Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 1:11 - 1:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_1:11-15
The name of Debir was formerly Kirjath-sepher. In my Ortsnamen (i. 116, note), I already endeavored to show that Debir, Kirjath-sepher, and Kirjath-sannah ( ñַðָּä , Jos_15:49) philologically express one and the same idea. Fürst well remarks (Lex. s. v. ãְּáִéø ) that “ ãִëְøְ is the Phœnician equivalent of the Hebrew ñֵôֶø , a material prepared from the skins of animals, and of the Himyaritic for a book written on palm-leaves.” From the latter, he says, the Greek äéöèÝñá was formed, and thus the word passed over to the Greeks and Persians. There is no reason to doubt that the name describes the city as a depository of written traditions, book-rolls. Kirjath-sepher was a Palestinian Hermopolis, city of Thoth, where literature had its seat (cf. Plutarch, De Isid., ed. Parthey, p. 4; the Sept. translates, ðüëéò ôῶí ãñáììÜôùí ). Such depositories, where the sacred writings were kept ἐí êßóôῃ ), in a chest (Plut. l. c.), for preservation, were common to the religion of the Egyptians, Phœnicians, and Babylonians. To this place, that which sheltered the sacred ark of Israel’s divine law opposed itself. It was therefore of much consequence to conquer it, as on the other hand its inhabitants valiantly defended it. The different names testify of the different dialects of the tribes who have held Debir.
Jdg_1:12. And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher. Caleb is the chief of the tribe of Judah. Hebron has fallen to him as his inheritance, but it does not circumscribe his eager interest. “Caleb said.” His personal zeal is the more prominently indicated, because displayed in a matter which involved the general cause, the honor of the whole tribe. At the conquest of Hebron, the phrase was, “and they smote;” at the next battle, fought for Debir, it is, “Caleb said.” As the whole tribe assisted in gaining his personal inheritance, so for the honor of the tribe he devotes that which was wholly his, and his alone. He offers the dearest possession he has, as a prize for him who shall storm and take the strong mountain fortress and seat of idolatry. It is his only daughter (cf. 1Ch_2:49) Achsah, born to him in advancing years. He can offer nothing better. Stronger proof of his zeal for the cause of Israel he cannot give. To obtain the daughter of a house by meritorious actions has in all ages been a worthy object of ambition set before young and active men. It was only by a warlike exploit that David obtained Michal who loved him. The Messenian hero Aristomenes bestows a similar reward. When a country maiden rescued him, with heroic daring, from danger involving his life, he gave her his son for a husband (Paus. iv. 19). The conquest of Debir is therefore especially mentioned to the honor of Caleb and his love for Israel. The event was a glorious incident in the hero’s family history.
Jdg_1:13. And Othniel, the son of Kenaz, a younger brother of Caleb, took it. Israel, the nation, was divided into tribes, these into families, these into “houses,” and these again into single households. This may be clearly seen from the story of Achan (Jos_7:14 ff.). Achan was of the tribe of Judah, the family of Zerah, the house of Zabdi, and the son of Carmi. So Caleb was the son of Jephunneh, of the house of Kenaz; whence, Num_32:12, he is called the Kenezite. Bertheau (pp. 21, 22) labors under a peculiar error, in that he confounds the family of the Kenezite in the tribe of Judah with the hostile people of the same name mentioned Gen_15:19. It is true, Lengerke (Kenaan, p. 204) and others preceded him in this; Ritter also (Erdkunde, xv. 138 [Gage’s Transl. ii. 146]) has allowed himself to be misled by it. But a consideration of the important relations in which Caleb stands to the people of God, would alone have authorized the presumption that he could have no connection with a people that was to be driven out before Israel. In addition to this, notice should have been taken of the isolated position of the Kenites, continuing down to a late period; for notwithstanding the peaceful conduct of this people, and their attachment to Israel, their historical derivation from the father-in-law of Moses is never forgotten. The adoption of the celebrated hero into the tribe of Judah must at all events have been explained. But there is absolutely no foundation for any such assumption as that in question. The similarity of names affords so much the less occasion, since the same names were frequently borne by heathen and Israelites, and also by families in the different tribes of Israel. One Edomite is named Kenaz, like the ancestor of Caleb; another Saul, like the king of Israel; a third Elah, like a man of Benjamin (Gen_36:41; 1Ki_4:18). There is an alien tribe named çåֹøִé ; but no one imagines that Israelites of the name çåּø are to be reckoned to it. The name of the king of Lachish whom Joshua defeated, was Japhia, exactly like that of a son of David (2Sa_5:15). Hezron and Carmi, both families of Reuben, are such also in the tribe of Judah. The name Jephunneh is borne also by a man of the tribe of Asher (1Ch_7:38). To this must be added that the Book of Chronicles traces the family of Caleb more in detail, and places them as relatives alongside of Nahshon, the progenitor of David (1Ch_2:9 seq.). Caleb is the son of Jephunneh, of the house of Kenaz. Othniel is his brother. That the latter is not designated “son of Jephunneh,” is because he is sufficiently distinguished by means of his more illustrious brother. That he is styled “son of Kenaz,” is to intimate that he is full brother to the son of Jephunneh, belonging to the same stock; not, as might be, the son of Caleb’s mother, by a husband from some other family. He is so much younger than Caleb, that the latter may be regarded as his second father, who had watched over him from youth up. Why we are here, where the narrative is so personal in its character, to think only of genealogical, not of physical relationships, as Bertheau supposes, it is difficult to perceive. Just here, this would destroy, not merely the historical truth, but also the æsthetic character, of the narrative.
Jdg_1:14. And it came to pass at her coming. Othniel had conquered the stronghold,—the victory was his, and Caleb gave him his daughter. The narrator forthwith adds an incident that marked the peaceful entrance of the young wife into the house of her husband, and afforded an interesting glimpse of her character. Caleb, the head of the tribe, was rich; to him, and to him alone, the fine fields and estates about Hebron had been given. Only Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, had received them, not the whole family (Jos_21:12). Othniel was poor. In the character of a poor, younger son, he had achieved heroic deeds. Not he thinks of goods and possessions; but so much the more does the young Achsah, who has been accustomed to wealth. Such is the course of the world. They are on their way to Hebron, a way which leads through fertile, well-watered fields. Their journey is a beautiful triumphal procession, over which the aged father rejoices. Achsah urges ( åַúְּñִéúֵäåּ from ñåּú ) her husband to seize the opportunity, and petition her father for the noble field through which they are passing. He does it not. He deems it an act unworthy of himself. She, however, like a true woman, too sagacious to lose the proper moment, proceeds herself ingeniously to call her father’s attention to the fact that she desires not merely honor, but also property. She slides from her ass—suddenly, as if she fell ( åַúִּöִðç )—so that her father asks, “What is the matter with thee?” Her answer has a double sense: “Thou gavest me away into a dry land, give me also springs.” O give me a blessing! àֶøֶõ äַðּâֶá (“land of the south”) is land destitute of water. No greater blessing there than springs. They make the parched field flourishing and productive (cf. Psa_126:4). Now, just as springs are a sign of abundance and wealth, so negeb is a symbol of indigence and want. Thou gavest me away, says Achsah, in words full of concealed meaning, into a dry land—to a poor husband; give me also springs to enrich the land—my husband. Caleb understood and gave, the more liberally, no doubt, for the ingenious manner in which she asked. He gave her the upper and lower springs. áֻּìּú ̇, for springs, occurs only in this passage. It is obviously not to be derived from âָּìַì , in the sense of rolling, turning,—from which comes áֻּìָּä , “pitcher,” so named on account of its round form,—but is connected with old roots expressive, like the Sanskr. gala, “water,” of welling, bubbling (cf. Dieffenbach, Wörterb. der Goth. Sprache, i. 183). What springs they were which Othniel received, it is difficult to say. Were they those which Robinson found on the way to Hebron, within an hour’s distance! Le Clerc wonders why this family history is here related. Most certainly not without intending to make the zeal of Caleb, the unselfishness of Othniel, and the prudence of Achsah, points of instruction. The Jewish exegesis, reproduced by Raschi, is essentially right, when it explains that Othniel was poor in everything but the law, in everything, that is, but piety and solidity of character. History and tradition present many another pair like Othniel and Achsah. The thing to be especially noted, however, is the firmness of Othniel in resisting his wife’s enticement to make requests which it is more becoming in her to make. Not many men have so well withstood the ambitious and eagerly craving projects of their wives.
[Scott: It is a very valuable privilege to be closely united with families distinguished for faith and piety; and to contract marriage with those who have been “trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”
The same: Nature teaches us to desire temporal benefits for our children; but grace will teach us to be far more desirous and earnest in using means that they may be partakers of spiritual blessings.
The same: If affection to a creature animates men to such strenuous efforts and perilous adventures, what will the love of God our Saviour do, if it bear rule in our hearts?
The same: If earthly parents, “being evil, know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more will our Heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him!”
Henry: From this story we learn, 1st. That it is no breach of the tenth commandment moderately to desire those comforts and conveniences of this life which we see attainable in a fair and regular way..… 3dly. That parents must never think that lost, which is bestowed on their children for their real advantage, but must be free in giving them portions as well as maintenance, especially when dutiful.
P. H. S.: Three Lessons from an Ancient Wedding: 1. Caleb’s lesson: Pious zeal for God and an heroic character are better than wealth or social rank. To such as possess these qualities let fathers freely give their daughters. 2. Othniel’s lesson: A wife is to be won for her own sake, not as the means of gaining access to her father’s wealth. 3. Achsah’s lesson: It is the wife’s duty to promote the interests and honor of her husband. Wealth is a source of weight and influence, and a means of usefulness. Who knows how much this and similar thoughtful acts of Achsah contributed to shape the subsequent life-work of Othniel as judge of Israel.
The same: It is more honorable to woman to be “sold” (a term entirely inapplicable, however, to the case in hand), than to have a husband bought for her by her father’s gold or lands. When a man stormed the walls of a stronghold, or slew an hundred Philistines by personal prowess, or paid fourteen years of responsible service, for a wife, or when, as in the days of chivalry, he ran tilts and courted dangers in her behalf, however grotesque the performance, it indicated not only solidity of character in the wooer, but also a true and manly respect for woman, which is not possessed by all men of modern days.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Jdg_1:15.— ëִּé àֶøֶõ äַðֶּâֶá ðְúַúָּðé : Dr. Cassel’s rendering agrees substantially with that of the LXX. and many modern critics. Bertheau says: “ àֶøֶõ äַðֶּâֶá is the accusative of place. It would be difficult to justify the other and usual rendering grammatically, since ðָúַï with the accus. suffix, never, not even Jer_9:1, Isa_27:4, means to give anything to one.” Bachmann, however, objects that “ ðָúַï does not occur of the giving of daughters in marriage, and that the absence of a preposition, say àֶì , before àֶøֶõ would make a hard construction. The suffix ðִé is either a negligent form of popular speech, substituted for ìִé (cf. Ewald, Ausf. Lehrb. 315 b), or, better, a second accus., such as is quite common with verbs of giving, favoring, etc. (cf. Ewald, 283 b), and from which rule ðָúַï is not to be excepted, cf. Eze_21:32.”—Tr.]
Attention was again directed to the city from the fact that the first liturgical poet of the modern Jews, Kalir, designates a Kirjath-sepher as his native place. He does not, however, mean this city, but, playing on the word, he translates Êáëëéῤῥüç in Palestine by Kirjath Shepher, i. e. Beautiful City. This opinion advanced by me in 1845 (Frankel’s Zeitschr.) has perhaps lost none of its probability.
[The above view of the relationship between Caleb and Othniel is held by most modern critics. Among its opponents, however, are Ewald and De Wette. The former (Gesch. Israels, ii. 374) deems it “more suitable, in accordance with the view of the oldest narrator, to take Kenaz as the younger brother of Caleb;” the latter, in his excellent German Version, translates: “Othniel, der Sohn des Kenas, des *üngsten Bruders Calebs.” Of ancient versions, the Targum and Peshito leave the question undecided. The LXX. in C. Vat., in all three passages, and in C. Alex. at Josh. xv. 17 and Jdg_3:9, makes Othniel the nephew, while in Jdg_1:13 C. Alex. makes him the brother, of Caleb The Vulg. invariably: “Othoniel filius Cenez, frater Caleb.”
Grammatically, both constructions are equally admissible. For that adopted by Dr. Cassel, cf. Gen_28:5; 1Sa_26:6, etc.; for the other. Gen_29:10; 1Sa_14:3, etc. That the distinctive accent over Kenaz is not incompatible with either construction, or rather does not commit the Masorites to the construction adopted by Dr. Cassel, as Keil intimates, may be seen from Gen_24:15, etc.
Bachmann favors the alternate rendering—“filius Kenasi fratris Calebi”—on the following grounds: 1. “The fact that elsewhere Caleb is always designated as “the son of Jephunneh,” while Othniel is always spoken of as “the son of Kenaz,” raises a presumption against the supposition that Othniel is the brother of Caleb in the strict sense of the term. … 2. Caleb was 85 years old when Hebron was bestowed on him (Jos_14:10; Jos_14:14); and when he took possession of it, must have been some years older. Accordingly, if Othniel was his brother, even though his junior by from twenty to thirty years,—and a greater difference in age is surely not to be supposed,—it would follow, that the bold hero who won his wife as a prize for storming Debir was at that time from sixty to seventy years of age; that about eighteen years later, he entered on his office as Judge as a man of full eighty years of age; and that, even though he died some time before the end of the forty years’ rest (Jdg_3:11), he reached an age of 120 years or more, which is scarcely probable. 3. According to Jdg_3:9, Othniel is the first deliverer of Israel fallen under the yoke of heathen oppressors in consequence of its apostasy to heathen idolatry. Now, since idolatry is said to have become prevalent in Israel only after the generation that had entered Canaan with Joshua and Caleb had died off (Jdg_2:10), it is clear that Othniel is regarded as belonging not to this, but to the succeeding generation, which agrees better with the hypothesis that he is the son of a younger brother of Caleb, than that he is such a brother himself. 4. Finally, whatever, in view of Lev_18:12-13 may be thought of the difficulty of a marriage between an uncle and a niece, that interpretation surely deserves to be preferred which, while it is possible in itself, does not raise the said difficulty at all.”—Tr.]
[Wordsworth: “The field: that is, the field which had been given to Othniel when the Book of Judges was written, and which was known to be well supplied with water.” This explanation of the article supposes that the words attributed to Achsah in the text, were not the very words she used.—Tr.]
At an early date, the passage 1Ch_4:10, where Jabez says, “Oh, that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me,” was already explained as referring to Othniel (cf. Temura, p. 16, a). Jerome was acquainted with a Jewish opinion according to which Jabez was a teacher of the law (cf. 1Ch_2:55), who instructed the sons of the Kenite, of Quæst. Hebr. in Lib. i. Paral., ed. Migne, iii. 1370