Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Joshua 10:28 - 10:28
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Further prosecution of the victory, by the conquest of the fortified towns of the south, into which those who escaped the sword of the Israelites had thrown themselves.
Jos 10:28
On the same day on which the five kings were impaled, Joshua took Makkedah (see at Jos 10:10), and smote the town and its king with the edge of the sword, banning the town and all the persons in it, i.e., putting all the inhabitants to death (many MSS and some editions adopt the reading אֹתָהּ for אֹתָם, as in Jos 10:37), taking the cattle and the property in the town as booty, as in the case of Ai (Jos 8:27-28), and treating its king like the king of Jericho, who was suspended upon a stake, to judge from Jos 8:2, Jos 8:29, although this is not stated in Josh 6.
Jos 10:29-30
From Makkedah he went with all Israel, i.e., all the men of war, against Libnah, and after effecting the conquest of it, did just the same as he had done to Makkedah. Libnah was one of the towns of the plain or of the hill-country of Judah (Jos 15:42); it was allotted to the priests (Jos 21:13), revolted from Judah in the reign of Joram (2Ki 8:22), and was besieged by Sennacherib (Isa 37:8). It is to be sought on the north-west of Lachish, not on the south as Knobel erroneously infers from Isa 37:8. According to the Onom. (s. v. Lebna), it was at that time villa in regione Eleutheropolitana, quae appellatur Lobna. It has not been discovered yet; but according to the very probable conjecture of V. de Velde (Mem. p. 330), the ruins of it may perhaps be seen upon the hill called Arâk el Menshiyeh, about two hours to the wets of Beit Jibrin.
(Note: Knobel is decidedly wrong in his supposition, that Libnah is to be seen in the considerable ruins called Hora, which lie in the plain (Seetzen and V. de Velde) and are called Hawara by Robinson. He founds his conjecture upon the fact that the name signifies white, and is the Arabic translation of the Hebrew name. But Hora is only two hours and a half to the north of Beersheba, and is not in the plain at all, but in the Negeb.)
Jos 10:31-32
Lachish, i.e., Um Lakis (see at Jos 10:3), shared the same fate.
Jos 10:33
Joshua also smote the king of Gezer, who had come with his people to help of Lachish, and left no one remaining. Nothing is said about the capture of the town of Gezer. According to Jos 16:10 and Jdg 1:29, it was still in the possession of the Canaanites when the land was divided, though this alone is not sufficient to prove that Joshua did not conquer it, as so many of the conquered towns were occupied by the Canaanites again after the Israelites had withdrawn. But its situation makes it very probable that Joshua did not conquer it at that time, as it was too much out of his road, and too far from Lachish. Gezer (lxx Γάζερ, in 1Ch 14:16 Γαζηρά, in 1 Macc. Γαζήρα or Γάζαρα plur., in Josephus Γάζαρα, Ant. vii. 4, 1, viii. 6, 1, and also Γάδαρα, v. 1, 22, xii. 7, 4) was on the southern boundary of Ephraim (Jos 16:3), and was given up by that tribe to the Levites (Jos 16:9-10; Jos 21:20-21. It is very frequently mentioned. David pursued the Philistines to Gezer (Gazer), after they had been defeated at Gibeon or Geba (2Sa 5:25; 1Ch 14:16). At a later period it was conquered by Pharaoh, and presented to his daughter, who was married to Solomon; and Solomon built, i.e., fortified it (1Ki 9:16-17). It was an important fortress in the wars of the Maccabees (1 Macc. 9:52; 2 Macc. 10:32; cf. 1 Macc. 4:15; 7:45; 13:53; 14:34; 15:28, 35). According to the Onom. (s. v. Gazer), it was four Roman miles to the north of Nicopolis, i.e., Anwas, and was called Γαζάρα. This is not only in harmony with Jos 16:3, according to which the southern border of Ephraim ran from Lower Bethhoron to Gezer, and then on to the sea, but also with all the other passages in which Gezer is mentioned,
(Note: The statement in 1 Macc. 7:45, that Judas Maccabaeus pursued the army of Nicanor, which had been beaten at Adasa, for a day's journey, as far as Gazera (“a day's journey from Adasa into Gazera”), is perfectly reconcilable with the situation of el Kubab; for, according to Josephus (Ant. xii. 10, 5), Adasa was thirty stadia from Bethhoron, and Bethhoron is ten miles to the west of Jubab (measuring in a straight line upon the map); so that Judas pursued the enemy fifteen miles - a distance which might very well be called “a day's journey,” if we consider that the enemy, when flying, would not always take the straightest road, and might even make a stand at intervals, and so delay their pursuers. Still less do the statement in 1 Macc. 14:34, that Simon fortified Joppa on the sea, and Gazara on the border of Ashdod, the combination of Joppa, Gazara, and the tower that is in Jerusalem (1 Macc. 15:28, 35), and the fact that the country of Gadaris, with the town of Gadara, occurs between Joppa and Jamnia in Strabo xvi. 759, warrant us in making a distinction between Gazara (Gezer) and the place mentioned in the Onom., as Grimm does (on 1 Macc. 4:15), and identifying it with the village of Jazûr, an hour and a half from Jaffa, although Arvieux calls this village Gesser. The objections of Van de Velde against the identity of Jubab and Gazer are without any force. It does not necessarily follow from the expression “went up,” that Lachish stood on higher ground than Gezer, as going up often signifies nothing more than making a hostile attack upon a fortification. And no importance can be attached to the conjecture, that with the great distance of Jubab from Um Lakis, the king of Gezer would have come to the help of the kings of Makkedah and Libnah, who were much nearer and were attacked first, as the circumstances which determined his conduct are too thoroughly unknown to us, for it to be possible to pronounce an opinion upon the subject with any certainty.)
and answers very well to the situation of El Kubab, a village of considerable size on a steep hill at the extreme north of the mountain chain which runs to the north-west of Zorea, and slopes off towards the north into the broad plain of Merj el Omeir, almost in the middle of the road from Ramleh to Yalo. For this village, with which Van Semden identifies Gezer (Van de Velde, Mem. p. 315), was exactly four Roman miles north by west of Anwas, according to Robinson's map, and not quite four hours from Akir (Ekron), the most northerly city of the Philistines; so that Josephus (Ant. vii. 4, 1) could very properly describe Gazara as the frontier of the territory of the Philistines. Robinson discovered no signs of antiquity, it is true, on his journey through Kubab, but in all probability he did not look for them, as he did not regard the village as a place of any importance in connection with ancient history (Bibl. Res. pp. 143-4).
Jos 10:34-35
From Lachish Joshua proceeded eastwards against Eglon (Ajlan, see Jos 10:3), took the town, and did to it as he had done to Lachish.
Jos 10:36-37
From Eglon he went up from the lowland to the mountains, attacked Hebron and took it, and did to this town and its king, and the towns belonging to it, as he had already done to the others. The king of Hebron cannot of course be the one who was taken in the cave of Makkedah and put to death there, but his successor, who had entered upon the government while Joshua was occupied with the conquest of the towns mentioned in Jos 10:28-35, which may possibly have taken more than a year. “All the cities thereof” are the towns dependent upon Hebron as the capital of the kingdom.
Jos 10:38-39
Joshua then turned southwards with all Israel (i.e., all the army), attacked Debir and took it, and the towns dependent upon it, in the same manner as those mentioned before. Debir, formerly called Kirjath-sepher, i.e., book town, πόλις γραμμάτων (lxx Jos 15:15; Jdg 1:11), and Kirjath-sanna, i.e., in all probability the city of palm branches (Jos 15:49), was given up by Judah to the priests (Jos 21:15). It stood upon the mountains of Judah (Jos 15:49), to the south of Hebron, but has not yet been certainly discovered, though V. de Velde is probably correct in his supposition that it is to be seen in the ruins of Dilbeh, on the peak of a hill to the north of Wady Dilbeh, and on the road from Dhoberiyeh to Hebron, about two hours to the south-west of the latter. For, according to Dr. Stewart, there is a spring at Dilbeh, the water of which is conducted by an aqueduct into the Birket el Dilbeh, at the foot of the said hill, which would answer very well to the upper and lower springs at Debir, if only Debir might be placed, according to Jos 15:49, so far towards the north.
(Note: Knobel imagines that Debir is to be found in the modern village of Dhoberiyeh (Dhabarije), five hours to the south-west of Hebron, on the south-west border of the mountains of Judah, upon the top of a mountain, because, in addition to the situation of this village, which is perfectly reconcilable with Jos 15:49, there are remains of a square tower there (according to Krafft, a Roman tower), which point to an ancient fortification (vid., Rob. Pal. i. pp. 308ff.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 202ff.), and because the name, which signifies “placed behind the back,” agrees with Debir, the hinder part or back (?), and Kirjath-sepher, if interpreted by the Arabic words, which signify “extremitas, margo, ora.” But both reasons prove very little. The meanings assigned to Debir and Kirjath-sepher are improbable and arbitrary. Moreover, it has not been shown that there are any springs near Dhoberiyeh, such as there were in the neighbourhood of Debir (Jos 15:19.). The view held by Rosenmüller, and adopted by Bunsen, with regard to the situation of Debir, - namely, that it was the same as the modern Idwirbân or Dewirbân, an hour and a quarter to the west of Hebron, because there is a large spring there with an abundant supply of excellent water, which goes by the name of Ain Nunkûr, - is also quite untenable; for it is entirely at variance with Jos 15:49, according to which Debir was not on the west of Hebron, but upon the mountains to the south, and rests entirely upon the erroneous assumption that, according to Jos 10:38 (וַיָּשָׁב, he turned round), as Joshua came from Eglon, he conquered Hebron first, and after the conquest of this town turned back to Debir, to take it also. But שׁוּב, does not mean only to turn round or turn back: it signifies turning generally; and it is very evident that this is the sense in which it is used in Jos 10:38, since, according to Jos 15:49, Debir was on the south of Hebron.)
Moreover, not very long afterwards, probably during the time when the Israelites were occupied with the subjugation of northern Canaan, Hebron and Debir were taken again by the Canaanites, particularly the Anakites, as Joshua had not entirely destroyed them, although he had thoroughly cleared the mountains of Judah of them, but had left them still in the towns of the Philistines (Jos 11:21-22). Consequently, when the land was divided, there were Anakites living in both Hebron and Debir; so that Caleb, to whom these towns were given as his inheritance, had first of all to conquer them again, and to exterminate the Anakites (Jos 14:12; Jos 15:13-17 : cf. Jdg 1:10-13).
(Note: By this simple assumption we get rid of the pretended contradictions, which neological critics have discovered between Jos 10:36-39 on the one hand, and Jos 11:21-22, and Jos 14:12; Jos 15:13-17 on the other, and on account of which Knobel would assign the passages last named to a different document. On the first conquest of the land by Joshua, Masius observes that “in this expedition Joshua ran through the southern region with an armed band, in too hurried a manner to depopulate it entirely. All that he needed was to strike such terror into the hearts of all through his victories, that no one should henceforth offer any resistance to himself and to the people of God. Those whom he pursued, therefore, he destroyed according to the commands of God, not sparing a single one, but he did not search out every possible hiding-place in which any could be concealed. This was left as a gleaning to the valour of each particular tribe, when it should take possession of its own inheritance.”)