Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 3:7
And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgot the LORD their God, and served Baalim and the groves.
7. did that which was evil ] See Jdg 2:11 n.; forgat, cf. Deu 6:12; Deu 8:11 etc.; 1Sa 12:9; Hos 2:13; Jer 3:21.
the Baalim and the Asheroth ] For the Baalim see Jdg 2:13 n. The word rendered groves by AV. (from the LXX , Vulgate lucus) is in Hebr. ashroth (only here and 2Ch 19:3; 2Ch 33:3), usually ashrim, plur. of ashrah which denotes a wooden pole planted (Deu 16:21), or set up (2Ki 17:10), beside an altar, and venerated as a sacred symbol. It was a characteristic feature of the Canaanite sanctuaries, and from them it was adopted by the Israelites; thus at Ophrah an ashrah stood by the altar of Baal (Jdg 6:25), at Samaria, Beth-el, Jerusalem by the altar of Jehovah (2Ki 13:6; 2Ki 23:6; 2Ki 23:15; cf. Deu 16:21 f.). It seems to have been a general symbol for deity. How it came to have this significance is disputed; some regard the sacred pole as a substitute for a tree and a relic of primitive tree-worship; others think that the name meant originally a sign-post, marking the precincts of the sanctuary, cf. Assyr. ashirtu ‘sanctuary,’ ‘temple.’ Here, however, and in a few other passages, ashrah, like ‘Ashtoreth elsewhere (e.g. Jdg 2:13), is combined with Baal, and was served apparently as a divinity; cf. 2Ki 23:4 and 1Ki 15:13, 2Ki 21:7. Was ashrah, then, a goddess, confused with ‘Ashtoreth and sometimes put in her place 1 [26] ? From outside the O.T. we find undoubted evidence of a goddess Ashrah, worshipped by the Babylonians in the remote period of ammurabi (c. 2130 b.c.), and of Western or Canaanite origin; while the pr. name Abd-ashirta ‘servant of Ashrah,’ which occurs frequently in the Amarna letters, implies her cult in Canaan in the xv cent. b.c. 2 [27] Still more decisive is the express mention of her name in the phrase ‘the finger of Ashirat,’ from one of the cuneiform tablets found at Taanach (Driver, Schweich Lects. , p. 82). The goddess Ashratum, i.e. ‘the kindly,’ ‘the gracious,’ is simply the fem. of the god Ashur, sometimes written Ashir. In S. Arabia we meet with Athrat, the wife of the moon-god; in N. Arabia (Tma) the name was pronounced Ashra 3 [28]
[26] The confusion goes much further in the Versions, e.g. Vulg. here has Astaroth; but it is in no way due to any similarity in the names, which are quite distinct.
[27] The inscr. of ammurabi which mentions Ash-ra-tum, ‘the bride of the king of heaven,’ is given by Hommel, Aufstze u. Abhandlungen ii. 211 f. In the Amarna letters the pr. name alluded to is once written Ab-di-ash-ta- [ ar ] -ti, i.e. ‘servant of Ishtar,’ shewing how early the confusion between Ashrah and ‘Ashtoreth began; see also Zimmern, Keilinschr. u. d. A. T. 3 432 ff.
[28] For Athrat in Minaean inscrr. see Hommel l.c. 206 ff., Expos. Times xi. (1899) 127; for the Aramaic inscr. of Tma see NSI. 195 ff. In the obscure expression ‘Ashtart in the ashrah’ the name occurs once in Phoenician, inscr. of Ma‘sb ( NSI. 50). On some seals and gems, partly of Assyr.-Babyl., partly of Phoen. origin, an altar or a sacred tree is represented with what may be intended for a pole (or mabah ‘pillar’) on either side.
. The bearing of this evidence upon the usage of the O.T. is not easy to make out; there was a goddess Ashrah, though in the O.T. the name is probably not to be understood in this sense. At any rate the goddess never had a very distinct existence; in Babylonia she was overshadowed by Ishtar; in Canaan, at a later epoch, she was confused with, or absorbed into, the great Canaanite goddess ‘Ashtoreth, and survived merely in the name of the sacred pole, usually a general symbol for deity, but occasionally, as here, regarded as itself divine and worshipped. In this way, perhaps, we may do justice to all the facts.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
7 11. Othniel delivers Israel from Cushan-rishathaim
The account of this deliverance is given as a typical illustration of the theory announced in Jdg 2:11-19. It is composed almost entirely of the standing formulae of the Deuteronomic editor. The other narratives of the Judges are founded upon some popular story, but there is no story here; the only details preserved are the bare names of the oppressor and the deliverer. As it stands this meagre notice can hardly be historical; but when we go behind it we seem to discover the faint tradition of an actual struggle.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And the groves – literally, Asheroth, images of Asherah (the goddess companion of Baal): see Deu 16:21 note.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. Served Baalim and the groves] No groves were ever worshipped, but the deities who were supposed to be resident in them; and in many cases temples and altars were built in groves, and the superstition of consecrating groves and woods to the honour of the deities was a practice very usual with the ancients. Pliny assures us that trees, in old times, served for the temples of the gods. Tacitus reports this custom of the old Germans; Quintus Curtius, of the Indians; and Caesar, and our old writers, mention the same of the Druids in Britain. The Romans were admirers of this way of worship and therefore had their luci or groves in most parts of the city, dedicated to some deity. But it is very probable that the word asheroth which we translate groves, is a corruption of the word ashtaroth, the moon or Venus, (see on Jdg 2:13), which only differs in the letters , from the former. Ashtaroth is read in this place by the Chaldee Targum, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Vulgate, and by one of Dr. Kennicott’s MSS.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
i.e. In the groves, in which the heathens usually worshipped their Baalims or idols. Or, the groves are here put metonymically for the idols of the groves, which are distinguished here from their
Baalim, which seem to have been worshipped in other places, as the prophets of Baal are distinguished from the prophets of the groves, 1Ki 18:19.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord,…. Both by marrying with Heathens, and worshipping their gods:
and forgot the Lord their God; as if they had never heard of him, or known him, their Maker and Preserver, who had done so many great and good things for them:
and served Baalim, and the groves; of Baalim, see Jud 2:11; the groves mean either idols worshipped in groves, as Jupiter was worshipped in a grove of oaks, hence the oak of Dodona; and Apollo in a grove of laurels in Daphne: there were usually groves where idol temples were built; and so in Phoenicia, or Canaan, Dido the Sidonian queen built a temple for Juno in the midst of the city, where was a grove of an agreeable shade d: so Barthius e observes, that most of the ancient gods of the Heathens used to be worshipped in groves. And groves and trees themselves were worshipped; so Tacitus says f of the Germans, that they consecrated groves and forests, and called them by the names of gods. Groves are here put in the place of Ashtaroth, Jud 2:13; perhaps the goddesses of that name were worshipped in groves; and if Diana is meant by Astarte, Servius g says that every oak is sacred to Jupiter and every grove to Diana; and Ovid h speaks of a temple of Diana in a grove. But as they are joined with Baalim, the original of which were deified kings and heroes, the groves may be such as were consecrated to them; for, as the same writer observes i, the souls of heroes were supposed to have their abode in groves;
[See comments on Ex 34:13] and
[See comments on De 7:5]. It was in this time of defection that the idolatry of Micah, and of the Danites, and the war of Benjamin about the Levite’s concubine, happened, though related at the end of the book; so Josephus k places the account here.
d “Lucus in urbe fuit media”, &c. Virgil. Aeneid. l. 1. e Animadv. ad Claudian. de raptu Proserp. l. 1. v. 205. f De mor. German. c. 9. Vid. Plin. l. 12. 1. g In Virgil. Georgic. l. 3. col. 295. h “Est nemus et piceis”, &c. Ep. 12. v. 67. Vid. Metamorph. l. 11. Fab. 9. v. 560. i In Virgil. Aeneid. l. 1. col. 481. & in l. 3. col. 721. k Antiqu. l. 5. c. 2. & 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
II. History of the People of Israel under the Judges – Judges 3:7-16:31
In order that we may be able to take a distinct survey of the development of the Israelites in the three different stages of the their history duringthe times of the judges, the first thing of importance to be done is to determine the chronology of the period of the judges, inasmuch as not only have greatly divergent opinions prevailed upon this point, but hypotheses have been set up, which endanger and to some extent directly overthrow the historical character of the accounts which the book of Judges contains.
(Note: Rud. Chr. v. Bennigsen, for example, reckons up fifty different calculations, and the list might be still further increased by the addition of both older and more recent attempts (see Winer, Bibl. Real-Wrterb. ii. pp. 327-8). Lepsius (Chronol. der. Aeg. i. 315-6, 365ff. and 377-8) and Bunsen (Aegypten, i. pp. 209ff. iv. 318ff., and Bibelwerk, i. pp. 237ff.), starting from the position maintained by Ewald and Bertheau, that the chronological data of the book of Judges are for the most part to be regarded as round numbers, have sought for light to explain the chronology of the Bible in the darkness of the history of ancient Egypt, and with their usual confidence pronounce it an indisputable truth that the whole of the period of the Judges did not last longer than from 169 to 187 years.)
If we take a superficial glance at the chronological data contained in the book, it appears a very simple matter to make the calculation required, inasmuch as the duration of the different hostile oppressions, and also the length of time that most of the judges held their office, or at all events the duration of the peace which they secured for the nation, are distinctly given. The following are the numbers that we find: –
1. Oppression by Chushan-rishathaim, (Jdg 3:8), 8 years. Deliverance by Othniel, and rest, (Jdg 3:11), 40 years. 2. Oppression by the Moabites, (Jdg 3:14), 18 years. Deliverance by Ehud, and rest, (Jdg 3:30), 80 years. 3. Oppression by the Canaanitish king Jabin, (Jdg 4:3), 20 years. Deliverance by Deborah and Barak, and rest, (Jdg 5:31), 40 years. 4. Oppression by the Midianites, (Jdg 6:1), 7 years. Deliverance by Gideion, and rest, (Jdg 8:28) 40 years. Abimelech’s reign, (Jdg 9:22), 3 years. Tola, judge, (Jdg 10:2), 23 years. Jair, judge, (Jdg 10:3), 22 years. Total, 301 years. 5. Oppression by the Ammonites, (Jdg 10:8), 18 years. Deliveance by Jephthah, who judged Israel, (Jdg 12:7), 6 years. Ibzan, judge, (Jdg 12:9), 7 years. Elon, judge, (Jdg 12:11), 10 years. Abdon, judge, (Jdg 12:14), 8 years. 6. Oppression by the Philistines, (Jdg 13:1), 40 years. At this time Samson judged Israel for 20 years (Jdg 15:20; Jdg 16:31 Total, 390 years. For if to this we add –
( a.) the time of Joshua, which is not distinctly mentioned, and 20 years. ( b.) the time during which Eli was judge (1Sa 4:18) 40 years.
We obtain 450 years.
(Note: The earlier chronologists discovered a confirmation of this as the length of time that the period of the judges actually lasted in Act 13:20, where Paul in his speech at Antioch in Pisidia says, according to the textus receptus, “After that He gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years until Samuel the prophet.” The discrepancy between this verse and the statement in 1Ki 6:1, that Solomon built the temple in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of Egypt, many have endeavoured to remove by a remark, which is correct in itself, viz., that the apostle merely adopted the traditional opinion of the Jewish schools, which had been arrive at by adding together the chronological data of the book of Judges, without entering into the question of its correctness, as it was not his intention to instruct his hearers in chronology. But this passage cannot prove anything at all; for the reading given in the lect. rec. is merely founded upon Cod Al., Vat., Ephr. S. rescr., but according to the Cod. Sinait., ed. Tischendorf and several minuscula, as well as the Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vers. and Vulg., is, , . . This text is rendered thus in the Vulgate: et destruens gentes septem in terra Chanaan sorte distribuit eis terram eorum quasi post quadringentos et quinquaginta annos: et post haec dedit judices usque ad Samuel prophetam , and can hardly be understood in any other sense than this, that Paul reckoned 450 as the time that elapsed between the call of Abraham (or the birth of Isaac) and the division of the land, namely 215 + 215 (according to the Alex. reading of Exo 12:40: see the comm. on this passage) + 40 = 470, or about 450.)
And if we add still further –
( c.) The times of Samuel and Saul combined, 40 years. ( d.) The reign of David (2Sa 5:4; 1Ki 2:11), 40 years. ( e.) The reign of Solomon to the building of the temple (1Ki 6:1), 3 years. The whole time from the entrance of Israel into Canaan to the building of the temple amounted to,
533 years. Or if we add the forty years spent in the wilderness, the time that elapsed between the exodus from Egypt and the building of the temple 573 years. But the interval was not so long as this; for, according to 1Ki 6:1, Solomon built the house of the Lord in the 480 th year after the children of Israel came out of Egypt, and in the fourth year of his reign. And no well-founded objections can be raised as to the correctness and historical credibility of this statement. It is true that the lxx have “the 440th year” instead of the 480 th ; but this reading is proved to be erroneous by Aquila and Symmachus, who adopt the number 480 in common with all the rest of the ancient versions, and it is now almost unanimously rejected (see Ewald, Gesch. ii. p. 479). In all probability it owed its origin to an arbitrary mode of computing the period referred to by reckoning eleven generations of forty years each (see Ed Preuss; die Zeitrechnung der lxx pp. 78ff.). On the other hand, the number 480 of the Hebrew text cannot rest upon a mere reckoning of generations, since the year and month of Solomon’s reign are given in 1Ki 6:1; and if we deduct this date from the 480, there remain 477 of 476 years, which do not form a cyclical number at all.
(Note: Bertheau has quite overlooked this when he endeavors to make the 480 years from the exodus to the building of the temple into a cyclical number, and appeals in support of this to 1Ch 6:5., where twelve generations are reckoned from Aaron to Ahimaaz, the contemporary of David. But it is perfectly arbitrary on his part to include Ahimaaz who was a boy in the time of David (2Sa 15:27, 2Sa 15:36; 2Sa 18:19, 2Sa 18:22, 2Sa 18:27.), as the representative of a generation that was contemporaneous with David; whereas it was not Ahimaaz, but his father Zadok, i.e., the eleventh high priest from Aaron, who anointed Solomon as king (1Ki 1:39; 1Ki 2:35), and therefore there had been only eleven high priests from the exodus to the building of the temple. If therefore this period was to be divided into generations of forty years each on the ground of the genealogies in the Chronicles, there could only be eleven generations counted, and this is just what the lxx have done.)
Again, the exodus of Israel from Egypt was an “epoch-making” event, which was fixed in the recollection of the people as no other ever was, so that allusions to it run through the whole of the Old Testament. Moreover, the very fact that it does not tally with the sum total of the numbers in the book of Judges is an argument in favor of its correctness; whereas all the chronological calculations that differ from this bring us back to these numbers, such, for example, as the different statements of Josephus, who reckons the period in question at 592 years in Ant. viii. 3, 1, and on the other hand, at 612 years in Ant. xx. 10 and c. Ap. ii. 2.
(Note: Josephus adds together the numbers which occur in the book of Jud Ges. Reckoning from the invasion of Chushan-rishathaim to the forty years’ oppression of the Philistines (inclusive), these amount to 390 years, if we regard Samson’s twenty years as forming part of the Philistine oppression, or to 410 years if they are reckoned separately. Let us add to this the forty years of the journey through the wilderness, the twenty-five years which Josephus assigns to Joshua (Ant. 5:1, 29), the forty years of Eli, the twelve years which he allots to Samuel before the election of Saul as king (6:13, 5), and the forty years which he reckons to Samuel and Saul together, and lastly, the forty and a half years of David’s reign and the four years of Solomon’s up to the time when the temple was built, and we obtain 40 + 25 + 40 + 12 + 40 + 401/2 + 4 = 2011/2 years; and these added to 390 make 5911/2, or added to 410 they amount to 611 years.)
Lastly, it may easily be shown that there are several things assumed in this chronological survey which have no foundation in the text. This applies both to the assumed succession of the Ammonitish and Philistine oppressions, and also to the introduction of the forty years of Eli’s life as judge after or in addition to the forty years that the Philistines ruled over Israel.
The current view, that the forty years of the oppression on the part of the Philistines did not commence till after the death of Jephthah or Abdon, is apparently favored, no doubt, by the circumstance, that this oppression is not described till after the death of Abdon (Jdg 12:15), and is introduced with the usual formula, “ And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord,” etc. (Jdg 13:1). But this formula, taken by itself, does not furnish any certain proof that the oppression which it introduces did not take place till after what has been already described, especially in the absence of any more definite statement, such as the clause introduced into Jdg 4:1, “when Ehud was dead,” or the still more definite remark, that the land had rest so many years (Jdg 3:11, Jdg 3:30; Jdg 5:31; cf. Jdg 8:32). Now in the case before us, instead of any such statement as to time, we find the general remark in Jdg 10:6., that when the Israelites sank into idolatry again, Jehovah sold them into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hands of the children of Ammon; and after this there simply follows an account of the oppression on the part of the Ammonites, and the eventual deliverance effected by Jephthah (Judg 10:8-12:7), together with an enumeration of three judges who succeeded Jephthah (Jdg 12:8-15); but we learn nothing further about the oppression on the part of the Philistines which is mentioned in Jdg 10:7. When therefore, it is still further related, in Jdg 13:1, that the Lord delivered the Israelites into the hand of the Philistines forty years, this cannot possibly refer to another oppression on the part of the Philistines subsequent to the one noticed in Jdg 10:7; but the true explanation must be, that the historian proceeds here for the first time to describe the oppression noticed in Jdg 10:7, and introduces his description with the formula he generally adopted: “And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord,” etc. The oppression itself, therefore, commenced at the same time as that of the Ammonites, and continued side by side with it; but it lasted much longer, and did not come to an end till a short time before the death of Elon the judge. This is confirmed beyond all doubt by the fact, that although the Ammonites crossed the Jordan to fight against Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim, it was chiefly the tribes of Israel who dwelt on the other side of the Jordan that were oppressed by them (Jdg 10:8, Jdg 10:9), and that it was only by these tribes that Jephthah was summoned to make war upon them, and was elected as their head and prince (Jdg 11:5-11), and also that it was only the Ammonites in the country to the east of the Jordan whom he subdued then before the Israelites (Jdg 11:32, Jdg 11:33). From this it is very evident that Jephthah, and his successors Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, were not judges over all Israel, and neither fought against the Philistines nor delivered Israel from the oppression of the enemies who invaded the land from the south-west; so that the omission of the expression, “the land had rest,” etc., from Judg 11 and Jdg 12:1-15, is very significant.
(Note: Even Hitzig, who denies that the oppression of the Philistines was contemporaneous with that of the Ammonites, is obliged to acknowledge that “it is true, the author first of all disposed very properly of the Ammonitish war before entering into the details of the war with the Philistines, with which it had no connection, and which was not brought to a close so soon.” When therefore, notwithstanding this, he adduces as evidence that they were not contemporaneous, the fact that “according to the context, and to all analogy (cf. Jdg 4:1; Jdg 3:11, Jdg 3:12), the author intends to write, in Jdg 13:1, that after the death of Abdon, when there was no judge in Israel, the nation fell back into its former lawlessness, and as a punishment was given up to the Philistines,” a more careful study of the passages cited (Jdg 4:1; Jdg 3:11, Jdg 3:12) will soon show that the supposed analogy does not exist at all, since the expression, “the land had rest,” etc. really occurs in both instanced (se Jdg 3:11 and Jdg 3:31), whereas it is omitted before Jdg 13:1. The still further assertion, however, that the account of the Philistine war ought to have followed immediately upon that of the war with the Ammonites, if the intention was to describe this with equal fulness, has no force whatever. If neither Jephthah nor the three judges who followed him had anything to do with the Philistines, if they merely judged the tribes that were oppressed and threatened by the Ammonites, it was natural that everything relating to them should be attached to the account of the defeat of the Ammonites, in order that there might be no unnecessary separation of what was so intimately connected together. And whilst these objections are thus proved to have no force, the objection raised to the contemporaneous occurrence of the two oppressions is wrecked completely upon the distinct statement in Jdg 10:7, that Jehovah sold the Israelites into the hands of the Philistines and Ammonites, which Hitzig can only get over by declaring, without the slightest foundation, that the words “into the hands of the Philistines” are spurious, simply because they stand in the way of his own assumption.)
But if the Ammonitish and Philistine oppressions occurred at the same time, of course only one of them must be taken into account in our chronological calculations as to the duration of the period of the judges; and the one selected must be the one to the close of which the chronological data of the next period are immediately appended. But this is not the case with the account of the Ammonitish oppression, of the deliverance effected by Jephthah, and of the judges who succeeded him (Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon), because the chronological thread of this series of events is broken off with the death of Abdon, and is never resumed again. It is so, however, with the Philistine oppression, which is said to have lasted forty years, though the termination of it is not given in the book of Jud Ges. Samson merely began to deliver Israel out of the power of the Philistines (Jdg 13:5), but did not accomplish their complete deliverance. He judged Israel for twenty years in the days of the Philistines, i.e., during the oppression of the Philistines (Jdg 15:20); consequently the twenty years of his labours must not be taken into account in the chronology of the period of the judges, inasmuch as they are all included in the forty years of the Philistines’ rule. At the death of Samson, with which the book of Judges closes, the power of the Philistines was not yet broken; and in Judg 4 of the first book of Samuel we find the Philistines still fighting against the Israelites, and that with such success that the Israelites were defeated by them, an even lost the ark of the covenant. This war must certainly be a continuation of the Philistine oppression, to which the acts of Samson belonged, since the termination of that oppression is not mentioned in the book of Judges; and on the other hand, the commencement of the oppression referred to in 1Sa 4:9. is not given in the book of Samuel. Consequently even Hitzig supports the view which I have expressed, that the forty years’ supremacy of the Philistines, noticed in Jdg 13:1, is carried on into the book of Samuel, and extends to 1Sa 7:3, 1Sa 7:7, and that it was through Samuel that it was eventually brought to a termination (1Sa 7:10.). But if this is established, then the forty years during which Eli was judge cannot have followed the Philistine oppression and the deeds performed by Samson, and therefore must not be reckoned separately. For since Eli died in consequence of the account of the capture of the ark by the Philistines (1Sa 4:18), and seven months (1Sa 6:1) and twenty years elapsed after this catastrophe before the Philistines were defeated and humiliated by Samuel (1Sa 7:2), only the last half of the forty years of Eli’s judicial life falls within the forty years of the Philistine rule over Israel, whilst the first half coincides with the time of the judge Jair. Eli himself was not a judge in the strict sense of the word. He was neither commander of the army, nor secular governor of the nation, but simply the high priest; and in this capacity he administered the civil law in the supreme court, altogether independently of the question whether there was a secular governor at the time or not. After the death of Eli, Israel continued for more than twenty years utterly prostrate under the yoke of the Philistines. It was during this period that Samson made the Philistines feel the power of the God of Israel, though he could not deliver the Israelites entirely from their oppression. Samuel laboured at the same time, as the prophet of the Lord, to promote the inward and spiritual strength of Israel, and that with such success, that the people came to Mizpeh at his summons, and there put away the strange gods that they had hitherto worshipped, and worshipped the Lord alone; after which the Lord hearkened to Samuel’s prayer, and gave them a complete victory over the Philistines (1Sa 7:2-11). After this victory, which was gained not very long after the death of Samson, Samuel undertook the supreme government of Israel as judge, and eventually at their own desire, and with the consent of God, gave them a king in the person of Saul the Benjaminite. This was not till Samuel himself was old, and had appointed as his successors in the office of judge his own sons, who did not walk in their father’s ways (1 Sam. 8-10). Even under Saul, however Samuel continued to the very end of his life to labour as the prophet of the Lord for the well-being of Israel, although he laid down his office of judge as soon as Saul had been elected king. He announced to Saul how he had been rejected by God on account of his disobedience; he anointed David as king; and his death did not occur till after Saul had began to be troubled by the evil spirit, and to plot for David’s life (1Sa 25:1), as we may learn from the fact that David fled to Samuel at Ramah when Saul resolved to slay him (1Sa 19:18)
How long Samuel judged Israel between the victory gained at Ebenezer (1 Sam. 7) and the election of Saul as king of Israel, is not stated in the Old Testament, nor even the length of Saul’s reign, as the text of 1Sa 13:1 is corrupt. But we shall not be very far from the truth, if we set down about forty years as the time covered by the official life of Samuel as judge after that event and the reign of Saul, and reckon from seventeen to nineteen years as the duration of Samuel’s judgeship, and from twenty to twenty-two as the length of Saul’s reign. For it is evident from the accounts that we possess of the lives and labours of Samuel and Saul, that Saul did not reign forty years (the time given by Paul in Act 13:21 according to the traditional opinion current in the Jewish schools), but at the most from twenty to twenty-two; and this is now pretty generally admitted (see at 1Sa 13:1). When David was chosen king of Judah at Hebron after the death of Saul, he was thirty years old (2Sa 5:1-4), and can hardly have been anointed king by Samuel at Bethlehem before the age of twenty. For though his father Jesse was still living, and he himself was the youngest of Jesse’s eight sons, and was feeding the flock (1Sa 16:6-12), and even after this is still described as (1Sa 17:42, 1Sa 17:55), Jesse was (an old man) at the time (1Sa 17:12), at any rate sixty years old or more, to that his eldest son might be forty years old, and David, the youngest, as much as twenty. For was not only applied to a mere boy, but to a young man approaching twenty; and the keeping of sheep was not merely as task performed by shepherd boys, but also by the grown-up sons of a family, among whom we must certainly reckon David, since he had already contended with lions and bears in the steppe, and slain these beasts of prey (1Sa 17:34-36), and shortly afterwards was not only recommended to king Saul by his courtiers, as “a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and wise in speech,” to cheer up the melancholy king by his playing upon the harp (1Sa 16:18), but also undertook to fight with the giant Goliath (1 Sam. 17), and was placed in consequence over the men of war, and was afterwards made captain of a thousand, and betrothed to his daughter Michal (1Sa 18:5, 1Sa 18:13, 1Sa 18:17.). But if David was anointed by Samuel at the age of about twenty years, Saul could not have reigned more than ten years after that time, as David was made king at the age of thirty. And he cannot have reigned much longer before that time. For, apart from the fact that everything which is related of his former wars and deeds could easily have occurred within the space of ten years, the circumstance that Samuel lived till the last years of Saul’s reign, and died but a few years before Saul’s death (1Sa 25:1), precludes the assumption that he reigned any longer than that. For Samuel was already so old that he had appointed his sons as judges, whereupon the people desired a king, and assigned as the reason, that Samuel’s sons did not walk in his ways (1Sa 8:1-4), from which it is very evident that they had already filled the office of judge for some considerable time. If we add to this the fact that Samuel was called to be a prophet before the death of Eli, and therefore was no doubt twenty-five or thirty years old when Eli died, and that twenty years and seven months elapsed between the death of Eli and the defeat of the Philistines, so that Samuel may have been about fifty years old at that time, and that he judged the people from this time forward till he had become an old man, and then gave the nation a king in the person of Saul, we cannot assign more than forty years as the interval between the defeat of the Philistines and the death of Saul, without attributing to Samuel an age of more than ninety years, and therefore we cannot reckon more than forty or thirty-nine years as the time that intervened between the installation of Samuel in his office as judge and the commencement of the reign of Saul.
According to this, the chronology of the times of the judges may be arranged as follows: –
a. From the oppression of Cushan-rishathaim to the death of Jair the judge (vid. p. 202), 301 years. b. Duration of the Philistine oppression, 40 years. c. Judgeship of Samuel and reign of Saul, 39 years. d. David’s reign (7 and 33 years) 40 years. e. Solomon’s reign to the building of the temple, 3 years. 423 years. a. The wandering in the desert, 40 years. b. the time between the entrance into Canaan and the division of the land,
7 years. c. From the division of Canaan to the invasion of Chushan-rishathaim, 10 years. 480 years. These numbers are as thoroughly in harmony with 1Ki 6:1, and also with the statement made by Jephthah in his negotiations with the king of the Ammonites, that Israel dwelt in Heshbon and the cities along the bank of the Arnon for three hundred years (Jdg 11:26), as we could possibly expect so general a statement in round numbers to be. For instance, as the chronological data of the book of Judges give 301 years as the interval between the invasion of Chushan-rishathaim and the commencement of the Ammonitish oppression, and as only about ten years elapsed between the division of Canaan, after which the tribes on the east of the Jordan first established themselves firmly in Gilead, and the invasion of Chushan, the Israelites had dwelt 310 years in the land on the other side of the Jordan at the time of Jephthah’s negotiations with the Ammonites, or at the most 328, admitting that these negotiations may possibly not have taken place till towards the end of the eighteen years’ oppression on the part of the Ammonites, so that Jephthah could appeal with perfect justice to the fact that they had been in possession of the land for 300 years.
This statement of Jephthah, however, furnishes at the same time an important proof that the several chronological data contained in our book are to be regarded as historical, and also that the events are to be reckoned as occurring successively; so that we have no right to include the years of oppression in the years of rest, as is frequently done, or to shorten the whole period from Othniel to Jephthah by arbitrary assumptions of synchronisms, in direct opposition to the text. This testimony removes all foundation from the hypothesis that the number forty which so frequently occurs is a so-called round number, that is to say, is nothing more than a number derived from a general estimate of the different periods according to generations, or cyclical periods. For if the sum total of the different chronological notices tallies on the whole with the actual duration of the period in question as confirmed by this testimony, the several notices must be regarded as historically true, and that all the more because the greater part of these data consist of such numbers as 6, 8, 18, 20, 22, 23, which can neither be called round nor cyclical. Moreover, the purely cyclical significance of the number forty among the Israelites must first of all be proved. Even Ewald (Gesh. ii. pp. 480, 481) most justly observes, that “it is very easy to say that the number forty was a round number in the case of different nations; but this round number must first of all have had its origin in life, and therefore must have had its limited application.” If, however, we look more closely at the different occasions on which the space of forty years is mentioned, between the exodus from Egypt and the building of the temple, we shall find that at any rate the first and last passages contain very definite notices of time, and cannot possibly be regarded as containing merely round or cyclical numbers. In the case of the forty years’ wandering in the wilderness, this is placed beyond the reach of doubt by the fact that even the months are given of both the second and fortieth years (Num 10:11; Num 20:1; Deu 1:3), and the intervening space is distinctly stated to have been thirty-eight years (Deu 2:14). And the forty years that David is said to have reigned also give the precise number, since he reigned seven and a half years at Hebron, and thirty-three at Jerusalem (2Sa 5:4, 2Sa 5:5; 1Ki 2:11). Between these two extreme points we certainly meet with the number forty five times: viz., forty years of rest under Othniel (Jdg 3:11), the same under Barak and Deborah (Jdg 5:31), and the same again Gideon (Jdg 8:28); also forty years of the oppression by the Philistines (Jdg 13:1), and the forty years that Eli was judge (1Sa 4:18); and in addition to these, we find eighty years of rest after Ehud’s victory (Jdg 3:30). But there are also twelve or thirteen passages in which we find either odd numbers, or at all events numbers that cannot be called cyclical or round (viz., Jdg 3:8, Jdg 3:14; Jdg 4:3; Jdg 6:1; Jdg 9:22; Jdg 10:2, Jdg 10:3; Jdg 12:7, Jdg 12:9, Jdg 12:11, Jdg 12:14; Jdg 15:20; Jdg 16:31). What is there then to justify our calling the number forty cyclical or round? It is the impossibility or improbability that in the course of 253 years Israel should have had rest from hostile oppression on three occasions for forty years, and on one for eighty? Is there anything impossible in this? Certainly not. Is there even an improbability? If there be, surely improbabilities have very often been perfectly true. And in the case before us, the appearance itself loses all significance, when we consider that although if we take entire years the number forty is repeated, yet it cannot be taken so literally as that we are to understand that entire years are intended every time. If David’s reign is reckoned as forty years in 2Sa 5:4, although, according to 2Sa 5:5, he reigned seven years and six months in Hebron and thirty-three years in Jerusalem, it may also be the case that, although forty years is the number given in the book of Judges, the period referred to may actually have been only thirty-nine years and a half, or may have been forty and a half. To this must be added the fact that the time during which the war with the enemy lasted is also included in the years of rest; and this must always have occupied several months, and may sometimes have lasted even more than a year.
Now, if we give all these circumstances their due weight, every objection that can be raised as to the correctness and historical credibility of the chronological data of the book of Judges vanishes away, whilst all the attempts that have been made to turn these data into round or cyclical numbers are so arbitrary as to need no special refutation whatever.
(Note: The principal representatives of this hypothesis are Ewald and his pupil Bertheau. According to Ewald Gesch. ii. pp. 473ff.), the twelve judges from Othniel to Samson form the historical groundwork of the book, although there are distinct traces that there were many more such rulers, because it was only of these that any reminiscences had been preserved. When, therefore, after the expiration of the whole of this period, the desire arose to bring out into distinct prominence the most important points connected with it, the first thing that was done was to group together these twelve judges, with such brief remarks as we find in the case of five of them (Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon) in Jdg 10:1-5 and Jdg 12:8-15. In their case, too, the precise time was given, so far as it could be still remembered. But, independently of this, the attempt was also made to connect the order of the many alternations of war and peace during these 480 years which occurred, according to 1Ki 6:1, between the exodus from Egypt and the building of Solomon’s temple, to certain grand and easily remembered divisions; and for this the number forty at once presented itself. For since, according to the oldest traditions, Israel spent forty years in the wilderness, and since David also reigned forty years, it might easily be regarded as a suitable thing to divide the whole into twelve equal parts, and to assign to each forty years a great hero and some striking event: e.g., (1) Moses and the wilderness; (2) Joshua and the prosperous rule of the elders; (3) the war with Chushan-rishathaim, and Othniel; (4) the Moabites and Ehud; (5) the Aramaeans and Jair; (6) the Canaanites under Jabin, and Deborah; (7) the Midianites and Gideon; (8) Tola, with whose opponents we are not acquainted; (9) the Ammonites and Philistines, or Jephthah and Samson; (10) the Philistines and Eli; (11) Samuel and Saul; (12) David. “Finally, then these twelve judges from Othniel to Samson were necessarily connected with this different mode of reckoning, so that the several numbers, as well as the order in which the judges occur, which show so evidently (?) that the last editor but one compiled the section extending from Judg 3-16 out of a great variety of sources, must have been the resultant of many chan Ges. ” But Ewald looks in vain for any reason for this “must”. And the question starts up at once, how could the idea ever have entered any one’s mind of dividing these 480 years, from the exodus to the building of the temple, among the twelve judges in this particular manner; that to all the judges, concerning whom it was not known how long their period of labour lasted, forty years each were assigned, when it was known that Israel had wandered forty years in the wilderness, that Joshua had governed forty years with the elders, and Samuel and Saul together had ruled for the same time, and David also, so that there only remained for the judges from Othniel to Samson 480 – 4 x 40, i.e., only 320 years, or, deducting the first three or four years of Solomon’s reign, only 317 or 316 years? These years, if divided among twelve judges, would give only twenty-six or twenty-seven years for each. Or how did they come to allot eighty years to Ehud, and only twenty-two to Jair and twenty-three to Tola, if the two latter had also conquered the hostile oppressors of Israel? And lastly, why was Shamgar left without any, when he delivered Israel from the Philistines? To these and many other questions the author of this hypothesis is unable to give any answer at all; and the arbitrary nature of his mode of manufacturing history is so obvious, that it is unnecessary to waste words in proving it. It is not better with Bertheau’s hypothesis (Judg. pp. xvi.ff.). According to this hypothesis, out of the twelve generations from Moses to David which he derives from 1Ch 6:5., only six (or 240 years) belong to the judges from Othniel to Samson. These have been variously reckoned. One calculation takes them as six generations of forty years each; another reckons them more minutely, adopting smaller numbers which were assigned to the twelve judges and the son of Gideon. But six generations and twelve judges could not be combined in any other way than by assigning twenty years to each judge. Now there was not a single judge who judged Israel for twenty years, with the exception of Samson And the total number of the years that they judged is not 240, but 296 years (40 + 80 + 40 + 40 + 23 + 22 + 6 + 7 + 10 + 8 +20 + x). Consequently we do not find any trace throughout the book, that the period of the judges was reckoned as consisting of six generations of forty years each. (Compare with this a more elaborate refutation by Bachmann, pp. 3ff.).)
Chonological Survey of the Principal Events from the Exodus to the Building of Solomon’s Temple The historical character of the chronological data of the book of Judges being thus established, we obtain a continuous chronology for the history of the Israelitish nation, as we may see from the following survey, to which we append a calculation of the years before Christ: –
The Principle Events Duration Years before the birth of Christ Exodus of Israel from Egypt – 1492 The law given at Sinai – 1492-1491 Death of Aaron and Moses in the fortieth year of the wandering in the desert 40 1453 Conquest of Canaan by Joshua 7 1452-1445 From the division of the land to the invasion of Chushan-rishathaim 10 1445-1435 Death of Joshua – c. 1442 Wars of the tribes of Israel with the Canaanites – 1442 onwards Oppression by Chushan-rishathaim 8 1435-1427 Deliverance by Othniel, and rest 40 1427-1387 Oppression by the Moabites 18 1387-1369 Deliverance by Ehud, and rest 80 1369-1289 Victory of Shamgar over the Philistines – x Oppression by Jabin 20 1289-1269 Deliverance by Deborah and Barak, and rest 40 1269-1229 Oppression by the Midianites 7 1229-1222 Deliverance by Gideon, and rest 40 1222-1182 Rule of Abimelech 3 1182-1179 Tola, judge 23 1179-1156 Jair, judge 22 1156-1134 Eli, high priest and judge forty years – 1154-1114 After repeated apostasy, oppression (a) In the East (b) In the West By the Ammonites, 18 years By the Philistines 40 1134-1094 from 1134 to 1116 b.c. Loss of the Ark – c. 1114 Jephthath, judge 6 years Samson’s deeds – 1116-1096 from 1116 to 1110 b.c. Samuel’s prophetic labours – 1114 onwards Ibzan, judge 7 years Defeat of the Philistines – 1094 from 1110 to 1103 b.c. Samuel, judge 19 1094-1075 Elon, judge 10 years Saul, king 20 1075-1055 from 1103 to 1093 b.c. David, king at Hebron 7 1055-1048 Abdon, judge 7 years David, king at Jerusalem 33 1048-1015 from 1093 to 1085 b.c. Solomon’s reign to the building of the temple 3 1015-1012 Total 480 years. All that is required to establish our calculation as to the period of the judges, is to justify our estimate of ten years as the time that intervened between the division of the land and the invasion by Chushan-rishathaim, since the general opinion, founded upon the statement of Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 29), that Joshua was of the nation for twenty-five years after the death of Moses, and (6:5, 4) that his death was followed by a state of anarchy for eighteen years, is that it was at least thirty-five years. But Josephus at all events ought not to be appealed to, as he had no other sources of information with regard to the earlier portion of the Israelitish history than the Old Testament itself; and he so frequently contradicts himself in his chronological statements, that no reliance can be place upon them even in cases where their incorrectness cannot be clearly proved. And if we consider, on the other hand, that Joshua was an old man when the two great campaigns in the south and north of Canaan were over, and in fact was so advanced in years, that God commanded him to divide the land, although many districts were still unconquered (Jos 13:1.), in order that he might finish this part of his calling before his death, there is very little probability that he lived for twenty-five years after that time. The same words are used to describe the last days of his life in Jos 23:1, that had previously been employed to describe his great age (Jos 13:1.). No doubt the statement in Jos 23:1, to the effect that “many days after that the Lord had given rest unto Israel from all their foes,” Joshua called together the representatives of the nation, to renew the covenant of the nation with the Lord before his death, when taken in connection with the statement in Jos 19:50, that he built the city of Timnathserah, which the tribes had given him for an inheritance after the distribution of the land by lot was over, and dwelt therein, proving very clearly that there were certainly “many days” ( Eng. Ver. “a long time”) between the division of the land and the death of Joshua. But this is so comparative a term, that it hardly embraces more than two or three years. And Joshua might build, i.e., fortify Timnath-serah, and dwell therein, even if he only lived for two or three years after the division of the land. On the other hand, there appears to have been a longer interval than the seven or eight years allowed in our reckoning between the death of Joshua and the invasion of Chushan; since it not only includes the defeat of Adoni-bezek, the capture of Jerusalem, Hebron, and other towns, by the tribes of Judah and Simeon (Jdg 1:1-14), and the conquest of Bethel by the tribe of Joseph (Jdg 1:22.), but also the war of the congregation with the tribe of Benjamin (Judg 19-21). But it is only in appearance that the interval allowed is too short. All these events together would not require many years, but might very well have occurred within the space of about five years. And it is quite possible that the civil war of the Israelites might have been regarded by king Chushan-rishathaim as a favourable opportunity for carrying out his design of making Israel tributary to himself, and that he took advantage of it accordingly. The very fact that Othniel delivered Israel from this oppression, after it had continued for eight years, precludes us from postponing the invasion itself to a longer period after the death of Joshua. For Othniel was not Caleb’s nephew, as many suppose, but his younger brother (see at Jos 15:17). Now Caleb was eighty-five years old when the distribution of the land commenced (Jos 14:10); so that even if his brother Othniel was thirty, or even forty years younger, he would still be fifty-five, or at any rate forty-five years old, when the division of the land commenced. If the statements of Josephus were correct, therefore, Othniel would have been ninety-one years old, or at any rate eighty-one, when he defeated the Aramaean king Chushan-rishathaim; whereas, according to our calculation, he would only have been fifty or sixty years old when Debir was taken, and sixty-three or seventy-three when Chushan was defeated. Now, even if we take the lower number as the correct one, this would be a sufficiently great age for such a warlike undertaking, especially when we consider that Othniel lived for some time afterwards, as is evident from the words of Jdg 3:11, “And the land had rest forty years: and Othniel the son of Kenaz died,” though they may not distinctly affirm that he did not die till the termination of the forty years’ rest.
The fact that Caleb’s younger brother Othniel was the first judge of Israel, also upsets the hypothesis which Bertheau has founded upon a mistaken interpretation of Judg 2:11-3:6, that a whole generation of forty years is to be reckoned between the death of Joshua and the invasion of Chushan, and also the misinterpretation of Jdg 2:7, Jdg 2:10 (cf. Jos 24:31), according to which the sinful generation did not grow up until after Joshua and all the elders who lived a long time after him were dead, – an interpretation which has no support in Jdg 2:7, since does not mean “to live long after a person”, but simply “to survive him.” The “other generation which knew not the Lord,” etc., that arose after the death of Joshua and the elders who outlived him, was not a different generation from the succeeding generations, which were given up to the power of their foes on account of their apostasy from the Lord, but the younger generation generally, which took the place of the older men who had seen the works of the Lord under Joshua; in other words, this is only a comprehensive expression for all the succeeding generations who forgot Jehovah their God and served Baalim. So much may be said in vindication of our calculations as to the period of the judges.
1. Times Of The Judges: Othniel; Ehud And Shamgar, Deborah And Barak – Judges 3:7-5:31 In this first stage of the times of the judges, which embraces a period of 206 years, the Israelites were oppressed by hostile nations on three separate occasions: first of all by the Mesopotamian king Chushan-rishathaim, whom they were obliged to serve for eighteen years, until Othniel brought them deliverance, and secured them rest for forty years (Jdg 3:7-11); secondly by the Moabitish king Eglon for eighteen years, until Ehud slew this king and smote the Moabites, and so humiliated them, that the land had rest for eighty years (Judg 3:12-30), whilst Shamgar also smote a host of Philistines during the same period (Jdg 3:31); and lastly by the Canaanitish king Jabin of Hazor, who oppressed them heavily for twenty years, until Barak gathered an army together at the summons of Deborah the prophetess and with her assistance, and completely defeated the foe (Judg 4). After this victory, which Deborah celebrated in a triumphal song, the land had rest again for forty years (Judg 5).
Oppression of Israel by Chushan-rishathaim, and Deliverance by Othniel – Jdg 3:7-11
Jdg 3:7-8
Jdg 3:9-11 In this oppression the Israelites cried to the Lord for help, and He raised them up , a deliverer, helper, namely the Kenizzite Othniel, the younger brother and son-in-law of Caleb (see at Jos 15:17). “ The Spirit of Jehovah came upon him.” The Spirit of God is the spiritual principle of life in the world of nature and man; and in man it is the principle both of the natural life which we received through birth, and also of the spiritual life which we received through regeneration (vid., Auberlen, Geist des Menschen, in Herzog’s Cycl. iv. p. 731). In this sense the expressions “Spirit of God” ( Elohim) and “Spirit of the Lord” (Jehovah) are interchanged even in Gen 1:2, compared with Gen 6:3, and so throughout all the books of the Old Testament; the former denoting the Divine Spirit generally in its supernatural causality and power, the latter the same Spirit in its operations upon human life and history in the working out of the plan of salvation. In its peculiar operations the Spirit of Jehovah manifests itself as a spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and might, of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord (Isa 11:2). The communication of this Spirit under the Old Testament was generally made in the form of extraordinary and supernatural influence upon the human spirit. The expression employed to denote this is usually (“the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him:” thus here, Jdg 11:29; 1Sa 19:20, 1Sa 19:23; 2Ch 20:14; Num 24:2). This is varied, however, with the expressions ( ) (Jdg 14:6, Jdg 14:19; Jdg 15:14; 1Sa 10:10; 1Sa 11:6; 1Sa 16:13) and , “the Spirit of Jehovah clothed the man” (Jdg 6:34; 1Ch 12:18; 2Ch 24:20). Of these the former denotes the operations of the Divine Spirit in overcoming the resistance of the natural will of man, whilst the latter represents the Spirit of God as a power which envelopes or covers a man. The recipients and bearers of this Spirit were thereby endowed with the power to perform miraculous deeds, in which the Spirit of God that came upon them manifested itself generally in the ability to prophesy (vid., 1Sa 10:10; 1Sa 19:20, 1Sa 19:23; 1Ch 12:18; 2Ch 20:14; 2Ch 24:20), but also in the power to work miracles or to accomplish deeds which surpassed the courage and strength of the natural man. The latter was more especially the case with the judges; hence the Chaldee paraphrases “the Spirit of Jehovah” in Jdg 6:34 as the spirit of might from the Lord;” though in the passage before us it gives the erroneous interpretation , “the spirit of prophecy.” Kimchi also understands it as signifying “the spirit of bravery, under the instigation of which he was able fearlessly to enter upon the war with Chushan.” But we are hardly at liberty to split up the different powers of the Spirit of God in this manner, and to restrict its operations upon the judges to the spirit of strength and bravery alone. The judges not only attacked the enemy courageously and with success, but they also judged the nation, for which the spirit of wisdom and understanding was indispensably necessary, and put down idolatry (Jdg 2:18-19), which they could not have done without the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. “ And he judged Israel and went out to war.” The position of before does not warrant us in explaining as signifying “he began to discharge the functions of a judge,” as Rosenmller has done: for must not be limited to a settlement of the civil disputes of the people, but means to restore right in Israel, whether towards its heathen oppressors, or with regard to the attitude of the nation towards the Lord. “ And the Lord gave Chushan-rishathaim into his hand (cf. Jdg 1:2; Jdg 3:28, etc.), and his hand became strong over him; ” i.e., he overcame him (cf. Jdg 6:2), or smote him, so that he was obliged to vacate the land. In consequence of this victory, and the land had rest from war (cf. Jos 11:23) forty years. “ And then Othniel died: ” the expression with consec. does not necessarily imply that Othniel did not die for forty years, but simply that he died after rest had been restored to the land.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(7) Did evil in the sight of the Lord.Rather, did the evil, as in Jdg. 2:11.
And the groves.Rather, and the Asheroth, i.e., the wooden images of the nature-goddess, Asherah (which are called also Asherim). The LXX. render the word Asherah by alsos, a grove, and other versions follow them. (Sec Exo. 34:13; Deu. 8:5; Deu. 16:21; 2Ki. 23:14, &c.) Thus Luther renders it die Hainen, and it used to be erroneously supposed that the word pointed to tree-worship. The Vulgate rundere it Astaroth. It seems, however, to be clear from the researches of Mvers and others that Asherah and Astarte were different though allied deities. For the latter, see Jdg. 2:13. Asherah is from a root which means upright (like Orthia or Orthosia, a designation of Artemis, Herod. iv. 87), and her images are generally mentioned in connection with altars and images of Baal (Exo. 34:13; Deu. 7:5; Deu. 12:3; 1Ki. 14:23, &c.; Mic. 6:12).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
CHUSHAN’S OPPRESSION, AND THE DELIVERANCE BY OTHNIEL, Jdg 3:7-11.
7. The children of Israel did evil Matrimony strongly influences character. A pagan wife will paganize her husband, especially if that husband be so for backslidden as to trample down so plain a prohibition of such a marriage as is recorded in the book of the law. Deu 7:3. It did not require a supernatural prescience, but only a knowledge of the human heart, to make the prediction contained in Deu 7:4: “For they will turn away thy sons from following me, that they may serve other gods.” “In such unequal matches,” says Henry, “there is more reason to fear that the bad will corrupt the good, than to hope that the good will reform the bad.” Hence to all Christians there is an apostolic prohibition, “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” 2Co 6:14.
And forgat God By long neglect of his service, and absence from his sanctuary and the appointed means of knowledge.
The groves Hebrew, the Asheroth. Our translators have followed the Septuagint in rendering this word, groves. The Vulgate Ashtaroth comes nearer to the Hebrew, which signifies the image-pillars of Asherah, the Sidonian Astarte, the oriental Venus. From the fact that these images were the stumps of trees, several versions have translated the word Asheroth, trees or groves. Bertheau identifies Asheroth with Ashtareth, but supposes that the latter is rather the name of the goddess, while the former refers more specially to the idols erected to her honour. See on Jdg 2:13, and 1Ki 14:15.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
God’s First Lesson. Invasion from the North – The First Judge ( Jdg 3:7-11 ).
Jdg 3:7
‘ And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, forgot Yahweh their God, and served the Baalim, and the Asheroth.’
This is slightly different from ‘Baal and the Ashtaroth’ although the intent is the same. The Baalim were the small representations of Baal, which many took into their houses, and the representations of Baal in ‘high places’, places built on hills for the worship of Baal. The Asheroth were either wooden poles or trees representing fruitful trees (see Deu 16:21), or wooden images (‘Asherah images’), mounted in sacred sites, with miniatures kept at home, representing the goddess Asherah. She too was involved in the cycle of nature and reproduction.
The widespread and all inclusive nature of Canaanite religion excludes too close definitions. All the paraphernalia of sacrifices and priesthood were involved in the worship which was widespread and multi-cultural. But its main stimulus was the cycle of nature and accompanying fertility rites, with all their sexual debasement.
“Forgot Yahweh their God.” That is they overlooked the demand of the covenant and their responsibility for covenant faithfulness. Their response became formal and was watered down by compromising with other religions and mixing with the people of the land.
“Did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh.” Compare Jdg 2:11; Jdg 3:7; Jdg 3:12; Jdg 4:1; Jdg 6:1; Jdg 10:6; Jdg 13:1. This is the explanation of why Yahweh delivered them into the hands of their enemies. They disobeyed Him, ceased to worship Him fully, and lived lives contrary to His Law and displeasing to Him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Othniel Judge of Israel
v. 7. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, v. 8. Therefore the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, v. 9. And when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, v. 10. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, v. 11. And the land had rest forty years,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
This section introduces us into the actual narrative of the Book of Judges, the prefatory matter being now concluded. The whole book proceeds on the same model as this section does. The apostasy of Israel; their servitude under the oppressor sent to chastise them; their cry of distress and penitence; their deliverance by the judge raised up to save them; the rest which follows their deliverance. There is infinite variety in the details of the successive narratives, but they are all formed on the same plan.
Jdg 3:7
The groves. The Asheroth, here and elsewhere (Jdg 6:25, Jdg 6:26; Deu 16:21, etc.)wrongly rendered groves, were large wooden images or pillars in honour of Ashtoreth, and so are properly coupled with Baalim. This verse is in fact identical in meaning with Jdg 2:13, of which it is a repetition (see note to Jdg 2:13, and Jdg 8:23).
Jdg 3:8
Chushan-rishathaim, i.e; as usually explained, Chushan the victorious, or the wicked. His name, Chushan, or Cushan, points to Cush, the father of Nimrod (Gen 10:6-8), and the seat of his kingdom in Aram-naharaim, or Mesopotamia, agrees with Nimrod’s kingdom in “Babel in the land of Shinar” (Gen 10:10). An earlier invasion of Palestine by conquerors from Mesopotamia is mentioned Gen 14:2, where Amraphel, king of Shinar, is one of the five kings who invaded Sodom. Bela, son of Beer, king of Edom, seems by his name to have been clearly from Mesopotamia, as Balaam the son of Beer was (Num 22:5; Num 23:7); and in the time of Job we read of bands of Chaldeans looting in the land of Uz (Job 1:17). Chushan, as the name of a people, is coupled with Midian in Hab 3:7; but we have no accounts of the state of Mesopotamia at the time of Chushan-rishathaim.
Jdg 3:9
A deliverer. Hebrew, Saviour, as Jdg 3:15 (see Neh 9:27). Othniel, etc. Mentioned Jdg 1:13; Jos 15:17, and 1Ch 4:13, where he is placed under “the sons of Kenaz,” and seems to be the father of Hathath and Meonothai. According to Judith 6:15, he had a descendant, Chabris, living in the time of Holofernes. The Hebrew, though grammatically it favours the view that Othniel was the brother of Caleb, does not absolutely exclude the rendering that Kenaz was his brother, and so Othniel his nephew. Compare Jer 32:7, where the words “thine uncle” apply to Shallum, not to Hanameel, as is clear from Jer 32:8. And as the chronology seems to make it impossible that Othniel should be Caleb’s brother, since Caleb was eighty-five years old at the time of Othniel’s marriage, and Othniel therefore could not be less than fifty-five, an improbable age for his marriage; and since, again, Othniel could not well have been less than eighty at Joshua’s death, which, allowing only ten years for the elders, and reckoning the eight years for Chushan’s dominion, would make him ninety-eight when he was raised up to deliver Israel, it is a lesser difficulty to take Othniel as the nephew of Caleb, by understanding the words, Caleb‘s younger brother, to apply to Kenaz. But perhaps the least objectionable escape from the difficulty is to take the phrase in its most natural grammatical sense, but to understand the word brother in its wider and very common sense of kinsman or fellow-tribesman. They were both sons of Kenaz, or Kenizzites. Caleb was the head of the tribe, and Othniel was next to him in tribal dignity, and his junior in age, but probably succeeded to the chieftainship on Caleb’s death. This would leave the exact relationship between Caleb and Othniel uncertain.
Jdg 3:10
And the Spirit, etc. This marks Othniel as one of the extraordinary Shophetim, or judges, Divinely commissioned to save Israel (see Jdg 6:34; Jdg 11:29; Jdg 13:25; Jdg 14:6, Jdg 14:19).
Jdg 3:11
And Othniel, etc. The arrangement of this verse suggests that Othniel lived through the whole forty years of rest, but this is highly improbable. The first part of the verse only belongs to the preceding section, which it closes quite naturally. The result of Othniel’s victories was a rest of forty years (cf. Jdg 3:30; Jdg 5:31; Jdg 8:28, etc.). The latter half of the verseAnd Othniel the son of Kenaz diedbegins a new section, and is introductory to the first apostasy, which followed after his death.
HOMILETICS
Jdg 3:7-11
God’s scourge.
In a remarkable passage (Deu 32:8) Moses tells us that when the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. In like manner the sacred history teaches us how the movements of the nations and the restless invasions and conquests of heathen kings and warriors had a special relation to the chosen race. They indeed did not mean so. They were actuated merely by ambition, by the lust of conquest, by the appetite for plunder and dominion. But in the wonderful providence of God they were made instruments for chastening and correcting, or for saving and delivering, his people, as the case might be. Here we find the unsettled state of the Mesopotamian tribes, which led them beyond the borders of their own land, bringing them to Palestine at the very time when the Israelites in the wantonness of their fickle hearts had fallen away from the service of the living and true God to that of the idols of Canaan. There they were living at ease, having partly extirpated the Canaanites, and partly entered into league and amity with them. Seduced by their vices, captivated by their sensuous religion, they had forgotten all the works of God, and no longer trembled at his word, and did not feel their need of his favour. Yet a little while and their apostasy would have been complete, and the very end of their election would have failed. But this was not to be. So Chushan-rishathaim, who had perhaps never heard of their names, and knew nothing of their religion or of their apostasy, mustered his hosts, marched his army, and at the critical moment fell like a rod upon the peccant people. We are left to imagine the misery of those eight years of servitude under a heathen tyrant: the injuries and indignities, the terror and unrest, the grinding servitude, the hard bondage, the bitterness of soul, the wasting and oppression of spirit. The crops for which they toiled eaten by another; their goodly houses tenanted by their foes, and themselves turned into the street; their wives and daughters bondwomen, and their sons made slaves; their national glory turned to shame, their cherished hopes withered into despair. And we are ]eft to imagine how that misery bent the iron sinew of their neck, and brought them back to God. No doubt their self-confidence was broken down. Their illusive dreams of pleasure had ended in an awakening to their self-inflicted pain; sin appeared in its true colours as an enemy and betrayer; the false gods were found to be no helpers. Why not turn to God? He had been very good to them. Why had they ever forsaken him? He and he alone could save them, as he had saved their, fathers from the hands of Pharaoh. But would he? They would try. They would turn to him in penitence and prayer; they would confess their sins; they would humble themselves in his sight; they would call upon his blessed name; they would plead his covenant, his promises, the glory of his own great name. And they did so. Nor did they call in vain. Their cry of distress entered into the ears of the Lord of hosts. His wrath turned to pity; he who chastened when they sinned, now comforted when they prayed. He had sent a scourge; he now sends a deliverer. Chushan was invincible when his mission was to strike; but when his mission was ended his arm fell broken at his side. Othniel the deliverer went forth in the might of God’s Spirit, and Chushan’s power was gone. The waters of the Euphrates which had overflowed their banks were dried up again, and the land of Israel had rest for forty years. And so has it ever been. The obscurer movements of Philistines, and Ammonites, and Midianites, as well as the grand historic drama of Assyria, and Egypt, and Babylon, and Persia, and Greece, and Rome, have always had one special design in the correction or deliverance of God’s people. And though we have no inspired interpreter to expound to us the later movements of the peoples, yet may we be sure that the great events of modern history have been appointed to work out the purposes of God with reference to his Church, either for correction or deliverance, and that the rise and fall of empires, the ambition of kings and statesmen, the conquests of warriors, and the revolutions of peoples, will in the end be found to have been overruled for the glory of God, and for the extension of the kingdom of Jesus our Lord. And in this confidence the Church may rest and be at ease in her integrity, while she is careful not to provoke God’s anger by turning aside from his truth, or growing weary of his blessed service.
HOMILIES BY A.F. MUIR
Jdg 3:8
Idolatry and its Nemesis.
The effects of this communion with idolatrous peoples speedily appear. It was no accident that Israel became the subject of a heathen power, nor are we to suppose it an arbitrary exercise of the right of Divine providence.
I. AS FAITH STRENGTHENS, SUPERSTITION DESTROYS, MORAL POWER. In all these punishments the external and physical disadvantage appears to be the first perceived. But the real loss was sustained beforehand, when faith in the one God was lost. The whole moral life which this dogma encouraged and sustained was thereby undermined. Monotheism was the foundation of the moral life, correcting and purifying it; idolatry pandered to the worst passions, and chained the spirit of man to the outward and sensuous.
II. MORAL ENTHUSIASM IS THE ESSENCE AND INSPIRATION OF HEROISM AND THE RULING QUALITIES. The reverence of Israel in the worship of Jehovah was called forth towards qualities that were truly noble and admirable. The sustaining force of an Israelite’s piety was absolutely righteous and super-sensuous; and it had appeared superior to all that the arm of flesh could bring against it. The Israelite was taught, therefore, to despise the material, the outward, and the merely human. His faith, therefore, became heroic. And as the influence of the Divine Being repressed the passions and developed the spiritual power, it enabled him to restrain himself, to pursue after distant and vast aims; and, in making him heedless of the attractions of sense and penalties which only affected the outward man, it made him influential over others. Hence the religion of Israel marked it out for political superiority and power.
III. THE “SERVICE“ THAT IS WASTED ON WORTHLESS OBJECTS IS AVENGED BY A “SERVICE” THAT IS SEVERE AND INVOLUNTARY. This was the result of a special appointment, and also of a Divine law. The people that had become effeminate by idolatrous indulgence were an easy prey to any military and ambitious power; and so that which had been a weak yielding, or a choice, became binding and imperative. National liberty was lost; the purest and noblest traits of national character were repressed. What a special political power did in this instance evil habit itself may do; and there are other influences whose yoke waits upon the loss of moral power.M.
Jdg 3:9, Jdg 3:10
True deliverance must ever come from God.
It is a curious fact in the history of Israel that it is never until they have acknowledged God as the source of salvation that they achieve any permanent success. It is as if this people were to learn that only by supernatural means is it ever to fulfil its destiny.
I. HE INSPIRES TRUE HEROISM. Of Othniel we have already heard; he stands as a representative of early Israelitish chivalry. But on the occasion on which he distinguished himself formerly, the inspiration was hardly so lofty as to mark him out as especially the servant of God. He is, however, on the threshold of the great life of self-denial and generous self-sacrifice which characterised the judge of Israel. He is a vessel chosen of God for better service. Of the particular influences which marked him out for the high office to which he was called we are not informed. All that we know is, that the Spirit of the Lord came upon him. That he was well qualified otherwise for warlike exploits we know; but the merely human traits of character which he has displayed are nothing without this distinctive inspiration. God finds the man for the hour.
II. THE MORAL AUTHORITY IS DIVINELY CREATED. Israel gravitates towards Othniel as its moral centre. By a kind of moral necessity he becomes its judge, and there is no one to dispute his ascendancy. The prestige which he gains in his magistracy is not injured by military failures. We are to look upon all this as proof that God was with him. preserving and increasing his reputation, and developing the powers which he possessed. When it is said (Jdg 2:18), “And when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge,” we are invited to behold no series of merely human successes, but that which is directly due to his presence and help. And so with all Whom he inspires for special service; he will make their moral influence his care, sustain their strength, and secure uninterrupted success if they put their trust in him.M.
Natural advantages and endowments perfected and crowned by consecration.
I. THE BEST CHANNEL FOR OTHNIEL‘S ABILITIES WAS THAT INDICATED BY THE DIVINE CALL.
II. IN OBEDIENCE OF GOD‘S SPIRIT HE SECURED THE MOST COMMANDING INFLUENCE.
III. As SERVANT OF JEHOVAH HE ATTAINED ENDURING RENOWN.M.
Jdg 3:10, Jdg 3:11
The secret of individual and national greatness.
It was as a judge of Israel that Othniel first attained influence. This necessitated a righteous life and a consistent character. In this way he obtained command over his people, and was able to transfer their attachment and respect to the battle-field. So it was, as Israel learned to obey the servant of Jehovah in civil affairs, and learned to respect the law of righteousness, that it was able to face its enemies with an irresistible front. It is righteousness that exalteth a nation and a man.
I. TO MAINTAIN AND ADVANCE A RIGHTEOUS CAUSE WE MUST BEGIN AT HOME.
II. THE VICTORY OVER OUR ENEMIES CONSISTS MORE THAN HALF IN THE VICTORY OVER OURSELVES.
III. HABITUAL RECTITUDE AND A GOOD CONSCIENCE PREPARE FOR SUDDEN AND ABIDING SUCCESS.M.
Jdg 3:11
And the land had rest-the true peace.
I. IT IS A REWARD OF CONSECRATED EFFORT AND SELF–DENIAL.
II. A PREPARATION FOR HIGHER CONCEPTIONS AND REALISATIONS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. III. A SABBATH OF CONSECRATED TIME AND SERVICE TO THE HIGHEST.M.
HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY
Jdg 3:9, Jdg 3:10
Great men.
The Book of Judges brings before us the heroic age of Israel. The multitude of the people are in a condition of moral and political degradation, but great men appear from time to time whose individual heroism secures the salvation of their nation. Othniel, the first of the judges, may serve as a type of the rest. The characters and mission of these men may throw some light upon the function of great men in the economy of Providence.
I. GREAT MEN OWE THEIR GREATNESS TO GOD. Many of the judges sprang from obscure families; they were not hereditary rulers, but men sent of God with individual vocations. Othniel belonged to the honourable family of Caleb, and shared in the fame of that family, perhaps, partly in virtue of hereditary qualities. But even he is described as owing his greatness to God.
1. Great men are sent by God. When the people “cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer.” There are men who are born heroesmen whose great qualities are owing to their nature, not to their culture or their conduct. He who believes in providence will recognise that such men are “raised up” by God.
2. Great men derive their highest powers directly from God. The Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel. The military and political ability of Othniel as warrior and judge are ascribed to a Divine inspiration. All truly great men are inspired by God. Not only ore they originally formed and sent by God, but they owe their powers to the constant influence of God within them. Bad men of genius receive their genius from God, and are therefore guilty of prostituting the noblest Divine gift to evil purposes. Such men attain to no more than an earthly greatness. In the sight of God their low aims destroy the character of heroism which their abilities rendered possible. On the other hand, all Christians may attain to a measure of greatness in proportion as they receive the Spirit of God; yet we must distinguish between the graces of the Spirit, which are for all Christians, and the gifts of the Spirit, which are special, and bestowed on individual men.
II. GREAT MEN HAVE A MISSION TO THEIR FELLOW–MEN.
1. Great men are intrusted with great talents for the benefit of others. To devote these to selfish ends of ambition or pleasure is a mark of gross unfaithfulness. We are members one of another; and that member which has the highest capacities will produce the largest amount of harm if it refuses to perform its functions in promoting the welfare of the whole body.
2. Great men are needed by the world. The heroic age has passed, and there is now more power in the general thought and life of men than in primitive times. The work of individual men has often been overrated when compared with the deep, silent strength of public opinion, and the slow, steady movement of national progress. Yet it is real and large. Christianity would have lived if Paul had never been converted; the Reformation would have come without Luther. But these movements would have taken a different form, and probably would have made much slower progress without the help of their leading spirits. Great inventors, legislators, reformers have left a distinct individual stamp on the history of our race. Christianity is not a product of the spirit of its age; it owes its origin to the life of the greatest of men.
III. THE MISSION OF GREAT MEN VARIES ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS Off THEIR AGE. In the heroic age of Israel the great men are warriors who deliver the people from the yoke of invaders; later they appear as kings who lay the foundations of constitutional government, e.g. David and Solomon; later as prophets, etc. Perhaps the gifts for all varieties of excellence exist in every age, but a natural selection brings to light only those which are suitable for each particular age. But possibly there is a providential economy which shapes the great man according to the needs of his age. In either case it is clear that there is a breadth and variety of Divine inspiration, so that we cannot limit it to any one form of manifestation, nor deny that it may be found in some novel and startling shape as the requirements of the world assume new features.A.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Jdg 3:7 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgat the LORD their God, and served Baalim and the groves.
Ver. 7. And served Baalim and the groves. ] That is, In the groves. The devil purposely chose those dark places, called Luci quia minime lucent, that his Tenebriones, children of darkness, might there more closely commit their deeds of darkness. Nos pudore pulso, said those worshippers of Priapus or Baalpeor, We cannot better please our god, than by banishing modesty.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
evil. Hebrew “the evil”; i.e. the special evil (idolatry) which had been forbidden as such. See App-44.
God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4.
the groves = Asherim. App-42. See note on Exo 34:13.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Groves
Groves, like high places, have been associated with idolatrous worship from time immemorial. The Heb. asherah, trans. grove means also the idol enshrined there. Deu 16:21. This idol seems often to have been a sacred tree, the figure of which is constantly found on Assyrian monuments. In apostate Israel, however, such groves were associated with every form of idolatry, e.g. 2Ki 17:16; 2Ki 17:17.
(See Scofield “1Ki 3:2”) and Ashtaroth See Scofield “Jdg 2:13”.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
did evil: Jdg 3:12, Jdg 2:11-13
the groves: Jdg 6:25, Exo 34:13, Deu 16:21, 1Ki 16:33, 1Ki 18:19, 2Ki 23:6, 2Ki 23:14, 2Ch 15:16, 2Ch 24:18, 2Ch 33:3, 2Ch 33:19, 2Ch 34:3, 2Ch 34:7
Reciprocal: Gen 21:33 – Beersheba Deu 6:11 – when thou Deu 7:3 – General Deu 7:4 – so will Jdg 2:13 – served Jdg 2:14 – the anger Jdg 4:1 – did evil Jdg 10:6 – Baalim Jdg 13:1 – did 1Sa 12:9 – forgat 1Sa 12:10 – Baalim 1Ki 11:2 – surely 1Ki 14:22 – Judah 1Ki 16:31 – served Baal 2Ki 22:17 – have forsaken Neh 9:26 – they were Jer 17:2 – their altars Jer 23:27 – as Hos 2:13 – the days Hos 11:2 – they sacrificed
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jdg 3:7-11. Othniel the Kenite.The brief account of the oppression of Israel by the Aramans, and of their deliverance by Othniel, is the work of D, whose familiar categoriesapostasy, Divine anger, oppression, repentance, deliverance, peacepractically make up the whole narrative. Not a single detail of the conflict is supplied. The statement that the invaders from the far north of Syria were turned back by Othniel, whose seat was at Debir, in the extreme south, is not historically probable. The basis of the narrative may be the tradition of a struggle between Othniel (i.e. the Kenizzites) and the Bedouin of the southeast, for Cushan means Lydian. Graetz proposes to read Edom instead of Aram.
Jdg 3:9. On Othniel, see Jdg 1:13.
Jdg 3:10. The spirit of Yahweh came upon him, as later upon other Judges (Jdg 6:34, Jdg 11:29, Jdg 13:25, Jdg 14:6; Jdg 14:19). Any extraordinary display of powerphysical force, heroic valour, artistic skill, poetic genius, prophetic insightis ascribed in the OT to the spirit (ruah) of God. For the gigantic tasks of the Judges, in a rude, semi-savage time, there was need of physical prowess, patriotic fervour, religious enthusiasm; and it was not by mere human might or power, but by Yahwehs spirit, that their victories were achieved.Cushan-Rishathaim means Nubian of double-dyed wickedness, evidently the nickname of some ruthless invader. Mesopotamia is in Heb. Aram-naharaim, Syria of the two rivers, i.e. the whole region between the Tigris and the Euphrates (Gen 24:10*).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
3:7 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgat the LORD their God, and served Baalim and the {d} groves.
(d) Or Ashteroth, trees or woods erected for idolatry.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
II. THE RECORD OF ISRAEL’S APOSTASY 3:7-16:31
"The judges are twelve in number, reckoning either Deborah or Barak as a judge and omitting Abimelech, whose status in fact depended wholly on his descent from Gideon, and who was in effect not a ’deliverer’, and a ’judge’ only in the sense of a local ruler on his own account." [Note: John Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, p. 189.]
|
Israel’s Judges |
|
Judge |
Scripture |
Israel’s Oppressors |
Length in Years |
|
Nation(s) |
King(s) |
Oppression |
Judgeship |
Peace |
||
|
Othniel |
Jdg 3:7-11 |
Mesopotamia |
Cushan-rishathaim |
8 |
40 |
|
|
Ehud |
Jdg 3:12-30 |
Moab |
Eglon |
18 |
80 |
|
|
Shamgar |
Jdg 3:31 |
Philistia |
||||
|
Deborah |
Chs. 4-5 |
Canaan |
Jabin |
20 |
40 |
|
|
Gideon |
Chs. 6-8 |
Midian |
Zebah & Zalmunna |
7 |
40 |
|
|
Tola |
Jdg 10:1-2 |
23 |
||||
|
Jair |
Jdg 10:3-5 |
22 |
||||
|
Jephthah |
Jdg 10:8 to Jdg 12:7 |
Ammon |
18 |
6 |
||
|
Ibzan |
Jdg 12:8-10 |
7 |
||||
|
Elon |
Jdg 12:11-12 |
10 |
||||
|
Abdon |
Jdg 12:13-15 |
8 |
||||
|
Samson |
Chs. 13-16 |
Philistia |
40 |
20 |
The total number of judges cited is 12. By selecting 12 judges the writer may have been suggesting that all 12 tribes of Israel had apostatized. One writer argued that these 12 judges each did their work in a different month, thus adding another impression of completeness to the record. [Note: J. G. Williams, "The Structure of Judges 2:6-16:31," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49 (1991):77-85.] The writer also recorded seven examples of oppression and deliverance (by Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson). This sevenfold scheme gives the impression of totality to Israel’s degeneration. This suggests that the writer may have viewed these disasters as fulfillments of the curses in Leviticus 26 where the number seven occurs four times (Lev 26:18; Lev 26:21; Lev 26:24; Lev 26:28; cf. Deu 28:25). [Note: Block, Judges . . ., p. 145.]
Certain formulaic expressions appear in Jdg 2:11-23 and then recur in the record of Israel’s apostasy (Jdg 3:7 to Jdg 16:31). However, as noted in the table below, they appear with less frequency as the narrative proceeds. Having established the pattern, the writer did not feel compelled to repeat these expressions as frequently since the reader learns to anticipate them as the narrative unfolds. The breakdown of these expressions is a rhetorical device that parallels and reflects the general moral and spiritual disintegration in Israel as a whole. [Note: R. H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, pp. 19-57; and J. Cheryl Exum, "The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (July 1990):410-31.]
|
Expression |
Othniel |
Ehud |
Deborah |
Gideon |
Jephthah |
Samson |
|
The Israelites did evil (Jdg 2:11-13). |
Jdg 3:7 |
Jdg 3:12 |
Jdg 4:1 |
Jdg 6:1 |
Jdg 10:6 |
Jdg 13:1 |
|
Yahweh gave them over (Jdg 2:14). |
Jdg 3:8 |
Jdg 3:12 |
Jdg 4:2 |
Jdg 6:1 |
Jdg 10:7 |
Jdg 13:1 |
|
The Israelites cried out (Jdg 2:15; Jdg 2:18). |
Jdg 3:9 |
Jdg 3:15 |
Jdg 4:3 |
Jdg 6:7 |
Jdg 10:10 |
|
|
Yahweh raised up a deliverer (Jdg 2:16; Jdg 2:18). |
Jdg 3:9 |
Jdg 3:15 |
||||
|
Yahweh gave the oppressor to the deliverer (Jdg 2:18). |
Jdg 3:10 |
Jdg 3:28 |
||||
|
The land had rest. |
Jdg 3:11 |
Jdg 3:30 |
Jdg 5:31 |
Jdg 8:28 |
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
A. The first apostasy 3:7-11
The first of six periods of oppression by Israel’s enemies began while Othniel, Caleb’s younger brother, was still alive and strong (cf. Jos 15:17; Jdg 1:13). The writer identified each of these periods with the phrase "the sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD" (Jdg 3:7; Jdg 3:12; Jdg 4:1; Jdg 6:1; Jdg 10:6; Jdg 13:1).
Many scholars now identify Asheroth (Jdg 3:7, NASB) with the Canaanite goddess Asherah (NIV) and the Ugaritic Athirat. They distinguish her from the Mesopotamian female deity Astarte.
"She was frequently represented as the tree of life, which is often depicted in Canaanite art as flanked by caprids which reach up to its fruit. . . . The tree of life is stylised in Canaanite art, and in the fertility cult was represented either by a natural tree, which was planted in the sanctuary, or by a stylised wooden pole, the ’aserah." [Note: Gray, p. 248.]
In the Hebrew text the phrase "the anger of the Lord was kindled" (Jdg 3:8) reads literally "the Lord’s nose became hot." This is one of the most obvious examples of an anthropomorphism of God in the Old Testament. It pictures His anger most graphically. [Note: Lewis, p. 31.]
Mesopotamia (Jdg 3:8) was at this time, ". . . the fertile land east of the river Orontes covering the upper and middle Euphrates and the lands watered by the rivers Habur and Tigris, i.e., modern E Syria and N Iraq." [Note: The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v., "Mesopotamia," by D. J. Wiseman.]
The king’s name was Cushan (Jdg 3:8). The last part of the hyphenated name Cushan-rishathaim means "doubly wicked." The Israelites who experienced his harsh rule over them for eight years probably added it to his given name.
In response to His people’s cries for deliverance (cf. Exo 2:23), God moved and empowered Othniel to lead the Israelites in throwing off their foreign yoke. Throughout Judges we read that God delivered the Israelites when they called out to Him for salvation from their desperate situations (cf. Jdg 3:9; Jdg 3:15; Jdg 7:2; Jdg 7:9; Jdg 10:12; Jdg 18:10). He did not wait until they cleaned up their lives, the popular meaning of repentance. God provided deliverance as grace in response to their helpless cry, not as a reward they had earned (cf. Joe 2:32; Act 2:21; Rom 10:13). [Note: See Greenspahn, pp. 391-95; and Lawhead, pp. 25-27.] Each deliverance was "a sort of new exodus" for the Israelites (cf. Exo 3:7-8). [Note: McCann, p. 42.]
". . . when ’Yahweh raised up a savior’ for Israel he was not reacting to any repentance on Israel’s part. If anything, he was responding to their misery rather than to their sorrow, to their pain rather than to their penitence." [Note: Davis, p. 50.]
Othniel was already a prominent warrior in Israel and lived in Debir in Judah (Jos 15:15-17; Jdg 1:11-13). Note again the early primacy of the tribe of Judah (cf. Jdg 1:3-20; Jdg 20:18). Having proved faithful earlier, Othniel was selected by God for more important service here. At the proper time God endowed Othniel with an increased measure of grace by placing His Spirit on this man (Jdg 3:10; cf. Num 24:2; Jdg 11:29; 1Sa 19:20; 1Sa 19:23; 2Ch 20:14). The gift of the Spirit did not in itself guarantee success. There had to be cooperation with the Spirit for that, and there was increasingly less of both cooperation and success as judge followed judge (cf. Jdg 6:34; Jdg 11:29; Jdg 13:25; Jdg 14:6; Jdg 14:19; Jdg 15:14).
"In its peculiar operations the Spirit of Jehovah manifested itself as a spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and might, of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord (Isa. xi. 2). The communication of this Spirit under the Old Testament was generally made in the form of extraordinary and supernatural influence upon the human spirit." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, p. 293.]
"Since Pentecost (Acts 2) a more general and permanent endowment of the Holy Spirit has been the privilege of every disciple." [Note: Arthur Cundall and Leon Morris, Judges and Ruth (Cundall wrote the section on Judges), p. 74. Cf. John 14:17.]
Evidently Cushan controlled most, if not all, of Israel. This assumption rests on the fact that Mesopotamia lay northeast of Canaan, but Othniel lived in the southwest part of Canaan. In the cases of the other judges, God normally raised up persons who lived in the areas in Israel that were closest to Israel’s oppressing enemies. Cushan was apparently the most powerful king that oppressed the Israelites during the Judges Period. By beginning with the record of his defeat, the writer announced that if Yahweh could deliver Israel from this "emperor" He could rescue them from any foe. [Note: Block, Judges . . ., pp. 150, 152.]
After the "war" with the Mesopota-mians (Jdg 3:10), a period of 40 years of peace followed (Jdg 3:11). During this time Othniel probably continued to judge Israel and then died. Jdg 3:11 probably indicates that Ehud followed Othniel chronologically. [Note: See David L. Washburn, "The Chronology of Judges: Another Look," Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):418.]
Since the years of peace that followed four deliverances numbered 40 (Jdg 3:11; Jdg 5:31; Jdg 8:28) and 80 (Jdg 3:30), some scholars believe these are round numbers indicating one and two generations. [Note: E.g., Block, Judges . . ., p. 155.] We also read of the Canaanites dominating Israel for 20 years (Jdg 4:3), the Philistines doing so for 40 years (Jdg 13:1), and Samson judging for 20 years (Jdg 16:31). However, other lengths of oppressions and judgeships are not round numbers (Jdg 3:8; Jdg 3:14; Jdg 6:1; Jdg 10:2-3; Jdg 10:8; Jdg 12:11 [?], 14). Note, too, that the reports of Israel enjoying rest end with Gideon’s judgeship; after that there was no more rest.
"Many have noted that the narrator writes nothing negative about this man [Othniel]. This is intentional. The prologue has prepared the reader to expect a progressive degeneration in the moral and spiritual fiber of the nation. As the embodiment of the people, the leaders whom Yahweh raises in the nation’s defense exhibit the same pattern." [Note: Ibid., pp. 149-50.]
Contrast the character of Samson, the last judge in the book. The most important factor in the story of Othniel, I believe, was the fact that God’s Spirit empowered him (Jdg 3:10). This was true of all the judges, though the writer did not always mention it. No one can accomplish anything significant spiritually without the Holy Spirit’s enablement (cf. Zec 4:6; Joh 15:5). However, with His assistance, His people can be the agents of supernatural change and can carry out God’s will.
The "minor judges" filled the same role in Israel as the "major judges" (Gideon, Samson, et al.). [Note: See Theodore E. Mullen Jr., "The ’Minor Judges’: Some Literary and Historical Considerations," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (April 1982):185-201.] The commentators vary concerning whom they regard as major (primary) and minor (secondary) judges. Wood, for example, listed only Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon as minor judges. [Note: Wood, p. 7.]
"The reason why the accounts of the judges vary in length is that their stories vary in their instructional value regarding this subjective aspect of redemptive significance. That is, the accounts which are longer present those stories which provide the most helpful guidelines for the Christian life." [Note: Ibid., p. 41.]