Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 1:8

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 1:8” utilice nuestra app.

Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.

8. fought against Jerusalem, and took it ] Jerusalem was not taken till the time of David; this verse contradicts Jdg 1:21 and the known course of history; see Jdg 19:11 f.; 2Sa 5:6-9. We have here a late insertion, founded on a misunderstanding of Jdg 1:7 b, and designed to explain how the Judahites came to carry the wounded chief to Jerusalem.

with the edge of the sword ] An expression often used in connexion with the exterminating wars against the Canaanites, e.g. Gen 34:26, Exo 17:13 JE, Deu 13:15 etc.

Jdg 1:9 is merely a generalizing summary (cf. Jos 9:1; Jos 10:40 D) from the same hand as Jdg 1:8, and from the same standpoint; note went down, i.e. from the high ground near Jerusalem.

in the hill country, and in the South, and in the lowland ] A summary description of the land of Judah, cf. Jer 17:26; Jer 32:44 etc. The entire central range of Palestine was called ‘the Highlands,’ lit. ‘the mountain’ (Deu 1:7, Jos 9:1); it was divided into the Highlands of Judah, of Ephraim, of Naphtali, Jos 20:7; here the Highlands of Judah are meant. ‘The South,’ in Hebr. ‘the Negeb,’ i.e. ‘the dry land,’ was the tract of country S. of Hebron, between the Highlands and the desert which bounds the lower part of Palestine; it is sometimes called the Negeb of Judah, of the Kenites, of Caleb, etc. (Jdg 1:10 ff., Jdg 1:16; 1Sa 27:10; 1Sa 30:14). This ‘dry land’ being in the south of Palestine, Negeb came to have the general meaning, ‘south.’ ‘The lowland,’ in Hebr. ‘the Shephlah,’ is the region of low hills and plains on the W. and S.W. of Judah, sloping down from the Highlands to the sea; the list of Judaean cities in Jos 15:33-47 indicates the extent of this district. For ‘Shephlah’ the original narrative uses the word ‘valley’ in this chapter, Jdg 1:19 ; Jdg 1:34.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Render and the children of Judah fought against Jerusalem, and took it, and smote it, etc. With regard to the capture of Jerusalem there is some obscurity. It is here said to have been taken, smitten with the edge of the sword, and burned, by the children of Judah. In Jos 12:8, Jos 12:10 the Jebusite and the king of Jerusalem are enumerated among Joshuas conquests, but without any distinct mention of the capture of the city; and in the marginal reference we read that the Jebusites were not expelled from Jerusalem, but dwelt with the children of Judah (compare Jdg 1:21). Further, we learn from Jdg 19:10-12 that Jerusalem was wholly a Jebusite city in the lifetime of Phinehas Jdg 20:28, and so it continued until the reign of David 2Sa 5:6-9. The conclusion is that Jerusalem was only taken once, namely, at the time here described, and that this was in the lifetime of Joshua; but that the children of Judah did not occupy it in sufficient force to prevent the return of the Jebusites, who gradually recovered complete possession.

Set the city on fire – A phrase found only at Jdg 20:48; 2Ki 8:12, and Psa 74:7.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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, Jos 10:26, it is probable that he took the city: yet we find that the Jebusites still dwelt in it, Jos 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 2Sa 5:6-9, and 1Ch 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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

To wit, in Joshuas time; which though done before, may be here repeated, to show why they brought Adoni-bezek to Jerusalem, because that city was in their hands, having been taken before, as may be gathered from Jos 15:63. And the taking of this city may be ascribed

to the children of Judah rather than to Joshua, because the city was not taken by Joshua and the whole body of the army in that time when so many kings were destroyed, Jos 10; Jos 12, (for there is mention made of the destroying of the king of Jerusalem, Jos 10:23; 12:10; but not a word of the taking of Jerusalem, as there is of the taking of Makkedah, and Libnah, and other cities belonging to the kings there mentioned, Jos 10:28, &c.,) but by the children of Judah after they had received their lot, when at the desire and with the consent of the Benjamites, in whose lot Jerusalem fell, Jos 18:28, they assaulted and took it, and thereby, as it seems, acquired the right of copartnership with the Benjamites in the possession of that city. Though some think Jerusalem was twice taken; once in Joshuas lifetime; and being afterwards recovered by the Canaanites, was now retaken by the children of Judah.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

8. Now the children of Judah hadfought against Jerusalem, and had taken itThe capture of thisimportant city, which ranks among the early incidents in the war ofinvasion (Jos 15:63), is herenoticed to account for its being in the possession of the Judahites;and they brought Adoni-bezek thither [Jud1:7], in order, probably, that his fate being rendered so public,might inspire terror far and wide. Similar inroads were made into theother unconquered parts of Judah’s inheritance [Jud1:9-11]. The story of Caleb’s acquisition of Hebron is hererepeated (Jos 15:16-19).[See on Jos 15:16.]

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it,…. Which accounted for their carrying Adonibezek thither. This they had done in the times of Joshua; for when the king of that place was taken and slain by Joshua, it seems that he and Israel went and fought against the city, and took that in which the tribe of Judah had a principal concern; so Kimchi and Ben Gersom interpret it; but Jarchi and Abarbinel are of opinion, that now from Bezek they went up to Jerusalem, and fought against it, and took it; and so others think, because only the children of Judah are mentioned, and not all Israel, who fought together in Joshua’s time; nor is there any mention made of its being taken in his time, and yet it seems plain that it was inhabited in part by the children of Judah, Jos 15:63; some therefore have thought that it was twice taken; that after Joshua had taken it, he and the children of Israel being employed in making conquests in other parts of the land, the Jebusites repossessed it, from whence they were now again in part driven, not wholly; and Josephus says k, the lower part was taken, and all the inhabitants killed, but the upper part was hard to be taken, because of the strength of the walls, and the nature of the place:

and smitten it with the edge of the sword; the “inhabitants of it”, so far as they got possession of it:

and set the city on fire; some part of it only, for in some part of it dwelt the children of Judah, and in another part the Jebusites.

k Ut supra. (Antiqu. l. 5. c. 2. sect. 2.)

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

After his defeat, Judah and Simeon went against Jerusalem, and conquered this city and smote it, i.e., its inhabitants, with the edge of the sword, or without quarter (see Gen 34:26), and set the city on fire. , to set on fire, to give up to the flames, only occurs again in Jdg 20:48; 2Ki 8:12, and Psa 74:7. Joshua had already slain the king of Jerusalem and his four allies after the battle at Gibeon (Jos 10:3, Jos 10:18-26), but had not conquered Jerusalem, his capital. This was not done till after Joshua’s death, when it was taken by the tribes of Judah and Simeon. But even after this capture, and notwithstanding the fact that it had been set on fire, it did not come into the sole and permanent possession of the Israelites. After the conquerors had advanced still farther, to make war upon the Canaanites in the mountains, in the Negeb, and in the shephelah (vv. 9ff.), the Jebusites took it again and rebuilt it, so that in the following age it was regarded by the Israelites as a foreign city (Jdg 19:11-12). The Benjaminites, to whom Jerusalem had fallen by lot, were no more able to drive out the Jebusites than the Judaeans had been. Consequently they continued to live by the side of the Benjaminites (Jdg 1:21) and the Judaeans (Jos 15:63), who settled, as time rolled on, in this the border city of their possessions; and in the upper town especially, upon the top of Mount Zion, they established themselves so firmly, that they could not be dislodged until David succeeded in wresting this fortress from them, and make the city of Zion the capital of his kingdom (2Sa 5:6.).

(Note: In this way we may reconcile in a very simple manner the different accounts concerning Jerusalem in Jos 15:63; Jdg 1:8, Jdg 1:21; Jdg 19:11., 1Sa 17:54, and 2 Sam 5-6, without there being the slightest necessity to restrict the conquest mentioned in this verse to the city that was built round Mount Zion, as Josephus does, to the exclusion of the citadel upon Zion itself; or to follow Bertheau, and refer the account of the Jebusites dwelling by the children of Judah in Jerusalem (Jos 15:63) to a time subsequent to the conquest of the citadel of Zion by David-an interpretation which is neither favoured by the circumstance that the Jebusite Araunah still held some property there in the time of David (2Sa 24:21.), nor by the passage in 1Ki 9:20., according to which the descendants of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites who still remained in the land were made into tributary bondmen by Solomon, and set to work upon the buildings that he had in hand.)

Jdg 1:9-15

After the conquest of Jerusalem, the children of Judah (together with the Simeonites, Jdg 1:3) went down to their own possessions, to make war upon the Canaanites in the mountains, the Negeb, and the shephelah (see at Jos 15:48; Jos 21:33), and to exterminate them. They first of all conquered Hebron and Debir upon the mountains (Jdg 1:10-15), as has already been related in Jos 15:14-19 (see the commentary on this passage). The forms and (Jdg 1:15), instead of and (Jos 15:19), are in the singular, and are construed with the plural form of the feminine , because this is used in the sense of the singular, “a spring” (see Ewald, 318, a.).

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Othniel’s Exploit, vs. 8-15

After showing how Judah and Simeon rounded out their possession of the land after Joshua’s death, the writer goes back before the death of Joshua, to the time when the land was first allotted to show how these tribes had previously subdued the Jebusites of Jerusalem and the Anakim (giants) of the area around Hebron. Jerusalem lay near the tribal boundary between Judah and Benjamin, the city actually being allotted to Benjamin. But it was Judah which took the great city and burned it with fire. They turned to conquer the Canaanites in the valleys and the mountains of the south.

When they approached Hebron, which Joshua had given to Caleb, they were opposed by the giants. The three giant leaders were slain, and the war moved on against Debir, or Kirjath-sepher, as it was called by the Anakim (giants). Here Caleb issued a challenge, to give his young daughter, Achsah, to any man who would assail the city and capture it, to be his wife. The prize was claimed by Othniel, son of Kenaz, probably Caleb’s brother. The passage in verses 12-15 is almost identical to Jos 15:16-19. See comments there.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Conquests of Judah Jdg. 1:8-10

8 Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.
9 And afterward the children of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites, that dwelt in the mountain, and in the south, and in the valley.
10 And Judah went against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron: (now the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba:) and they slew Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai.

What were the hill country the South, and the lowland? Jdg. 1:9

These were the main geographical divisions of Palestine. Much of Palestine is quite hilly. Mt. Carmel arises at the Mediterranean Sea and stretches from a point near the Bay of Acre in a southeasterly direction to the center of the land. The center itself is often described as Mount Ephraim. To the south lay the hill country of Judah. All of this could properly be called hill country. The South was a designation of the area south of Hebron, and this territory stretched past Beersheba and reached to the wilderness of Paran, the extreme southern border of the country. It is often called the negeb. Along the Mediterranean Sea stretched the Maritime Plainthe Philistine Plain and the Plain of Sharon. The Jordan Valley was a part of the Ghor, a deep declivity which terminated in the area round the Dead Sea, the lowest place on Earth. All of these areas were grouped under the heading, the lowland.

When was Hebron taken? Jdg. 1:10

Caleb took Hebron before Joshua died (see Jos. 14:6-15 cf. Jos. 15:16-19). The notice is repeated here. This first chapter of Judges is a typical summary of the conquest of the land, most of which was accomplished under Joshuas leadership. As time elapsed after the major battles of conquest, some of the Canaanite tribes drifted back into towns which Israel had burned but had not inhabited immediately. It thus became necessary for many of the sites to be retaken (e.g. Jerusalem). Since this is a summary account of conquest and settlement, it is natural to mention such early assaults as that of Caleb while describing continuing efforts to occupy the territory.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(8) Now.Rather, And.

Had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it.Our version here most unwarrantably interpolates the word had, meaning it perhaps as a sort of explanatory gloss to imply that the conquest took place before the fact mentioned in the last verse. If we are right in supposing that these chapters refer in greater or less detail to events already touched upon in the Book of Joshua, we must then supplement this brief notice by Jos. 12:8-10; Jos. 15:63, from which it appears that though the people of Jerusalem were slaughtered, the king conquered, and the city burnt, yet the Jebusites either secured the citadel (as Josephus implies) or succeeded in recovering the city. In Jdg. 19:11-12, the city is called Jebus (with the remark, which is Jerusalem), and the Levite expressly refuses to enter it, because it is a city of the Jebusites, the city of a stranger.

With the edge of the sword.Literally, with the mouth of the sword (Gen. 34:26; Jos. 8:24; Jos. 10:28. Comp. Jdg. 4:15; Jdg. 20:37). It seems to mean that no quarter was given.

Set the city on fire.Literally, sent the city into fire, as in Jdg. 20:48; 2Ki. 8:12; Psa. 74:7. The phrase does not occur elsewhere. And at a later period Josephus tells us that the siege occupied a long time, from the strength of the position (2Sa. 5:7).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

CAPTURE AND BURNING OF JERUSALEM, Jdg 1:8.

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, (Jos 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. Jdg 1:21. The complete conquest was subsequently made by David. See notes on Jos 15:63; 2Sa 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 Jdg 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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘ And the children of Judah fought against Jerusalem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.’

This may have been the lower city, or a temporary occupation of the whole. Contrast Jos 15:63. But that was a statement of the general position with regard to the fortress of Jerusalem. Here they captured part of it and slew those within it, but their occupation was clearly only temporary. They did not have the means to fortify it, or sufficient men to leave behind to defend it, as they moved on to other victories. Thus they set it on fire.

It may be that the city was at this time only lightly defended due to the Jebusite fighting men being involved elsewhere fulfilling treaty obligations in the face of other Israelite activity. Thus when those men returned they would be able to retake it from the token force left behind to defend it. This is by no means a rare occurrence in warfare.

From now until Jdg 1:36 we should note the difference between ‘smote’ and ‘drove out’ and ‘did not drive out’. ‘Smote’ or ‘took’ indicates victory but not necessarily possession, ‘drove out’ indicates permanent sole possession and obedience, ‘did not drive out’ indicates possession, cohabitation and disobedience. Thus Jerusalem was taken and smitten but not possessed (Jdg 1:8), and later cohabited (Jdg 1:21). Hebron was smitten (Jdg 1:10) and possessed (Jdg 1:20). Zephath was smitten and ‘devoted’ (Jdg 1:17). Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron were taken but not possessed (Jdg 1:18). The hill country was possessed but the coastal plain was not (Jdg 1:19).

The fact that part of Jerusalem later held men from Judah and Benjamin probably refers to a situation where a part of the city was retaken at some stage but not the whole (the city was divided by a ravine), and that eventually they made their peace with the Jebusites and associated with them and lived among them, contrary to God’s commands. The main fortress was formidable and was not finally permanently taken until the time of David.

Jerusalem was an ancient city under that name and is mentioned in the Egyptian Execration texts (c 19th century BC), in the Amarna letters (c 14th century BC) and in later Assyrian documents. Its name probably originally meant ‘the foundation of Shalem’, a Canaanite god. But the Israelites associated it with their word ‘Shalom’ which meant peace (Heb 7:2).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

EXPOSITION

Jdg 1:8

Read Fought against Jerusalem, and took it, and smote it. It is the continuation of the narrative of the exploits of Judah and Simeon in conquering their respective lots.

Jdg 1:9

The valley, i.e. the Shephelah, or lowlands, between the mountains and the coast of the Mediterranean, occupied by the Philistines.

Jdg 1:10

Hebron See Num 13:22; Jos 14:13-15; Jos 15:13-19. Hebron was the burial-place of Abraham and Sarah (Gen 23:2, etc.; Gen 25:9), of Isaac and Rebekah, and of Jacob and Leah (Gen 35:27-29; Gen 49:31; Gen 50:13), and the mosque, within whose massive walls the tombs of Abraham and the other four above mentioned are still preserved with the utmost reverence, is the most remarkable object in the modem city, which is called El-Khalil (the friend), after Abraham, the friend of God. A very interesting account of the Prince of Wales’s visit to the Mosque of Hebron in 1862 is given in Dean Stanley s ‘Sermons in the East.’ David reigned in Hebron seven years and six mouths before he transferred the seat of power to Jerusalem (see 2Sa 2:1, etc.; 2Sa 5:1-5).

Jdg 1:13

Caleb’s younger brother. See note on Jdg 3:9.

Jdg 1:14

She moved him, etc. There is some obscurity in this verse, which seems to tell us that Achsah, on her wedding-day, when she was going to her husband s house, persuaded him to ask of her father the field, viz. that in which the springs of water were, and which were not included in her original dower; and then goes on to tell us that Achsah herself made the request. The Septuagint reads, “Othniel urged her to ask the field of her father,” and the Vulgate has, “Her husband told her to ask her father,” and then it follows naturally, “and she lighted from off her ass,” etc. But the Hebrew reading may be right, and it may be that when her husband, brave in storming a city, but timid in asking a favour, hung back, she, with the tenacious will of a woman, sprang off the ass herself, and successfully preferred her request. Dean Stanley identifies (though not with absolute certainty) the “field thus obtained by Achsah with an unusually green valley amidst the dry, barren hills of the south country, lying south or west of Hebron, called Wady Nuukur, through which Caleb and Achsah must have ridden on their way from Hebron to Debir, or Kirjath-sepher. This valley breaks into a precipitous and still greener ravine, and both the upper and lower pastures are watered by a clear, bubbling rivulet, which rises in the upper meadow, and flows to the bottom of the ravine below. The name of a village, Dewir, seems to represent the ancient Debir.

Jdg 1:16

The children of the Kenite, etc. It appears from this verse that the invitation given by Moses to his “father-in-law,” or rather “brother-in-law,” Hobab, to accompany him and the Israelites to the land of promise, though at first rejected (Num 10:29, Num 10:30), was eventually accepted. Hobab and his tribe, a branch of the Midianites, called Kenites, from an unknown ancestor, Kain, at first settled in the city of palm trees, i.e. Jericho (Deu 34:3); but it seems that when Judah started on his expedition with Simeon to conquer the south laud, the Kenites went with him. A subsequent migration of a portion of this nomadic tribe is mentioned (Jdg 4:11). Dwelt among the people, i.e. the people of Judah. For Arad see Num 21:1.

Jdg 1:17

Judah went with Simeon. In Jdg 1:3 Simeon went with Judah, because the places which follow were all in Judah’s lot; but now we read, Judah went with Simeon, because Zephath or Hormah was in Simeon’s lot (Jos 19:4). For Hormah, identified by Robinson (2.181) with Es-sufeh, see Num 21:3. The Hebrew verb for “they utterly destroyed” is the root of the name Hormah, i.e. utter destruction.

Jdg 1:18

Gaza, etc. Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, were all cities of the Philistines. But though Judah took these cities, it seems he was not able permanently to expel the inhabitants.

Jdg 1:19

Chariots of iron. The chariots of the Canaanites were very formidable to the Israelites, who had no means of coping with them. Thus we are told of Jabin, king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazer, that he had 900 chariots of iron, and mightily oppressed the children of Israel. They were later an important part of King Solomon’s army (1Ki 10:26). See too Jos 17:16.

Jdg 1:20

They gave Hebron, etc. Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, the Kenezite, an Edomitish tribe, was one of the spies sent up to spy the land, and in doing so he came to Hebron, and there saw the giants, the sons of Anak (Num 13:22). When all the spies brought up an evil report of the land, and by doing so raised a rebellion against Moses and Aaron, Caleb the Kenezite, alone with Joshua, stood firm, and, as a reward of his faithfulness, received the promise that he and his seed should possess the land on which his feet had trodden. Accordingly Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb the Kenezite (see Num 13:1-33; Num 14:1-45.; Deu 1:36; Jos 14:6-15; Jos 15:13, Jos 15:14).

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Jdg 1:1, Jdg 1:2

The death of the great.

The circumstances which accompanied and followed the death of Joshua are suggestive of the common difficulties which arise on the death of great men, and the conduct of Israel is an example of the right spirit in which to face these difficulties.

I. THE MOST USEFUL MEN ARE OFTEN CALLED AWAY BEFORE THEIR WORK IS FINISHED. The measure of work which God requires of them may always be accomplished, for he sets no task for which he does not supply all needful talents and opportunities. But the work which a man aims at accomplishing, which he sees needing to be done, which men trust him to achieve for them, is commonly greater than his time and powers allow of perfect performance.

1. This fact should teach the most active workers

(1) diligence, since at the best they can never overtake their work, and

(2) humility, in the thought of the little that the ablest can accomplish compared with what he aims at.

2. This fact should lead all men

(1) not to lean too much on any one individual,

(2) to be ready to welcome new men,

(3) to train children to take the places of their parents.

II. THE DEATH OF GREAT MEN SHOULD INSPIRE US WITH A DESIRE TO CONTINUE THEIR UNFINISHED WORK.

1. It is foolish to be content with idle panegyrics, as though we could live for ever on the glory of the past. Life must not be spent in a dreamy contemplation of the sunset, however brilliant this may be. While we gaze the radiance fades; night will soon fall. We must be up and preparing for shelter under the darkness, and for work in a new day.

2. It is weak to sink into mere regrets and despondency. We do not honour the dead by wasting our lives in barren grief. When the great and good are gone the future may look blank and hopeless; but God is still with us, and he will still provide for us. Therefore we should do as Israel did. Not satisfied with the glory of Joshua’s victories, nor stunned by the blow of his death, the people look forward, seek for guidance for the future, and endeavour to continue his unfinished work. The richest legacy we can receive from the great is the unfinished task which drops from their dying hands. The noblest monument we can erect to their memory will be the completion of that task; the most honourable epitaph we can write for them will be the story of the good works for which their lives and examples have inspired their successors.

III. As POSTS OF RESPONSIBILITY BECOME VACANT, IT IS WISE TO SEEK THE GUIDANCE OF GOD IN THE CHOICE OF NEW MEN TO OCCUPY THEM. After the death of Joshua Israel consulted “the Eternal.” It is a blessing that the loss of our most trusted earthly friends should drive us to the refuge of the great heavenly Friend. In the present case new leaders do not now arise by selfish ambition, nor are they chosen by popular election. The selection of them is referred to God. Israel thus recognises its constitution as a theocracy. Every nation should consider itself under a supreme theocracy. Political leaders should be chosen by a Christian nation only after prayer for Divine guidance. Much more evident is it that the selection of men for service in spiritual things, as ministers, as missionaries, etc; should not be left to the mere inclination of the individual or the unaided human judgment of others, but determined after the most earnest prayer for Divine light (Act 1:24). Notesuch a method of election implies a willingness that the chosen leaders should be called to do God’s will, not merely to humour the popular caprice.

IV. WHEN GREAT MEN ARE TAKEN AWAY IT IS OFTEN THE CASE THAT NO MEN OF EQUAL ABILITY ARE FOUND TO SUCCEED THEM. Joshua was not equal to Moses, but he was still well able to take the staff of leadership from his master’s hand. But Joshua left no successor. Nothing but anarchy faced the nation “after the death of Joshua”it seemed as though there could be no ‘after.” There are advantages in the absence, of great men. The multitude may become indolent, trusting too much to the work of the few. When these are removed men are thrown back on their own resources; thus the courage and energy of the whole people is put on trial. Yet on the whole we must feel that it is better to have the great among us. The death of Joshua is the signal for the decadence of the nation from its ancient heroic glory. Therefore let us pray that God will continue the race of good and great men: and seek to educate and discover such among the young. Let us be thankful that our JoshuaChristwill never be taken from his people (Mat 28:20).A.

Jdg 1:3

Mutual help.

I. IN THE ABSENCE OF UNITY OF AUTHORITY WE SHOULD SEEK FOR UNION OF SYMPATHY. After the death of Joshua the loss of leadership endangers the national unity of Israel. In the text we see how two tribes, no longer united by a common government, draw together for mutual help. The union of free attraction is nobler than that of external compulsion. The highest unity of Christendom is to be found not in the Roman Catholic organisation of a central authority and uniformity of creed and worship, but in the spiritual conception of common sympathies and common aims.

II. BROTHERLY KINDNESS IS A PECULIARLY CHRISTIAN GRACE, Love of the brethren is a proof of regeneration (1Jn 3:14). The law of Christ as contrasted with the barren Levitical law of ordinances is characteristically summed up in the obligation to “bear one another’s burdens” (Gal 6:2).

1. This implies active help. Simeon and Judah went to battle for an inheritance. Mere feelings of sympathy are wasted sentiments unless they lead to active and fruitful service.

2. This implies sacrifice. The Simeonites and men of Judah risked their lives for the benefit of one another. Cheap charity is worthless charity.. Our brotherly kindness is of little value till it costs us somethinginvolves pare, loss, sacrifice. Christ is the great example of this. It is our mission to follow Christ here if we would be his true disciples (Php 2:4-8).

3. This implies mutual help. Judah helps Simeon; Simeon in turn helps Judah. Charity is often too one-sided. The poor and needy can often make more return than appears possible if invention is quickened by gratitude. A miserable penitent could wash the feet of Christ with her tears (Luk 7:38).

III. THE WORK OF LIFE IS BEST DONE BY UNION AND CO–OPERATION OF WORKERS. Judah and Simeon conquer their two possessions by union. Both might have failed had they acted singly. “Union is strength.” The advantage of mutual help is seen in trade, in manufactures, in education, in the advance of civilisation generally. The spirit of Cain is fatal to all progress (Gen 4:9). The same applies to Christian work. Therefore Christ founded the Church. Though Christianity is based on individualism, it works through social agencies. The society of Christians, the Christian family, find means of useful effort which private Christians could never attain, e.g. in the Sunday school, foreign and home missions, the work of Bible and tract societies. Simeon and Judah united to conquer their several lots successively. So it is sometimes wisest for us to unite and do together one work well at one time, rather than to spread our divided energies over a wide field of weak agencies. The river which runs out over a broad plain may be swallowed up in the sands of the desert, while that which flows in a narrow channel is strong and deep.A.

Jdg 1:6, Jdg 1:7

Retribution.

I. THERE IS A LAW OF RETRIBUTION.

1. The desire for retribution is instinctive. It is one of the elementary ideas of justice. To those who have no vision of a higher law, the execution of this is not a cruel crime of vengeance, but a righteous exercise of justice.

2. The fitness of retribution is not affected by the motive of those who accomplish it. It is possible that the Israelites were ignorant of the old crimes of Adoni-bezek, and may have been guilty of wanton cruelty in treating him as they did. If so, his wickedness was no excuse for their barbarity. But then their harsh intentions did not affect the justice of the king’s sufferings. God often uses the crime of one man as a means of punishing the crime of another. He does not originate or sanction the retributive crime, but he overrules it, and so turns the wrath of man to the praise of his righteous government. Thus Nebuchadnezzar was no better than an ambitious tyrant in his conquest of Jerusalem; yet he was the unconscious agent of a Divine decree of justice.

3. Sin will surely bring retribution.

(1) No rank will secure us against this. The sufferer in this case was a king.

(2) No time will wear out guilt. It is likely that Adoni-bezek had committed his crimes in bygone years, as he referred to them in a way which suggests that the memory of them was suddenly aroused by his own experience.

4. Retribution often bears a resemblance to the crimes it follows. The lex talionis seems to be mysteriously embedded in the very constitution of nature. The intemperate slave of bodily pleasures brings on himself bodily disease; cruelty provokes cruelty; suspicion arouses distrust. As a man sows so will be reap (Gal 6:7, Gal 6:8).

5. One of the most fearful elements of future retribution will be found in an evil memory. Men bury their old sins out of sight. They will be exhumed in all their corruption. The justice of the retribution will then increase the sting of it (Luk 16:25).

II. THE HIGHER CHRISTIAN LAW OF LOVE. Christianity does not abolish the terrible natural laws of retributive justice, but it reveals higher principles which can counteract the disastrous effects of ‘those stern laws, and a more excellent way than that of zealously advocating the execution of them.

1. The Christian is bound not to desire vengeance. He is called to forgive his enemies (Mat 5:38, Mat 5:39). If retribution must fall, let us leave it to the supreme Judge (Rom 12:19).

2. The highest purpose of punishment is seen to consist in the preservation and the restoration of righteousnessnot in the mere balancing of sin with pain. Punishment is not an end in itself. The vengeance which seeks satisfaction to outraged honour in the humiliation of its victim is as unworthy of the character of God as it is foreign to the principles of Christian duty. Punishment is a means to an end, and that end is not mere revenge, but the deterring of others from evil, and, where possible, the restoration of the fallen (Heb 12:5, Heb 12:6, Heb 12:11).

3. In the gospel forgiveness is offered for all sin. The law is not evaded; it is honoured in the sacrifice of Christ. Now he has borne the sin of the world he can also release the world from its fatal effects. Therefore, though the thunder-cloud of retribution may seem as dark as ever, if we only look high enough we shall see the rainbow of God’s mercy above it promising peace and forgiveness to all who repent and trust in his grace (Act 13:38, Act 13:39).A.

Jdg 1:8-20

EXPOSITION

Jdg 1:8

Read Fought against Jerusalem, and took it, and smote it. It is the continuation of the narrative of the exploits of Judah and Simeon in conquering their respective lots.

Jdg 1:9

The valley, i.e. the Shephelah, or lowlands, between the mountains and the coast of the Mediterranean, occupied by the Philistines.

Jdg 1:10

Jdg 1:13

Caleb’s younger brother. See note on Jdg 3:9.

Jdg 1:14

Jdg 1:16

Jdg 1:17

Jdg 1:18

Gaza, etc. Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, were all cities of the Philistines. But though Judah took these cities, it seems he was not able permanently to expel the inhabitants.

Jdg 1:19

Jdg 1:20

HOMILETICS

Jdg 1:8-20

Faith.

The principal incident in this section is the conquest of Hebron by Caleb (see note, Jdg 1:20), and in it we have a most striking illustration

(1) of the nature of faith,

(2) of the triumph of faith,

(3) of the faithfulness of God’s promises, and

(4) of the extension of God’s covenant to men of every nation and kindred.

I. THE NATURE OF FAITH. When the Israelites were in Kadesh Barnea, near the borders of Canaan, in the second year of the exodus, it was determined on their own suggestion, with the full approval of Moses, to send spies to search out the land, and to bring back word what road they ought to take, and into what cities they would come. Thus far there had been only a due exercise of human wisdom and caution. But when the spies returned after forty clays they brought back a mixed report. On the one hand they reported that it was indeed a goodly land. Its fertile soil, its genial climate, its beauty and its richness, were attested by its abundant produce. As they held up the heavy bunch of the grapes of Eshcol, a burden for two men to carry upon a staff, as they showed them the luscious figs and the juicy pomegranates, who could doubt that it was a land worth possessing? It was rich too in its pastures and in its cattle, and its wild-flowers were as good as the thyme of Hymettus for the bees that swarmed amongst them. It was a land flowing with milk and honey. But here their good report stopped. This good land was guarded, they said, by a mighty people. It was a gigantic race that possessed it, and they dwelt in fenced cities with Cyclopean walls rising up to heaven. How could the children of Israel hope to wrest their land from them? It would be a vain enterprise, and could only end in their own discomfiture and death. Those men of great stature would crush them like grasshoppers under their feet. At these unbelieving words the hearts of the whole congregation melted within them, and anger against Moses filled every breast. The suggestion ran from mouth to mouth to choose a captain and return to Egypt. The promises of God were all forgotten. The mighty wonders at the Red Sea, at Sinai, in the wilderness, were lost sight of, and their hearts sunk through unbelief. Then Caleb’s faith shone out, and spoke out before the people. “Let us go up at once and possess the land, for we are well able to overcome it.” “Fear not the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the Lord is with us: fear them not.” “If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land and give it us.“ That was faith, laying hold of God’s promises and God’s almighty power, and making no account of apparent difficulties, or of human weakness. Just such was Abraham’s faith, who “staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, and fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform” (Rom 4:20, Rom 4:21). Such has been the faith of saints at all times, piercing through the mists and clouds of the present, and seeing the bright sun of the future; despising the visible because, like Elisha in Dothan, it sees the invisible (2Ki 6:13-17); calculating truly, because it takes into account the power and faithfulness of God which are left out of the calculations of the unbelieving.

II. THE TRIUMPH OF FAITH. And we see here the triumph of faith. The whole congregation of the unbelieving, of those who in their hearts turned back to Egypt, and dared not face the sons of Anak, had all perished in the wilderness. They died and were buried, and never saw the land of promise. But Caleb was alive, and in the full vigour of his strength he marched against the stronghold of the Anakim, and took it, and slew the sons of Anak in spite of their great stature, and took possession of their city in spite of its lofty walls, and it became his possession for ever. That was the triumph of faith, that faith which disappoints not, and maketh not ashamed.

III. THE FAITHFUL PROMISES. We have here too an eminent illustration of the faithfulness of God’s promises. Caleb’s triumphant possession of Hebron chimes in in exact harmony with all the records of God’s performances as compared with his promises. “He hath holpen his servant Israel as he promised to our forefathers” (Luk 1:54). “He hath remembered his mercy and truth toward the house of Israel” (Psa 98:3). “He hath visited and redeemed his people, as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; to perform the oath which he sware to our forefather Abraham” (Luk 1:68-73,. PP. B. Version). “He is ‘faithful’ that promised” (Heb 10:23). Blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord” (Luk 1:45). “There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass” (Jos 21:45). A thorough appreciation of faithfulness to his Word as one of the prominent attributes of God is the inevitable result of a full knowledge of the Scriptures, as it is most conducive to the stability of the Christian character. “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven; thy faithfulness is unto all generations” (Psa 119:89, Psa 119:90).

IV. A GLIMPSE OF THE MYSTERY. But we must also notice the illustration here given of God’s purpose to extend his covenant to men of all nations. Caleb was not an Israelite by birth. He was a Kenezite, i.e. a descendant of Kenaz, whose name is a clear proof of Edomite origin (Gen 36:15, Gen 36:42). And accordingly we are told, “Unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah” (Jos 15:13); and again, “Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite, because that he wholly followed the Lord God of Israel“ (Jos 14:14), language clearly pointing to Caleb’s foreign origin. We have here then the breadth of God’s grace and love breaking out in the narrowness of the Jewish dispensation; we have a glimpse of the mystery, which St. Paul spoke of so rapturously, that it was God’s good pleasure in the dispensation of the fulness of times to gather together into one all things in Christ, and that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel (Eph 1:9, Eph 1:10; Eph 3:6). Caleb, possessing his inheritance in the midst of Judah because he wholly followed the Lord the God of Israel, was the forerunner of that great multitude of all nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues who shall stand before the Lamb clothed in white robes and palms in their hands, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God.

HOMILIES BY A.F. MUIR

Jdg 1:11-15

The public spirit of Caleb.

He offered his daughter to the soldier who should be successful in destroying the inhabitants of Debar. It was of supreme importance that this stronghold should be taken, if the rest of the district was to be peaceably held. But some reward was required in order to stimulate the heroism of his followers to face the hazard and danger of the enterprise. We have here then

I. AN IDENTIFICATION OF HIMSELF WITH THE INTERESTS OF HIS TRIBE. Caleb was all Edomite, and might have enjoyed his own lot without such special effort or sacrifice. He is evidently deeply interested in the welfare and honour of his adopted tribe. This might be called a signal illustration of public spirit. And yet it is probable that Caleb himself was quite unconscious that there was anything singular in his action. As the greatest blessings to a nation arise from the public spirit of its citizens, so the greatest curses are frequently entailed by the want of it. As in warfare every soldier, however insignificant, is an influence that tells upon the success or failure of the campaign, so in a government, with representative institutions whose action hinds the nation and measures its progress, it is requisite that every citizen should actively interest himself in electing and supporting the legislative authority. The free play of an intelligent, generous, and enthusiastic public criticism will tend to the health of the whole body politic, and vice versa. Even more cogent is the need for public spirit in the church. Its honour and dishonour are ours, its success or failure. And it represents interests of the most tremendous importance. “England expects every man to do his duty” is a sentence of historic importance. Although not called upon to preach, or even to pray in public, the private member of the church ought to regard the affairs of Christ’s kingdom with enthusiasm, and be prepared to make great sacrifices for its advancement:

II. HIS PROOF OF THIS IN BESTOWING ONE OF HIS MOST PRECIOUS POSSESSIONS. We do not know much about Achsah, but probably she was very beautiful. Her forethought and carefulness are described in the fourteenth and fifteenth verses. She was his only daughter, born to him in later life (1Ch 2:49). That she was dear to her father we may take for granted. How much a daughter may be to a father history has frequently and strikingly shown. The grief of Jephthah for the consequences of his rash vow is recorded in this very book. Apart from the personal attractions of Achsah, the influence which might be obtained by intermarriage with the family of Caleb is not to be ignored.

III. IT WAS A SACRIFICE WHICH HAD IN IT THE SECURITY FOR ITS OWN REWARD. An offer like this was an appeal to the chivalry of the tribe. It suggested vividly that on account of which the bravery of the warrior is so necessary. The soldier who stormed such a fortress was sure to possess the noble and manly qualities and the religious zeal calculated to make a good husband. So in political and spiritual matters, generous offers and challenges appeal to what is noblest in the nature of men, and secure a loftier and more heroic response.M.

Jdg 1:14, Jdg 1:15

Compensations.

Of the wisdom and carefulness of Achsah we have here abundant proof. They were nobly and honourably exercised. She is the daughter of a rich man, and becomes the bride of a brave soldier who had evidently little but his sword and his reputation to boast of. She is jealous lest he should be rewarded with a mere titular distinction. He has been nobly oblivious of material rewards, she shall be proportionably watchful over his interests. She therefore urges her husband as he passes in triumph to Hebron to ask for the field through which they march. The thoughts of the hero are not to be directed into any such sordid channel. But she, taking advantage of the occasion as she lights from off her ass, asks her father in symbolic language to compensate her for the poverty to which he had consigned her. “Thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water.” To this reasonable request Caleb makes generous response. “She slides from her ass, suddenly, as if she fell, so that her father asks, ‘What is the matter with thee?’ Her answer has a double sense, ‘Thou gavest me away into a dry land; give me also springs'” (Cassel).

I. A BLESSING WITH A DRAWBACK. Of the bravery of Othniel there could be no question; of his poverty there could be as little. It might be honourable for her to be his wife, but she would have to suffer many sacrifices in leaving the wealthy home of her father, and her husband would have an additional burden to sustain. Are not the dispensations of providence, even when we judge them on the whole to be best for us, frequently as mysteriously qualified and limited? No man would probably care to exchange his life for another’s, but “there’s a crook in every lot.” Material blessings generally contain within them elements of discipline, and sometimes even of punishment. But they are alike the gift of a loving father, and are to be accepted in the spirit of trust and affection.

II. COMPENSATIONS. IS the gift of Achsah’s father open to grave drawbacks? It is not therefore unalterable. Something may be done to lessen its inconveniences, if not entirely to remove them. Her father is reasonable, and she at once makes appeal to his sense of what is fit and proper. Her request is granted. So with ourselves. Our heavenly Father who apportioned our lot is surely as reasonable and affectionate as any earthly one. It is for us to exercise the same wisdom as Achsah, and request that God will give us such alleviations to our portion in life, or reveal to us those that already exist. Sometimes there are compensations latent in the very circumstances of which we complain: springs of water to moisten a sun-parched soil. In any case God is able to bestow upon us exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think.M.

Jdg 1:19

Divine help versus material obstacles.

The statement of this verse is perplexing; hardly softened if we render “there was no driving out,” etc. On the one hand, apparently, infinite power is on the side of Judah; on the other, there are sharply-defined limits to his success, and singular reasons for his failure. (Describe inhabitants of mountain and valley.) One would suppose that if God had really been with Judah, the chariots of iron would be neither here nor there in the question. “If God be for us, who can be against us?” But the difficulty arises from looking at the problem wholly from the Divine side. The same difficulty faces us to-day. “But this temptation was so great!” “But was not the Lord with you?” Infinite power may be on our side, but we may be debarred by failure of faith from making full use of it.

I. UNREALISED SPIRITUAL POWER. Many of the brutes have power greater than man, but they cannot bring it to bear. Is man never similarly unfortunate? In what sense can the power of God in the saint be unrealised? It is not power wasted or lying idle, but simply like a cheque unused. Our spiritual nature is not developed enough.

II. INSUFFICIENT REASONS FOR FAILURE OR SUCCESS. These arise from the same cause as the preceding. The tool in hands of tyro and master. The true panoply of a Church is spiritual; and its material advantages may sometimes be as Goliath’s armour to David; and so may the spiritual advantages, if we do not realise them, keep ourselves in continual communion with them: and test their virtue by continual exercises of faith.

III. WAYS IN WHICH MAN LIMITS GOD. By failure of faith. By neglect of the means of grace. By personal unholiness. “God‘s arm is not shortened,” etc; “but ye are straitened in your own selves.”M.

Jdg 1:19-21

A title to be made good.

Each of theseJudah, Caleb (of the same tribe), and Benjaminhad received their portion at the hands of the Lord; but they had to conquer it. Judah partially succeeded, Caleb wholly succeeded, and Benjamin had a grievous drawback to his success. This is suggestive of the blessedness to be attained by Christians.

I. THE PROMISE IS COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE TO EVERY CHRISTIAN. “This is the victory that overcometh the world even your faith.” The least Christian is assured of this splendid triumph.

II. ITS REALISATION WILL DEPEND UPON THE MEASURE OF HIS FAITH, etc. The estate with a mortgage. Judah had already “fought against Jerusalem” and subdued it, at least the southern portion abutting upon, or included in, their boundary. But they did not subdue the citadel, which was in Benjamin’s lot. The latter, on the other hand, are too careless, unwarlike, or indisposed to make good their possession.M.

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Jdg 1:19

The presence of Cod in the battle of life.

The most remarkable circumstance connected with the wars of ancient Israel is the religious faith which guided and inspired the people for battle. In this respect the conduct of those wars is typical of the Christian method of spiritual warfare.

I. GOD IS WITH HIS PEOPLE IN THE BATTLE OF LIFE. God is not only the Refuge in distress and the Father of peaceful mercies; he is the Source of strength and of courage, and the Inspirer of the masculine virtues of the Church militanthe is with us in battle. God does not grant his aid from a distance, through messengers, etc.; he is present in the active exercise of his power.

1. When God calls people to any task, he will follow and help them in it. God had chosen Judah for the work of conquering the Canaanites. He also followed Judah to battle. Divine election was followed by Divine power. God never expects us to undertake any work in which he will not aid us. If he calls us to any difficult task, he will go first, and prepare the way for us, and then will accompany us in it, as our Guide and Protector.

2. They who are fruited in, the service of God have peculiar reason for expecting the presence of God. Judah and Simeon were united, and God aided them in their common task. God does not desert the solitary: e.g. Hague (Gen 16:13), Jacob (Gen 28:16), Elijah (1Ki 19:9). But we have a special right to expect his presence when we co-operate in brotherly sympathy. Christ is present where two or three are met together in his name. The Holy Ghost came on the day of Pentecost, when the whole Church was assembled together (Act 2:1).

II. THE PRESENCE OF GOD IS THE CHIEF SOURCE OF SUCCESS IN THE BATTLE OF LIFE. God was with Judah, therefore he obtained possession of the mountains. If God is with his people in their time of toil and difficulty, his presence is a security of active aid. He is with us not merely to approve, but to help. The victory comes from him. It is not all who have faith and spiritual insight to discern this truth. God does not come with a visible host and with “chariots of iron;” but his presence and aid are felt in the providential control of events; in the inspiration of strength and courage; in the enlightenment of Divine wisdom. The best human securities for success will not justify us in neglecting the help of God. Simeon and Judah were united, and were the stronger for their union; yet it was not the human strength thus obtained, but God’s presence, which brought victory. There is a danger lest we should trust too much to imposing human arrangements, large societies, elaborate organisations, etc. The most splendid Christian army will be miserably defeated if it ventures to enter the field without the leadership of the “Captain of salvation.”

III. THE PRESENCE OF GOD WILL NOT ALONE SECURE PERFECT AND IMMEDIATE SUCCESS. Though God was with Judah, still Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley.

1. Gears presence and aid do not dispense with human effort. It is Judah, not God, who fails. We may fail on our side of the work while God is not wanting on his.

2. God‘s presence does not make us entirely independent of earthly circumstances. God did not annihilate the chariots of iron. We must not expect God to work such violent miracles as shall liberate us from all the inconveniences of life.

3. Human weakness may still linger about us after we have been blessed with the aid of God‘s presence. The Israelites were too weak to overcome the inhabitants of the valley. Possibly they feared to face the chariots of iron. The measure of help we have from God is not limited in itself, but it is limited by our faith. If we had perfect faith we should have perfect success. But when we look away from God to the iron chariots of our foes, or, like Peter, from Christ to the threatening waves, we may fail from fear and human weakness, and God’s almighty power will not then save us from defeat.A.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Jdg 1:8. Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, &c. The strong fortress on mount Sion continued in the hands of the Jebusites till the time of David. See Joseph. Hist. b. vi. c. 7.

Note; (1.) God often repays the wicked in their own coin. (2.) The proudest are not too high for God to humble; let kings remember that they are in slippery places. (3.) When God’s judgments awaken the conscience, we shall own his righteousness, and stand self-condemned before him.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Jdg 1:8 Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.

Ver. 8. Had taken it. ] As also Hebron and Debir, while Joshua was yet alive, Jos 10:42 ; Jos 15:63 which yet some hold to be there set down by way of anticipation.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Ver. 8. Likewise also ] Or, yet nevertheless; albeit these dreadful executions are set before them for an example.

These filthy dreamers ] Or, these sound sleepers, these whom the devil hath cast into a dead lethargy of damned security. (Sopiti. Beza.) Or, these Nehelamites, that pretend dreams and divine inspirations. SeeJer 29:24Jer 29:24 ; Jer 29:31 .

Defile the flesh ] By nocturnal pollutions, which we must pray against. The devil can fasten that filth upon the soul when we sleep, that he cannot do at another time.

Despise dominion ] Gr. , set it at nought. See Trapp on “ 2Pe 2:10 “ Under pretence of Christian liberty, they “set it aside,” they “put it from its place” with scorn and contempt.

And speak evil of dignities ] Gr. blaspheme glories: so the Papists do familiarly those princes they count heretics, as Henry IV of France, whom they called Huguenot Dog, &c. Our Edward VI, bastard. Of Queen Elizabeth they reported in print some years after her death, that she died without sense or feeling of God’s mercies. Sanders calleth her the English wolf; Rhiston, the English lioness, far surpassing in cruelty all the Athaliahs, Maacahs, Jezebels, Herodiases, that ever were. Os durum! Harsh mouth. (Rivetti Jesuita vapulans, 263.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Jerusalem. The first occurrence is in Jos 10:1, in connection with Adoni-zedek’s fear of its being “utterly destroyed” like Ai. Here, in Jdg 1:8, we have a picture of its future history in miniature. See App-63. The Tel-el- Amarna tablets contain a long correspondence with Egypt about 1400 B.C.

taken it. The citadel not taken till 2Sa 5:6-9, by David.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Jdg 1:21, Jos 15:63

Reciprocal: Jos 15:8 – the Jebusite Jos 18:16 – Jebusi Jdg 19:10 – Jebus 2Sa 5:6 – Jerusalem

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jdg 1:8-10. Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and taken it Yet some of the inhabitants retired into the castle, and held out there till Davids time. Judah went against the Canaanites in Hebron Under the conduct of Caleb, as is recorded Jos 15:14, &c., for that relation and this are doubtless one and the same expedition, and it is mentioned there by anticipation.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1:8 Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the {e} city on fire.

(e) Which was later built again, and possessed by the Jebusites, 2Sa 5:6.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Even though the soldiers of Judah and Simeon captured and burned Jerusalem, the Israelites were not able to keep the Jebusites from returning to control their ancient capital (cf. Jdg 1:21; Jdg 19:11-12; Jos 15:63).

"The Jebusites were a mixed people who descended from early colonies of Hittites and Amorites in Canaan." [Note: Lewis, p. 22. See also The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Jebusite," by D. J. Wiseman.]

Jerusalem became Israel’s permanent possession years later when David finally exterminated the Jebusites (2Sa 5:6-9). The Israelites’ unfaithfulness in subduing the land is one of the major emphases of Judges. [Note: Thomas L. Constable, "A Theology of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth," in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 107-8.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles