Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 1:17

And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.

17. Zephath ] Only here; the site is unknown. So far as situation goes, es-Sebaita, 25 m. N.N.E. of ‘Ain el-ads (Kadesh), would be suitable; but it has no philological connexion with Zephath (ephath). The Canaanite name of the city which was known to the Hebrews as Hormah is not likely to have survived.

utterly destroyed ] So the AV. and RV. render the verb, but RVm. devoted, lit. ‘placed under the ban,’ rem RV. ‘devoted thing,’ AV. ‘accursed thing.’ Underlying the practice was the ancient principle of taboo; the rem, as the Arabic meaning of the root shews, was something separated from common use, secluded, wholly made over to the deity and therefore inviolable. Hence in Arab. arm = sanctuary, the Moslem name of the temple area at Jerusalem; arm = the women’s chambers; in Aram. dialects the word is used in various forms of a sanctuary, a tomb (Nabataean), consecrated offerings (Palmyrene). Among the Moabites we have an account of the practice which reads almost like a passage in the O.T.; King Mesha ‘devoted’ 7000 Israelite prisoners to ‘Ashtar-Chemosh (Moab. Stone, lines 16 18). Among the Hebrews anything which might endanger the religious life of the community was put out of harm’s way by being ‘devoted’ to God, and whatever was thus placed under the ban had to be destroyed; e.g. the idolatrous Canaanites, or the idolatrous Israelite city, Jos 10:1; Jos 10:28 etc., Jdg 11:11 etc.; Deu 13:15-17; Lev 27:28 f. Instances of the practice are recorded in Jos 7:1; Jos 7:22-26; Jdg 21:10 ff.; 1Sa 15:3; 1Sa 15:8 f., 15 etc.

Hormah ] i.e. devoted; but the explanation given here and in Num 21:3 JE is, perhaps, only literary. The name, like Hermon, Hrm (Jos 19:38), can also mean holy place, and the character of the city as sacred or inviolable may have been due to some other cause. Hormah is mentioned again in Num 14:45 JE, Deu 1:44; in Jos 12:14 it comes immediately before Arad; in ib. Jos 15:30 it belongs to Judah, in Jdg 19:4 to Simeon; it follows the cities of the Kenites on the list in 1Sa 30:30. Other traditions connected with Hormah, which differ from the present one, are preserved in Num 14:45; Num 21:1-3. In the latter fragment Hormah is ‘devoted’ after a repulse at Arad, by Israel, not by Judah and Simeon; it is implied that the former name of the place was Arad; and the episode is placed at an earlier stage of the history. It is best to recognize the differences; they can hardly be reconciled.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Hormah – See Num 21:1 note. The destruction then vowed was now accomplished. This is another decisive indication that the events here related belong to Joshuas lifetime. This would be about six years after the vow.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Jdg 1:17-19

Zephath . . . Hormah.

Zephath and Hormah

In the world of thought and feeling there are many Zephaths, whence quick onset is often made upon the faith and hope of men. We are pressing towards some end, mastering difficulties, contending with open and known enemies. Only a little way remains before us. But invisible among the intricacies of experience is this lurking foe who suddenly falls upon us. It is a settlement in the faith of God we seek. The onset is of doubts we had not imagined, doubts of inspiration, of immortality, of the incarnation, truths the most vital. We are repulsed, broken, disheartened. There remains a new wilderness journey till we reach by the way of Moab the fords of our Jordan and the land of our inheritance. Yet there is a way, sure and appointed. The baffled, wounded soul is never to despair. And when at length the settlement of faith is won, the Zephath of doubt may be assailed from the other side, assailed successfully and taken. The experience of some poor victims of what is oddly called philosophic doubt need dismay no one. For the resolute seeker after God there is always a victory, which in the end may prove so easy, so complete, as to amaze him. The captured Zephath is not destroyed nor abandoned, but is held as a fortress of faith. It becomes Hormah–the consecrated. (R. A. Watson, M. A.)

Judah . . . could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley.

What hinders the gospel

Infinite Intelligence has a plan by which He does all things. He never works by impulse or caprice.

1. God frequently makes human agency the condition of His own action.

2. So entirely does the Almighty abide by this plan, that if the required human agency is not put forth, He will not work. These chariots of iron so discouraged and terrified the Israelites that they would not do the part which God designed them to do; and because God would not violate His own plan, He could not drive them out. Gods plan is the best, and He cannot deviate from the best. Now, the plan by which He promotes the circulation of the gospel amongst men is most clearly revealed in the Bible; and it is this–a proper human representation of it. The Divine idea is to be reflected on man through man. Why the great Author of the gospel should proceed on such a plan is a question which, if proper, it is not necessary to determine. We may as well ask why He has left the life of the world, vegetable and animal, to depend upon the solar beams and the fertile showers. It is enough for me to know, as the reasons of His procedure in any case, that as His nature is love, the ultimate reason of every act is some benevolent idea. Love is the planning genius of the universe: it frames and fashions all. Nor is it difficult to see love in the plan in question. What an honour does it confer on human nature to make it the reflector and exponent of Divine ideas! What benign power, too, is there in the arrangements to stimulate the devout to benevolent effort, and to unite the human family in the bonds of gratitude and compassion! Three general remarks may suffice to show that there has been sufficient mal-representation to account for its present limited influence.

I. That the gospel regards the ceremonial as subordinate to the doctrinal. Though the Old Testament had many rites, the New has only two–baptism and the Lords Supper. But the rites of both the Old and the New were intended to answer the same functions in the economy of revelation, namely, to adumbrate doctrines.

II. That the gospel regards the doctrinal as subservient to the ethical. And if this is so, a mere theological manifestation is a mal-representation. Christianity consists mainly of two elements–doctrines and precepts: subjects for faith and rules for life–theology and morality. Doctrines and precepts are rays from the same eternal sun of truth; the former, however, throwing their radiance upwards–revealing the vast heavens that encircle us, and impressing us with ideas of infinitude; the latter flowing down upon our earthly path, and guiding our feet in the way of life. Of what use would the sun be to us if all its rays streamed upwards, unfolding the boundless blue, and none reached our earthly sphere, to show us how to act? The theology of the Bible is useless to a man unless it changes his heart and moulds his life anew. The doctrines of Christ are not learnt like the doctrines of Newton or Euclid, by mere intellectual study; they are learnt by the heart and the life. Action alone translates Christian doctrines into meaning.

III. That the gospel regards the true ethical as embodied in the life of Christ. And if this is so, a mere dry legal manifestation of it is a mal-representation. Where are the ethical elements whose illustration, enforcement, and promotion, all doctrines are to subserve, to be found? Are they to be found in the statutes of governments, the rubrics of Churches, or the practices of religious sects? No! Men have often made sound doctrine subservient to the corrupt ethics drawn from such sources; but the ethics to which all sound theology should ever minister are embodied in the life of one Being–Christ. Our whole duty is summed up in His command, Follow Me. Assimilation to Christ is the perfection of man. Another train of thought may further serve to illustrate the various forms of the mal-representation, and to sum up our observations upon this truly momentous theme.

1. The ceremonies of the gospel being only intended as the symbols of its doctrines, a mere ritualistic ministry of it is a mal-representation.

2. The doctrines of the gospel being coincident with human reason, any irrational manifestation of it is a mal-representation.

3. The meaning of the gospel being only truly reached by experience, a mere professional manifestation of it is a mal-representation. Christianity is only thoroughly understood by the heart.

4. The genius of the gospel being that of benevolence, any unloving manifestation of it is a mal-representation. Does the Church represent love? warm, self-denying, world-wide love? If not, it does not represent the gospel.

5. The provisions of the gospel being for universal man, any restricted offer of them is a mal-representation. Let the narrow-minded bigot preach that the sun was lit up for a class; or that the ocean was poured forth for a class; or that the sea of air, whose every wave is life, rolls through the world for a class; and his sermons will be as true to nature as those sermons are to the gospel, that proclaim that Gods mercy is only for a favourite few. My conclusion is, that the first thing to be done in order to convert the world is to reform the Church. You may have your missionary societies, you may send forth your emissaries, you may stud the globe with your missionary stations; but unless the Church will give the Christianity of Christ in His own spirit of love, it will be labour lost. (Homilist.)

Chariots of iron.–

Chariots of iron

I. The Lords power was trusted and magnified: The Lord was with Judah.

1. Great victories.

2. Numerous victories.

3. Brotherly action (Jdg 1:3).

4. God gave great proofs of His presence and power by raising up, here and there, a man in their midst who performed heroic deeds. Caleb shall be gathered to his fathers, but Othniel shall follow him, who shall be as brave as he.

5. The reason why the men of Judah were successful was because they had full confidence in God. The Lord will not fall short of the measure: let us not make the measure short.

II. The Lords power restrained because distrusted. The men of Judah could drive out the inhabitants of the mountain, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. As far as their faith went, so far God kept touch with them, and they could do anything and everything; but when they despondingly thought that they could not drive out the inhabitants of the wide valleys, then they failed utterly.

1. They retained too much confidence in themselves. If their confidence had been in God alone, these chariots of iron would have been ciphers in the calculation, The bare arm of God is the source of all power.

2. They believed one promise of God and did not believe another. Beware of being pickers and choosers of Gods promises.

3. There was a further reason for failure arising out of this imperfection of their faith: they could not conquer the chariots of iron, because, first, they did not try. The Hebrew does not say that they could not drive them out. What the Hebrew says is that they did not drive them out. Some things we cannot do because we never make the attempt. I wish we had among Christian workers the spirit of the Suffolk lad who was brought up in court to be examined by an overbearing lawyer. The lawyer roughly said to him, Hodge, can you read Greek? . . . I dont know, sir, said he. Well, fetch a Greek book, said the lawyer, and showing the lad a passage he said to him, Can you read that? No. Then why did you not say that you could not? Because I never say I cannot do a thing till I have tried it. If that spirit were in Christian people we should achieve great things; but we set down such and such a thing as manifestly beyond our power, and, silently, we whisper to ourselves, therefore beyond Gods power, and so we let it alone. No chariots of iron will be driven out if we dare not make the attempt.

4. Next, I suspect that they did not drive them out because they were idle. If cavalry were to be dealt with, Judah must bestir himself. If chariots of iron were to be defeated they must enter upon an arduous campaign; and so, taking counsel of their fears and their idleness, they said, Let us not venture on the conflict. There are many things that Christs Church is unable to do because it is too lazy.

5. Then, again, they were not at all anxious to meet the men who manned those chariots, for they were afraid. These men of Judah were cowards in the presence of chariots of iron, and what can a coward do? He is great at running away. They say that he may live to fight another day. Not he: he will live, but he will not live to fight, depend upon it, any more another day than he does to-day.

6. There was no excuse for this on the part of Judah, as there is really no excuse for us when we think any part of Gods work to be too difficult for us–for, recollect, there was a special promise made about this very case holy (Deu 20:1).

III. The Lords power vindicated. I could tell you of women, sick and infirm, scarcely able to leave their beds, who are doing work which, to some strong Christians, seems too hard to attempt. Have I not seen old men doing for the Lord in their feebleness that which young men have declined? Could I not tell you of some with one talent who are bringing in a splendid revenue of glory to their Lord and Master, while you fine young fellows with ten talents have wrapped them all in a napkin and hid them in the earth? I wish that I could shame myself, and shame every worker here, into enterprises that would astonish unbelievers. God help us to do that which seems impossible. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

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

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

Judah went with Simeon his brother, according to his promise, Jdg 1:3, and the laws of justice and gratitude.

Hormah; either,

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

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

1. Because this was but one city, that divers cities, Num 21:2,3.

2. Because that seems to have been done in Mosess time, though interpreters generally think otherwise; of which see my notes there.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

17-29. And Judah went with Simeonhis brotherThe course of the narrative is here resumed fromJud 1:9, and an account given ofJudah returning the services of Simeon (Jud1:3), by aiding in the prosecution of the war within theneighboring tribes.

slew the Canaanites thatinhabited Zephathor Zephathah (2Ch14:10), a valley lying in the southern portion of Canaan.

Hormahdestroyed infulfilment of an early vow of the Israelites (see on Nu21:2). The confederate tribes, pursuing their incursions in thatquarter, came successively to Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, which theytook. But the Philistines seem soon to have regained possession ofthese cities.

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

And Judah went with Simeon his brother,…. Having subtitled his Canaanites which were in his own lot, according to his promise, he went with his brother Simeon, or the tribe of Simeon, into their lot to reduce those that were in that:

and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it: where and what this city was is not certain; there was a place of this name in upper Galilee, mentioned in Jewish writings p, which cannot be meant here; and we read of the valley of Zephathah,

2Ch 14:10; which might have its name from hence, and if so it was near Mareshah:

and the name of the city was called Hormah; from the destruction made of it, and of the country about it; for now what had been vowed by Israel in the wilderness, when near Arad, was fulfilled, Nu 21:1.

p Juchasin, fol. 68. 1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Remaining Conquests of the Combined Tribes of Judah and Simeon. – Jdg 1:17.

Zephath was in the territory of Simeon. This is evident not only from the fact that Hormah (Zephath) had been allotted to the tribe of Simeon (compare Jos 19:4 with Jos 15:30), but also from the words, “Judah went with Simeon his brother,” which point back to Jdg 1:3, and express the thought that Judah went with Simeon into his territory to drive out the Canaanites who were still to be found there. Going southwards from Debir, Judah and Simeon smote the Canaanites at Zephath on the southern boundary of Canaan, and executed the ban upon this town, from which it received the name of Hormah, i.e., banning. The town has been preserved in the ruins of Se p ta, on the south of Khalasa or Elusa (see at Jos 12:14). In the passage mentioned, the king of Hormah or Zephath is named among the kings who were slain by Joshua. It does not follow from this, however, that Joshua must necessarily have conquered his capital Zephath; the king of Jerusalem was also smitten by Joshua and slain, without Jerusalem itself being taken at that time. But even if Zephath were taken by the Israelites, as soon as the Israelitish army had withdrawn, the Canaanites there might have taken possession of the town again; so that, like many other Canaanitish towns, it had to be conquered again after Joshua’s death (see the commentary on Num 21:2-3). There is not much probability in this conjecture, however, for the simple reason that the ban pronounced by Moses upon the country of the king of Arad (Num 21:2) was carried out now for the first time by Judah and Simeon upon the town of Zephath, which formed a part of it. If Joshua had conquered it, he would certainly have executed the ban upon it. The name Hormah, which was already given to Zephath in Jos 15:30 and Jos 19:4, is no proof to the contrary, since it may be used proleptically there. In any case, the infliction of the ban upon this town can only be explained from the fact that Moses had pronounced the ban upon all the towns of the king of Arad.

Jdg 1:18-21

From the Negeb Judah turned into the shephelah, and took the three principal cities of the Philistines along the line of coast, viz., Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, with their territory. The order in which the names of the captured cities occur is a proof that the conquest took place from the south. First of all Gaza, the southernmost of all the towns of the Philistines, the present Guzzeh; then Askelon ( Ashkuln), which is five hours to the north of Gaza; and lastly Ekron, the most northerly of the five towns of the Philistines, the present Akr (see at Jos 13:3). The other two, Ashdod and Gath, do not appear to have been conquered at that time. And even those that were conquered, the Judaeans were unable to hold long. In the time of Samson they were all of them in the hands of the Philistines again (see Jdg 14:19; Jdg 16:1.; 1Sa 5:10, etc.). – In Jdg 1:19 we have a brief summary of the results of the contests for the possession of the land. “ Jehovah was with Judah; ” and with His help they took possession of the mountains. And they did nothing more; “ for the inhabitants of the plain they were unable to exterminate, because they had iron chariots. ” has two different meanings in the two clauses: first ( ), to seize upon a possession which has been vacated by the expulsion or destruction of its former inhabitants; and secondly ( , with the accusative, of the inhabitants), to drive or exterminate them out of their possessions-a meaning which is derived from the earlier signification of making it an emptied possession (see Exo 34:24; Num 32:21, etc.). “ The mountain ” here includes the south-land (the Negeb), as the only distinction is between mountains and plain. “ The valley ” is the shephelah (Jdg 1:9). , he was not (able) to drive out. The construction may be explained from the fact that is to be taken independently here as in Amo 6:10, in the same sense in which before the infinitive is used in later writings (2Ch 5:11; Est 4:2; Est 8:8; Ecc 3:14: see Ges. 132-3, anm. 1; Ewald, 237, e.). On the iron chariots, i.e., the chariots tipped with iron, see at Jos 17:16. – To this there is appended, in v. 20, the statement that “ they gave Hebron unto Caleb, ” etc., which already occurred in Jos 15:13-14, and was there explained; and also in Jdg 1:12 the remark, that the Benjaminites did not drive out the Jebusite who dwelt in Jerusalem, which is so far in place here, that it shows, on the one hand, that the children of Judah did not bring Jerusalem into the undisputed possession of the Israelites through this conquest, and, on the other hand, that it was not their intention to diminish the inheritance of Benjamin by the conquest of Jerusalem, and they had not taken the city for themselves. For further remarks, see at Jdg 1:8.

The hostile attacks of the other tribes upon the Canaanites who remained in the land are briefly summed up in Jdg 1:22-36. Of these the taking of Bethel is more fully described in Jdg 1:22-26. Besides this, nothing more is given than the list of the towns in the territories of western Manasseh (Jdg 1:27, Jdg 1:28), Ephraim (Jdg 1:29), Zebulun (Jdg 1:30), Asher (Jdg 1:31, Jdg 1:32), Naphtali (Jdg 1:33), and Dan (Jdg 1:34, Jdg 1:35), out of which the Canaanites were not exterminated by these tribes. Issachar is omitted; hardly, however, because that tribe made no attempt to disturb the Canaanites, as Bertheau supposes, but rather because none of its towns remained in the hands of the Canaanites.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

CRITICAL NOTES.

Jdg. 1:17. And Judah went with Simeon.]

The history is here resumed, after the digression (Jdg. 1:8-16). Zephath or Hormah.] The latter name, meaning a devoting, was evidently given to Zephath on account of the ban of destruction, for the second time executed here (cf. Num. 21:1-3, and Com. on Jos. 12:14). The LXX. have . Now Sebaita, a large deserted town situated in a large plain at the foot of the Magrh mountains, and not far from the head of the Wady el Abaydh. Five miles off is an old fort, on a steep hill. Perhaps this is the watch-tower from which the place derived its name. This discovery was made by Professor Palmer and the late Mr. Tyrwhitt Drake. [Groser.]

Jdg. 1:18. Gaza Askelon Ekron.] Cf. on Jos. 11:22; Jos. 13:3. After the conquest of these places by Joshua, they appear to have been re-occupied by the Canaanites. This is specially said of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod, even in the time of Joshua (Jos. 11:22). After events and statements show that the present subjugation was as imperfect as the former (Jdg. 14:19; Jdg. 16:2; &c.).

Jdg. 1:19. Could not drive out.] They were not to be driven out. The expression (lo ychlu), they could not, is purposely avoided. They would have been quite able when God was with them; but when it came to a contest with iron chariots their faith failed them. [Cassel.] The inhabitants of the valley.] , not , as in Jdg. 1:9 of this chapter. Emek is not applied to ravines, but to the long broad sweeps sometimes found between parallel ranges of hills. [Dean Stanley.] Thus the valley would be suitable for the use of the chariots.

Jdg. 1:20. And they gave Hebron unto Caleb.] This is repeated for the same purpose as the repetition in the parenthesis (Jdg. 1:8-16), namely, to show Judahs general faithfulness towards God and Israel. This faithfulness in fulfilling the Lords words, is given as an explanation of the Lords choice in Jdg. 1:2,Judah shall go up.

Jdg. 1:21. Unto this day.] Therefore this book was written before the expulsion of the Jebusites by David (but cf. Introduction). Jerusalem was a border city. In Jos. 15:63 we read that the Judahites did not expel the Jebusites from the upper city, or Zion; here we are told that the warlike Benjaminites failed to do so. There is no need to suppose an alteration in the text. This shows that Jdg. 1:8 records only the capture of the lower city. [Groser.]

Jdg. 1:23. The name of the city before was Luz.] Cf. on Jos. 16:2, Preachers Commentary, pp. 267, 270. In these verses it is shown that the children of Joseph also, like those of Judah, began, after the death of Joshua, faithfully to execute the word of the Lord. But Jdg. 1:27-29 tell us that this fidelity was only very partial. They soon ceased to obey Jehovah, and put the Canaanites to tribute.

Jdg. 1:27-29. Neither did Manasseh, &c.] The condition of unbelieving inactivity noticed of Manasseh in Jos. 17:11-13, and of Ephraim in Jos. 16:10, is here shown to have continued to the time of the opening of the history in the book of Judges. Thus the latter part of this chapter does something more than show the identity of the transactions referred to in the book of Joshua. It shows that the want of faithful and vigorous transactions noticed there, remained to be noticed several years later. It is precisely this perpetuated inaction which leads to the further sins and the subsequent calamities of which the book of Judges gives the history. It is in this light that chaps. 1 and 2 become a very pertinent introduction to the whole of this book.

Jdg. 1:34. Forced the children of Dan into the mountain.] Probably with the iron chariots with which they were able to command the valley or more level ground adjacent to the mountains. Thus were the Danites straitened for room, and presently led to seek more territory, as stated in Judges 18.

Jdg. 1:35. In Mount Heres.] Lit., The mountain of the sun, or the arid mountain. Probably so named in connection with sun-worship, and the same as, or adjacent to, Ir-Shemesh, city of the sun, which occurs in the parallel passage, Jos. 19:41, and called Beth-shemesh, house of the sun, in Jos. 15:10; 1Ki. 4:9. It may be the modern Ain-Shems, about seven miles from Ekron, though this seems too far south for the hand of the house of Joseph to have been heavy upon the Amorites there, gradually making them tributary. The LXX. curiously render the first part of the verse, And the Amorite began to dwell in the mountains of shells, in which are bears and foxes.

Jdg. 1:36. From the going up to Akrabbim. Cf. Num. 34:4, and remarks on Jos. 15:3. Some place Akrabbim ten miles due south of the Dead Sea, and others at the Pass es-Sufah, somewhat more west. From the rock and upward.] From the rock cannot be understood as relating to the city of Petra, but must denote some other locality well known to the Israelites by that name. Such a locality there undoubtedly was in the rock in the desert of Zin, which had become celebrated through the events that took place at the Water of Strife (Num. 20:8; Num. 20:10), and to which, in all probability, this expression refers. The rock in question was at the south-west corner of Canaan, on the southern edge of the Rakhma plateau, to which the mountains of the Amorites extended on the south-west (cf. Num. 14:25; Num. 14:44-45, with Deu. 1:44). [Keil.] A line from the two points thus described is here said to have formed, probably, the original southern boundary of the Amorite kingdom.

OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE PARAGRAPH.Jdg. 1:17-36

THE BATTLE THE LORDS ONLY WHILE FOUGHT WITH THE LORD.Jdg. 1:17-19

I. Men working together with each other, and working in the fear of God.

1. Unity is strength wherever unity is lawful. Had Judah become confederate with idolaters, such an alliance would have wrought weakness. When Judah went with Simeon his brother, the Lord went with them both.

2. To unite in Gods work is of no avail unless we unite to serve in the fear of God. That Judah and Simeon did this is evident. All Israel had inquired of the Lord, saying, Who shall go up (Jdg. 1:1)? In their victory over Zephath, they both devoted the city to the Lord, and re-named it Hormah, in token of having executed again upon it Jehovahs ban of judgment (see Critical Notes). Not only did they thus show that they were walking in the fear of God; they also gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses had said, knowing that it was God who had spoken through Moses. Thus did Judah and Simeon start aright in this terrible work of war and judgment. God does not overlook even the faithful beginnings of those who depend upon His help and have respect unto His commandments.

II. Men working together with God, and thus working triumphantly. Zephath fell before them, and they took Gaza, and Askelon, and Ekron, with the territory bordering upon each. 1. Success is not because of our co-operation with men, but because of our union with the Lord. The Lord was with Judah. The Lord was not kept from working with Judah by the fact that Judah had sought the help of Simeon. Had not Judah taken wise precautions, then the Lord might not have helped. God, also, helps them who wisely help themselves. Yet, though Simeons aid was thus approved of, the battle was the Lords. After we have done all that we can, He is our help and our shield.

2. The Lord does not withhold His help because our union with Him may soon fail. He who said to Peter, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny Me thrice, saw well enough how soon Judah and Simeon would deny Him. Yet God began with blessing the men who began by trusting. The crown of life is promised to those who are faithful unto death; but our Lord does not withhold all His mercies till we have proved our abiding fidelity. There are many victories given to us on this side of the crown. He who taught us to pray, Give us this day our daily bread, gives that days bread in answer to that days believing prayer.

3. The union with God that comes of even a small faith, may, nevertheless, lead to mighty victories. The trust of Judah which utterly failed in sight of the iron chariots, could only have been feeble in these earlier conflicts. Had it been strong, the iron chariots could not so speedily have turned it into unbelief. Yet even with this feeble faith, Zephath, and Gaza, and Askelon, and Ekron were overcome. Union with God is everything. The faith that is just enough to lead men to union with God is as victorious as though it were perfect faith. It is not the amount of our faith that triumphs, but the fact that the Lord is on our side. Strong faith has most of rest and peace; strong faith gives most honour to God; but the faith that just suffices to do the Lords bidding is also certain of victory. The trembling households of Israel, on the night of the slaying of the first-born, were just as safe as the confident households, if they had possessed faith enough to sprinkle the blood as they had been directed. The trembling gazer at the brazen serpent was healed as completely as the man who had no doubt of the result. She who did but find faith enough to secretly touch the hem of her Lords garment found it better than twelve years aid from the physicians. He who has faith enough to do his Lords bidding, has also enough to command his Lords help; and salvation is of the Lords help, not of the measure of our trust.

III. Men working successfully with God, and yet coming to a point where God is no longer trusted. And Jehovah was with Judah; and he took possession of the mountain, but the inhabitants of the valley were not to be expelled, because they had chariots of iron. Had Judah still trusted in the Lord, Judah had still been victorious.

1. Where faith is severely tried, some promise may generally be found to sustain it. It was so here. God had already said, through Moses (Deu. 20:1), When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them; for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. Similarly, some promise stands over against all our temptations to unbelief.

2. The promises and our own personal experience always point in the direction of abiding trust. As far as the men of Judah had trusted, they had not been confounded. They had conquered in every field where they had ventured to fight. Our past experience of Gods help is never out of harmony with His written encouragements.

3. In spite of both promises and experience, it is all too easy to give way to doubt. God continually encourages men to go forward, and when, having known nothing of defeat, He sets before them an open door to some mercy in which all previous mercies might become crowned and complete, they shrink back in dismay, and thus risk the loss of everything. One may almost hear the Divine voice saying in this trial also, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

4. He who doubts God becomes subject to the repeated rebukes of history. The people were rebuked by history which many of them might well remember. At the waters of Merom, under Joshua, they had defeated their enemies who were as the sand upon the sea-shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many (Jos. 11:4). In the days yet to come multitudes of their grandchildren would see them reproved again. Bidden to the battle by a woman, Barak, a century later, led his little army against the multitudinous array of King Jabin, and Sisera, and his nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, were discomfited, and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword, and there was not a man left (Jdg. 4:7; Jdg. 4:13; Jdg. 4:15-16). Thus does God ever beset us behind and before with proofs of our folly in all our unbelief of His holy words.

MAKING SHIPWRECK OF FAITH AFTER A GOOD VOYAGE.Jdg. 1:19

I. Faith failing after much faith in the past. Judah had believed much, and therefore the Lord was with Judah. Their previous faith is seen in three things.

1. They had faith to offer acceptable prayer. In common with all Israel they had asked of the Lord, Who shall go up for us? &c. That prayer was so offered that the Lord heard.

2. They had faith to accept the issues of prayer. He who really prays commits himself to great responsibilities. God may send him into the very forefront of the battle. Judah had so prayed. And the Lord said, Judah shall go up. This post in the van of the Lords war had been faithfully accepted.

3. They had faith not only to go to battle, but to win victory after victory. He that girds on the harness for God has faith, but he who continues his trust till the Lord makes him more than conqueror has yet a better faith. This also had Judah known. The Canaanites and the Perizzites, with Adoni-bezek, had been overcome. Zephath, Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron had also fallen. For all that, the faith of the men of Judah failed before the iron chariots. They were like those of whom Paul wrote: Holding faith and a good conscience; that in their earlier career: which some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck; that in their later. To such, Paul said elsewhere: Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? It is those that stand who have need to take heed lest they fall.

II. Faith failing by reason of looking on the things which are seen. The men of Judah looked on the iron chariots, and became disheartened and afraid; they should have looked on Gods well-known love and oft-proved power to help them.

1. No man can rightly understand the things of this life. We judge of things in fragments and sections. Our view is too limited even for a birds-eye view of what God sees as a whole. Even momentary defeat is often the way to victory. It was so at Ai. What if Joshua, instead of prostrating himself before the Lord in humble inquiry, had given up the war? Where, then, had been the inheritance? We are not told that Judah had been defeated even once by the iron chariots. But what if this were so? It might have been Gods well-prepared way to more effectual victory. He who judges life and God by the few things which he can see, is in much the same position as a man who should attempt to decide on the merits of a painting by gazing at a square inch cut from the large picture on the canvas.

2. That man is wisest who rests in the well-proved love and wisdom of God. Philosophy has not ventured to raise any quarrel against the child who trusts in a wise and good father in preference to his own narrow judgment. It is only when our decisions have to do with the far more intricate perceptions of religious life that some would-be wise men tell us that it is not well to trust a Father in heaven whose love and mercy have been manifestly displayed for six thousand years. We have no data, they tell us, whereby to form any opinion of your religious matters; and we decline to accept your Christianity. As though any one of them would venture to commend the presumptuous boy who said to his father about some sphere unknown to his narrow wisdom: I have no data; and I must decline to walk when I cannot see clearly for myself. A great deal of our walking, even in temporal things, has to be done by faith in some one else. Must it not be so, much more, when the path we travel leads to a life and a world that no living man has seen?

3. Thus, he best hears, and best fights, who endures as seeing Him who is invisible. No man hath seen God at any time, as he has seen an earthly parent; yet he who walks the path of the Divine testimonies humbly will say, with no lack of confidence, The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. The whole question of modern faith rests here: Is Jesus Christ to be believed? was He false? or was He mistaken? Till that is settled by all who doubt it, nothing else is worth arguing.

III. Failing faith declining the conflict, and thus getting nothing more of victory. Judah rested, and forthwith God rested. In that case there was nothing for it but that conquest should cease also. In this mood, not an acre more could be added to the inheritance. How silently God seems to have rested! For some time we hear of no single word of reproof or exhortation when He had been thus dishonoured. God left His people to find out by bitter experience their sin against Him, and their folly as it concerned themselves. It is not seldom thus. God sits in silence which we might well feel to be appalling, and leaves unbelief to work out its own shame and pain. Meanwhile, the enemies of faith find power enough to become as thorns in the sides of those who have forgotten their God.

IV. The failing faith of leading men becoming utterly ruinous to the faith of others. Judah had been chosen to take the lead in the war which followed the death of Joshua. While Judah was strong in faith, Simeon was strong also. Perhaps it was under the influence of their joint victories that Joseph was stirred up to the conflict in which Bethel was taken. When Judah fell, defection forthwith spread itself throughout all Israel. Benjamin, Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulon, Asher, and Naphtali all failed in the failure of Judah. And not long after it remained to be written: And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites. And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and forgat the Lord their God, and served Baalim and the groves. No man liveth to himself. He who fails in faith, destroys the faith of others. Ruinous, indeed, are the results when they fail whom God has called and qualified to lead.

GOD LEAVING HIS PEOPLE HELPLESS.Jdg. 1:19

The Lord was with Judah only so long as Judah believed. God declines to help those who decline to trust in Him. It would do His people harm. It would put a premium on doubt, and timidity, and idleness, were the Lord to present His soldiers with victory while they refused the conflict. Dr. Thomas remarks on this verse: It is said that God could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because theythe inhabitants of the mountainhad chariots of iron. But it is not said that God could not drive them out. Even in the English text the sense is clearly intimated as beingJudah could not drive them out, the nearest antecedent being Judah, and not the Lord. But the Hebrew certainly does not say that God could not drive them out. The literal rendering of the verse stands thus: And was Jehovah with Judah, and he took possession of the mountain; but not to be expelled (were) the inhabitants of the valley, for chariots of iron (were) to them. This is very different from God could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley. It is undoubtedly true, as a point of doctrine, that God cannot do that which is wrong, and which would work evil. It is thus similarly said of Christ in His own country, He could there do no mighty work, the reason assigned, elsewhere, being that this was because of their unbelief. God could not help the unbelieving men of Judah with mighty works: still, that is not how it is said in this verse.

NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF THE WICKED

As Augustine has said, God is not a cruel tormentor, but a just corrector. Moreover, because holy men are very familiar with God, and therefore when by some heavenly revelation they are ascertained of His will, because they exceedingly love Him they cannot but allow His sentence; yea, they faithfully pray that the same may be accomplished; although, in that they be men, they be both sorry and also take it grievously to have their neighbours so vexed. After which sort Samuel mourned for Saul the king, whom he knew nevertheless to be rejected of God. Jeremiah also wept for the captivity which was at hand; and Christ wept for the city of Jerusalem which should be destroyed. They which be men indeed, cannot but be sorry for their neighbours and their own flesh when it is afflicted. Neither doth God require of us that we be stoical and lacking in compassion. [Peter Martyr.]

THE GIFT OF HEBRON TO CALEB.Jdg. 1:20

This verse is certainly not a conclusive proof that this campaign (of Judah and Simeon) took place in Joshuas lifetime, as stated by the Speakers Commentary. All the time the Canaanites were in such force in the lot of Judah as is represented in Jdg. 1:3-6, Caleb could not have held Hebron in peaceable security. He might have continued to hold the city from the time of his victory (which is recorded both in Jos. 15:13-14, and in the retrospective parenthesis of this chapter) to the time of the campaign of Judah and Simeon; but the city was, probably, more or less threatened by the growing power of the Canaanites. After the victories of the two tribes, Calebs possession of Hebron would have been comparatively undisturbed. But the men of Judah, so far from taking any advantage over Caleb, gave him Hebron, as Moses had said. They did not give him the city for the first time; Joshua had given it before the men of Judah gave it, and Moses before Joshua. To say that the gift as stated here is a conclusive proof that the campaign took place in Joshuas lifetime has no more force than to say that Jos. 14:13 is a conclusive proof that Joshuas gift of Hebron took place in the lifetime of Moses. Hebron was given to Caleb, in promise, by Moses; it was re-given by Joshua, when the adjacent country had been partly subdued. With this title to the city, Caleb wrested it from the Canaanites, and apparently held it amid increasing dangers till the overthrow of Adoni-bezek and the conquest of Zephath and the western strongholds, at which time its security was threatened. From this danger the two tribes delivered Hebron; and as situated in their own territory, and liberated by their efforts, the men of Judah still gave the city to Caleb. They thus confirmed the previous gift of both Moses and Joshua. The verse is really needed here as an assurance that Caleb was suffered to retain his heritage. The retrospective clause with which the verse closes, is simply a repetition, quite in keeping with the authors manner throughout the chapter.

THE INACTIVITY OF BENJAMIN.Jdg. 1:21

The boundary of Judah and Benjamin divided the city of Jerusalem, the lower city belonging to the former tribe, and the upper city with its stronghold, so long retained by the Jebusites, to the latter. The eighth verse tells us that the men of Judah had taken that part of the city which lay in their territory, while this verse records the slothfulness of the men of Benjamin in suffering their part of Jerusalem to remain in the hands of their enemies.

I. Benjamins want of faith. There was want of faith

(1) in Gods warnings (Num. 33:55);

(2) in Gods willingness or power to help;
(3) in the blessings which ever follow obedience.

II. Benjamins want of love. Love to God should have prompted the people at least to make an effort to do as God had commanded them. They seem, however, to have made no attempt to take the city. The Lord had done great things for them, but they were not glad enough in Him even to strive to obey. Love to their brethren should have stimulated them to the attack. This motive failed also.

III. Benjamins want of zeal. The people of the tribe seem to have quietly settled down to make the best of things as they were. He who lacks faith and love now will be no less wanting in zeal for the Lord of Hosts. The issues of life as to lifes conflicts are also out of the heart, and he who would win many victories must keep his heart with all diligence.

IV. Benjamins readiness to copy a bad example. Judah was the first to go up against the Canaanites. For a time the men of Judah walked by faith, and conquered; then they walked by sight, and the iron chariots were too much for the courage which depended on what could be seen. The Benjaminites were far more ready to copy the bad example than the good. Evil is ever more contagious than virtue. The pre-disposition of the heart is ever toward sin. He who walks much with evil-doers has need of great grace to keep him from following evil.

V. Benjamins lost opportunity. The city which the people feared to attack now was not taken till four hundred years afterwards (2Sa. 5:6-10). The Lord was waiting to be with Benjamin, just as much as He was with Judah and with Joseph. But Benjamin let the day for conflict go by, and for four centuries no occasion of sufficient promise to stimulate them to victory ever returned. Even when the city was taken, Saul the Benjaminite king was passed over, and David who was of, in this matter, the more faithful tribe of Judah, was chosen as the instrument for adding the stronghold of Zion to the territory of Israel. Henceforth, this part of Jerusalem became at once the City of David, the City of the Great King, and the site of the temple of Jehovah. Opportunity once forfeited by sinful unbelief and sloth is often slow to return. To-day is the accepted time for a good many mercies that may have fled for ever to-morrow.

CHRONOLOGICAL NOTE.We have a firm datum for determining more minutely the time when the book of Judges was written, in this statement that the Jebusites in Jerusalem had not been rooted out by the Israelites, but dwelt there with the children of Benjamin unto this day. The Jebusites remained in possession of Jerusalem, or of the citadel Zion, or the upper town of Jerusalem, until the time when David went against Jerusalem after the twelve tribes had acknowledged him as king, took the fortress of Zion, and made it the capital of his kingdom under the name of the City of David (2Sa. 5:6-9; 1Ch. 11:4-9). Consequently the book was written before this event, either during the first seven years of the reign of David at Hebron, or during the reign of Saul, under whom the Israelites already enjoyed the benefits of a monarchical government, since Saul not only fought with bravery against all the enemies of Israel, and delivered Israel out of the hands of them that spoiled them (1Sa. 14:47-48), but exerted himself to restore the authority of the laws of God in his kingdom, as is evident from the fact that he banished the wizards and necromancers out of the land (1Sa. 28:9). The Talmudical statement therefore in Bava-bathra, to the effect that Samuel was the author of the book, may be so far correct, that if it was not written by Samuel himself towards the close of his life, it was written at his instigation by a younger prophet of his school. More than this it is impossible to decide. So much, however, is at all events certain, that the book does not contain traces of a later age either in its contents or in its language, and that Jdg. 18:30 does not refer to the time of the captivity. [Keil.]

Dr. Cassel further remarks on this point, If our book had not been written before the time of David, references to his reign could not be wanting. From Othniels time, the tribe of Judah, Davids tribe, falls into the background. The mention of it in the history of Samson is far from honourable. The relatively copious treatment of affairs in which Benjamin figures, points to the time of King Saul. While the history of Othniel is quite summarily related, that of Ehud is drawn out to the minutest detail. Similarly rich is the flow of tradition in the narrative concerning Gibeah (Judges 19 seq.). Saul says of himself that he is of the smallest of the tribes (1Sa. 9:21). This history of Gibeah explains the cause of Benjamins smallness, and traces it to the savage war made on him by Israel.

FAITH, OBEDIENCE, AND VICTORY.Jdg. 1:22

I. Faith and obedience helped by brotherly union. The house of Joseph consisted of both Manasseh and Ephraim. So long as they worked together, these brother-tribes seem to have gathered encouragement from each other. When they were united, Bethel was fearlessly, diligently, and successfully attacked. Separating from each other, both Manasseh and Ephraim are found slothful, weak, and disobedient (Jdg. 1:27-29). Says a Spanish proverb: Three, helping each other, are as good as six. Similarly an Italian proverb tells us that, Three brothers are three castles. In the Lords work we all need each other.

II. Faith and obedience stimulated on the ground of former mercies. It was against Bethel that the children of Joseph went up. The very name was an inspiration: fighting for the house of God, would not God certainly be with them? But the name had, no less, an inspiring history. Here good old Jacob, their common father, had seen his vision of the angel-trodden ladder, set up between earth and heaven, and he called the name of that place Bethel (Gen. 28:19). William Hazlitt remarks in his opening lecture on the English Poets: There can never be another Jacobs dream. Since that time, the heavens have gone further off, and grown astronomical. Doubtless; there cannot be any dreaming of the ancient vision over again, yet who does not feel that the original dream has lost nothing of its power even to us, the astronomical vastness of our unladdered heavens notwithstanding. What an inspiration it must have been to the sons of Joseph as they went to battle on this scene, made so bright to Jacob with the vision of ascending and descending angels of his God! Again, God had sent Jacob to Bethel after his return from Laban. Here, at the Divine command, he had built an altar; at this very spot the nurse of Jacobs mother lay interred; here the new name Israel had been confirmed; on this very ground the promise had been given that a nation and a company of nations should be of Jacob their father; here the covenant to Abraham and Isaac had been renewed, And the land, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land; and here, for the second time, had Jacob set up a pillar of stone, and poured oil upon the top of it, and called the name of the place the house of God. That this history was carefully remembered is clear from the fact that the name Bethel was again substituted for Luz; and that the history was reverently cherished is no less clear from the way in which for a long time after, Bethel was made a place for enquiring of the Lord (cf. Jdg. 20:18; Jdg. 20:26-27; Jdg. 21:2). These memories of Gods mercies to Jacob, and of the absolute promise on that very spot to give the land to his seed, could not have done other than make the house of Joseph strong for this conflict. The very stones could hardly hold their peace if faith and zeal should falter here. On not a few of the fields where God calls us to conflict, similar encouragements wait to strengthen all who will reverently search them out.

III. Faith and obedience helped by the Lord at the very outset. And the Lord was with them. No sooner does Joseph go up to the Lords war, than the Lord goes with him. He who sets out for God, and in obedience to God, has God with him even at setting out. On the contrary, he who declines to begin to walk in the way of the Divine commandments, can never have it truly written that the Lord was with him. This word occurs no more in this chapter. It was not spoken of any of the tribes who did not attempt to drive out the inhabitants; equally, when Manasseh and Ephraim failed in faith and obedience, nothing more is said of the Lords presence. He who never begins to serve God never feels able to serve; he who sincerely attempts to fight against sin in himself or in others, only finds that he is helpless when he ceases to be sincere. Even the withered hand can begin to move when it tries to lift itself at the bidding of Christ.

IV. Faith and obedience crowned with victory. Bethel fell, and its inhabitants were slain, according to the Divine commandment. There can be no question of victory when we begin and continue and end our warfare with the Lord of Hosts for our helper. If the Lord be on our side, greater is He that is for us than all they which be against us (cf. 2Ki. 6:16; 2Ch. 32:7; Psa. 55:18). To all who faithfully contend, seeking His help, Christ has certainly promised the crown of life.

LUZ AND BETHEL.Jdg. 1:23

The word Bethel occurs before, Gen. 28:19, in which place this name is said to have been given to Luz by Jacob. In Gen. 12:8, we are told that Abram removed from the plain of Moreh unto a mountain on the east of Bethel. This is only an evidence that the book of Genesis was written after Jacobs vision, and that the new name which Jacob had given to Luz is carried back by the author, with an anachronism, to the time of Abram. As to the slightly different sites of Luz and Bethel, see Preachers Commentary on Joshua, p. 270.

THE TRAITOROUS BETHELITE.Jdg. 1:24-25

There is no reason for thinking that this man believed in God, and that from motives of religious faith he betrayed his city to the Israelites. Some of the older authors have compared his case to that of Rahab. It need hardly be said that, in motive, they are evidently and utterly unlike. Rahab was manifestly overwhelmed with the conviction that the God of the Israelites was the true God, that the end of her people was at hand; and in that belief she sought a refuge for herself and her household under the mighty God of Jacob, through the medium of His people. This Bethelite probably believed nothing of the kind. He expressed no faith in God; not casting in his lot with Gods people, he evidently got away from them, with his family, as soon as he could make his escape; and, so far from being oppressed by the sense of his traitorous conduct, he called his new city by the name of the city he had helped to deliver up to the Israelites. On the other hand, Dr. Adam Clarkes abuse of the poor creature is needlessly extravagant. He was probably no willing traitor. He did not betray his city for gain. The man had not had the advantage of Dr. Clarkes training, nor had he breathed the healthy atmosphere of a land which had long been blessed with great civil and religious liberty and knowledge. He was merely a weak man, trembling for his personal safety, and having perhaps no small fear for his family. His act was not an exalted one, but the ordeal which he had to undergo might have sorely tried even a better man.

THE BETHELITE IN THE LAND OF THE HITTITES.Jdg. 1:26

The land of the Hittites must not be confused with the land of the Chittim, which probably had its original centre on the sea-coast north of Sidon, and subsequently extended to Cyprus and to some of the adjacent islands and coasts of the Mediterranean. Dr. Cassel is of opinion that Movers has successfully maintained that and refer to the same race of people. This, however, cannot be, unless we are prepared to ignore the Biblical account of their entirely distinct origin. The Chittim, or more correctly the Kittim, were descended from Japheth; while the Hittites were the sons of Heth, or Cheth, and thus belonged to the family of Ham. The Scripture account of the two races is, from the first, so distinctly and consistently maintained, both as to the territory occupied and the Hebrew spelling of the two names, that no considerable intermixture of the two families is at all probable. In Gen. 10:4 and 1Ch. 1:7, Kittim, the son of Javan, the son of Japheth, is named as the father of the people dwelling in what the E.V. invariably calls Chittim. From the first to the last of Old Testament notices, these Kittim are mentioned as a maritime people, dwelling to the north of Canaan, and they are, moreover, repeatedly associated with the great Tyrian and Sidonian commerce (cf. Num. 24:24; Isa. 23:1; Isa. 23:12; Jer. 2:10; Eze. 27:6; Dan. 11:30). On the other hand, the Hittites are kept equally distinct both orthographically and geographically. Though a numerous people, they were manifestly of feebler character and of more uncertain locality than the hardy commercial Kittim of the north. Tribally, their dwelling-place twice appears as being in the neighbourhood of Hebron (Gen. 23:17-20; Gen. 49:30), and twice as in the mountains (Num. 13:29; Jos. 11:3). Generically, the words (Hittites), and (Kings of the Hittites), are occasionally used to describe the Canaanites under a common appellation (Jos. 1:4; 1Ki. 10:29; 2Ki. 7:6). With these facts in view, it obviously cannot be correct to treat the Hittites and the inhabitants of Kittim as the same race of people, notwithstanding that subsequent Phnician coins may be designated by the terms and .

As to the town built by this Hittite from Bethel, the site of it is unknown. Speaking of the ruin of the older Shechem, Dean Stanley remarks: The very graphic description of Shechem in Theodotus as under the roots of the mountain is decisive against placing it on the summit of Gerizim. He speaks of the name Louzah, as given to the ruins of Gerizim by the Samaritan high-priest at Nblus, which certainly agrees with the position of Luza noticed by Jerome (Onomast., Luza). Can this be the second Luz, founded by the inhabitants of Luz when expelled by the Ephraimites from Bethel? This may be, but it scarcely seems probable when we are told that the man went into the land of the Hittites to build his city, and when we bear in mind that Ebal and Gerizim were held at this time by the powerful tribe of Ephraim, and that only Gezer is named, in Jdg. 1:29, as a place from which the Ephraimites had failed to expel the Canaanites,Gezer being near to Beth-horon, and standing on the southern boundary-line of the tribe (Jos. 16:3).

HELPERS OF THE LORDS PEOPLE

There are four classes of persons whose various conduct towards the Church of God, and to the Gospel preached by her, is represented by four cases in the books of Joshua and Judges.

1. There is the case of the man of Bethel. He might have dwelt with the men of Joseph at Bethel, and have become a worshipper of the true God, and have thus become a citizen for ever of the true Bethel, the house of God, which will stand for ever. But he quits the house of God to propagate heathenism and idolatry. The man of Bethel, therefore, is presented to us in this Scripture as a specimen of that class of persons who help the Church of God in her work from motives of fear, or of worldly benefit, and not from love of God; and who, when they have opportunities of spiritual benefit, slight those opportunities, and even shun the light, and go away from Bethel, the house of God, as it were, unto some far-off land of the Hittites, and build there a heathen Luz of their own.

2. There is the case of the Kenites (Jdg. 1:16), who helped Judah after their victories in Canaan, and were received into fellowship with them.

3. There is the case of the Gibeonites, who came to Joshua from motives of fear, and were admitted to dwell with Israel as hewers of wood and drawers of water.

4. There is the case of Rahab. She stands out in beautiful contrast to the man of Bethel. He helped the spies of Joseph, and was spared, with his household, but did not choose to live in their Bethel. But Rahab received the spies of Joshua, even before he had gained a single victory, and she professed her faith in their God; and she was spared, she and her household, and she became a mother in Israel, and an ancestress of Christ. [Wordsworth.]

It is of no avail to conquer by faith, unless it be also maintained in faith; for Bethel became afterwards a Beth-aven, a House of Sin. [Dr. Cassel.] Cf. 1Ki. 12:29; Hos. 4:15; Hos. 5:8; Hos. 10:5. The remark, however, of Gesenius should here be borne in mind: The Talmudists have confounded this town with the neighbouring city of Beth-El, from the latter having been sometimes called by the prophets, in contempt, Beth-Aven. Beth-Aven, as is seen by Jos. 7:2, was near to Ai on the east side of Bethel.

MANASSEH AND EPHRAIM.Jdg. 1:27-29

These verses are, in substance, a recapitulation of the previous statements in Jos. 16:10; Jos. 17:11-13. But the repetition, so far from being needless, is necessary on two grounds; it shows that since the negligent beginning recorded in the book of Joshua there had been no improvement, saving in the capture of Bethel. This continued disobedience is also set forth as an introduction to, and a reason for, the calamities recorded throughout this book of Judges.

For additional homiletic remarks on the subject of these verses, see the Preachers Commentary on Joshua, pp. 266, 272274, 280.

FORSAKING THE LORDS WORK.Jdg. 1:27-28

These records which follow to the end of the chapter, remind us of the unfinished towers which were spoken of by our Lord, and of the war under-taken with too little thought (Luk. 14:28-32). There are a great many unfinished towers in the world which ought never to have been begun; there are a great many more which, having been begun, ought certainly to have been completed. Just the same may be said of lifes conflicts. Manasseh, and Ephraim, and the rest of these tribes, did not fail in completing their warfare because they had begun imprudently, but because they did not continue believingly. The tower of conquest was unfinished, not because they had not counted the cost at the beginning, but because they forgot their infinite resources in the help of Jehovah. We see in these verses

I. Men forsaking a work which had been begun after long preparation. The plagues of Egypt, the miracles of the wilderness, the gifts of the manna and other supplies, and the long period of discipline in the desert, were all designed to lead up to the full inheritance of the land.

II. Men forsaking a work which had already been prosecuted with great energy and at great cost. How strikingly does the indifference here contrast with the passage of the Jordan, with the rapid movements at Beth-horon and the Waters of Merom, and, indeed, with the vigour displayed in all the earlier part of the campaign! What vast efforts and unflinching zeal had been previously expended on this great work of conquest! Now, with the inheritance almost in hand, the strife is abandoned. The Church has thrown away not a little energy for want of just a little more. When the seed of past efforts is not cultivated right up to the point where harvest is sure, it may, after all our labour, only result in a harvest of thorns which vex us (cf. Num. 33:55; Jos. 23:13; Jdg. 2:3).

III. Men forsaking a work about which they had cherished ardent hopes. The whole way up from Egypt had been a long path of expectation. Enthusiasm had often been high, as in the song at the Red Sea, and in the service at Ebal. We see here brilliant hopes blasted for ever for want of a little more faith and a little more service. How many of our once cherished visions have fled for the same reason!

IV. Men forsaking a work in which they had already won splendid triumphs. The path of their past prowess was almost vocal against this sinful inaction and unbelief. The ruins of Jericho were a protest that must have seemed almost audible to the few more godly of the host. The great days of Beth-horon and of Merom might well have waked every sleeper with loud-echoing rebukes.

V. Men forsaking a work to which God had commanded them, in which God had marvellously helped them, and in which He no less waited to help them still. They did not remember the years of the right hand of the Most High. They forgat His works. No less did they forget His absolute commands, and His unbroken promises. Herein they grievously sinned, and in this sin lies the terribly appropriate introduction which this chapter makes to the great sorrows and humiliations and further transgressions recorded throughout this entire book.

UNCONQUERED PARTS OF OUR INHERITANCE.Jdg. 1:29

The fruits of the most brilliant victories blighted for want of grace to follow them up.
The inheritance which has been won by much faith becoming a ground of temptation and trouble for want of a little more faith.

The unconquered parts of our estate in God bringing a curse on us in those we have conquered (cf. 1Ch. 20:4; 2Sa. 21:18).

The possessions which the Lords people fail to win, given to them presently under circumstances of much humiliation (cf. 1Ki. 9:15-17).

The Lords help failing when men fail to diligently use it. The Lord who had been with Judah and with Joseph, was no less ready to be with Ephraim.

The ground for prayer becoming untenable to those who fail to take encouragement from the Lords goodness. David prayed (Psa. 138:8) Forsake not the works of Thine own hands. When the Israelites themselves forsook this work, they could hardly pray that the Lord would not forsake it.

The sinful disobedience of men carrying its own acknowledgment that it is without excuse. Manasseh and Ephraim, who thought they could not conquer, both put their enemies under tribute (Jdg. 1:28; 1Ki. 5:13; 1Ki. 9:15).

THE POSITION AND NEIGHBOURHOOD OF GEZER

The situation of Gezer may be exactly determined from Jos. 16:3. The border of Ephraim proceeds from Lower Beth-horon, by way of Gezer, to the sea. Now, since the position of Beth-horon is well ascertained (Beit Ur et-Tatha), the border, running northwest past Ludd, which belonged to Benjamin, must have touched the sea to the north of Japho, which likewise lay within the territory of Benjamin. On this line, four or five miles east of Joppa, there still exists a place called Jesr (Jazour, Yazr), which can be nothing else than Gezer. It is not improbable that it is the Gazara of Jerome (p. 137, ed. Parthy), in quarto milliario Nicopoleos contra septentrionem, although the distance does not appear to be accurately given. The Ganzur of Esthor ha-Parchi (2:434), on the contrary, is entirely incorrect.

The position of Gezer enables us also to see why Ephraim did not drive out the inhabitants. The place was situated in a fine fertile region. It is still surrounded by noble corn-fields and rich orchards. The agricultural population of such fruitful regions were readily permitted to remain for the sake of profit, especially by warlike tribes who had less love and skill for such peaceful labours than was possessed by Issachar. [Dr. Cassel.]

THE DISTRICT OF KITRON AND NAHALOL.Jdg. 1:30

Kitron is taken by Gesenius to be the Kattath of Jos. 19:15, which is there mentioned with Nahallal, or Nahalol. The name of this latter place is from nahal, to lead, specially to lead to water, or with protecting care. Hence Gesenius supposes Nahalol to mean pasture to which cattle are led out (cf. Heb., Isa. 7:19). Dr. Cassel thinks that Kitron and Nahalol were put to tribute for exactly the same reason as was Gezerbecause they were both surrounded by rich pasture-lands. He further says of Nahalol: It answers perhaps to Abiln, a place from which a wady somewhat to the northwest of Seffrieh has its name. For this name comes from Abel, which also means pasture. This moreover suggests the explanation why from just these two places the Canaanites were not expelled. They both became tributary, and remained the occupants and bailiffs of their pastures and meadows. As similar features of profitable tribute are equally suggested by several of the names in the following verses, there seems some ground for the suspicion that greed and idleness, in some cases, had even more to do than fear with the disobedience of the various tribes.

THE POWER OF EVIL EXAMPLES.Jdg. 1:30-33

A bad example is full of evil issues; what one tribe does another does also. All the western tribes, saving Issachar, seem to have followed the dereliction of Judah. Judah did run well, but the iron chariots, and a love of ease, became hindrances to a continued obedience to the truth.
The evil example of the great and powerful is specially harmful; Judah and Joseph draw all the rest in the train of their disobedience.
These evil examples and their evil results are all well remembered by God. Richard Rogers quaintly observes: Let not men be deceived; God hath all these things and such like registered and written, not with ink and paper (for then there were hope that in time they might be worn out), but in His remembrance, which never faileth. If Paul, who is so rare a pattern of piety, desires that men follow not his example further than he follows Christ, what shall they have to answer who look no further than to this, that, however odious their doings are, they see others do the same? They that lead and entice us on by their example, cannot help us to bear our punishment when their own shall become intolerable to them.
Example is like the press: a thing done is the thought printed; it may be repeated, but it cannot be recalled; it has gone forth with a self-propagating power, and may run to the ends of the earth, and descend from generation to generation. [Melville.]

There is at the top of the Queens staircase in Windsor Castle, a statue, from the studio of Baron Triqueti, of Edward VI. marking with his sceptre a passage in the Bible which he holds in his left hand, and upon which he earnestly looks. The passage is that concerning Josiah: Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left. The statue was erected by the will of the late Prince, who intended it to convey to his son the divine principles by which the future governor of England should mould his life, and reign on the throne of Great Britain. [T. Hughes.]

I am not the rose, but I have been with the rose, and therefore am I sweet. [Eastern Proverb.]

Take away yourselves from among the evil ones; for if ye, being weak and unskilful, shall company with them, ye must needs both see and hear very many things against godliness and the religion which you profess. And because you are able neither to confute nor to reprove them, you shall seem to be as witnesses of blasphemies and a reproach of the truth. And, peradventure, there will remain a sting in your minds, wherewith your conscience will be vexed longer than you think for. [Peter Martyr.]

UNDESTROYED MONUMENTS OF IDOLATRY.Jdg. 1:33-36

The names of several of these places were notoriously derived from the idolatrous worship of which they were so many centres and strongholds. Beth-shemesh was the house of the sun, and Har-cheres, or Mount Heres, the mountain of the sun. These pointed to the worship of the sun. Of Beth-anath, the house of response (perhaps of echo, Gesen.), Cassel says: The name indicates that its situation was that of the present Bnis, the ancient Paneas. The inscriptions on the grotto called Panium, still point to the echo. One of them is dedicated the echo-loving Pan. The love of Pan for the nymph Echo was a widely-spread myth. Another inscription tells of a man who dedicated a niche to the Echo. While the identification of Bnis with Beth-anath rather than with Baal-gad may be questioned, it is quite possible that the worship of the echo-loving Pan was carried on at Beth-anath also. In any case this town could not have been far from Bnis, or Csarea-Philippi. Eusebius and Jerome speak of it as Batana, fifteen miles east of Bnis, which is not a great distance for the spread of a prominent feature of idolatry.

These monuments of idolatry the men of Naphtali and Dan suffered to remain in their midst. They spared the inhabitants, and the towns, and the ancient idolatrous names, and thus helped to perpetuate in their very midst the pernicious idolatrous influence. Dan, in the south-western possession of this tribe, seems to have been overpowered for a time; but yet the heavy hand of the house of Joseph was stretched out only to make tributaries, and not to overthrow idolatry. To this arrangement Dan also probably consented.
Our corrupt nature will show mercy only where severity should be used, and is altogether rough and hard where gentleness might be practised.
Self-conceit, avarice, and self-interest can bring it about that men will unhesitatingly despise the command of God.
When human counsels are preferred to the express word and command of God, the result is that matters grow worse and worse. [Starke.]

Obedience and love toward God are wrecked on greediness and love of ease.
Perfect obedience is the only safe way. Every departure from it leads downhill into danger.
The fear of God is still ever the beginning of wisdom; but it must not be mixed with the fear of men.
Preaching is still ever effective; but respect to tribute and profitable returns must not weaken it.
The Word of God has not lost its power; but the people who have it on their tongues do not thoroughly enter into its life.
When confession and life do not agree, the life must bear the consequences. [Dr. Cassel.]

The sin prepared its own punishment, and the love of present ease became the cause of their perpetual disquiet. [Scott.]

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(17) Zephath.This name is only mentioned elsewhere in 2Ch. 14:10, as the scene of Asas battle with Zerah the Ethiopian.

Hormahi.e., a place devoted by ban. The name Chormah is derived from Cherem (anathema or oan), and the verb rendered utterly destroyed means executed the ban upon it. By their conquest the Israelites fulfilled the vow which they had made in consequence of the defeat inflicted on them by the king of Arad, as a punishment for their disobedient Attempt to force their way into Palestine (see Num. 14:45; Num. 21:1-3). The town belonged to Simeon (Jos. 19:4; 1Ch. 4:28-32), and was close to the lands of the Kenites (1Sa. 30:29-30).

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

CONQUEST OF ZEPHATH AND THREE CITIES OF PHILISTIA, Jdg 1:17-19.

17. Judah went with Simeon The narrative of their exploits is resumed after the episode about Caleb and Othniel.

Zephath A Canaanitish city in the far south of Palestine, assigned first to Judah (Jos 15:30) and afterwards to Simeon, Jdg 19:4. Its inhabitants harassed Israel in their journey through the desert, and Israel vowed to place all their cities under ban.

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

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

‘ And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they smote the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it, and the name of the city was called Hormah.’

The alliance continued their work by capturing Zephath. The impression given is that it was in Simeonite territory as ‘Judah went with Simeon’. It was ‘devoted’ to Yahweh and therefore totally destroyed, possibly as the first city to be captured for Simeon. Hormah means ‘devoted’ (i.e. to God). But it may also be because of the vow made in Num 21:1-3, it being seen as a permanently ‘devoted’ place. It may have been connected with ‘the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah’ (2Ch 14:10). Otherwise it is unknown. Mareshah was part of Judah’s inheritance, in the midst of which was Simeon’s.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Simeons territory is conquered, and Judah takes the Philistine cities

Jdg 1:17-20.

17And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew [smote] the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it [executed the ban upon it].50 And 18the name of the city was called51 Hormah. Also [And] Judah took Gaza with the coast [territory] thereof, and Askelon with the coast [territory] thereof, and Ekron with the coast [territory] thereof. 19And the Lord [Jehovah] was with Judah; [,] and he drave out the inhabitants [obtained possession] of the mountain [mountains] but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley [for the inhabitants of the low country were not to be driven out],52 because they had chariots of iron. 20And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses [had] said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[1 Jdg 1:17.The (LXX. ), in cases like the present, was, as Hengstenberg (Pent. ii. 74) expresses it, the compulsory devotement to the Lord of those who would not voluntarily devote themselves to him. To render the word simply by destruction, as is done in the A. V. here and elsewhere, is to leave out the religious element of the act, and reduce it to the level of a common war measure. Cf. Winer, Realwrterb., s. v. Bann; Smiths Bib. Dict. s. v. Anathema.Tr.]

[2 Jdg 1:17.. Dr. Cassel translates it as if it were plural, and gives it the same subject with , they called. Correct, perhaps, as to fact, but grammatically less accurate than the A. V. is the indefinite third person. Cf. Ges. Gr. 137, 3.Tr.]

[3 Jdg 1:19.Dr. Cassel: denn nicht zu vertreiben waren die Bewohner der Niederung. On the force of , for (E. V. but), cf. Ges. Gram. 155, p. 271.The construction of is unusual. According to Keil (and Bertheau) is to be taken substantively, as in Amo 6:10, in the same sense in which the later Scriptures use before the infinitive, 2Ch 5:11; Est 4:2; Est 8:8; Ecc 3:14. Cf. Ges. Gram. 132, 3, Rem. 1; Ewald, 237 c. Idea and expression might then be represented in English by the phrase: there was no driving the enemy out. On , see foot-note on p. 39.Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Jdg 1:17. And Judah went with Simeon his brother. The course of conquest by the tribes is regularly followed, but the narrative delays only at such points as are connected with note-worthy facts. When Judah had reached the south, and was in Arad, the statement was introduced that the Kenite settled there. After the conquest of the south, the conquerors turned toward the low country (Jdg 1:9). In order to get there, they must traverse the territory of Simeon. Consequently, Judah goes with Simeon now, to assist him in gaining possession of his land. This expedition also offered an event which it was important to chronicle.

They smote the inhabitants of Zephath, and called the city Chormah. In itself considered, the mere execution of the ban of destruction on a city otherwise unknown, cannot be of such importance as would properly make it the only reported event of the campaign in Simeons territory. The record must have been made with reference to some event in the earlier history of Israel.53 The tribes had just been in Arad, where the Kenites settled. Now, according to the narrative in Num 21:1 ff., it was the King of Arad who suddenly fell upon the people in their journey through the desert. The attack was made when the Israelitish host was in a most critical situation, which, to be sure, could not be said to be improved by the ban executed on the cities of the king after the victory was won. Not Arad,for this retained its name,but one of the places put under the ban, we are told, received the name Hormah.54 The vow in pursuance of which this ban was inflicted required its subsequent maintenance as much as its original execution. Thus much we learn from the passage in Numbers. That a close connection existed between Arad and Hormah is also confirmed by Jos 12:14, where a king of Arad and one of Hormah are named together. In the same way are the inhabitants of Hormah and the Kenites in Arad mentioned together, upon occasion of Davids division of booty (1Sa 30:29). Since Moses was not able to occupy these regions, the banned city, as appears plainly from Jos 12:14, where a king of Hormah occurs, had been peopled and occupied anew. Hence it was the task of the tribe of Simeon, with the help of Judah, to restore the vow of Israel, and to change the Zephath of its heathen inhabitants once more into Hormah. That, in this respect also, the tribes observed the commands of Moses, and fulfilled what was formerly promised,adjudging to one, reward, as to the Kenite; to another, the ban, as to Zephath,this is the reason why this fact is here recorded. Robinson thought that there was every reason for supposing that in the position of the pass es-Sufh, far down in the south, the locality of Zephath was discovered (Bib. Res. ii. 181). The position, as laid down on his map, strikes me as somewhat remote from Tell ‘Arad; and the name es-Sufh, Arabic for rock, cannot, on account of its general character, be considered altogether decisive.55 Moreover, another Zephath actually occurs, near Mareshah (2Ch 14:10), not far from Eleutheropolis, and Robinson (ii. 31) makes it probable that by the valley of Zephath in which King Asa fought, the wady is meant which comes down from Beit Jibrin towards Tell es-Sfieh. In the Middle Ages, a castle existing there, bore the name Alba Specula, Fortress of Observation, which at all events agrees with the signification of Zephath.

Jdg 1:18. And Judah. took Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron. The territory assigned to Judah extended to the sea, including the Philistine coast-land, with their five cities. After the conquest of Simeons lot their course descended from the hills into the lowlands (Shephelah, Jdg 1:9), most probably by way of Beer-sheba, to the sea. In their victorious progress, they storm and seize Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, pressing on from south to north. Although Ashdod is not mentioned here, it is natural to suppose, since it was included in the borders assigned to Judah (Joshua 15), and lay on the road from Askelon to Ekron, that it was also taken, previous to the conquest of Ekron. Josephus, drawing the same inference, expressly includes it. It is said , they took by storm. They were not able, at this time, so to take and hold these places as to expel their inhabitants. The tribe of Judah, which, as it seems, now continued the war alone, on the sea-coast fell in with cultivated cities, provided with all the arts of warfare. Israel at that time was not prepared for long and tedious wars. In swift and stormy campaigns, their divinely-inspired enthusiasm enabled them to conquer. On the mountains, where personal courage and natural strength alone came into play, they were entirely victorious, and held whatever they gained. It was only in the plains, where the inhabitants of the coast cities met them with the murderous opposition of iron chariots, that they gave up the duty of gaining entire mastery over the land.5657

Jdg 1:19. For the inhabitants of the low country were not to be driven out, because they had iron chariots.58 The noble simplicity of the narrative could not show itself more plainly. The Lord was with Judah, and he gained possession of the mountain district; but not to be driven out, etc. The expression , they could not, is purposely avoided. They would have been quite able when God was with them; but when it came to a contest with iron chariots their faith failed them. The tribes of Joseph were likewise kept out of the low country because the inhabitants had chariots of iron (Jos 17:16); but Joshua said (Jdg 1:18), Thou shalt (or canst) drive out the Canaanite, though he be strong. Iron chariots are known only to the Book of Judges, excepting the notice of them in the passage just cited from Joshua. The victory of Deborah and Barak over Jabin, king of Canaan, owed much of its glory to the fact that Sisera commanded nine hundred iron chariots. Bertheau rejects the earlier opinion that these chariots were currus falcati, scythe-chariots, on the ground that those were unknown to the Egyptians. He thinks it probable that the chariots of the Canaanites, like those of the Egyptians, were only made of wood, but with iron-clad corners, etc., and therefore very strong. But such chariots would never be called iron chariots. The Egyptian war-chariots which Pharaoh leads forth against Israel, are not so called. To speak of chariots as iron chariots, when they were in the main constructed of a different material, would be manifestly improper, unless what of iron there was about them, indicated their terrible destructive capacities. It has, indeed, been inferred from Xenophons Cyropdia (vi. 1, 27), that scythe-chariots were first invented by Cyrus, and that they were previously unknown in Media, Syria, Arabia, and the whole of Asia. But even if this Cyrus were to be deemed strictly historical, the whole notice indicates no more than the improvement59 of a similar kind of weapon. It does not at all prove that scythe-chariots did not previously exist. The principal improvement which the Cyrus of Xenophon introduced, was, that he changed the chariot-rampart, formed perhaps after the manner of the Indian battle-array (akschauhini,60 the idea of our game of chess) into a means of aggressive warfare. For this purpose, he changed the form of the chariot, and added the scythe to the axle-tree. But the chariots of our passage must already have been intended for aggressive action, since otherwise the purpose of the iron is incomprehensible. Nor does Xenophon assert that Cyrus was the first who affixed scythes to chariots, although he would not have failed to do so if that had been his opinion. It is, moreover, in itself not probable. Xenophon mentions that the (African) Cyrenians still had that kind of chariots which Cyrus invented.61 And Strabo informs us that in his time the Nigretes, Pharusii, and Ethiopians, African tribes, made use of the scythe-chariot.62 The changes introduced in the chariot by Cyrus, were made in view of a war against the Assyrians, whom Xenophon distinguishes from the Syrians. But from a statement of Ctesias63 we learn that the Assyrian armies already had scythe-chariots. The same occasion induced Cyrus to clothe his chariot-warriors in armor. For at all events, Assyrian monuments represent the charioteers encased in coats of mail.64 It serves to explain the term iron chariots, that Xenophon also speaks of iron scythes ( ). Curtius (iv. 9, 4) describes chariots which carried iron lances on their poles (ex summo temone hast prfix ferro eminebant), for which the form of Assyrian chariots seems to be very well adapted. Representations of them sufficiently indicate the horrors of these instruments of war, by the bodies of the slain between their wheels.

Jdg 1:20. And they gave Hebron unto Caleb. This statement, even after that of Jdg 1:10, is by no mans superfluous. Now, and not before, could Caleb receive Hebron as a quiet possession. Judah must first enter his territory. When the conquest was completed,and it was completed after the western parts of the mountain region also submitted,the tribe of Judah entered upon its possessions; and then the aged hero received that which had been promised him. Then also, most likely, transpired that beautiful episode which gave to Othniel his wife and property.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Jdg 1:4-20. Obedient, believing, united Israel is attended by victory. And in victory it knows how to punish and reward. Adoni-bezek terribly experiences what he had inflicted on others, but the sons of the Kenite dwell like brethren in the midst of Judah. The Canaanite is chastised; but the Kenite reaps the fruits of conquest. The unbelievers among the spies formerly sent by Moses are infamous, but Caleb gains an inheritance full of honor. Thus, faith makes men united before action; after it, just. Men are wise enough to give every one his own (suum cuique), only so long as they continue obedient toward God. For faith 1. regards that which is Gods; and, therefore, 2. awards according to real deserts. Othniel obtained Calebs daughter, not because he was his nephew (nepos), but because he took Kirjath-sepher. Before God, no nepotism holds good, for it is a sign of moral decay; on the contrary, he gives the power of discerning spirits. He only, who in the sanctuary of God has inquired after Light and Righteousness (Urim and Thummim), can properly punish and reward.

Starke (Jdg 1:16): The children of those parents who have deserved well of the church of God, should have kindness shown, and benefits extended to them before others. For ingratitude is a shameful thing.

The same (Jdg 1:17): Covenants, even when involving dangers, must be faithfully kept by all, but especially by brothers and sisters.

[Scott (Jdg 1:19): Great things might be achieved by the professors of the gospel, if they unitedly endeavored to promote the common cause of truth and righteousness; for then the Lord would be with them, and every mountain would sink into a plain. But when outward difficulties are viewed by the eye of sense, and the almighty power of God is forgotten, then no wonder we do not prosper; for according to our faith will be our vigor, zeal, and success. Love of ease, indulgence, and worldly advantages, both spring from and foster unbelief. Thus many an awakened sinner, who seemed to have escaped Satans bondage, is entangled again, and overcome, and his last state is worse than the first. Thus even many a believer who begins well is hindered: he grows negligent and unwatchful and afraid of the cross; his graces languish, his evil propensities revive; Satan perceives his advantage, and plies him with suitable temptations; the world recovers its hold; he loses his peace, brings guilt into his conscience, anguish into his heart, discredit on his character, and reproach on the gospel; his hands are tied, his mouth is closed, and his usefulness ruined.Tr.]

Footnotes:

[50][Jdg 1:17.The (LXX. ), in cases like the present, was, as Hengstenberg (Pent. ii. 74) expresses it, the compulsory devotement to the Lord of those who would not voluntarily devote themselves to him. To render the word simply by destruction, as is done in the A. V. here and elsewhere, is to leave out the religious element of the act, and reduce it to the level of a common war measure. Cf. Winer, Realwrterb., s. v. Bann; Smiths Bib. Dict. s. v. Anathema.Tr.]

[51][Jdg 1:17.. Dr. Cassel translates it as if it were plural, and gives it the same subject with , they called. Correct, perhaps, as to fact, but grammatically less accurate than the A. V. is the indefinite third person. Cf. Ges. Gr. 137, 3.Tr.]

[52][Jdg 1:19.Dr. Cassel: denn nicht zu vertreiben waren die Bewohner der Niederung. On the force of , for (E. V. but), cf. Ges. Gram. 155, p. 271.The construction of is unusual. According to Keil (and Bertheau) is to be taken substantively, as in Amo 6:10, in the same sense in which the later Scriptures use before the infinitive, 2Ch 5:11; Est 4:2; Est 8:8; Ecc 3:14. Cf. Ges. Gram. 132, 3, Rem. 1; Ewald, 237 c. Idea and expression might then be represented in English by the phrase: there was no driving the enemy out. On , see foot-note on p. 39.Tr.]

[53]Compare Rosenmller, p. 25, and Hengstenberg, Pent. 2. p. 179, etc.

[54]The King of Arad only is spoken of, Num 21:1, and it is not said that Arad was called Hormah. The name of the (one) place, it is stated, they called Hormah, whereas they banned their cities. Since, therefore, Arad and Hormah are distinguished, it is plain that this one place of the banned cities, which was called Hormah, was Zephath.[Bertheau: It has been thought, indeed, that the word in Num 21:3, in the connection in which it stands, indicates that in the time of Moses the whole southern district received the name Hormah, whereas, according to our passage [i. e. Jdg 1:17] it was given only to the city of Zephath; but never signifies region, and must be understood here, as in Gen 28:19 and elsewhere, of one place or one city.Tr.]

[55]Some ruins, named Septa by the Arabs, were found by Rowlands (cf. Ritter, xiv. 10845; Williams Holy City i. 464). two and a half hours southwest of Khalasa (Robinsons Elusa), and have also been identified with Zephath. Their position is very different from that of Tell es-Sufh. They also seem to me to lie too remote from Arad. That the Biblical name Zephath has been preserved, after the Jewish inhabitants for many centuries must have used, not that, but Hormah, does not appear at all probable. In the mountains of Ephraim, Eli Smith came into a village Um-Sufh. It reminded him of the locality of Hormah near the southern border of Palestine, both of which names [Um-Sufh and Hormah] in Arabic designate such smooth tracts of rock (Ritter, xvi. 561).

[56]Thus an internal contradiction between this verse and the statement of the next that Judah failed to drive out the inhabitants of the low country, as asserted by Baihinger (Herz. Real-Encykl. xi. 554), does not exist.

[57] [The author identifies the , the inhabitants of which Judah failed to drive out, with the , Jdg 1:9, and hence renders it (see Jdg 1:19) by Niederung, low country, prop, depression. Against this identification, accepted by Studer, Bertheau, Keil, and many others, Bachmann objects that, with the single exception of Jer 47:5, a poetic passage in a late prophet, is never applied to the Philistine plain. In accordance with its derivation, denotes a valley-basin (cf. Robinson, Phys. Geog. p. 70), broadly extended it may be (Gen 14:9-10; Jos 17:16; etc.), adapted for battle (Jos 8:13), susceptible of cultivation (Job 39:10; Son 2:1; Psa 65:13; etc.), but still always depressed between mountains and bordered by them. It never means a level plain or lowlands. Cf. Stanley, Sinai and Pal., p. 476, Amer. ed. Bachmann, therefore, looks for the Emekwhich, by the way, with the article, is not necessarily singular, but may be used collectivelywithin or at least very near the Mountains of Judah. Of valleys affording room for the action of charlots, the mountains of Judah have several; e. g., the Emek Rephaim, Jos 15:8, southwest of Jerusalem, one hour long and one half hour broad, known as a battle-field in other times also (2Sa 5:18; 2Sa 5:22; 2Sa 23:13); the Emek ha-Elah,

Sam. Jdg 17:1-2; the broad basins of the valleys of Jehoshaphath and Ben Hinnom near the northern boundary (see Rob. . 268, 273); the great, basin-like plain of Beni Nam in the east (see Rob. i. 488 ff.); and others. And that, in general, chariots in considerable numbers might be used in the mountain country, appears, with reference to a region a little further north, from 1Sa 13:5. Bachmanns view of the connection of Jdg 1:19 with what precedes is as follows: Jdg 1:9. The battle of Bezek, etc., having secured Judah from attacks in the rear, and left him free to proceed in his undertakings, the theatre of these undertakings is divided by Jdg 1:9 into three parts: the mountain country, the south (negeb), and the plain (shephelah). The conquest of the mountain country is illustrated by a couple of instances in Jdg 1:10-15; that of the south is similarly indicated in Jdg 1:16-17; and that of the plain in Jdg 1:18. Here, too, Judah was successful in his undertakings. As in the other cases, the places named here, Gaza, Askelon, Ekron, are only mentioned as examples of what took place in the Shephelah generally. The conquest of the western parts of the Shephelah being related, that of the eastern districts, nearer the mountains, was left to be inferred as a matter of course. Then, in Jdg 1:19, the narrative returns to the mountain country, in order to supplement Jdg 1:10-15 by indicating, what those verses did not show, that the conquest of this division, the first of the three mentioned, was not complete.Tr.]

[58]How properly the readings of the Septuaginta are not considered as authorities against the Hebrew text, is sufficiently shown by the single fact that here they read, , which also passed over into the Syriac version. A few Codd. add .

[59]Cf. Joh. Gottl. Schneider in his edition of the Cyropdia (Lips. 1840), p. 368.

[60]Bohlen, Altes Indien, ii. 66.

[61][On this sentence of our author, Bachmann remarks: Cassels explanation that the Cyrenians had still that kind of chariots which Cyrus invented, is the opposite of what Xenophon, l. c., expressly and repeatedly declares, namely, that Cyrus abolished () both the earlier ( ) Trojan method of chariot-warfare, and also that still in use ( ) among the Cyrenians, which formerly ( ) was also practiced by the Medes, Syrians, etc. Bertheau and Bachmann (Keil, too) resist the conversion of iron chariots into currus falcati on the ground that these were unknown before Cyrus, who invented them, Cyropdia, vi. 1, 27, 30. On the Egyptian war-chariot, see Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, i. 350.Tr.]

[62]Lib. xvii. 3, 7, ed. Paris, p. Judges 703: .

[63]In the Bibl. Hist. of Diodorus, ii. 5.

[64]Cf. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, ii. 335. [For an account of the Assyrian war-chariot, p. 349. On p. 353, Layard remarks: Chariots armed with scythes are not seen in the Assyrian sculptures, although mentioned by Ctesias as being in the army of Ninus.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

Here we trace the want of faith, and consequently the want of courage, in Israel. What were the chariots of iron, when God fought the battles of Israel? But is not this, in a spiritual sense, the very case of Israel now? The faith of Peter could prompt him to attempt walking on the water, to come to Jesus, at his command. But we are told that when he saw the waves boisterous, his faith forsook him. Oh! for a portion of that faith which can quench the violence of fire, and out of weakness can make strong. Heb 11:34 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Jdg 1:17 And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.

Ver. 17. And utterly destroyed it. ] So that this city was twice utterly ruined, and therefore called Horma, devoted to destruction.

“ Roma diu titubans, variis erroribus acta

Corruct, et mundi desinet esse caput. ”

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

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Ver. 17. Of the apostles ] Paul and Peter, from whom St Jude borroweth much from his Epistle. See my Preface to God’s Love Tokens.

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

destroyed = devoted.

Hormah = utter destruction.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

And Judah: Jdg 1:3

Zephath: 2Ch 14:10, Zephathah

Hormah: Num 14:45, Num 21:3, Jos 19:4

Reciprocal: Jos 15:30 – Hormah 1Sa 30:30 – Hormah

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jdg 1:17. Judah went with Simeon According to their promise, Jdg 1:3, and the laws of justice and gratitude: having finished, as far as they were able, the conquest of what belonged to the tribe of Judah, they went to assist the Simeonites to acquire the possession of what was comprehended in their lot. The name of the city was called Hormah Either the same place, so called Num 21:3; in which case what was there vowed is here executed; or some other place called by the same name upon the like occasion, which seems more probable.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The soldiers of Judah and Simeon also conquered Hormah (lit. devotion or destruction), Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron (Jdg 1:17-18). The "valley" from which the Israelites could not drive out the Canaanites (Jdg 1:19) probably refers to the flat Coastal Plain. This inability was, of course, due to a failure in Israel’s trust and obedience (cf. Jos 1:5-8; Jos 17:16-18).

The reference to iron chariots (Jdg 1:19) has caused problems for some readers since archaeologists have dated the Iron Age as beginning in 1200 B.C., about 150 years after the event recorded here took place. However the Hittites had mastered the production of iron by 1400 B.C. Evidently the Canaanites and Philistines had iron implements by 1350 B.C. The Iron Age is, after all, a general description of the period during which iron was the most important metal. [Note: See Jacquetta Hawkes, The First Great Civilizations, p. 113; V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East, p. 157; Leonard Cottrell, The Anvil of Civilization, p. 157; and Volkmar Fritz, "Conquest or Settlement? The Early Iron Age in Palestine," Biblical Archaeologist 50:2 (June 1987):84-100.]

Caleb had driven out the Anakim in Hebron earlier (Jdg 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13-14). The writer probably repeated the account here to fill out the record of the subjugation of Judah’s territory. "Then" (Jdg 1:20) can also mean "and." It does not imply that the events of Jdg 1:20 followed those of Jdg 1:19 in chronological sequence.

Jerusalem (Jdg 1:21) was on the border of Judah and Benjamin but mainly within Benjamin’s territory. The Hinnom Valley on the southern edge of the city was the boundary. Even though the soldiers of Judah and Simeon captured Jerusalem, the Benjamites could not hold it. This is evidently why the writer referred to the Benjamites at this point. This failure was another significant incident of inadequate trust and obedience (cf. Jdg 1:19). It also foreshadowed the Benjamites’ role in the final disastrous chapters of the book (chs. 19-21).

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

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles