CRITICAL NOTES.—
Judges 1:17. And Judah went with Simeon.]
The history is here resumed, after the digression (Judges 1:8-16). Zephath or Hormah.] The latter name, meaning “a devoting,” was evidently given to Zephath on account of the ban of destruction, for the second time executed here (cf. Numbers 21:1-3, and Com. on Joshua 12:14). The LXX. have Ἀνάθεμα. “Now Sebaita, a large deserted town situated in a large plain at the foot of the Magrâh mountains, and not far from the head of the Wady el Abaydh. Five miles off is an old fort, on a steep hill. Perhaps this is the ‘watch-tower’ from which the place derived its name. This discovery was made by Professor Palmer and the late Mr. Tyrwhitt Drake.” [Groser.]
Judges 1:18. Gaza … Askelon … Ekron.] Cf. on Joshua 11:22; Joshua 13:3. After the conquest of these places by Joshua, they appear to have been re-occupied by the Canaanites. This is specially said of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod, even in the time of Joshua (Joshua 11:22). After events and statements show that the present subjugation was as imperfect as the former (Judges 14:19; Judges 16:2; &c.).
Judges 1:19. Could not drive out.] They were “not to be driven out.” “The expression לֹא יָכְלוּ (lo yâch’lu), ‘they could not,’ is purposely avoided. They would have been quite able when God was with them; but when it came to a contest with iron chariots their faith failed them.” [Cassel.] The inhabitants of the valley.] הָעֵמֶק, not הַשְּׁפֵלָה, as in Judges 1:9 of this chapter. “Emek is not applied to ravines, but to the long broad sweeps sometimes found between parallel ranges of hills.” [Dean Stanley.] Thus “the valley” would be suitable for the use of the chariots.
Judges 1:20. And they gave Hebron unto Caleb.] This is repeated for the same purpose as the repetition in the parenthesis (Judges 1:8-16), namely, to show Judah’s general faithfulness towards God and Israel. This faithfulness in fulfilling the Lord’s words, is given as an explanation of the Lord’s choice in Judges 1:2,—“Judah shall go up.”
Judges 1:21. Unto this day.] Therefore this book was written before the expulsion of the Jebusites by David (but cf. Introduction). “Jerusalem was a border city. In Joshua 15:63 we read that the Judahites did not expel the Jebusites from the upper city, or Zion; here we are told that the warlike Benjaminites failed to do so. There is no need to suppose an alteration in the text. This shows that Judges 1:8 records only the capture of the lower city.” [Groser.]
Judges 1:23. The name of the city before was Luz.] Cf. on Joshua 16:2, Preacher’s Commentary, pp. 267, 270. In these verses it is shown that the children of Joseph also, like those of Judah, began, after the death of Joshua, faithfully to execute the word of the Lord. But Judges 1:27-29 tell us that this fidelity was only very partial. They soon ceased to obey Jehovah, and “put the Canaanites to tribute.”
Judges 1:27-29. Neither did Manasseh, &c.] The condition of unbelieving inactivity noticed of Manasseh in Joshua 17:11-13, and of Ephraim in Joshua 16:10, is here shown to have continued to the time of the opening of the history in the book of Judges. Thus the latter part of this chapter does something more than show “the identity of the transactions referred to” in the book of Joshua. It shows that the want of faithful and vigorous transactions noticed there, remained to be noticed several years later. It is precisely this perpetuated inaction which leads to the further sins and the subsequent calamities of which the book of Judges gives the history. It is in this light that chaps. 1 and 2 become a very pertinent introduction to the whole of this book.
Judges 1:34. Forced the children of Dan into the mountain.] Probably with the iron chariots with which they were able to command the valley or more level ground adjacent to the mountains. Thus were the Danites straitened for room, and presently led to seek more territory, as stated in Judges 18.
Judges 1:35. In Mount Heres.] Lit., “The mountain of the sun,” or “the arid mountain.” Probably so named in connection with sun-worship, and the same as, or adjacent to, Ir-Shemesh, “city of the sun,” which occurs in the parallel passage, Joshua 19:41, and called Beth-shemesh, “house of the sun,” in Joshua 15:10; 1 Kings 4:9. It may be the modern Ain-Shems, about seven miles from Ekron, though this seems too far south for the hand of the house of Joseph to have been heavy upon the Amorites there, gradually making them tributary. The LXX. curiously render the first part of the verse, “And the Amorite began to dwell in the mountains of shells, in which are bears and foxes.”
Judges 1:36. From the going up to Akrabbim. Cf. Numbers 34:4, and remarks on Joshua 15:3. Some place Akrabbim ten miles due south of the Dead Sea, and others at the Pass es-Sufah, somewhat more west. From the rock and upward.] “ ‘From the rock’ cannot be understood as relating to the city of Petra, but must denote some other locality well known to the Israelites by that name. Such a locality there undoubtedly was in the rock in the desert of Zin, which had become celebrated through the events that took place at the Water of Strife (Numbers 20:8; Numbers 20:10), and to which, in all probability, this expression refers. The rock in question was at the south-west corner of Canaan, on the southern edge of the Rakhma plateau, to which the mountains of the Amorites extended on the south-west (cf. Numbers 14:25; Numbers 14:44-45, with Deuteronomy 1:44).” [Keil.] A line from the two points thus described is here said to have formed, probably, the original southern boundary of the Amorite kingdom.
OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE PARAGRAPH.— Judges 1:17-36
THE BATTLE THE LORD’S ONLY WHILE FOUGHT WITH THE LORD.—Judges 1:17-19
I. Men working together with each other, and working in the fear of God.
1. “Unity is strength” wherever unity is lawful. Had Judah become confederate with idolaters, such an alliance would have wrought weakness. When Judah went with Simeon his brother, the Lord went with them both.
2. To unite in God’s work is of no avail unless we unite to serve in the fear of God. That Judah and Simeon did this is evident. All Israel had inquired of the Lord, saying, “Who shall go up” (Judges 1:1)? In their victory over Zephath, they both devoted the city to the Lord, and re-named it Hormah, in token of having executed again upon it Jehovah’s ban of judgment (see Critical Notes). Not only did they thus show that they were walking in the fear of God; they also “gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses had said,” knowing that it was God who had spoken through Moses. Thus did Judah and Simeon start aright in this terrible work of war and judgment. God does not overlook even the faithful beginnings of those who depend upon His help and have respect unto His commandments.
II. Men working together with God, and thus working triumphantly. Zephath fell before them, and they took Gaza, and Askelon, and Ekron, with the territory bordering upon each. 1. Success is not because of our co-operation with men, but because of our union with the Lord. “The Lord was with Judah.” The Lord was not kept from working with Judah by the fact that Judah had sought the help of Simeon. Had not Judah taken wise precautions, then the Lord might not have helped. God, also, helps them who wisely help themselves. Yet, though Simeon’s aid was thus approved of, the battle was the Lord’s. After we have done all that we can, He is our help and our shield.
2. The Lord does not withhold His help because our union with Him may soon fail. He who said to Peter, “Before the cock crow thou shalt deny Me thrice,” saw well enough how soon Judah and Simeon would deny Him. Yet God began with blessing the men who began by trusting. The crown of life is promised to those who are “faithful unto death;” but our Lord does not withhold all His mercies till we have proved our abiding fidelity. There are many victories given to us on this side of the crown. He who taught us to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread,” gives that day’s bread in answer to that day’s believing prayer.
3. The union with God that comes of even a small faith, may, nevertheless, lead to mighty victories. The trust of Judah which utterly failed in sight of the iron chariots, could only have been feeble in these earlier conflicts. Had it been strong, the iron chariots could not so speedily have turned it into unbelief. Yet even with this feeble faith, Zephath, and Gaza, and Askelon, and Ekron were overcome. Union with God is everything. The faith that is just enough to lead men to union with God is as victorious as though it were perfect faith. It is not the amount of our faith that triumphs, but the fact that the Lord is on our side. Strong faith has most of rest and peace; strong faith gives most honour to God; but the faith that just suffices to do the Lord’s bidding is also certain of victory. The trembling households of Israel, on the night of the slaying of the first-born, were just as safe as the confident households, if they had possessed faith enough to sprinkle the blood as they had been directed. The trembling gazer at the brazen serpent was healed as completely as the man who had no doubt of the result. She who did but find faith enough to secretly touch the hem of her Lord’s garment found it better than twelve years’ aid from the physicians. He who has faith enough to do his Lord’s bidding, has also enough to command his Lord’s help; and salvation is of the Lord’s help, not of the measure of our trust.
III. Men working successfully with God, and yet coming to a point where God is no longer trusted. “And Jehovah was with Judah; and he took possession of the mountain, but the inhabitants of the valley were not to be expelled, because they had chariots of iron.” Had Judah still trusted in the Lord, Judah had still been victorious.
1. Where faith is severely tried, some promise may generally be found to sustain it. It was so here. God had already said, through Moses (Deuteronomy 20:1), “When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them; for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” Similarly, some promise stands over against all our temptations to unbelief.
2. The promises and our own personal experience always point in the direction of abiding trust. As far as the men of Judah had trusted, they had not been confounded. They had conquered in every field where they had ventured to fight. Our past experience of God’s help is never out of harmony with His written encouragements.
3. In spite of both promises and experience, it is all too easy to give way to doubt. God continually encourages men to go forward, and when, having known nothing of defeat, He sets before them an open door to some mercy in which all previous mercies might become crowned and complete, they shrink back in dismay, and thus risk the loss of everything. One may almost hear the Divine voice saying in this trial also, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”
4. He who doubts God becomes subject to the repeated rebukes of history. The people were rebuked by history which many of them might well remember. At the waters of Merom, under Joshua, they had defeated their enemies who were “as the sand upon the sea-shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many” (Joshua 11:4). In the days yet to come multitudes of their grandchildren would see them reproved again. Bidden to the battle by a woman, Barak, a century later, led his little army against the multitudinous array of King Jabin, and Sisera, and his “nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him,” were discomfited, “and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword, and there was not a man left” (Judges 4:7; Judges 4:13; Judges 4:15-16). Thus does God ever beset us behind and before with proofs of our folly in all our unbelief of His holy words.
MAKING SHIPWRECK OF FAITH AFTER A GOOD VOYAGE.—Judges 1:19
I. Faith failing after much faith in the past. Judah had believed much, and therefore “the Lord was with Judah.” Their previous faith is seen in three things.
1. They had faith to offer acceptable prayer. In common with all Israel they had asked of the Lord, “Who shall go up for us?” &c. That prayer was so offered that the Lord heard.
2. They had faith to accept the issues of prayer. He who really prays commits himself to great responsibilities. God may send him into the very forefront of the battle. Judah had so prayed. “And the Lord said, Judah shall go up.” This post in the van of the Lord’s war had been faithfully accepted.
3. They had faith not only to go to battle, but to win victory after victory. He that girds on the harness for God has faith, but he who continues his trust till the Lord makes him more than conqueror has yet a better faith. This also had Judah known. The Canaanites and the Perizzites, with Adoni-bezek, had been overcome. Zephath, Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron had also fallen. For all that, the faith of the men of Judah failed before the iron chariots. They were like those of whom Paul wrote: “Holding faith and a good conscience;” that in their earlier career: “which some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck;” that in their later. To such, Paul said elsewhere: “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?” It is those that stand who have need to take heed lest they fall.
II. Faith failing by reason of looking on the things which are seen. The men of Judah looked on the iron chariots, and became disheartened and afraid; they should have looked on God’s well-known love and oft-proved power to help them.
1. No man can rightly understand the things of this life. We judge of things in fragments and sections. Our view is too limited even for a bird’s-eye view of what God sees as a whole. Even momentary defeat is often the way to victory. It was so at Ai. What if Joshua, instead of prostrating himself before the Lord in humble inquiry, had given up the war? Where, then, had been the inheritance? We are not told that Judah had been defeated even once by the iron chariots. But what if this were so? It might have been God’s well-prepared way to more effectual victory. He who judges life and God by the few things which he can see, is in much the same position as a man who should attempt to decide on the merits of a painting by gazing at a square inch cut from the large picture on the canvas.
2. That man is wisest who rests in the well-proved love and wisdom of God. Philosophy has not ventured to raise any quarrel against the child who trusts in a wise and good father in preference to his own narrow judgment. It is only when our decisions have to do with the far more intricate perceptions of religious life that some would-be wise men tell us that it is not well to trust a Father in heaven whose love and mercy have been manifestly displayed for six thousand years. “We have no data,” they tell us, “whereby to form any opinion of your religious matters; and we decline to accept your Christianity.” As though any one of them would venture to commend the presumptuous boy who said to his father about some sphere unknown to his narrow wisdom: “I have no data; and I must decline to walk when I cannot see clearly for myself.” A great deal of our walking, even in temporal things, has to be done by faith in some one else. Must it not be so, much more, when the path we travel leads to a life and a world that no living man has seen?
3. Thus, he best hears, and best fights, who endures “as seeing Him who is invisible.” “No man hath seen God at any time,” as he has seen an earthly parent; yet he who walks the path of the Divine testimonies humbly will say, with no lack of confidence, “The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” The whole question of modern faith rests here: Is Jesus Christ to be believed? was He false? or was He mistaken? Till that is settled by all who doubt it, nothing else is worth arguing.
III. Failing faith declining the conflict, and thus getting nothing more of victory. Judah rested, and forthwith God rested. In that case there was nothing for it but that conquest should cease also. In this mood, not an acre more could be added to the inheritance. How silently God seems to have rested! For some time we hear of no single word of reproof or exhortation when He had been thus dishonoured. God left His people to find out by bitter experience their sin against Him, and their folly as it concerned themselves. It is not seldom thus. God sits in silence which we might well feel to be appalling, and leaves unbelief to work out its own shame and pain. Meanwhile, the enemies of faith find power enough to become “as thorns in the sides” of those who have forgotten their God.
IV. The failing faith of leading men becoming utterly ruinous to the faith of others. Judah had been chosen to take the lead in the war which followed the death of Joshua. While Judah was strong in faith, Simeon was strong also. Perhaps it was under the influence of their joint victories that Joseph was stirred up to the conflict in which Bethel was taken. When Judah fell, defection forthwith spread itself throughout all Israel. Benjamin, Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulon, Asher, and Naphtali all failed in the failure of Judah. And not long after it remained to be written: “And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites.… And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and forgat the Lord their God, and served Baalim and the groves.” “No man liveth to himself.” He who fails in faith, destroys the faith of others. Ruinous, indeed, are the results when they fail whom God has called and qualified to lead.
GOD LEAVING HIS PEOPLE HELPLESS.—Judges 1:19
“The Lord was with Judah” only so long as Judah believed. God declines to help those who decline to trust in Him. It would do His people harm. It would put a premium on doubt, and timidity, and idleness, were the Lord to present His soldiers with victory while they refused the conflict. Dr. Thomas remarks on this verse: “It is said that God could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they—the inhabitants of the mountain—had chariots of iron.” But it is not said that God could not drive them out. Even in the English text the sense is clearly intimated as being—Judah could not drive them out, the nearest antecedent being “Judah,” and not “the Lord.” But the Hebrew certainly does not say that “God could not” drive them out. The literal rendering of the verse stands thus: “And was Jehovah with Judah, and he took possession of the mountain; but not to be expelled (were) the inhabitants of the valley, for chariots of iron (were) to them.” This is very different from “God could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley.” It is undoubtedly true, as a point of doctrine, that God cannot do that which is wrong, and which would work evil. It is thus similarly said of Christ in His own country, “He could there do no mighty work,” the reason assigned, elsewhere, being that this was “because of their unbelief.” God could not help the unbelieving men of Judah with mighty works: still, that is not how “it is said” in this verse.
NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF THE WICKED
“As Augustine has said, ‘God is not a cruel tormentor, but a just corrector.’ Moreover, because holy men are very familiar with God, and therefore when by some heavenly revelation they are ascertained of His will, because they exceedingly love Him they cannot but allow His sentence; yea, they faithfully pray that the same may be accomplished; although, in that they be men, they be both sorry and also take it grievously to have their neighbours so vexed. After which sort Samuel mourned for Saul the king, whom he knew nevertheless to be rejected of God. Jeremiah also wept for the captivity which was at hand; and Christ wept for the city of Jerusalem which should be destroyed. They which be men indeed, cannot but be sorry for their neighbours and their own flesh when it is afflicted. Neither doth God require of us that we be stoical and lacking in compassion.” [Peter Martyr.]
THE GIFT OF HEBRON TO CALEB.—Judges 1:20
This verse is certainly not “a conclusive proof that this campaign (of Judah and Simeon) took place in Joshua’s lifetime,” as stated by the Speaker’s Commentary. All the time the Canaanites were in such force in the lot of Judah as is represented in Judges 1:3-6, Caleb could not have held Hebron in peaceable security. He might have continued to hold the city from the time of his victory (which is recorded both in Joshua 15:13-14, and in the retrospective parenthesis of this chapter) to the time of the campaign of Judah and Simeon; but the city was, probably, more or less threatened by the growing power of the Canaanites. After the victories of the two tribes, Caleb’s possession of Hebron would have been comparatively undisturbed. But the men of Judah, so far from taking any advantage over Caleb, gave him Hebron, as Moses had said. They did not give him the city for the first time; Joshua had given it before the men of Judah gave it, and Moses before Joshua. To say that the gift as stated here is “a conclusive proof that the campaign took place in Joshua’s lifetime” has no more force than to say that Joshua 14:13 is a conclusive proof that Joshua’s gift of Hebron took place in the lifetime of Moses. Hebron was given to Caleb, in promise, by Moses; it was re-given by Joshua, when the adjacent country had been partly subdued. With this title to the city, Caleb wrested it from the Canaanites, and apparently held it amid increasing dangers till the overthrow of Adoni-bezek and the conquest of Zephath and the western strongholds, at which time its security was threatened. From this danger the two tribes delivered Hebron; and as situated in their own territory, and liberated by their efforts, the men of Judah still gave the city to Caleb. They thus confirmed the previous gift of both Moses and Joshua. The verse is really needed here as an assurance that Caleb was suffered to retain his heritage. The retrospective clause with which the verse closes, is simply a repetition, quite in keeping with the author’s manner throughout the chapter.
THE INACTIVITY OF BENJAMIN.—Judges 1:21
The boundary of Judah and Benjamin divided the city of Jerusalem, the lower city belonging to the former tribe, and the upper city with its stronghold, so long retained by the Jebusites, to the latter. The eighth verse tells us that the men of Judah had taken that part of the city which lay in their territory, while this verse records the slothfulness of the men of Benjamin in suffering their part of Jerusalem to remain in the hands of their enemies.
I. Benjamin’s want of faith. There was want of faith
(1) in God’s warnings (Numbers 33:55);
(2) in God’s willingness or power to help;
(3) in the blessings which ever follow obedience.
II. Benjamin’s want of love. Love to God should have prompted the people at least to make an effort to do as God had commanded them. They seem, however, to have made no attempt to take the city. The Lord had done great things for them, but they were not glad enough in Him even to strive to obey. Love to their brethren should have stimulated them to the attack. This motive failed also.
III. Benjamin’s want of zeal. The people of the tribe seem to have quietly settled down to make the best of things as they were. He who lacks faith and love now will be no less wanting in zeal for the Lord of Hosts. The issues of life as to life’s conflicts are also out of the heart, and he who would win many victories must keep his heart with all diligence.
IV. Benjamin’s readiness to copy a bad example. Judah was the first to go up against the Canaanites. For a time the men of Judah walked by faith, and conquered; then they walked by sight, and the iron chariots were too much for the courage which depended on what could be seen. The Benjaminites were far more ready to copy the bad example than the good. Evil is ever more contagious than virtue. The pre-disposition of the heart is ever toward sin. He who walks much with evil-doers has need of great grace to keep him from following evil.
V. Benjamin’s lost opportunity. The city which the people feared to attack now was not taken till four hundred years afterwards (2 Samuel 5:6-10). The Lord was waiting to be with Benjamin, just as much as He was “with Judah” and “with Joseph.” But Benjamin let the day for conflict go by, and for four centuries no occasion of sufficient promise to stimulate them to victory ever returned. Even when the city was taken, Saul the Benjaminite king was passed over, and David who was of, in this matter, the more faithful tribe of Judah, was chosen as the instrument for adding the stronghold of Zion to the territory of Israel. Henceforth, this part of Jerusalem became at once “the City of David,” “the City of the Great King,” and the site of the temple of Jehovah. Opportunity once forfeited by sinful unbelief and sloth is often slow to return. “To-day is the accepted time” for a good many mercies that may have fled for ever to-morrow.
CHRONOLOGICAL NOTE.—“We have a firm datum for determining more minutely the time when the book of Judges was written, in this statement that the Jebusites in Jerusalem had not been rooted out by the Israelites, but dwelt there with the children of Benjamin ‘unto this day.’ The Jebusites remained in possession of Jerusalem, or of the citadel Zion, or the upper town of Jerusalem, until the time when David went against Jerusalem after the twelve tribes had acknowledged him as king, took the fortress of Zion, and made it the capital of his kingdom under the name of the City of David (2 Samuel 5:6-9; 1 Chronicles 11:4-9). Consequently the book was written before this event, either during the first seven years of the reign of David at Hebron, or during the reign of Saul, under whom the Israelites already enjoyed the benefits of a monarchical government, since Saul not only fought with bravery against all the enemies of Israel, and ‘delivered Israel out of the hands of them that spoiled them’ (1 Samuel 14:47-48), but exerted himself to restore the authority of the laws of God in his kingdom, as is evident from the fact that he banished the wizards and necromancers out of the land (1 Samuel 28:9). The Talmudical statement therefore in Bava-bathra, to the effect that Samuel was the author of the book, may be so far correct, that if it was not written by Samuel himself towards the close of his life, it was written at his instigation by a younger prophet of his school. More than this it is impossible to decide. So much, however, is at all events certain, that the book does not contain traces of a later age either in its contents or in its language, and that Judges 18:30 does not refer to the time of the captivity.” [Keil.]
Dr. Cassel further remarks on this point, “If our book had not been written before the time of David, references to his reign could not be wanting. From Othniel’s time, the tribe of Judah, David’s tribe, falls into the background. The mention of it in the history of Samson is far from honourable. The relatively copious treatment of affairs in which Benjamin figures, points to the time of King Saul. While the history of Othniel is quite summarily related, that of Ehud is drawn out to the minutest detail. Similarly rich is the flow of tradition in the narrative concerning Gibeah (Judges 19 seq.). Saul says of himself that he is ‘of the smallest of the tribes’ (1 Samuel 9:21). This history of Gibeah explains the cause of Benjamin’s smallness, and traces it to the savage war made on him by Israel.”
FAITH, OBEDIENCE, AND VICTORY.—Judges 1:22
I. Faith and obedience helped by brotherly union. The house of Joseph consisted of both Manasseh and Ephraim. So long as they worked together, these brother-tribes seem to have gathered encouragement from each other. When they were united, Bethel was fearlessly, diligently, and successfully attacked. Separating from each other, both Manasseh and Ephraim are found slothful, weak, and disobedient (Judges 1:27-29). Says a Spanish proverb: “Three, helping each other, are as good as six.” Similarly an Italian proverb tells us that, “Three brothers are three castles.” In the Lord’s work we all need each other.
II. Faith and obedience stimulated on the ground of former mercies. It was against Bethel that the children of Joseph went up. The very name was an inspiration: fighting for the “house of God,” would not God certainly be with them? But the name had, no less, an inspiring history. Here good old Jacob, their common father, had seen his vision of the angel-trodden ladder, set up between earth and heaven, and “he called the name of that place Bethel” (Genesis 28:19). William Hazlitt remarks in his opening lecture on the English Poets: “There can never be another Jacob’s dream. Since that time, the heavens have gone further off, and grown astronomical.” Doubtless; there cannot be any dreaming of the ancient vision over again, yet who does not feel that the original dream has lost nothing of its power even to us, the astronomical vastness of our unladdered heavens notwithstanding. What an inspiration it must have been to the sons of Joseph as they went to battle on this scene, made so bright to Jacob with the vision of ascending and descending angels of his God! Again, God had sent Jacob to Bethel after his return from Laban. Here, at the Divine command, he had built an altar; at this very spot the nurse of Jacob’s mother lay interred; here the new name “Israel” had been confirmed; on this very ground the promise had been given that “a nation and a company of nations” should be of Jacob their father; here the covenant to Abraham and Isaac had been renewed, “And the land, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land;” and here, for the second time, had Jacob set up a pillar of stone, and poured oil upon the top of it, and called the name of the place the “house of God.” That this history was carefully remembered is clear from the fact that the name Bethel was again substituted for Luz; and that the history was reverently cherished is no less clear from the way in which for a long time after, Bethel was made a place for enquiring of the Lord (cf. Judges 20:18; Judges 20:26-27; Judges 21:2). These memories of God’s mercies to Jacob, and of the absolute promise on that very spot to give the land to his seed, could not have done other than make the house of Joseph strong for this conflict. The very stones could hardly “hold their peace” if faith and zeal should falter here. On not a few of the fields where God calls us to conflict, similar encouragements wait to strengthen all who will reverently search them out.
III. Faith and obedience helped by the Lord at the very outset. “And the Lord was with them.” No sooner does Joseph go up to the Lord’s war, than the Lord goes with him. He who sets out for God, and in obedience to God, has God with him even at setting out. On the contrary, he who declines to begin to walk in the way of the Divine commandments, can never have it truly written that “the Lord was with him.” This word occurs no more in this chapter. It was not spoken of any of the tribes who did not attempt to drive out the inhabitants; equally, when Manasseh and Ephraim failed in faith and obedience, nothing more is said of the Lord’s presence. He who never begins to serve God never feels able to serve; he who sincerely attempts to fight against sin in himself or in others, only finds that he is helpless when he ceases to be sincere. Even the withered hand can begin to move when it tries to lift itself at the bidding of Christ.
IV. Faith and obedience crowned with victory. Bethel fell, and its inhabitants were slain, according to the Divine commandment. There can be no question of victory when we begin and continue and end our warfare with the Lord of Hosts for our helper. If the Lord be on our side, greater is He that is for us than all they which be against us (cf. 2 Kings 6:16; 2 Chronicles 32:7; Psalms 55:18). To all who faithfully contend, seeking His help, Christ has certainly promised the crown of life.
LUZ AND BETHEL.—Judges 1:23
The word Bethel occurs before, Genesis 28:19, in which place this name is said to have been given to Luz by Jacob. In Genesis 12:8, we are told that Abram removed from the plain of Moreh “unto a mountain on the east of Bethel.” This is only an evidence that the book of Genesis was written after Jacob’s vision, and that the new name which Jacob had given to Luz is carried back by the author, with an anachronism, to the time of Abram. As to the slightly different sites of Luz and Bethel, see Preacher’s Commentary on Joshua, p. 270.
THE TRAITOROUS BETHELITE.—Judges 1:24-25
There is no reason for thinking that this man believed in God, and that from motives of religious faith he betrayed his city to the Israelites. Some of the older authors have compared his case to that of Rahab. It need hardly be said that, in motive, they are evidently and utterly unlike. Rahab was manifestly overwhelmed with the conviction that the God of the Israelites was the true God, that the end of her people was at hand; and in that belief she sought a refuge for herself and her household under the mighty God of Jacob, through the medium of His people. This Bethelite probably believed nothing of the kind. He expressed no faith in God; not casting in his lot with God’s people, he evidently got away from them, with his family, as soon as he could make his escape; and, so far from being oppressed by the sense of his traitorous conduct, he called his new city by the name of the city he had helped to deliver up to the Israelites. On the other hand, Dr. Adam Clarke’s abuse of the poor creature is needlessly extravagant. He was probably no willing traitor. He did not betray his city for gain. The man had not had the advantage of Dr. Clarke’s training, nor had he breathed the healthy atmosphere of a land which had long been blessed with great civil and religious liberty and knowledge. He was merely a weak man, trembling for his personal safety, and having perhaps no small fear for his family. His act was not an exalted one, but the ordeal which he had to undergo might have sorely tried even a better man.
THE BETHELITE IN “THE LAND OF THE HITTITES.”—Judges 1:26
The land of the Hittites must not be confused with the land of the Chittim, which probably had its original centre on the sea-coast north of Sidon, and subsequently extended to Cyprus and to some of the adjacent islands and coasts of the Mediterranean. Dr. Cassel is of opinion that “Movers has successfully maintained that חִתִּים and כִּתִּים refer to the same race of people.” This, however, cannot be, unless we are prepared to ignore the Biblical account of their entirely distinct origin. The Chittim, or more correctly the Kittim, were descended from Japheth; while the Hittites were the sons of Heth, or Cheth, and thus belonged to the family of Ham. The Scripture account of the two races is, from the first, so distinctly and consistently maintained, both as to the territory occupied and the Hebrew spelling of the two names, that no considerable intermixture of the two families is at all probable. In Genesis 10:4 and 1 Chronicles 1:7, Kittim, the son of Javan, the son of Japheth, is named as the father of the people dwelling in what the E.V. invariably calls Chittim. From the first to the last of Old Testament notices, these Kittim are mentioned as a maritime people, dwelling to the north of Canaan, and they are, moreover, repeatedly associated with the great Tyrian and Sidonian commerce (cf. Numbers 24:24; Isaiah 23:1; Isaiah 23:12; Jeremiah 2:10; Ezekiel 27:6; Daniel 11:30). On the other hand, the Hittites are kept equally distinct both orthographically and geographically. Though a numerous people, they were manifestly of feebler character and of more uncertain locality than the hardy commercial Kittim of the north. Tribally, their dwelling-place twice appears as being in the neighbourhood of Hebron (Genesis 23:17-20; Genesis 49:30), and twice as “in the mountains” (Numbers 13:29; Joshua 11:3). Generically, the words חִתִּים (Hittites), and מַלְכֵי הַחִתִּים (Kings of the Hittites), are occasionally used to describe the Canaanites under a common appellation (Joshua 1:4; 1 Kings 10:29; 2 Kings 7:6). With these facts in view, it obviously cannot be correct to treat the Hittites and the inhabitants of Kittim as “the same race of people,” notwithstanding that subsequent Phœnician coins may be “designated by the terms חת and בת.”
As to the town built by this Hittite from Bethel, the site of it is unknown. Speaking of the ruin of the older Shechem, Dean Stanley remarks: “The very graphic description of Shechem in Theodotus as ‘under the roots of the mountain’ is decisive against placing it on the summit of Gerizim. He speaks of the name ‘Louzah,’ as given to the ruins of Gerizim by the Samaritan high-priest at Nâblus, which certainly agrees with the position of Luza noticed by Jerome (Onomast., Luza). Can this be the second Luz, founded by the inhabitants of Luz when expelled by the Ephraimites from Bethel?” This may be, but it scarcely seems probable when we are told that the man went “into the land of the Hittites” to build his city, and when we bear in mind that Ebal and Gerizim were held at this time by the powerful tribe of Ephraim, and that only Gezer is named, in Judges 1:29, as a place from which the Ephraimites had failed to expel the Canaanites,—Gezer being near to Beth-horon, and standing on the southern boundary-line of the tribe (Joshua 16:3).
HELPERS OF THE LORD’S PEOPLE
“There are four classes of persons whose various conduct towards the Church of God, and to the Gospel preached by her, is represented by four cases in the books of Joshua and Judges.
“
1. There is the case of the man of Bethel. He might have dwelt with the men of Joseph at Bethel, and have become a worshipper of the true God, and have thus become a citizen for ever of the true Bethel, the house of God, which will stand for ever. But he quits the house of God to propagate heathenism and idolatry. The man of Bethel, therefore, is presented to us in this Scripture as a specimen of that class of persons who help the Church of God in her work from motives of fear, or of worldly benefit, and not from love of God; and who, when they have opportunities of spiritual benefit, slight those opportunities, and even shun the light, and go away from Bethel, the house of God, as it were, unto some far-off land of the Hittites, and build there a heathen Luz of their own.
“
2. There is the case of the Kenites (Judges 1:16), who helped Judah after their victories in Canaan, and were received into fellowship with them.
“
3. There is the case of the Gibeonites, who came to Joshua from motives of fear, and were admitted to dwell with Israel as hewers of wood and drawers of water.
“
4. There is the case of Rahab. She stands out in beautiful contrast to the man of Bethel. He helped the spies of Joseph, and was spared, with his household, but did not choose to live in their Bethel. But Rahab received the spies of Joshua, even before he had gained a single victory, and she professed her faith in their God; and she was spared, she and her household, and she became a mother in Israel, and an ancestress of Christ.” [Wordsworth.]
“It is of no avail to conquer by faith, unless it be also maintained in faith; for Bethel became afterwards a Beth-aven, a House of Sin.” [Dr. Cassel.] Cf. 1 Kings 12:29; Hosea 4:15; Hosea 5:8; Hosea 10:5. The remark, however, of Gesenius should here be borne in mind: “The Talmudists have confounded this town with the neighbouring city of Beth-El, from the latter having been sometimes called by the prophets, in contempt, Beth-Aven.” Beth-Aven, as is seen by Joshua 7:2, was near to Ai on the east side of Bethel.
MANASSEH AND EPHRAIM.—Judges 1:27-29
These verses are, in substance, a recapitulation of the previous statements in Joshua 16:10; Joshua 17:11-13. But the repetition, so far from being needless, is necessary on two grounds; it shows that since the negligent beginning recorded in the book of Joshua there had been no improvement, saving in the capture of Bethel. This continued disobedience is also set forth as an introduction to, and a reason for, the calamities recorded throughout this book of Judges.
For additional homiletic remarks on the subject of these verses, see the Preacher’s Commentary on Joshua, pp. 266, 272–274, 280.
FORSAKING THE LORD’S WORK.—Judges 1:27-28
These records which follow to the end of the chapter, remind us of the unfinished towers which were spoken of by our Lord, and of the war under-taken with too little thought (Luke 14:28-32). There are a great many unfinished towers in the world which ought never to have been begun; there are a great many more which, having been begun, ought certainly to have been completed. Just the same may be said of life’s conflicts. Manasseh, and Ephraim, and the rest of these tribes, did not fail in completing their warfare because they had begun imprudently, but because they did not continue believingly. The tower of conquest was unfinished, not because they had not counted the cost at the beginning, but because they forgot their infinite resources in the help of Jehovah. We see in these verses—
I. Men forsaking a work which had been begun after long preparation. The plagues of Egypt, the miracles of the wilderness, the gifts of the manna and other supplies, and the long period of discipline in the desert, were all designed to lead up to the full inheritance of the land.
II. Men forsaking a work which had already been prosecuted with great energy and at great cost. How strikingly does the indifference here contrast with the passage of the Jordan, with the rapid movements at Beth-horon and the Waters of Merom, and, indeed, with the vigour displayed in all the earlier part of the campaign! What vast efforts and unflinching zeal had been previously expended on this great work of conquest! Now, with the inheritance almost in hand, the strife is abandoned. The Church has thrown away not a little energy for want of just a little more. When the seed of past efforts is not cultivated right up to the point where harvest is sure, it may, after all our labour, only result in a harvest of thorns which vex us (cf. Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13; Judges 2:3).
III. Men forsaking a work about which they had cherished ardent hopes. The whole way up from Egypt had been a long path of expectation. Enthusiasm had often been high, as in the song at the Red Sea, and in the service at Ebal. We see here brilliant hopes blasted for ever for want of a little more faith and a little more service. How many of our once cherished visions have fled for the same reason!
IV. Men forsaking a work in which they had already won splendid triumphs. The path of their past prowess was almost vocal against this sinful inaction and unbelief. The ruins of Jericho were a protest that must have seemed almost audible to the few more godly of the host. The great days of Beth-horon and of Merom might well have waked every sleeper with loud-echoing rebukes.
V. Men forsaking a work to which God had commanded them, in which God had marvellously helped them, and in which He no less waited to help them still. They did not “remember the years of the right hand of the Most High.” “They forgat His works.” No less did they forget His absolute commands, and His unbroken promises. Herein they grievously sinned, and in this sin lies the terribly appropriate introduction which this chapter makes to the great sorrows and humiliations and further transgressions recorded throughout this entire book.
UNCONQUERED PARTS OF OUR INHERITANCE.—Judges 1:29
The fruits of the most brilliant victories blighted for want of grace to follow them up.
The inheritance which has been won by much faith becoming a ground of temptation and trouble for want of a little more faith.
The unconquered parts of our estate in God bringing a curse on us in those we have conquered (cf. 1 Chronicles 20:4; 2 Samuel 21:18).
The possessions which the Lord’s people fail to win, given to them presently under circumstances of much humiliation (cf. 1 Kings 9:15-17).
The Lord’s help failing when men fail to diligently use it. The Lord who had been “with Judah” and “with Joseph,” was no less ready to be with Ephraim.
The ground for prayer becoming untenable to those who fail to take encouragement from the Lord’s goodness. David prayed (Psalms 138:8) “Forsake not the works of Thine own hands.” When the Israelites themselves forsook this work, they could hardly pray that the Lord would not forsake it.
The sinful disobedience of men carrying its own acknowledgment that it is without excuse. Manasseh and Ephraim, who thought they could not conquer, both put their enemies under tribute (Judges 1:28; 1 Kings 5:13; 1 Kings 9:15).
THE POSITION AND NEIGHBOURHOOD OF GEZER
“The situation of Gezer may be exactly determined from Joshua 16:3. The border of Ephraim proceeds from Lower Beth-horon, by way of Gezer, to the sea. Now, since the position of Beth-horon is well ascertained (Beit ’Ur et-Tatha), the border, running northwest past Ludd, which belonged to Benjamin, must have touched the sea to the north of Japho, which likewise lay within the territory of Benjamin. On this line, four or five miles east of Joppa, there still exists a place called Jesôr (Jazour, Yazûr), which can be nothing else than Gezer. It is not improbable that it is the Gazara of Jerome (p. 137, ed. Parthy), in quarto milliario Nicopoleos contra septentrionem, although the distance does not appear to be accurately given. The Ganzur of Esthor ha-Parchi (2:434), on the contrary, is entirely incorrect.
“The position of Gezer enables us also to see why Ephraim did not drive out the inhabitants. The place was situated in a fine fertile region. It is still surrounded by noble corn-fields and rich orchards. The agricultural population of such fruitful regions were readily permitted to remain for the sake of profit, especially by warlike tribes who had less love and skill for such peaceful labours than was possessed by Issachar.” [Dr. Cassel.]
THE DISTRICT OF KITRON AND NAHALOL.—Judges 1:30
Kitron is taken by Gesenius to be the Kattath of Joshua 19:15, which is there mentioned with Nahallal, or Nahalol. The name of this latter place is from nahal, “to lead,” specially to lead to water, or with protecting care. Hence Gesenius supposes Nahalol to mean “pasture to which cattle are led out (cf. Heb., Isaiah 7:19).” Dr. Cassel thinks that Kitron and Nahalol were put to tribute for exactly the same reason as was Gezer—because they were both surrounded by rich pasture-lands. He further says of Nahalol: “It answers perhaps to Abilîn, a place from which a wady somewhat to the northwest of Seffûrieh has its name. For this name comes from Abel, which also means pasture. This moreover suggests the explanation why from just these two places the Canaanites were not expelled. They both became tributary, and remained the occupants and bailiffs of their pastures and meadows.” As similar features of profitable tribute are equally suggested by several of the names in the following verses, there seems some ground for the suspicion that greed and idleness, in some cases, had even more to do than fear with the disobedience of the various tribes.
THE POWER OF EVIL EXAMPLES.—Judges 1:30-33
A bad example is full of evil issues; what one tribe does another does also. All the western tribes, saving Issachar, seem to have followed the dereliction of Judah. Judah did run well, but the iron chariots, and a love of ease, became hindrances to a continued obedience to the truth.
The evil example of the great and powerful is specially harmful; Judah and Joseph draw all the rest in the train of their disobedience.
These evil examples and their evil results are all well remembered by God. Richard Rogers quaintly observes: “Let not men be deceived; God hath all these things and such like registered and written, not with ink and paper (for then there were hope that in time they might be worn out), but in His remembrance, which never faileth. If Paul, who is so rare a pattern of piety, desires that men follow not his example further than he follows Christ, what shall they have to answer who look no further than to this, that, however odious their doings are, they see others do the same? They that lead and entice us on by their example, cannot help us to bear our punishment when their own shall become intolerable to them.”
“Example is like the press: a thing done is the thought printed; it may be repeated, but it cannot be recalled; it has gone forth with a self-propagating power, and may run to the ends of the earth, and descend from generation to generation.” [Melville.]
“There is at the top of the Queen’s staircase in Windsor Castle, a statue, from the studio of Baron Triqueti, of Edward VI. marking with his sceptre a passage in the Bible which he holds in his left hand, and upon which he earnestly looks. The passage is that concerning Josiah: ‘Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.’ The statue was erected by the will of the late Prince, who intended it to convey to his son the divine principles by which the future governor of England should mould his life, and reign on the throne of Great Britain.” [T. Hughes.]
“I am not the rose, but I have been with the rose, and therefore am I sweet.” [Eastern Proverb.]
“Take away yourselves from among the evil ones; for if ye, being weak and unskilful, shall company with them, ye must needs both see and hear very many things against godliness and the religion which you profess. And because you are able neither to confute nor to reprove them, you shall seem to be as witnesses of blasphemies and a reproach of the truth. And, peradventure, there will remain a sting in your minds, wherewith your conscience will be vexed longer than you think for.” [Peter Martyr.]
UNDESTROYED MONUMENTS OF IDOLATRY.—Judges 1:33-36
The names of several of these places were notoriously derived from the idolatrous worship of which they were so many centres and strongholds. Beth-shemesh was “the house of the sun,” and Har-cheres, or Mount Heres, “the mountain of the sun.” These pointed to the worship of the sun. Of Beth-anath, “the house of response” (perhaps “of echo,” Gesen.), Cassel says: “The name indicates that its situation was that of the present Bâniâs, the ancient Paneas. The inscriptions on the grotto called Panium, still point to the echo. One of them is dedicated the ‘echo-loving’ Pan. The love of Pan for the nymph Echo was a widely-spread myth. Another inscription tells of a man who dedicated a niche to the Echo.” While the identification of Bâniâs with Beth-anath rather than with Baal-gad may be questioned, it is quite possible that the worship of the “echo-loving” Pan was carried on at Beth-anath also. In any case this town could not have been far from Bâniâs, or Cæsarea-Philippi. Eusebius and Jerome speak of it as Batanæa, fifteen miles east of Bâniâs, which is not a great distance for the spread of a prominent feature of idolatry.
These monuments of idolatry the men of Naphtali and Dan suffered to remain in their midst. They spared the inhabitants, and the towns, and the ancient idolatrous names, and thus helped to perpetuate in their very midst the pernicious idolatrous influence. Dan, in the south-western possession of this tribe, seems to have been overpowered for a time; but yet the “heavy hand” of the house of Joseph was stretched out only to make tributaries, and not to overthrow idolatry. To this arrangement Dan also probably consented.
“Our corrupt nature will show mercy only where severity should be used, and is altogether rough and hard where gentleness might be practised.
“Self-conceit, avarice, and self-interest can bring it about that men will unhesitatingly despise the command of God.
“When human counsels are preferred to the express word and command of God, the result is that matters grow worse and worse.” [Starke.]
“Obedience and love toward God are wrecked on greediness and love of ease.
“Perfect obedience is the only safe way. Every departure from it leads downhill into danger.
“The fear of God is still ever the beginning of wisdom; but it must not be mixed with the fear of men.
“Preaching is still ever effective; but respect to tribute and profitable returns must not weaken it.
“The Word of God has not lost its power; but the people who have it on their tongues do not thoroughly enter into its life.
“When confession and life do not agree, the life must bear the consequences.” [Dr. Cassel.]
“The sin prepared its own punishment, and the love of present ease became the cause of their perpetual disquiet.” [Scott.]