolemies. Its modern name is Acre. It contains a mixed population of five thousand. On Zidon, or great Sidon, see Joshua 11:8. “The district of Sidon,” says Wilkins, “had apparently been included in the earliest scheme of conquest. But it had not fallen to the lot of either of the two most powerful and warlike tribes — Judah and Ephraim; it was destined for the feebler and less energetic Asher, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali. The impetuous rush of the hardy warriors of the desert, thirsting for the blessings of the Promised Land, had spent itself in early efforts, and the northern tribes were well contented with the marvellous fertility of the plain of Esdraelon, which probably furnished abundant supplies for their scanty numbers. The Phenicians would, on the other hand, have the strongest inducements to live on terms of amity with their new neighbours. The great lines of traffic with Egypt, Arabia, Babylon, and Assyria, were in the hands of the invaders, and any hostilities with them must necessarily have caused a ruinous suspension of commerce.” — Phenicia and Israel. Ahlab is named in this place only. In Joshua 19:29, this name is wanting; but the word Cheleb, translated coast, is, in the opinion of Fuerst, the name of the town here written Ahlab. Its site is unknown, as is also Helbah. Achzib — Joshua 19:29, note. Aphik is written Aphek in Joshua 13:4, where see note. Rehob is not identified.

Verse 32. The Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites — This manner of speaking seems to imply that these Canaanites still remained the lords of the country, and that the Asherites were only permitted to dwell among the Canaanites, who certainly appear to have paid them no tribute, and to have owed them no subjection.

COWARDLY INACTIVITY OF THE REST OF THE TRIBES, 27-36.

27. Manasseh — For the boundaries, see Joshua 17:7-11; also note on the same for a description of Beth-shean and Ibleam. Taanach and Megiddo — See Joshua 12. 21. Dor is described in note on Joshua 11:2. It is worthy of note that these cities were all outside of the proper limits of Manasseh. Joshua 17:11. This may be the reason why they were left unconquered. It may have been impossible to secure the military co-operation of Issachar and Asher, within whose bounds they were. But the Canaanites would dwell — Rather, And the Canaanites consented to dwell, or were determined to dwell, in that land. They were unwilling to leave the fine country in which they dwelt, and were disposed to make any effort or sacrifice to abide in their ancient homes.

Verse 33. Neither did Naphtali] See the notes on Joshua 19:32-39.

33. Beth-shemesh (house of the sun) and Beth-anath (house of echo) are unknown.

V. 34. The valley-That is, into the plain country; which was the occasion of that expedition for the getting new quarters, of which we read Joshua 19:47,48 and Judges 18:1-31.

Verse 34. The Amorites forced the children of Dan, &c.] Just as the ancient Britons were driven into the mountains of Wales by the Romans; and the native Indians driven back into the woods by the British settlers in America.

Verses 34, 35. They would not suffer them to come down into the valley — That is, into the plain country; which was the occasion of that expedition for the obtaining of territory elsewhere, of which we read Joshua 19:47, and Judges 18:2. The hand of the house of Joseph prevailed — That is, of the Ephraimites, who helped their brethren the Danites against the Amorites.

34. Amorites — Joshua 2:10, note. Forced the children of Dan into the mountain — Dan’s portion was chiefly that part of the Shephelah, or maritime plain, which lay to the west of Benjamin and northwest of Judah. Hence he was forced out of the main part of his inheritance. The tribe made up for this by conquests in the north, near Mount Hermon. Chap. 18, and Joshua 19:47.

V. 35. House of Joseph-That is, of the Ephraimites, who helped their brethren the Danites against the Amorites.

Verse 35. The Amorites would dwell in Mount Heres] They perhaps agreed to dwell in the mountainous country, being unable to maintain themselves on the plain, and yet were so powerful that the Danites could not totally expel them; they were, however, laid under tribute, and thus the house of Joseph had the sovereignty. The Septuagint have sought out a literal meaning for the names of several of these places, and they render the verse thus: “And the Amorites began to dwell in the mount of Tiles, in which there are bears, and in which there are foxes.” Thus they translate Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim.

Verses 34, 35. They would not suffer them to come down into the valley — That is, into the plain country; which was the occasion of that expedition for the obtaining of territory elsewhere, of which we read Joshua 19:47, and Judges 18:2. The hand of the house of Joseph prevailed — That is, of the Ephraimites, who helped their brethren the Danites against the Amorites.

35. Mount Heres (sun mountain) is supposed to be another name for Ir-shemesh, (the sun town,) identified in Ain Shems. Perhaps it was some eminence or range of hills in the vicinity of Ain Shems. See Joshua 15:10. Aijalon — See on Joshua 10:12. Shaalbim — No trace of any name resembling this is found in the vicinity of Yale or Ain Shems. House of Joseph — See note on verse 22.

V. 36. Akrabbim-Which was in the southern part of Canaan, Joshua 15:2,3, from whence it went up towards the north. This is added to shew the great power and large extent of this people.

Verse 36. Akrabbim] Of scorpions; probably so called from the number of those animals in that place.

From the rock, and upward.] The Vulgate understand by [ls sela, a rock, the city Petra, which was the capital of Arabia Petræa. THE whole of this chapter appears to be designed as a sort of supplement to those places in the book of Joshua which are referred to in the notes and in the margin; nor is there any thing in it worthy of especial remark. We everywhere see the same fickle character in the Israelites, and the goodness and long-suffering of God towards them. An especial Providence guides their steps, and a fatherly hand chastises them for their transgressions. They are obliged to live in the midst of their enemies, often straitened, but never overcome so as to lose the land which God gave them as their portion. We should learn wisdom from what they have suffered, and confidence in the protection and providence of God from their support, because these things were written for our learning.

Few can be persuaded that adversity is a blessing, but without it how little should we learn! He, who in the school of affliction has his mind turned towards God,

“Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,

Sermons in stones, and good in every thing.”

JUDGES

Verse 36. From the going up to Akrabbim — Which was in the southern part of Canaan, Joshua 15:2, 3, from whence it went up toward the north. This is added to show the great power and large extent of this people.

36. Akrabbim — Probably the range of cliffs which form the southern boundary of the Valley of Salt, or the lower end of the Ghor, south of the Dead Sea. See on Joshua 15:3, where it is called Maaleh-acrabbim. From the rock, and upward — By the rock many understand Petra, the Edomite capital, which is called Sela ([lsh, the rock) in 2 Kings 14:7; but this would make palpable confusion in the context, and involve the impossible conclusion that the Amorites had possession of the metropolis of Edom and the regions beyond. Better, therefore, to understand some well-known rock or prominent cliff in the southern border of Palestine. Keil supposes that it was the rock at Kadesh, from which the Israelites were miraculously supplied with water. Numbers 20:11. Upward would then naturally mean northward from this well-known rock. The wide dominion of the Amorites is mentioned to account for their ability to resist the forces of Israel.

A panoramic view is given in this chapter of the political condition of the Hebrews at the beginning of this book. A general spirit of discouragement had come upon them, disposing them to acquiesce in the present situation, and to compromise with the unsubdued foes with whom they were intermingled. The natural result of this state of the facts would have been the turning of the Hebrews to paganism, and the loss of their nationality. For, unlike Christianity, Judaism possessed no aggressiveness. It was not designed as a missionary agency to go forth and make Jews of the pagan nations. It was eminently conservative in its spirit, and could flourish only by segregation, and separation from the assimilating power of heathen society. Hence the wisdom of the command, seemingly so radical and severe, to exterminate the Canaanite root and branch. The state of the nation calls for a renewed proclamation of this command. This will be found in the next chapter.