Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 9:42 - 9:57
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_9:42-57
[2 Jdg_9:46.— öְøִéúַ . The meaning of this word is doubtful. Our author renders it Halle; De Wette, Veste, strong hold; Keil suggests Zwinger (cf. arx, from arceo), citadel, fortress; while according to Bertheau, Jdg_9:49 (where he would render: and they put the boughs on the öְøִéúַ , and infer thence that the place bearing this name was low), “rather implies a cellar-like place, some sort of hollow. Cf. 1Sa_13:6, the only other passage where the word occurs, and where it is conjoined with caves and clefts of the rocks.”—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_9:49.— òֲìֵéäֶí : Cassel, “with them,” i. e. the boughs. But this rendering will scarcely find favor. De Wette: “over them,” i. e. the people in the öְøִéçַ .—Tr.]
[4 Jdg_9:53.—“All to brake,” is old English for “entirely brake.” Cf. Webster, Dict., under “all,” adv.—Tr.]
[5 Jdg_9:53..— ðֻּìְðַּìְúּåֹ , from ðֻּìְðֹּìֶú , is undoubtedly to be read ðֻּìְðָּìְúּåֹ , which reading, according to Bertheau and Keil, is found in the edition of R. Norzi, Mantua, 1742–44.—Tr.]
Jdg_9:45. He destroyed the city and sowed it with salt. Notwithstanding Abimelech’s sanguinary disposition, it would be difficult to account for his savage treatment of Shechem, if we did not remember that the city stood in the covenant of Baal-berith with him. The very money that assisted him to the throne, had been taken from the temple of this god. Now, among oriental nations, as among others, infidelity to covenant obligations was the greatest of crimes. The God of Israel, also, who made his divine covenant with the nation, says (Deu_4:23): “Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of Jehovah your God, which he made with you. For Jehovah your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.” He utters the threat (Lev_26:25): “I will bring the sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant.” In the book of the prophet Ezekiel (Eze_17:15) we read: “He hath broken the covenant, and shall he be delivered?”
This covenant with Jehovah, Abimelech has desecrated in the most horrible manner. Does he fear no punishment for that transgression? But the natural man, who lightly breaks the covenant of his God, nevertheless claims the terrible right of punishing those who have failed in duty toward himself, with a severity greater than that threatened by God. The breach of a covenant born of blood and sin, is visited with vengeance like a “consuming fire.” Shechem is razed to the ground, and salt is strewn over its site. The usual explanation of this proceeding, of which no other instance occurs, is, that by it Abimelech intends to declare Shechem an unfruitful land, a land of salt, as it were ( îְìֵçָä ). But this explanation, although accepted by all recent expositors, does not appear to be satisfactory. For to make the land unfruitful, he neither intends, nor, if he did, were he able; for no one will think of such a salting as would actually bring about this result. He can only intend to say, that this city, being unfaithful to its covenants, and forgetful of its oaths, has ceased to exist, and is never more to be known as a city. When Joshua inflicted a similar destruction on Jericho, he swore that it should never be rebuilt (Jos_6:26). Abimelech makes the same declaration in the act of strewing salt; for salt is the symbol of an oath, just as among all nations, not excepting the dull tribes of Siberia, it was the symbol of covenants. The salt which he strewed over Shechem intimated both the cause and the perpetuity of the vengeance inflicted. A fate still worse, but less deserved, was suffered by the descendants of the Milesian Branchidæ who had betrayed the treasures of the temple of Apollo, at Didymi, into the hands of Xerxes, and had obtained through him a city in Persia. Alexander, coming upon this city, gave it up to the vengeance of the Milesians in his army. These destroyed it to its very foundations, killed all the inhabitants, so that not a trace of them remained, and tore up the groves by their roots, so that, as Curtius says (vii. 5, 34), “vasta solitudo et sterilis humus linqueretur.” Shechem’s destruction was not so bad as that: and it was afterwards rebuilt (1Ki_12:25).
Jdg_9:46-49. And the lords of the Tower of Shechem heard of it. Still more cowardly than that of the Shechemites, is the conduct of the men of the Tower of Shechem. They venture no resistance at all, but run for safety to the temple-asylum of El-Berith. The House of El, here mentioned, cannot well be the same with the House of Baal hitherto spoken of. The matter probably stands thus: Under the covenant entered into by Israel and the heathen, both parties served the Covenant-Deity, the Israelites in the temple of El-Berith, the heathen in that of Baal-Berith. Aside from this difference of locality, the worship was perhaps identical; and the covenant itself was already a sin. It would however be an error, to suppose that during such times of apostasy all distinction between Israel and the heathen ceased to exist. Abimelech still continued to be an Israelite; and the inhabitants of the Tower of Shechem probably expected to find greater security in the House of El-Berith than could be looked for in the asylum of a wholly heathen temple. The place to which they retired, is called öְøִéçַ , and is probably a hall of the temple (like äֵéëָì , used to denote a special part of the temple at Jerusalem). The sanctuary privileges of temples were very great among all nations; and, as is well known with reference to the temple at Ephesus, were not seldom misused. In order to destroy Pausanias without violating the rights of sanctuary, the doors of the temple of Minerva, at Sparta, in which he had taken refuge, were built up, and the roof taken off “that under the open sky he might more quickly perish” (Corn. Nepos, Paus. Judges 5). Abimelech resorted to more terrible means. He ascended the neighboring wooded hill, Mount Zalmon—so named from its forest-shades,—and hewed off a multitude of boughs, himself being the first to swing the axe. (The plural, ÷ַøְãֻּîåֹú , stands for all the axes that were used.) These boughs were piled up about the building, and all its inmates perished in the flames. A like deed is related by Herodotus (iv. 164) of Arcesilaus: a number of Cyrenæans having taken refuge in a tower, he heaped wood around it, and burned them to death. It is a species of violence which, especially among the northern nations, has been practiced oftener than once,—as, for instance, by king Olaf (Tryggvesson), who burned in this manner all the warlocks of his land (Snorro, Heimgskringla, Saga vi. Judges 69).
In connection with these events, a number of topographical references to the region of Shechem, which prove that the narrator was an eye-witness, but which although alluding to permanent landmarks, as mountain, valley, and forest, are yet not easily traced. Migdal (Tower of) Shechem, however, may be confidently assumed to be the same as Beth (House of) Millo (Jdg_9:6; Jdg_9:20). Abimelech’s wrath against it is thus readily understood; for its inhabitants had taken part in his election at the Monument-Oak, and had now doubtless made common cause with those of Lower Shechem. For it is perhaps safe to assume that the place were related to each other as Upper and Lower Shechem. Migdal Shechem, as the Acropolis, was a little city by itself, and might have ventured or further resistance; but its people preferred to pray for mercy, which Abimelech was not the man to exercise.
Jdg_9:50-53. And Abimelech went to Thebez. Since the course of the narrative leads to the inference that Abimelech’s march upon this city formed part of his vengeance on Shechem, its location must be sought for at a very short distance from that place. The opinion of recent expositors and travellers (Robinson, Berggren, cf. Ritter, xv. 448 [Gage’s Transl. ii. 341]), who identify Thebez with the modern Tubâs at the head of Wady el-Malih, does not therefore appear to be altogether certain. To me, Tubâs has appeared more suitable for Tabbath (Jdg_7:22). Thebez must have been closely connected with Shechem. Since, in accordance with Jotham’s parable, the two miserable associates, Abimelech and Shechem, perish by each other, and since Abimelech finds his end at Thebez, the inhabitants of the latter must have been among those who at first patronized Abimelech. Thebez was built in circular form, like the Grecian Thebæ, for it had its Tower in the centre. Its inhabitants preferred desperate battle to mercy; but they were already on the verge of destruction, when Abimelech (“inter confertissimos violentissime dimicans,” fighting furiously in the thickest of the crowd, as Justin says of Pyrrhus) was struck on the head by a mill-stone, which crushed his skull. It appears that the inhabitants of Thebez were prepared for a lengthy siege, since along with provisions they had also brought a hand-mill into the tower. Such a mill consisted of a movable upper ( øֶëֶá , wagon, Eng. runner, Germ.Läufer), and of an immovable, nether stone ( ôֶìַç úַּçְúִּéú ), on which the other turned. The duty of grinding generally devolved on women. Abimelech falls, as the Jewish expositors say, by a stone, as on a stone he had murdered his brothers. Other usurpers also have met with the same fate. When in 1190, impious men sought to destroy the poor Jews, who had taken refuge in the royal castle at York, one of the ringleaders of the mob fell, crushed by a stone (Milman, Hist. of the Jews, iii. 242).
Jdg_9:54. That men say not, A woman slew him. Poor Abimelech, in the moment of his fall, thinks of nothing save that his death will be ascribed to a woman; an end which has at all times been considered inglorious. To his latest breath, men were to be deceived by appearances. For though his attendant gave him the finishing stroke, it was nevertheless the woman that killed him. And, as 2Sa_11:21 shows, he was not able to avert the dreaded infamy. Still, this utterance also goes to show the warlike spirit of the fallen man. Energy, valor, and iron strength were inherited characteristics of the son, not unworthy of his heroic father. He towers, at all events, far above the cowardly Shechemites, the braggart Gaal, and the intriguing Zebul. If ambition and unrestrained fury had not stupefied his conscience; if, like Gideon, he had learned to serve and to suffer; had faithfully tarried the call of his God, and had not sought to found by the sword what only God’s Spirit can establish, it might have been said of him, as of the noblest: “he judged delivered his people.” As it was, he is never ever named by the title “King” which he arrogated to himself; and Jewish tradition exalts the heathen king Abimelech of Abraham’s time, above the valiant son of Gideon.
Jdg_9:55-57. When the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead. In Abimelech’s death, also, we may read the fate of tyrants. His attendant thrusts him through without hesitation, and the dead chieftain is forsaken by all. The interest created by his person and his wages, is gone. How much more beautiful is the otherwise so tragical death of Saul! His attendant, influenced by reverence, refuses to kill him, and finally follows him in voluntary death. The songs of David celebrate his memory: Abimelech’s epitaph is his brother Jotham’s curse!
[Bp. Hall: O the just successions of the revenges of God! Gideon’s ephod is punished with the blood of his sons; the blood of his sons is shed by the procurement of the Shechemites; the blood of the Shechemites is shed by Abimelech; the blood of Abimelech is spilt by a woman. The retaliations of God are sure and just.—The same: The pursued Shechemites fly to the house of their god Berith: now they are safe; that place is at once a fort and a sanctuary. Whither should we fly in our distress, but to our God? And now this refuge shall teach them what a god they have served.—The same: Now, according to the prophecy of Jotham, a fire goes out of the bramble, and consumes these cedars, and their eternal flames begin in the house of their Berith. The confusion of wicked men rises out of the false deities which they have doted on.—Henry What inventions men have to destroy one an other!—The same: About 1,000 men and women perished in these flames, many of whom, probably, were no way concerned in the quarrel, nor meddled with either side; men of factious turbulent spirits, perish not alone in their iniquity, but involve many more, that follow them in their simplicity, in the same calamity with them.—Wordsworth: Many powerful enemies of God and of his people, after victorious acts of oppression, have been overthrown at last by weak instruments, even by women: Sisera, by Deborah and Jael; Haman, by Esther; Holofernes, by Judith; and the Church, by the power of the Seed, overcomes the world.—Bush: The end of Abimelech suggests the remark, 1. That they who thirst for blood, God will at last give them their own blood to drink. 2. The weak, in God’s hand, can confound the mighty; and those who walk in pride, He is able to abase. 3. They who in life consulted only their pride and ambition, will usually die as they lived, more solicitous that their honor should be preserved on earth, than that their souls be saved from hell. (4.) The methods proud men take to secure a great name, often only serve to perpetuate their infamy.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Jdg_9:44.— ôָּùְׁèåּ : spread out, sc. in hostile array. The same word occurs Jdg_9:33; and in both places seems to contrast the expanded form of a body of men freely advancing, with its contraction when lying in ambush. The verse is somewhat difficult. Dr. Cassel renders it as follows: “And Abimelech and the companies that were with him, spread themselves out. Part stood [took their stand] at the entrance of the gate of the city, and two companies threw themselves on all that were in the field, and slew them.”—Tr.]
[Jdg_9:46.— öְøִéúַ . The meaning of this word is doubtful. Our author renders it Halle; De Wette, Veste, strong hold; Keil suggests Zwinger (cf. arx, from arceo), citadel, fortress; while according to Bertheau, Jdg_9:49 (where he would render: and they put the boughs on the öְøִéúַ , and infer thence that the place bearing this name was low), “rather implies a cellar-like place, some sort of hollow. Cf. 1Sa_13:6, the only other passage where the word occurs, and where it is conjoined with caves and clefts of the rocks.”—Tr.]
[Jdg_9:49.— òֲìֵéäֶí : Cassel, “with them,” i. e. the boughs. But this rendering will scarcely find favor. De Wette: “over them,” i. e. the people in the öְøִéçַ .—Tr.]
[Jdg_9:53.—“All to brake,” is old English for “entirely brake.” Cf. Webster, Dict., under “all,” adv.—Tr.]
[Jdg_9:53..— ðֻּìְðַּìְúּåֹ , from ðֻּìְðֹּìֶú , is undoubtedly to be read ðֻּìְðָּìְúּåֹ , which reading, according to Bertheau and Keil, is found in the edition of R. Norzi, Mantua, 1742–44.—Tr.]
[In Scripture, the author means, of course. The following instances in comparatively recent times, probably mere imitations of what from this passage is usually assumed to have been an ancient custom, are noted by Wordsworth: “When Milan was taken in a. d. 1162, it was sown with salt (Sigonius); and the house of Admiral Coligny, murdered in the massacre of St. Bartholomew, a. d. 1572, was, by the command of Charles IX., king of France, sown with salt.”—Tr.]
[Wordsworth does however: “Sowed it with salt, to destroy its fertility, and to make it barren for ever, like Sodom, comp. Pliny, xxxi. 7.” But this idea is not at all necessary to the common explanation (as given by Bertheau, Keil, Bush) that the act was designed symbolically to turn the city into a salt-desert. Our author’s explanation does not conflict with that of his predecessors, but rather completes it.—Tr.]
The extent of the temple building which this implies is not unparalleled. The temple of Diana in Samos was so large as to afford sanctuary to the 300 Corcyræan boys whom Periander dispatched to Alyathes, king of Lydia, for eunuchs, and yet leave room for choirs of Samian youth to execute certain religious dances before them, ingeniously invented as a means of conveying food to them (Herod. iii. 48).