Lange Commentary - Judges 2:16 - 2:23

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Judges 2:16 - 2:23


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

The interposition of God in Israel’s behalf by the appointment of Judges. Deliverance and the death of the Deliverer the occasion of renewed apostasy

Jdg_2:16-23

16Nevertheless [And] the Lord [Jehovah] raised up judges, which [and they] delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. 17And yet they would not [But neither did they] hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other [false] gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the Lord 18[Jehovah]; but they did not so. And when the Lord [Jehovah] raised them up judges, then the Lord [Jehovah] was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: (for it repented the Lord [Jehovah] because of their groanings [wailings] by reason of them that oppressed them and 19vexed [persecuted] them.) And [But] it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned [turned back], and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other [false] gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own [omit: own] [evil] doings, nor from their stubborn way. 20And the anger of the Lord [Jehovah] was hot [kindled] against Israel; and he said, Because that this people hath transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice; 21I also will not henceforth [will not go on to] drive out any [a man] from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died: 22that through them I may prove [in order by them to prove] Israel, whether they will keep the way of the Lord [Jehovah] to walk 23therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not. Therefore [And] the Lord [Jehovah] left those [these] nations [at rest], without driving them out hastily [so that they should not be speedily driven out], neither delivered he them [and delivered them not] into the hand of Joshua.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[1 Jdg_2:17.—Dr. Cassel has denn, “for.” “But” is better. On ëִּé after a negative, cf. Ges. Gr. p. 272, at top.—Tr.]

[2 Jdg_2:17.—That is, as often as a Judge had succeeded in bringing them back to the way of their fathers, they quickly left it again. So Bachmann.—Tr.]

[3 Jdg_2:17.— ìִùְׁîֹò : “in that they obeyed.” On this less regular, but by no means rare (cf. Jdg_2:19, Psa_78:18; 1Sa_20:20; etc.) use of the infin. with ìְ , cf. Ew. 280 d.—Tr.]

[4 Jdg_2:18.— ãָּçַ÷ , only here and in Joe_2:8. If the clause were rendered: “before those that crowded ( ìָçַõ , cf. on Jdg_1:34) and pressed upon them,” its metaphorical character would be preserved as nearly as possible.—Tr.]

[5 Jdg_2:19.—The E. V. is correct as to sense; but the Hebrew phrase, filled out, would be, “they corrupted their way,” cf. Gen_6:12.—Tr.]

[6 Jdg_2:19.— ìֹà äִôִּéìåּ îִï : lit. “they caused not (sc. their conduct, course of action) to fall away from their (evil) deeds.”—Tr.]

[7 Jdg_2:12.— ìְîַòַï ðַñּåֹú . Grammatically this infin. of design may be connected either with ìà֗ àåֹñéó , Jdg_2:21, åַéּà֗îֵø , Jdg_2:20, or òָæַá The first construction (adopted by E. V.) is inadmissible, because, 1. It supposes that Jehovah himself continues to speak in Jdg_2:22, in which case we should expect àֶúÎãַּøְëִּé , first per., rather than àֶúÎãֶּøֶêְ éְäåָֹä . 2. It supposes that the purpose to prove Israel is now first formed, whereas it is clear from Jdg_3:1; Jdg_3:4, that it was already operative in the time of Joshua. This objection is also fatal to the construction with åַéֹּàîֶø , adopted by Keil. (That Dr. Cassel adopts one of these two appears from the fact that he reads: “whether they will (instead of would, see farther on) keep the way of Jehovah,” but which of the two is not clear.) It remains, therefore, to connect with öָåַá , against which there is no objection, either grammatical or logical. “For in such loosely added infinitives of design, in which the subject is not definitely determined, the person of the infin. goes back to the preceding principal word only when no other relation is more obvious, see Ew. 337 b (cf. Exo_9:16). But that here, as in the perfectly analogous parallel passage, Jdg_3:4, the design expressed by the infin. is not Joshua’s nor that of the nations, but Jehovah’s, is self-evident, and is besides expressly declared in Jdg_2:23 and Jdg_3:1. So rightly LXX. It. Pesh. Ar. Aug. (ques. 17), Ser. Stud. and many others” (Bachmann). The connection from Jdg_2:21 onward is therefore as follows: In Jdg_2:21 Jehovah is represented (cf. foot-note 3 on p. 62) as saying, “I will not go on to drive out the nations which Joshua left when he died.” To this the author of the Book himself adds the purpose for which they were left, namely, to prove Israel, whether they would (not, will) keep the way ( àֶúÎãֶּøֶêְ ) of Jehovah to walk therein ( ëָּí , plur. “in them,” constr. ad sensum, the way of Jehovah consisting of the îִöåֹú éְäåָֹä , Deu_8:2.—Keil), as their fathers kept it, or not. “And so,” he continues, i.e. in consequence of this purpose, “Jehovah (not merely Joshua) left these nations ( çָàֵìֶä , these, pointing forward to Jdg_3:1 ff., where they are enumerated,) at rest, in order that they should not speedily (for that would have been inconsistent with the design of proving Israel by them, but yet ultimately) be driven out, and did not give them into the hand of Joshua.” But the “not speedily” of Joshua’s time had by Israel’s faithless apostasy been changed into “never.”—Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

The first two chapters indicate, by way of introduction, the laws of historical cause and effect whose operation explains the occurrences about to be related in the succeeding pages. They are designed to give information concerning that most important of all subjects in Israel,—the relation of the will of God to his chosen people. Since prosperity and calamity were both referred to God, it was necessary to explain the moral grounds of the same in the favor or wrath of God. It was most important, in view of the peculiar histories which were to be narrated, that the doubts which might be raised against the doctrine of God’s all-powerful and world-controlling direction, should be obviated. The connection between the national fortunes, as about to be related, and the declarations of the Mosaic law, was to be pointed out. The reader was to be informed why the purposes of God concerning the glory of Israel in Canaan, as unfolded to Moses, had been so imperfectly fulfilled. In Judges 1 a historical survey of the conquests of the tribes had been given, in order in connection therewith, to state how little heed had been given to the behest of the law to expel the nations. In that disobedience the germ of all subsequent misfortunes was contained. For by mingling with the heathen nations, the chosen people fell into sin. With Israel to fall from God was actually to fall back into bondage. In their distress and anguish, God (Jdg_2:15; Jdg_2:18) mercifully heard their crying, as he had heard it in Egypt (Exo_2:24; Exo_6:5). Now, as then, He raised them up heroes, who through his might smote the enemy, and delivered the people from both internal and external bondage (Jdg_2:16). This, however, did not remove the evil in its germ. Since the judgeship was not hereditary, the death of each individual Judge brought back the same state of things which followed the departure of Joshua and his contemporaries. The nation continually fell back into its old sin (Jdg_2:18-19). The history of events under the Judges, is the history of ever recurring exhibitions of divine compassion and human weakness. Hence, the great question in Israel must be one inquiring into the cause of these relations. If, the people might say, present relations owed their existence to the temptations occasioned by the remaining Canaanites, he on whom the first blame for not expelling them must fall, would be none other than Joshua! Why did not that hero of God drive them all out of the land? Why did he not secure the whole land, in all its extended boundaries, for a possession to Israel? If only sea and desert had bounded their territories, Israel would have had no temptation to meddle with the superstitions of neighbors. Left to themselves, they would have thought of nothing else than to serve their God. To this Jdg_2:21 ff. reply: God is certainly the Helper and Guide of Israel, its Libera and Conqueror; but not to serve the sinfulness and sloth of Israel. The Spirit of God is with Israel, when the freewill of Israel chooses obedience to God. But the freedom of this choice demonstrates itself only under temptation. Abraham became Father of the Faithful because, though tempted (Gen_22:1), he nevertheless stood firm. Fidelity and faith approve themselves only in resistance to seductive influences. God in his omnipotence might no doubt remove every temptation from the path of believers; but He would not thereby bestow a boon on man. The opportunity for sinning would indeed be rendered difficult; but the evidence of victorious conflict with sin would be made impossible. Had God suffered Joshua to remove out of the way all nations who might tempt Israel, the people's inward sinful inclinations would have been no less, it would have cherished no greater love for God its benefactor, it would have forgotten that He was its liberator (Jdg_2:10); and the faith, the fidelity, the enthusiasm, which come to light amid the assaults of temptation, would have had no opportunity to win the approval of God or to secure the impartation of his strength. Unfaithfulness, to be sure, must suffer for its sins; but faithfulness is the mother of heroes. The Book of Judges tells of the trials by which God suffered Israel to be tried through the Canaanites, of the punishments which they endured whenever they failed to stand the tests,—but also of the heroes whom God raised up because they preserved some faith in Him. The closing verses do not therefore contradict the opening of the chapter. The pious elders weep when from the words of the “messenger from Gilgal” they perceive the temptation. The unfaithful younger generation must suffer the penalty because they yielded to the seduction. Joshua would doubtless have expelled all the nations; but God did not permit it. He died; but in his place God raised up other heroes, who liberated Israel when, in distress, it breathed penitential sighs. Such, in outline, are the author’s thoughts as to the causes which underlie his history. He uses them to introduce his narrative, and in the various catastrophes of the history constantly refers to them.

Jdg_2:16-19. And Jehovah raised them up Judges, ùֹׁëִּèéí , Shophetim. This word occurs here for the first time in the special sense which it has in this period of Israelitish history, and which it does not appear to have had previously. ùָׁôַè is to judge, to decide and to proceed according to the decision, in disputes between fellow-country-men and citizens. Originally, Moses, deeming it his duty to exercise all judicial functions himself, was the only judge in Israel (Exo_18:16). But when this proved impracticable, he committed the lesser causes to trustworthy men from among the people, just as at the outset the Spartan ephors had authority only in unimportant matters. These he charged (Exo_18:21; Deu_1:16) to “judge righteously between every man and his brother.” For the future, he enjoins the appointment of judges in every city (Deu_16:18). Their jurisdiction extends to cases of life and death, to matters of idolatry as all other causes (Deu_17:1-12; Deu_25:2); and although the words are “thou shalt make thee judges,” the judges are nevertheless clothed with such authority as renders their decisions completely and finally valid. Whoever resists them, must die (Deu_17:12). The emblem of this authority, in Israel as elsewhere, was the staff or rod, as we see it carried by Moses. The root ùָׁôַè is therefore to be connected with ùֵׁáֶî , staff, óêῆðôñïí , scipio. ùֹׁôֵè is a staff-man, a judge. In the Homeric poems, when the elders are to sit in judgment, the heralds reach them their staves (Il. xviii. 506); “but now (says Achilles, Il. i. 237), the judges carry in their hands the staff.” Judicial authority is the chief attribute of the royal dignity. Hence, God, the highest king, is also “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen_18:25). He judges concerning right and wrong, and makes his awards accordingly. When law and sin had ceased to be distinguished in Israel, compassion induced Him to appoint judges again. If these are gifted with heroic qualities, to vanquish the oppressors of Israel, it is nevertheless not this heroism that forms their principal characteristic. That consists in “judging.” They restore, as was foreseen, Deu_17:7; Deu_17:12, the authority of law. They enforce the penalties of law against the sin of disobedience towards God. It is the spirit of this law living in them, that makes them strong. The normal condition of Israel is not one of victory simply; it is a condition in which çֹ÷ åּîִùְׁôָּè law and right, are kept. For this reason, God raises up Shophetim, judges, not princes (nesiim, sarim). The title sets forth both their work and the occasion of their appointment. Israel is free and powerful when its law is observed throughout the land. Henceforth, (as appears from Deu_17:14,) except shophetim, only kings, melakim, can rule in Israel. The difference between them lies chiefly in the hereditariness of the royal office—a difference, it is true, of great significance in Israel, and closely related to the national destiny. The Judge has only a personal commission. His work is to re-inspire Israel with divine enthusiasm, and thus to make it victorious. He restores things to the condition in which they were on the death of Joshua. No successor were necessary, if without a judge, the nation itself maintained the law, and resisted temptation. Israel has enough in its divinely-given law. Rallying about this and the priesthood, it could be free; for God is its King. But it is weak. The Judge is scarcely dead, before the authority of law is shaken. Unity is lost, and the enemy takes advantage of the masterless disorder. Therefore, Judges, raised up by God, and girded with fresh strength, succeed each other,—vigorous rulers, full of personal energy, but called to exercise judgment only in the Spirit of God. It has been customary, in speaking of the Punic suffetes, to compare them with the Israelitish shophetim. And it is really more correct to regard the suffetes as consules than as kings. Among the Phœnicians also the idea of king included that of hereditariness. The suffetes were an elected magistracy, whose name, like that of the Judges, was doubtless derived from the fact that they also constituted the highest judicial authority. They sat in judgment (ad jus dicendum) when the designs of Aristo came to light (Livy, xxxiv. 61). It is, in general, by no means uncommon for the magistracy of a city (summus magistratus), as in the Spanish Gades (Livy, xxviii. 37), to be styled Judges, i.e. suffetes. As late as the Middle Ages, the title of Spanish magistrates was judices. The highest officer of Sardinia was termed judex. The Israelitish Judges differ from the suffetes, not so much by the nature of their official activity, as by the source, purpose, and extent of their power. In Israel also common shophetim existed everywhere; but the persons whom God selected as deliverers were in a peculiar sense men of divine law and order. They were not regular but extraordinary authorities. Hence, they were not, like the suffetes, chosen by the people. God himself appointed them. The spirit of the national faith placed them at the head of the people.

Jdg_2:20, etc.I will not go on to drive out a man of the nations which Joshua left when he died. The purport of this important sentence, which connects chapters 1 and 3 historically and geographically, is as follows: The whole land, from the wilderness of Edom to Mount Casius and the “road to Hamath,” and from Jordan to the sea, was intended for Israel. But it had not been given to Joshua to clear this whole territory. A group of nations, enumerated Jdg_3:3, had remained in their seats. Nor did the individual tribes, when they took possession of their allotments, make progress against them (cf. Jdg_1:19; Jdg_1:34). Especially does this explain what is said above, Jdg_1:31, of the tribe of Asher. Israel, therefore, was still surrounded by a circle of heathen nations, living within its promised borders, to say nothing of those who with their idolatry were tolerated in the territory actually subjugated (cf. Jdg_1:21; Jdg_1:27; Jdg_1:30). These were the nations by whom temptations and conflicts were prepared for Israel, and against whom, led by divinely-inspired heroes, it rose in warlike and successful resistance With their enumeration, briefly made in Jdg_3:1-5, the author closes his introduction to the narration of subsequent events. The historical and moral background on which these arise, is now clear. Not only the scene and the combatants, but also the causes of conflict and victory have been indicated.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The judgments of God are indescribable—his compassion is indefatigable. Whatever God had promised in the law, must come to pass, be it prosperity or distress. Apostasy is followed by ruin; the loss of character by that of courage. Heroes become cowards; conquerors take to flight. Shame and scorn came upon the name of Israel. The nation could no longer protect its cities, nor individuals their homes. In distress, the people returned to the altars which in presumptuous pride they had left. Old Israel wept when it heard the preaching of repentance; new Israel weeps only when it feels the sword of the enemy. And God's compassion is untiring. He gave them deliverers, choosing them from among Israel’s judges, making them strong for victory and salvation. But in his mercy He chastened them. For Israel must be trained and educated by means of judgment and mercy. The time to save them by a king had not yet come. Judah had formerly led the van; but neither was the education of this tribe completed. Judges arose in Israel; but their office was not hereditary. When the Judge died a condition of national affairs ensued like that which followed the death of Joshua: the old remained faithful, the young apostatized. The Judges for the most part exercised authority in single tribes. The heathen were not expelled from the borders assigned to Israel; Israel must submit to ever-renewed trials; and when it failed to stand, then came the judgment. But in this discipline, compassion constantly manifested itself anew. The word of God continued to manifest its power. It quietly reared up heroes and champions. The contents of these verses form the substance of the whole Book. Israel must contend,—1, with sin, and 2, with enemies; it experiences.—1, the discipline of judgment, and 2, the discipline of compassion; but in contest and in discipline that which approves itself is,—1, the victory of repentance, and 2, the obedience of faith.

Thus the contents of the Book of Judges afford a look into the history of Christian nations. They have found by experience what even in a modern novel the author almost involuntarily puts into the mouth of one of his characters (B. Abeken, Greifensee, i. 43): “Truly, when once the granite rock on which the church is reared has crumbled away, all other foundations crumble after it, and nothing remains but a nation of cowards and voluptuaries.” A glance into the spiritual life shows the same process of chastisement and compassion. The Apostle says (2Co_12:7): “And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” A recent philosopher (Fischer, Gesch. der neueren Philos., i. 11) defines philosophy to be, not so much universal science, as self-knowledge. If this be correct, repentance is the true philosophy; for in repentance man learns to know himself in all the various conditions of apostasy and ruin, reflection and return, pride and penitence, heart-quickening and longing after divine compassion.

Starke: Fathers, by a bad example, make their children worse than themselves; for from old sins, new ones are continually growing, The same: Although God knows and might immediately punish all that is hidden in men, his wisdom employs temptation and other means to bring it to the light, that his justice may be manifest to his creatures. The same: Through tribulation and the cross to the exercise of faith and obedience, prayer and hope. And all this tends to our good; for God tempts no one to evil. The same: Though God permit, He does not approve, the unrighteous oppressor of the unrighteous, but punishes his unrighteousness when his help is invoked. Lisco: God’s judgment on Israel is the non-destruction of the heathen. Gerlach: From the fact that the whole history does at the same time, through scattered hints, point to the flourishing period of Israel under the kings, we learn that these constantly-recurring events do not constitute a fruitless circle, ever returning whence it started, but that through them all, God’s providence conducted his people, by a road wonderfully involved, to a glorious goal.

 Footnotes:

[Jdg_2:17.—Dr. Cassel has denn, “for.” “But” is better. On ëִּé after a negative, cf. Ges. Gr. p. 272, at top.—Tr.]

Jdg_2:17.— ëְּé æָðåּ , etc., cf. Deu_31:16.

Jdg_2:17.— ñָøåּ îַçֵø , cf. Exo_32:8; Deu_9:12.

[Jdg_2:17.—That is, as often as a Judge had succeeded in bringing them back to the way of their fathers, they quickly left it again. So Bachmann.—Tr.]

[Jdg_2:17.— ìִùְׁîֹò : “in that they obeyed.” On this less regular, but by no means rare (cf. Jdg_2:19, Psa_78:18; 1Sa_20:20; etc.) use of the infin. with ìְ , cf. Ew. 280 d.—Tr.]

Jdg_2:18.— ðַàֲ÷ָúָí , from ðָàַ÷ , cf. Exo_2:24; Exo_6:5.

Jdg_2:18.— ìָçַõ , cf. Exo_3:9.

Jdg_2:18.— ãָּúַ÷ appears here for the first time. Cf. the Greek äéþêù .

[Jdg_2:18.— ãָּçַ÷ , only here and in Joe_2:8. If the clause were rendered: “before those that crowded ( ìָçַõ , cf. on Jdg_1:34) and pressed upon them,” its metaphorical character would be preserved as nearly as possible.—Tr.]

[Jdg_2:19.—The E. V. is correct as to sense; but the Hebrew phrase, filled out, would be, “they corrupted their way,” cf. Gen_6:12.—Tr.]

[Jdg_2:19.— ìֹà äִôִּéìåּ îִï : lit. “they caused not (sc. their conduct, course of action) to fall away from their (evil) deeds.”—Tr.]

Jdg_2:19.—Cf. Deu_28:20.

Jdg_2:19.— ÷ָùָׁä , with reference to Exo_33:5 etc., where already Israel is called ÷ְùֵׁäÎòֹøֶó .

Jdg_2:20.—Cf. Jos_7:11.

Jdg_2:22.—Cf. Exo_16:4; Exo_20:20; Deu_8:2; Deu_8:16; Deu_13:4 (3)).

[Jdg_2:12.— ìְîַòַï ðַñּåֹú . Grammatically this infin. of design may be connected either with ìà֗ àåֹñéó , Jdg_2:21, åַéּà֗îֵø , Jdg_2:20, or òָæַá The first construction (adopted by E. V.) is inadmissible, because, 1. It supposes that Jehovah himself continues to speak in Jdg_2:22, in which case we should expect àֶúÎãַּøְëִּé , first per., rather than àֶúÎãֶּøֶêְ éְäåָֹä . 2. It supposes that the purpose to prove Israel is now first formed, whereas it is clear from Jdg_3:1; Jdg_3:4, that it was already operative in the time of Joshua. This objection is also fatal to the construction with åַéֹּàîֶø , adopted by Keil. (That Dr. Cassel adopts one of these two appears from the fact that he reads: “whether they will (instead of would, see farther on) keep the way of Jehovah,” but which of the two is not clear.) It remains, therefore, to connect with öָåַá , against which there is no objection, either grammatical or logical. “For in such loosely added infinitives of design, in which the subject is not definitely determined, the person of the infin. goes back to the preceding principal word only when no other relation is more obvious, see Ew. 337 b (cf. Exo_9:16). But that here, as in the perfectly analogous parallel passage, Jdg_3:4, the design expressed by the infin. is not Joshua’s nor that of the nations, but Jehovah’s, is self-evident, and is besides expressly declared in Jdg_2:23 and Jdg_3:1. So rightly LXX. It. Pesh. Ar. Aug. (ques. 17), Ser. Stud. and many others” (Bachmann). The connection from Jdg_2:21 onward is therefore as follows: In Jdg_2:21 Jehovah is represented (cf. foot-note 3 on p. 62) as saying, “I will not go on to drive out the nations which Joshua left when he died.” To this the author of the Book himself adds the purpose for which they were left, namely, to prove Israel, whether they would (not, will) keep the way ( àֶúÎãֶּøֶêְ ) of Jehovah to walk therein ( ëָּí , plur. “in them,” constr. ad sensum, the way of Jehovah consisting of the îִöåֹú éְäåָֹä , Deu_8:2.—Keil), as their fathers kept it, or not. “And so,” he continues, i.e. in consequence of this purpose, “Jehovah (not merely Joshua) left these nations ( çָàֵìֶä , these, pointing forward to Jdg_3:1 ff., where they are enumerated,) at rest, in order that they should not speedily (for that would have been inconsistent with the design of proving Israel by them, but yet ultimately) be driven out, and did not give them into the hand of Joshua.” But the “not speedily” of Joshua’s time had by Israel’s faithless apostasy been changed into “never.”—Tr.]

Jdg_2:23.—Cf. Num_32:15.

A similarly formed title is that of Batonnier, given by the French to the chief of the barristers, and yet very different from the mediæval bastonerius.

[Dr. Cassel’s words are: Gesetz und Recht. For the latter term, as technically used, the English language has no equivalent. It is Right as determined by law.—Tr.]

[Dr. Bachmann (with many others) reaches an entirely different definition of the “Judges.” The Judge as such, he contends, acts in an external direction, in behalf of, not on, the people. A Judge, in the special sense of our Book, is first of all a Deliverer, a Savior. He may, or he may not, exercise judicial functions, properly speaking, but he is Judge because he delivers. This view he supports by an extended review of the usus loquendi of the word, and especially by insisting that Jdg_2:16; Jdg_2:18 admits of no other definition. “Why,” he asks, quoting Dr. Cassel, “if a Judge is first of all a restorer of law and right, does not Jdg_2:11-19, which gives such prominence to the fact that the forsaking of the divine law is the cause of all the hostile oppressions endured by Israel, lay similar stress, when it comes to speak of the Shophetim, on the restoration of the authority of law, but, on the contrary, speaks of the deliverance of the people from its oppressors?” To which it were enough to reply, first, that Jdg_2:16 intends only to show how Israel was delivered from the previously mentioned consequences of its lawless condition, not how it was rescued from the lawless condition itself; and, secondly, that Jdg_2:18-19 clearly imply, that while military activity may (and from the nature of the case usually did) occupy a part of the Judge’s career, efforts, more or less successful, to restore the supremacy of the divine law within the nation engage the whole. Hence, the Deliverer was rightly called Shophet, whereas in his military character he would have been more properly called îåֹùִׁéòַ , cf. Jdg_3:9. Dr Bachmann, it is true, explains the title Judge (as derived from the second of the three meanings of ùָׁôַè , 1. to Judges 2. to save, namely, by affording justice; 3. to rule) by the fact that the O. T. views the assistance sent by Jehovah to his oppressed people as an act of retributive justice towards both oppressed and oppressor, cf. Gen_15:14; Exo_6:6; Exo_7:4; but in such cases Jehovah, and not the human organ through whom He acts, is the Judge.—Tr.]

Which Movers (Phönizier, ii. 1, 536) has improperly overlooked. As those who exercised governmental functions, properly symbolized by the sceptre, the Greek language could scarcely call them anything else than âáóéëåῖò . Some good remarks against Heeren’s view of this matter were made by J. G. Schlosser (Aristoteles’ Politik, i. 195, 196).

It is only necessary to refer to Du Cange, under Judices. Similar relations occur in the early political and judicial history of all nations. Cf. Grimm, Rechtsalterthümer, p. 750, etc.

[Dr. Cassel, in striving after brevity, has here left a point of considerable interest in obscurity. Jdg_2:20 reads as follows: “And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he said, Because this people hath transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened to my voice, I also will not,” etc. How is this verse connected with the preceding? Jdg_2:11-19 have given a bird’s-eye view of the whole period of the Judges. They have described it as a period of constantly renewed backsliding, calling down God’s anger on Israel, and not permanently cured even by the efforts of the Judges. Thereupon Jdg_2:20 proceeds as above; and the question arises, to what point of time in the whole period it is to be referred. Dr. Bachmann argues that in Jdg_2:20 the narrative goes back to the “sentence” pronounced at Bochim (see Jdg_2:3). “Jdg_2:20, ” he says, “adds [to the survey in Jdg_2:11-19] that, before God’s anger attained its complete expression in delivering Israel into the hands of strange nations (Jdg_2:14), it had already manifested itself in the determination not to drive those nations out; and with this the narrative returns to the judgment of Bochim.” Accordingly, he interprets the ïéֹּàîֶø , “and he said,” of Jdg_2:20, as introducing an actual divine utterance, namely, the one delivered at Bochim. Without following the whole course of Dr. Bachmann’s argument, it is enough here to say that his conclusion is surely wrong, and that the source of his error lies in the view he takes of the words spoken at Bochim, which are not a “sentence” or “judgment,” but a warning, designed to obviate the necessity for denouncing judgment. The true connection, in my judgment (and as I think Dr. Cassel also conceives it), is as follows: When Joshua ceased from war, there were still many nations left in possession of territory intended for Israel, cf. Jos_13:1 ff. They were left temporarily, and for the good of Israel, cf. Jdg_2:22-23; Jdg_3:1-2. At the same time Israel was warned against the danger that thus arose, and distinctly told that if they entered into close and friendly relations with the people thus left, Jehovah would not drive them out at all, but would leave them to become a scourge to them, Jos_23:12 f. Nevertheless, Israel soon adopted a line of conduct towards them such as rendered it inevitable that the prohibited relations must soon be established, cf. Judges 1. Then came the warning of Bochim. It proved unavailing. Israel entered into the closest connections with the heathen, forsook Jehovah, and served Baal and Ashtaroth, Jdg_3:6; Jdg_2:11 ff. The contingency of Jos_23:12-13 had actually occurred, and its conditional threat passed over into irrevocable determination on the part of Jehovah. The time of the determination falls therefore in the earlier part of the period of the Judges; but as the moment at which it went into force was not signalized by any public announcement, and as each successive apostasy added, so to speak, to its finality, the author of the Book of Judges makes express mention of it (allusion to it there is already in Jdg_2:14 b, 15 a,) only at the close of his survey, where, moreover, it furnished an answer to the question which the review itself could not fail to suggest, Why did God leave these nations to be a constant snare to Israel? why was it, that even the most heroic Judges, men full of faith in God and zeal for Israel, did not exterminate them? The åַéֹּàîֶø of Jdg_2:20, therefore, does not introduce an actual divine utterance. The author derives his knowledge of God’s determination, first, from Jos_23:13, and secondly, from the course of the history; but in order to give impressiveness and force to his statement, he “clothes it in the form of a sentence pronounced by God” (Keil). The å in åַéִּçַø denotes logical, not temporal, sequence. On the connection of Jdg_2:22 ff. with Jdg_2:21, see note 7 under the text.—Tr.]