Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 1:27

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.

27. The parallel text, Jos 17:11-12, which has been adapted here and there to fit its present context, suggests that we should read was not able to drive out for ‘did not drive out’ (see on Jdg 1:19), and that Taanach and Ibleam should change places. The verse describes the limits of Manasseh’s expansion northwards; a chain of hostile fortresses, stretching westwards from Beth-shean in the E. to Dor on the sea-coast, rendered the occupation of the Great Plain impossible. A similar line cut off Manasseh-Ephraim from Judah on the S. ( Jdg 1:35), so that the two tribes were confined to the Central Highlands. Beth-shean (1Sa 31:10, 1Ki 4:12), the Greek Scythopolis (LXX), the mod. Bsn, commands the main ascent from the Jordan to the Great Plain by the Nahr Jld. Ibleam may be identified with the ruined site Khirbet Bal‘ame, about 8 m. S.E. of Taanach. The two towns Taanach and Megiddo (often together Jdg 5:19, Jos 12:21; Jos 17:11 etc.) lay near each other on the road which goes westwards from Jenn, skirting the S. of the Plain, which is sometimes called the valley-plain of Megiddo (Zec 12:11, 2Ch 35:22). The former is the mod. Ta‘annek, and about 5 m. W. of it lay Megiddo, in all probability on the site of Tell el-Mutesellim. Both towns are mentioned on the list of Thothmes III ( c. 1480 b.c.); Megiddo also appears in the Amarna letters (nos. 159, 193 195) and in Assyrian inscriptions (Schrader, CO T, p. 168), for it guarded the pass by which Egyptian and Assyrian armies crossed the Carmel range into the Plain. Both these sites have recently been excavated, Ta‘annek by Dr Sellin in 1902 04, Tell el-Mutesellim by Dr Schumacher in 1903 5, and have yielded results which illustrate many details of the religion and social life of Palestine from about 2000 to 100 b.c. See Driver, Schweich Lecture s 1909, pp. 80 86, with illustrations. At Ta‘annek were found several cuneiform tablets dating from the pre-Israelite period, c. 1350 b.c.; and at Megiddo a fine Hebrew lion-seal (illustrated in Driver l.c. p. 91), bearing the legend “Belonging to Shama‘, servant of Jeroboam,” perhaps Jeroboam II, c. b.c. 783 743. Dr, in Jos 17:11 and in Phoenician more correctly D’r, lay near the mod. anra on the coast, S. of Carmel; in Assyr. it is called Du’ru (Schrader l.c.). In order to continue the line consistently from Jordan to the sea, Dor should be moved to the end of the verse, as in 1Ch 7:29, which seems to be copied from here (Moore).

and her towns ] and its dependencies, lit. ‘daughters,’ cf. Jdg 11:26, Num 21:25; Num 21:32 JE etc.

would dwell ] Jdg 1:35, Jos 17:12 b, lit. ‘resolved to dwell,’ i.e. ‘persisted in remaining’; cf. Hos 5:11 ‘Ephraim persisted in walking.’

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

27 35. The ill-success of the different tribes: they settle among the older population

From this point the form of the narrative changes. Hitherto successes as well as failures have been recorded, with ancient traditions of particular episodes; now follows a bare list of Canaanite strongholds which the new-comers failed to capture. Other towns may have been occupied by the tribes in their several districts; but in most cases the Israelites had to be content to settle down side by side with the old inhabitants. Again the Book of Joshua furnishes parallels and additions.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Jdg 1:27-28

Neither did Manasseh drive out.

Forsaking the Lords work

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.

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 seen prosecuted with great energy and at great cost. The Church has thrown away not a little energy for want of just a little more.

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. 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.

V. men forsaking a work to which God had commanded them, in which God had marvellously helped the, 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. (F. G. Marchant.)

A good work forsaken

We here learn how ready men are to leave and forsake a good course, although they have hardly, and with much ado, been brought to embrace and fasten upon it; which much concerneth us to mark. For we are easily deceived about this, and think both of ourselves and others, that if we begin to dislike and turn away from some gross and common faults that we were wont to commit, then the worst is past with us, and that we ought justly to be reckoned among the godly; whereas it is nothing so, but we be yet, for all that, far off. For a far greater matter is required to the endeavour effectual calling to repentance may be approved of God, and be sound indeed, how we ought to try and search into ourselves, and cannot now stand about it. But although we were truly turned to God, and had, as these, obeyed God for a time with a good heart, yet ought we to fear danger, in respect of our own frailty, and according to the present occasion, when we see to what point these tribes came, for all they had followed the Lord commendably for a time, in beginning to cast out the nations as they were commanded. And the reason of this, to wit, that we should thus carefully look to ourselves, is this, that we are reformed but in part, and that in small part; in which respect yet, because we have received some grace, we are able thereby to desire and go about to do God some service, and specially at some time, namely, while we be watchful to hold under our rebellious passions, assisted by grace; but what then? For we having a sea of corruption ever flowing in us, and our own concupiscence beside outward objects enticing us a contrary way; it must be drained and purged out daily, by little and little, and not be let alone in us, lest it should choke and drown the grace that we have received; which if it be, we become impotent by and by, so that we do not only cease to obey, but we are carried rather as with a stream to any evil that we be tempted to; and namely, to this one here mentioned that overtook these tribes; that is, to be weary of well doing; and so much the rather, seeing there are so many allurements and occasions in every place to provoke us and set us forward. And although we are not without hope, nor naked in the midst of all these storms, yet if we know not these things, yea, and if also we do not resist carefully such evil as I have mentioned, neither strive to nourish such sparkles of grace as are kindled in us, our hearts being set wholly hereupon, as the weightiest thing that we have to deal in; what marvel is it, though we fall from the goodness that was wrought and begun in us, and so become others than we were before? (R. Rogers.)

Attitude of the world towards the Church

The Canaanites would dwell in that land, says the historian, repeating the words used in reference to the same tribe and the same places elsewhere (Jos 17:12). The Hebrew word rendered would dwell, intimates that the Canaanites wished to arrange the matter agreeably; that they made friendly overtures to the men of Manasseh to be permitted to remain–a permission which was granted them on condition of their paying tribute. Such is the attitude which, in these latter days, the world frequently assumes towards the Church of Christ in Christian countries. It is willing enough to pay tribute, both in gold and outward forms of deference, if only the Church will allow it a peaceable lodging and refrain from using against it the sword of the Spirit. Too often has the Church, like the men of Manasseh, consented to accept tribute money, whether of the State or of private individuals, as the price of permitting the world to remain unmolested within its borders; and how often has she found, in her bitter experience, the degrading and enslaving effect of such compromises–verifying to the letter the prediction of Joshua in regard to such unhallowed connections (Jos 23:13). (L. H. Wiseman, M. A.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

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

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

Manasseh, i.e. that half of this tribe which dwelt in Canaan.

Beth-shean; a place near Jordan, Jos 17:11.

Taanach; of which see Jos 12:21; 17:11.

Dor; a great city with large territories. See Jos 11:2; 12:23; Jos 17:11.

Megiddo; a royal city. See Jos 12:21; 17:11.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

27-36. The same course ofsubjugation was carried on in the other tribes to a partial extent,and with varying success. Many of the natives, no doubt, during theprogress of this exterminating war, saved themselves by flight andbecame, it is thought, the first colonists in Greece, Italy, andother countries. But a large portion made a stout resistance andretained possession of their old abodes in Canaan. In other cases,when the natives were vanquished, avarice led the Israelites to sparethe idolaters, contrary to the express command of God; and theirdisobedience to His orders in this matter involved them in manytroubles which this book describes.

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

Neither did Manasseh,…. One of the sons of Joseph before mentioned; and it respects that half tribe of Manasseh, which had its portion on this side Jordan in the land of Canaan: these did not

drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean 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: all which were places the half tribe had assigned them in Issachar and Asher; of which [See comments on Jos 17:11]. This tribe seems to have been sluggish, and not to have exerted itself at all, or made any attempts to drive out these people:

but the Canaanites would dwell in that land; not only desired it, but were determined on it, and rather chose to submit to a tribute than be expelled, at least would not depart unless they were forced.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Manasseh did not root out the Canaanites from the towns which had been allotted to it in the territory of Asher and Issachar (Jos 17:11), but simply made them tributary. , considered by itself, might be rendered: “ Manasseh did not take possession of Bethshean, ” etc. But as we find, in the further enumeration, the inhabitants of the towns mentioned instead of the towns themselves, we must take in the sense of rooting out, driving out of their possessions, which is the only rendering applicable in Jdg 1:28; and thus, according to a very frequent metonymy, must understand by the towns the inhabitants of the towns. “ Manasseh did not exterminate Bethshean,” i.e., the inhabitants of Bethshean, etc. All the towns mentioned here have already been mentioned in Jos 17:11, the only difference being, that they are not placed in exactly the same order, and that Endor is mentioned there after Dor; whereas here it has no doubt fallen out through a copyist’s error, as the Manassites, according to Jos 17:12-13, did not exterminate the Canaanites from all the towns mentioned there. The change in the order in which the towns occur, – Taanach being placed next to Bethshean, whereas in Joshua Bethshean is followed by Ibleam, which is placed last but one in the present list, – may be explained on the supposition, that in Jos 17:11, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo are placed together, as forming a triple league, of which the author of our book has taken no notice. Nearly all these towns were in the plain of Jezreel, or in the immediate neighbourhood of the great commercial roads which ran from the coast of the Mediterranean to Damascus and central Asia. The Canaanites no doubt brought all their strength to bear upon the defence of these roads; and in this their war-chariots, against which Israel could do nothing in the plain of Jezreel, were of the greatest service (see Jdg 1:19; Jos 17:16). For further particulars respecting the situation of the different towns, see at Jos 17:11. Dor only was on the coast of the Mediterranean (see at Jos 11:2), and being a commercial emporium of the Phoenicians, would certainly be strongly fortified, and very difficult to conquer.

Jdg 1:28

As the Israelites grew strong, they made serfs of the Canaanites (see at Gen 49:15). When this took place is not stated; but at all events, it was only done gradually in the course of the epoch of the judges, and not for the first time during the reign of Solomon, as Bertheau supposes on the ground of 1Ki 9:20-22 and 1Ki 4:12, without considering that even in the time of David the Israelites had already attained the highest power they ever possessed, and that there is nothing at variance with this in 1Ki 4:12 and 1Ki 9:20-22. For it by no means follows, from the appointment of a prefect by Solomon over the districts of Taanach, Megiddo, and Bethshean (1Ki 4:12), that these districts had only been conquered by Solomon a short time before, when we bear in mind that Solomon appointed twelve such prefects over all Israel, to remit in regular order the national payments that were required for the maintenance of the regal court. Nor does it follow, that because Solomon employed the descendants of the Canaanites who were left in the land as tributary labourers in the erection of his great buildings, therefore he was the first who succeeded in compelling those Canaanites who were not exterminated when the land was conquered by Joshua, to pay tribute to the different tribes of Israel.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Tribal Failures, vs. 27-36

The record of Jdg 1:27-36 is a record of shame and failure on the part of the Lord’s people. From the very beginning of their entrance into Canaan the Lord had promised Israel to be with them and to drive their enemies out of the land. When they began this very campaign, following the death of Joshua, He had said, “I have delivered the land into his hand,” (verse 2).

The only reason all these cities were not delivered into the hands of Israel was their own failure and lack of faith in the Lord’s promises. Down the roll of the tribes – Judah, Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, Dan – it is said, “Neither did” whatever tribe drive out the inhabitants”of whatever city.

Manasseh failed in five cities, Ephraim in Gezer, Zebulun in two, Asher in seven, Naphtali in two, and the Danites were forced into the mountains. In most cases it is stated that the Canaanite inhabitants were put to tribute by the Israelites. This indicates that the Israelites did not wish to drive out the pagans, for they liked the material increase they received by heavily taxing the pagan people. Very soon, however, it will be found that the Lord allowed the reverse situation to arise because of Israel’s disobedience, so that the pagans were taking tribute of Israel.

The “going up to Akrabbim” was far to the south, in the wilderness southwest of the foot of the Dead Sea. The implication here seems to be that the Amorites infested the land, among the Israelites, from a point on their southern frontier into the land of Israel.

Lessons to be learned from this chapter include 1) The Lord assures His people of His promised blessings when they act in accord with His known will; 2) we ought to heed the examples of those who have succeeded through their adherence to the commands of the Lord; 3) God’s people put Him to shame by neglecting His known will in order to get the material things of the world.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

(27) Neither did Manasseh.The sacred historian is glancing at the conquest of Canaan, advancing from the southern tribes upwards to central and northern Palestine. (See Jos. 17:11-13.)

Beth-shean.The town to the walls of which the victorious Philistines nailed the bodies of Saul and Jonathan after the battle of Gilboa, and from which they were recovered by the gratitude of the brave people of Jabesh Gilead (1Sa. 31:8; 2Sa. 21:12). It is again mentioned in 1Ki. 4:12, and in later days was well known under the name of Scytho-polis, or city of Scythians (2Ma. 12:29), a name contemptuously given to it from the barbarism of its inhabitants (Jos. Vit. 6). Though conquered by Manasseh, it was in the lot of Issachar (Jos. 17:11). It is now called Beisan. It was in a district so rich and fruitful that the Rabbis describe it as the gate of Paradise.

And her towns.Literally, and her daughters.

Taanach.The name means the sandy. It was a town of Issachar assigned to the Levites, and was famous for Baraks victory over Sisera. It is still called Taanuk (Robinson, Bibl. Res. i. 316).

Dor.Properly in Asher, it seems to have been attacked by Manasseh, and was ultimately won by Ephraim (Jos. 11:2; Jos. 17:11; 1Ch. 7:29). It long continued to be an important place (1Ma. 15:11; Jos. Antt. xiv. 5, 3). It lies near the foot of Carmel, and is now called Tantura. Endor (the fountain of Dor) was probably one of its dependencies.

Ibleam.Also called Bileam (1Ch. 6:70). It was a Levitical town (Jos. 21:25). The only event connected with it in Scripture is the death of Ahaziah (2Ki. 9:27). Perhaps Khirbet-Belameh.

Megiddo.Near Taanach. It is now called Lejjn, from having been a station of the Romans. See Jdg. 1:19; 2Ki. 9:27 (the death of Ahaziah); and 2Ki. 23:29; Zec. 12:11 (the defeat of Josiah by Pharaoh Necho). It was fortified by Solomon (1Ki. 9:15). From this town is derived the famous name Armageddon (Rev. 16:16) as a scene of battle and wailing.

The Canaanites would dwell in that landi.e., the old inhabitants obstinately and successfully held their own (Jos. 17:12).

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

COWARDLY INACTIVITY OF THE REST OF THE TRIBES, Jdg 1:27-36.

27. Manasseh For the boundaries, see Jos 17:7-11; also note on the same for a description of Beth-shean and Ibleam. Taanach and

Megiddo See Jos 12:21. Dor is described in note on Jos 11:2. It is worthy of note that these cities were all outside of the proper limits of Manasseh. Jos 17:11. This may be the reason why they were left unconquered. It may have been impossible to secure the military co-operation of Issachar and Asher, within whose bounds they were.

But the Canaanites would dwell Rather, And the Canaanites consented to dwell, or were determined to dwell, in that land. They were unwilling to leave the fine country in which they dwelt, and were disposed to make any effort or sacrifice to abide in their ancient homes.

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

‘ And Manasseh, did not drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean 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 the land.’

The tribe of Manasseh was divided in two, one section being Beyond Jordan, and the other in the section of Canaan north of Ephraim and south of Zebulun and Issachar. Their territory included the powerful Canaanite fortresses mentioned and much lowland territory. This territory had a strong Canaanite presence, unlike the hill country.

But there were large forests which would make infiltration possible until Manasseh was strong enough to take over the territory, apart from the large cities, and then finally to take over the large cities themselves. These were too powerful to be overcome immediately, but there would come a time when it was possible, and yet when that time came Manasseh compromised with the Canaanites. That is the main point here, that they allowed the Canaanites to remain even when they could have done something about it, and that meant fraternising with them and assimilating their ways and their debased religion.

Megiddo. In terms of the times Megiddo was a huge city. Situated at one side of the Valley of Jezreel it guarded the main trading route between Mesopotamia and Egypt. It had previously been under Egyptian control, but at this time Egypt was too concerned with its own internal affairs to be bothered about Megiddo. It must have seemed invincible, but it was totally destroyed c.1150 BC and replaced temporarily by a small village. We can note how it is not mentioned in the song of Deborah, which rather mentions another powerful city, ‘Taanach by the waters of Meggido’ (Jdg 5:19), demonstrating the accuracy of the song. Its king was earlier slain by Joshua (Jos 12:21) but the city itself resisted invasion (Jos 17:11-12) and survived until Israel became too strong for it to do so any longer. Its final destruction was probably by Israel who then occupied the mound. It was later rebuilt and became a powerful Israelite city.

The same applied to Taanach. Taanach was on the other side of the Valley of Jezreel. It is mentioned in both Egyptian and Assyrian records. It too held out for many years but it too was finally destroyed by the Israelites. Ibleam, which was south of Megiddo and Taanach, was also a powerful fortress city. Dor was on the coast, and on the arrival of the Philistines, ‘the Sea People’, was, along with Bethshean (1Sa 31:10), which also protected the Valley of Jezreel, occupied by them. Both continually resisted Israelite attack and once occupied by the Philistines and their allies were invulnerable to it, but were eventually defeated, although possibly not until the time of David.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

A list of places in the central and northern tribes from which the Canaanites were not driven out. The tribes when strong, make the Canaanites tributary; when weak, are content to dwell in the midst of them

Jdg 1:27-36

27Neither did [And]87 Manasseh [did not] drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and her towns [daughter-cities], nor Taanach and her towns [daughter-cities], nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns [daughter-cities], nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns [daughter-cities], nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns [daughter-cities]; but the Canaanites would dwell [consented to dwell] in that land. 28And it came to pass when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute [made the Canaanites tributary], and [but] did not utterly drive them out. 29Neither88 did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites 30dwelt in Gezer among89 them. Neither90 did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries. 31Neither 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: 32But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out. 33Neither 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, [and] the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became tributaries [were tributary] unto them. 34And the Amorites forced [crowded]91 the children [sons] of Dan into the mountain [mountains]: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley: But [And] the Amorite would dwell [consented to dwell] in mount Heres [,] in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet [and] the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed [became powerful], so that [and] they became tributaries [tributary]. 36And the coast [border] of the Amorites was [went] from the going up to Akrabbim, from the rock, and upwards [from Maahleh Akrabbim, and from Sela and onward].

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[Jdg 1:27.So Dr. Cassel. But the position of the verb at the beginning of the sentence suggests a contrast with what precedes: the House of Joseph took Luz; but drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean Manasseh (a member of the House of Joseph) did not do. Cf. next note.Tr.]

[Jdg 1:29.The here connects Ephraim with Manasseh, Jdg 1:27 : Ephraim also was guilty of not driving out.Tr.]

[Jdg 1:29.: lit. in the midst of them. Cf. Jdg 1:16; Jdg 1:21; Jdg 1:30; Jdg 1:32-33.Tr.]

[Jdg 1:30.The neither ought to be omitted here and also in Jdg 1:31; Jdg 1:33. Manasseh and Ephraim are coupled together, cf. notes 1 and 2; but from this point each tribe is treated separately: Zebulun did not drive out, etc.Tr.]

[Jdg 1:34.: to press, to push. From this word Bachm. infers that Dan had originally taken more of his territory than he now held.Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Jdg 1:27. And Manasseh did not drive out. The conquest of Luz was achieved by the two brother tribes conjointly. With the exception of this place, the lands allotted to them had for the most part been already conquered by Joshua. The portion of the half tribe of Manasseh lay about the brook Kanah (Nahr el-Akhdar).92 A few cities, however, south of this brook, which fell to Ephraim, were made good to Manasseh by certain districts included within the borders of Asher and Issachar. This explains why Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of these districts. There were six townships of them, constituting three several domains, each of them inclosed in the lands of another tribe ( , Jos 17:11). The first of these was Beth-shean to the east; the second, the three cities Megiddo, Taanach, and Ibleam; the third, Dor on the sea-coast. The two former were inclosed within the tribe of Issachar; the latter should have belonged to the tribe of Asher. The districts thus given to Manasseh were valuable. Beth-shean (Greek, Scythopolis, at present Beisn) occupies an important position, and has a fertile soil. It formed a connecting link between the two seas, as also between the territories east and west of the Jordan, and was a precious oasis93 in the Ghr, the desert-like valley of this stream. It was an important place in both ancient and later times. Esthor ha Parchi, the highly intelligent Jewish traveller of the 14th century, who made tins place the central point of his researches, says of it: It is situated near rich waters, a blessed, glorious land, fertile as a garden of God, as a gate of Paradise (Berlin ed., pp. 1, 6; cf. Zunz in Ashers Benj. of Tudela, ii. 401). The situation of the three cities Megiddo, Taanach, and Ibleam, in the noble plain of Jezreel, was equally favorable. Concerning the first, it is to be considered as established that it answers to the old Legio, the modern Lejjn (Rob. ii. 328; iii. 118); although I am not of the opinion that the name Legio, first mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, is etymologically derived from Megiddo. It appears much more likely that Lejjn was an ancient popular mutilation of Megiddo, which subsequently in the time of the Romans became Latinized into Legio. Taanach is confessedly the present Taannuk (Schuberts Reise, iii. 164; Rob. ii. 316, iii. 117). The more confidently mway I suggest the neighboring Jelameh as the site of Ibleam, although not proposed as such by these travellers.94 Robinson reached this place from Jenn, in about one hours travel through a fine country (Bib. Res. ii. 318 ff.). Dor95 is the well-known Dandra, Tantra, of the present day, on the coast (Ritter, xvi. 608, etc. [Gages transl. iv. 278]). Jos 17:11 names Endor also, of which here nothing is said. The same passage affirms that the sons of Manasseh could not ( ) drive out the inhabitants. Evidently, Manasseh depended for the expulsion of the inhabitants of these cities upon the coperation of Issachar, by whose territory they were inclosed. The example of the tribes of Judah and Simeon, the latter of whom was entirely surrounded by the former, does not seem to have been imitated. Issachar is the only tribe concerning which our chapter gives no information. But since in the case of all the tribes, except Judah, only those cities are here enumerated out of which the Canaanites had not been expelled, the inference is that Issachar had done his part, and that the cities within his limits which did not expel their inhabitants, were just those which belonged to Manasseh. The statement that in Beth-shean, Megiddo, Taanach, and Ibleam the Canaanite remained, included therefore also all that was to be said about Issachar, and rendered further mention unnecessary. Issachar possessed the magnificent Plain of Jezreel ( ), and was on that account an agricultural, peaceable, solid tribe.

And the Canaanite consented to continue to dwell. Wherever occurs, it seems necessary to take it as expressing acquiescence in offered proposals and conditions. In this sense it is to be taken Exo 2:21, where Moses consents to enter into the family of Jethro. Upon the proposals made by Micah to the Levite (Jdg 17:11), the latter consents to remain with him. David willingly acquiesces in the proposal to wear the armor of Saul, but finds himself as yet unaccustomed to its use. Manasseh was too weak to expel the inhabitants of these cities. He therefore came to an understanding with them. He proposed that they should peaceably submit themselves. Unwilling to leave the fine country which they occupied, and seeing that all the Canaanites round about had been overpowered, they acceded to the proposition.

Jdg 1:28. When Israel was strong, they made the Canaanite tributary. The narrator generalizes what he has said of Manasseh, and applies it to all Israel. The Canaanite, wherever he was not driven out, but consented to remain, was obliged to pay tribute. This lasted, of course, only so long as Israel had strength enough to command the respect of the subject people. Similar relations between conquerors and conquered are of frequent occurrence in history. The inhabitants of Sparta, the Periki, were made tributary by the victorious immigrant Dorians, and even after many centuries, when Epaminondas threatened Sparta, were inclined to make common cause with the enemy (Manso, Sparta, iii. i. 167). According to Mohammedan law, the unbeliever who freely submits himself, retains his property, but is obliged to pay poll-tax and ground-rent (cf. Tornauv, Das Mosl. Recht, p. 51). When the Saxons had vanquished the Thuringian nobility, and were not sufficiently numerous to cultivate the land, they let the peasantry remain, says the Sachsenspiegel (iii. 44), and took rent from them (cf. Eichhorn, Deutsche Staats und Rechtsg., 15). The treatment which the Israelitish tribes now extended to the Canaanites, was afterwards, in the time of their national decay, experienced by themselves (cf. my History of the Jews in Ersch & Gruber, II. xxvii. 7, etc.). The word , by which the tribute imposed is designated, evidently means ground-rent, and is related to the Sanskrit mdmetior, to measure. Another expression for this form of tribute is the Chaldee (Ezr 4:20), for which elsewhere appears (Ezr 4:13). The Midrash (Ber. Rabba, p. 57, a), therefore, rightly explains the latter as , ground-rent. The terms mensura and mensuraticum, in medival Latin, were formed in a similar manner. The Arabic , Talmudic , also, as Hammer observes (Lnderverwalt des Chalifats, p. 119), mean tribute and corn.96

[But did not drive them out. Bertheau: : the emphatic expression by means of the infinitive before the finite verb, we regard as indicative of an implied antithesis; but, although Israel, when it became strong, had the power to execute the law of Moses to destroy the Canaanites, it nevertheless did not destroy them.Tr.]

Jdg 1:29. And Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanite that dwelt in 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, although Bertheau does not recognize it as such (p. 41; nor Ritter, xvi. 127 [Gages Transl. iii. 245]). It is not improbable that it is the Gazara of Jerome (p. 137, ed. Parthey), in quarto milliario Nicopoleos contra septentrionem, although the distance does not appear to be accurately given. The Ganzur of Esthor ha-Parchi (ii. 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 labors than was possessed by Issachar.

Jdg 1:30. Zebulon did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron nor the inhabitants of Nahalol. This statement will only confirm the remarks just made. There is no reason for contradicting the Talmud (Megilla, 6 a), when it definitely identifies Kitron with the later Zippori, Sepphoris, the present Seffrieh. As the present village still lies at the foot of a castle-crowned eminence, and as the Rabbinic name Zippori (Tsippori, from , a bird, which hovers aloft) indicates an elevated situation, the ancient name (from =) may perhaps be supposed to describe the city as the mountain-crown of the surrounding district. The tribe of Zebulon, it is remarked in the Talmud, need not commiserate itself, since it has Kitron, that is, Sepphoris, a district rich in milk and honey. And in truth Seffrieh does lie on the southern limit of the beautiful plain el-Buttauf, the present beauty and richness of which, as last noted by Robinson (ii. 336), must formerly have been much enhanced by cultivation. In connection with this, it will also be possible to locate Nahalol more definitely. Philologically, it is clearly to be interpreted pasture (Isa 7:19). It answers perhaps to the later 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.

Jdg 1:31-32. Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Accho, Zidon, Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, Rehob. The whole history of Israel can be nothing else than a fulfilling of the spirit of the Mosaic law. The division of the land of Canaan is a part of this fulfillment. This division therefore cannot have respect only to the territory already acquired, but must proceed according to the promise. The boundaries of the land destined for Israel were indicated by Moses. The territories which they circumscribe must be conquered. Whatever part is not gained, the failure is the fault of Israel itself. The boundaries indicated, were the outlines of a magnificent country. Splendid coast-lands, stately mountains, wealthy agricultural districts, rich in varieties of products and beauty, inclosed by natural, boundaries. The whole sea-coast with its harborsPhnicia not exceptedwas included; the northeastern boundary was formed by the desert, and lower down by the river. The border lines of the land of Israel, drawn Numbers 34, are based upon the permanent landmarks which it offers; they are accurate geographical definitions, obtained from the wandering tribes of the land. It seems to me that it is only from this point of view that the hitherto frequently mistaken northern boundary of the land, as given Num 34:7-9, can be correctly made out. And this shall be your north border, it is there said: from the great sea ye shall take Mount Hor as your landmark; thence follow the road as far as Hamath; and the border shall end in Zedad: thence it goes on to Ziphron,97 and ends in Hazarenan. The range of Mount Casius, whose southernmost prominence lifts itself up over Laodicea (the present Ladikieh), forms the natural northern boundary of Phnicia. This is the reason why on coins Laodicea was called , the Beginning of Canaan, as it might be translated. It is therefore also from the foot of this range that the northern boundary of Israel sets out. The name Mount Hor is simply the ancient equivalent of Mount Casius and also of the later Jebel Akra, which latter term furnishes a general designation for every mountain since the Greek Akra was explained by the Arabic Jebel. From the foot of this mountain ancient caravan roads (suggested by ) lead to Hamath, and from Hamath to the desert. At present, as in the time of the geographer Ptolemy, who indicated their course, these roads pass over Zedad, at the western entrance of the desert, the modern Sudud (Ritter, xvi. 5 [Gages Transl. iii. 175]; xvii. 1443, etc.). Thence the border went southward till it ended in Hazar-enan, the last oasis, distinguished by fertile meadows and good water (Enan), where the two principal roads from Damascus and Haleb to Palmyra meet, and where the proper Syrian desert in which Palmyra (Tadmor) is situated begins. The name Cehere on the Tabula Peutingeriana, Zoaria (for the Goaria of Ptolemy), at present Carietein, Kuryetein (Ritter, xvii. 1457, etc.), may remind us of Hazor.

Tadmor itself did not lay beyond the horizon of Israelitish views. Whithersoever David and Solomon turned their steps, they moved everywhere within the circle of original claims. Israel was not to conquer in unbridled arbitrariness; they were to gain those districts which God had promised them. Conquest, with them, was fulfillment. The eastern border has the same natural character. From Hazar-enan it runs to Shepham, along the edge of the desert to Riblah (the present Ribleh) on the east side of Ain (Rob. iii. 534), along the range of Antilebanon, down the Jordan to the Dead Sea. These remarks it was necessary to make here where we must treat of the territories of Asher and Naphtali, the northwestern and northeastern divisions of Israel. For it must be assumed that Ashers territory was considered to extend as far up as Mount Hor,that the whole coast from Accho to Gabala was ascribed to him. This coast-region Asher was not sufficiently strong and numerous to command. The division of the land remained ideal nowhere more than in the case of the Phnician cities. Nowhere, consequently, was the remark of Jdg 1:32 more applicable: the Asherite dwelt among the inhabitants of the land; whereas elsewhere the Canaanites dwelt among Israel, though even that was against the Mosaic commands. Nor can it be supposed that the seven cities expressly named were the only ones out of which Asher did not expel the Canaanites. For who can think that this had been done in the case of Tyre, the fortified city (Jos 19:29)? The names are rather to be considered as those of townships and metropolitan cities, so that when Zidon is mentioned other cities to the south and north are included as standing under Sidonian supremacy. The express mention of Tyre, in Jos 19:29, is due to the fact that the passage was giving the course of the boundaries. For the same reason, Joshua 19 is not a complete enumeration of places; for of the seven mentioned here, two at least (Accho and Ahlab) are wanting there. That Accho cannot have been accidentally overlooked, is evident from the fact that the border is spoken of as touching Carmel, and that mention is made of Achzib. The relation of Asher to the Phnician territory was in general the following: A number of places (Jos 19:30 speaks of twenty two) had been wholly taken possession of by the tribe. Outside of these, the Asherites lived widely scattered among the inhabitants, making no attempts to drive them out. The seven cities mentioned above, especially those on the coast, are to be regarded as districts in which they dwelt along with the Canaanites. We have no reason for confining these to the south of Sidon. On the contrary, Esthor ha-Parchi (ii. 413415) was right in maintaining that cities of the tribe of Asher must be acknowledged as far north as Laodicea. The statements in Joshua for the most part mention border-places of districts farther inland, in which the tribe dwelt, and from which the boundary line ran westward to the sea. Thus, at one time the line meandered () to Zidon (Jdg 19:28); then it came back, and ran toward Tyre (Jdg 1:29). Not till the words, the ends were at the sea, , do we get a sea-boundary from north to south. I translate this phrase, from Chebel towards Achzib: it includes the whole Phnician tract. True, the whole enumeration implies that most of the places lay farther south than Zidon, in closer geographical connection with the rest of Israel. But places higher up are also named, for the very purpose of indicating the ideal boundaries. Among these are the places mentioned Jdg 1:30, two of which again appear in our passage. Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Accho (Ptolemais, the present Akka), but dwelt among them. To the north of this was Achzib (Ecdippa, the present ez-Zib). They dwelt with the inhabitants of Zidon in their dominion. They did not expel the inhabitants of Aphik (Apheca), on the Adonis river (Ritter, xvii. 553, etc.), notwithstanding the ancient idolatry there practiced, on account of which, evidently, it is mentioned. Rehob, since it is here named, must have been a not unimportant place. The Syrian translation of Rehob is ,, paltia, paltusa (platea98). This accounts for the fact that the Greeks and Romans speak of an ancient Paltos, otherwise unknown (Ritter, xvii. 890), and of which the present Beldeh may still remind us. Hitherto, this has escaped attention. It was remarked above that the sea-boundary is drawn, Joshua 19, from Chebel to Achzib. With this Chebel the (Chelbah, E. V. Helbah), probably to be read (Cheblah), of our passage, may perhaps be identified. It is the Gabala of Strabo and Pliny, the Gabellum of the crusaders, the present Jebele, which lies to the north of Paltos, and below Laodicea, and in Phnician times was the seat of the worship of the goddess Thuro (Ritter, xvii. 893; Movers, ii. 1, 117 ff.). There is but one of the seven cities of which we have not yet spoken, namely, Ahlab, named along with Achzib. It is very probable that this is Giscala, situated in the same latitude with Achzib, but farther inland. In Talmudic times the name of this place was Gush Chaleb; at present there is nothing but the modern name el-Jish to remind us of it.

Jdg 1:33. Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. The names of both these places allude to an idolatrous worship, and are also found in the tribe of Judah. The name of Beth-anath ( ), House of Echo, from , to answer, 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 to 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 (Commentary on Seetzens Reisen, iv. 161, 162). The introduction in Greek times of Pan worship in Bnis, is moreover also explained by the fact that the name Bethanas (th), required only an easy popular corruption to make it Paneas Robinson (Bib. Res. iii. 409) has again taken up the view, already rejected by Ritter (xvii. 229), which identifies Paneas with the repeatedly occurring Baal-gad, and which on closer inspection is simply impossible. Jos 11:17 says of Baal-gad that it lay in the Bikath () Lebanon, under Mount Hermon. Jos 12:7 speaks of it simply as Baal-gad in the Bikath Lebanon. The valley thus spoken of is none other than the Bukaa, i.e. Hollow Syria. There is no other hollow region that could be thus indicated. The further determination tachath har Chermon indicates, quite consistently with the meaning of tachath, which frequently combines the signification of behind with that of under, the Lebanon valley behind Mount Hermon, i.e. on the northern base of Hermon, for on its southern base there can be no Lebanon valley. This alone would suffice to transfer Baal-gad to the Bukaa. But in Jos 13:5 a Lebanon is spoken of east of Baal-gad under Mount Hermon. Now, a Lebanon east of Baal-gad there can be only if Baal-gad lies in the Bukaa; and there being a Lebanon on the east, only the northern base of Mount Hermon can be meant by the phrase under Mount Hermon (cf. below, on Jdg 3:3). Now, although there ought to be no doubt that Baal-gad lay in the Hollow, yet, the addition under Mount Hermon cannot have been made without a reason. It was intended to distinguish Baal–gad from Baal–bek, which latter, since it lies in the northern part of the Bukaa, could not properly be said to lie on the northern base of Hermon. We scarcely need to hesitate, therefore, to recognize in Baal-gad the position of the later Chalcis (d Libanuma) whose site is marked by fountains and temple-ruins. The temple which stands on the summit of the northernmost hill, belongs evidently to an older and severer style of architecture than those at Baalbek. Its position is incomparable (Ritter, xvii. 185; Hob. iii. 492, etc.).

Besides the inhabitants of Beth-anath, the tribe of Naphtali failed to drive out those of Beth-shemesh also. There was a celebrated place of the same name in Judah, and still another, unknown one in Issachar. Concerning the tribe of Naphtali also the remark is made that they dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land. Their assigned boundaries likewise went far up to the north. They inclosed Clo-Syria, as was already remarked. The peculiar mode in which Beth-shemesh is here spoken of, along with Beth-anath, is doubtless intended to point it out as a remarkable seat of idol worship, whose people nevertheless Israel did not expel, but only rendered tributary. The most celebrated place of the north was the temple-city in the Hollow,Beth-shemesh, as later Syrian inhabitants still called it,Baalbek as we, following the prevailing usage of its people, Heliopolis as the Greeks, named it. The Egyptian Heliopolis also bore the name Beth-shemesh, House of the Sun. Baalbek answers to the name Baalath,99 to which, as to Tadmor, Solomon extended his wisdom and his architecture.

Jdg 1:34-35. And the Amorite crowded the sons of Dan into the mountains. The domains of the tribe of Dan lay alongside of those of Benjamin, between Judah on the south and Ephraim on the north. They should have reached to the sea; but the warlike dwellers on the western plain, provided with the appliances of military art, had resisted even Judah. The plain which we are here told the sons of Dan could not take, seems to have been the magnificent and fertile Merj Ibn Omeir, which opens into the great western plain. This may be inferred from the remark in Jdg 1:35 : The Amorite consented to remain on Mount Heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim. This plain, as Robinson (iii. 144) accurately observes, reaches to the base of the steep mountain wall, on the top of which Sris is the first place met with. It must be this mountain land that is meant by Mount Heres. Southward of it is the ridge on which Ylo lies, which is justly considered to be the ancient Aijalon. Perhaps no place answers more closely to the Shaalbim of our passage, than Amws (Emmaus, Nicopolis), twenty minutes distant from the conical Tell Latrn. It is evident that has nothing to do with , fox, but belongs to the Chaldaic , to connect, , steps,100 to which the Hebrew corresponds The position of Amws is on the gradual declivity of a rocky hill, with an extensive view of the plain (Bob. iii.146), where, as Jerome says, the mountains of Judah begin to rise. When Jerome speaks of a tower called Selebi, he probably refers to the neighboring castle Latrn.

The sons of Dan were not only unable to command the plain, but also on some points of the hill-country they suffered the inhabitants to remain. Har Heres ( ) means the mountain of the Sun; but the attempts to bring its position into connection with Ain Shems cannot succeed, since that lies much farther south, in the valley. Heres was the name of the mountain chain which at Beth-horon enters the territory of Ephraim, and on which Joshua was buried. Possibly, the name Srs or Soris contains a reminiscence of it. This explains the remark, that the hand of the sons of Joseph became powerful and made the Amorites tributary. That which was impossible for the tribe of Dan, Ephraim from their own mountains performed.101

Jdg 1:36. The border of the Amorite remained from the Scorpion-terrace, from Sela and onward. This peculiar statement is explained by the composition of the whole tableau presented by the first chapter. It had been unfolded how far the tribes of Israel had performed the task appointed by Moses, by taking the territories whose borders he had indicated. For this reason, it had been stated concerning all the tribes, what they had not yet taken, or had not yet wholly nationalized. Neither the eastern, nor the northern and western boundaries had been hitherto fully realized. Only the southern border had been held fast. This line, as drawn Num 34:3 ff., actually separated Israel and the heathen nations. Jdg 1:36 is, as it were, a citation from the original Mosaic document. After beginning the sentence by saying and the border of the Amorite went from Akrabbim and Sela, it is brought to a sudden close by the addition , and onward, because it is taken for granted that the further course of the border to the Brook of Egypt is known from the determinations of Moses as recorded in Numbers. There it was said, Your border shall go to the south of Maaleh Akrabbim (at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea), pass through Zin, and its end shall be to the south of Kadesh-barnea. Here, the statement is somewhat

more exact, inasmuch as the border is prolonged from Akrabbim eastward to Sela, i.e. Petra. From Akrabbim westward it proceeds along the already indicated route, over Kadesh-barnea, Hazar-addar, and Azmon, to the Brook of Egypt (Wady el-Arsh, Rhinocorura). This course the writer deemed sufficiently indicated by the words and onward.102

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Obedience and love toward God are wrecked on greediness and love of ease. Immediately after the death of Joshua, the children of Israel asked after God. But very soon they ceased to do that which Moses, and, in his name, Joshua had commanded them. Their business was to conquer, and not to tremble at strongholds or chariots of iron. They were to expel, and not to take tribute. But their heart was no longer entirely with their God. They forgot, not only that they were to purify the land, and alone control it, but also why they were to do this. They were indulgent to idolatry, because the worm was already gnawing at their own religion. They no longer thought of the danger of being led astray, because they were unmindful of the word which demanded obedience. Perfect obedience is the only safe way. Every departure from it leads downhill into danger.

Thus we have it explained why so many undertakings of Christians and of the church fail, even while the truth is still confessed. 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. 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. Perfect obedience has still ever its victory; but that which does not belong to God comes into judgment, even though connected with Christian matters. Israel still confessed God, though it allowed the tribes of Canaan to remain; but nominal service vice is not enough. When confession and life do not agree, the life must bear the consequences.

Starke: We men often do not at all know how to use aright the blessings which God gives, but abuse them rather to our own hurt.The same: Our corrupt nature will show mercy only there where severity should be used, and on the other hand is altogether rough and hard where gentleness might be practiced.The same: 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.

[Scott: The sin [of the people in not driving out the Canaanites] prepared its own punishment, and the love of present ease became the cause of their perpetual disquiet.

Henry: 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.Tr.]

Footnotes:

[87][Jdg 1:27.So Dr. Cassel. But the position of the verb at the beginning of the sentence suggests a contrast with what precedes: the House of Joseph took Luz; but drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean Manasseh (a member of the House of Joseph) did not do. Cf. next note.Tr.]

[88][Jdg 1:29.The here connects Ephraim with Manasseh, Jdg 1:27 : Ephraim also was guilty of not driving out.Tr.]

[89][Jdg 1:29.: lit. in the midst of them. Cf. Jdg 1:16; Jdg 1:21; Jdg 1:30; Jdg 1:32-33.Tr.]

[90][Jdg 1:30.The neither ought to be omitted here and also in Jdg 1:31; Jdg 1:33. Manasseh and Ephraim are coupled together, cf. notes 1 and 2; but from this point each tribe is treated separately: Zebulun did not drive out, etc.Tr.]

[91][Jdg 1:34.: to press, to push. From this word Bachm. infers that Dan had originally taken more of his territory than he now held.Tr.]

[92][On this identification of the brook Kanah, cf. Grove in Smiths Bib. Dict., s. v. Kanah, the River.Tr.]

[93]Its magnificent position is also celebrated in the Talmud, Erubin, 19 a; cf. Ketuboth, 112 a. See below on Judges 4.

[94][According to Bachmann, Knobel had already proposed this identification. Keil, after Schultz, suggests Khirbet-Belameh, half an hour south of Jenn.Tr.]

[95]Levy (Phnizische Inschriften, i. 35) thought that he read this Dor on a Sidonian inscription together with Joppa. It is very doubtful whether he has found any one to agree with him.

[96][On the derivation and radical idea of the word , opinions are very much divided. There is no unanimity even as to the usage of the word. Keil (on 1Ki 4:6, Edinb. ed. 1857) asserts that it nowhere signifies vectigal, tribute, or socage, but in all places only serf or socager. But the better view seems to be that although it is some times used concretely for socagers or bond-servants, (cf. 1 Kgs 5:27 (1Ki 5:13)), yet its proper and usual meaning is tribute-service Out of the twenty-three instances in which the word occurs, there is not one in which it can be shown that it means tribute in money or products; while it is abundantly evident that in many cases it does mean compulsory labor, personal service. What kind of service the Israelites here required of the Canaanites does not appear. It may have been labor on public works, or assistance rendered at certain times to the individual agriculturist. This appears at least as probable as Bachmanns suggestion that perhaps the Canaanite merchants were expected to furnish certain commercial supplies and services. Our authors view in favor of ground-rent, cannot be said to derive the support of analogy from his historical references. For as Bachmann justly remarks, the case in which the conquerors of a country leave the earlier population in possession of their lands on condition of paying ground-rent, is the reverse of what takes place here, where a people, themselves agriculturists, take personal possession of the open country, and concede a few cities to the old inhabitants. It is probable, however, that the situation varied considerably in different localities, cf. Jdg 1:31 f. and Jdg 1:34.Tr.]

[97]Wetzstein (Hauran, p. 88) writes: Of Ziphron (Arab. Zifrn) wide-spread ruins are yet existing. According to my inquiries, the place lies fourteen hours N. E. of Damascus, near the Palmyra road. It has not yet, I think, been visited by any traveller. It is impracticable here to enter into further geographical discussions, but the opinion of Keil (on Num 34:7-9), who rejects the above determination, cannot be accepted as decisive, if for no other reason on account of the general idea by which he is evidently influenced.

[98]The Targum also translates by not only when used as a common noun (cf. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., p. 1740), but also in proper names, as Rehoboth Tr. Gen 10:11.

[99]1Ki 9:18. Others refer this to Baalath in the tribe of Dan. Cf. Keil on Jos 19:44, and on 1Ki 9:18.

[100]Compare the Syrian , anfractus inter duos montes. Cf. Castelli p. 912.

[101][Bachmann: That the House of Joseph used its greater strength not to exterminate the Amorite cities, but only to render them tributary, thus benefitting itself more than the tribe of Dan, sets forth the unsatisfactory nature of their assistance, and conveys a just reproach. Meanwhile, however, it seems that the subjugation of the Amorite by the House of Joseph was so far at least of use to Dan as to enable them to reach the coast, in partial possession of which, at least, we find the tribe in Jdg 5:17. But cf. our author in loc.Tr.]

[102] [The foregoing paragraph, rendered somewhat obscure by its brevity, was explained by the author, in reply to some inquiries, as follows: I endeavored to show that the idea of the passage is, that the original boundary lines of Israel, as drawn by Moses, had nowhere been held against the Amorite, i. e. the original inhabitants, except only in the south. Everywhere else, the inhabitants of Canaan, especially the Amorite, had thus far prevented the Israelites from taking full possession of the land; but in the south the boundary between Israel and the Amorite remained as drawn by Moses, in Num 34:3. I would ask that in connection with this the remarks under Jdg 1:31-32, be considered. The whole first chapter is an exposition of the fact that Israel had not yet attained to complete possession of Canaan. It is a spiritual-geographical picture of what Israel had not yet acquired, and what nevertheless it should possess. In other words, Dr. Cassels idea is, that the main thought of Judges 1. may be expressed in two sentences: 1. On the west, north, and east Israel did not actually realize the assigned boundary lines between itself and the original inhabitantsthe term Amorite being used in the wider sense it sometimes has. Cf. Gages Ritter, ii. 125. 2. On the south, the Mosaic line was made good, and continued to be held. The first of these sentences is expressed indirectly, by means of illustrative instances, in Jdg 1:4-35; the second, by direct and simple statement, in Jdg 1:36. In that verse, the narrative which in Jdg 1:9 set out from Judah on its northward course, returns to its starting-point, and completes what might be called its tour of boundary inspection, by remarking that the southern boundary (known as southern by the course ascribed to it) corresponded to the Mosaic determinations. Jdg 1:36, therefore, connects itself with the entire previous narrative, and not particularly with Jdg 1:34-35.

This explanation labors, however, under at least one very serious difficulty. It assumes that in the expression border of the Amorite, the gen. is an adjective gen., making the phrase mean the Amoritish (Canaanitish) border, just as we speak of the Canadian border, meaning the border of the U. S. over against Canada. But in expressions of this kind, the gen. is always the genitive of the possessor, so that the border of the Amorite, Ammonite, etc., indicates the boundary of the land held by the Amorite, Ammonite, etc. It seems necessary, therefore, with Bertheau, Keil, Bachmann, etc., to read this verse in connection with Jdg 1:34-35, and to and in it a note of the extent of territory held by the Amorite. The question then arises, how it is to be explained. We take for granted that the Maaleh Akrabbim of this verse is the same as that in Num 34:4 (a line of cliffs, a few miles below the Dead Sea, dividing the Ghr from the Arabah, see Rob. 2:120), and is not, as some have thought, to be sought in the town Akrabeh, a short distance S. E. of Nbulus (Rob. 3:296). The other point mentioned is , the Rock. Commentators generally take this to be Petra, in Arabia Petra; but the difficulties in the way of this view are insurmountable. In the first place we never hear of Amorites (take it in the wider or narrower sense) so far south as Petra, in the midst of the territories of Edom. In the next place, means upward, i. e. under the geographical conditions of this verse, northward (Dr. Cassels onward, i. e. downward to the sea, could scarcely be defended). Now, a line running from Akrabbim to Petra, and thence northward, would merely return on its own track, and would after all leave the Amorite territories undefined on just that side where a definition was most needed because least obvious, namely, the southern. It seems, therefore, altogether preferable (with the Targ., Kurtz, Hist. O. Cov. 3:239, Keil, and Bachm.) to take as an appellative, and to find in it a second point for a southern boundary line. Kurtz and Keil identify it with the (well-known) rock at Kadesh (the Kudes of Rowlands, cf. Williams, Holy City, 1:463 ff.), from which Moses caused the water to flow, Num 20:8. Bachmann prefers the bald mountain that ascends toward Seir (Jos 11:17), whether it be the chalk-mountain Madurah (Rob. 2:179), or, what he deems more suitable, the northern wall of the Azzimat mountains, with its masses of naked rock. In the vast confusion that covers the geography of this region, the most that can be said, is, that either view would serve this passage. In either case we get a line running from Akrabbim on the east in a westerly direction. From this southern boundary the Amorite territories extended upwards.

But when? Manifestly not at the time of which Judges 1. treats, cf. Jdg 1:9-19. The statement refers to the time before the entrance of Israel into Canaan, and is probably intended to explain the facts stated in Jdg 1:34-35, by reminding the reader of the originally vast power of the Amorite It was not to be wondered at that an enemy once so powerful and widely diffused should still assert his strength in some parts of his former domain. Cf Bachmann.Tr.]

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

I include all these verses within one view, because one general observation suits the whole. We see in them the sad picture of Israel’s want of faith, and consequently want of courage. Had those tribes trusted to the arm of God, they would not have feared the power of man. Had they called to mind that it was their rock which had sold them, and that their Lord had shut them up, their chariots of iron would have been considered by them but as the reeds of Egypt; but one of them would have chased a thousand, and two of them have put ten thousand to flight. Deu 32:30 . But Reader! while we behold the sad defect of Israel, let us look nearer home. How often doth that guilt breed fear, which like the Canaanite, dwells in our hearts, in our affections and lusts; and hence we forget our strength in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Oh! for more of that faith in lively exercise, which overcometh the world. 1Jn 5:4 .

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

Tributaries

Jdg 1:27-36

THE only profitable use we can make of this section is to consider its spiritual applications. We are always engaged in battle or in progress, and, do what we may, we are not always able to carry everything our own way. The signature of defeat is somewhere upon our proudest achievements; again and again shadows appear, which can only be accounted for by the presence of the enemy. The body remains, and social contact and sensuous appeal; in a word, the very spirit of evil is continually appearing and reappearing even in the best moods of our life. We want to drive away the enemy, and we but partially succeed. Sometimes we think we have wholly banished him, and behold, he suddenly returns from concealment, and is more malignant and furious than ever. Our life is thus a continual series of surprises, and the surprises are often very stinging disappointments. Again and again we say to our souls, Take your ease, and even venture to be mirthful, for the horse and his rider are thrown into the sea, and the whole land is cleansed of the pollution of the presence of the enemy; and whilst the song of triumph and thankfulness is in our mouth, the sea gives up its dead, and the land becomes as foul as ever. When we would do good evil is present with us; our prayers are punctuated with overtures to the enemy; even in our supplications we half promise the devil to return, and serve him as eagerly as ever. All this is full of mystery and full of pain. What, then, is to be done? There remains the sweet and comforting doctrine that even where extinction is impossible tribute may be charged and enforced; not only so, sometimes tribute is better than extinction. What if in the end it should appear that it is better that we should be conscious of the presence of the enemy than that we should feel too secure in our spiritual position? What if it should be proved that the enemy himself is to be made tributary to our spiritual greatness and influence? Even this is within the possibility of the grace and sovereignty of God.

The world itself is to be laid under tribute, and must be so laid if the full Christian life is to be lived. The Christian is not removed out of the world, but is set in a totally new relation to everything which the world contains and represents. The world becomes one of two things: it becomes either a limit, or a symbol; whether we take it in the one sense or in the other will depend upon our spiritual state. To the worldly man the world is enough; he wants nothing that cannot be found in its gardens, or drawn from its fountains, or descried upon its horizon; its summer is heaven, its night is Sabbath, its wealth is honour. The worldly man in so reasoning is perfectly consistent with his fundamental conception. Whatever he may do theoretically, he practically accepts but one world, and, accepting that one world, he is bound to make the most of it; it becomes large to his vision, and valuable to his sense of importance: whatever other worlds there may or may not be is to him a matter of no consequence; he has found space enough for the exercise of his energy and the satisfaction of his desires. On the other hand, the Christian man cannot be content with this view. However great the world may be in miles and leagues, it becomes smaller and smaller to the Christian as he grows in spiritual relationships. What before was vast dwindles into insignificance; what before was important becomes trivial; and what before had about it the traces of durability becomes transient and uncertain. To the spiritual mind the world is a symbol, and in this view it is of infinite consequence as supplying countless starting-points upon which the sanctified imagination can operate: all light, all force, all beauty, all fruitfulness yea, and even all darkness, and judgment, and fear, can be turned into texts upon which the Christian imagination dilates, with ever-growing power, and profit to itself. In this sense the Christian man makes the world his tributary. He does not destroy the world, but says to it in effect, You shall give me everything you can supply to stimulate my imagination, to encourage my aspirations, to disclose to me new possibilities, and to hint to me sublime destinies; the very stones of the field shall be sermons to me, and the running brooks shall be books, and in everything I will find good. The Christian man is thus placed in a right relation to all material nature: it no longer overpowers him by its vastness and brightness; it has become to him a comparatively little thing in itself, yet most useful as a pedestal, on which he can stand, and from which he can view ultimate issues and the welcoming hospitalities of still wider spaces, even of the heavenly citizenship itself. This was the meaning of Christ’s prayer when he said that he did not desire that his disciples should be taken out of the world, but that they should be kept from the evil in it. This was the meaning of Paul’s desire that certain things should be used and not abused. This also is the full interpretation of the policy that men should marry as if they married not, buy and sell as if they bought and sold not, plough and sow as if they ploughed and sowed not: all this constitutes an experience which must be lived in order to be understood; when set forth in words it is simple contradiction and impossibility, but when advanced upon from the point of actual personal realisation, it becomes a massive and instructive harmony. Every man has to answer whether he will treat the world from a bodily or a spiritual point of view. Let it be fully known that he is at perfect liberty to treat it from either point; but whichever point he may choose he must accept the responsibility of the election. It cannot be too emphatically declared that spiritual goodness is not forced upon us in fact, if the operation admitted of the presence of force, the goodness itself would be destroyed in that proportion. Man has the liberty to choose the wrong, but not the right to choose it. It should be considered an immorality to take any view either of mankind or time or space which is belittling, or which partakes of the nature of reduction to contempt; where the value goes down in things material it should only be because the value of things spiritual has risen in the thought and imagination, in the judgment and reason. Here, then, is comfort for the rich and the mighty. If they account their wealth enough, the world is no longer their tributary, but their master: if they accept their position in the spirit of stewardship and discharge its responsibilities with spiritual fidelity, then the world is made to contribute to their strength and usefulness, and is in very deed held in tribute to their spiritual suzerainty.

Coming into closer quarters, and making the question still more personal, it will be found that it is possible for every man to constitute his own nature into a series of tributaries to his spiritual wealth and force. For example, every passion which agitates the human spirit should be made tributary to moral excellence. Take, for example, the passion of Ambition. Men wish to become more and more, greater and greater, richer and richer, and to exercise an ever-growing influence, and to live in the midst of ever-increasing applause. This desire may be mean or great, according to the use which is made of it; nothing is more contemptible when limited to selfish ends, and nothing more desirable when applied in disinterested directions. There is a holy ambition; there is a fever for power and influence which may burn to the glory of God. Such an ambition is never satisfied with little conquests or small delights; it contemplates the possession of the uttermost parts of the earth in the name of the King, and would hand over to him the whole heathen world as his lot and inheritance. Ambition thus becomes spiritual enthusiasm; the fire of it flames towards heaven with infinite energy. It is not the little ambition which dwindles into meanness and pitiable calculation as to means and ends; it is the heroic ambition which claims all creation as the theatre of its action, and all nature as its assistant in working out the conquest of peoples and nations, kindreds and tongues for Christ. Take again, for example, the passion of Resentment; that, indeed, is dangerous fire to play with. Some men seem to be naturally and almost incurably resentful; they love to avenge themselves; they are positively delighted when they see how judgment overtakes their personal enemies, and how their foes are dragged in the dust; they do not scruple to call this action providential, or to trace it to divine causes, which seem to recognise with just partiality their own peculiar virtues. Is it possible for resentment to be. made tributary to goodness? Yes; even this miracle can be wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ The resentment itself may not be destroyed, but it may be turned against the sin rather than against the sinner; by this use it is made tributary to the highest purposes. This is the kind of resentment which attests real spiritual growth. At first we burn against the evildoer. Our animosity may be said to be concrete or personal, and we suppose that resentment is gratified by the punishment of the individual offender; it is enough to satisfy our pride or to satiate our vengeance to see the bad man crushed or even destroyed. Christianity entirely corrects this view of penalty and this use of resentment. Instead of allowing us to fix upon the sinner, as if he in his person comprehended the whole problem and difficulty, it binds us to look at the sin, the boundless quantity, the infinite hugeness, that raises its black form into the heavens and casts a shadow upon the sky. Then resentment is divested of its pettiness, its selfish animosity, its evil humour, and is turned into a divine engine and an expression of the very heart of God against sin, which is the abominable thing which God hates. The man who has so treated his resentfulness has, by the Spirit of the living God, turned that resentfulness into a tributary to all that is best and strongest in his spiritual nature.

Looking at this question from the directly opposite point of view, we shall find that all the higher faculties which distinguish man must be made to pay tribute to the spiritual dignity which makes him immortal. Our higher faculties may either be debased or exalted; that is to say, they may be made to impoverish us or to contribute towards the enlargement and strengthening of our character. Take, for example, the faculty of imagination. How easily we may become its victims! A life of utter falseness may be created or stimulated by the action of fancy. The whole world of deceit lies within the compass of imagination. By the perversion of imagination we tell lies to ourselves, we blot out all moral distinctions, we fail to discriminate between the right and the left, the upward and the downward; and imagination delights to show its genius by the multiplication of its falsehoods. On the other hand, imagination is absolutely essential to the interpretation of nature and revelation. Imagination sees possibilities, reconciles discrepancies, makes the rough places plain, and the high places low, and prepares the way of the Lord in every wilderness. Imagination delivers the soul from the narrowness and deceitfulness of the letter, and leads it into the gracious liberty of the spirit. Imagination is the flying faculty of the mind. Reason walks, halts, pauses to take its breath, looks round in wonder, half-religious, half-misbelieving, and puts down its conclusions haltingly and self-distrustfully; Reason stands by the side of the precipice and shudders at the contemplation of its depth; Reason looks out upon the unmeasured ocean, and wonders how any mariner dare tempt the deceitful waters: Imagination, on the other hand, flies across the abyss, spreads its infinite pinions and hovers over the sea as over a drop of dew; Imagination sees in the darkness as clearly as in the light, and is even more at home amid the multitude of the starry lights than in the companionship of the solitary sun. Men must, therefore, determine what use they will make of their imagination, being assured that it will either tend towards their destruction or towards the enlargement and beauty of their soul’s life. Take, again, the high faculty of Wit or Humour, near to which is the kindred faculty, if it may be so called, of Pathos the wondrous gift of tears. Wit may be turned into a tributary as certainly as may the power of prayer. Christ has room for wit in his great household; but wit must be a servant, not a master: it must teach by laughter what cannot be easily taught by philosophy: it must do by a flash what never could be done by a tedious process. Wit, irony, raillery, humour, pathos, all these may be so used as to loosen the solidity of character, or so employed as to increase its massiveness. Christianity never designed to drive away these faculties from the possession of man; on the contrary, it meant man to realise their presence, and turn that presence to the highest use. To lay down the contrary doctrine is to teach that Christianity can only live by the cutting away of one half of our human nature. In this sense, as in all others, Christ is to have the heathen for his inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. Things which seem to lie farthest away from his Cross, his awful sacrifice, his infinite solemnity, are to be brought into service and laid under tribute; this also cometh forth from the Lord of hosts, who is excellent in counsel and wonderful in working. What is said of imagination and wit, of humour and pathos, may be said also of Eloquence and Music. These latter may be made into seductions that shall lead the soul away from the altar and the Cross: or they may be made into servants of the living God, unfolding his kingdom with all the splendours of expression and all the fascinations of melody. Christ must have these as well as every other faculty of the soul. Eloquence must wait upon him to receive the message, and then must turn that message into persuasive appeal. Music must stand by his side to learn his will, and then make it a lifelong study to turn the expression of that will into an unanswerable persuasive brought to bear upon the judgment and the will of the world.

There is still another point of view from which this question of tribute may be regarded. Let us lay it down without misgiving, that all the practical conditions of life must be made tributary to Jesus Christ. Our social advantages will either overweight us or enable us to stand upon them as upon a pedestal whence we can view further distances and greater possibilities. It is sad to see manhood crushed by the very respectability of its environment. Are there not men who are overpowered by their own respectability? such men, I mean, as have to consider the bearing of any spiritual action or attitude upon their social consequence: they wonder how such and such a course will be regarded in society. Such men. are not masters but slaves; they live for others in the base sense of being ruled by the whims and policies of others, and not in the holy sense of service and sacrifice. What good the rich man might do! What a contribution of influence the man of honour might make to every Christian cause I and the contribution would be the greater in proportion as that cause was shadowed and depressed by the haughtiness of other men. Then there is the condition of leisure . Surely leisure ought to be made tributary to the cause of the Saviour. To how many men may not the question be addressed: Why stand ye idle all the day? What a comfort they might be to their churches, to the sick, to the poor, to the ignorant! Even leisure shall be reckoned as an element in the judgment of our life. There are men so toil-bound and toil-driven that they have actually no time to render services of benevolence to their fellow-creatures; from early morning until late at night they are grinding at the wheel, and God knows how their energy is strained and their resources are exhausted, and he will be gentle in his judgment of men so hard driven. But there are others who have no need to toil in this servile fashion, who ought to consider whether they cannot withdraw from certain engagements and devote the time thus saved to more distinctively Christian purposes. There are others who have positively retired, in the general acceptation of the word, from the business of the world, upon whom leisure seems to rest as a burden, who might, were they rightly disposed, be eyes to the blind and feet to the lame, centres of strength and security to every good cause, pillars and supports of the very Church of God. The poorest of all poor things it is to have nothing to do. But I deny that any man has a right to the use of these words. When a man says he has nothing to do he simply blinds himself to the reality of his circumstances, or denies the reality of his responsibility. Such a man must be condemned because he uses false language or because he deceives himself by sophisms of the most selfish description. When all our men of wealth and men of leisure bind themselves in a holy bond to consecrate their time to the service of Christ, the poor, and the ignorant, the Church will be marked by an intenser and holier activity. God speed the coming of that time! The Church is cursed by indolence. Christians are doing nothing until they are doing everything. It is not enough for them to criticise, to pass opinions, to offer judgments, and thus indirectly to magnify their own importance; to work, always to work, every one to work, should be the motto of the Church which is blood-redeemed.

Then there is another and final point which is not wanting, indeed, in surprise. Let it never be forgotten that even suffering itself may be made tributary to Christian character. We cannot escape suffering; but we can determine the use to which suffering shall be put. It may either be a dark presence to affright us, or a veiled angel to cheer us on our way. But this experience can only come out of real life. “No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.” Jesus Christ endured the Cross, despising the shame; and when we inquire into the reason of this sublime contempt, we learn that he was animated by the joy that was set before him. The Apostle Paul rises into one of his noblest raptures as he crushes suffering under his feet and makes it contribute to his Christian steadfastness and joy. He says, “We glory in tribulations also:. knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” The Apostle James continues in the same strain, saying, “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into divers temptations; knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” Nor is the voice of the Apostle Peter wanting in this grand testimony as to the tributary position of suffering in the Christian life. His words are: “Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.” And, again, he says, “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.” Here, then, we have a great tributary system established at the very centre of the Christian life. Nothing is destroyed but sin. Everything else is turned to a holy purpose. We use the world as not abusing it. In the coming and going of its lights and shadows we see a high spiritual symbolism; in the uncertainty of its joys we see how foolish it is for the immortal to attempt to find its satisfactions in the temporary; in all its beauty and fruitfulness we see the beginning of heaven: the morning is a benign encouragement; the night is a gracious rest; the summer is a hint of paradise, and death itself is a door opening upon heaven. Thus we come into a right relation to all things round about us. Until we knew Christ we stood in a false relation to everything; but now living in Christ and breathing his Spirit, we know exactly what the world is and what it can do, and whilst in” some moods we despise its littleness, in others we are enabled to accept every one of its intimations as an assistant to our faith and an increase to the brightness of our hope.

Selected Note

“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” ( Jdg 1:35 ). We find the Amorites first mentioned in Gen 14:7 “The Amorites that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar,” the cutting of the palm-tree, afterwards called Engedi, fountain of the kid, a city in the wilderness of Juda not far from the Dead Sea. In the promise to Abraham ( Gen 15:21 ) the Amorites are specified as one of the nations whose country would be given to his posterity. But at that time three confederates of the patriarch belonged to this tribe: Mamre, Aner, and Eshcol (Gen 14:13 , Gen 14:24 ). When the Israelites were about to enter the promised land, the Amorites occupied a tract on both sides of the Jordan. That part of their territories which lay to the east of the Jordan was allotted to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh. They were under two kings Sihon, king of Heshbon (frequently called king of the Amorites), and Og, king of Bashan, who “dwelt at Ashtaroth [and] in [at] Edrei” (Deu 1:4 , compared with Jos 12:4 , Jos 13:12 ). Before hostilities commenced messengers were sent to Sihon, requesting permission to pass through his land; but Sihon refused, and came to Jahaz and fought with Israel; and Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon (Modjeb) unto Jabbok (Zerka) ( Num 21:24 ). Og also gave battle to the Israelites at Edrei, and was totally defeated. After the capture of Ai, five kings of the Amorites, whose dominions lay within the allotment of the tribe of Judah, leagued together to wreak vengeance on the Gibeonites for having made a separate peace with the invaders. Joshua, on being apprised of their design, marched to Gibeon and defeated them with great slaughter ( Jos 10:10 ). Another confederacy was shortly after formed on a still larger scale; the associated forces are described as “much people, even as the sand upon the seashore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many” ( Jos 11:4 ). Josephus says that they consisted of 300,000 armed foot-soldiers, 10,000 cavalry, and 20,000 chariots. Joshua came suddenly upon them by the waters of Merom, and Israel smote them until they left none remaining ( Jos 11:7-8 ). Still, after their severe defeats, the Amorites, by means of their war-chariots and cavalry, confined the Danites to the hills, and would not suffer them to settle in the plains: they even succeeded in retaining possession of some of the mountainous parts. “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. And the coast of the Amorites was from the going up to Akrabbim ( the steep of scorpions ) from the rock and upwards” ( Jdg 1:34-36 ). It is mentioned as an extraordinary circumstance that in the days of Samuel there was peace between Israel and the Amorites ( 1Sa 7:14 ). In Solomon’s reign a tribute of bond-service was levied on the remnant of the Amorites and other Canaanitish nations (1Ki 9:21 ; 2Ch 8:8 ).

Prayer

Almighty God, let thy goodness appear unto us as a new light shining from heaven. We know it is as venerable as thyself; still, may it be new to us as the dawning of another day; may we have a new sense of thy goodness, a new feeling of its largeness, and may we answer its appeal with the service and sacrifice of a whole life. Thou dost send the years upon us one by one, that we may work in them, and study thy will, and do what we can to realise thy purpose: enable us to see thy meaning, to trace thy hand, to obey thy will; condescend to fill us continually with the Holy Spirit. We bless thee that we have a religious idea of time: no longer are the hours silent to us; they cry unto us to arise, and work, and suffer, and pray, and hope; we would answer their appeal; we would rise early and toil late, if haply by thy grace we may do thy holy will. For all the helps thou dost give us by the way we bless thee; for the day of rest we especially thank thee: for a moment thou dost drive back the great flood, and still the noises of the world, and give us rest in thy house within the shadow of the altar; whilst we are there may we hear thy voice, and see the image of thy love, and be filled with thy Spirit: then shall the coming week answer our hand; we shall be able to guide its affairs with discretion, with enlarged wisdom which is never baffled, and with Christian hopefulness which gives songs in the night time. Thus would we begin the year in God’s strength and in God’s fear, hoping continually in God, living in the Son of God, Christ Jesus the Saviour, eating his flesh, drinking his blood, partaking of his Spirit, and entering into the mystery of his love. May no vow that is good be broken; may no purpose that is noble be frustrated; may our will be set steadily in the direction of heaven, and may thine angels come around us as ministering spirits, giving us assistance, light, stimulus, according to the need of the day. Thy mercies towards us have been beyond all number. As for thy compassions, there is no figure by which we can make them known: they are tender beyond all tenderness, they yearn over us with infinite solicitude, because thy compassions fail not, therefore we are not consumed. We would live upon thy love; we would find everything within that gracious mystery all aid to read the Bible, all comfort in sorrow, all light in darkness; we would see it become the resurrection and the life in the presence of our dearest dead. According to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, be gracious unto all thy people; give them double in exchange for all thou hast laid upon them, that by multiplied joy they may be enabled to see the meaning of discipline, and by added comfort they may know what thou dost mean by the rod of humiliation. Let our homes be precious in thy sight, our little dwelling-places, where the fire means hospitality, where the door means security, where the window means an outlook upon heaven’s light; the Lord grant unto us in our bouses security, protection, comfort, and make our table as a banqueting-table of God, whereat we eat what is good for the soul and drink of the wine of the Saviour’s blood. Be with us in our businesses; they are many, trying, fluctuating, now so hard, now too easy; now a great temptation, and now a violent distress; the Lord help us to get rid of these by working at them patiently and lovingly, in the spirit of heavenly citizenship, and encountering all earthly trials, losses, difficulties, with contempt, because we look for an inheritance incorruptible, which cannot fade away. Regard the children with a father’s love. We are all children in thy sight. Thou hast nought but little ones in all the nursery of the universe. But thou knowest to whom we refer as the children. Give them strength of body, brightness of mind, hopefulness of spirit, and open their way in the world, that they may see that all affairs are under God’s hand and all issues are with the Lord. Heal the sick, if healing be good for them; and if thou dost not heal the body with health that must again decline, heal the spirit with immortality. Grant a blessing to every heart; specially to those hearts made sore and twice tender by chastisement, loss, bereavement, new visions of the littleness of life, and new glimpses of the possible eternity. In all good things and wise ways and holy resolves strengthen, stablish, settle us; and as for our sins, having first seen them, may we next see the Cross, and in that higher sight we shall lose the memory and the sting of guilt. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

Jdg 1:27 Neither did Manasseh drive out [the inhabitants of] Bethshean 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.

Ver. 27. See Jos 17:11-12 .

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

Neither . . . nor. Note the Figure of speech Paradiastole (App-6) in verses: Jdg 1:29-33. Emphasizing the unfaithfulness and disobedience, the cause of all subsequent trouble.

drive out = possess.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Manasseh: Jos 17:11-13

Taanach: Jdg 5:19, Jos 21:25

the Canaanites: Exo 23:32, Deu 7:2, 1Sa 15:9, Psa 106:34, Psa 106:35, Jer 48:10

Reciprocal: Jos 11:2 – Dor Jos 17:12 – General Jdg 1:19 – but could 1Sa 31:10 – Bethshan 1Ki 4:11 – Dor 1Ki 9:21 – left 2Ki 9:27 – Ibleam 2Ki 23:29 – Megiddo 1Ch 4:10 – enlarge 1Ch 6:70 – Bileam 1Ch 7:29 – Megiddo

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jdg 1:27. Neither did Manasseh, &c. That is, that half of this tribe which dwelt in Canaan. Beth-shean A place near Jordan, Jos 17:11. Taanach Of which see Jos 12:21. Dor A great town, with large territories, Jos 11:2; Jos 12:23. Megiddo A royal city, Jos 12:21; Jos 17:11. But the Canaanites would dwell in the land Namely, by force or agreement. So that it appears, although, during the life of Joshua, the Israelites had conducted themselves with a great degree of bravery, and had expelled several bodies of the Canaanites; yet, after his death, they became pusillanimous and remiss in driving them out, and made peace with them, which was the first step of their defection.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Jdg 1:27-34. Partial Successes.Several of the tribes failed to win the prizes they coveted. Much of the allotted territory remained in the hands of the Canaanites.

Jdg 1:27. Beth-shan is now Beisn. Situated in a fertile part of the Jordan Valley, 3 m. W. of the river, it commanded the Vale of Jezreel (Wady Jld), which led up to the plain of Esdraelon. Its daughters are its daughter towns, or dependencies. Taanach and Megiddo (p. 30), towns 5 m. apart, were on the south side of the Great Plain; the one is now Taannek, the other probably Tell el-Mutesellim, the ancient name being lost. Both have been recently explored, and have yielded a wealth of pre-Israelite and Israelite remains (Driver, Schweich Lectures, 1909, pp. 8086), Ibleam may be Khirbet Balame, 8 m. SE. of Taanach. The Canaanites would dwell in that territory, i.e. they emphatically and resolutely maintained themselves in it.

Jdg 1:28. It was not till the days of David that the Israelites waxed strong and captured those cities, after which Solomon put the Canaanites to task work (1Ki 9:15-17).

Jdg 1:29. Gezer (Jos 10:33*, 1Ki 9:16*), now Tell-Jezer, was in the SW. of Ephraim, at the edge of the Shephelah. It has been lately explored by Professor Macalister (Driver, Schweich Lectures, pp. 4659).

Jdg 1:30-32. The sites of Kitron and Nahalol are unknown. The tribe of Zebulun, whose allotment was in S. Galilee, was more successful than that of Asher (pp. 248f.), which settled in the Hinterland of Phoenicia, or that of Naphtali, which penetrated the eastern half of Upper Galilee. While the Canaanites dwelt among the first of these Galilean tribes, and were put to task work, the other two dwelt among the Canaanites, i.e. they achieved at first no real conquest, but settled as best they could. Acco (p. 28), Zidon, and Achzib are now Akka, Saida, and ez-Zib. The sites of the other towns are unknown.

Jdg 1:34 f. The Danites took possession of a fertile valley in the SW. of Ephraim, and tried to get a footing in the rich land towards the coast, but were driven back into the district about Zorah and Eshtaol (see Judges 13-16). Cramped in this territory, the main body of the tribe migrated to the source of the Jordan (Judges 18). Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim. along with Jerusalem and other towns, formed a belt of Canaanite strongholds separating Judah from Ephraim. Har-heres (mount of the sun) is named only here. It is probably the same as Beth-shemesh (temple of the sun), the modern Ain-shems. Aijalon is now Yl, 14 m. W. of Jerusalem. Shaalbim has not been identified.

Jdg 1:36. The text is uncertain, and there was no proper border between the Israelites and the Amorites. Some recensions of the LXX read the Edomites, which is accepted by most scholars. The ascent of Akrabbim (the scorpions) is perhaps Nakb es-Saf, on the way from Hebron to Petra. The position of Sela is not known (2Ki 14:7*); it is natural to think of Petra, but that is too far south.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

1:27 Neither did Manasseh drive out [the inhabitants of] Bethshean 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: {l} but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.

(l) Wherefore God permitted the Canaanites to still dwell in the land, read Jud 3:5.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Manasseh failed to be strong in faith and trust too. Rather than exterminating the Canaanites, as God had commanded, the Israelites made them their servants.

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