Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 1:3 - 1:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_1:3-8
[2 Jdg_1:8.—Matthew Henry: Our translators judge it [the taking of Jerusalem] spoken of here, as done formerly in Joshua’s time, and only repeated [related] on occasion of Adoni-bezek’s dying there, and therefore read it, “they had fought against Jerusalem,” and put this verse in a parenthesis; but the original speaks of it as a thing now done; and that seems most probable, because it is said to be done by the children of Judah in particular, not by all Israel in general, whom Joshua commanded.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_1:8.—To fight against a city, äִìָּçֵí áְּòִéø , is to besiege it, or assault it by storm, cf. Jos_10:31; 2Sa_12:26. ìָëַã is to take by such a movement. Hence Dr. Cassel translates, “fought against Jerusalem, and took it by storm, erstürmten es.”—Tr.]
[4 Jdg_1:8.— ìְôéÎãָøֶá : lit. “according to the mouth (i.e. edge) of the sword. The expression denotes unsparing destruction, a killing whose only measure is the sharpness of the sword’s edge. Cf. Bertheau in loc.—Tr.]
Come up with me into my lot. The territory of a single tribe was called its lot, âּåֹøָì . Compare the Greek êëῆñïò , used to denote possessions in general, and also the portion of territory assigned to each party embarked in a colonial enterprise. (“Crœsus devastated the lots of the Syrians,” öèåßñùí ôïὺò êëÞñïõò , Herod, i. 76.)—It was natural for Judah to summon his brother Simeon to join him; for Simeon’s territory lay within the borders of Judah. According to the statements of Joshua 15, the inheritance assigned to the tribe of Judah might be bounded by two lines, drawn respectively from the northern and southern extremities of the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean, the northern line passing below Jerusalem. Simeon’s part lay in the middle between these lines, toward the west. For this reason, Simeon is already in Num_34:20 named second, next to Judah, the first tribe. This summons of Judah to Simeon to conquer together their territories is instructive in several respects. It shows that the whole south had indeed been attacked, but was not yet occupied. True, the narrative of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua is not complete, and leaves much to be supplied; but thus much is clear, that though Joshua undoubtedly made war on the southern and northern Canaanites, he by no means obtained control of all the land. It is also evident from Jos_1:1 to Jos_10:42, that as long as Joshua fought with the more southern enemies, his encampment was at Gilgal, in the neighborhood of Jericho and the Jordan, to which after each victory over the southern kings, whom he pursued far into the southwest, he always fell back (Jos_10:15; Jos_10:43). Hence the conversation with Caleb, concerning the inheritance of the latter takes place while the camp is still at Gilgal (Jos_14:6). Consequently, it can only have been the result of victories over the northern princes, that Joshua, in the last years of his regency, transferred the encampment of the people to Shiloh (Jos_18:1; Jos_21:2) and Shechem (Jos_24:1). Of this territory he had already gained permanent possession. It belonged to the inheritance of the tribe of Ephraim. Joshua himself was of this tribe. That fact explains how it was that Ephraim was the first to come into secure and permanent territorial possession. In this also Joshua differs from Moses. The latter, although sprung from the tribe of Levi, belonged to all the tribes. He was raised above every special tribe-relationship. His grave even none can boast of. Joshua does not deny that he belongs to Joseph, although he does not yield to their less righteous demands (Jos_17:14). His tribe forms the first circle around him. When he locates the national centre in Shiloh and Shechem, it is in the possessions of Ephraim. Here, as long as Joshua lived, the government of the Israelitish tribes and their sanctuary had their seat. Here the bones of Joseph were buried; here are the sepulchres of Joshua and his contemporary, the priest Eleazar. Ephraim was the point from which the farther warlike expeditions of the individual tribes were directed. Precisely because the first permanently held possession had connected itself with Joshua and his tribe, the summons to seize and occupy their assigned territory came next to Judah and its prince Caleb, the associate of Joshua, and after him the first man of Israel. But Judah and Simeon cannot have set out on their expedition from Shiloh or Shechem. There was not room enough in the territory of the tribe of Ephraim to afford camping-ground for all Israel. The encampment in Gilgal had not ceased; and there the tribe of Judah found a suitable station whence to gain possession of its own land. Thence they could enter immediately into the territory assigned them. Moreover, it is only upon the supposition that Gilgal was the point of departure of the army of Judah, that it becomes entirely clear why Judah turned to his brother Simeon, Had he come down from Shechem, he might also have turned to Benjamin. But Simeon needed the same avenue into his dominions as Judah. He must pass through the country of the latter to reach his own. From Gilgal, the armies of Judah advanced along the boundary line between their own land and Benjamin, in the direction of the western shore of the Dead Sea which formed their eastern border (Jos_15:5-7), intending to march through the wilderness, and perhaps after passing Tekoah, to turn first against Hebron. There the enemy met them.
Jdg_1:4. And they smote them in Bezek, ten thousand men. The position of Bezek is indicated by the direction of Judah’s advance. It must have been already within the limits of Judah; for “Judah went up,” namely, to his territory. Its distance from Jerusalem cannot have been great, for they brought the wounded and maimed Adoni-bezek thither, and immediately after the battle in Bezek the tribes attack Jerusalem. If it were the name of a city, the place bearing it would seem to have been of such importance, as to make it matter of surprise that we find no further mention of it. The name announces itself as an appellative derived from the character of the region. áֶּéֶ÷ (Bezek) is undoubtedly equivalent to áָּøָ÷ (Barak). It designates unfruitful, stony sand-areas (Syrtes). The desert Barca in North Africa is familiar in ancient and modern times. The inhabitants of deserts received the name Barcæans, as Jerome remarks (Ep. cxxix.), “from the city Barca, which lies in the desert.” At the present day a chasm in the rocks, in the peninsula of Sinai, bears the name Bereika (Ritter, xiv. 547). The ancient name Bene-berak (Jos_19:45) also explains itself in this way. In Arabic áø÷ä designates stony, unfruitful land. Now, the land west of the Dead Sea, through which Judah marched into his territory, is for the most part of this character. “The desert here, covered with chalk and crumbling limestone, and without the least trace of vegetation, has a truly terrible appearance” (Ritter, xv. 653 (Gage’s Transl., iii. 114). It was in this tract that the battle was joined, which ended in the defeat of the Canaanite and Perizzite. The name Canaanites passed over from the cities of the Phœnician Lowlands (Canaan), to the inhabitants of cities throughout the land. It designates the population devoted to agriculture and the arts of civilized life. Perizzites may have been the name of tribes of Bedouins, inhabitants of tents, roving at will among the mountains and in the desert. Down to the present time, the eastern part of Judah, adjoining the Dead Sea, is a true Bedouin highway, especially for all those Arabs who press forward from the east and south. The Canaanites and Perizzites unite to meet the common enemy in the desert tract, just as Zenobia united herself with the Saracens of the desert against the Romans. They are defeated, and there fall ten thousand men, i.e. ìýðéïé , myriads, an indefinitely large number. From the fact that Bezek does not designate a particular place, but the region in general, it becomes plain that verses 4 and 5 do not relate the same occurrence twice. Verse 4 speaks of the first conflict. The second was offered by Adoni-bezek (Jdg_1:5).
Jdg_1:5. And they came upon Adoni-bezek in Bezek. We can trace the way which Judah took, with Simeon, to the borders assigned him. From Gilgal it proceeded to Beth-hogla (Ain Hajla), through the wide northern plain of the Dead Sea, on its northwestern shore, to the region at present traversed by the Ta’âmirah Bedouin tribes. This region was named Bezek. áֶּæֶ÷ and áּ ֽøָ÷ primarily signify “dazzling brightness;” hence the signification “lightning.” It was doubtless the dazzling glare of the ground, produced by the reflection of the sun whether from the white salt-crust of the surface, the rocks, or the undulating sandhills, that suggested the name Bezek for such regions. This primary sense enables us, moreover, also to discover the connection between Adoni-bezek and Bezek. That the latter is not a city, might have been sufficiently inferred from the fact that notwithstanding the victory no record is made here, as in the cases of other cities, of its fall and destrucsion. To take Adoni-bezek as Prince of Bezek, does not seem advisable. The proper names of heathen kings always have reference to their religion. Since Adoni-bezek, after having been mutilated, was carried by his attendants to Jerusalem, he must have held some relation to that city. Only that supposition enables us to see why Judah and Simeon storm Jebus (Jerusalem), belonging as it did to the tribe of Benjamin, for which reason they make no attempt to hold it by garrisoning it. Already in the 10th chapter of Joshua we meet with Adoni-zedek in Jerusalem, just as in the history of Abraham Melchi-zedek appears there. Adon is a Phœnician designation of the Deity. Adoni-zedek and Melchi-zedek mean, “My God, my king, is Zedek.” The names of the kings enunciated their creeds. Zedek (Sadyk, Sydyk,) belongs to the star-worship of the Canaanites, and according to ancient tradition was the name of the planet Jupiter. Adoni-bezek manifestly expresses a similar idea. Bezek = Barak is the dazzling brightness, which is also peculiar to Jupiter. His Sanskrit name is “Brahaspati (Brihaspati), Father of Brightness.” “My God is Brightness,” is the creed contained in the name Adoni-bezek. His name alone might lead us to consider him King of Jerusalem, to which, as if it were his royal residence, his own attendants carry him after his defeat.
Jdg_1:6. And Adoni-bezek fled, .… and they cut off the thumbs of his bands and feet, etc. How horrible is the history of human cruelty! It is the mark of ungodliness, that it glories in the agony of him whom it calls an enemy. The mutilation of the human body is the tyranny of sin over the work of God, which it nevertheless fears. The Persian king Artaxerxes caused the arm of his brother, which had bent the bow against him, to be hewn off, even after death. Thumbs were cut off to incapacitate the hand for using the bow, great toes to render the gait uncertain. When in 456 b. c., the inhabitants of Ægina were conquered by the Athenians, the victors ordered their right thumbs to be cut off, so that, while still able to handle the oar, they might be incapable of using the spear (Ælian, Var. Hist., ii. 9). Mohammed (Sura, viii. 12) gave orders to punish the enemies of Islam by cutting off their heads and the ends of their fingers, and blames its omission in the battle of Beder. In the German Waldweisthümern the penalty against hunters and poachers of having their thumbs cut off, is of frequent occurrence (Grimm, Rechtsalterth., 707; Deutsches Wörterb. ii. 346). Adoni-bezek, in his pride, enjoyed the horrible satisfaction of making the mutilated wretches pick up their food under his table, hungry and whining like dogs. Curtius relates that the Persians had preserved Greek captives, mutilated in their hands, feet, and ears, “for protracted sport” (in longum sui ludibrium reservaverant. De Rebus Gest. Alex., v. 5, 6). Posidonius (in Athenœus, iv. 152, d.) tells how the king of the Parthians at his meals threw food to his courtier, who caught it like a dog ( ôὸ ðáñáâëçèὲí êõíéóôὶ óéôå ͂ éôáé ), and was moreover beaten like a dog. The tribe of Judah simply recompensed Adoni-bezek: not from revenge, for Israel had not suffered anything from him; nor from pleasure in the misery of others, for they left him in the hands of his own people.
Jdg_1:7. As I have done, so has the Deity completed unto me. Many (in round numbers, seventy) are they whom he has maltreated. ùִׁìֵּí (Piel of ùָׁìַí ) is to finish, complete, and hence to requite; for reward and punishment are inseparably connected with good and evil deeds. As the blossom reaches completion only in the fruit, so deeds in their recompense. The Greeks used ôåëåῖí in the same sense. “When the Olympian (says Homer, Iliad, iv. 160) does not speedily punish ( ἐôÝëåóóåí ), he still does it later ( ἔê ôå êáὶ ὀøὶ ôåëåῖ ).” It was an ethical maxim extensively accepted among ancient nations that men must suffer the same pains which they have inflicted on others. The later Greeks called this the Neoptolemic Tisis, from the circumstance that Neoptolemus was punished in the same way in which he had sinned (Pausanius, iv. 17, 3; Nägelsbach, Nachhom. Theologie, 343). He had murdered at the altar, and at the altar he was murdered. Phaleris had roasted human beings in a brazen bull—the same punishment was inflicted on himself. That which Dionysius had done to the women of his people, his own daughters were made to undergo (Ælian, Var. Hist., ix. 8). Jethro says (Exo_18:11), “for the thing wherein they sinned, came upon them.”
And they brought him to Jerusalem. None but his own people could bring him thither, for the city was not yet taken. It was evidently hiscity; for the Israelites follow after, and complete their victory by its capture. The storming of Jerusalem for its own sake could not have formed part of the plan of the tribes, since it belonged to Benjamin. They were led to it by the attack which they suffered from Adoni-bezek. Nor did they take possession of it. They only broke the power of the king thoroughly. He died miserably; his people were put to the sword; the city was consumed by fire ( ùִׁìַּä áָּàùׁ , to abandon to the flames). Thus the wanton haughtiness of Adoni-bezek was terribly requited.
Starke: As all Christians in general, so brothers and sisters in particular, should maintain a good understanding, and live together in peace and unity.
[Henry: It becomes Israelites to help one another against Canaanites; and all Christians, even those of different tribes, to strengthen one another’s hands against the common interests of Satan’s kingdom. Those who thus help one another in love, have reason to hope that God will help them both.
Bachmann: It is not incompatible with the obedience of faith, that Judah makes use of the helps placed by God at his disposal; and it is in accordance with the dictates of fraternal love that he makes that tribe the companion of his undertaking whose lot it was made rather to attach itself to others than to equal their independence (cf. Gen_49:7, and also the silence of Deuteronomy 33 concerning Simeon), and whose interests were peculiarly closely connected with his own.—Tr.]
Jdg_1:4-8. Starke: In the lives of men, things are often wonderfully changed about, and not by accident, but by the wonderful governance of God (Gen_50:19).
The same: God requites every one according to his deeds. Wherein one sins, therein he is also punished,—evidence that there is a God, and that He is just, recompensing according to deserts.
[Scott: Men often read their crimes in their punishments; and at last every mouth shall be stopped, and all sinners be constrained to admit the justice of God in their extremest miseries. Happy they who justify Him in their temporal afflictions, plead guilty before his mercy-seat, and by repentance and faith seek deliverance from the wrath to come.
Joseph Mede († 1638): As I have done so God hath requited me:1. God punisheth sin with temporal punishment in this life as well as with eternal in the life to come. 2. God doth not always presently inflict his judgments while the sin is fresh, but sometimes defers that long which He means to give home at the last. 3. These divine judgments by some conformity or affinity do carry in them as it were a stamp and print of the sin for which they are inflicted. 4. The profit and pleasure which men aim at when they commit sin will not so much as quit cost even in this life.
Wordsworth: As by this specimen at the beginning of this book, showing what two tribes of Israel could do by faith and obedience against Adoni-bezek, who had subdued and enslaved seventy kings, God showed what the twelve tribes might have done, if they had believed and obeyed him; and that all their subsequent miseries were due to defection from God;—in like manner, also, in the Christian Church, if men had followed the examples of the Apostles,—the Judahs and Simeons of the first ages,—and gone forth in their spirit of faith and love against the powers of darkness, they might long since have evangelized the world. All the distresses of Christendom are ascribable to desertions of [from] Christ, and not to any imperfection (as some have alleged) in Christianity (cf. Bp. Butler, Analogy, Part 2. Judges 1).—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Jdg_1:4.—“Smote them in Bezek ten thousand men” i.e. to the number of 10,000 men. Cf. Jdg_3:29; Jdg_3:31, etc. As for the word ðָëָä , its proper meaning is “to strike, to smite;” here, doubtless, so far as the ten thousand are concerned, to smite fatally, to kill; elsewhere (in Jdg_1:5, for instance), to defeat, vanquish.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:8.—Matthew Henry: Our translators judge it [the taking of Jerusalem] spoken of here, as done formerly in Joshua’s time, and only repeated [related] on occasion of Adoni-bezek’s dying there, and therefore read it, “they had fought against Jerusalem,” and put this verse in a parenthesis; but the original speaks of it as a thing now done; and that seems most probable, because it is said to be done by the children of Judah in particular, not by all Israel in general, whom Joshua commanded.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:8.—To fight against a city, äִìָּçֵí áְּòִéø , is to besiege it, or assault it by storm, cf. Jos_10:31; 2Sa_12:26. ìָëַã is to take by such a movement. Hence Dr. Cassel translates, “fought against Jerusalem, and took it by storm, erstürmten es.”—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:8.— ìְôéÎãָøֶá : lit. “according to the mouth (i.e. edge) of the sword. The expression denotes unsparing destruction, a killing whose only measure is the sharpness of the sword’s edge. Cf. Bertheau in loc.—Tr.]
[Keil: Simeon is called the “brother” of Judah, not so much because they both descended from one mother, Deah (Gen_29:33; Gen_29:35), as because Simeon’s inheritance lay within that of Judah (Jos_19:1 ff.), on account of which Simeon’s connection with Judah was closer than that of the other tribes.—Tr.]
[That Judah, nor in fact any of the western tribes, except Ephraim, had not hitherto enjoyed actual possession of any part of his land, is also the view of Bertheau and Ewald. It is strenuously objected to by Bachmann, who maintains that “not only the allotment of the land among the tribes, but also its actual occupation by them, are constantly presupposed in all that this first chapter relates both about the prosecution of the local wars, and the many instances of sinful failure to prosecute them.” And, certainly, such passages as Jos_23:1; Jos_24:28, cf. Jdg_2:6, appear at least to be decidedly against the view taken by our author. The subject, however, is obscure and intricate, and not to be entered upon in a foot-note.—Tr.]
The name does indeed occur again in 1Sa_11:8, where Saul numbers Israel in Bezek. But the very fact that Bezek is there used as a place for mustering troops, shows that it is open country, not any thickly peopled spot. It cannot be maintained that both Bezeks must designate the same region. Similar topographical conditions conferred similar or identical names. Bene-berak [sons of Berak, Jos_19:45, as to the origin and significance of the name compare the commentary on Jdg_1:4-5.—Tr.] was in the tribe of Dan. And so a region west of the Jordan, and east of Shechem, so far at least as we can determine the true direction from the narrative [in Sam. Jdg_11:8], seems also to have borne the name Bezek.
According to the interchange of r and s as in çָæåֹï and çָøåֹï (Eze_1:14), quaero and quaeso, etc. In Eze_1:14 bezek (bazak) denotes a dazzling radiance. Barak, lightning, became a proper name. In the regions of Barca (the desert) the name Barcas (Hamilcar) was familiar enough.
“The glitter of the (gravel) surface in the sunshine, if not a little trying to the eyes.”—Strauss, Sinai und Golgotha, iii. 1, 133.
Cf. my Ortsnamen (Erfurt, 1856), i. 118.
Cf. Bohlen, Altes Indien, ii. 248.
[Bezek is generally regarded as the name of a city or village. The majority of scholars (Le Clerc, Rosenmüller, Reland, V. Raumer, Bachmann, etc.) look for it in the territory of Judah, but without being able to discover any traces of it, which is certainly remarkable; for, if a city, it must have been, as Dr. Cassel remarks, and as the usual interpretation of Adoni-bezek as King of Bezek implies, a place of some importance. Others, therefore (as Bertheau, Keil, Ewald, etc.), connect this Bezek with that of 1Sa_11:8, and both with the following statement in the Onomasticon: “hodie duae villae sunt nomine Bezech, vicinae sibi, in decimo septimo lapide a Neapoli, descendentibus Scythopolin.” Then to account for this northern position of the armies of Judah and Simeon, Bertheau supposes them to set out from Shechem (cf. Jos_24:1, etc.), and to make a detour thence to the northeast, either for the purpose of descending to the south by way of the Jordan valley, or for some other reason; while Keil, without naming any place of departure, suggests that Judah and Simeon may have been compelled, before engaging the Canaanites in their own allotments, to meet those coming down upon them from the north, whom after defeating, they then pursued as far as Bezek. Dr. Cassel’s explanation is attractive as well as ingenious; but, to say nothing about the uncertainty of its etymology, Bezek, as an appellative applied to a definite region, would, as Bachmann remarks, require the article, cf. äַëּëָּø , äַùְּׁôֵìָä , äַðֶּåֶá .—Tr.]
Hence, on the other hand, the severe punishment which the ancient popular laws adjudged to him who unjustly cuts off another’s thumb. The fine was almost as high as for the whole hand. The Salic law rated the hand at 2,500, the thumb of hand or foot at 2,000 denarii, “qui faciunt solidos quinquaginta” (Lex Salica, xxix. 3, ed. Merkel, p. 16).
[Kitto (Daily Bible Illustrations: Moses and the Judges, p. 299): “This helps us to some insight of the state of the country under the native princes, whom the Israelites were commissioned to expel. Conceive what must have been the state of the people among whom such a scene could exist,—what wars had been waged, what cruel ravages committed, before these seventy kings—however small their territories—became reduced to this condition; and behold in this a specimen of the fashion in which war was conducted, and of the treatment to which the conquered were exposed. Those are certainly very much in the wrong who picture to themselves the Canaanites as ‘a happy family,’ disturbed in their peaceful homes by the Hebrew barbarians from the wilder ness. Behold how happy, behold how peaceful, they were!”—Tr.]
Elohim, which is also used of the heathen deity. The speaker speaks in the spirit of heathenism. As regards the seventy kings, it needs no argument to show that îִìֶêְ like the Greek ôýñáííïò , is applied to any ruler, even of a single city. Josephus (Ant., v. 2, 2) read seventy-two, which especially in his time, was interchangeable as a round number with seventy.
In the Gesta Romanorum, ch. xlviii., this is still adduced as a warning, and with an allusion to the passage in Ovid, De Arte Amandi, i. 653 [Et Phaleris tauro violenti membra Perilli torruit. Infelix imbuit auctor opus.—Tr.] it is remarked: “neque enim lex œquior ulla, quam necis artifices arte perire sua.”
Since it is Adoni-bezek who speaks in Jdg_1:7, the word åַéְáִéàֻäåּ in the same verse cannot refer to the Israelites. Why should they carry him with them? It would indicate the gratification of gratuitous cruelty, a thing inconceivable in this connection. Those who save him are his own servants; but arrived at Jerusalem he dies. Verse 8, therefore, commences very properly, not with the mere verb åַéִּìָּçֲîåּ , but with a repetition of the grammatical subject: áְּðֵé éְäåּãָä .