Judges · Chapter 12

V. 1. Northward-Over Jordan, where Jephthah was, in the northern part of the land beyond Jordan. And said-Through pride and envy, contending with him as they did before with Gideon. Over-Not over Jordan, for there he was already; but over the borders of the Israelites land beyond Jordan.

Verse 1. The men of Ephraim gathered themselves together] q[xyw vaiyitstsaek, they called each other to arms; summoning all their tribe and friends to arm themselves to destroy Jephthah and the Gileadites, being jealous lest they should acquire too much power.

Verse 1. The men of Ephraim went northward — Over Jordan, where Jephthah was, in the northern part of the land beyond Jordan. And said — Through pride and envy, contending with him as they did before with Gideon; over to fight — Not over Jordan, for there he was already; but over the borders of the Israelites’ land beyond Jordan.

EPHRAIM’S JEALOUSY AND DEFEAT, 1-6.

Ephraim’s ambition and jealousy towards other tribes had burst out once before, in the days of Gideon, (Judges 8:1-3,) but the soft answer of that heroic judge prevented then a rupture between the men of that tribe and the divinely chosen judge. But in Jephthah the men of Ephraim find a man of different mettle, and a character less placable than Gideon. His stern and resolute spirit smites the head of Ephraim’s jealousy, and thus for a long time silences that factious element in Israel. At a later period, however, Ephraim’s irrepressible pride and ambition broke out again, and led to the secession of the ten tribes and the Assyrian exile.

1. The men of Ephraim — The warriors of that tribe. Gathered themselves together — Were summoned by their leaders to muster for battle. The warriors gathered from this single tribe were more than forty-two thousand. Verse 6. They meant to make a great demonstration in Israel, and show Jephthah and the eastern tribes how powerful they were. It was passionate ambition and jealousy taking up arms for self-gratification. Went northward — So the ancient versions; but the better rendering is, went over to Zaphon. Zaphon was a city in the tribe of Gad. See at Joshua 13:27.

V. 2. When I called-Hence it appears, that he had craved their assistance, which they had denied; though that be not elsewhere expressed.

Verses 2, 3. When I called you, ye delivered me not — He answers them with great mildness, but denies their charge. He affirms that he had begged their assistance, but they had refused to grant it. When I saw that ye delivered me not — When I became sensible that there was no hope of your assistance to preserve us from ruin; I put my life in my hand — That is, I exposed myself to the utmost danger; as a man that carries a brittle and precious thing in his hand, which may easily either fall to the ground or be snatched from him. He had but a small part of the people of Israel with him, to encounter their powerful oppressors. And passed over against the children of Ammon — With such forces only as I could raise on the east of Jordan, Judges 11:29, 30. Wherefore are ye come up? — Why do ye thus requite my kindness in running such hazards to defend and preserve you and yours? Jephthah here manifests an excellent spirit and great wisdom. He would have prevented the civil war had it been possible.

2. When I called you — Jephthah speaks in the name and as representative of the eastern tribes. These tribes were the ones specially afflicted by Ammon, and when they could no longer endure the oppression they resolved on fight. See Judges 10:17, 18. Then they looked for a leader; and then it doubtless was they appealed to the western tribes, and especially to Ephraim, to come and save them from their bitter foes. Jephthah himself, too, when collecting his forces to go against the Ammonites, probably called on them to come and help in the war. Keil thinks the Ephraimites probably refused their co-operation because the eastern tribes had appointed Jephthah as commander without consulting them. The designed brevity of the history led to the necessary omission of many minor facts and details.

V. 3. Put my life-That is, I exposed myself to the utmost danger; as a man that carries a brittle and precious thing in his hand, which may easily either fall to the ground, or be snatched from him. Wherefore-Why do you thus requite my kindness in running such hazards to preserve you and yours?

Verse 3. I put my life in my hands] I exposed myself to the greatest difficulties and dangers. But whence did this form of speech arise? Probably from a man’s laying hold of his sword, spear, or bow. “This is the defender of my life; on this, and my proper use of it, my life depends.” When a man draws his sword against his foe, his enemy will naturally aim at his life; and his sword in his hand is his sole defense. It is then, Fight and conquer, or die. Thus Jephthah took his life in his hand. This phrase occurs in some other places of Scripture; see 1 Samuel 19:5; 28:21. And the words of the Conqueror, Isaiah 63:5, seem to confirm the above view of the subject: I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered there was none to uphold; therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; i.e., by mine own arm I saved my life, and brought destruction on mine enemies.

Verses 2, 3. When I called you, ye delivered me not — He answers them with great mildness, but denies their charge. He affirms that he had begged their assistance, but they had refused to grant it. When I saw that ye delivered me not — When I became sensible that there was no hope of your assistance to preserve us from ruin; I put my life in my hand — That is, I exposed myself to the utmost danger; as a man that carries a brittle and precious thing in his hand, which may easily either fall to the ground or be snatched from him. He had but a small part of the people of Israel with him, to encounter their powerful oppressors. And passed over against the children of Ammon — With such forces only as I could raise on the east of Jordan, Judges 11:29, 30. Wherefore are ye come up? — Why do ye thus requite my kindness in running such hazards to defend and preserve you and yours? Jephthah here manifests an excellent spirit and great wisdom. He would have prevented the civil war had it been possible.

Verse 3. I put my life in my hands; a Hebraism of forcible import. David twice uses the same phrase. Now, to take the life of a man who had thus devoted himself, and whom God had honoured, was the extreme of wickedness.

EPHRAIM’S JEALOUSY AND DEFEAT, 1-6.

Ephraim’s ambition and jealousy towards other tribes had burst out once before, in the days of Gideon, (Judges 8:1-3,) but the soft answer of that heroic judge prevented then a rupture between the men of that tribe and the divinely chosen judge. But in Jephthah the men of Ephraim find a man of different mettle, and a character less placable than Gideon. His stern and resolute spirit smites the head of Ephraim’s jealousy, and thus for a long time silences that factious element in Israel. At a later period, however, Ephraim’s irrepressible pride and ambition broke out again, and led to the secession of the ten tribes and the Assyrian exile.

1. The men of Ephraim — The warriors of that tribe. Gathered themselves together — Were summoned by their leaders to muster for battle. The warriors gathered from this single tribe were more than forty-two thousand. Verse 6. They meant to make a great demonstration in Israel, and show Jephthah and the eastern tribes how powerful they were. It was passionate ambition and jealousy taking up arms for self-gratification. Went northward — So the ancient versions; but the better rendering is, went over to Zaphon. Zaphon was a city in the tribe of Gad. See at Joshua 13:27.

V. 4. Ye Gileadites-These words are a contemptuous expression of the Ephraimites concerning the Gileadites, whom they call fugitives of Ephraim; the word Ephraim being here taken largely, as it comprehends the other neighbouring tribes, of which Ephraim was the chief; and especially their brethren of Manasseh, who lived next to them, and were descended from the same father, Joseph. By Gileadites here they seem principally to mean the Manassites beyond Jordan, who dwelt in Gilead. And although other Gileadites were joined with them, yet they vent their passion against these; principally, because they envied them most; as having had a chief hand in the victory. These they opprobriously call fugitives, that is, such as had deserted their brethren of Ephraim and Manasseh, planted themselves beyond Jordan, at a distance from their brethren, and were alienated in affection from them.

Verse 4. And fought with Ephraim] Some commentators suppose that there were two battles in which the Ephraimites were defeated: the first mentioned in the above clause; and the second occasioned by the taunting language mentioned in the conclusion of the verse, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim. Where the point of this reproach lies, or what is the reason of it, cannot be easily ascertained.

Verse 4. The men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, &c. — That which provoked the army of Jephthah to kill so many of them was their insulting language, added to their threats, whereby they reproached the men of Gilead, (who were the chief managers of the late war,) as if they were but the scum and dregs of the tribe of Ephraim. Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim — A contemptuous expression, designed to provoke and kindle wrath. The word Ephraim is here taken largely, as comprehending the other neighbouring tribes, of which Ephraim was the chief, and especially their brethren of Manasseh, who lived next to them, and were descended from the same father, Joseph. By Gileadites, they seem here principally to mean, those Manassites who inhabited Gilead, beyond Jordan. And although other Gileadites were joined with them, yet they vent their passion principally against these, because they envied them most, as having had a chief hand in the victory. These they opprobriously call fugitives, that is, such as had deserted their brethren of Ephraim and Manasseh, planted themselves beyond Jordan, at a distance from their brethren, and were alienated in affection from them.

4. The men of Gilead smote Ephraim — This was the first actual tribal war, and was brought about by a rash tribal jealousy. Ephraim wasin every sense to blame. Because they said — That is, the men of Ephraim said. Fugitives of Ephraim — This taunting charge from the men of Ephraim is given as a further reason why the victorious Gileadites dealt so severely with the Ephraimites who fell into their hands. To the rash arrogance of their language, as given in verse 1, they also added this insult to those who rallied to the support of Jephthah. Among the Ephraimites, and among the Manassites — The meaning of Ephraim’s insulting charge will be seen by regarding it as an allusion to Jephthah’s early history. He was an outlaw and fugitive from the tribe of Manasseh, (Judges 11:1-3,) and for most of his life had been the leader of a band of border ruffians, who resorted to him from various tribes. The men of Ephraim would insinuate that all who followed Jephthah were of this class, and now, by making him judge in Israel, they meant to settle down among the ancient and honoured tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and thus monopolize the dominion of all Israel. Thus the words Ye Gileadites are equivalent to Jephthah’s clique of ruffians. Another rendering of this passage is, Fugitives of Ephraim are ye; Gilead is in the midst of Ephraim and in the midst of Manasseh. The meaning then would be, that Jephthah’s warriors were fugitives from the Ephraimites, and a set of rebels wishing to form a rival government on the east of Jordan, and pretending to be Gileadites. But Gilead, the true descendants of Manasseh’s grandson, (Numbers 26:29,) Ephraim urges, is altogether swallowed up in the great tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, which join each other in the centre of Israel on the west of the Jordan.

V. 5. Said Nay-To avoid the present danger.

Verses 5, 6. If he said, Nay — To avoid the present danger. Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth — To find out the truth, they put him to this test; whether his pronunciation of some words was like that of the Gileadites; for people of the same nation, who speak the same language, generally differ very much in the pronunciation of it, according as they live in different parts of the country. As the word signifies a stream or river, and they desired to pass over one, it was a word proper for the occasion, and gave them no cause to suspect the design, because they were only desired to say, “Let me go over the Shibboleth or river.” And he said, Sibboleth — If he was an Ephraimite, he presently discovered himself, for he could not pronounce the Hebrew letter v, shin; which probably proceeded from the long habit of that people, to express themselves in a different manner; so that they could not readily frame the organs of speech to pronounce as the Gileadites did. The Hebrew text, however, does not say that he could not, but that he did not frame to pronounce it right; because, not suspecting the design, he uttered hastily, according to his usual manner of expression. There fell forty and two thousand — Not in that place, but in that expedition, being slain either in the battle, or in the pursuit, or at Jordan. See the justice of God! They had gloried that they were Ephraimites; but how soon are they afraid to own their country! They had called the Gileadites fugitives; and now they are in good earnest become fugitives themselves. It is the same word (verse 5) used of the Ephraimites that fled, which they had used in scorn of the Gileadites. He that rolls the stone of reproach unjustly on another, it may justly return upon himself.

5. Took the passages of Jordan — Compare marginal reference. Before the Ephraimites — Or, towards Ephraim, that is, towards the territory of that tribe. Across these fords would the defeated and retreating Ephraimites seek to make their escape from the land of Gilead.

V. 6. Shibboleth-Which signifies a stream or river, which they desired to pass over: so it was a word proper for the occasion, and gave them no cause to suspect the design, because they were required only to express their desire to go over the Shibboleth or river. Sibboleth-It is well known, that not only divers nations, but divers provinces, or parts of the same nation who use the same language, differ in their manner of pronunciation. Could not frame-Or rather, he did not frame to speak right; so as he was required to do it. The Hebrew text doth not say, that he could not do it, but that he did it not, because suspecting not the design he uttered it speedily according to his manner of expression. There fell-Not in that place, but in that expedition, being slain either in the battle, or in the pursuit, or at Jordan. See the justice of God! They had gloried, that they were Ephraimites: But how soon are they afraid to own their country? They had called the Gileadites, fugitives: And now they are in good earnest become fugitives themselves. It is the same word, ver. 5, used of the Ephraimites that fled, which they had used in scorn of the Gileadites. He that rolls the stone, or reproach unjustly on another, it may justly return upon himself.

Verse 6. Say now Shibboleth; and he said Sibboleth] The original differs only in the first letter s samech, instead of v sheen; tlbs rmayw tlbv an rma emar na Shibboleth, vaiyomer Sibboleth. The difference between v seen, without a point, which when pointed is pronounced sheen, and s samech, is supposed by many to be imperceptible. But there can be no doubt there was, to the ears of a Hebrew, a most sensible distinction. Most Europeans, and, indeed, most who have written grammars of the language, perceive scarcely any difference between the Arabic [Arabic] seen and [Arabic] saad; but as both those letters are radical not only in Arabic but in Hebrew, the difference of enunciation must be such as to be plainly perceivable by the ear; else it would be impossible to determine the root of a word into which either of these letters entered, except by guessing, unless by pronunciation the sounds were distinct. One to whom the Arabic is vernacular, hearing a native speak, discerns it in a moment; but the delicate enunciation of the characteristic difference between those letters v seen and s samech, and [Arabic] seen and [Arabic] saad, is seldom caught by a European. Had there been no distinction between the seen and samech but what the Masoretic point gives now, then s samech would not have been used in the word tlbs sibboleth, but v seen, thus tlbv: but there must have been a very remarkable difference in the pronunciation of the Ephraimites, when instead of tlbv shibboleth, an ear of corn, (see Job 24:24,) they said tlbs sibboleth, which signifies a burden, Exodus 6:6; and a heavy burden were they obliged to bear who could not pronounce this test letter. It is likely that the Ephraimites were, in reference to the pronunciation of sh, as different from the Gileadites as the people in some parts of the north of England are, in the pronunciation of the letter r, from all the other inhabitants of the land. The sound of th cannot be pronounced by the Persians in general; and yet it is a common sound among the Arabians. To this day multitudes of the German Jews cannot pronounce t th, but put ss in the stead of it: thus for tyb beith (a house) they say bess. Mr. Richardson, in his “Dissertation on the Languages, Literature, and Manners of the Eastern Nations,” prefixed to his Persian and Arabic Dictionary, p. ii., 4to. edition, makes some observations on the different dialects which prevailed in Arabia Felix, the chief of which were the Hemyaret and Koreish; and to illustrate the point in hand, he produces the following story from the Mohammedan writers: “An envoy from one of the feudatory states, having been sent to the tobba, (the sovereign,) that prince, when he was introduced, pronounced the word T’heb, which in the Hemyaret implied, Be seated: unhappily it signified, in the native dialect of the ambassador, Precipitate thyself; and he, with a singular deference for the orders of his sovereign, threw himself instantly from the castle wall and perished.” Though the Ephraimites had not a different dialect, they had, it appears, a different pronunciation, which confounded, to others, letters of the same organ, and thus produced, not only a different sound, but even an opposite meaning. This was a sufficient test to find out an Ephraimite; and he who spake not as he was commanded, at the fords of Jordan, spoke against his own life.

For he could not frame to pronounce it right.] This is not a bad rendering of the original כנ לדבר יכינ ולא velo yachin ledabber ken; “and they did not direct to speak it thus.” But instead of יכינ yachin, to direct, thirteen of Kennicott’s and Deuteronomy Rossi’s MSS., with two ancient editions, read יבינ yabin; “they did not understand to speak it thus.”

The versions take great latitude in this verse. The Vulgate makes a paraphrase: Dic ergo Shibboleth, quod interpretatur spica: qui respondebat Sibboleth; eadem litera spicam exprimere non valens. “Say therefore, Shibboleth; which interpreted is an ear of corn: but he answered, Sibboleth; not being able to express an ear of corn by that letter.” In my very ancient copy of the Vulgate, probably the editio princeps, there is sebboleth in the first instance as the test word, and thebboleth as the Ephraimite pronunciation. But cebboleth is the reading of the Complutensian Polyglot, and is supported by one of my own MSS., yet the former reading, thebboleth, is found in two of my MSS. The Chaldee has atlbwv shubbaltha for the Gileaditish pronunciation, and atlbs subbaltha for that of Ephraim. The Syriac has [Syriac] shelba and [Syriac] sebla. The Arabic has the same word, with [Arabic] sheen and [Arabic] seen; and adds, “He said Sebla, for the Ephraimites could not pronounce the letter sheen.” These notices, however trivial at first view, will not be thought unimportant by the Biblical critic.

Verses 5, 6. If he said, Nay — To avoid the present danger. Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth — To find out the truth, they put him to this test; whether his pronunciation of some words was like that of the Gileadites; for people of the same nation, who speak the same language, generally differ very much in the pronunciation of it, according as they live in different parts of the country. As the word signifies a stream or river, and they desired to pass over one, it was a word proper for the occasion, and gave them no cause to suspect the design, because they were only desired to say, “Let me go over the Shibboleth or river.” And he said, Sibboleth — If he was an Ephraimite, he presently discovered himself, for he could not pronounce the Hebrew letter v, shin; which probably proceeded from the long habit of that people, to express themselves in a different manner; so that they could not readily frame the organs of speech to pronounce as the Gileadites did. The Hebrew text, however, does not say that he could not, but that he did not frame to pronounce it right; because, not suspecting the design, he uttered hastily, according to his usual manner of expression. There fell forty and two thousand — Not in that place, but in that expedition, being slain either in the battle, or in the pursuit, or at Jordan. See the justice of God! They had gloried that they were Ephraimites; but how soon are they afraid to own their country! They had called the Gileadites fugitives; and now they are in good earnest become fugitives themselves. It is the same word (verse 5) used of the Ephraimites that fled, which they had used in scorn of the Gileadites. He that rolls the stone of reproach unjustly on another, it may justly return upon himself.

Ver. 6. Shibboleth. Vox Hebraica, juxta interpretationem Hebræam, significet impetum currentis aquæ. This Hebrew word, according to the interpretation of the rabbins, designates impetuous currents of waters. Our travellers state that the Jordan is, in many places, not more than twenty yards across, but that the stream is generally very rapid. In the north of Europe, our fathers varied in the enunciation of several letters from the south. The th is not sounded by the southern inhabitants; as for example, in the name of their god, Thor, thur, and in thundr; that is, Jupiter, or high thundering Jove. So with regard to s. Toroth Adonai, the law of the Lord, the Persic and German Jews say, Toross Adonai. The radical letter s is wanting in the dialects and language of the south sea, which make them call the English, the goose language, because of its hissing sibilancy. It is wanting also in the Somerset dialect; they say, zaviour, zoul, zin, zupper. Hence our present mode of writing, “If he misses his mark,” instead of the subjunctive, “If he miss,” greatly disfigures our language by sibilancy, and violates all our rules of grammar. See my Grammar. Rule 18.

6. Shibboleth… sibboleth — The word means a stream, and the slight difference of pronunciation between Ephraimites and Gileadites here casually mentioned, shows that dialectic modifications of the Hebrew language had begun to manifest themselves between the tribes that were separated by the Jordan. It is impossible to decide which is the earlier or more correct pronunciation. The word has become the symbol of needless religious strifes, for “many a party watchword, many a theological test,” says Stanley, “has had no better origin than this difference of pronunciation between the two rough tribes.” — There fell… forty and two thousand — A bloody raid! Thus pride went before destruction.

JEPHTHAH’S DEATH, 7.

7. Judged Israel six years — His dominion, probably, never extended to the west of the Jordan. The elders of Gilead had made him their “head and captain,” (Judges 11:11,) and after his victory over the Ammonites, and his defeat of the Ephraimite invasion, he seems to have been content to rule over the inhabitants of Gilead. Buried in one of the cities of Gilead — From this indefiniteness about the place of his burial, compared with the fact that the burial of Abimelech is not mentioned at all, Wordsworth infers that a dark shadow hung over the name and memory of Jephthah. But he seems to have been honoured and respected among the eastern tribes, though we have no record of his making any efforts to lead back his people to the first principles of the theocracy, from which they had greatly departed. The eastern tribes still felt themselves to be of Israel, and never lost that feeling; but their isolation from the western tribes, causing the dialectic variation noticed verse 6, and their remoteness from the tabernacle, whereby they were cut off in a great measure from the practice of the divine worship, greatly weakened the ties of nationality. Jephthah’s offering, too, of a human sacrifice, taken in connexion with the fact that it seems not to have occasioned any feelings of horror among the people, creates the belief that they had become generally ignorant of the requirements of their own law, and estranged from the principles of Moses. {Our impression of Jephthah’s character is reverent. Driven by wrong from home and country, he wrought for himself a heroic name that made the chiefs of eastern Israel realize him to be their only hope. Recalled by their repentance, he, like Camillus, forgave all, and returned to his native home and altars. The dark vow that shades his character was an act of mistaken piety; yet his very fidelity to his vow shows it to have been a profoundly conscientious piety. At the same time it furnishes, in the self-devoting response of the daughter, one of the most touching strokes of pathos in all history. His diplomacy was as honest as his chivalry was brave. No shadow but his mistaken vow rests upon this heroic chief.}

Verse 8. And after him Ibzan] It appears that during the administration of Jephthah, six years-Ibzan, seven years-Elon, ten years-and Abdon, eight years, (in the whole thirty-one years,) the Israelites had peace in all their borders; and we shall find by the following chapter that in this time of rest they corrupted themselves, and were afterwards delivered into the power of the Philistines.

1. WE find that Ibzan had a numerous family, sixty children; and Abdon had forty sons and thirty grandsons; and that they lived splendidly, which is here expressed by their riding on seventy young asses; what we would express by they all kept their carriages; for the riding on fine asses in those days was not less dignified than riding in coaches in ours.

2. It does not appear that any thing particular took place in the civil state of the Israelites during the time of these latter judges; nothing is said concerning their administration, whether it was good or bad; nor is any thing mentioned of the state of religion. It is likely that they enjoyed peace without, and their judges were capable of preventing discord and sedition within. Yet, doubtless, God was at work among them, though there were none to record the operations either of his hand or his Spirit; but the people who feared him no doubt bore testimony to the word of his grace. JUDGES

IBZAN, ELON, AND ABDON, 8-15.

8. Ibzan of Beth-lehem — Nothing is said by which we can certainly know whether the Beth-lehem of Judah or that of Zebulun (Joshua 19:15) is meant. From the absence of the addition Judah, (compare Judges 17:7,) and the fact that the next judge was also a Zebulonite, most commentators suppose that the Beth-lehem of Zebulun is meant. The notion that Ibzan was identical with Boaz, the second husband of Ruth and father of Obed, has nothing but a distant resemblance in the names to support it, and has very much against it.

V. 9. Took in-That is, took them home for wives to his sons. What a difference between his and his predecessor’s family! Ibzan had sixty children, and all married: Jephthah but one, and she dies unmarried. Some are increased, others diminished: all is the Lord’s doing.

Verse 9. Took in thirty daughters — That is, took them home for wives to his sons. What a difference between his and his predecessor’s family! Ibzan had sixty children, and all married; Jephthah but one, and she dies unmarried. Some are increased, others diminished; all is the Lord’s doing.

Ver. 9. Ibzan judged Israel seven years. See the chronology, 1 Kings 6:1.

9. Thirty sons, and thirty daughters — This fact alone would make him great in Israel, and might have been one reason of his being elected judge. Notice that the daughters were sent abroad to find homes in Israel, but the sons remained at home to inherit the paternal estate. Notice, also, how complete a contrast between Ibzan’s family fortunes and those of Jephthah.

IBZAN, ELON, AND ABDON, 8-15.

8. Ibzan of Beth-lehem — Nothing is said by which we can certainly know whether the Beth-lehem of Judah or that of Zebulun (Joshua 19:15) is meant. From the absence of the addition Judah, (compare Judges 17:7,) and the fact that the next judge was also a Zebulonite, most commentators suppose that the Beth-lehem of Zebulun is meant. The notion that Ibzan was identical with Boaz, the second husband of Ruth and father of Obed, has nothing but a distant resemblance in the names to support it, and has very much against it.

11. Elon… judged Israel ten years — But we have no record of his particular acts. See note on Judges 10:1.

12. Aijalon — Supposed by Van de Velde to have been at the modern Jalun, about fifteen miles east of Akka. This was really in the territory of Naphtali, but so near the border as to be popularly called in the country of Zebulun.

13. A Pirathonite — A native and resident of Pirathon, a. city in the tribe of Ephraim, the modern Ferata, about six miles southwest of Shechem. In verse 15 it is described as being in the mount of the Amalekites, from which we infer that a colony of this people had early settled on this hill, and given it its most common name. Hence Ephraim’s root was in Amalek. See note on Judges 5:14.

Ver. 14. Forty sons. The dignity of those judges was supported by presents, and booty in conquests. They aimed at the dignity of gentile kings. We have no record of those judges but one; they kept their country in peace.

14. Thirty nephews — Rather, grandsons. His family greatness was much like that of Ibzan and of Jair. Forty sons and thirty grandsons, seventy in all, made up a perfect number, and was of itself a fact worth recording. Threescore and ten ass colts — One for each child. Compare notes on Judges 5:10, and 10:4.

V. 15. Mount of the Amalekites-So called from some remarkable exploit, done by, or upon the Amalekites in that place. It is strange, that in the history of all these judges, there is not so much as once mention of the high-priest, or of any other priest or Levite, appearing either for council or action in any public affair, from Phinehas to Eli, which may well be computed two hundred and fifty years! Surely this intimates, that the institution was chiefly intended to be typical, and that the benefits which were promised by it, were to be chiefly looked for in its anti-type, the everlasting priesthood of Christ, in comparison of which that priesthood had no glory.

Verse 15. Mount of the Amalekites — So called from some remarkable exploit, done by or upon the Amalekites in that place. It is strange, that in the history of all these judges, there is not so much as once mention of the high-priest, or of any other priest or Levite, appearing either for counsel or action in any public affair, from Phinehas to Eli, which may well be computed two hundred and fifty years! Surely this intimates that the institution was chiefly intended to be typical, and that the benefits which were promised by it were to be chiefly looked for in its antitype, the everlasting priesthood of Christ, in comparison of which that priesthood had no glory.

IBZAN, ELON, AND ABDON, 8-15.

8. Ibzan of Beth-lehem — Nothing is said by which we can certainly know whether the Beth-lehem of Judah or that of Zebulun (Joshua 19:15) is meant. From the absence of the addition Judah, (compare Judges 17:7,) and the fact that the next judge was also a Zebulonite, most commentators suppose that the Beth-lehem of Zebulun is meant. The notion that Ibzan was identical with Boaz, the second husband of Ruth and father of Obed, has nothing but a distant resemblance in the names to support it, and has very much against it.