Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 1:21
And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.
21. The sequel of Jdg 1:19, which again should come after Jdg 1:7. Originally, therefore, this verse closed the history of Judah; that of Caleb followed.
Instead of Benjamin Benjamin Jos 15:63 has Judah Judah, and for did not drive out it gives were not able to drive out (see Jdg 1:19 note); there can be little doubt that Josh. has preserved the text in its original form. The editor altered Judah to Benjamin in accordance with the theory of distribution which included Jerusalem in Benjamin’s territory, Jos 18:28 P; perhaps also he wished to find room for Benjamin in the present list.
in Jerusalem, unto this day ] There were no Israelites in Jerusalem at the time of the Levite’s visit, Jdg 19:12. The writer’s ‘day’ was after the capture of the city by David (2Sa 5:6-8), who spared the old inhabitants ( ib. 2Sa 24:18 ff.); they and the new-comers continued to live side by side.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This verse is nearly identical with Jos 15:63, except in the substitution of Benjamin for Judah. Probably the original reading Judah was altered in later times to Benjamin, because Jebus was within the border of Benjamin, and neither had the Benjamites expelled the Jebusites.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 21. The Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin] Jerusalem was situated partly in the tribe of Judah, and partly in the tribe of Benjamin, the northern part belonging to the latter tribe, the southern to the former. The Jebusites had their strongest position in the part that belonged to Benjamin, and from this place they were not wholly expelled till the days of David. See Clarke on Jdg 1:8. What is said here of Benjamin is said of Judah, Jos 15:63. There must be an interchange of the names in one or other of these places.
Unto this day.] As the Jebusites dwelt in Jerusalem till the days of David, by whom they were driven out, and the author of the book of Judges states them to have been in possession of Jerusalem when he wrote; therefore this book was written before the reign of David.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
21. the children of Benjamin did notdrive out the Jebusites that inhabited JerusalemJudah hadexpelled the people from their part of Jerusalem (Jud1:8). The border of the two tribes ran through thecityIsraelites and natives must have been closely intermingled.
Jud1:22-26. SOMECANAANITES LEFT.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem,…. That is, that part of it which belonged to them, for it lay between Judah and Benjamin; and neither of them separately, nor both conjunctly, could drive out the Jebusites from it, particularly the strong hold on the top of Mount Sion, which they held to the times of David. Abarbinel is of opinion, that Jerusalem in those times was not a city enclosed about, but was a large province, part of which belonged to the tribe of Judah, and another to the tribe of Benjamin, and another was possessed by the Jebusites; and so Jarchi says it was a province, the name of which was Jebusi:
but the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Benjamin unto this day; when this book was written, which was done by Samuel, as Kimchi and Ben Gersom; and it is certain from hence it must have been written before the reign of David, who dispossessed the Jebusites, 2Sa 5:6.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Israelites Mixed with the Canaanites. | B. C. 1425. |
21 And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. 22 And the house of Joseph, they also went up against Bethel: and the LORD was with them. 23 And the house of Joseph sent to descry Bethel. (Now the name of the city before was Luz.) 24 And the spies saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, show us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city, and we will show thee mercy. 25 And when he showed them the entrance into the city, they smote the city with the edge of the sword; but they let go the man and all his family. 26 And the man went into the land of the Hittites, and built a city, and called the name thereof Luz: which is the name thereof unto this day. 27 Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. 28 And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. 29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. 30 Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries. 31 Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: 32 But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out. 33 Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became tributaries unto them. 34 And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley: 35 But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries. 36 And the coast of the Amorites was from the going up to Akrabbim, from the rock, and upward.
We are here told upon what terms the rest of the tribes stood with the Canaanites that remained.
I. Benjamin neglected to drive the Jebusites out of that part of the city of Jerusalem which fell to their lot, v. 21. Judah had set them a good example, and gained them great advantages by what they did (v. 9), but they did not follow the blow for want of resolution.
II. The house of Joseph,
1. Bestirred themselves a little to get possession of Beth-el, v. 22. That city is mentioned in the tribe of Benjamin, Josh. xviii. 22. Yet it is spoken of there (v. 13) as a city in the borders of that tribe, and, it should seem, the line went through it, so that one half of it only belonged to Benjamin, the other half to Ephraim; and perhaps the activity of the Ephraimites at this time, to recover it from the Canaanites, secured it entirely to them henceforward, or at least the greatest part of it, for afterwards we find it so much under the power of the ten tribes (and Benjamin was none of them) that Jeroboam set up one of his calves in it. In this account of the expedition of the Ephraimites against Beth-el observe,
(1.) Their interest in the divine favour: The Lord was with them, and would have been with the other tribes if they would have exerted their strength. The Chaldee reads it here, as in many other places, The Word of the Lord was their helper, namely, Christ himself, the captain of the Lord’s host, now that they acted separately, as well as when they were all in one body.
(2.) The prudent measures they took to gain the city. They sent spies to observe what part of the city was weakest, or which way they might make their attack with most advantage, v. 23. These spies got very good information from a man they providentially met with, who showed them a private way into the town, which was left unguarded because, being not generally known, no danger was suspected on that side. And here, [1.] He is not to be blamed for giving them this intelligence if he did it from a conviction that the Lord was with them, and that by his donation the land was theirs of right, any more than Rahab was for entertaining those whom she knew to be enemies of her country, but friends of God. Nor, [2.] Are those to be blamed who showed him mercy, gave him and his family not only their lives, but liberty to go wherever they pleased: for one good turn requires another. But, it seems, he would not join himself to the people of Israel, he feared them rather than loved them, and therefore he removed after a colony of the Hittites, which, it should seem, had gone into Arabia and settled there upon Joshua’s invasion of the country; with them this man chose to dwell, and among them he built a city, a small one, we may suppose, such as planters commonly build, and in the name of it preserved the ancient name of his native city, Luz, an almond-tree, preferring this before its new name, which carried religion in it, Bethel—the house of God.
(3.) Their success. The spies brought or sent notice of the intelligence they had gained to the army, which improved their advantages, surprised the city, and put them all to the sword, v. 25. But,
2. Besides this achievement, it seems, the children of Joseph did nothing remarkable (1.) Manasseh failed to drive out the Canaanites from several very considerable cities in their lot, and did not make any attempt upon them, v. 27. But the Canaanites, being in possession, were resolved not to quit it; they would dwell in that land, and Manasseh had not resolution enough to offer to dispossess them; as if there was no meddling with them unless they were willing to resign, which it was not to be expected they ever would be. Only as Israel got strength they got ground, and served themselves, both by their contributions and by their personal services, Jdg 1:28; Jdg 1:35. (2.) Ephraim likewise, though a powerful tribe, neglected Gezer a considerable city, and suffered the Canaanites to dwell among them (v. 29), which, some think, intimates their allowing them a quiet settlement, and indulging them with the privileges of an unconquered people, not so much as making them tributaries.
III. Zebulun, perhaps inclining to the sea-trade, for it was foretold that it should be a haven for ships, neglected to reduce Kitron and Nahalol (v. 30), and only made the inhabitants of those places tributaries to them.
IV. Asher quitted itself worse than any of the tribes (Jdg 1:31; Jdg 1:32), not only in leaving more towns than any of them in the hands of the Canaanites, but in submitting to the Canaanites instead of making them tributaries; for so the manner of expression intimates, that the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, as if the Canaanites were the more numerous and the more powerful, would still be lords of the country, and the Israelites must be only upon sufferance among them.
V. Naphtali also permitted the Canaanites to live among them (v. 33), only by degrees they got them so far under as to exact contributions from them.
VI. Dan was so far from extending his conquests where his lot lay that, wanting spirit to make head against the Amorites, he was forced by them to retire into the mountains and inhabit the cities there, but durst not venture into the valley, where, it is probable, the chariots of iron were, v. 34. Nay, and some of the cities in the mountains were kept against them, v. 35. Thus were they straitened in their possessions, and forced to seek for more room at Laish, a great way off, ch. xviii. 1, c. In Jacob’s blessing Judah is compared to a lion, Dan to a serpent now observe how Judah with his lion-like courage prospered and prevailed, but Dan with all his serpenting subtlety could get no ground; craft and artful management do not always effect the wonders they pretend to. What Dan came short of doing, it seems, his neighbours the Ephraimites in part did for him; they put the Amorites under tribute, v. 35.
Upon the whole matter it appears that the people of Israel were generally very careless both of their duty and interest in this thing; they did not what they might have done to expel the Canaanites and make room for themselves. And, 1. It was owing to their slothfulness and cowardice. They would not be at the pains to complete their conquests; like the sluggard, that dreamed of a lion in the way, a lion in the streets, they fancied insuperable difficulties, and frightened themselves with winds and clouds from sowing and reaping. 2. It was owing to their covetousness; the Canaanites’ labour and money would do them more good (they thought) than their blood, and therefore they were willing to let them live among them, that they might make a hand of them. 3. They had not that dread and detestation of idolatry which they ought to have had; they thought it a pity to put these Canaanites to the sword, though the measure of their iniquity was full, thought it would be no harm to let them live among them, and that they should be in no danger from them. 4. The same thing that kept their fathers forty years out of Canaan kept them now out of the full possession of it, and that was unbelief. Distrust of the power and promise of God lost them their advantages, and ran them into a thousand mischiefs.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
(21) The children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites.In Jos. 15:63 we find the same statement respecting the children of Judah. (See Jdg. 1:8.) Jerusalem was on the borders of Judah (Jos. 16:8) and Benjamin (Jdg. 18:28). It belongs more properly to the latter, but the conquest of Zion by David (2Sa. 5:7) naturally caused its closer identification with Judah. The Jebusites were tolerated inhabitants ever after this conquest, and had their own princeAraunah (2Sa. 24:18)Araunah the king. We even find traces of them after the exile (Ezr. 9:1). Jerusalem is a remarkable exception to the rule that the Israelites conquered the hill-country, but not the plain.
Unto this day.The assignment of Jerusalem to Benjamin shows that this narrative, though not contemporaneous, is older than the conquest of Jerusalem by David.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. And the children of Benjamin Better, perhaps, to give this an adversative rendering, But the children, etc. which brings out the contrast between Caleb’s heroism and trust in God, and Benjamin’s cowardly distrust and disobedience. Jerusalem was on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin, a portion belonging to each. After its conquest by Judah the Jebusites soon regained possession, and seem to have made a sort of league with the children of Benjamin by which they were allowed to dwell with or by the side of them without molestation. Compare Jos 15:63, and note on Jdg 1:8.
Unto this day The day of this historian must have been before David’s expulsion of the Jebusites.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
God’s Activities Through the Other Tribes and Their Disobedience ( Jdg 1:21-36 ).
Jdg 1:21
‘ And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem. But the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.’
This seems to mean that they could have driven them out of the part of Jerusalem and its surrounds that they occupied, but that they did not. They were disobedient.
In Jos 15:63 we read that Judah could not drive the Jebusites out of their part, which probably included the fortress. Thus the successful attack in Jdg 1:8 may simply be referring to the capture of the lower city, or it may be that, due to the absence of the Jebusites on a military expedition, they were then able to take the upper city and sack it, but not to retain it because at the time they had to move on. After which the Jebusite soldiers returned. It is noticeable that there is no mention of driving anyone out there. The purpose was not possession. Then when the fighting men of the Jebusites returned they retook the city and from then on were invulnerable in the upper citadel.
But the main purpose of this verse is to point out the disobedience of Benjamin in contrast with the obedience of Judah and Simeon. This is then to be followed by the disobedience of Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher and Naphtali, and the failure of Dan. Reuben and Gad were of course across the river beyond the Jordan.
Issachar is not mentioned and may possibly be seen as united with Zebulun, like Simeon with Judah. Note that they were also praised in the song of Deborah (Jdg 5:15), yet omitted in Jdg 5:18 where those who were faithful to the call are mentioned, (even though they were one of them), and are not mentioned in the prose account in Judges 4. Again presumably they were seen as one with Zebulun (see also Deu 33:18 where they are included in the blessing of Zebulun).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Various Heathen Left in Canaan
v. 21. And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem, v. 22. And the house of Joseph, v. 23. And the house of Joseph sent to descry Bethel, v. 24. And the spies saw a man come forth out of the city, v. 25. And when he showed them the entrance into the city, v. 26. And the man went into the land of the Hittites, v. 27. Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and her towns, v. 28. And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, v. 29. Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer, v. 30. Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them and became tributaries, v. 31. Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, v. 32. but the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out.
v. 33. Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became tributaries unto them.
v. 34. And the Amorites, v. 35. but the Amorites would dwell in Mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim, v. 36. And the coast of the Amorites,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Jdg 1:21
This verse is identical with Jos 15:63, except that there we read “the children of Judah” instead of “the children of Benjamin,” as in this verse. The boundary line between Judah and Jerusalem passed through JEBUS or JEBUSI, as Jerusalem was anciently called (see Jos 15:8; Jos 18:28; Jdg 19:10, Jdg 19:11; 1Ch 11:4, 1Ch 11:5). Jebus was not finally held by the Israelites till the time of David (see Jdg 19:10, note.)
Jdg 1:22
The house of Joseph, i.e. Ephraim, but probably ,,here spoken of as “the house of Joseph because in the original document, from which both this chapter and Jos 15:63, and Jos 15:16; Jos 17:1-18. are taken, the mention of “the lot of the children of Joseph” occurs, embracing both Ephraim and Manasseh. See Jos 16:1 and Jos 15:23, with which the twenty-first and twenty-second verses of this chapter are manifestly identical.
Jdg 1:23
Bethel, now Beitin. The name (house of God) had been given by Jacob (Gen 28:19), but obviously would not be likely to be adopted by the Canaanitish inhabitants, by whom it was called Luz. As soon, however, as the Ephraimites conquered it, they reimposed the name, in memory of their father Jacob. The Saxon charters exhibit an analogous change in such transitions of name, as that from Bedericksworth to Bury St. Edmunds, which took place after the transfer of St. Edmund’s body to the church there, the old name continuing for a time along with the new one, but at last disappearing.
Jdg 1:24
We will show thee mercy. Compare the saving of Rahab alive, with all her house, at the taking of Jericho (Jos 6:23). This history is not preserved in the parallel place in Jos 16:1-10.
Jdg 1:28
Put the Canaanites to tribute, or made them tributaries, as in Jdg 1:30, Jdg 1:33, i.e. imposed forced labour upon them, as the Gibeonites were made hewers of wood and drawers of water (Jos 9:21, Jos 9:27; see 1Ki 9:21).
Jdg 1:32
The Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites. In Jdg 1:29 and Jdg 1:30 it was said that the Canaanites dwelt among the Israelites; but here we read that the Asherites, and in Jdg 1:33 that Naphtali, dwelt among the Canaanites, which seems to imply that the Canaanites were the more numerous people of the two, yet the Israelites were able to keep them in subjection.
Jdg 1:36
The going up to Akrabbim. See Jos 15:3, Maaleh-acrabbim. In Num 34:4 “the ascent of Akrabbim.” The whole name, put into English, is “the ascent, or going up, of Scorpions,” a mountain pass so called from the abundance of scorpions found in the whole region. The exact locality is uncertain, but it is thought to be the pass El-Safeh, immediately to the south of the Dead Sea. The neighbourhood to Mount Hor and Petra is indicated by its connection here with “the rock,” in Hebrew has-selah, which is the distinctive name of the rocks or cliffs on which Petra is built, and the name of Petra (the rock) itself. Speaking roughly, a line drawn westward from El-Safeh to the Mediterranean Sea, near the “river of Egypt,” formed the southern boundary, of Judah, and of the Amorites whom they displaced. The battle with the Amorites (Deu 1:44), in which the Israelites were discomfited and pursued, is thought to have been at El-Safeh.
HOMILETICS
Jdg 1:21-36
Weak faith producing weak action.
This section, contrasted with the preceding, gives us an instructive picture of a weak faithnot of absolute unbelief forfeiting the whole promise of God, but of a weak faithcoming short of the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ. Caleb’s faith, we have seen, was strong, and so his success was full. The faith of the tribes here enumerated was weak, and so their success was only partial In the career of those who are of weak or little faith we may notice the following features which usually belong to them:
I. THE WANT OF A HIGH AIM. These tribes did not rise to the full purpose of God to give them the land for their possession. They were content with a partial possession. So many Christians do not aim at perfect obedience to the law of God, or a perfect conformity to the mind of Christ, but are content with a conventional standard of Christian morality, very far below the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. They do not aim high enough in knowledge, or in character, or in works, or in godliness, or in the victory over sin, or in self-control, or in heavenly-mindedness.
II. THE OVER–ESTIMATE OF DIFFICULTIES. These tribes thought the iron chariots invincible, shrunk from encountering them in the valleys, and slunk away into the hills and fastnesses out of their way. So to those of little faith the difficulties in the way of a thoroughly godly life seem insuperable. The fashions and customs of the world, the adverse opinions of men, the possible losses in trade or worldly advantage, or in useful friendships, the sacrifice of inclinations or interests, cannot be got over. Their hearts quail before difficulties and obstacles, and they are ever of a fearful and doubtful mind.
III. THE DISPOSITION TO COMPROMISE. These tribes could not or would not drive the Canaanites out, but they would make them tributaries. That was something done, if not all that ought to be done. So the weak in faith compromise in respect to their Christian duties. They do not yield a bold, whole-hearted obedience at any cost, but they will go half-way, and stop. They will curb the flesh, but not crucify it; they will check, but not destroy, the body of sin; they will follow Christ’s directions up to a certain point, and then, like the young ruler, go away sorrowful. And this want of thoroughness is as fatal to the peace and comfort of a Christian‘s walk with God as was the compromise of the Israelites to their enjoyment of the promised land. In their case the enemies whom they failed to destroy were constant thorns in their sidesrising against them whenever they were weak, always ready to join their enemies, taking advantage of every opportunity to harass and distress them. And so in the case of these Christians of little faith: the sins which they spare, the affections with which they compromise, the habits which they will not utterly break off, and the unfinished victories at which they stop short are continually marring their peace, and even threatening their hold on the kingdom of God. And the result is seen in the general condition of the Church of God: one of compromise instead of mastery, of hollow truce instead of decisive victory.
IV. AN UNDERRATING OF THE POWER AND GRACE OF GOD. This is the cause of all the evil, and is of the very essence of a weak faith. When God’s power and goodness and grace are underrated, all goes wrong. Low aims, fear of difficulties, base compromises are sure to prevail. But with the due sense of all-sufficient grace all goes well. “My grace is sufficient for thee,” saith the Lord to his believing servant. “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” is the servant’s answer. Let us make a due estimate of the glorious grace of God in Christ Jesus our Lord; so shall we be “strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.”
HOMILIES BY A.F. MUIR
Jdg 1:22-26
An unwilling helper of the cause of God.
Into the motives that actuated him we need not pry. Chief of all was the great one of self-preservation. Was it honourable? Was it right for the soldiers of God to make use of such an instrument? There may have been other considerations that had weight with him. It might have been virtuous to resist the offer: was it necessarily vicious to yield to it?
I. THERE ARE MANY WHO HELP THE TRUTH FROM LOWER MOTIVES WHO MIGHT DO SO FROM HIGHER. Expediency; public benefits of religion; ties of relationship; reputation. How great the blessing to Christ’s cause if the same things were done from higher motives!
II. THEY ARE BLESSED, BUT NOT AS THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN. A better service would have secured a higher reward.
III. THEY CANNOT BE RELIED UPON, AND THEREFORE MAY NOT BECOME PART OF GOD‘S PEOPLE. The conquering host could not trust the traitor whose help had won them the city. He must go forth with his reproach. Many churches contain the elements of weakness and ruin because they have failed to exercise a wise censorship over those admitted to their communion. The true Church is composed of those who serve God from the purest motives.M.
Jdg 1:28
Human wisdom versus Divine.
No option was left to the Israelites as to the mode in which they were to deal with the Canaanites. Even if they were unable to subdue the Canaanites because of their own weakness, it would not be without fault; for had they not to sustain and direct them? But the sin of Israel was the greater that, when they were able to obey God’s direction, they set it aside in favour of a policy of their own. This was direct disobedience, however it might be disguised by the name of prudence or expediency. In the end they had to rue their own folly.
I. PEOPLE IN PROSPEROUS CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FREQUENTLY TEMPTED TO FOLLOW A WORLDLY INSTEAD OF A HEAVENLY LINE OF CONDUCT, AND TO QUALIFY THE DICTATES OF OBVIOUS DUTY BY CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE PURELY SELFISH AND PRESUMPTUOUS IN THEIR NATURE.
II. WHEN MEN THUS SHIRK OBVIOUS DUTY, THEY DO IT FROM A TWOFOLD MISCONCEPTION
(1) of their own power and wisdom, and
(2) of the true character of that with which they tamper.
III. IN THE END THEIR FOLLY WILL MANIFEST ITSELF IN DISASTER AND RUIN.M.
Jdg 1:34, Jdg 1:35
The failure of duty of one an occasion of inconvenience to another.
Joseph, strong enough to have destroyed the Amorites, made them tributaries. The same people a little further away were thereby enabled to afflict and annoy a companion tribe. “The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain,” etc. The cause of Dan ought to have been the cause of Joseph. The latter was therefore guilty of intense selfishness.
I. IT IS A SIN FOR CHRISTIANS TO REAP ADVANTAGE AT THE EXPENSE OF LOSS OR INCONVENIENCE TO THEIR BRETHREN.
II. GOD OFTEN MAKES THE UNWORTHINESS OR FAULT OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN A DISCIPLINE TO ANOTHER.
III. BUT THIS DOES NOT FREE THE LATTER FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOING HIS BEST. Dan might be annoyed, and justly, at the indirect help given to his oppressors, but all the same he ought to have invoked the aid of Jehovah and gone forth to do battle against them. He might have delivered himself from the inconvenience to which he was subject. And so with all the indirectly produced ills of life; a heroic faith is certain to overcome them, or render them comparatively innoxious.M.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Benjamin is inactive, and allows the Jebusite to remain in Jerusalem. The House of Joseph emulates Judah, and takes Bethel
Jdg 1:21-26
21And65the children [sons] of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem: but the Jebusites dwell [dwelt] with [among]66 the children [sons] of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. 22And the house of Joseph, they also67 went up against Beth-el: and the Lord [Jehovah] was with them. 23And the house of Joseph sent to descry [spy out the entrance to]68 Beth-el. Now the name of the city before was Luz. 24And the spies saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, Shew us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city, and we will shew 25thee mercy [favor]. And when [omit: when] he shewed them the entrance into the city, [and] they smote the city with the edge of the sword: but they let go the man and all his family. 26And the man went into the land of the Hittites, and built [there] a city, and called the name thereof Luz: which is the name thereof unto this day.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[1 Jdg 1:21.The would be better taken adversitively: But. It contrasts the conduct of Benjamin with that of Caleb, Jdg 1:20.Tr.]
[2 Jdg 1:21.Cf. note 2, on Jdg 1:16; Jdg 1:3 on Jdg 1:29.Tr.]
[3 Jdg 1:22. looks back to Jdg 1:3 ff. and intimates a parallelism between the conduct of the House of Joseph and that of Judah and his brother Simeon.Tr.]
[4 Jdg 1:23.Dr. Cassel apparently supplies from the next verse. , it is true, is usually followed by the accusative, not by . But on the other hand, is put in the const. state before (cf. Jdg 1:24-25); whereas, if we supply it here, we must suppose it joined to by means of a preposition. It is as well, therefore, to say, with Bertheau, that the verb is connected with because the spying is to fasten itself, and that continuously, upon Bethel, cf. with and ; or with Bachmann, that indicates the hostile character of the spying. is used as a general expression for any way or mode of access into the city: Show us how to get in, is the demand of the spies.Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
Jdg 1:21. And the sons of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusite. At Jos 15:63, at the close of a detailed description of the territory of Judah, it is said, As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the sons of Judah could not drive them out; and the Jebusites dwelt with the sons of Judah in Jerusalem unto this day. This verse has been thought to contradict the one above. In reality, however, it only proves the exactness of the statements. The boundary line of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah ran through the district of Jerusalem, through the valley of Ben Hinnom, south of the city (Jos 15:8). The city already extended outward from the foot of the citadel. The remark of Josephus,69 that, in the passage above discussed, Jdg 1:8, the tribe of Judah took only the lower city, not the citadel, has great probability on its side. The conquest of the citadel was not their business at the time. It was sufficient for them to pursue the hostile king into his city, and then lay that in ashes. The citadel lay within the tribe of Benjamin. Nevertheless, on account of this fortress, Judah, also, was not able to expel the Jebusites, who continued to live side by side with them in the district of Jerusalem. At all events, the Jebusites in Jerusalem belonged to the territory of Judah so far at least, that the failure to expel them must be mentioned in connection with the boundaries of Judah. Still more necessary was it to repeat this statement in connection with Benjamin, within whose limits the city and fortress of the Jebusites were situated. Their expulsion properly devolved on this tribe. Successful occupation of the stronghold would have greatly increased the honor and consideration of Benjamin. The importance of the place, David recognized as soon as he became king. But Benjamin was content when the Jebusites, humbled by Judah, offered no resistance, left them in possession of the fortress, and lived peaceably together with them. It has been justly observed, that different terms are employed in speaking of the failure of Judah and Benjamin respectively to drive out the Jebusites. Of Judah it is said (Jos 15:63), they could not, because the Jebusites had their stronghold in another tribe. But of Benjamin this expression is not used, because they were wanting in disposition and energy for the struggle that devolved upon them. Cf. on Jdg 19:12.
Jdg 1:22. And the house of Joseph, they also went up toward Bethel. This action of the house of Joseph is told by way of contrast with the house of Benjamin. The tribe of Benjamin lay between Judah and Ephraim (Jos 18:11); and Bethel, within its limits, formed a counterpart to Jerusalem. Historically, Bethel is celebrated for the blessing there promised to Jacob, and afterwards less favorably for the idolatrous worship of Jeroboam. Geographically, it was important on account of its position and strength. As Jebus and Jerusalem are always identified, so it is everywhere remarked of Bethel, that it was formerly Luz; and as Jebus indicated particularly the fortress, Jerusalem the city,although the latter name also embraced both,so a similar relation must be assumed to have existed between Bethel and Luz. Otherwise the border of Benjamin could not have run south of Luz (Jos 18:13), while nevertheless Bethel was reckoned among the cities of Benjamin (Jos 18:22). This assumption, moreover, explains the peculiar phraseology of Jos 18:13 : And the border went over from thence toward Luz (after which we expect the usual addition which is Bethel; but that which does follow is:) on the south side of Luz, which is Bethel. It explains likewise the mention, Jos 16:2, of the order from Bethel to Luz, i.e. between Bethel and Luz. The latter was evidently a fortress, high and strong, whose city descended along the mountain-slope. When Jacob erected his altar, it must have been on this slope or in the valley. One name designated both fortress and city, but this does not militate against their being distinguished from each other. Bethel belonged to two tribes in a similar manner as Jerusalem. The capture of Luz by Joseph would not have been told in a passage which treats of the conflicts of the individual tribes in their own territories, if that fortress had not belonged to the tribes of Joseph. By the conquest of Luz, Joseph secured the possession of Bethel, since both went by that name, just as David, when he had taken the fortress of the Jebusite, was for the first time master of Jerusalem. This deed is related as contrasting with the conduct of Benjamin. Benjamin did nothing to take the fortress of Zion: Joseph went up to Luz, and God was with him. This remark had been impossible, if, as has been frequently assumed,70 the tribe of Joseph had arbitrarily appropriated to itself the city which had been promised to Benjamin. The view of ancient Jewish expositors, who assume a Bethel in the valley and one on the mountain, does not differ from that here suggested.Robinson seems to have established the position of the ancient Bethel near the present Beitn, where scattered ruins occupy the surface of a hill-point. A few minutes to the N. E., on the highest spot of ground in the vicinity, are other ruins, erroneously supposed to be Ai by the natives: these also perhaps belonged to Bethel.71 It cannot, however, be said, that until Robinson this position was entirely unknown. Esthori ha-Parchi, who in his time found it called Bethai, the l having fallen away, was evidently acquainted with it.72 In another work of the fourteenth century the then current name of Bethel is said to be Bethin.73
Jdg 1:23-25. And the house of Joseph sent to spy out. from , to travel around, in order to find an entrance less guarded and inaccessible. Luz appeared to be very strong and well guarded, and for a long time the assailants vainly sought a suitable opportunity for a successful assault. When the Persians besieged Sardis, their efforts were long in vain. One day a Persian saw a Lydian, whose helmet had fallen over the rampart, fetch it back by a hitherto unnoticed way. The man was followed, and the city was taken (Herod. i. 84). A similar accident favored the conquest of the fortress. The spies saw a man who had come out of the city. He failed to escape them. They compelled him to disclose the entrance. They promised him peace and mercy on condition of showing them the right way. He did it. It seems not even to have been necessary to storm the city; they fell upon the inhabitants unawares. Only the man who had assisted them, and his family, were spared. They let him go in peace. He was evidently no Ephialtes, who had betrayed the city for money. Doing it under compulsion, and unconsciously serving a great cause,74 no calamity befell him, and he found a new country. It not only behooves the people of God to perform what they have promised, but Jewish tradition followed persons like Rahab and this man, as those who had furthered the course of sacred history against their own people, with peculiar kindness. This man, like Rahab, is blessed for all time (cf. Jalkut on the passage, p. 8, d).
Jdg 1:26. And the man went into the land of the Hittites. It evinces a special interest in the man that his fortunes are traced even into a strange land. Greek patriotism relates that Ephialtes fared as he deserved;75 our history employs the favorable destiny which befell this man, to show that as he did not designedly for the sake of money practice treason, so he was also the instrument of setting a prosperous enterprise on foot. But where is the land of the Chittim (Hittites) to which he went? In nearly all passages in which Scripture makes mention of the Sons of Cheth (, E. V. Heth), the Chitti (, E. V. Hittite), and the Chittim (, E. V. Hittites), the name appears to be a general term, like the word Canaanite. Especially in the three passages where the Chittim are mentioned76 (Jos 1:4; 1Ki 10:29; 2Ki 7:6), their land and kings are placed between Egypt and Aram in such a way as seems to be applicable only to the populations of Canaan. Movers77 has successfully maintained that and refer to the same race of people; but it cannot be accepted that this race consisted only of the Kittim of Cyprus. It must rather be assumed that the Chittim answer to a more general conception, which also gave to the Kittim, their colonists, the name they bore. The historical interpretation of Kittim, which applied it to Ionians, Macedonians, and Romans, would not have been possible, if the name had not carried with it the notion of coast-dwellers,78 an idea which comparative philology may find indicated. Now, it is unquestionable that the Phnician cities, with Tyre at their head, are even on their own coins designated by the terms and . As from its lowlands, Canaan became the general popular name of Palestine, so likewise to a certain extent the name Chittim became a general term applied to all Canaanites. When the panic-struck king of Aram thinks that Israel has received support from the kings of Egypt and the Chittim (2Ki 7:6), this latter name can only signify the coast-cities, whose power, from Tyre upwards, was felt throughout the world. From the fact that our passage merely says that the man went into the land of Chittim,79 and presupposes the city built by him as still known, it may reasonably be inferred that he went to the familiarly known Chittim north of Israel. The probability is great enough to justify our seeking this Luz upon the Phnician coast or islands. A remarkable notice in the Talmud (Sota, 46 b), derived from ancient tradition, may lead to the same conclusion: Luz is the place where the dyeing of is carried on, where there are hyacinthian80 purple dyeing-establishments. Down to the most recent times, the coast from Tyre upwards, as far as the Syrian Alexandria, was very rich in purple (Ritter, xvi. 611 [Gages Transl. iv. 280]). Now, pretty far away to the north, it is true, in the present Jebel el-Aala, at a point where a splendid northwest prospect over the plain to the lake of Antioch offers itself, Thomson81 found hitherto wholly unknown ruins bearing the name of Klb Lousy, with remnants of old and splendid temples. The surname Kulb82 might authorize the inference that the dyeing-business was formerly exercised there. The existence of temple-ruins, concerning which the Druses said that they had been without worshippers from time immemorial, explains also another remarkable tradition of the Talmud: that Luz is a city which the conquerors of the land did not destroy, and to which the angel of death never comes, but that they who feel the approach of death, leave the city of their own accord. Traditions like this are characteristic of Sun-worship. In Delos no one was allowed to die or to be buried.83 To Claros no serpents came. Neither could they penetrate to the land of the Astypalans, on the island Cos. The island Cos is at the same time one of the seats of the ancient purple-trade. In the Syrian city Emesa there was a temple of the Sun, on account of whichas the story still went in Mohammedan timesscorpions and venomous animals cannot live there.84 Name, ruins, and tradition would therefore tend to identify Klb Lousy as the remnant of an ancient city, distinguished like Cos for a specific form of industry and for its sun-worship, if indeed Cos itself () be not understood by it.
Luz is described by its name as a place of almond-trees (Gen 30:37). And indeed, philologically Luz is akin to nux, nut. The Greek signifies almond (on account of its shape) as well as nut and egg.85 Eusebius was induced to identify the land of the Chittim with Cyprus, the rather because the Cyprian almonds were celebrated in antiquity.86 The almond-tree has always abounded in the holy land. The cities are in ruins, but the tree still flourishes.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The cessation of perfect obedience is attended by the cessation of perfect victory. Benjamin does not expel the hostile Jebusite from Jerusalem because he has lost his first love. The tribes of Joseph, on the other hand, are able to conquer Bethel, because God is with them. Benjamin, the valiant tribe, is alone to blame, if it failed to triumph; for when Bethel resisted the sons of Joseph, the latter were aided by a fortunate incident. Benjamin did not conquer Jerusalem; therefore, not the king out of Benjamin (Saul), but the ruler out of Judah (David), dwelt therein. However, it is of no avail to conquer by faith, unless it be also maintained in faith; for Bethel became after wards a Beth-aven, a House of Sin.
Starke: Ill got, ill spent; but that also which has been rightly got, is apt to be lost, if we make ourselves unworthy of the divine blessing, just as these places were again taken from the Israelites.
[Wordsworth: Here then was a happy opportunity for 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 forever of the heavenly Bethel, the house of God, which will stand forever. 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.The same: There are four classes of persons, whose various conduct toward the Church of God, and to the gospel preached by her, is represented by four cases in the Books of Joshua and Judges; namely,1. There is this case of the man of Bethel. 2. There is the case of the Kenites, in Jdg 1:16, who helped Judah after their victories in Canaan, and are 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 became a mother in Israel, an ancestress of Christ (see Jos 6:25).Tr.]
Footnotes:
[65][Jdg 1:21.The would be better taken adversitively: But. It contrasts the conduct of Benjamin with that of Caleb, Jdg 1:20.Tr.]
[66][Jdg 1:21.Cf. note 2, on Jdg 1:16; Jdg 1:3 on Jdg 1:29.Tr.]
[67][Jdg 1:22. looks back to Jdg 1:3 ff. and intimates a parallelism between the conduct of the House of Joseph and that of Judah and his brother Simeon.Tr.]
[68][Jdg 1:23.Dr. Cassel apparently supplies from the next verse. , it is true, is usually followed by the accusative, not by . But on the other hand, is put in the const. state before (cf. Jdg 1:24-25); whereas, if we supply it here, we must suppose it joined to by means of a preposition. It is as well, therefore, to say, with Bertheau, that the verb is connected with because the spying is to fasten itself, and that continuously, upon Bethel, cf. with and ; or with Bachmann, that indicates the hostile character of the spying. is used as a general expression for any way or mode of access into the city: Show us how to get in, is the demand of the spies.Tr.]
[69]Ant. v. 2, Judges 2 : , etc.
[70]Already by Reland, Palstina, p. 841.
[71]Robinson, Bibl. Res. i. 448.
[72]Kaftor ve Pherach (Berlin edition), Judges 11. pp. 47, 48. Cf. Zunz, in Ashers Benj. of Tudela, ii. 436.
[73]Ishak Chelo in Carmoly, pp. 249, 250.
[74]The German traitor Segestes merely alleges that he follows higher reasons, although he knows that proditores etiam iis quos anteponunt invisi sunt. Tacit., Annal. i. 58, 2. Israel saw the hand of a higher Helper in such assistance; and hence it had no hatred toward the instruments
[75]Ephialtes was the traitor of Thermopyl, cf. Herod, vii. 213. Traditions are still current of a traitor at Jena (1806), who was obliged to flee into exile.
[76][That is, where this people is spoken of under the plural form of its patronymic, which happens only five timesat Jdg 1:26, 2Ch 1:17, and the places named in the text.Tr.]
[77]Phnizier, ii. 2, 213, etc.
[78]I have already directed attention to this in the Mag Alterthmer (Berlin, 1848), p. 281.
[79]Cf. , Cos (the island Cos), cautes, costa, cte, Kste.
[80]The Sept. constantly (with barely two exceptions) translate by . Cf. Ad. Schmidt, Die griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Berlin, 1842), p. 134.
[81]Cf. Ritter, xvii. 1577. [Thomson, Journey from Aleppo to Mt. Lebanon, in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. v. p. 667.Tr.]
[82]Cf. Bochart, Hierozoicon, ii. 740. Aruch (ed. Amsteld.) p. 89, s. v. .
[83]On this and the following notices, which will be more thoroughly treated in the second part of my Hierozoicon, compare meanwhile, lian, Hist. Anim. V. cap. viii., cap. x. 49.
[84]Cf. Ritter, xvii. 1010.
[85]Casaubon, on Athenus, p. 65.
[86]Athenus, p. 52; ct. Meursius, Cyprus, p. 30.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Here we have another example of unbelief, and consequently of culpable timidity. The Lord had expressly commanded that there should be no affinity, nor treaty, with the Canaanites. But alas! Israel forgets the Lord’s precept, and the Canaanites dwell in the land. Reader! Is it not too often so, with spiritual Israel? Oh! for that glorious period, when the Canaanite shall be no longer in the land, Zec 14:21 , compared with Deu 7:23-24Deu 7:23-24 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jdg 1:21 And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.
Ver. 21. And the children of Benjamin. ] See Jos 15:63 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Ver. 21. Keep yourselves ] Remit nothing of your former fervour. But keep afoot and alive that twofold love of God: 1. That of desire, and earnest delight and intense longing after him, as our chiefest good. 2. Of delight and complacency, whereby we hug and embrace him, solacing ourselves in the fruition of him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
did not drive out. Compare Jos 15:63; Jos 18:28. 2Sa 5:6-10.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Jdg 19:10-12, Jos 15:63, Jos 18:11-28, 2Sa 5:6-9
Reciprocal: Gen 10:16 – Jebusite Num 33:55 – shall be pricks Deu 33:12 – The beloved Jos 15:8 – the Jebusite Jos 18:16 – Jebusi Jdg 1:8 – General Jdg 19:11 – the Jebusites 2Sa 24:16 – the Jebusite 1Ki 9:21 – left 1Ch 1:14 – Jebusite 1Ch 8:28 – dwelt 1Ch 11:4 – Jebus 2Ch 8:8 – whom the children Psa 106:34 – did not Jer 6:1 – O ye
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:21 And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that {k} inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.
(k) For after the tribe of Judah had burnt it, they built it again.