Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Judges 2:1 - 2:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Angel of the Lord at Bochim. - To the cursory survey of the attitude which the tribes of Israel assumed towards the Canaanites who still remained in their inheritances, there is appended an account of the appearance of the angel of the Lord, who announced to the people the punishment of God for their breach of the covenant, of which they had been guilty through their failure to exterminate the Canaanites. This theophany is most intimately connected with the facts grouped together in Judg 1, since the design and significance of the historical survey given there are only to be learned from the reproof of the angel; and since both of them have the same aphoristic character, being restricted to the essential facts without entering minutely into any of the attendant details, very much is left in obscurity. This applies more particularly to the statement in Jdg 2:1, “Then the angel of Jehovah came up from Gilgal to Bochim.” The “angel of Jehovah” is not a prophet, or some other earthly messenger of Jehovah, either Phinehas or Joshua, as the Targums, the Rabbins, Bertheau, and others assume, but the angel of the Lord who is of one essence with God. In the simple historical narrative a prophet is never called Maleach Jehovah. The prophets are always called either נָבִיא or נָבִיא אִישׁ, as in Jdg 6:8, or else “man of God,” as in 1Ki 12:22; 1Ki 13:1, etc.; and Hag 1:13 and Mal 3:1 cannot be adduced as proofs to the contrary, because in both these passages the purely appellative meaning of the word Maleach is established beyond all question by the context itself. Moreover, no prophet ever identifies himself so entirely with God as the angel of Jehovah does here. The prophets always distinguish between themselves and Jehovah, by introducing their words with the declaration “thus saith Jehovah,” as the prophet mentioned in Jdg 6:8 is said to have done. On the other hand, it is affirmed that no angel mentioned in the historical books is ever said to have addressed the whole nation, or to have passed from one place to another. But even if it had been a prophet who was speaking, we could not possibly understand his speaking to the whole nation, or “to all the children of Israel,” as signifying that he spoke directly to the 600,000 men of Israel, but simply as an address delivered to the whole nation in the persons of its heads or representatives. Thus Joshua spoke to “all the people” (Jos 24:2), though only the elders of Israel and its heads were assembled round him (Jos 24:1). And so an angel, or “the angel of the Lord,” might also speak to the heads of the nation, when his message had reference to all the people. And there was nothing in the fact of his coming up from Gilgal to Bochim that was at all at variance with the nature of the angel. When the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, it is stated in Jdg 6:11 that he came and sat under the terebinth at Ophra; and in the same way the appearance of the angel of the Lord at Bochim might just as naturally be described as coming up to Bochim. The only thing that strikes us as peculiar is his coming up “from Gilgal.” This statement must be intimately connected with the mission of the angel, and therefore must contain something more than a simply literal notice concerning his travelling from one place to another. We are not to conclude, however, that the angel of the Lord came from Gilgal, because this town was the gathering-place of the congregation in Joshua's time. Apart altogether from the question discussed in Jos 8:34 as to the situation of Gilgal in the different passages of the book of Joshua, such a view as this is overthrown by the circumstance that after the erection of the tabernacle at Shiloh, and during the division of the land, it was not Gilgal but Shiloh which formed the gathering-place of the congregation when the casting of the lots was finished (Jos 18:1, Jos 18:10).
We cannot agree with H. Witsius, therefore, who says in his Miscell. ss. (i. p. 170, ed. 1736) that “he came from that place, where he had remained for a long time to guard the camp, and where he was thought to be tarrying still;” but must rather assume that his coming up from Gilgal is closely connected with the appearance of the angel-prince, as described in Jos 5:13, to announce to Joshua the fall of Jericho after the circumcision of the people at Gilgal. Just as on that occasion, when Israel had just entered into the true covenant relation to the Lord by circumcision, and was preparing for the conquest of Canaan, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joshua as the prince of the army of Jehovah, to ensure him of the taking of Jericho; so here after the entrance of the tribes of Israel into their inheritances, when they were beginning to make peace with the remaining Canaanites, and instead of rooting them out were content to make them tributary, the angel of the Lord appeared to the people, to make known to all the children of Israel that by such intercourse with the Canaanites they had broken the covenant of the Lord, and to foretell the punishment which would follow this transgression of the covenant. By the fact, therefore, that he came up from Gilgal, it is distinctly shown that the same angel who gave the whole of Canaan into the hands of the Israelites when Jericho fell, had appeared to them again at Bochim, to make known to them the purposes of God in consequence of their disobedience to the commands of the Lord. How very far it was from being the author's intention to give simply a geographical notice, is also evident from the fact that he merely describes the place where this appearance occurred by the name which was given to it in consequence of the event, viz., Bochim, i.e., weepers. The situation of this place is altogether unknown. The rendering of the lxx, ἐπὶ τὸν Κλαυθμῶνα καὶ ἐπὶ Βαιθὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραήλ, gives no clue whatever; for τὸν Κλαυθμῶνα merely arises from a confusion of בֹּכִים with בְּכָאִים in 2Sa 5:23, which the lxx have also rendered Κλαυθμών, and ἐπὶ τὸν Βαιθήλ κ.τ.λ. is an arbitrary interpolation of the translators themselves, who supposed Bochim to be in the neighbourhood of Bethel, “in all probability merely because they though of Allon-bachuth, the oak of weeping, at Bethel, which is mentioned in Gen 35:8” (Bertheau). With regard to the piska in the middle of the verse, see the remarks on Jos 4:1. In his address the angel of the Lord identifies himself with Jehovah (as in Jos 5:14 compared with Jos 6:2), by describing himself as having made them to go up out of Egypt and brought them into the land which He sware unto their fathers. There is something very striking in the use of the imperfect אַעֲלֶה in the place of the perfect (cf. Jdg 6:8), as the substance of the address and the continuation of it in the historical tense וָאָבִיא and וָאִמַר require the preterite. The imperfect is only to be explained on the supposition that it is occasioned by the imperf. consec. which follows immediately afterwards and reacts through its proximity. “I will not break my covenant for ever,” i.e., will keep what I promised when making the covenant, viz., that I would endow Israel with blessings and salvation, if they for their part would observe the covenant duties into which they had entered (see Exo 19:5.), and obey the commandments of the Lord. Among these was the commandment to enter into no alliance with the inhabitants of that land, viz., the Canaanites (see Exo 23:32-33; Exo 34:12-13, Exo 34:15-16; Deu 7:2.; Jos 23:12). “Destroy their altars:” taken verbatim from Exo 34:13; Deu 7:5. The words “and ye have not hearkened to my voice” recall to mind Exo 19:5. “What have ye done” (מָה־זֹּאת, literally “what is this that ye have done”) sc., in sparing the Canaanites and tolerating their altars?