Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 8:4 - 8:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_8:4-21.
[2 Jdg_8:10.— îַçֲðֵéäֶí : singular, with plural suffix. Cf. Ges. Gram. Sect. 93, 9.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_8:13.— îִìְîַòֲìֵä äֶçָøֶñ . The above rendering takes no account of the ìְ . “At” would be better than “from.” It is literally, “from at” the ascent of the sun. It indicates the point to which Gideon came, and at which he turned back.—Tr.]
This is the second time that Gideon encounters such folly among his people. But he instantly perceives that humility and gentleness like those shown towards Ephraim, would here be out of place. Ephraim had at all events done something, and had not refused assistance. Here were cowardice and treason combined. He does not, however, chastise them at once. Therein also he shows a soul penetrated by spiritual strength. He will not manifest personal resentment; he will show them that they have offended against the cause of God. He is sure of victory; but before he punishes them, they shall see that finished, the accomplishment of which they now doubt. When he shall appear before Succoth with Zebah and Zalmunna in fetters, they will no doubt be glad to give him bread; but then he will give them that to which now on his king-chase through the desert they refer him—he will thresh them with “thorns of the desert and with barkanim”. Owing to the brevity of the narrative, which only gives the leading speeches, while it omits all transitions, it is not altogether clear why Gideon’s threat against the inhabitants of Succoth takes the precise form of “thorns.” The ingenious Kimchi thought that it was a play on the name of the city, since ùֻׂëָּä (by the constant Chaldee substitution of ñ for ùׂ , ñֻëָּä , plur. ñֻëּåֹú ) means a thorn (Job_31:40; cf. ùֵׂãְ , plural ùִׂëִּéí ). He even thinks that the name of the city may perhaps have been derived from this word. But, though such a word-play might not have been altogether at variance with the spirit of antiquity, it can scarcely be supposed to have such controlling influence in our passage. For then why is not the word ùֻׂëָּä used by Gideon? But instead of it, other and rather remote terms are chosen. The choice of the punishment denounced seems to have a deeper reason. The magistracy of Succoth refuses bread: is not that of itself a mocking reference to the food which the desert affords? But what does Gideon find there? That which can nourish, not men, but at best only the camel, that marvel of the desert—acaciathorns, thistles, tarfa-needles, springing up amid sand and rock. Shall he thresh these like grain, in order to bake bread? He requites their mockery, by promising with such thorns to belabor their flesh. Hence, the most probable explanation of áַּøְ÷ָðִéí will continue to be that, which, after the constant exegetical tradition of the Jews, makes it thistles or thorns (Raschi explains it by the French ronces, briers), and the same as those already indicated by “thorns of the desert.” The idea suggests itself that kotse hamidbar may only precede barkanim by way of explanation; in which case åִàֵú would have the sense of “namely:” “thorns of the desert, namely barkanim.” For that Barka (Barca) designates stony syrtes, may be considered as made out (see on Jdg_1:4). The thorns meant are probably those of the acacia, called talh by the Arabs, which cover the ground to such an extent, that many Arabs are accustomed to carry thorn-extractors about them (cf. Ritter, xiv. 207, 336).
That the threatened chastisement corresponds to the expressions made use of by the ungrateful citizens in reply to Gideon’s request, is evident from the fact that, though he receives the same treatment from the inhabitants of Penuel, he does not threaten them with the same punishment. These, who deemed themselves secure in their tower, he promises to tear down that bulwark of their pride. áְּùׁåּáִé áְùָׁìåֹí : not exactly, when I return in peace; but, when I return prosperously, with success and victory.
Jdg_8:10-12. And Zebah and Zalmunna were in Karkor. We are yet to trace the course of Gideon’s pursuit. Succoth lay beyond the Jordan, for he came to it after crossing the river (Jdg_8:4; cf. Jos_13:27). It was, moreover, south of the Jabbok (Zerka), for the scene of Jacob’s wrestling was north of that stream, he alone having remained behind, while his people had crossed over (Gen_32:23-24). The place of the wrestling was afterwards occupied by Penuel. When morning had come, Jacob passed over the stream at Penuel (Gen_32:31), joined his family, met Esau, and afterwards came to Succoth, which was therefore south of the Jabbok. This position of Succoth agrees with that in which we left Gideon at his meeting with Ephraim. That tribe had guarded the Wady el Faria and the fords in its neighborhood. It was in the vicinity of this Wady that they met with Gideon, prosecuting the pursuit, and brought him the heads of the captured princes. Now, if he passed over at this point, he would land south of the Jabbok, and reach Succoth first. He then crossed the Jabbok, and came to Penuel: The hiding-place of the terrified enemy was no secret to him. There is in Haurân an almost unassailable place of refuge for the robber tribes—the volcanic rock-desert of Sâfa (both in the wider and narrower sense), concerning which some very valuable information is given by Wetzstein. It embraces a fertile district, “a Ruhbeh, Paradise,” for some months of the year, which is almost as inaccessible as Paradise. Says Wetzstein (Hauran, p. 15, etc.): “Here is the stronghold of the Gêjât, and Stâye, and all the tribes of the eastern slope of the Haurân mountains.” The people of Syria have a proverbial expression which says, “he fled into the Wa’r of the Sâfa,” i. e., into an unassailable refuge. The Ruhbeh can only be reached by two roads, from the north and the south. The northern is especially dangerous; even in our own days hostile tribes have made inroads at Rigin el Mara. The Sâfa, and the whole of this terrible, rock-walled asylum, is what we are here to understand by the term ÷ַøְ÷ֹø , Karkor For this word signifies ruins, destruction: cf. Num_24:17 : “he destroys— åְ÷ַøְ÷ַø —all the sons of Sheth.” The same verb is used, Isa_22:5, of the destruction of walls; and in Talmudic as well as modern Hebrew ÷ַøְ÷åּøָà means destruction.Such being the situation and topography of the place, the significance of the brief statement that the kings were in Karkor, becomes manifest. It not only explains the sense of security felt by the enemy, but also and especially displays the boldness, endurance, wisdom, and energy, with which Gideon followed them into their hiding-place. We can still trace his route; for it passed to the east of Nobah and Jogbehah. Nobah is the same as Kenath (Num_32:42), which again is the Kanatha of Roman times, and the Kanvât of the present. He who is north of the Jabbok, and passes east of Kanvât, if he be in search of an enemy retired to his hiding-place, must be bound for the Sâfa. But Jogbehah also can be identified. Since Gideon’s way is said to have gone to the east of “Nobah and Jogbehah,” the latter must have lain farther north than the other, and there is thus the more reason for regarding it as the same with Johbah, the Shôbah of Seetzen, Shuhubah of Buckingham (cf. Ritter, xv. 881), and Shubbah of Wetzstein.
Gideon’s attack was so unexpected and sudden, that a renewed attempt at flight fails (Jdg_8:12). The host, it is said, äֶçֶøִéã : terror seized it, so that no resistance was offered, and the army surrendered. The celerity of this victorious career, and its results, finds many parallels in the history of the desert tribes. When Mehemet Ali, in 1815, fought against Asyr in Arabia, he pursued the defeated enemy with such haste, that all his stores of subsistence had to be left behind, and he himself was at last reduced to a diet of dates. But he was rewarded for this by the capture of the chiefs of his adversaries, and many others went over to him (cf. Ritter, xii. 932). But that for which no parallels can be adduced, is Gideon’s aim, his cause for war, and the fewness of his enthusiastic warriors compared with the overwhelming numbers arrayed against him to the last. Even if the 120,000, lost by Midian in the course of their defeat, from the Hill of Moreh to Karkor, were a round number, a stream of blood nevertheless marked the track of the smitten tyrants, as it marked that of Napoleon’s retreat from Russia. It was probably from prisoners and wounded left behind, at Stations of Death, that Gideon learned the secret way into the rocky asylum, called “hell” by Arabic poets, on account of its volcanic formations, and now become a place of judgment for a seven years’ oppression (Jdg_6:1; compare the period of 1806–1813 in German history).
Jdg_8:13-17. And Gideon, the son of Joash, returned from the war from the Ascent of the Sun. The addition Son of Joash, is here put to Gideon’s name for the first time since his rising against idolatry. The glory of having finished the conflict, accrues to the family and name of Joash, because in the hour of danger he had sided with his son. For that the conflict is ended, was already Indicated by Jdg_8:10, which said that “all that were left” of the “whole host” were in Karkor. The victory over this remnant ended, not merely a battle, but äַîִּìְçָîä , the war. The hero can now turn back, but not yet to his own house. He must first settle accounts with Succoth and Penuel. He comes to Succoth first. Had he returned the way he went, he must have reached Penuel first. His design was evidently to surprise both places, but chiefly Succoth, so that when he came to punish, the scourge might fall only on the persons who had deserved it. Bearing this in mind, the connection makes it clear that îִìְîַòְìֵä äֶçָøֶë is not to be taken as a note of time, sunrise, but of locality. It is designed to explain how Gideon comes to reach Succoth first, and from a direction from which the inhabitants did not expect him. Gideon everywhere displays that great quality of a general, the skill to baffle the calculations of his adversary. What sort of a locality “Maaleh Hacheres” was, the following hypothesis may perhaps indicate with some degree of probability. Succoth lay in the valley of the Jordan, the Ghor, áָּòֵîֶ÷ (Jos_13:27). The expression îַòֲìֶä can only be used in connection with mountains (cf. “Maaleh Akrabbim,” Jdg_1:36). The heights from which Gideon descended in order to reach Succoth, were the mountains east of the Jordan, which unfortunately are yet too little known. About the names, also, which in earlier and later periods they bore, we are very much in the dark. Now, in the territory of Reuben, we find (Jos_13:19) a “Tsereth Hashachar on the Mountain of the Valley.” The name çֶøֶñ signifies the sun. “Sunrise” ( îִæְøָç ) always indicates the east side. Accordingly, in the passage just cited, we have a Tsereth Hashachar, i. e., “Splendor of the Dawn,” on the mountains of the Ghor, in the east. It may therefore be assumed with great probability that the name “Ascent of the Sun” also was borne by the heights of the mountains east of the Jordan, whether those mountains were named “Sun” or “Sunrise” on local, or what is more probable on religious grounds.
As Gideon appeared quite unexpectedly, he succeeded in laying hold, unnoticed, of a boy, who wrote down for him the names of those who composed the magistracy of the city. It is not without interest to observe that the boy ( ðַòַø ) could write, that he knew the names of the authorities, and that these numbered seven and seventy, of whom seven or five may be regarded as ùָׂøִéí , princes, and seventy or seventy-two as elders. if the government of the city was in the hands of certain families, the boy would not find it difficult to give their names. The astonishment and terror of the inhabitants were doubtless great. The more haughty they had formerly been, the more terrified were they now. It is to be carefully noted that Gideon’s purpose is to punish only the rulers of Succoth, and that after he has done it, the remark is made: åַéֹּãַò àֵú àַðְùֵׁé ñֻëּåֹú —“he taught the men of Succoth a lesson.” This alone shows that the reading åַéָּãָùׁ “he threshed,” already proposed by Serarius, and again by Bertheau, is not to be approved. For the fact that “he took the elders of the city and the thorns,” makes it clear that he cannot have chastised the people of Succoth. But he “made them—the whole people,—to know;” gave them a lesson which showed how badly their rulers had acted, and what penalties such distrust and selfishness entail (which has been well apprehended by the Jewish expositors). At Penuel, however, which, having heard of the visitation of Succoth, had the folly to defend itself, the traitors lost their lives. It is truly admirable, how finely the narrative, with all its plainness, brings out the specially decisive points of view. Gideon went first to Succoth, because he did not wish to punish all the inhabitants, and it became necessary therefore to surprise the city, lest the guilty should escape, and to “catch a boy,” who unreservedly gives him their names. His purpose as to Penuel requires no surprise—the tower cannot run away; and it is the folly of the inhabitants, that in defending it, they lose their lives as well as their tower.
Jdg_8:18-21. And he said to Zebah and Zalmunna. This took place on his arrival at home, i. e. in Israel, for his son Jether was present, who, being but a boy, cannot have shared in the heroic expedition. The place cannot, however, be definitely determined; perhaps it was his old battlefield, the plain of Jezreel, where the people came flocking together, in order to behold the terrible kings in fetters.
The closing scene of Gideon’s dealings with these robber-kings, like every other in his history, is worthy of a hero who has been raised up to battle with the sword and mete out punishment. To spare the lives of enemies, especially of enemies so barbarous and cruel as these, was not the custom of antiquity, least of all in the east. Pyrrhus (in Seneca) says:Lex nulla capto parcit aut pœnam impedit; and even Josephus (Ant. ix. 4, 3) makes Elisha say—what, however, he never did say—that it is right to kill captives taken in a just war. But Gideon, who respects the royalty of his captives, enemies though they be, would gladly spare them, and believes himself obliged at least to show them why he cannot do it. Through this circumstance, we hear of an occurrence otherwise unknown—a fact which may suggest and cause us to regret how much other information has perhaps failed to reach us. The kings, it seems, had caught and slain on Mount Tabor the brothers of Gideon, sons of the same mother as well as father with himself. If is probable that this took place after some earlier battle, engaged in by Manasseh—but without God’s help—against the invaders. They were put to death, though only engaged in defending their native land, and though—as Zebah and Zalmunna flatteringly say—they looked like Gideon, like men of royal blood. In their persons, therefore, “kingly bearing,” stately presence and chivalrous valor, had not been respected; and shall Gideon spare those who were robbers and murderers of seven years’ standing? Impossible! Gideon’s sword has been whetted for the very purpose of administering righteous judgment. When Turnus entreated Æneas for his life, the latter, remembering that the former had slain Pallas, the son of Evander, and “furiis accensus et ira terribilis,” exclaimed, “Pallas te immolat,” etc., and thrust the spear into his heart (Æneid, xii. 949). And yet Turnus was a native of the country, and fought against aliens, and Pallas was neither son nor brother of Æneas. The intimation that the family of Joash had previously already bled for Israel, throws a new light on the question why of all men Gideon was selected to be the conqueror. However, notwithstanding their ill deserts, he does not treat his captives cruelly. He neither makes them objects of taunt or insult, nor uses them for purposes of ostentation and self-glorification. He does not load them with ignominy, as Sapor is said to have done to the Roman Emperor Valerian, and, according to the legend in Eutychius, Galerius to a Sapor, and Tamerlane to Bajazet. The honor of the captives was sufficiently consulted, even when Gideon wished to make his eldest son the executor of his sentence. But he, a boy, and apparently of timid bearing, shrinks from drawing his sword against the mighty foemen, still distinguished by royal state and show. And truly, they must have been terrible warriors; they ask not for life, as Turnus and Homeric warriors do, but desire to be slain by the hand of an equal, and not to be hacked and hewn by the sword of a boy; for, say they, “as the man, so is his strength.” They have no other request to make than that Gideon will kill them himself; and he complies with it—they fall by his sword. The “moons” which have hitherto ornamented their camels’ necks, he now takes off; an evidence that even in captivity they have experienced kingly treatment. That he does not take them off until after the kings are dead, indicates that they are the special insignia of royalty, and crescent-shaped. Thus, according to Philostratus (lib. ii. cap. 1), Apollonius of Tyana received the convoy of a camel from the Persian king, which headed the train, and by a golden ornament on its face indicated its royal ownership. In the poem of Statius (cf. Bochart, Hierozoicon, i. 17) the horse of Parthenopæus, the fabled assailant of Thebes, wears crescent-shaped ornaments (lunata monilia). Mention is made of an Arabic expression, which speaks of “moon-shaped camel ornaments” (Ritter, xii. 486). The ornament, in its peculiar shape, was evidently an escutcheon of the ancient Ishmaelites, who were worshippers of the moon (Herod. iii. 8), as Scripture also speaks of a son of Joktan, the progenitor of many Arab tribes, whose name was Jerah, moon (Gen_10:26). The crescent of the Arabizing Ottomans of modern times may be referred to it as to its original For the lunulœ also, which adorned the shoes of ancient Roman senators and nobles, and whose significance was obscure even to antiquity (Plut. Quest. Rom., 73), had only the shape of the half-moon.
The same (on the punishment of Succoth): I know not whether more to commend Gideon’s wisdom and moderation in the proceedings, than his resolution and justice in the execution of this business. I do not see him run furiously into the city, and kill the next; his sword has not been so drunken with blood, that it should know no difference; but he writes down the names of the princes, and singles them forth for revenge.—The same: It is like, the citizens of Succoth would have been glad to succor Gideon, if their rulers had not forbidden. They must therefore escape, while their princes perish.—The same (on Penuel): The place where Jacob wrestled with God and prevailed, now hath wrestled against God and takes a fall; they see God avenged, which would not believe Him delivering.—Wordsworth: They who now despise the mercy of Christ as the Lamb, will hereafter feel the wrath of Christ as the Lion (Rev_5:5).—Bush: The whole of this remarkable transaction tends to inspire us with confidence in God, and to encourage our exertions in his cause; but there are two lessons especially which we shall do well to learn from it: 1. To prosecute our spiritual warfare under all discouragements ourselves; and 2. To be careful to put no discouragements in the way of others. God is indignant with those who would weaken the hands of his people.
Bp. Hall: The slaughter of Gideon’s brethren was not the greatest sin of the Midianitish kings; [yet] this alone shall kill them, when the rest [of their sins] expected an unjust remission. How many lewd men hath God paid with some one sin for all the rest!—Scott: Sins long forgotten must be accounted for to God.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Jdg_8:6.—Dr. Cassel: “Hast thou the fist of Zebah and Zalmunna already in thy hand,” etc. Bertheau and Keil, in their commentaries, have the same rendering, merely changing Luther’s plural, Sind die Faüste, to the singular. ëַּó is properly the hollow hand, the palm; accordingly the Dutch Version renders, rather awkwardly to be sure, “Is dan the handpalm tan Zebah en Tsalmuna alreede in uwe hand,” etc. The word “fist,” even if it did not somewhat alter the metaphor involved, lacks dignity in modern English, although it avoids the tameness of using “hand” twice. For an independent version, De Wette’s would be better: “Hast thou then Zebah and Zalmunna already in thy hand,” etc.—Tr.]
[Jdg_8:10.— îַçֲðֵéäֶí : singular, with plural suffix. Cf. Ges. Gram. Sect. 93, 9.—Tr.]
[Jdg_8:13.— îִìְîַòֲìֵä äֶçָøֶñ . The above rendering takes no account of the ìְ . “At” would be better than “from.” It is literally, “from at” the ascent of the sun. It indicates the point to which Gideon came, and at which he turned back.—Tr.]
Analogies to this word, such as ῥÜ÷ïò , thorn = âñÜ÷ïò (cf. ῥáäéíüò and âñáäéíüò , ῥῖãïò , and frigus), cannot here be further investigated. In Scandinavian dialects, rhamnus, thornbush, is called getbark or geitbark.
Eusebius (Onomast., Perthey, p. 252) does not say that this Karkor and Carcaria near Petra are one and the same place. Nor can they be the same. although the names may be similarly explained.
Greek texts have a corrupt form ̓ ÉåãåâÜë . The Syrian version of Paul of Tela does not have the name at all (Rördam, p. 169).
For which the Jewish expositors decide, because they assign the previous expedition to the night-time.
That åéֹּãַò need not necessarily be written åַéּåֹãַò (Bertheau), and is found elsewhere, has already been justly remarked by Keil, who refers to Num_16:5, and Job_32:7.
Cf. Grotius, De Jure Pacis et Belli, lib. iii. 4, 10.
[Bush: “In countries where polygamy is tolerated, the ties of brotherhood are, as might be expected, much more close and tender between those who are born of the same mother, than those who are connected only as the children of the same father. This explains why ‘son of my mother’ was among the Hebrews, as now among the Arabs and others, a far more endearing expression than that of ‘my brother,’ in the general sense” The same remarks hold also of the tribes of Western Africa. Speaking of polygamy and family life among them, the Rev. J. G. Auer observes (Spirit of Missions for 1867, p. 729): “Children cleave to their mother more than to their father, and a full brother or sister is called ‘my mother’s child.’ ”—Tr.]
[On the first of these stories, see Gibbon’s Decline, etc., Milman’s ed., Boston, i. 319; on the second, vol. vi. 271 note 58; on the third, vi. 267–71, with Milman’s note on p. 271.—Tr.]