Lange Commentary - Judges 5:6

Lange Commentary - Judges 5:6 - 5:8

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Judges 5:6 - 5:8

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

The Previous Distress

Jdg_5:6-8.

⁶After the days of Shamgar, son of Anath,

After the Helper’s (Jael’s) days,

The highways were deserted.

The traveller went in winding ways.

⁷Deserted were Israel’s hamlets, deserted,

Till I Deborah rose up—rose up a mother in Israel.

⁸New gods had they got them—therefore the press of war approached their gates;

Among forty thousand in Israel was there found or shield or spear?

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[¹ Jdg_5:6.—On this translation of áְּ , compare the author’s remarks below. The justification they attempt, is, however too forced and artificial to be satisfactory. The passages cited in its support, are rather against it. For in Num_14:11, it is the very fact that Israel’s unbelief exists contemporaneously, in the presence, as it were, of mighty wonders, that makes it so culpable. And so in the passages cited from Isaiah (Jdg_5:25; Jdg_9:11 (12); Jdg_10:4), it is the continuance of Jehovah’s anger while surrounded, so to speak, by the terrible evidences of previous punitive inflictions, that gives it its full dreadfulness. It seems necessary, therefore, to take áְּ here in the sense of “in,” “during.” It is necessary, further, to place Shamgar not in, but after, the eighty years’ rest procured by Ehud, cf. on Jdg_3:31; for while the “land rested,” such a state of affairs as Deborah here describes cannot have existed. He belongs to the period of the Canaanite oppression in the north, and fought against the Philistines who rose up in the south (so Bachmann and others). A single exploit is told of him; and the comparatively inferior position assigned him in the Book of Judges, seems to warrant the conclusion that it was the only remarkable deed he did. That deed, however, was one which would make him universally known and held up as a great hero. Deborah seizes on this popular estimate of Shamgar, in order by contrast to heighten the glory of the divine deliverance just achieved. Such was your condition when your great hero lived, she says: but now, behold, what hath God wrought!—The words áִּéîֵé éָòֵì , “in the days of Jael,” contain another difficulty. It must strike every one as inappropriate that one who, so far as we know, had only now become famous, and that by a deed of deliverance, namely, Jael, the slayer of Sisera, should be connected with the past misery. Dr. Cassel’s suggestion that éָòֵì is to be taken as a surname or popular designation of some hero (see below), becomes therefore exceedingly attractive. But according to our view of áִּ , the hero thus designated cannot be Ehud, but must be Shamgar.—Tr.

[² Jdg_5:7— ôּøָæåֹï . Gesenius and Fürst define this word as properly meaning, “rule, dominion;” here, concrete* for “rulers, leaders.” So also Bertheau, De Wette, Bunsen, and similarly many previous expositors and versions: LXX., Cod Vat. äõíáôïß , al. codd. ïἱ êñáôïῦíôåò (Cod. Al. simply transfers the word, and writes öñÜæùí ); It. Vers. potentes, Vulg. fortes. This undoubtedly yields a good sense; but, as Bachmann points out, it rests on a meaning of the root ôָּøַæ , which although belonging to it in Arabic, it does not practically have in Hebrew. Moreover, it appears to be a hazardous proceeding to separate ôְּøָæåֹï from ôְּøָæָä in signification, if not (as Fürst does) in root-relations. Accordingly, Bachmann and Keil, like our author and others, explain ôְּøָæåֹï by ôְּøָæָä , and make it mean the “open country,” or “the unwalled cities or villages of the open country.” In this they only follow the Targum, Peshito, most of the Rabbins, and many earlier and later expositors. The form of the word shows that it is properly an abstract, cf. Ges. Gr. 83, 2; 84, 15; Ewald, 163, b, d. Keil and Cassel make it apply in the concrete to the cities, villages, or hamlets, Bachmann to the population, of the open country (Landvolk). The connection of the passage, he thinks, requires a personal, not local, signification; for as Jdg_5:8 a corresponds to (or rather gives the ground of) Jdg_5:6 c d, so Jdg_5:7 a (the cessation of ôְּøָæåֹï ) must correspond to Jdg_5:8 b (the absence of shield and spear). He further argues that as in Jdg_5:2; Jdg_5:7 b, and 8 b, áְּéִùׂøָàֵì refers to the people of Israel, it must also refer to them in Jdg_5:7 a; and, finally, that the signification “rural population,” is more suitable in Jdg_5:11. The ultimate result is the same whether one or the other interpretation be adopted; yet, as Bachmann’s arguments do not appear to have much force, and as the immediately preceding mention of highways leads the mind to think of local centres of population rather than of the population itself, we prefer to interpret villages or hamlets.—Tr.]

[³ Jdg_5:8.—Dr. Cassel’s translation conforms more closely to the original: Gewählt hatten sie neue Götter,—“they had chosen new gods.” The above English rendering was adopted in order to reproduce the alliteration of the German.—Tr.]

[⁴ Jdg_5:8.— àָæ֖ ìָçֶ֣í ùְׁòָøé֑í : literally, “then war (was at the) gates.” ìָçֶí is best explained as a verbal noun from piel, the vowel of the final syllable of the absolute ìָçֵí being shortened because of the close connection with the following word, and the retraction of the tone being omitted on account of the toneless initial syllable of ùְׁòָøִéí (Bertheau, Keil, Bachmann). ùְׁòָøִéí may be genitive (in which case ìָçֶֽí must be in the construct state) or accusative of place, which is more simple.—Tr.]

[⁵ Jdg_5:8.— àִíÎéֵøָàֶä . According to Keil and others àִí introduces a negative interrogatory. But as àִí with simple, direct questions is rare, cf. Ges. Gr. 153, 2, Bachmann prefers to regard it as the àִí of obtestation: “if shield or spear were seen!” i.e. they were not seen. So also Bertheau, Gesenius, Fürst (in their Lexicons), and many others.—Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Jdg_5:6-8. After the days of Shamgar, ùַׁîâַּø áִּéîֵé . The difficulty of the passage can scarcely be removed, if, as is usually done, the preposition áְּ be taken in the sense of “in,” “during.” During the days of Shamgar such misery cannot have come upon Israel. The narrator could not in that case have said of him, Jdg_3:31, that he “delivered Israel,” just as (Jdg_5:15) he speaks of Ehud as a “deliverer.” If Shamgar was no deliverer, how can it be said “and after him (or like him, i.e. Ehud, cf. on Jdg_3:31) was Shamgar?” It seems impossible to assume (as nevertheless Keil also does), that the poetess could say of the days of such a hero, that there was no resistance and defense, no sword or shield, in Israel. The disparaging connection in which, were this assumption true, it would please her to exhibit the hero, is also wholly at variance with her spirit. To this must be added that, as was above shown to be probable, Shamgar’s famous exploit and further activity fall within the eighty years of “rest” after Ehud. At all events, Shamgar’s fame is related before the time in which Israel again begins to sin, and consequently again falls into servitude. It cannot therefore be otherwise understood, than that Deborah retraces the misery of her people up to the time of this last hero. “Since the days of Shamgar,” i.e. upon and after his days, the highways began to be deserted. Philologically, this form of expression is not without analogies. God says (Num_14:11), “They believe not me, áְּëֹì äָàֹúåֹú ”, in, i.e. after “all the wonders I have done among them.” In the same manner we are to interpret áְּëָì several passages of Isaiah (Jdg_9:11 (12); Jdg_5:25; Jdg_10:4): “the Syrians and Philistines devour Israel,—in all that, after all that, notwithstanding all that, his anger is not turned away.” Thus the sense of our passage also becomes clear. Notwithstanding that the days of Shamgar have been, i.e. after them, misery began. His heroic deed against the Philistines, was the last great act performed by Israel. But the author adds, “in, after, the days of Jael.” That this cannot be the stout-hearted woman who slew Sisera, is self-evident, since Deborah, speaking of her contemporary, could not say “in the days of Jael.” But apart from this, the Song itself (Jdg_5:24) distinguishes this Jael by carefully designating her as the “wife of Heber, the Kenite.” Moreover, Jael is properly a man’s name. The other assumption, however, that Jael was a Judge, who lived before Deborah’s time, rests on slender foundations. It is utterly inconceivable that the narrator, who communicates the Song of Deborah, had he so understood it, would not have told us something of this Judge Jael. He would at all events have inserted his name, at least in some such manner as that of Shamgar himself, of Elon the Zebulonite, and of Abdon (Jdg_12:11-15), of whom nothing is reported beyond the general fact that they judged Israel. The only remaining supposition, and one fully accordant with the poetic cast of the Song, is, that Jael was the knightly surname of Shamgar, or even more probably of Ehud. We know that Gideon is frequently mentioned by his heroic name Jerubbaal, and that Samson is simply styled Bedan (1Sa_12:11). That Jael might readily become the beautiful popular designation of a man so determined and rapid in his movements as Ehud, is evident, whether we take it to mean the Mountain-climber, the August One, the Prince, or the Rock-goat, whose facile ascent to the most inaccessible rocky heights is astonishing. Most probably, however, the name is connected with the word äåֹòִéì , to help. The same word, which is often used negatively concerning heathen gods ( ìàֹ éåֹòִéìåּ , “they help not,” 1Sa_12:21, Jer_2:8, etc.), is here employed positively to denote one who was a “Helper” of Israel in distress. The sense, moreover, becomes thus perfectly clear: “After the days of Shamgar, after the days of Jael (Ehud),” the people perished through their sins; that is, as Jdg_4:1 asserts, and Jdg_5:8 of this chapter confirms,—“they had chosen themselves new gods.”

The highways were deserted, çָãְìåּ àְָøָçåֹú : literally, they ceased to be highways. No one travelled on the public roads, because there was no security. The enemy plundered all through the country. He who was obliged to travel, sought out concealed by-paths, in order to elude the tyrant and his bands. These few lines give a striking picture of a land languishing under hostile oppression. çָãְìåּ ôְøָæåֹï , open places, hamlets, ceased to exist. ôְּøָæåֹï is the open country, in distinction from cities surrounded by walls and gates. One imagines himself to be reading a description of the condition of Germany in the 10th century, when the Magyars invaded the land (cf. Widukind, Sächs. Gesch. i. 32). Henry I. is celebrated as a builder of cities, especially because by fortifying open villages he rendered them more secure than formerly against the enemy. All ancient expositors, Greek as well as Chaldee and later Rabbinic, consent to this explanation or ôּøָæåֹï (cf. Schnurrer, p. 46). Jdg_5:8 also agrees with it: no place without walls was any longer secure against the hostile weapons of those who oppressed Israel; the conflict was pushed even to the very gates of the mountain fortresses. The attempt to make the word mean “princes,” “leaders,” labors under great difficulties; which modern expositors, almost all of whom have adopted it, have by no means overcome. It raises an internal contradiction to connect çָãְìåּ with ôְּøָæåֹï , when taken in this sense. We can very properly say øֹòְáִéë çָãְìåּ , “the hungry cease to be such,” but not “princes.” Of a banished dynasty there is no question. A Judge there was not; none therefore could cease to be. The lack of military virtue is first mentioned in Jdg_5:8. Situated as Israel was, the misery of the people might be measured by the extent to which their fields and rural districts were devastated and rendered insecure. As to their “princes,” their hereditary chiefs, they in fact still existed. Nor does the form of the word need any correction (cf. Jdg_5:11).

Till I arose ( òַã ùַׁ÷ַּîְúִּé for òַã àֲùֶׁø ÷ַîְúִּé ) a mother in Israel: who, as it were, bore Israel anew. It was the regeneration of Israel’s nationality that was secured at the Kishon. How came it about (she adds, Jdg_5:8), that Israel had so fallen as to need a new mother? They had chosen “new gods” for themselves. The eternal God, before whom the mountains trembled, Him they had forsaken. Hence the loss of all their strength. They were hard pressed, up to the very gates of their fortresses. ( ìָçֶí is not simply war, but an already victorious and consuming oppression.) Resistance in the open field there was none anywhere. Among forty thousand not one sought safety by means of sword and shield. The poet says “new gods,” not “other gods.” The objective idea is of course the same, but not the subjective thought as here entertained. For Israel had from of old its everlasting God,—Him whose glory the poem had delineated at the outset. But instead of that God, Israel chose them new gods, whom they had not formerly known. There is a profoundly significant connection of thought between this passage and the Song of Moses, Deu_32:17. There the thought, which is here implied, lies fully open: “They shall sacrifice to gods whom they never knew, to new gods, that came newly up, whom their fathers feared not.” The heathen gods of Canaan are in truth all new to Israel; for their own God had already chosen them in the desert, before ever they set foot in the land. Israel’s recent ruin was the consequence of their serving these new gods. That all manliness had vanished, that servitude prevailed up to the gates of their fortresses, that they were shut out from highway, hamlet, and fountain, was the bitter fruit of their unfaithfulness to their ancient God. Nor was deliverance possible, until, as the result of Deborah’s efforts, the people became regenerated by means of the ancient truth.

Footnotes:

[Jdg_5:6.—On this translation of áְּ , compare the author’s remarks below. The justification they attempt, is, however too forced and artificial to be satisfactory. The passages cited in its support, are rather against it. For in Num_14:11, it is the very fact that Israel’s unbelief exists contemporaneously, in the presence, as it were, of mighty wonders, that makes it so culpable. And so in the passages cited from Isaiah (Jdg_5:25; Jdg_9:11 (12); Jdg_10:4), it is the continuance of Jehovah’s anger while surrounded, so to speak, by the terrible evidences of previous punitive inflictions, that gives it its full dreadfulness. It seems necessary, therefore, to take áְּ here in the sense of “in,” “during.” It is necessary, further, to place Shamgar not in, but after, the eighty years’ rest procured by Ehud, cf. on Jdg_3:31; for while the “land rested,” such a state of affairs as Deborah here describes cannot have existed. He belongs to the period of the Canaanite oppression in the north, and fought against the Philistines who rose up in the south (so Bachmann and others). A single exploit is told of him; and the comparatively inferior position assigned him in the Book of Judges, seems to warrant the conclusion that it was the only remarkable deed he did. That deed, however, was one which would make him universally known and held up as a great hero. Deborah seizes on this popular estimate of Shamgar, in order by contrast to heighten the glory of the divine deliverance just achieved. Such was your condition when your great hero lived, she says: but now, behold, what hath God wrought!—The words áִּéîֵé éָòֵì , “in the days of Jael,” contain another difficulty. It must strike every one as inappropriate that one who, so far as we know, had only now become famous, and that by a deed of deliverance, namely, Jael, the slayer of Sisera, should be connected with the past misery. Dr. Cassel’s suggestion that éָòֵì is to be taken as a surname or popular designation of some hero (see below), becomes therefore exceedingly attractive. But according to our view of áִּ , the hero thus designated cannot be Ehud, but must be Shamgar.—Tr.

[Jdg_5:7— ôּøָæåֹï . Gesenius and Fürst define this word as properly meaning, “rule, dominion;” here, concrete* for “rulers, leaders.” So also Bertheau, De Wette, Bunsen, and similarly many previous expositors and versions: LXX., Cod Vat. äõíáôïß , al. codd. ïἱ êñáôïῦíôåò (Cod. Al. simply transfers the word, and writes öñÜæùí ); It. Vers. potentes, Vulg. fortes. This undoubtedly yields a good sense; but, as Bachmann points out, it rests on a meaning of the root ôָּøַæ , which although belonging to it in Arabic, it does not practically have in Hebrew. Moreover, it appears to be a hazardous proceeding to separate ôְּøָæåֹï from ôְּøָæָä in signification, if not (as Fürst does) in root-relations. Accordingly, Bachmann and Keil, like our author and others, explain ôְּøָæåֹï by ôְּøָæָä , and make it mean the “open country,” or “the unwalled cities or villages of the open country.” In this they only follow the Targum, Peshito, most of the Rabbins, and many earlier and later expositors. The form of the word shows that it is properly an abstract, cf. Ges. Gr. 83, 2; 84, 15; Ewald, 163, b, d. Keil and Cassel make it apply in the concrete to the cities, villages, or hamlets, Bachmann to the population, of the open country (Landvolk). The connection of the passage, he thinks, requires a personal, not local, signification; for as Jdg_5:8 a corresponds to (or rather gives the ground of) Jdg_5:6 c d, so Jdg_5:7 a (the cessation of ôְּøָæåֹï ) must correspond to Jdg_5:8 b (the absence of shield and spear). He further argues that as in Jdg_5:2; Jdg_5:7 b, and 8 b, áְּéִùׂøָàֵì refers to the people of Israel, it must also refer to them in Jdg_5:7 a; and, finally, that the signification “rural population,” is more suitable in Jdg_5:11. The ultimate result is the same whether one or the other interpretation be adopted; yet, as Bachmann’s arguments do not appear to have much force, and as the immediately preceding mention of highways leads the mind to think of local centres of population rather than of the population itself, we prefer to interpret villages or hamlets.—Tr.]

[Jdg_5:8.—Dr. Cassel’s translation conforms more closely to the original: Gewählt hatten sie neue Götter,—“they had chosen new gods.” The above English rendering was adopted in order to reproduce the alliteration of the German.—Tr.]

[Jdg_5:8.— àָæ֖ ìָçֶ֣í ùְׁòָøé֑í : literally, “then war (was at the) gates.” ìָçֶí is best explained as a verbal noun from piel, the vowel of the final syllable of the absolute ìָçֵí being shortened because of the close connection with the following word, and the retraction of the tone being omitted on account of the toneless initial syllable of ùְׁòָøִéí (Bertheau, Keil, Bachmann). ùְׁòָøִéí may be genitive (in which case ìָçֶֽí must be in the construct state) or accusative of place, which is more simple.—Tr.]

[Jdg_5:8.— àִíÎéֵøָàֶä . According to Keil and others àִí introduces a negative interrogatory. But as àִí with simple, direct questions is rare, cf. Ges. Gr. 153, 2, Bachmann prefers to regard it as the àִí of obtestation: “if shield or spear were seen!” i.e. they were not seen. So also Bertheau, Gesenius, Fürst (in their Lexicons), and many others.—Tr.]

The use of áְּ in, in the sense of upon = after, cannot be considered surprising, when the poetical freedom of the language is taken into account. Even our German auf “upon” or “on”), of which Grimm says that in many cases it has appropriated the meaning of in, affords an instance of the same kind. To pass by other examples, we also say with equal propriety, “in vielen tagen” (in many days), and “nach vielen tagen” (after many days), not only when the reference is to the future, but even when it is to the past.—Although Shamgar slew the Philistines with an ox-goad, that fact cannot explain the non-employment of sword and lance in Jdg_5:8 of the Song; for, as Barak’s heroes show (Jdg_4:16), there is no want of weapons, but of courage to use them.

Keil also has adopted it.

[Wordsworth: “Until that 1 Deborah arose. Deborah, as an inspired person, looks at herself from an external point of view, and speaks of herself objectively, considering all her acts as due, not to herself, but to the Spirit of God. She does not praise herself, but blesses God who acted in her: so did Moses (see Num_12:3), and so Samuel (1Sa_12:11).—Tr.]

Isolated interpretations of the Middle Ages, taken up by a few moderns, find the subject in Elohim, as if “God had chosen new things.” But Jdg_5:8 itself opposes this construction, to say nothing of the contradiction which it involves with the whole course of thought. To adopt Kemink’s correction, äַðָּùִׁ í , “God chose women,” would only increase the distortion of the hymn, which even without this would arise from the change of subject. That not Elohim but Jehovah, would be used, were God the subject, is remarked by Bertheau (p. 88), who in his turn, however, unfortunately gives a wrong sense to Elohim.