Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 18:1 - 18:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_18:1-13.
[2 Jdg_18:3.— ÷åֹì . Dr. Cassel renders “sound,” see his explanation below. Keil and others understand it of dialectic pronunciation or other peculiarities of speech. Bertheau thinks that inasmuch as the envoys had to “turn aside” from their way in order to get to Micah’s temple, they could not have been near enough to hear the Levite’s voice or note his pronunciation. He therefore assumes that what they recognized was the “tidings” that were told them of the sanctuary near by. But why not take the words in the sense in which any man would naturally take them at the first reading? The Levite had been a wanderer; some one (or more) of the five envoys had met with him, and now recognizes his voice, as they lie encamped near by. The conversation that ensues when they meet with him is certainly exactly such as would be expected under such circumstances; and the account which Micah gives of his personal affairs (Jdg_18:4), can scarcely be explained on any other supposition.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_18:7.— éåֹùֶׁáֶú is predicate to àֶúÎäָòָí , and as such ought to be masculine. The feminine is accounted for on the principle that the writer’s imagination identifies the people with the city in which they live, and so speaks of them as feminine, of Ewald, Lehrb. 174 b; Green, Gram. 275, 2, b. The appositional masculine participles ùׂ÷ֵè åּáֹèֵçַ only show that this identification is no longer in the mind of the writer.—Tr.]
For that unto that day no inheritance had fallen unto them. These words do not express the view of the narrator, but rehearse the complaint of the Danites, which was causeless however. Dan had certainly received an inheritance; and in proof of it is the fact that even at this time the tribe dwelt in the district of Zorah and Eshtaol. Its territory extended over Timnah and Ekron, as far as Joppa on the coast (Jos_19:41-46); but it had been crowded into the mountains by the Amorites (Jdg_1:34), and had failed to dispossess the Philistines of the plain along the sea-coast. On this account the tribe might indeed have too narrow bounds; but instead of enlarging their borders by making war on their heathen neighbors, they complained. If they had not been lacking in the true enthusiasm of faith in Jehovah, their onsets of irresistible prowess would not have failed to win the territory allotted to them. But it was easier, it must be allowed, to surprise undefended houses and lands, than to contend with the five princes of the Philistines, and their numerous armies. The words before us are only the subterfuge with which Dan defended the unusual resolution it had taken before the other tribes.
Jdg_18:2. And the sons of Dan sent of their family five men. Only in Israel was it an unusual thing to look about for other possessions than those which had been assigned. Among other nations, the reduction of a too numerous population by means of colonization, was a matter of frequent occurrence (cf. Movers, Phönizier, iii. 5, etc.). In the case of Dan, however, the resolution to look about for new territory was not arrived at by a few adventurers, who unceremoniously cut themselves loose from their people, but by the whole community. The commissioners and envoys to whom the promotion of the scheme was entrusted, were elected from among the whole ( îִ÷ְöåֹúָí ) and were not ordinary spies, but chosen men ( àַðְùֵׁé çַéִì ), upon whom the matter naturally devolved. (Compare the Roman plan of appointing commissioners to supervise the establishment of a colony.) The express statement that they were told “Go, explore the land,” is added, in order to relieve them from every appearance of having acted only on their own responsibility.
Jdg_18:3-4. There, near the house of Micah, they recognized the sound. “There” ( ùָׁí ),i. e., in the vicinity of the “temple-house,” which is here, in a special sense, called the “house of Micah.” When they were near this house ( òִíÎáֵּéú ), they heard the “sound ( ÷åֹì ) of the young Levite.” This has been curiously enough understood of the voice of the Levite. But how could the Danites tell by the voice that it belonged to a Levite? The statement, however, becomes instructive, when we call to mind what is written in Exo_28:35. The Levite in Micah’s House wore the priestly dress, which was provided with bells, in order “that their sound may be heard ( ðִùְׁîַò ÷åֹìåֹ ) when he enters into and comes out of the Holy Place.” The Danites, having passed the night ( åַéָּìִéðåּ ), heard, in the morning, the bells of the officiating priest, and thus learned, to their astonishment, that there was a Levite there.
Jdg_18:5-6. Inquire, we pray thee, of God (Elohim). The Danites, it is evident from all they do, are not steadfast in their faith in Jehovah. Hence, also, they find no fault with the Levite for having “hired” himself to Micah; nor do they hesitate, when they learn that he has an ephod and teraphim (Jdg_18:14), to consult his oracle about the success of their undertaking; but that Jehovah was worshipped here, did not appear to them to be the case. The narrator indicates this very delicately, by making them say, “Inquire of Elohim,” although the Levite, in the account he gave of himself, had used the name Jehovah, for to his service Micah’s House was nominally devoted. The Levite’s response is oracular, i. e., thoroughly ambiguous: “Go in peace: ðֹëַç éְäåָֹä ãַּøְëְּëֶí .” ðֹëַç is simply equivalent to coram; no such accessory idea as “favorable,” lies in the words. “Your way is before Jehovah”—an answer unquestionably correct. The Danites probably explained it in a favorable sense, on account of the “go in peace” which preceded it.
Jdg_18:7. And the five went, and came to Laish. Since the city was afterwards called Dan, whose name and situation at one of the sources of the Jordan (and that not the spring at Bâniâs), was known in the time of Josephus, Robinson was doubtless right in saying (B. R. iii. 392), that “of the identity of its situation and that of Tell el-Kâdy there can be no question.” Ritter (xv. 217) even communicates Wilson’s observation, according to which the name Dan, i. e., judge, survives by translation in Kâdy, the surname of the Tell Laish, however, lay “in the valley that leads to Beth-rehob” (Jdg_18:28). This valley can scarcely be any other than the present Wady et-Teim, the great longitudinal valley which extends from the plain of Lake Hûleh upward to Râsheiya. Through this valley and the Buka’a runs the direct road from the sources of the Jordan to Hamath (Rob. iii. 371). The spies of Moses explored the land as far as Rehob, where the road leads to Hamath (Num_13:21). Rehob (prop. Rechob) is a name suggested by topographical characteristics, and recurs therefore in various places. It always presupposes the presence of a plain or level surface. It is to be noted that Scripture itself does not speak of either Dan or Laish, as situated at the sources of the Jordan. We may, nevertheless, venture the conjecture that this situation may be found indicated in the name Laish ( ìַéִùׁ ). Laish signifies a lion; and ancient, originally Egyptian, symbology, has made the lion the sign of flowing stream-sources. For as soon as the sun enters his sign in the zodiac, the sources of the Nile begin to rise. Hence, says Horapollo, the mouths of fountains are provided with the figures of lions. This also accounts for the statement of Pollux, that the lion is called êñçíïöýëáî , “guardian of springs,” and for the wide-extended usage of setting up figures of the lion near springs. The place of the source of the Orontes is named Lebweh, which also means lion. The river which rises near Baalbek-Heliopolis was called Leontes (at present Lîtâny); and the lion himself, as Egyptian symbol, signified “House of the Sun.” On the front-side of a building over the spring of Ain ’Anûb there are found figures of animals, considered to be either lions or dogs (Ritter, xvii. 676). The name Laish may be supposed to indicate in a similar manner the fountain, “one of the largest in the world,” which leaps down in an “immense stream” from Tell el-Kâdy (Rob. iii. 390). We are reminded by it of the blessing of Moses (Deu_33:22): “And of Dan he said, Dan is a âּå ̇ ø àַøְéֵä (lion’s whelp); he leaps forth from Bashan.” The attribute thus expressed corresponds, as it were, to that indicated in the name Laish. Leshem, the name under which the place appears in Jos_19:47, gives literal expression, perhaps, to the same idea which was figuratively indicated by Laish. The verb ìָùַׁò , to break through (of a spring), to flow, belongs to an ancient and widely diffused root. Hence, as the source of the Jordan was called ìֶùֶׁí , so the warm springs near the Dead Sea were called ìֶùַׁò , Lesha, changed afterwards into Callirrhoë (cf. lehhan, Licus, Lech, Celtic, Leis, Lias, and numerous similar river names).
Jdg_18:7. There was no hereditary potentate in the land, to oppress them in any respect. The observations of the five envoys are remarkable. They find the city, as a colony of Sidon, quietly devoted to industrial arts, after the manner of the mother city. It had not entered into relations for mutual protection with other cities, probably on the ground of its being a colony. That notwithstanding this, it could feel itself secure, and live without much warlike vigilance, although Sidon was so far away, evinces the very peaceful condition of the Syria of that day. The envoys observe also, that “there is no éåֹøֵùׁ òֶöֶø in the land.” The expression is obscure by reasou of its uncommonness. It seems to me, that it can only be understood in this way: The Danite envoys, during their stay in Laish, investigate particularly the ability of the city to defend itself. In this investigation they find not only that the people are engaged in peaceful industry ( ùֹׁ÷ֵè ), while their natural allies are far away, but also that there is no éåֹøֵùׁ òֶöֶø , i. e., no dynast or tyrant, in the land, with armed troops in his pay, ready for war. The presence of such a one would make it necessary to anticipate serious and ready resistance. Hence, the Persians, when they took possession of Ionia, deposed the tyrants and instituted popular governments everywhere (Herod, vi. 43). Under the éåֹøֵùׁ òֶöֶø of our passage, we are to understand what the Greeks called dynasts, hereditary despots, who exercised supreme control in the city. There is no thought here of a king or of suffetes, but of a tyrannical oppressor, who without consent of the inhabitants has become their master, and who surrounds himself with armed troops, in order, as instances in both Greek and Phœnician islands and cities sufficiently prove, to preserve the succession to this sort of government in his own family by means of force. In this explanation, òֶöֶø may either be taken as the object after éåֹøֵùׁ , in the sense of enforced supremacy,—in which case 1Sa_9:17 may be compared, for òָöַø is indeed, both in letter and sense, the Latin arcere, and sometimes also equivalent to coercere; or it may be regarded as standing in subjective opposition to éå ̇ øֵùׁ and be compared with àֵñַø=àֲöַø , lord, commander (cf. the Sanskrit çira), in the Aramaic names Nebuchadnezzar and Esarhaddon (cf. my Ortsnamen, i. 118). Since such a Joresh-etser wields his power by violence and without the consent of his subjects, it is not said that none such “reigns” in the land, but àֵéïÎîַëְìִéí , none such “injures, oppresses.” But for defense against attacks from without, such a ruler is undoubtedly well adapted, as may be seen in the instance of Polycrates. The envoys, therefore, are right, when they consider the absence of such a commander, where powerful friends are far away, and military activity is altogether wanting, as favorable to the success of an assailant.
Jdg_18:8-10. And they said, Arise, and let us go up against them. The narrative allows ancient manners to speak for themselves in a very delicate way. The five envoys, on their arrival at home, keep quiet, until they are asked, What have ye? Then, however, they are the ones who stimulate the irresolute and doubtful: “why are you silent? be not slothful ìָìֶëֶú , ìָáåֹà , ìָøֶùֶׁú ;” for to go, to come, and to have what you desire, is one and the same thing. You will find an attractive country without defense, a large land, to which nothing (either of wealth or attractiveness) is wanting. This representation was not extravagant. Laish was situated in the valley, perhaps on the same spot afterwards occupied by the Daphne mentioned by Josephus; which name, in the Hellenistic period, was only given to attractively situated places. Accordingly, Josephus himself also speaks of his Daphne as a delicious place, rich in water-springs (Wars, iv. 1, 1). The tract of land in which it lay, is still called Ard Difneh, and is covered with glorious wheat-fields and noble old trees (Rob. iii. 394). The emigrating Messenians were in similar manner invited by Anaxilaus of Rhegium to make themselves masters of Zankle in Sicily, being told that it was a blessed land, and in a fine part of the island (Paus. iv. 23). Seneca remarks (Consolatio ad Helviam matrem, cap. 6.), that many emigrants have been deceived by unmeasured praises of the fertile territory.
The envoys, in order to strengthen their people add that “Elohim has given the land into their hands,” referring probably to the response of the Levite’s oracle.
Jdg_18:11. And there broke up from thence six hundred men, girded with weapons of war. Six hundred families either volunteered, or were selected. The number may correspond with ancient usage. Livy relates that the Romans, when engaged in a colonizing enterprise, in the year 197 before Christ, sent out three hundred families into each several city (xxxii. 29). The Danites, like Greek and Roman colonies, set out as if for war, with banners, arms, and means of subsistence (Jdg_18:21). In a speech of Demosthenes it is said: ’ ÅëÜìâáíïí ðåìðüìåíïé ὅðëá ἐê ôïῦ äçìïóßïõ êáὶ ἐöüäéá (cf. Hermann, Griech. staatsalterthümer, § 75, 2).
Jdg_18:12. Wherefore that place is called “Camp of Dan,” unto this day: behold, it is behind Kirjath-jearim. The expedition was at that time an extraordinary event. It seemed to renew the old marches of Israel in the desert, for the conquest of Canaan. There doubtless existed notices concerning the various stations which they made on the journey. It seems, however, that only three of the stations are known to us. The first was the “Machaneh Dan,” with which the first awakening of Samson to his life of heroism was connected (Jdg_13:25). It lay between Zorah and Eshtaol, and was therefore doubtless the place of rendezvous for the expedition, which came for the most part from those cities (Jdg_18:11, cf. Jdg_18:2). This cannot be the same with the Machaneh Dan near Kirjath-jearim, in the tribe of Judah, of which mention is here made. The researches of Robinson enable us to locate the latter near the modern Kuryet el-’Enab, whence the high road appears to have gone over the mountains of Ephraim. The third is the sanctuary of Micah, where likewise the “camping-place of Dan” was probably long remembered. At all events, the remark, that since this expedition the name Machaneh Dan existed, shows that the event took place before the days of Samson (during which Dan appears also to have been in an enfeebled condition), and is therefore to be put between Gideon and Samson.
Footnotes:
[Jdg_18:1.— áְּðַçֲìָä properly means: “in the character of an inheritance, as an inheritance,” cf. Num_26:53, etc. The nominative to ìàֹÎðָôְìָä is to be supplied from the thought of the preceding clause, either in the form of ðַçֲìָä or, better, in the more general form of àֶøֶõõ , land. The writer probably intended to introduce the subject after the verb, but as he proceeded his attention was diverted by subordinate clauses, and so he ended with an anacoluthon.—Tr.]
[Jdg_18:3.— ÷åֹì . Dr. Cassel renders “sound,” see his explanation below. Keil and others understand it of dialectic pronunciation or other peculiarities of speech. Bertheau thinks that inasmuch as the envoys had to “turn aside” from their way in order to get to Micah’s temple, they could not have been near enough to hear the Levite’s voice or note his pronunciation. He therefore assumes that what they recognized was the “tidings” that were told them of the sanctuary near by. But why not take the words in the sense in which any man would naturally take them at the first reading? The Levite had been a wanderer; some one (or more) of the five envoys had met with him, and now recognizes his voice, as they lie encamped near by. The conversation that ensues when they meet with him is certainly exactly such as would be expected under such circumstances; and the account which Micah gives of his personal affairs (Jdg_18:4), can scarcely be explained on any other supposition.—Tr.]
[Jdg_18:7.— éåֹùֶׁáֶú is predicate to àֶúÎäָòָí , and as such ought to be masculine. The feminine is accounted for on the principle that the writer’s imagination identifies the people with the city in which they live, and so speaks of them as feminine, of Ewald, Lehrb. 174 b; Green, Gram. 275, 2, b. The appositional masculine participles ùׂ÷ֵè åּáֹèֵçַ only show that this identification is no longer in the mind of the writer.—Tr.]
[Our author, both in his version of the Hebrew text and here, transfers ùָׁí from the end of one verse to the beginning of another, but without good reason.—Tr.]
On Rehob, equivalent to Paltos, compare above, on Jdg_1:31.
[Keil’s explanation of this passage is in all essential points very similar, except that he defines éåֹøֵùׁ òֶöֶø is “one who seizes on power,” and derives (rightly, no doubt) éåֹøֵùׁ from éָøַùׁ in the sense of seizing, and not as our author does, in the sense of “inheriting,” or rather, perhaps, in both senses at the same time.—Tr.]