Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 1:33
Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became tributaries unto them.
33. Naphtali ] inhabited the eastern part of Upper Galilee; Jdg 1:18. On the S. the territory was bounded by Zebulun and Issachar, on the W. by Asher. It is curious that only two cities are named as having stood out against Naphtali; perhaps the list is not complete, cf. Jdg 4:2 ff. (Hazor). Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath (Jos 19:38) i.e. ‘temple of the sun(-god),’ ‘temple of (the goddess) Anath,’ were Canaanite sanctuaries, as the names shew; their sites are unknown; possibly ‘Aintha, 6 m. N.W. of ades (Kadesh of Naphtali), may be Beth-anath. Both names occur also in Judah, Jos 15:10; Jos 15:59; Jdg 1:35 n. became tributary unto them
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 33. Neither did Naphtali] See the notes on Jos 19:32-39.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Beth-shemesh; a place differing from that Beth-shemesh, Jos 15:10.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, nor the inhabitants of Bethanath,…. Of which places
[See comments on Jos 19:38];
but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; in the same disgraceful manner as Asher did, owing to cowardice or sloth:
nevertheless, the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, and of Bethanath, became tributaries unto them; these two cities did at length exert themselves, and got the mastery over the Canaanites, as to make them pay tribute to them; though they ought to have expelled them, and even destroyed them, according to the command of God, but avarice prevailed over them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(33) Neither did Naphtali.See Jos. 19:32-38. Beth-shemesh.The name means house of the sun, and the place was probably a great centre of Baal-worship; but this Beth-shemesh in Naphtali is not the same as Ir-shemesh (city of the sun) in Jos. 15:10, which was on the borders of Judah. It is the mount of the sun (Har-cheres) in Jdg. 1:35. In Isa. 19:18, alluding to another city of the sun (On, i.e., Heliopolis), the prophet calls it not Is-ha-Cheres, the city of the sun, but Ir-ha-Heres, the city of overthrow, with one of those scornful plays on words of which the Jews were fond.
Beth-anath.Nothing is known of this town. The name perhaps means house of echo, and some identify it with Baneas or Paneas, a place at which the echo was famous.
Nevertheless.The tribe of Naphtali was in the same unhappy condition as that of Asher, living in the midst of a Canaanite population of superior strength to themselves. They had, however, so far succeeded as to reduce the two chief towns (out of nineteenJos. 19:38) to a tributary condition.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
33. Beth-shemesh ( house of the sun) and Beth-anath ( house of echo) are unknown.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, nor the inhabitants of Bethanath, but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, nevertheless the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, and of Bethanath became tributary to them.’
Like Asher, Naphtali lived among the Canaanites, but eventually became strong and subjected them to tribute. Their concern was wealth, not obedience to Yahweh. They did not obey Yahweh and drive them out. Once again fraternisation led to degradation.
So the sad tale of all the tribes is of disobedience to the covenant. Having obtained their foothold they spread and gradually gained control, but ignored the commands of Yahweh and allowed Canaanite influence to degrade them. It is one long story of disobedience. It is one thing to start off determined to be obedient, it is more difficult to maintain it as time goes by. Indolence, greed, and worldliness all combined to seek to prevent it. The way of living of the sophisticated Canaanites must have been a great temptation to these newcomers from the wilderness, and their easy moral ways (Baalism had no ethical teaching that we know of) would appear to many to be preferable to the stern demands of Yahweh.
The lesson for Christians in all this is the danger of compromise. If we do not rid ourselves of temptations when we can, the time will come when they take us over.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Naphtali: Jos 19:32-38
he dwelt: Jdg 1:32
became: Jdg 1:30, Jdg 1:35, Psa 18:24
Reciprocal: Jos 17:13 – put the