Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 1:21 - 1:26
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_1:21-26
[2 Jdg_1:21.—Cf. note 2, on Jdg_1:16; Jdg_1:3 on Jdg_1:29.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_1:22.— âַּíÎäֵí looks back to Jdg_1:3 ff. and intimates a parallelism between the conduct of the House of Joseph and that of Judah and his brother Simeon.—Tr.]
[4 Jdg_1:23.—Dr. Cassel apparently supplies îָáåֹà from the next verse. úּåּø , it is true, is usually followed by the accusative, not by áּ . But on the other hand, îָáåֹà is put in the const. state before òִéø (cf. Jdg_1:24-25); whereas, if we supply it here, we must suppose it joined to òִéø by means of a preposition. It is as well, therefore, to say, with Bertheau, that “the verb is connected with áְּ because the spying is to fasten itself, and that continuously, upon Bethel, cf. áְּ with øָàָä and äִøְàָä ;” or with Bachmann, that “ áְּ indicates the hostile character of the spying.” îָáåֹà is used as a general expression for any way or mode of access into the city: “Show us how to get in,” is the demand of the spies.—Tr.]
Jdg_1:22. And the house of Joseph, they also went up toward Bethel. This action of the house of Joseph is told by way of contrast with the house of Benjamin. The tribe of Benjamin lay between Judah and Ephraim (Jos_18:11); and Bethel, within its limits, formed a counterpart to Jerusalem. Historically, Bethel is celebrated for the blessing there promised to Jacob, and afterwards less favorably for the idolatrous worship of Jeroboam. Geographically, it was important on account of its position and strength. As Jebus and Jerusalem are always identified, so it is everywhere remarked of Bethel, that it was formerly Luz; and as Jebus indicated particularly the fortress, Jerusalem the city,—although the latter name also embraced both,—so a similar relation must be assumed to have existed between Bethel and Luz. Otherwise the border of Benjamin could not have run south of Luz (Jos_18:13), while nevertheless Bethel was reckoned among the cities of Benjamin (Jos_18:22). This assumption, moreover, explains the peculiar phraseology of Jos_18:13 : “And the border went over from thence toward Luz (after which we expect the usual addition “which is Bethel;” but that which does follow is:) on the south side of Luz, which is Bethel. It explains likewise the mention, Jos_16:2, of the order “from Bethel to Luz,” i.e. between Bethel and Luz. The latter was evidently a fortress, high and strong, whose city descended along the mountain-slope. When Jacob erected his altar, it must have been on this slope or in the valley. One name designated both fortress and city, but this does not militate against their being distinguished from each other. Bethel belonged to two tribes in a similar manner as Jerusalem. The capture of Luz by Joseph would not have been told in a passage which treats of the conflicts of the individual tribes in their own territories, if that fortress had not belonged to the tribes of Joseph. By the conquest of Luz, Joseph secured the possession of Bethel, since both went by that name, just as David, when he had taken the fortress of the Jebusite, was for the first time master of Jerusalem. This deed is related as contrasting with the conduct of Benjamin. Benjamin did nothing to take the fortress of Zion: Joseph went up to Luz, and God was with him. This remark had been impossible, if, as has been frequently assumed, the tribe of Joseph had arbitrarily appropriated to itself the city which had been promised to Benjamin. The view of ancient Jewish expositors, who assume a Bethel in the valley and one on the mountain, does not differ from that here suggested.—Robinson seems to have established the position of the ancient Bethel near the present Beitîn, where scattered ruins occupy the surface of a hill-point. A few minutes to the N. E., on the highest spot of ground in the vicinity, are other ruins, erroneously supposed to be Ai by the natives: these also perhaps belonged to Bethel. It cannot, however, be said, that until Robinson this position was entirely unknown. Esthori ha-Parchi, who in his time found it called Bethai, the l having fallen away, was evidently acquainted with it. In another work of the fourteenth century the then current name of Bethel is said to be Bethin.
Jdg_1:23-25. And the house of Joseph sent to spy out. åַéָּúִéøåּ from úּåּø , to travel around, in order to find an entrance less guarded and inaccessible. Luz appeared to be very strong and well guarded, and for a long time the assailants vainly sought a suitable opportunity for a successful assault. When the Persians besieged Sardis, their efforts were long in vain. One day a Persian saw a Lydian, whose helmet had fallen over the rampart, fetch it back by a hitherto unnoticed way. The man was followed, and the city was taken (Herod. i. 84). A similar accident favored the conquest of the fortress. The spies saw a man who had come out of the city. He failed to escape them. They compelled him to disclose the entrance. They promised him peace and mercy on condition of showing them the right way. He did it. It seems not even to have been necessary to storm the city; they fell upon the inhabitants unawares. Only the man who had assisted them, and his family, were spared. They let him go in peace. He was evidently no Ephialtes, who had betrayed the city for money. Doing it under compulsion, and unconsciously serving a great cause, no calamity befell him, and he found a new country. It not only behooves the people of God to perform what they have promised, but Jewish tradition followed persons like Rahab and this man, as those who had furthered the course of sacred history against their own people, with peculiar kindness. This man, like Rahab, is blessed for all time (cf. Jalkut on the passage, p. 8, d).
Jdg_1:26. And the man went into the land of the Hittites. It evinces a special interest in the man that his fortunes are traced even into a strange land. Greek patriotism relates that Ephialtes fared as he deserved; our history employs the favorable destiny which befell this man, to show that as he did not designedly for the sake of money practice treason, so he was also the instrument of setting a prosperous enterprise on foot. But where is the land of the Chittim (Hittites) to which he went? In nearly all passages in which Scripture makes mention of the Sons of Cheth ( çֵú , E. V. Heth), the Chitti ( çִúִּé , E. V. Hittite), and the Chittim ( çִúִּéí , E. V. Hittites), the name appears to be a general term, like the word Canaanite. Especially in the three passages where the Chittim are mentioned (Jos_1:4; 1Ki_10:29; 2Ki_7:6), their land and kings are placed between Egypt and Aram in such a way as seems to be applicable only to the populations of Canaan. Movers has successfully maintained that çִúִּéí and ëִּúִּéí refer to the same race of people; but it cannot be accepted that this race consisted only of the Kittim of Cyprus. It must rather be assumed that the Chittim answer to a more general conception, which also gave to the Kittim, their colonists, the name they bore. The historical interpretation of Kittim, which applied it to Ionians, Macedonians, and Romans, would not have been possible, if the name had not carried with it the notion of coast-dwellers, an idea which comparative philology may find indicated. Now, it is unquestionable that the Phœnician cities, with Tyre at their head, are even on their own coins designated by the terms çú and ëú . As from its lowlands, “Canaan” became the general popular name of Palestine, so likewise to a certain extent the name Chittim became a general term applied to all Canaanites. When the panic-struck king of Aram thinks that Israel has received support from the kings of Egypt and the Chittim (2Ki_7:6), this latter name can only signify the coast-cities, whose power, from Tyre upwards, was felt throughout the world. From the fact that our passage merely says that the man went into the land of Chittim, and presupposes the city built by him as still known, it may reasonably be inferred that he went to the familiarly known Chittim north of Israel. The probability is great enough to justify our seeking this Luz upon the Phœnician coast or islands. A remarkable notice in the Talmud (Sota, 46 b), derived from ancient tradition, may lead to the same conclusion: Luz is the place where the dyeing of úְּëֵìֶú is carried on, where there are hyacinthian purple dyeing-establishments. Down to the most recent times, the coast from Tyre upwards, as far as the Syrian Alexandria, was very rich in purple (Ritter, xvi. 611 [Gage’s Transl. iv. 280]). Now, pretty far away to the north, it is true, in the present Jebel el-Aala, at a point where a splendid northwest prospect over the plain to the lake of Antioch offers itself, Thomson found hitherto wholly unknown ruins bearing the name of Kûlb Lousy, with remnants of old and splendid temples. The surname Kulb might authorize the inference that the dyeing-business was formerly exercised there. The existence of temple-ruins, concerning which the Druses said that they had been without worshippers from time immemorial, explains also another remarkable tradition of the Talmud: that Luz is a city which the conquerors of the land did not destroy, and to which the angel of death never comes, but that they who feel the approach of death, leave the city of their own accord. Traditions like this are characteristic of Sun-worship. In Delos no one was allowed to die or to be buried. To Claros no serpents came. Neither could they penetrate to the land of the Astypalæans, on the island Cos. The island Cos is at the same time one of the seats of the ancient purple-trade. In the Syrian city Emesa there was a temple of the Sun, on account of which—as the story still went in Mohammedan times—scorpions and venomous animals cannot live there. Name, ruins, and tradition would therefore tend to identify Kûlb Lousy as the remnant of an ancient city, distinguished like Cos for a specific form of industry and for its sun-worship, if indeed Cos itself ( ëú ) be not understood by it.
Luz is described by its name as a place of almond-trees (Gen_30:37). And indeed, philologically Luz is akin to nux, nut. The Greek êÜñõïí signifies almond (on account of its shape) as well as nut and egg. Eusebius was induced to identify the land of the Chittim with Cyprus, the rather because the Cyprian almonds were celebrated in antiquity. The almond-tree has always abounded in the holy land. The cities are in ruins, but the tree still flourishes.
Starke: Ill got, ill spent; but that also which has been rightly got, is apt to be lost, if we make ourselves unworthy of the divine blessing, just as these places were again taken from the Israelites.
[Wordsworth: Here then was a happy opportunity for 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 forever of the heavenly Bethel, the house of God, which will stand forever. 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.—The same: There are four classes of persons, whose various conduct toward the Church of God, and to the gospel preached by her, is represented by four cases in the Books of Joshua and Judges; namely,—1. There is this case of the man of Bethel. 2. There is the case of the Kenites, in Jdg_1:16, who helped Judah after their victories in Canaan, and are 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 became a mother in Israel, an ancestress of Christ (see Jos_6:25).—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Jdg_1:21.—The å would be better taken adversitively: But. It contrasts the conduct of Benjamin with that of Caleb, Jdg_1:20.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:21.—Cf. note 2, on Jdg_1:16; Jdg_1:3 on Jdg_1:29.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:22.— âַּíÎäֵí looks back to Jdg_1:3 ff. and intimates a parallelism between the conduct of the House of Joseph and that of Judah and his brother Simeon.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:23.—Dr. Cassel apparently supplies îָáåֹà from the next verse. úּåּø , it is true, is usually followed by the accusative, not by áּ . But on the other hand, îָáåֹà is put in the const. state before òִéø (cf. Jdg_1:24-25); whereas, if we supply it here, we must suppose it joined to òִéø by means of a preposition. It is as well, therefore, to say, with Bertheau, that “the verb is connected with áְּ because the spying is to fasten itself, and that continuously, upon Bethel, cf. áְּ with øָàָä and äִøְàָä ;” or with Bachmann, that “ áְּ indicates the hostile character of the spying.” îָáåֹà is used as a general expression for any way or mode of access into the city: “Show us how to get in,” is the demand of the spies.—Tr.]
Ant. v. 2, Judges 2 : ×áëåðὴ ä ̓ ἦí êáèýðåñèåí áὐôïῖò áἱñåῆíáé , etc.
Already by Reland, Palæstina, p. 841.
Robinson, Bibl. Res. i. 448.
Kaftor ve Pherach (Berlin edition), Judges 11. pp. 47, 48. Cf. Zunz, in Asher’s Benj. of Tudela, ii. 436.
Ishak Chelo in Carmoly, pp. 249, 250.
The German traitor Segestes merely alleges that he follows higher reasons, although he knows that “proditores etiam iis quos anteponunt invisi sunt.” Tacit., Annal. i. 58, 2. Israel saw the hand of a higher Helper in such assistance; and hence it had no hatred toward the instruments
Ephialtes was the traitor of Thermopylæ, cf. Herod, vii. 213. Traditions are still current of a traitor at Jena (1806), who was obliged to flee into exile.
[That is, where this people is spoken of under the plural form of its patronymic, which happens only five times—at Jdg_1:26, 2Ch_1:17, and the places named in the text.—Tr.]
Phönizier, ii. 2, 213, etc.
I have already directed attention to this in the Mag Alterthümer (Berlin, 1848), p. 281.
Cf. ἀêôÞ , Cos (the island Cos), cautes, costa, côte, Küste.
The Sept. constantly (with barely two exceptions) translate úְּáֵìֶú by í ̔ áêßíèéíïò . Cf. Ad. Schmidt, Die griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Berlin, 1842), p. 134.
Cf. Ritter, xvii. 1577. [Thomson, Journey from Aleppo to Mt. Lebanon, in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. v. p. 667.—Tr.]
Cf. Bochart, Hierozoicon, ii. 740. Aruch (ed. Amsteld.) p. 89, s. v. ëìáåí .
On this and the following notices, which will be more thoroughly treated in the second part of my Hierozoicon, compare meanwhile, Ælian, Hist. Anim. V. cap. viii., cap. x. 49.
Cf. Ritter, xvii. 1010.
Casaubon, on Athenæus, p. 65.
Athenæus, p. 52; ct. Meursius, Cyprus, p. 30.