Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 1:17 - 1:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_1:17-20.
[2 Jdg_1:17.— åַéִּ÷ְøָà . Dr. Cassel translates it as if it were plural, and gives it the same subject with åַéַּçֲøִéîåּ , “they called.” Correct, perhaps, as to fact, but grammatically less accurate than the A. V. åַéִּ÷ְøָà is the indefinite third person. Cf. Ges. Gr. 137, 3.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_1:19.—Dr. Cassel: denn nicht zu vertreiben waren die Bewohner der Niederung. On the force of ëִּé , for (E. V. but), cf. Ges. Gram. § 155, p. 271.—The construction of ìàֹ ìְäåֹøִéùׁ is unusual. According to Keil (and Bertheau) “ ìàֹ is to be taken substantively, as in Amo_6:10, in the same sense in which the later Scriptures use àַéִï before the infinitive, 2Ch_5:11; Est_4:2; Est_8:8; Ecc_3:14. Cf. Ges. Gram. § 132, 3, Rem. 1; Ewald, 237 c.” Idea and expression might then be represented in English by the phrase: “there was no driving the enemy out.” On òֵîֶ÷ , see foot-note on p. 39.—Tr.]
They smote the inhabitants of Zephath, and called the city Chormah. In itself considered, the mere execution of the ban of destruction on a city otherwise unknown, cannot be of such importance as would properly make it the only reported event of the campaign in Simeon’s territory. The record must have been made with reference to some event in the earlier history of Israel. The tribes had just been in Arad, where the Kenites settled. Now, according to the narrative in Num_21:1 ff., it was the King of Arad who suddenly fell upon the people in their journey through the desert. The attack was made when the Israelitish host was in a most critical situation, which, to be sure, could not be said to be improved by the ban executed on the cities of the king after the victory was won. Not Arad,—for this retained its name,—but one of the places put under the ban, we are told, received the name Hormah. The vow in pursuance of which this ban was inflicted required its subsequent maintenance as much as its original execution. Thus much we learn from the passage in Numbers. That a close connection existed between Arad and Hormah is also confirmed by Jos_12:14, where a king of Arad and one of Hormah are named together. In the same way are the inhabitants of Hormah and the Kenites in Arad mentioned together, upon occasion of David’s division of booty (1Sa_30:29). Since Moses was not able to occupy these regions, the banned city, as appears plainly from Jos_12:14, where a king of Hormah occurs, had been peopled and occupied anew. Hence it was the task of the tribe of Simeon, with the help of Judah, to restore the vow of Israel, and to change the Zephath of its heathen inhabitants once more into Hormah. That, in this respect also, the tribes observed the commands of Moses, and fulfilled what was formerly promised,—adjudging to one, reward, as to the Kenite; to another, the ban, as to Zephath,—this is the reason why this fact is here recorded. Robinson thought that there was every reason for supposing that in the position of the pass es-Sufàh, far down in the south, the locality of Zephath was discovered (Bib. Res. ii. 181). The position, as laid down on his map, strikes me as somewhat remote from Tell 'Arad; and the name es-Sufâh, Arabic for “rock,” cannot, on account of its general character, be considered altogether decisive. Moreover, another Zephath actually occurs, near Mareshah (2Ch_14:10), not far from Eleutheropolis, and Robinson (ii. 31) makes it probable that by the valley of Zephath in which King Asa fought, the wady is meant which “comes down from Beit Jibrin towards Tell es-Sâfieh.” In the Middle Ages, a castle existing there, bore the name Alba Specula, Fortress of Observation, which at all events agrees with the signification of Zephath.
Jdg_1:18. And Judah. took Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron. The territory assigned to Judah extended to the sea, including the Philistine coast-land, with their five cities. After the conquest of Simeon’s lot their course descended from the hills into the lowlands (Shephelah, Jdg_1:9), most probably by way of Beer-sheba, to the sea. In their victorious progress, they storm and seize Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, pressing on from south to north. Although Ashdod is not mentioned here, it is natural to suppose, since it was included in the borders assigned to Judah (Joshua 15), and lay on the road from Askelon to Ekron, that it was also taken, previous to the conquest of Ekron. Josephus, drawing the same inference, expressly includes it. It is said åַéִּìְëֹּã , “they took by storm.” They were not able, at this time, so to take and hold these places as to expel their inhabitants. The tribe of Judah, which, as it seems, now continued the war alone, on the sea-coast fell in with cultivated cities, provided with all the arts of warfare. Israel at that time was not prepared for long and tedious wars. In swift and stormy campaigns, their divinely-inspired enthusiasm enabled them to conquer. On the mountains, where personal courage and natural strength alone came into play, they were entirely victorious, and held whatever they gained. It was only in the plains, where the inhabitants of the coast cities met them with the murderous opposition of iron chariots, that they gave up the duty of gaining entire mastery over the land.
Jdg_1:19. For the inhabitants of the low country were not to be driven out, because they had iron chariots. The noble simplicity of the narrative could not show itself more plainly. “The Lord was with Judah, and he gained possession of the mountain district; but ìֹà ìְäåֹøִéùׁ not to be driven out,” etc. The expression éָëְìåּ ìàֹ , “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. The tribes of Joseph were likewise kept out of the low country because the inhabitants had chariots of iron (Jos_17:16); but Joshua said (Jdg_1:18), “Thou shalt (or canst) drive out the Canaanite, though he be strong.” Iron chariots are known only to the Book of Judges, excepting the notice of them in the passage just cited from Joshua. The victory of Deborah and Barak over Jabin, king of Canaan, owed much of its glory to the fact that Sisera commanded nine hundred iron chariots. Bertheau rejects the earlier opinion that these chariots were currus falcati, scythe-chariots, on the ground that those were unknown to the Egyptians. He thinks it probable that the chariots of the Canaanites, like those of the Egyptians, were only made of wood, but with iron-clad corners, etc., and therefore very strong. But such chariots would never be called iron chariots. The Egyptian war-chariots which Pharaoh leads forth against Israel, are not so called. To speak of chariots as iron chariots, when they were in the main constructed of a different material, would be manifestly improper, unless what of iron there was about them, indicated their terrible destructive capacities. It has, indeed, been inferred from Xenophon’s Cyropœdia (vi. 1, 27), that scythe-chariots were first invented by Cyrus, and that they were previously unknown “in Media, Syria, Arabia, and the whole of Asia.” But even if this Cyrus were to be deemed strictly historical, the whole notice indicates no more than the improvement of a similar kind of weapon. It does not at all prove that scythe-chariots did not previously exist. The principal improvement which the Cyrus of Xenophon introduced, was, that he changed the chariot-rampart, formed perhaps after the manner of the Indian battle-array (akschauhini, the idea of our game of chess) into a means of aggressive warfare. For this purpose, he changed the form of the chariot, and added the scythe to the axle-tree. But the chariots of our passage must already have been intended for aggressive action, since otherwise the purpose of the iron is incomprehensible. Nor does Xenophon assert that Cyrus was the first who affixed scythes to chariots, although he would not have failed to do so if that had been his opinion. It is, moreover, in itself not probable. Xenophon mentions that the (African) Cyrenians “still” had that kind of chariots which Cyrus invented. And Strabo informs us that in his time the Nigretes, Pharusii, and Ethiopians, African tribes, made use of the scythe-chariot. The changes introduced in the chariot by Cyrus, were made in view of a war against the Assyrians, whom Xenophon distinguishes from the Syrians. But from a statement of Ctesias we learn that the Assyrian armies already had scythe-chariots. The same occasion induced Cyrus to clothe his chariot-warriors in armor. For at all events, Assyrian monuments represent the charioteers encased in coats of mail. It serves to explain the term iron chariots, that Xenophon also speaks of iron scythes ( äñÝðáíá óéäçñᾶ ). Curtius (iv. 9, 4) describes chariots which carried iron lances on their poles (ex summo temone hastœ prœfixœ ferro eminebant), for which the form of Assyrian chariots seems to be very well adapted. Representations of them sufficiently indicate the horrors of these instruments of war, by the bodies of the slain between their wheels.
Jdg_1:20. And they gave Hebron unto Caleb. This statement, even after that of Jdg_1:10, is by no mèans superfluous. Now, and not before, could Caleb receive Hebron as a quiet possession. Judah must first enter his territory. When the conquest was completed,—and it was completed after the western parts of the mountain region also submitted,—the tribe of Judah entered upon its possessions; and then the aged hero received that which had been promised him. Then also, most likely, transpired that beautiful episode which gave to Othniel his wife and property.
Starke (Jdg_1:16): The children of those parents who have deserved well of the church of God, should have kindness shown, and benefits extended to them before others. For ingratitude is a shameful thing.
The same (Jdg_1:17): Covenants, even when involving dangers, must be faithfully kept by all, but especially by brothers and sisters.
[Scott (Jdg_1:19): Great things might be achieved by the professors of the gospel, if they unitedly endeavored to promote the common cause of truth and righteousness; for then “the Lord would be with them,” and every mountain would sink into a plain. But when outward difficulties are viewed by the eye of sense, and the almighty power of God is forgotten, then no wonder we do not prosper; for according to our faith will be our vigor, zeal, and success. Love of ease, indulgence, and worldly advantages, both spring from and foster unbelief. Thus many an awakened sinner, who seemed to have escaped Satan’s bondage, “is entangled again, and overcome, and his last state is worse than the first.” Thus even many a believer who begins well is hindered: he grows negligent and unwatchful and afraid of the cross; his graces languish, his evil propensities revive; Satan perceives his advantage, and plies him with suitable temptations; the world recovers its hold; he loses his peace, brings guilt into his conscience, anguish into his heart, discredit on his character, and reproach on the gospel; his hands are tied, his mouth is closed, and his usefulness ruined.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Jdg_1:17.—The çֵøֶí (LXX. ἀíÜèåìá ), in cases like the present, was, as Hengstenberg (Pent. ii. 74) expresses it, “the compulsory devotement to the Lord of those who would not voluntarily devote themselves to him.” To render the word simply by “destruction,” as is done in the A. V. here and elsewhere, is to leave out the religious element of the act, and reduce it to the level of a common war measure. Cf. Winer, Realwörterb., s. v. Bann; Smith’s Bib. Dict. s. v. Anathema.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:17.— åַéִּ÷ְøָà . Dr. Cassel translates it as if it were plural, and gives it the same subject with åַéַּçֲøִéîåּ , “they called.” Correct, perhaps, as to fact, but grammatically less accurate than the A. V. åַéִּ÷ְøָà is the indefinite third person. Cf. Ges. Gr. 137, 3.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:19.—Dr. Cassel: denn nicht zu vertreiben waren die Bewohner der Niederung. On the force of ëִּé , for (E. V. but), cf. Ges. Gram. § 155, p. 271.—The construction of ìàֹ ìְäåֹøִéùׁ is unusual. According to Keil (and Bertheau) “ ìàֹ is to be taken substantively, as in Amo_6:10, in the same sense in which the later Scriptures use àַéִï before the infinitive, 2Ch_5:11; Est_4:2; Est_8:8; Ecc_3:14. Cf. Ges. Gram. § 132, 3, Rem. 1; Ewald, 237 c.” Idea and expression might then be represented in English by the phrase: “there was no driving the enemy out.” On òֵîֶ÷ , see foot-note on p. 39.—Tr.]
Compare Rosenmüller, p. 25, and Hengstenberg, Pent. 2. p. 179, etc.
The King of Arad only is spoken of, Num_21:1, and it is not said that Arad was called Hormah. The “name of the (one) place,” it is stated, they called Hormah, whereas they “banned their cities.” Since, therefore, Arad and Hormah are distinguished, it is plain that this one place of the banned cities, which was called Hormah, was Zephath.—[Bertheau: “It has been thought, indeed, that the word îָ÷éֹí in Num_21:3, in the connection in which it stands, indicates that in the time of Moses the whole southern district received the name Hormah, whereas, according to our passage [i. e. Jdg_1:17] it was given only to the city of Zephath; but îָ÷åֹí never signifies “region,” and must be understood here, as in Gen_28:19 and elsewhere, of one place or one city.”—Tr.]
Some ruins, named Sepâta by the Arabs, were found by Rowlands (cf. Ritter, xiv. 1084–5; Williams’ Holy City i. 464). two and a half hours southwest of Khalasa (Robinson’s Elusa), and have also been identified with Zephath. Their position is very different from that of Tell es-Sufâh. They also seem to me to lie too remote from Arad. That the Biblical name Zephath has been preserved, after the Jewish inhabitants for many centuries must have used, not that, but Hormah, does not appear at all probable. In the mountains of Ephraim, Eli Smith came into a village Um-Sufâh. “It reminded him of the locality of Hormah near the southern border of Palestine, both of which names [Um-Sufâh and Hormah] in Arabic designate such smooth tracts of rock” (Ritter, xvi. 561).
Thus an internal contradiction between this verse and the statement of the next that Judah failed to drive out the inhabitants of the low country, as asserted by Baihinger (Herz. Real-Encykl. xi. 554), does not exist.
[The author identifies the òֵîֶ÷ , the inhabitants of which Judah failed to drive out, with the ùְׁôֵìָä , Jdg_1:9, and hence renders it (see Jdg_1:19) by Niederung, “low country,” prop, depression. Against this identification, accepted by Studer, Bertheau, Keil, and many others, Bachmann objects that, with the single exception of Jer_47:5, a poetic passage in a late prophet, òֵîֶ÷ is never applied to the Philistine plain. “In accordance with its derivation, òֵîֶ÷ denotes a valley-basin (cf. Robinson, Phys. Geog. p. 70), broadly extended it may be (Gen_14:9-10; Jos_17:16; etc.), adapted for battle (Jos_8:13), susceptible of cultivation (Job_39:10; Son_2:1; Psa_65:13; etc.), but still always depressed between mountains and bordered by them. It never means a level plain or lowlands.” Cf. Stanley, Sinai and Pal., p. 476, Amer. ed. Bachmann, therefore, looks for the Emek—which, by the way, with the article, is not necessarily singular, but may be used collectively—within or at least very near the Mountains of Judah. “Of valleys affording room for the action of charlots, the mountains of Judah have several; e. g., the Emek Rephaim, Jos_15:8, southwest of Jerusalem, one hour long and one half hour broad, known as a battle-field in other times also (2Sa_5:18; 2Sa_5:22; 2Sa_23:13); the Emek ha-Elah,
Sam. Jdg_17:1-2; the broad basins of the valleys of Jehoshaphath and Ben Hinnom near the northern boundary (see Rob. . 268, 273); the great, basin-like plain of Beni Naîm in the east (see Rob. i. 488 ff.); and others. And that, in general, chariots in considerable numbers might be used in the mountain country, appears, with reference to a region a little further north, from 1Sa_13:5.” Bachmann’s view of the connection of Jdg_1:19 with what precedes is as follows: Jdg_1:9. The battle of Bezek, etc., having secured Judah from attacks in the rear, and left him free to proceed in his undertakings, the theatre of these undertakings is divided by Jdg_1:9 into three parts: the mountain country, the south (negeb), and the plain (shephelah). The conquest of the mountain country is illustrated by a couple of instances in Jdg_1:10-15; that of the south is similarly indicated in Jdg_1:16-17; and that of the plain in Jdg_1:18. Here, too, Judah was successful in his undertakings. As in the other cases, the places named here, Gaza, Askelon, Ekron, are only mentioned as examples of what took place in the Shephelah generally. The conquest of the western parts of the Shephelah being related, that of the eastern districts, nearer the mountains, was left to be inferred as a matter of course. Then, in Jdg_1:19, the narrative returns to the mountain country, in order to supplement Jdg_1:10-15 by indicating, what those verses did not show, that the conquest of this division, the first of the three mentioned, was not complete.—Tr.]
How properly the readings of the Septuaginta are not considered as authorities against the Hebrew text, is sufficiently shown by the single fact that here they read, “ ὅôé ̔ Ñç÷ὰâ äéåóôåßëáôï áὐôïῖò ,” which also passed over into the Syriac version. A few Codd. add “ êáὶ ἅñìáôá óéäçñᾶ áí ̓ ôïῖò .”
Cf. Joh. Gottl. Schneider in his edition of the Cyropœdia (Lips. 1840), p. 368.
Bohlen, Altes Indien, ii. 66.
[On this sentence of our author, Bachmann remarks: “Cassel’s explanation that the Cyrenians had ‘still’ that kind of chariots which Cyrus invented, is the opposite of what Xenophon, l. c., expressly and repeatedly declares, namely, that Cyrus abolished ( êáôÝëõóå ) both the earlier ( ðñüóèåí ïῦ ̓ óáí ) Trojan method of chariot-warfare, and also that still in use ( ἔôé êáὶ íῦí ïῦ ̓ óáí ) among the Cyrenians, which formerly ( ôὸí ðñüóèåí ÷ñüíïí ) was also practiced by the Medes, Syrians, etc.” Bertheau and Bachmann (Keil, too) resist the conversion of “iron chariots” into currus falcati on the ground that these were unknown before Cyrus, who invented them, Cyropœdia, vi. 1, 27, 30. On the Egyptian war-chariot, see Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, i. 350.—Tr.]
Lib. xvii. 3, 7, ed. Paris, p. Judges 703: “ ÷ñῶíôáé äὲ êáὶ äñåðáíçöüñïéò Ü ̔ ñìáóé .”
In the Bibl. Hist. of Diodorus, ii. 5.
Cf. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, ii. 335. [For an account of the Assyrian war-chariot, p. 349. On p. 353, Layard remarks: “Chariots armed with scythes are not seen in the Assyrian sculptures, although mentioned by Ctesias as being in the army of Ninus.”—Tr.]