Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 3:5 - 3:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
FIRST SECTION
The Servitude to Chushan-Rishathaim, King of Mesopotamia. othniel, The Judge of Blameless and Happy Life
_______________________
Israel is given up into the power of Chushan-rishathaim on account of its sins: Othniel is raised up as a Deliverer in answer to their penitence
Jdg_3:5-11
[2 Jdg_3:9.— åַéּåֹùִׁéòֵí (from éָùַׁò ,) here, without any preposition, with àֵú òָúְðִéàֵì , on the other hand, at 2Ki_14:27, áְּéַã is inserted. [De Wette, in his German Version, also takes Jehovah as subject of åַéּåֹùִׁéòֵí , which seems to be favored by the position of àֵú òָúְðִéàֵì , which according to the common view would be separated from its governing verb by another verb with a different and unexpressed subject. But Dr. Cassel is certainly wrong when he supplies “through” instead of the “even” of our E. V., and so makes “Othniel” the medium by whom Jehovah delivered. That would be expressed either by áְּéַã or by áְּ , cf. Hos_1:7; 1Sa_14:6; 1Sa_17:47. The words àֵú òָúְðִéàֵì are in apposition with îåֹùִׁéòַ .—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_3:10.—So do Dr. Cassel and many others render åַúְּäִé ; but the rendering “came” is very suitable, if with Dr. Bachmann, we assume åַúְּäִé , etc., to be explanatory of åַéָּ÷ֶí , etc., in Jdg_3:9.—Tr.]
[4 Jdg_3:11.— åַúָּòָæ , from òָæַæ . [On the vowel in the last syllable, see Ges. Gram. 67, Rem. 2.—Tr.]
Jdg_3:6-7. And they took their daughters. Precisely in this consisted the “covenant” ( áְּøִéú ) which they were not to make with them. The reference here is especially to Deu_7:2 ff.: “Thou shalt make no covenant with them. And thou shalt not make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For it would turn away thy child from me, and they will serve false gods.” All this has here come to pass. We read the consequence of intermarriage in the words: “and they served their gods.” The same passage (Deu_7:5) proceeds: “Ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their Asheroth.” But now Israel served “Baalim and Asheroth.” It bent the knee before the altars of Baal and the idols of Astarte. Asherah (see below, on Jdg_6:25) is the idol through which Astarte was worshipped. The altar was especially consecrated to Baal, the pillar or tree-idol to her. Hence the Baalim and Asheroth of this passage answer perfectly to the Baal and Ashtaroth of Jdg_2:13. Instead of destroying, Israel served them. òָáַã is to render bodily and personal service. It is not a matter of thought or opinion merely. He who serves, serves with his body,—he kneels, offers, prays. The ancient translators are therefore right in generally rendering it by ëåéôïõãåῖí . Among the Hellenes, liturgy ( ëåéôïõïãßá ) meant service which, as Böckh shows, differed from all other obligations precisely in this, that it was to be rendered personally. Hence, also, liturgy, in its ecclesiastical sense, corresponded perfectly with abodah ( öֲëֹãָä ), and was rightly used to denote the acts of divine service. Now, when in this way Israel performed liturgy before idol images, that took place which Deu_7:4 foretold: “the anger of the Lord was kindled.” Whenever Israel, the people called to be free, falls into servitude, it is in consequence of the anger of God. It is free only while it holds fast to its God. When it apostatizes from the God of freedom, He gives it up to tyrants, as one gives up a slave ( îָëַø ).
Jdg_3:8. He gave them up into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim. The explanation of Rishathaim, adopted by Bertheau, which derives it from øֶùַׁò , and gives it the sense of “double injustice” or “outrage,” is not to be thought of. To say nothing of its peculiar form, there is no reason whatever why this title should be given to Chushan and not to the other tyrants over Israel. Had it been intended to describe him as peculiarly wicked he would have been called äָøָò , as in the analogous case of Haman (Est_7:6). The Midrash alone attempts an explanation, and makes Rishathaim to mean Laban. The “double sin” is, that Aram (of which, in the spirit of the Midrash, Laban is the representative) formerly injured Jacob, and now injures his descendants (cf. Jalkut, Judges, n. 41). The renderings of the Targum and Peshito sprang from this interpretation. Paul of Tela, on the other hand, follows the Septuagint, which has ÷ïõóáñóáèáßì ; he, and others of later date, write ×ïõóὰí Ñåóáèèþì (ed. Rördam, p. 74). (Syncellus, ed. Bonn. i. 285, has ÷ïõóáñóáèþì .) Rishathaim is manifestly a proper name, and forms the complement of Chushan, which does not conceal its national derivation. At all events, at Hab_3:7; Hab_3:11 where it stands parallel with Midian, it is used to designate nationality. Now, ancient Persian tradition, as found in the Schahnameh of Firdousi, contains reminiscences of warlike expeditions from the centre of Iran against the West. One of the three sons of Feridoun, Selm ( ùìí ), is lord of the territories west of the Euphrates. The nations of those countries are hostile to Iran. Mention is also made of assistance from Gangi Jehocht (as Jerusalem is several times designated) in a war against Iran (cf. Schack, Heldens. des Firdusi, p. 160). The Iranian heroes, on the other hand, Sam, Zal ( æàì ), and Rustem, who carry on the wars of the kings, east and west, are from Sedjestan. Sedjestan, whose inhabitants under the Sassanides also formed the nucleus of the army (cf. Lassen, Indische Alterth. ii. 363), derives its name from the Sacæ (Sacastene). The name Sacæ, however, is itself only a general ethnographic term, answering to the term Scythians, and comprehended all those powerful nations, addicted to horsemanship and the chase, who made themselves famous as warriors and conquerors in the regions east and west of the Tigris. All Scythians, says Herodotus, are called Sacæ by the Persians. The term Cossæans was evidently of similar comprehensiveness. As at this day Segestan (or Seistan) is still named after the Sacæ, so Khuzistan after the Cossæans (cf. Mannert, v. 2, 495). Moses Chorenensis derives the Parthians from the land of Chushan (ed. Florival, i. 308–311). In the Nakhshi Rustam inscription (Jdg_3:30) we read of Khushiya, which certainly appears more suggestive of Cossæi, as Lassen interprets, than of Gaudæ, as Benfey explains (Die Pers. Keilinschr., p. 60). That I they are quite like the Parthians, Scythians, Sacæ, in the use of the bow and the practice of pillage and the chase, is sufficiently shown by the passage of Strabo (ed. Paris, p. 449, lib. xi. 13, 6). Like Nimrod (Gen_10:8), all these nations, and also the princes of the Sacæ, Sam, Zal, and Rustem, are I represented as heroes and hunters. Nimrod descends from Cush, and rules at the rivers. So here also Cush is a general term for a widely-diffused family of nations. It does not indicate their dwelling-place, but their mode of life and general characteristics Even the reference in the name of this Chushan to darkness of complexion is not to be overlooked. A centaur (horseman) is with Hesiod (Scut. Herc. 185) an asbolos. “Asbolos,” says Eupolemus (in Euseb., Prœp. Ev. ix. 17; cf. Niebuhr, Assur und Babel, p. 262, note 2), is translated ÷ïí ́ ìò by the Hellenes. The second Chaldee king is called Chomasbelos by Berosus (Fragmenta, ed. Müller, Paris, p. 503; Niebuhr, p. 490; Syncellus, i. 147, ed. Bonn); while in one passage (Lam_4:8) the LXX. translate shechor, “black,” by ἀóâüëç . Syncellus is therefore improperly censured by Niebuhr for comparing Evechios, and not the son of Chomasbelos, with Nimrod. He could compare none but the first king with him who was likewise held to be the first. Accordingly, it cannot appear surprising that kings and heroes beyond the Euphrates are named ëּåּùַׁï , “Chushan.” One of the most famous of the primitive kings of Iran was named ëé ëàåùׂ , Kai Kaous. Persian tradition tells of wars and conquests which he carried on in Mesi, Sham, and Rum, i.e. Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor (cf. Herbelot, Or. Bibl. iii. 59). They also relate misfortunes endured by him. In his wars in the West, he was defeated and taken prisoner. His hero and deliverer was always Rustem ( øùúí or øñúí , also øֹåùúí , cf. Vullers, Lex. Pers. ii. 32). Now, since it is obviously proper to compare these names with ëåùï øùòúéí , “Chushan-rishathaim” (for the ò as well as the pointing of the Masora dates from the Rabbinic Midrash); there is nothing to oppose the idea that the celebrated Rustem of the East, the hero of Kaous, whom Moses Chorenensis calls the Saces, is actually mentioned here. It would enhance the interest of the narrative to find the hero of the Iranian world brought upon the scene of our history. Profane history would here, as so frequently elsewhere, receive valuable illustration from Scripture. An historical period would be approximately gained for Kai Kaous. On the other hand, such conflicts were sufficiently memorable for Israel to serve as testimonies first of God's anger, and then of salvation wrought out by Him.
And they served Chushan-rishathaim, åַéַּòַáְøåּ . God is served with sacrifices; human lords with tribute (cf. Jdg_3:15). Hence the expression òåֹáֵøîñ , when a people became tributary. The “eight years” are considered in the introductory section on the Chronology of the Book.
Jdg_3:9. And the sons of Israel cried unto Jehovah. æָòַ÷ is the anxious cry of distress. So cried they in Egypt by reason of their heavy service (Exo_2:23). They cry to God, as children to their father. In his compassion, He hears them. However, Jeremiah (Jdg_11:11) warns the people against that time “when they shall cry ( åְæָòֲ÷åּ ) unto God, but he will not hearken unto them.”
And He delivered them through Othniel the son of Kenaz. The Septuagint gives his name as ÃïèïíéÞë , while Josephus has ’ Ïèïíßëïò . Jerome (De Nominibus, ed. Migne, p. 809) has Athaniel, which he translates “my time of God” (tempus meum Dei). This is also the translation of Leusden in his Onomasticon, who however unnecessarily distinguishes between a Gothoniel (1Ch_27:15) and Othniel. Gesenius derives the name from the Arabic, and says it means “lion of God.” How carefully Josephus follows ancient exegesis, appears from his inserting the story of Othniel only after the abominations of Gibeah (Judges 19) and those of the tribe of Dan (Judges 18); for these occurrences were regarded as belonging to the time of servitude under Chushan (Jalkut, Judges, n. 41). But his anxiety to avoid every appearance of improbability does not allow him to call Othniel the brother of Caleb. He speaks of him as “ ôῆò ̓ Éïýäá öõëῆò ôéò , one of the tribe of Judah” (Ant. v. 3, 3); for he fears lest the Greek reader should take offense at finding Othniel still young and vigorous enough to achieve victory in the field, and render forty years' service as Judge. But the narrator adds emphatically, “the younger brother of Caleb,”—in order to leave no doubt that the conqueror of Kirjath-sepher and the victor over Aram were one and the same person. Nor is there any foundation for the scrupulosity of Josephus. In Israel the men capable of bearing arms were enrolled upon the completion of their twentieth year (Num_26:2, seq.). Now, if Othniel was twenty-five years of age when he conquered Kirjath-sepher, and if after that a period of twenty years elapsed, during which a new generation grew up, he would be fifty-three years of age when as hero and conqueror he assumed the judicial office,—a supposition altogether natural and probable. Caleb in his eighty-fifth year still considered himself fully able to take the field. Besides, it is consonant with the spirit which animates the history here narrated, that it is Othniel who appears as the first Shophet. Not merely because of the heroism which he displayed before Kirjath-sepher; but a new dignity like this of Judge is easily attracted to one who is already in possession of a certain authority, which was evidently the case with Othniel. He was one of those who, in part at least, had shared the wars with Canaan. He was the brother and son-in-law of the celebrated Caleb, and hence a head of the tribe of Judah, to which in this matter also the initiative belongs. Once it was asked, “Who shall first go up?” Judah was the tribe selected by the response. The first Judge whom God appointed, must appear in Judah. That tribe still had strength and energy; there the memory of former deeds achieved by faith was still cherished among the people (cf. Shemoth Rabba, § 48, p. 144 a).
Jdg_3:10. And the spirit of Jehovah was upon him. The spirit of faith, of trust in God, of enthusiasm. It is the same spirit which God bestows upon the seventy also, who are to assist Moses (Num_11:25). It was on that occasion that Moses exclaimed, “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them.” In this spirit, Moses and Joshua performed their great deeds. In this spirit, Joshua and Caleb knew no fear when they explored the land. In this spirit, the spirit of obedience, which in faith performs the law, becomes a spirit of power. Of those seventy we are told (Num_11:25), that when they had received the Spirit of God, they prophesied. The Targum therefore translates, both there and here, øåּçַ ðְáåּàָä , Spirit of Prophecy. It does this, however, in the case of no Judge but Othniel. For although the øåּçַ éְäåָֹä is also spoken of in connection with Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson, it merely gives øåּçַ ðְּáåּÎָà in those cases, Spirit of heroism (Jdg_6:34; Jdg_11:29; Jdg_13:25). The first ground of this distinction conferred on Othniel, is the irreproachable character of his rule. No tragic shadow lies on his life, as on the lives of the other heroes. To this must be added the ancient interpretation, already alluded to above (p. 35, note 2), which identified Othniel with Jabez (1Ch_4:10), and regarded him as a pious teacher of the law. They said concerning him, that his sun arose when Joshua’s went down (Bereshith Rabba, § 58, p. 51 b). They applied to him the verse in Canticles (Jdg_6:7): “Thou art all fair, there is no spot in thee” (Shir ha-Shirim Rabba, on the passage, ed. Amsterd. p. 17 c.).
And he judged Israel. He judged Israel before he went forth to war. It has already been remarked above, that ùָׁôַè means to judge in the name of the law. The Judge enforces the law; he punishes sin, abolishes wrong. If Israel is to be victorious, it is not enough to “cry unto the Lord;” the authority of the law ( îִùְׁôָּè ) must be recognized. “These are the îִùְׁôָּèִéí (judgments) which thou shalt set before them,” is the order, Exo_21:1. Israel must become conscious of God and duty. At that point Othniel’s judicial activity began. This was what he taught them for the future. Not till that is accomplished can war be successfully undertaken.
Jdg_3:11. And the land rested. ùָׁ÷ַè does not occur in the Pentateuch. It signifies that desirable condition of quiet in which the people, troubled by neither external nor internal foes, enjoys its possessions, when the tumults of war are hushed, and peaceful calm pervades the land. Such rest is found in Israel, when the people obediently serve their God. “The service of righteousness (says Isa_32:17), is rest ( äַùְׁ÷ֵè ) and security forever.” Jeremiah (Jer_30:10) announces that when Israel shall be redeemed, Jacob shall rest and be free from care ( ùָׁ÷ַè åְùַׁàֲðַï ). The present rest, alas, endured only until Othniel died. When he went home, his authority ceased, and peace departed.
Thus Othniel is a type of sons descended from good families, and of inherited position. From him such may learn their duty to use life and strength for their country. His life shows that to lead and judge is easier for them than for others. There are many “Caleb-relatives” who squander the glory of their name; but yet there have never been wanting Christians who, historically among the first men of their country, have borne aloft the banner of truth. Joachim von Alvensleben composed his Confession of the Christian Faith (printed at Stendal, 1854), that he might acquit himself of his “paternal office” to his family, warn them faithfully, and preserve them from apostasy; so that Martin Chemnitz prays the “good and kind God to preserve hoc sacrum depositum in its purity, everywhere in his church, and especially in nobili hoc familia” (Brunswick, March 1, 1566). The spirit of Othniel clearly manifested itself in Zinzendorf; and he rendered useful service not only in spite of his distinguished name, but especially in his own day, because he bore it. His life, while it testifies that in the spirit of the gospel everything can be turned into a special blessing, shows also that no gift of Providence is to be suppressed,—least of all, one’s family and origin (cf. Otto Strauss: Zinzendorf, Leben und Auswahl seiner Schriften, etc., iv. 147, etc.). This spirit of Othniel was in the Minister Von Pfeil, in his life and work, confessing and praying. In his own words:—
“Knight of heaven Jesus made me,
Touched me with the Spirit’s sword,
When the Spirit’s voice declared me
Free forever to the Lord.”
Starke: What great depravity of the human heart, that men so easily forget the true God whom they have known, and voluntarily accept and honor strange gods, whom neither they nor their fathers knew. The Same: God is at no loss for means; He prescribes bounds to the aggressions of the enemy. But in the spiritual warfare also men must be bold. We do not conquer by sitting still. Lisco: The spirit of the Lord is the originator of everything good and of all great achievements.
[Henry: Affliction makes those cry to God with importunity, who before would scarcely speak to him. The same: Othniel first judged Israel, reproved them, called them to an account for their sins, and reformed them, and then went out to war; that was the right method. Let sin at home be conquered, that worst of enemies, and then enemies abroad will be more easily dealt with. Bishop Hall: Othniel’s life and Israel’s innocence and peace ended together. How powerful the presence of one good man is in a church or state, is best found in his death.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Jdg_3:7.—Literally, “the evil,” as at verse 12 and frequently. On the use of the article compare the “Grammatical” note on Jdg_2:11. Wordsworth’s note on the present verse is: “They did that evil which God had forbidden as evil.’—Tr.]
Jdg_3:9.— åַéּåֹùִׁéòֵí (from éָùַׁò ,) here, without any preposition, with àֵú òָúְðִéàֵì , on the other hand, at 2Ki_14:27, áְּéַã is inserted. [De Wette, in his German Version, also takes Jehovah as subject of åַéּåֹùִׁéòֵí , which seems to be favored by the position of àֵú òָúְðִéàֵì , which according to the common view would be separated from its governing verb by another verb with a different and unexpressed subject. But Dr. Cassel is certainly wrong when he supplies “through” instead of the “even” of our E. V., and so makes “Othniel” the medium by whom Jehovah delivered. That would be expressed either by áְּéַã or by áְּ , cf. Hos_1:7; 1Sa_14:6; 1Sa_17:47. The words àֵú òָúְðִéàֵì are in apposition with îåֹùִׁéòַ .—Tr.]
[Jdg_3:10.—So do Dr. Cassel and many others render åַúְּäִé ; but the rendering “came” is very suitable, if with Dr. Bachmann, we assume åַúְּäִé , etc., to be explanatory of åַéָּ÷ֶí , etc., in Jdg_3:9.—Tr.]
Jdg_3:11.— åַúָּòָæ , from òָæַæ . [On the vowel in the last syllable, see Ges. Gram. 67, Rem. 2.—Tr.]
[The “Crime-committing ('frevelnde) Chushan.” See Bertheau in loc.—Tr.]
Josephus has ÷ïõóÜñèïò . On other readings see Haversamp, ad Josh., i. 289, not. x.
The opinion of Bertheau that the prophet alludes to our passage, is already found in the older Jewish expositors. From any objective, scientific point of view, this view can scarcely be concurred in.
[That is to say, the term expresses ethnological, not local relations.—Tr.]
We cannot enter here on a full illustration of the genealogy of Cush, as given Genesis 10. For some excellent remarks see Knobel Die ethnogr. Tafel, p. 251. Where he read Cush, In Wagenseil’s edition of Petachia, Carmoly’s edition, probably less correctly, has Acco. Where Benjamin of Tudela, ed. Asher, p. 83, has ëּåּú , other manuscripts have ëּåּùׁ , Cush (Eze_38:5) may also pass for the African.
One of the worst enemies of Kai Kaous was Deo Sefid, i.e. the White Foe. At the birth of Rustem’s father, Zal, it was considered a misfortune that his head was white. He was therefore exposed (cf. Schack. Firdusi, p. 175).
Some call him ruler of Arabia, others of Syria. Cf Malcolm, Hist. of Persia, i. 27.
[Keil: “The Spirit of God is the spiritual life-principle in the world of nature and of mankind; and in man it is the principle as well of the natural life received by birth, as of the spiritual life received through the new birth, cf. Auberlen, Geist des Menschen, in Herzog’s Realencykl., iv. 731. In this sense, the expression ‘Spirit of Elohim’ alternates with ‘Spirit of Jehovah,’ as already in Gen_1:2, compared with Jdg_6:3, and so on in all the books of the O. T., with this difference, however, that whereas ‘Spirit of Elohim’ designates the Divine Spirit only in general, on the side of its supernatural causality and power, ‘Spirit of Jehovah’ presents it on the side of its historical operation on the world and human life, in the interests of salvation. In its operations, however, the Spirit of Jehovah manifests itself as the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, of Council and Strength, of Knowledge and the Fear of the Lord (Isa_11:2). The impartation of this spirit in the O. T., takes the form for the most part of an extraordinary, supernatural influence exerted over the human spirit. The usual expression for this is, ‘the Spirit of Jehovah (or Elohim) åַúְּäּé öָìָéå came upon him;’ so here and in Jdg_11:29; 1Sa_19:20; 1Sa_19:23; 2Ch_20:14; Num_24:2. With this, however, the expressions åַúִּöְìַç ( öָìְçָä ) òìָéå , Jdg_14:6; Jdg_14:19; Jdg_15:14; 1Sa_10:10; 1Sa_11:6; 1Sa_16:13, and ìָáùִׁä àֶú ô× , the Spirit ‘put on (clothed) the person,’ Jdg_6:34; 1Ch_12:18; 2Ch_24:20, alternate; the former of which characterizes the influence of the Divine Spirit as one which overpowers the resistance of the natural will [the verb öַìַç , which in this connection the E. V. sometimes renders ‘to come upon mightily,’ as in Jdg_14:6, sometimes merely ‘to come upon,’ as in Jdg_3:19 of the same chapter, properly signifies ‘to cleave, to cut, to break through’—Tr.], while the latter represents it as a power which envelopes and covers man. They who receive and possess this spirit are thereby endowed with power to perform wonderful deeds. Commonly, the Spirit that has come upon them manifests itself in the ability to prophesy, but also in the power to perform wonders or exploits transcending the natural courage and strength of man. The latter was especially the case with the Judges. Hence the Targum already, on Jdg_6:34, explains the ‘Spirit of Jehovah’ as the ‘Spirit of Strength from the Lord,’ while on the other hand in our passage it erroneously thinks of the ‘Spirit of Prophecy.’ Kimchi also understands here the ‘spiritum fortitudinis, quo excitatus, amoto omni metu, bellum adversus Cuschanem susceperit.’ It is however scarcely proper so to separate the various powers of the Divine Spirit, as to take it in its operation on the Judges, merely as the Spirit of Strength and Valor. The. Judges not only fought the enemy courageously and victoriously, but also judged the people, for which the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, and restrained idolatry (Jdg_2:18 seq.), for which the Spirit of Knowledge and of the Fear of the Lord, was required.”—Tr.]