Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - Joshua 11:1 - 11:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jos_11:1
And it came to pass. The political constitution of Palestine was, humanly speaking, the cause of its overthrow. The division of the country into a host of petty states, and the consequent want of cohesion and concert, made its conquest a comparatively easy task. Had the kings of the north rallied round the standard set up in Central Palestine by Adoni-zedek, a far more formidable opposition would have been offered to Joshua at Gibeon. Calvin takes us, however, at once to the fountain head, and remarks how God fitted the burden to those who had to bear it. In spite of the great things God had done to them, they might have been driven to despair (and every one knows how weak their faith was) by the overwhelming numbers of the enemy. But by reason of the slackness of their opponents they were able to meet and overcome them in detail, without any opposition but what their weak faith enabled them courageously to confront. Jabin king of Hazer. Jabin (the Hebrew meaning of this word is intelligent) was, like Pharaoh in Egypt, the usual name for the king that reigned in Hazor (see Jdg_4:2, Jdg_4:23, Jdg_4:24). He was a powerful monarch, and if not before, at least after, the Israelitish invasion became the acknowledged head of the league formed among the Canaanites against the Israelites. The first mention we have of Hazor in history is before the Exodus. The temple at Karnak, in Egypt, contains an account of an expedition into Palestine by Thotmes III; in which Kedeshu, Magedi, Damesku, Khatzor or Hazara, and other places are mentioned. We may no doubt identify these with Kedesh-Naphtali, Megiddo, Damascus, and Hazor. Hazor, like fort in French and German, caer in Welsh, and the termination cester in English (so also chester), signifies a castle or fortified town. Like the names above mentioned, it was by no means an uncommon name. Beside the present Hazer, which was in northern Palestine, two cities of that name are mentioned in the south (Jos_15:23, Jos_15:25). It rose from its ashes during the period of inaction which followed the death of Joshua, and though (Jos_19:36) it was assigned to the tribe of Naphtali, became once more the centre of a strong Canaanitish organisation. It was, perhaps, the city Solomon is stated to have fortified (1Ki_9:15), though this is not expressly stated. This becomes more probable when we find this Hazer among the cities of northern Israel captured by Tiglath-Pileser (2Ki_15:29). "Yet still, in spite of the destruction by the Assyrians, the name lived on till the time of the Maccabees, and the great contest between King Demetrius and Jonathan the Maccabean took place upon the plain of Hazer" (Ritter, 2:225). Josephus also mentions the πεδίον Ἀσώρ in this connection. Robinson identifies it with Tel Khuraibeh, on the lake of Huleh, the ancient Merom. Conder regards it as represented by Jebel and Merj Hadireh, on the borders of this lake. Dean Stanley places it above the lake, while Vandevelde finds a place called Hazur, with extensive ruins, some distance westward. The names, however, Hazur and Haziri, are very common. Of Madon and Shimron nothing is known. Knobel would identify Achshaph with Aeco or Ptolemais. Robinson supposes it to be the modern Kesai. But this is not certain, for Aehshaph (Jos_19:25) formed the border of Asher, while Kesaf is in the extreme north. According to Conder, it is the present el Yasif.
Jos_11:2
On the north of the mountains. Rather, to the northward, in the mountain district. Not necessarily the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon range, but the mountains of Galilee, which lay within the boundaries of Naphtali. The LXX. reads öãåÉï for öÀôåÉï and therefore renders κατὰ Σιδῶνα adding τήν μεγάλην from Jos_11:8. The plains south of Chinneroth. Rather, the Arabah south of Chinneroth (see note on Jos_3:16). The word Arabah is given untranslated in Jos_18:18. This was, no doubt, the great Ghor, or depression of the Jordan, or at least the northern part of it, extending for some distance south of the town of Chinneroth (Jos_19:35; Deu_3:17). This town gave its name to the lake or inland sea now better known to the student of Scriptures as the sea of Tiberias, or lake of Gennesareth (see Num_34:11). "As we enter upon the geological character of the basin which contains the sea of Galilee, we see at once that it is simply one element of the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea, which extends due north and south for a distance of sixty hours. This is the Ghor, or Sunken Valley of the Arabah" (see note on Jos_3:16)," extending from Hasbeya to the AElanitic gulf as a continuous cleft—the deepest one known to us" (Ritter, 2.241). He goes on to enumerate the various signs of volcanic agency in this region; the frequent earthquakes, the form of the basin of Gennesareth (though he denies it to be a crater), the hot springs, the frequent eaves, the naphtha deposits and springs, the hot water springs to be found even in the Dead Sea, the lofty crystalline masses of the Sinaitic peninsula, and the porphyritic dykes found at the southern end Of the Ghor, as well as the general conformation of the country east of Jordan. The sea of Chinneroth, or Tiberias, is stated by Conder to be 682.5 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. And in the valley. The Shephelah, or lowland district (see above Jos_9:1). The borders of Dot. Rather, the heights, or highlands ( ðÈôåÉú Vulg. regionibus) of Dor. This elevated position was a remarkable feature of the neighbourhood, though the various translations of the word (as "coast," Jos_12:23; "region," 1Ki_4:11) rather obscure the prominence given to this physical characteristic in the Scripture narrative. Rosenmuller would translate it the "promontory" of Dor, for Dot (now Tantura, Tortura, or Dandora) was upon the sea coast south of Carmel, and nine Roman miles north of Caesarea. Thus situated, its position on a hill, though the hill is not a lofty one, would strike the observer, and it accounts for the peculiar form of speech noticed above, which is so common that in the LXX. it is usually given as part of the proper name, Ναφεδδώρ (cf. Ναφαθδώρ , Jos_12:23; Νεφθαδώρ , 1Ki_4:11). And behind it are still higher rocky ridges, to which the name also applies. Dor, with its excellent harbour, was a noted place of commerce in ancient times, especially in the murex coccineus, from which the far famed Tyrian dye was obtained. These are a species of mussel, and Seetzen mentions two varieties, the murex trunculus of Linnaeus, and the Helix ianthina. The latter is of a whitish green, but when taken out of the water it passes from red to purple, and after death to violet. Its use has been superseded by that of the cochineal insect, but the Tyrian purple was in great demand in early times. Its costliness may be inferred from the fact that in each insect a little pouch behind the head, not the size of a pea, contains the dye. See Ritter, 4.280, 281; Pliny, ' Nat. Hist.' 9, 36 (60 in some editions); and' Epist.' 50, 10, 26. The allusions to it by Horace, Virgil, Juvenal, and other classical authors are too numerous for quotation. We may take as instances Virgil, Georg. 3.17: "Illi victor ego, et Tyrio conspectus in ostro" (cf. AEn. 4.262): and Juvenal, Sat. 7.134; "Spondet enim Tyrio stlataria purpura filo." The ruins of the ancient city still crown the steeps of its site (see Vandevelde's Memoir, and Conder's Handbook. Also Keil in loc). On the west. The LXX. renders, "And to the Amorites on the sea coast" (see last note), leaving out all mention of the Canaanites.
Jos_11:3
To the Canaanite (see note on Jos_3:10). This confederacy was yet more formidable than the other (Jos_11:5), but was as signally defeated by Joshua's promptitude (see verse 7). We are reminded of the swift march of our own Harold, and its results at Stamford Bridge; with this difference, however, that the enemy, instead of being engaged in triumphant festivity, was preparing for an expedition against a much dreaded enemy, who was believed to be far off. Napoleon had nearly achieved a similar surprise at Quatre Bras and Ligny. The Jebusite in the mountains. Jerusalem was not yet taken. From the neighbourhood of that as yet unconquered city, and probably from itself, Jabin drew his auxiliaries, while Joshua was as yet fully occupied in the south. Hermon in the land of Mizpeh. Mizpeh, or Ham-mizpah, as it is usually called (save in verse 8; Jdg_11:29; 1Sa_22:3; Hos_5:1), i.e; the watch-tower, was a common name among the Israelites. There was one in Judah (Jos_15:38), in Benjamin (Jos_18:26), in Gilead (Jdg_11:29; of. Gen_31:49; Jos_13:26), and in Moab (1Sa_22:3). Ritter mentions the large number of watch towers, of which the ruins may still he traced, along the line of the great watershed of Judea. This one was probably far to the north, on the northwestern side of Hermon, commading a view of the plain of Coele Syria, which extended from southwest to northeast between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. This vast plain is still known as the Bukei'a (see note on Jos_5:8), though Robinson denies that this Bukei'a is meant, because the Bukei'a properly so called was not under Hermon. This makes it possible that Mizpeh might have been on the south. eastern side of Hermon, where also an extensive view might be had. Ritter, however, says it can be no other than "the great plain which extends north of Lake Huleh, from its narrow western margin to Banias, that is, the plain south and southwest of Hermon. Some have supposed the meaning of Mizpeh to be equivalent to Belle Vue in modern days. But the meaning "watchtower" suggests ideas more in keeping with those rude times, in which our modern appreciation of scenery was a rare quality. It was not the beauty of the view which was valued, but its extent, as giving timely notice of the approach of an enemy. Mount Hermon has already been mentioned in the note on Jos_1:4. Some further particulars may here be added. We find in Deu_3:9 that the Amorites call the mountain Shenir, and the Sidonians Sirion. It is very remarkable, and bears on the authorship of the Song of Solomon, that the Amorite name Shenir is given to Hermon in So Son_4:8. Was the song addressed to a Hittite wife, or had Solomon an Amorite one? In Deu_4:48 Hermon is called Sion. With the former of these passages we may compare Psa_29:6. But we must not confound (as even a writer so well informed as Bitter does) the Zion, or Tzion (sunny mount), of Psa_133:1-3; where Hermon is mentioned, with the Sion, or "lofty mountain" (spelt with Sin, not Tzade), in Deu_4:48. Vandevelde asks why the mountain is called by so many names, and replies that it is because "it is a cluster of mountains many days' journey in circumference." A much better reason is suggested by the fact mentioned in our former note—that, as the .highest ground in Palestine, it was visible from every part of it. The name Sirion, or the coat of mail, was no doubt given from its glittering, surface. It is to be feared that the reason given above for the Sidonian name diminishes the probability of the remarkable argument in Blunt's 'Coincidences,' part 2.2, derived from the Sidonian settlement (Jdg_18:1-31) at the foot of Hermon.
Jos_11:4
And they went out. Dean Stanley (Lectures, 1:259) compares this "last struggle" of the Canaanites with the conflict between the Saxons and the British chiefs "driven to the Land's End." The comparison is more picturesque than accurate. In the first place, it was by no means a "last struggle" (see Jos_11:21; Jos_18:3; Jos_19:47; Jdg_4:1-24. throughout). In the next, the Britons were never driven to the Land's End, but Dorsetshire, which retained its independence for 200 years, was treated by Ina as Gezer (Jos_16:10), was treated by the Ephraimites, while Devonshire and Cornwall came very gradually and almost peacefully under the hands of the conquerors. And thirdly, even had it been otherwise, there is a vast difference between a handful of desperate men driven to bay on a tongue of land surrounded nearly on every side by the sea, and a powerful, though defeated, nation with a vast continent in its rear. Yet there are many features common to the history of the Israelites in Canaan, and of the Teutonic tribes in Britain (see Introduction). As the sand that is upon the sea shore. This poetic phrase is common in the Hebrew writings (see Gen_22:17; Gen_32:12; Jdg_7:12; 1Sa_13:5; 1Ki_4:20, etc). Solomon's capacious intellect is compared to the sand on the sea shore, in 1Ki_4:29. The word translated "shore" is "lip" in the original, a word which adds to the poetry of the passage. And horses and chariots very many. Literally, many exceedingly. The Israelites appear to have held cavalry and chariots in great awe (see Exo_14:18, and the song of triumph in Exo_15:1-27.; cf. also Jos_17:16, Jos_17:18; Jdg_1:19; Jdg_4:3). In later times they appear to have become more used to them. See, for instance, 1Sa_13:5, where the historian gives their number, large as it was, instead of regarding it as past all computation. This battle must have taken place on level ground, or the chariots would have been useless. Accordingly the historian fixes its scene on the banks of "the waters of Merom," where such ground is to be found—another instance of his historical accuracy (see Vandevelde, Journey 2.413, who places the battle on the great plain southwest of the latter). The use of chariots in battle dates from an early period. Homer's heroes are described as driven to battle in them. But perhaps the scythe chariots are here meant, which are not found on early Egyptian monuments, but which Xenophon in his Cyropaedia says were introduced By Cyrus. We find them, however, in use in Britain, in the days of Julius Caesar, and they could hardly have obtained the idea from the Persians. Potter (Antiquities, bk. 3. 1Sa_1:1-28) says that they were gradually abandoned when they were found more dangerous to those who used them than to the enemy. That this kind of chariot is here meant seems pretty certain from the alarm they caused. No such alarm would have been caused by chariots simply used to convey the chieftains to the fight (see Gesenius, s.v. Xenophon, Cyr. 6.4; and 2 Macc 13:2). All their hosts. The LXX. reads îÇìÀëÅéäÆí their kings, for îÇçÂðÅéäÆí .
Jos_11:5
The waters of Merom. Robinson and the later travellers generally identify this with the Samochonitis (Joseph, Ant. 5.1; Bell. Jud. 3.9. 7; 4. 1.1), now Huleh. Keil and Delitzseh deny this, but it may be regarded as established, on the authority of Ritter, Vandevelde, Tristram, in short of all who have visited Palestine during the last thirty years. But its name, "the waters of height," would seem to answer to this, the highest of the inland lakes of Palestine. The Jordan runs through it, and it is also the reservoir for numerous other streams. "In the centre of this plain, half morass, half tarn, lies the uppermost lake of the Jordan"—the little lake Phiala excepted—"about seven miles long, and at its greatest width six miles broad, the mountains slightly compressing it at either extremity, surrounded by an almost impenetrable jungle of reeds, abounding in wild fowl, the sloping hills near it scoured by herds of gazelles".
Jos_11:6
And the Lord said unto Joshua. The encouragement was not unnecessary. The task before Joshua was harder than any that had yet befallen him. The enemy was far more numerous and better equipped. And it is a well known fact that men of tried courage are often daunted by unaccustomed dangers. Therefore all Joshua's strength of mind was required to inspirit even men who had experienced God's wonderful support at the passing of the Jordan, at the siege of Jericho, at the battle before Gibeon, now that they were face to face with the unwonted spectacle of a vast host, furnished with all the best munitions of war known to that age. The Israelites had nothing to depend upon but their own tried valour, and the reliance they felt upon God's support. "Unequal in arms and tactics," says Ewald ('Hist. Israel.,' 2.2. C), "they could oppose to the Canaanites only courage and confidence." Tomorrow about this time. The promise was made on the eve of the encounter, but not, of course, as some have supposed, while Joshua was still at Gilgal. We are not told how long Joshua was on the march. Probably (as in Jos_2:1-24) he had sent scouts forward, who brought him intelligence on the day before the battle of the vastness of the host, and the formidable nature of its equipment. The martial spirit Joshua had infused into the host, and the spirit of faith in God begotten of His recent acts of favour, contrast remarkably with the conduct of the Israelites described in Num_14:1-45. To each servant of God His own special gift is vouchsafed. Moses was the man to inspire the Israelites with a reverence for law. Joshua had the special aptitudes for the leader in a campaign. It is a confirmation of this view that, in the one successful engagement recorded during the forty years' wandering in the desert, Joshua, not Moses, was the leader of the troops, while the aged law giver remained at a distance, encouraging them by his prayers (see Exo_17:8-13). But while we thus regard the secondary influences of individual character, we must not forget that the Israelites were also sustained at this moment by the assurances of Divine protection given at Jericho, at Ai, at Beth-horon, which had not been vouchsafed to them while under Moses's leadership in the wilderness. Will I deliver up. The "I" in the original is emphatic. And the use of the present participle in the Hebrew adds vividness to the promise. Slain. LXX. and Vulg; wounded.. Thou shalt hough their horses. To hough (or hoxe, Wiclif) is to hamstring, νευροκοπεῖν , LXX; to cut the sinews behind the hoofs, the hocks, as they are called. This rendered the horse useless, for the sinew could not reunite. The effects of the horses and chariots upon the mind of Joshua and his host, who had neither, is here traceable. "Those very horses and chariots, which seem to you so formidable, will I, the Lord of hosts, be tomorrow at this time delivering into your hand. The horses shall be forever useless to your enemies, and the dreaded chariots shall cease to be." Why should Joshua have destroyed the horses? Perhaps (as Keil, following Calvin, suggests) in order that the Israelites should not put their trust in chariots or in horses (Psa_20:7; Psa_147:10), but in God alone (cf. Deu_17:16). But more obvious considerations of policy may have dictated the measure. God never (see Mat_4:1-7) makes use of supernatural means when natural ones are sufficient. Now the Israelites were unacquainted with the use of horses in warfare, while their enemies were not. To retain the horses while the country was as yet unsubdued would have been a double burden to them, for they would have had not only to keep them themselves, but to prevent the enemy from regaining them. On the same principle in modern warfare do we spike guns we cannot carry off, and destroy provisions we cannot convert to our own use.
Jos_11:7
Suddenly (see remarks in Introduction on Joshua's characteristics as a general. Also Jos_10:9). And they fell upon them. This phrase denotes the rapidity of the onset. While they deemed him to be leagues away, he suddenly appeared at the head of his army, no doubt debouching from one of the mountain passes of Upper Galilee; and before they could set themselves in battle array, his troops, without giving the enemy time to rally, or themselves a moment's breathing-time, commenced the attack. The LXX. adds "in the hill country" here, an obvious blunder. The translator must have carelessly read áäø for áäí .
Jos_11:8
And the Lord delivered them (see Jos_10:42). The issue of every battle is in God's hands. The natural man attributes it to human skill. The spiritual man, whether under the law or under the gospel, acknowledges the truth that "there is no restraint to the Lord, to save by many or by few" (1Sa_14:6). But if victory should ever side with numbers, if God appears not to "defend the right," it is that anxiety and sorrow may chasten the hearts of its upholders, lead them to "crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts," and so conduct them to a final victory when they are fitted to resist the intoxication of prosperity. Many a lesson in history has taught us that immediate success is by no means a blessing, even to those who are in the main fighting for a good cause. Great Zidon. So called, not to distinguish it from any other city, but to mark (so also Jos_19:28) its importance as the capital of Phoenicia. This expression, "great Zidon," marks the early date of the Book of Joshua. In Homer's Iliad, Sidon is represented as the great home of the arts, though the historian Justin tells us that, even when Homer wrote, her superiority had passed to Tyre. In later years, Tyre, known only to the Book of Joshua as "the strong (literally, 'fortified') city." Tyre (Jos_19:29) outstripped her rival, and from the time of David till that of Alexander the Great, in spite of her destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, retained her pre-eminence (see the vivid description of Tyre in Eze_26:1-21; Eze_27:1-36). Sidon, now called Saida, is still a commercial city of some importance, whereas Tyre is, or was, a few years ago, little better than a collection of huts. This is not difficult to explain. The pre-eminence of Tyre was due to her military strength in a time of warlike enterprise, that of Sidon to natural, position. "This ancient city of Phoenicia, 'the eldest born of Canaan'" (see Gen_10:15), "stood on the northwest slope of a small promontory which runs into the sea, and its original harbour was formed by three low ridges of rocks, with narrow openings between them parallel to the shore in front of the city. On these islands there are remains of massive substructions, the work of the ancient Phoenicians. There is a spacious but unprotected bay on the south of the promontory … No traces of the ancient city can be seen on the mainland, but at a short distance to the north are sepulchral grottoes, which probably mark the necropolis." The plain of Sidon is prolonged as far as Sarepta, the Zarephath of the Old Testament, eight miles to the south, which stands on a rising ground near the sea, and shows the remains of ancient walls. Misrephoth Maim. Literally, burnings of waters. Kimchi conjectures that these were hot springs, whereas Jarchi more reasonably supposes them to have been salt pits, in which the water was evaporated and the salt left. Masius, whom most modern commentators follow, thinks that glass houses, of which there were several near Sidon ("constat enim eas apud Sidonem fuisse plurimas"), are meant. But it is difficult to translate the Hebrew with him and Gesenins, "burning near waters," and the idea of some that water stands here for glass is absurd. Knobel regards it as equivalent to water-heights, i.e; cliffs rising from the sea, and derives the word from an Arabic root, saraph, to be high. The LXX. renders it by a proper name. Symmachus, "from the sea," reading îÄéÇÌí for îÇéÄí . The Chaldee has "fossas aquarum." Misrephoth Maim (see Jos_13:6) was not far from Sidon. Valley. The word here, Bik'a, signifies an open, wide valley between mountains (see verse 17). Sometimes, as in Gen_11:2, it is equivalent to plain.
Jos_11:10
Turned back. From his march toward Sidon. For Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms (see note on Jos_11:1).
Jos_11:11
Utterly destroying them (see note on Jos_6:17; so below, Jos_6:12). There was not any left to breathe (see note on Jos_10:40). And he burnt Hazor with fire. Comparing this verse with Jos_11:13 and Jos_11:21, there can be little doubt that Joshua had heard that the Anakim had succeeded in re-occupying the cities he had captured in the south. He resolved to prevent this in the case of Hazor, which had been the capital of the neighbourhood, though he did not think the same step necessary in the case of the inferior cities. Hazor was afterwards rebuilt and reoccupied by the Canaanites (Jdg_4:2), though not in the time of Joshua. For the present, this destruction of the stronghold of Phoenician power in the north was a decisive measure, and would have been so permanently had the Israelites followed up the policy of Joshua.
Jos_11:13
The cities that stood still in their strength. This is the rendering of the Chaldee version. The LXX. has κεχωματισμένας , heaped up, i.e; defended with mounds. Rather, on their hill ("in collibus et in tumulis sitae," Vulg). As many of the towns in Italy, and the castles in Germany in the middle ages, so these Phoenician cities were placed upon hills, that they might be more easily defended. The various tribes of Palestine were no doubt continually at war, and, as regards these northern tribes at least, were not accustomed to subsist by commerce. Therefore each of these cities stood (the Hebrew òîã surely implies situation here) on its own hill, a detail possibly obtained from an eyewitness, who was probably struck by this feature of the district, a feature he had not observed before. The expression is used, however, as Masius observes, by Jeremiah (Jos Jer_30:18). Knobel observes that all the early versions have no suffix here. What he calls the "free translation," however, of the LXX. (which has αὐτῶν ) requires the suffix, though the Vulgate requires none. We must not adopt the very plausible explanation of Knobel and others that Joshua burnt the cities in the valleys, but spared the cities on the hills, because they could be more easily defended (see Jos_17:16; Jdg_1:19, Jdg_1:34), since we read that Hazor alone was burnt. The word here translated hill (Tell, Arabic) is one with which we are familiar in the modern name of places in Palestine (see note on Jos_8:28).
Jos_11:14
Took for a prey unto themselves (see Jos_8:2, Jos_8:27, and notes).
Jos_11:15
As the Lord Commanded Moses (see note on Jos_10:40). So did Joshua. The implicit obedience of Joshua to all the commands he had received of God, whether directly or indirectly through Moses, is a striking feature of his character. Like most great soldiers, he possessed remarkable simplicity of disposition. He reminds us, in his rapidity of conception and execution, of Napoleon, but in his single minded eye to duty he is much more like our own Wellington. Only one instance in which he erred, that of the league with Gibeon, is recorded, and this was but an illlustration of the unsuspicious straightforwardness of his character (see notes on Jos_19:49-51; Jos_23:2; Jos_24:15).
Jos_11:16
All that land. Rather, "all this land ;" the land, that is, which has been spoken of in all the previous narrative. It must not be pressed to mean the utter destruction of all the Canaanites, and the undisturbed possession of the country. The hills. The mountain country of Judah, in the south. The same word is translated "mountain" immediately afterwards, to the confusion of the sense, which contrasts the mountains of Israel with the mountains of Judah (see Jos_11:21). This would seem at first sight to lead to the conclusion that the Book of Joshua was composed after the jealousy between Judah and the rest of Israel had sprung up in the time of David (see 2Sa_19:41 -48). But Dr. Edersheim has suggested another explanation. Judah, he says (see Jos_14:6; Jos_15:1), entered upon their inheritance, while the other tribes were still in Gilgal. In the same way Mount Ephraim is so called because it was given to that tribe, and occupied by them shortly after. While as the remaining seven tribes remained without their inheritance (Reuben and Gad as well as Manasseh and Ephraim being now provided for), the rest of the mountains were known as the mountains of Israel. This explanation is ingenious, but hardly satisfactory. Ephraim (see Jdg_8:1, Jdg_8:2; Jdg_12:1) early acquired a preponderance over the other tribes. We should therefore expect a threefold division of the mountain district, the mountains of Judah, of Joseph, and of Israel, especially as Ephraim was the next after Judah to enter upon its inheritance. The internal evidence seems to prove that the Book of Joshua was written by one of the tribe of Judah, or by a Levite residing within the borders of that tribe. Perhaps this affords the best explanation, but is quite possible that the whole mountain district of Palestine is here meant. The south. The Negeb, or dry country (see Jos_10:40). The valley. The Shephelah, or lowlands (see note on Jos_9:1). This must have extended from Gaza northward to Joppa, while the Shephelah of Israel mentioned immediately below must be the lowland tract from Joppa to Mount Carmel. The plain. The Arabah (see note on Jos_3:16). And the valley of the same. Rather, his (i.e; Israel's) lowland.
Jos_11:17
The Mount Halak. The smooth mountain. Literally," monte glabro," Vulg.; λεῖον , Symmachus. This may either be interpreted "the mountain bare of foliage," as opposed to Seir, the hairy or wooded mountain, as Masius and Rosenmuller suppose, or, as the latter also suggests, it may mean the mountain which has a smooth outline, as opposed to a precipitous cliff. This falls in with the character of the hills on the south of Palestine (see note on Jos_10:40). The LXX. renders by a proper name. But this the article forbids. The Syriac interpreter renders "the dividing mountain." But çì÷ rather signifies in this sense to assign by lot. Keil would identify it with "the row of white cliffs which cuts the Arabah obliquely at about eight English miles to the south of the Dead Sea," and divides the great valley into two parts, the Ghor and the Arabah. He gives up the other "smooth" or "bald" mountains, because they do not "go up to Self." Later explorers have failed to settle its situation. Seir. This mountainous region was well known as the territory of Esau (see Gen_32:2). Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon. For valley ( áÄÌ÷ÀòÈä ) see note on Jos_11:8. Baal-gad has been by some identified with Baalbek, or Heliopolis, a Syrian city, whose vast ruins strike the beholder with astonishment even now. But Baalbek lay considerably to the north of Palestine. It has therefore with greater probability been identified by Robinson, Von Raumer, and others, with Paneas or Caesarea Philippi. Baal-gad signifies "the lord of fortune," an aspect under which the Babylonian Baal or Bel was frequently worshipped. The word Gad, erroneously translated "troop" in our version (Gen_30:11; Isa_65:11), is properly "fortune," and hence the god Fortune. The worship of Pan in later times supplanted that of Baal, but traces of both cults, in inscriptions and niches, may be found in the neighbourhood to the present day (see Tristram, 'Land of Israel'). All travellers speak with enthusiasm of the situation of Banias. Josephus says that it affords a profusion of natural gifts. Seetzen corroborates him. Dean Stanley compares it to Tivoli, and Canon Tristram thinks that in its rocks, caverns, and cascades there is much to remind the visitor of what is perhaps the loveliest place in all Italy. He continues, "The situation of Banias is indeed magnificent. With tall limestone cliffs to the north and east, a rugged torrent of basalt to the south, and a gentle slope for its western front, Banias is almost hidden till the traveller is among the ruins." Banias stands at the end of a gorge of the Hermon range with the wide range of the Huleh plain opening out before it, as the Campagna and Rome in the distance are seen from the mouth of the gorge at Tivoli. Vandevelds, however, identifies Banias with Beth-rehob, on the insufficient ground that Baal-gad is said to be in, not at, the mouth of the valley or Bik'ath of Lebanon. He prefers the castles either of Bostra or of Aisafa, the one an hour and a half, the other three hours north of Banias. It should be added that an arm of the Jordan rises and rushes through the gorge here, "praeceps," like the Anio at Tivoli. The valley of Lebanon is supposed by some not to be the valley between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, but the country on the southern declivity of Mount Hermon. But the term áÄÌ÷ÀòÈä here unquestionably means the well-known Bukei'a or Coele Syria, i.e; the tract between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon (see Knobel).
Jos_11:18
A long time. Hebrew, many days. The campaign in southern Israel lasted for weeks, perhaps even months. But the campaign in northern Palestine must have lasted longer. The vast host which gathered at the waters of Merom was destroyed, but the task of capturing the innumerable cities which dotted that region must have been a protracted one. We may, with Josephus, infer from Jos_14:10 that it occupied five years, or perhaps, with other of the ancient Rabbis, seven years, since the wanderings in the wilderness after the rebellion of the Israelites lasted thirty-eight years.
Jos_11:20
To harden their hearts (cf. Exo_4:21; Exo_7:23). Muller, 'Christian Doctrine of Sin,' 2.412, says that "Scripture never speaks of God's hardening men's hearts, save in connection with His revelations through Moses or Christ." This passage evidently had not occurred to him when writing. His explanation of the difficulty is hardly satisfactory. We are not to suppose that the free will of the Canaanites was in any way interfered with. God no doubt left them to themselves as the due punishment of their iniquities. Sin in general, by God's own appointment, and especially the sensual sins in which the Canaanites were steeped, has a tendency to produce insensibility to moral or even prudential considerations, and to beget a recklessness which urges on the sinner to his ruin. Some have argued that had they all come, like the Gibeonites, as suppliants, they must all have been massacred in cold blood. But this is not likely. Rather we must imagine that God foresaw that they would not believe the signs He would give in favour of the Israelites, and that by meeting them in battle they brought a swift and speedy destruction on themselves.
Jos_11:21
And at that time (see Jos_11:18). What is meant is, during the continuance of the war in which the country above described was conquered. The destruction of the Anakim was the conclusion of the work, and was rendered necessary by their having reoccupied the places Joshua had taken (see notes on Jos_10:36-39). The Anakims. Literally, the long-necked men. Called the "children of Anak" (Num_13:28, Num_13:33; also Jos_15:13, Jos_15:14). Gesenius would derive the German nacken and the English neck from this root. The word is used of the chains on the necks of camels (Jdg_8:26. So also So Jdg_4:9, of a necklace). They were men of gigantic stature (Num_13:32), and were no doubt a hill tribe of the Amorites. It is worthy of remark that to the two fearless men whose faith did not fail them at the sight of the walled cities, and of the giant forms of their inhabitants, was entrusted the task of overcoming these antagonists, and thus of proving the truth of their own words. Thus it ever is in the counsels of God. "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away." To Joshua, who had confidence in God, the whole land of Canaan was given into subjection. From the Israelites, who had not that confidence, the inheritance of their fathers was taken away (cf. also Mat_25:21, Mat_25:28). Many writers suppose that these Anakim (like the Rephaim of Jos_12:4) were the aboriginal inhabitants, and of Turanian descent (see note on next verse). Anab. A town about ten miles southwest of Hebron (cf. Jos_15:50). It was apparently one of the daughter cities of Debir, and there is still a place of that name in the immediate vicinity of Dhaharijeh. Mountains of Judah. For this and the "mountains of Israel" see note on verse 16.
Jos_11:22
Only in Gaza. This statement is confirmed by what we afterwards read. In Gath especially (1Sa_17:4; 2Sa_21:18-22; 1Ch_20:4-8, the last passage preserving the true text, which has become hopelessly corrupt in the second Book of Samuel) we find the race of giants remaining till David's time. But it had almost died out. Goliath and his brethren seem to have been regarded by the Philistines, as much as by the Hebrews, in the light of prodigies. It may be that the race deteriorated in size and strength, when driven from the mountain district. Gaza (Hebrew Azzah, as in Deu_2:23; 1Ki_4:24; Jer_25:20) was a stronghold of the Philistines. We first find it mentioned as the border of Canaan in Gen_10:19. It was the scene of the exploits of Samson, related in Jdg_16:1-31. It, with Gath, Ekron, Ashdod, and Ashkelon, formed the five Philistine lordships mentioned in Jos_13:5. Gaza does not appear in the list of cities captured by David, although Gath does. Perhaps the strength of its position (Azzah signifies strength) may have enabled it to resist David and Solomon, whose dominions are said to have extended to, but not to have included, Azzah. We read little more of it in the Old Testament. Jeremiah says that Pharaoh smote it; Amos and Zephaniah threatened it with punishment. It is mentioned in Act_8:26 as a place of some importance. And it still exists, at about an hour's journey from the sea, and is now called Ghazzeh. (see also note on verse 41). Gath. Also one of the five Philistine lordships. In David's time it had a king, with whom David took refuge (1Sa_21:10; 1Sa_27:2). It was afterwards conquered by David (2Sa_21:20; 1Ch_18:1; 1Ch_20:6). We find it in Solomon's jurisdiction, though under the government of one of its own royal family (1Ki_2:39). Rehoboam fortified it (2Ch_11:8). Hazael, the powerful king of Syria, wrested it from Jehoash, and was only bought air from assailing Jerusalem. Uzziah retook it once more (2Ch_26:6). Hezekiah seems to have retained it (2Ki_18:8). After this we hear no more of it. Modern travellers and commentators have identified it with Beit-Jibrin (the house of the mighty—perhaps a reminiscence of Goliath and his kindred), now Eleutheropolis (so Knobel). Others suppose it to be the Blanche Garde of the Crusaders, or Tell-es-Safieh, an opinion supported, among others, by Mr. J. L. Porter and Lieut. Conder. See, however, the note on Libnah, Jos_10:29. Ashdod. Later Azotus, now Esdud. Here the ark was carried after the disastrous defeat related in 1Sa_4:1-22. It was conquered by Uzziah (no doubt it had formerly been reduced by David), who built forts to overawe it (2Ch_26:6), but it fell into the hands of Sargon, king of Assyria, a little later (Isa_20:1). It is frequently mentioned by the prophets, and we find that Jonathan, the brother of Judas Maceabaeus, burnt the temple of Dagon there (1 Macc. 10:83, 84). It is mentioned as Azotus in Act_8:40.
Jos_11:23
Joshua took the whole land. The word must not be pressed to mean that every Canaanitish stronghold was razed or appropriated. The word ëÉì , as has been before remarked, has a very loose signification in Hebrew. What is meant is simply this. Joshua had established an unquestioned military preponderance in Palestine. He had broken down all resistance; but before he completed his conquests to their full extent, he had to provide for the peaceable settlement of the tribes in the territory he had seized. The complete extermination of the Canaanites formed no part of his commission or his plan (Deu_7:22; cf. Exo_23:29, Exo_23:30). To have effected it would have been to throw the land out of cultivation, and to expose its possessors to the usual inconveniences of depopulated districts. Therefore it was Joshua's policy to leave the Canaanites to be extirpated by degrees, and to encourage the Israelites to cultivate the arts both of war and of peace; to nourish a martial spirit by remembering that numerous and active enemies still dwelt in their midst, while yet they were not neglectful of the importance of a settled and civilised, an agricultural and pastoral life. See also Jdg_3:1, Jdg_3:2. This purpose was defeated, not only by the usual effects of civilisation upon hardy or savage tribes, but also by the Israelites becoming addicted to the pleasant but enfeebling vices of the races they had supplanted. We see in the Israelitish history the best exemplification of St. Paul's theory that the "law worketh wrath," although it is "holy, just, and good." The excellence of the moral precepts delivered by Moses did but serve to manifest more clearly the inherent depravity of our nature (Rom_3:20; Rom_5:20; Rom_7:7, Rom_7:8), and its need of a Saviour, who should render obedience possible by the gift of regeneration, and the infusion of His own Spirit. According to their divisions. Literally, their divisions by lot, the word being derived from the same root as the word Halak in Jdg_3:7, because a smooth stone was usually employed in casting lots. Hence it came to mean any authoritative division or distribution, as the courses of the Levites (1Ch_23:6), the classification for purposes of enlistment (1Ch_27:1) and the like. And the land rested from war. That is to say, the Canaanites were so thoroughly cowed and dispirited that they dared offer no further resistance to the Israelites in their task of portioning out the land. They were quite contented to be allowed to live in peace in such of their cities which remained, and had no disposition to court an overthrow such as took place at the battles of Gibeon and Merom, with its inevitable results of the absolute extermination, not only of every one who took up arms, but of every human being in the city to which they belonged. Thus the Israelites were able to give their whole attention to the survey and apportionment of the territory according to the relative size and importance of the tribes.
(1) the confederacy of evil against good,
(2) the conflict,
(3) the victory,
(4) the utter destruction of the enemy.
But the course of the narrative gives a somewhat different form to our reflections.
I. JOSHUA NEEDED SPECIAL ENCOURAGEMENT ONCE MORE, in spite of his previous signal victory. This was because he had a new class of enemies to contend against. These kings, with the king Hazor at their head, seem to have possessed a higher civilisation than the southern tribes. We read (Jos_11:4, Jos_11:6) of their chariots, and these, as we have seen (see Exposition), seem to have been regarded with peculiar terror by the Israelites. So it is ever with the Christian Church. It was so at the beginning. At first she had only to contend with the obstinate jealousy and prejudice of the Jews, but as her sphere of operations enlarged she had to contend with the whole force of the civilised Roman empire. It is so still. The Church has confronted the barbarism of the middle ages, the superstition and formalism that followed it. But now she has to contend with modern civilisation, with its horses and chariots of iron—that is to say, its modern developments of physical force, as well as knowledge. These have to be attacked and brought under Christ's yoke.
II. THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY INVITES COMBINATION AMONG HER ENEMIES. This, too, was the case at the outset of Christianity. As soon as our religion was seen to be a power in the world, capable of surviving the execution of its leader, and the punishment of His followers, and of spreading nevertheless from city to city, from country to country, a widespread combination, formed of elements the most opposite, arose against it. Jew joined with Gentile to put it down. The emperor waged war against it, because it had formed a secret society, dangerous, he thought, to the stability of his throne. The lawyer and statesman opposed it, because it had taken upon itself to exist without the permission of the law. The priest opposed it, because it set up an altar against his. The philosopher opposed it, because it struck a blow at his proud exclusiveness, and combated some of his favourite dogmas. The tradesman opposed it (Act_19:27), because it struck at his gains. The mob opposed it, because it robbed them of their spectacles and brutalising amusements. The man of vicious life opposed it, because it put a curb upon his habits of sinful indulgence. Yet our heavenly Joshua led his forces against these enemies, and the unholy combination was utterly defeated. Nor is it altogether different now. To Christianity as a creed no such opposition is offered. But let us strive to put the practical precepts of Christianity in operation, and we still meet on many points with the combined opposition of various sections of society. The statesman is indifferent to measures which will array an interested opposition against him, or diminish his sources of revenue. The philosopher derides the movement, because success, from a human point of view, is improbable, or because it offends against the canons of his school of philosophy. The man of rank, perhaps, opposes it because it strikes a blow at his privileges; the man of fashion because he is incapable of earnest thought, and hates everything that gives him trouble. The vicious does his utmost against it for the same reason as of old; while it is still not impossible to array against it the clamours of an unthinking mob. Yet here, as elsewhere, perseverance is success.
III. JOSHUA NOW WAS AT WAR WITH CIVILISATION. This is one of the enemies which must be brought under the yoke of Christ.
(a) Civilisation increases luxury. and luxury is a foe to Christian self denial. Luxury leads to ease and self pleasing, and ease and self pleasing are the very opposite of the Christian spirit. One great work of the Christian Church will be to teach men thankfully to accept the good gifts of their heavenly Father, and yet to consecrate those gifts to His service, and not to the formation of selfish habits.
(b) Civilisation augments enormously the power of man for evil as well as for good. Who can predict the tremendous results for evil which may result from modern discovery, unless, under our Joshua, we manfully confront its advance, destroy its power for evil, and convert what it might misuse into instruments of good? Again
(c) Modern discovery exalts the pride of man. And the first requirement of Christianity is that he shall lay that pride aside. Therefore it is our duty to show modern knowledge its limits, to remind him who is puffed up by it that there is a gulf which his highest efforts cannot pass. tie can but tell us what is; he cannot tell us how it is. He may consider himself entitled to overleap the barrier which separates us from the unknown, but the attempt involves as great an assumption as it ever did. The barrier is as wide as ever, though the ground on this side of it is undoubtedly better surveyed. Concerning God, we shall be always in need of a revelation, however much He may reveal Himself in His works. So that it is still as true as it ever was, in reference to our spiritual condition, that truth is hidden from the "wise and prudent" in their own sight, and is "revealed unto babes."
IV. JOSHUA HAD STILL TO COMBAT NATURAL STRENGTH. To the men against Jabin succeeded the campaign against the uncivilised but powerful Anakim. So civilisation does not destroy our natural passions. It may
(a) give them another direction, but it rather augments them than otherwise. The refinements of civilised life are unfavourable to brutal violence, but brutal indifference is not less common, and not less cruel. Against vulgar license the civilised man sets his face, but is refined licentiousness less destructive to the soul? History has proved that civilisation, unchecked by Christianity, does but increase the natural appetite for sinful pleasure. And it is Christianity alone that keeps the temptations incidental to a life of luxury within bounds. Remove that obstacle, and Nature will assert her power, and the animal in man will once more dominate civilisation to its own cruel appetites, as in past times. But
(b) it is a noteworthy fact that civilised life has everywhere a fringe of aggravated naturalism. In the element that we call "rough," which is ever found where society is most highly organised, we find the most shocking perversion of natural appetites, combined with their utmost strength. Is there any place upon earth where brutality, ferocity, recklessness, animal indulgence, rages more uncontrolled by any moral considerations, than in the "slums," as we have named them, of our greatest cities? This is the direct product of the thoughtlessness, the selfishness, the recklessness of civilisation, which thrusts out of sight all that is foul and hideous of its own creation, and leaves it to fester alone. Civilisation may be won to Christianity; but there remains a long and terrible conflict with the Anakim, those giant perverted natural forces which hang on the outskirts of civilisation.
V. JOSHUA DID NOT BURN ALL THE CITIES. That is to say, there are uses to which the discoveries of civilisation and the force of natural temperament may be put. Hazor, the centre of the combination against Joshua, was burnt. So civilisation and natural disposition, so far as they are employed for self, instead of for God and mankind, must be rooted out. But where discovery is used, not to exalt men's pride, but to increase his knowledge of God's ways; not to manufacture luxuries and enjoyments to be the exclusive privilege of the few, but to augment the happiness of all, then need we not destroy but welcome them. So natural disposition need not be destroyed, but converted to a good purpose. Thus the ardent temperament of a St. Paul, diverted from its misuse in fierce persecution, became the parent of burning zeal for the diffusion of Christianity. A cold, critical spirit may become useful in ridding the true cause of false allies. A calm, unimpassioned judgment may make its possessor an useful guide to the passionate and impulsive. The quiet, contemplative soul may furnish abundant stores of thought for those who have no leisure to think for themselves, and a busy, active disposition may find scope for its energies in the multiplicity of good works which our complicated state of society has brought into being. And even those passions which, wrongly directed, will cause widespread misery through sensual indulgence, may burn with a restrained and steady and harmless flame in the charities of family life.
VI. THE WAR LASTED MANY DAYS. So does the struggle
(1) of the Christian Church against evil, and
(2) that of the Christian soul against temptation.
It is not
(1) until the final consummation of all things, and
(2) till the close of life, that "the land" can "rest from war."
VII. GOD IS SAID TO HARDEN MEN'S HEARTS, but only in the sense in which this is done by the operation of His laws. He has so ordained, that if a man's heart is not softened by His loving kindness, it is hardened. The man who resists the pleadings of His Spirit becomes insensible to their influence. The man who succumbs to temptation becomes incapable of resistance, indifferent to the beauty of holiness. The man who apologises for vice sees no excellence in virtue. The man who is puffed up by a sense of his own sufficiency is unable to perceive the evidence for God's truth. And this is in a sense God's doing, because He has willed that it shall be so. It is not an arbitrary law. It exists by a moral necessity. We can see that it is but an effect following a cause. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good." And if that which is good works evil to any, we may not blame God, but man, who has turned his meat into poison, and extracted death from God's most righteous law.
I. THE NATURAL CHANCES ARE ALWAYS AGAINST GOD'S PEOPLE. The sacred history is little more than a list of conflicts of one sort and another, fought invariably against great odds, but followed invariably by victory. The chances were many against Israel getting away from Egypt, taking Jericho, winning at Beth-boron, gaming a victory here. It was not otherwise in the case of Jephthah, of Deborah, of Gideon. Who would have ventured to describe David as having a single chance in his conflict with Goliath? How pathetic is Elijah's estimate of the odds against him in his fight for truth. Baal's prophets and Astarte's prophets are numbered by hundreds, backed by the whole power of the court and the perversity of the people. But "I am left alone, and they seek my life." The odds were heavily against Daniel and his three friends—say 10,000,000 to 1. Neither Ezra nor Nehemiah felt they had anything approaching a level chance. The Babe of Bethlehem had all superstitions, vices, prejudices of the world against His cause. The Apostle of the Gentiles had all the philosophies, religions, and weaknesses of men against him and his simple gospel. The great theologian of the early centuries lamented that he stood "Athanasius against the world." Luther had Church and State throughout all Europe against him. Every missionary to a heathen land, every philanthropist seeking to remove abuses, have had the same experience. The Church today sometimes deems herself "hardly bested" by science, secularism, the preoccupation of men with their necessary cares, the sluggishness of the human heart to adopt a higher principle of life. Each Christian man finds such weaknesses and perversities within him and such obstacles without that it seems often as if it would be impossible to hold his ground, much less to make advance. Be not astonished if, in the part of the field assigned to you, the odds are altogether and absolutely against you. They always are against God's people and God's children. But observe secondly, though the chances are against them—
II. THE WINNING FORCES ARE ON THEIR SIDE. Inward forces are on their side. The heart makes the hero. Nelson's Methodists were his best sailors. God infuses such energy of purpose, confidence, self sacrifice, that these intensify natural force a hundredfold. [See Shakespeare's 'Cymbeline,' for illustration of effect of moral energy in war.] Good is the strongest and sturdiest thing under heaven; evil, cowardly and self ashamed in its presence. Duty, peace, hope, gracious memories, self respect, God's smile—these are forces which the world can never match, and which all operate in the direction of victory. Outward forces are also on their side. Divine guidance is imparted, Providence aids them, concurrently with their efforts the efforts of God are put forth. When God fights His battles of mercy there is no lukewarmness in His conflict. He uses us. The weapons of our warfare are heavenly, while the weapons of His warfare are often earthly. And so, while the world has the appearance, the Church has the reality, of a preponderant weight on her side. Is it a case of a battle of the northern league with you? Fight on, for they that are with you are far more than they flint are with them.—G.
(a) what God commands relative to certain circumstances will be modified if those circumstances are changed;
(b) a larger commandment coming later exonerates from the observance of the details of a smaller commandment when these are by their nature preparatory to the larger. Thus the larger Christian law of love frees us from the narrower preparatory law of ordinances (Rom_13:10).
II. FAITHFULNESS TO GOD CONSISTS IN SERVING GOD IN OBEDIENCE TO ALL HE COMMANDS US.
(1) Faithfulness is shown in devotion to God. Moses and Joshua regarded themselves as God's servants. The Christian is not to live for self, but for Christ (Rom_14:8).
(2) This devotion must be exercised in active service. Belief, religious feeling, and acts of worship will not satisfy God. We are called to do His will (Mat_7:24-27).
(3) Faithful service is obedient service. We must not simply work for God, but work for God in His way, doing His will, and fulfilling His commandments. Self will is fatal to the merit of the most zealous service. Much of our most devoted service is spent in serving God according to our own will instead of simply doing His will (Psa_40:8; Joh_6:38).
(4) Perfect fidelity requires obedience in all things. We are tempted to choose our favourite commandments for obedience, and to neglect others. Some are not obvious; we should search for them. Some are diff