Judah said to Simeon his brother, “Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with you into your lot.” So Simeon went with him.
Parallel Translations
-
Judah said to Simeon his brother, “Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with you into your lot.” So Simeon went with him.
-
And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him.
-
And Judah said unto Simeon his brother: 'Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot.' So Simeon went with him.
Cross-references (4)
Passages linked to Judges 1:3 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Joshua 19:1 The second lot came out for Simeon, even for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families. Their inheritance was in the middle of the inheritance of the children of Judah.
- Judges 1:17 Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they struck the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. The name of the city was called Hormah.
- 2 Samuel 10:11 He said, “If the Syrians are too strong for me, then you shall help me; but if the children of Ammon are too strong for you, then I will come and help you.
- Genesis 29:33 She conceived again, and bore a son, and said, “Because Yahweh has heard that I am hated, he has therefore given me this son also.” She named him Simeon.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (14 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain For the tribe of Simeon had their inheritance within…
For the tribe of Simeon had their inheritance within the tribe of Judah, Josh. 19:1.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Jdg 1:3 And Judah said unto Simeon his brother,…
Jdg 1:3 And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him.
Ver. 3. And Judah said unto Simeon his brother.] Both by race, place, and grace.
Read full note →
Come up with me.] Continue the old league, defensive and offensive, that is already betwixt us. See Jos 12:14. Two is better than one, and a good neighbourhood no small happiness.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Ver. 3. Of the common salvation] That wherein all saints have a share.
For the faith] That faith of the gospel, Php 1:27, the doctrine of faith.
Once delivered] Once for all, not only as but one only rule, but as but once sent to a nation. So that if lost, or any way corrupted, it will not be given again; another edition of it is not to be expected. Contend earnestly for it, therefore, conflict one after another, as the word επαγωνιζεσθαι signifies. Hold fast the faithful word, as with both hands, Tit 1:9. {See Trapp on "Tit 1:9"} Resolve either to live with the gospel, or to die for it. Be zealous in the defenee of it, and strive your utmost. When Carolostadius opposed Luther’s consubstantiation, but weakly, faintly, and insufficiently, Zuinglius said he was sorry that so good a cause wanted shoulder. Non satis humerorum haberet. In the conference at Possiacum in France, Beza (speaker for the Protestants), entering into the matter of the Eucharist, spake with such heat, that he gave but ill satisfaction to those of his own party (saith the author of the History of the Council of Trent), so that he was commanded to conclude. How true this is I know not; sure it is, that in falling forward is nothing so much danger as in falling backward; so he that contendeth earnestly for the truth, though he may carry some things indiscreetly, yet he is far better than a faint chapman or a feeble champion. Austin was much heartened and hardened in his Manichism, because he met with weak opponents, such as his nimble wit could easily overturn.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Unto Simeon his brother; as nearest to him both…
Unto Simeon his brother; as nearest to him both by relation, being his brother by both parents, which few of them were; and by habitation, as appears from Jos 19:1,2.
Against the Canaanites; specially so called because they are distinguished from the Perizzites, Jdg 1:4.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And Judah said unto Simeon his brother,.... The men…
And Judah said unto Simeon his brother,.... The men of the tribe of Judah said to those of the tribe of Simeon, they being not only brethren by father's and mother's side, which was not the case of all the sons of Jacob, but their possessions and inheritances lay near together; and indeed those of Simeon were within the inheritance of the tribe of Judah, Jos 19:1; so that as they lived in great nearness and familiarity with each other, their interests were closely united together:
come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; conjunctly: the meaning is, that the tribe of Simeon, as many of their warlike men as could, would come and join their forces with those of the tribe of Judah, in order to reduce such cities, in the lot of that tribe, the Canaanites as yet were in the possession of:
Read full note →
and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot: the cities being conquered which were in the lot, of the tribe of Judah, that tribe proposed to bring their united forces into the lot of the tribe of Simeon, and reduce such cities as were in that lot:
so Simeon went with him: the tribe of Simeon agreed to the proposal, and went along with the tribe of Judah against their common enemy.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain To Simeon - As nearest to him both by…
To Simeon - As nearest to him both by relation, being his brother by both parents, and by habitation. The Canaanites - Specially so called, because they are distinguished from the Perizzites, ver. 4.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 3. Come up with me into my lot]…
Verse 3. Come up with me into my lot] It appears that the portions of Judah and Simeon had not been cleared of the Canaanites, or that these were the parts which were now particularly invaded.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Jdg 1:3. Judah said unto Simeon — As nearest…
Jdg 1:3. Judah said unto Simeon — As nearest to him, both by relation, being his brother by both parents, and by habitation. Come up with me against the Canaanites — Which people, with the Perizzites, still possessed a considerable part of the lot which fell to Judah. And I will likewise go with thee — To drive the Canaanites out of that part of the country which was the portion of Simeon. So Simeon went with him — They joined their forces together in this expedition, under the conduct, no doubt, of some eminent leader.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Brother. They had the same mother, Lia, and were…
Brother. They had the same mother, Lia, and were intermixed in the same country. The two tribes unite both for the public and their own private advantage. The king whom they attacked first, did not dwell in the territory of Juda, as the others did, whom they defeated in this chapter.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain Judah and Simeon agree to assist each other in…
Judah and Simeon agree to assist each other in clearing their allotted lands of Canaanites. They defeat the enemy in Bezek, capture Adoni-bezek, and burn Jerusalem
Jdg_1:3-8
Read full note →
3And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may [and let us] fight [together] against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him. 4And Judah went up, and the Lord [Jehovah] delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: and they slew [smote] of [omit: of] them in Bezek ten thousand men.13 5And they found [came upon, unexpectedly met with] Adoni-bezek in Bezek: and they fought against him, 6and they slew [smote] the Canaanites and the Perizzites. But [And] Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. 7And Adonibezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table; as I have done, so God [the Deity] hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there 8he died. (Now [omit the (), and for Now read: But] the children [sons] of Judah had fought [omit: had14] against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it [and took it15 and smote it] with the edge16 of the sword, and set the city on fire [gave the city up to the fire].
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[1 Jdg_1:4.—“Smote them in Bezek ten thousand men” i.e. to the number of 10,000 men. Cf. Jdg_3:29; Jdg_3:31, etc. As for the word נָכָה, its proper meaning is “to strike, to smite;” here, doubtless, so far as the ten thousand are concerned, to smite fatally, to kill; elsewhere (in Jdg_1:5, for instance), to defeat, vanquish.—Tr.]
[2 Jdg_1:8.—Matthew Henry: Our translators judge it [the taking of Jerusalem] spoken of here, as done formerly in Joshua’s time, and only repeated [related] on occasion of Adoni-bezek’s dying there, and therefore read it, “they had fought against Jerusalem,” and put this verse in a parenthesis; but the original speaks of it as a thing now done; and that seems most probable, because it is said to be done by the children of Judah in particular, not by all Israel in general, whom Joshua commanded.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_1:8.—To fight against a city, הִלָּחֵם בְּעִיר, is to besiege it, or assault it by storm, cf. Jos_10:31; 2Sa_12:26. לָכַד is to take by such a movement. Hence Dr. Cassel translates, “fought against Jerusalem, and took it by storm, erstürmten es.”—Tr.]
[4 Jdg_1:8.—לְפי־דָרֶב: lit. “according to the mouth (i.e. edge) of the sword. The expression denotes unsparing destruction, a killing whose only measure is the sharpness of the sword’s edge. Cf. Bertheau in loc.—Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
Jdg_1:3. And Judah said unto Simeon his brother. In matters of war the tribes were represented by the Nesi’im (נְשִׂיאִים). A Nasi, prince or chief, stood at the head of each tribe, and acted in its name, although with great independence. At the numbering of the people in the desert, the Nasi of Judah was Nahshon, the son of Aminadab; but after the sending of the spies, Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, held that position (Num_34:19). According to the directions of Moses in the passage just referred to, these princes were to assist the Priest and Joshua in the allotment of the land to the tribes. They are the same who, in Jos_19:51, are called “heads of families.” For, as appears especially from Jos_22:14, only he could be Nasi who was “head of a family.” Collectively, they are styled “the princes of the congregation” (Jos_22:30). That Moses names only ten (Num_34:18, etc.), arises from the fact that he refers only to the allotment of the land this side the Jordan. The princes of the two and a half tribes beyond the Jordan had nothing to do with this. When the trans-Jordanic tribes were erroneously suspected of apostasy, the ten princes with the priest went to them as an embassy from the other tribes (Jos_22:14). It was these princes who ratified the treaty with the Gibeonites (Jos_9:15); and the congregation was bound by their oath, although greatly dissatisfied when the deception of the Gibeonites was discovered.
Come up with me into my lot. The territory of a single tribe was called its lot, גּוֹרָל. Compare the Greek κλῆρος, used to denote possessions in general, and also the portion of territory assigned to each party embarked in a colonial enterprise. (“Crœsus devastated the lots of the Syrians,” φθείρων τοὺς κλήρους, Herod, i. 76.)—It was natural for Judah to summon his brother Simeon to join him; for Simeon’s territory lay within the borders of Judah.17 According to the statements of Joshua 15, the inheritance assigned to the tribe of Judah might be bounded by two lines, drawn respectively from the northern and southern extremities of the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean, the northern line passing below Jerusalem. Simeon’s part lay in the middle between these lines, toward the west. For this reason, Simeon is already in Num_34:20 named second, next to Judah, the first tribe. This summons of Judah to Simeon to conquer together their territories is instructive in several respects. It shows that the whole south had indeed been attacked, but was not yet occupied. True, the narrative of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua is not complete, and leaves much to be supplied; but thus much is clear, that though Joshua undoubtedly made war on the southern and northern Canaanites, he by no means obtained control of all the land. It is also evident from Jos_1:1 to Jos_10:42, that as long as Joshua fought with the more southern enemies, his encampment was at Gilgal, in the neighborhood of Jericho and the Jordan, to which after each victory over the southern kings, whom he pursued far into the southwest, he always fell back (Jos_10:15; Jos_10:43). Hence the conversation with Caleb, concerning the inheritance of the latter takes place while the camp is still at Gilgal (Jos_14:6). Consequently, it can only have been the result of victories over the northern princes, that Joshua, in the last years of his regency, transferred the encampment of the people to Shiloh (Jos_18:1; Jos_21:2) and Shechem (Jos_24:1). Of this territory he had already gained permanent possession. It belonged to the inheritance of the tribe of Ephraim. Joshua himself was of this tribe. That fact explains how it was that Ephraim was the first to come into secure and permanent territorial possession. In this also Joshua differs from Moses. The latter, although sprung from the tribe of Levi, belonged to all the tribes. He was raised above every special tribe-relationship. His grave even none can boast of. Joshua does not deny that he belongs to Joseph, although he does not yield to their less righteous demands (Jos_17:14). His tribe forms the first circle around him. When he locates the national centre in Shiloh and Shechem, it is in the possessions of Ephraim. Here, as long as Joshua lived, the government of the Israelitish tribes and their sanctuary had their seat. Here the bones of Joseph were buried; here are the sepulchres of Joshua and his contemporary, the priest Eleazar. Ephraim was the point from which the farther warlike expeditions of the individual tribes were directed. Precisely because the first permanently held possession had connected itself with Joshua and his tribe, the summons to seize and occupy their assigned territory came next to Judah and its prince Caleb, the associate of Joshua, and after him the first man of Israel. But Judah and Simeon cannot have set out on their expedition from Shiloh or Shechem. There was not room enough in the territory of the tribe of Ephraim to afford camping-ground for all Israel. The encampment in Gilgal had not ceased; and there the tribe of Judah found a suitable station whence to gain possession of its own land. Thence they could enter immediately into the territory assigned them. Moreover, it is only upon the supposition that Gilgal was the point of departure of the army of Judah, that it becomes entirely clear why Judah turned to his brother Simeon, Had he come down from Shechem, he might also have turned to Benjamin. But Simeon needed the same avenue into his dominions as Judah. He must pass through the country of the latter to reach his own. From Gilgal, the armies of Judah advanced along the boundary line between their own land and Benjamin, in the direction of the western shore of the Dead Sea which formed their eastern border (Jos_15:5-7), intending to march through the wilderness, and perhaps after passing Tekoah, to turn first against Hebron. There the enemy met them.18
Jdg_1:4. And they smote them in Bezek, ten thousand men. The position of Bezek is indicated by the direction of Judah’s advance. It must have been already within the limits of Judah; for “Judah went up,” namely, to his territory. Its distance from Jerusalem cannot have been great, for they brought the wounded and maimed Adoni-bezek thither, and immediately after the battle in Bezek the tribes attack Jerusalem. If it were the name of a city, the place bearing it would seem to have been of such importance, as to make it matter of surprise that we find no further mention of it.19 The name announces itself as an appellative derived from the character of the region. בֶּיֶק (Bezek) is undoubtedly equivalent to בָּרָק (Barak). It designates unfruitful, stony sand-areas (Syrtes). The desert Barca in North Africa is familiar in ancient and modern times. The inhabitants of deserts received the name Barcæans, as Jerome remarks (Ep. cxxix.), “from the city Barca, which lies in the desert.” At the present day a chasm in the rocks, in the peninsula of Sinai, bears the name Bereika (Ritter, xiv. 547). The ancient name Bene-berak (Jos_19:45) also explains itself in this way. In Arabic ברקה designates stony, unfruitful land. Now, the land west of the Dead Sea, through which Judah marched into his territory, is for the most part of this character. “The desert here, covered with chalk and crumbling limestone, and without the least trace of vegetation, has a truly terrible appearance” (Ritter, xv. 653 (Gage’s Transl., iii. 114). It was in this tract that the battle was joined, which ended in the defeat of the Canaanite and Perizzite. The name Canaanites passed over from the cities of the Phœnician Lowlands (Canaan), to the inhabitants of cities throughout the land. It designates the population devoted to agriculture and the arts of civilized life. Perizzites may have been the name of tribes of Bedouins, inhabitants of tents, roving at will among the mountains and in the desert. Down to the present time, the eastern part of Judah, adjoining the Dead Sea, is a true Bedouin highway, especially for all those Arabs who press forward from the east and south. The Canaanites and Perizzites unite to meet the common enemy in the desert tract, just as Zenobia united herself with the Saracens of the desert against the Romans. They are defeated, and there fall ten thousand men, i.e.μύπιοι, myriads, an indefinitely large number. From the fact that Bezek does not designate a particular place, but the region in general, it becomes plain that verses 4 and 5 do not relate the same occurrence twice. Verse 4 speaks of the first conflict. The second was offered by Adoni-bezek (Jdg_1:5).
Jdg_1:5. And they came upon Adoni-bezek in Bezek. We can trace the way which Judah took, with Simeon, to the borders assigned him. From Gilgal it proceeded to Beth-hogla (Ain Hajla), through the wide northern plain of the Dead Sea, on its northwestern shore, to the region at present traversed by the Ta’âmirah Bedouin tribes. This region was named Bezek. בֶּזֶק and 20בּֽרָק primarily signify “dazzling brightness;” hence the signification “lightning.” It was doubtless the dazzling glare of the ground, produced by the reflection of the sun whether from the white salt-crust of the surface, the rocks,21 or the undulating sandhills, that suggested the name Bezek for such regions. This primary sense enables us, moreover, also to discover the connection between Adoni-bezek and Bezek. That the latter is not a city, might have been sufficiently inferred from the fact that notwithstanding the victory no record is made here, as in the cases of other cities, of its fall and destrucsion. To take Adoni-bezek as Prince of Bezek, does not seem advisable. The proper names of heathen kings always have reference to their religion.22 Since Adoni-bezek, after having been mutilated, was carried by his attendants to Jerusalem, he must have held some relation to that city. Only that supposition enables us to see why Judah and Simeon storm Jebus (Jerusalem), belonging as it did to the tribe of Benjamin, for which reason they make no attempt to hold it by garrisoning it. Already in the 10th chapter of Joshua we meet with Adoni-zedek in Jerusalem, just as in the history of Abraham Melchi-zedek appears there. Adon is a Phœnician designation of the Deity. Adoni-zedek and Melchi-zedek mean, “My God, my king, is Zedek.” The names of the kings enunciated their creeds. Zedek (Sadyk, Sydyk,) belongs to the star-worship of the Canaanites, and according to ancient tradition was the name of the planet Jupiter. Adoni-bezek manifestly expresses a similar idea. Bezek = Barak is the dazzling brightness, which is also peculiar to Jupiter. His Sanskrit name is “Brahaspati (Brihaspati),23 Father of Brightness.” “My God is Brightness,” is the creed contained in the name Adoni-bezek. His name alone might lead us to consider him King of Jerusalem, to which, as if it were his royal residence, his own attendants carry him after his defeat.24
Jdg_1:6. And Adoni-bezek fled, .… and they cut off the thumbs of his bands and feet, etc. How horrible is the history of human cruelty! It is the mark of ungodliness, that it glories in the agony of him whom it calls an enemy. The mutilation of the human body is the tyranny of sin over the work of God, which it nevertheless fears. The Persian king Artaxerxes caused the arm of his brother, which had bent the bow against him, to be hewn off, even after death. Thumbs were cut off to incapacitate the hand for using the bow, great toes to render the gait uncertain. When in 456 b. c., the inhabitants of Ægina were conquered by the Athenians, the victors ordered their right thumbs to be cut off, so that, while still able to handle the oar, they might be incapable of using the spear (Ælian, Var. Hist., ii. 9). Mohammed (Sura, viii. 12) gave orders to punish the enemies of Islam by cutting off their heads and the ends of their fingers, and blames its omission in the battle of Beder. In the German Waldweisthümern the penalty against hunters and poachers of having their thumbs cut off, is of frequent occurrence (Grimm, Rechtsalterth., 707; Deutsches Wörterb. ii. 346).25 Adoni-bezek, in his pride, enjoyed the horrible satisfaction of making the mutilated wretches pick up their food under his table, hungry and whining like dogs.26 Curtius relates that the Persians had preserved Greek captives, mutilated in their hands, feet, and ears, “for protracted sport” (in longum sui ludibrium reservaverant. De Rebus Gest. Alex., v. 5, 6). Posidonius (in Athenœus, iv. 152, d.) tells how the king of the Parthians at his meals threw food to his courtier, who caught it like a dog (τὸ παραβληθὲν κυνιστὶ σιτε͂ιται), and was moreover beaten like a dog. The tribe of Judah simply recompensed Adoni-bezek: not from revenge, for Israel had not suffered anything from him; nor from pleasure in the misery of others, for they left him in the hands of his own people.
Jdg_1:7. As I have done, so has the Deity27 completed unto me. Many (in round numbers, seventy) are they whom he has maltreated. שִׁלֵּם (Piel of שָׁלַם) is to finish, complete, and hence to requite; for reward and punishment are inseparably connected with good and evil deeds. As the blossom reaches completion only in the fruit, so deeds in their recompense. The Greeks used τελεῖν in the same sense. “When the Olympian (says Homer, Iliad, iv. 160) does not speedily punish (ἐτέλεσσεν), he still does it later (ἔκ τε καὶ ὀψὶ τελεῖ).” It was an ethical maxim extensively accepted among ancient nations that men must suffer the same pains which they have inflicted on others. The later Greeks called this the Neoptolemic Tisis, from the circumstance that Neoptolemus was punished in the same way in which he had sinned (Pausanius, iv. 17, 3; Nägelsbach, Nachhom. Theologie, 343). He had murdered at the altar, and at the altar he was murdered. Phaleris had roasted human beings in a brazen bull—the same punishment was inflicted on himself.28 That which Dionysius had done to the women of his people, his own daughters were made to undergo (Ælian, Var. Hist., ix. 8). Jethro says (Exo_18:11), “for the thing wherein they sinned, came upon them.”
And they brought him to Jerusalem. None but his own people29 could bring him thither, for the city was not yet taken. It was evidently hiscity; for the Israelites follow after, and complete their victory by its capture. The storming of Jerusalem for its own sake could not have formed part of the plan of the tribes, since it belonged to Benjamin. They were led to it by the attack which they suffered from Adoni-bezek. Nor did they take possession of it. They only broke the power of the king thoroughly. He died miserably; his people were put to the sword; the city was consumed by fire (שִׁלַּה בָּאשׁ, to abandon to the flames). Thus the wanton haughtiness of Adoni-bezek was terribly requited.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Jdg_1:3. Believing Israel is also united Israel. Judah and Simeon go forth together, in faith, as one tribe, one heart, and one soul, to the same victory. So united are children, when in faith they return from their father’s grave [cf. Hom. Hints on Jdg_1:1.—Tr.]. The children of God are good brothers and sisters. They do not quarrel over the inheritance,—they enjoy it in love. Believing Israel is a sermon on unity among families, neighbors, citizens, and nations. Union arises not from without, but from within. Penitence and faith bind together. Unio is the name of a pearl, and pearls symbolize tears. Ex unione lux. E luce uniones.
Starke: As all Christians in general, so brothers and sisters in particular, should maintain a good understanding, and live together in peace and unity.
[Henry: It becomes Israelites to help one another against Canaanites; and all Christians, even those of different tribes, to strengthen one another’s hands against the common interests of Satan’s kingdom. Those who thus help one another in love, have reason to hope that God will help them both.
Bachmann: It is not incompatible with the obedience of faith, that Judah makes use of the helps placed by God at his disposal; and it is in accordance with the dictates of fraternal love that he makes that tribe the companion of his undertaking whose lot it was made rather to attach itself to others than to equal their independence (cf. Gen_49:7, and also the silence of Deuteronomy 33 concerning Simeon), and whose interests were peculiarly closely connected with his own.—Tr.]
Jdg_1:4-8. Starke: In the lives of men, things are often wonderfully changed about, and not by accident, but by the wonderful governance of God (Gen_50:19).
The same: God requites every one according to his deeds. Wherein one sins, therein he is also punished,—evidence that there is a God, and that He is just, recompensing according to deserts.
[Scott: Men often read their crimes in their punishments; and at last every mouth shall be stopped, and all sinners be constrained to admit the justice of God in their extremest miseries. Happy they who justify Him in their temporal afflictions, plead guilty before his mercy-seat, and by repentance and faith seek deliverance from the wrath to come.
Joseph Mede († 1638): As I have done so God hath requited me:1. God punisheth sin with temporal punishment in this life as well as with eternal in the life to come. 2. God doth not always presently inflict his judgments while the sin is fresh, but sometimes defers that long which He means to give home at the last. 3. These divine judgments by some conformity or affinity do carry in them as it were a stamp and print of the sin for which they are inflicted. 4. The profit and pleasure which men aim at when they commit sin will not so much as quit cost even in this life.
Wordsworth: As by this specimen at the beginning of this book, showing what two tribes of Israel could do by faith and obedience against Adoni-bezek, who had subdued and enslaved seventy kings, God showed what the twelve tribes might have done, if they had believed and obeyed him; and that all their subsequent miseries were due to defection from God;—in like manner, also, in the Christian Church, if men had followed the examples of the Apostles,—the Judahs and Simeons of the first ages,—and gone forth in their spirit of faith and love against the powers of darkness, they might long since have evangelized the world. All the distresses of Christendom are ascribable to desertions of [from] Christ, and not to any imperfection (as some have alleged) in Christianity (cf. Bp. Butler, Analogy, Part 2. Judges 1).—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[13][Jdg_1:4.—“Smote them in Bezek ten thousand men” i.e. to the number of 10,000 men. Cf. Jdg_3:29; Jdg_3:31, etc. As for the word נָכָה, its proper meaning is “to strike, to smite;” here, doubtless, so far as the ten thousand are concerned, to smite fatally, to kill; elsewhere (in Jdg_1:5, for instance), to defeat, vanquish.—Tr.]
[14][Jdg_1:8.—Matthew Henry: Our translators judge it [the taking of Jerusalem] spoken of here, as done formerly in Joshua’s time, and only repeated [related] on occasion of Adoni-bezek’s dying there, and therefore read it, “they had fought against Jerusalem,” and put this verse in a parenthesis; but the original speaks of it as a thing now done; and that seems most probable, because it is said to be done by the children of Judah in particular, not by all Israel in general, whom Joshua commanded.—Tr.]
[15][Jdg_1:8.—To fight against a city, הִלָּחֵם בְּעִיר, is to besiege it, or assault it by storm, cf. Jos_10:31; 2Sa_12:26. לָכַד is to take by such a movement. Hence Dr. Cassel translates, “fought against Jerusalem, and took it by storm, erstürmten es.”—Tr.]
[16][Jdg_1:8.—לְפי־דָרֶב: lit. “according to the mouth (i.e. edge) of the sword. The expression denotes unsparing destruction, a killing whose only measure is the sharpness of the sword’s edge. Cf. Bertheau in loc.—Tr.]
[17][Keil: Simeon is called the “brother” of Judah, not so much because they both descended from one mother, Deah (Gen_29:33; Gen_29:35), as because Simeon’s inheritance lay within that of Judah (Jos_19:1 ff.), on account of which Simeon’s connection with Judah was closer than that of the other tribes.—Tr.]
[18][That Judah, nor in fact any of the western tribes, except Ephraim, had not hitherto enjoyed actual possession of any part of his land, is also the view of Bertheau and Ewald. It is strenuously objected to by Bachmann, who maintains that “not only the allotment of the land among the tribes, but also its actual occupation by them, are constantly presupposed in all that this first chapter relates both about the prosecution of the local wars, and the many instances of sinful failure to prosecute them.” And, certainly, such passages as Jos_23:1; Jos_24:28, cf. Jdg_2:6, appear at least to be decidedly against the view taken by our author. The subject, however, is obscure and intricate, and not to be entered upon in a foot-note.—Tr.]
[19]The name does indeed occur again in 1Sa_11:8, where Saul numbers Israel in Bezek. But the very fact that Bezek is there used as a place for mustering troops, shows that it is open country, not any thickly peopled spot. It cannot be maintained that both Bezeks must designate the same region. Similar topographical conditions conferred similar or identical names. Bene-berak [sons of Berak, Jos_19:45, as to the origin and significance of the name compare the commentary on Jdg_1:4-5.—Tr.] was in the tribe of Dan. And so a region west of the Jordan, and east of Shechem, so far at least as we can determine the true direction from the narrative [in Sam. Jdg_11:8], seems also to have borne the name Bezek.
[20]According to the interchange of r and s as in חָזוֹן and חָרוֹן (Eze_1:14), quaero and quaeso, etc. In Eze_1:14 bezek (bazak) denotes a dazzling radiance. Barak, lightning, became a proper name. In the regions of Barca (the desert) the name Barcas (Hamilcar) was familiar enough.
[21]“The glitter of the (gravel) surface in the sunshine, if not a little trying to the eyes.”—Strauss, Sinai und Golgotha, iii. 1, 133.
[22]Cf. my Ortsnamen (Erfurt, 1856), i. 118.
[23]Cf. Bohlen, Altes Indien, ii. 248.
[24][Bezek is generally regarded as the name of a city or village. The majority of scholars (Le Clerc, Rosenmüller, Reland, V. Raumer, Bachmann, etc.) look for it in the territory of Judah, but without being able to discover any traces of it, which is certainly remarkable; for, if a city, it must have been, as Dr. Cassel remarks, and as the usual interpretation of Adoni-bezek as King of Bezek implies, a place of some importance. Others, therefore (as Bertheau, Keil, Ewald, etc.), connect this Bezek with that of 1Sa_11:8, and both with the following statement in the Onomasticon: “hodie duae villae sunt nomine Bezech, vicinae sibi, in decimo septimo lapide a Neapoli, descendentibus Scythopolin.” Then to account for this northern position of the armies of Judah and Simeon, Bertheau supposes them to set out from Shechem (cf. Jos_24:1, etc.), and to make a detour thence to the northeast, either for the purpose of descending to the south by way of the Jordan valley, or for some other reason; while Keil, without naming any place of departure, suggests that Judah and Simeon may have been compelled, before engaging the Canaanites in their own allotments, to meet those coming down upon them from the north, whom after defeating, they then pursued as far as Bezek. Dr. Cassel’s explanation is attractive as well as ingenious; but, to say nothing about the uncertainty of its etymology, Bezek, as an appellative applied to a definite region, would, as Bachmann remarks, require the article, cf. הַכּכָּר ,הַשְּׁפֵלָה ,הַנֶּוֶב.—Tr.]
[25]Hence, on the other hand, the severe punishment which the ancient popular laws adjudged to him who unjustly cuts off another’s thumb. The fine was almost as high as for the whole hand. The Salic law rated the hand at 2,500, the thumb of hand or foot at 2,000 denarii, “qui faciunt solidos quinquaginta” (Lex Salica, xxix. 3, ed. Merkel, p. 16).
[26][Kitto (Daily Bible Illustrations: Moses and the Judges, p. 299): “This helps us to some insight of the state of the country under the native princes, whom the Israelites were commissioned to expel. Conceive what must have been the state of the people among whom such a scene could exist,—what wars had been waged, what cruel ravages committed, before these seventy kings—however small their territories—became reduced to this condition; and behold in this a specimen of the fashion in which war was conducted, and of the treatment to which the conquered were exposed. Those are certainly very much in the wrong who picture to themselves the Canaanites as ‘a happy family,’ disturbed in their peaceful homes by the Hebrew barbarians from the wilder ness. Behold how happy, behold how peaceful, they were!”—Tr.]
[27] Elohim, which is also used of the heathen deity. The speaker speaks in the spirit of heathenism. As regards the seventy kings, it needs no argument to show that מִלֶךְ like the Greek τύραννος, is applied to any ruler, even of a single city. Josephus (Ant., v. 2, 2) read seventy-two, which especially in his time, was interchangeable as a round number with seventy.
[28]In the Gesta Romanorum, ch. xlviii., this is still adduced as a warning, and with an allusion to the passage in Ovid, De Arte Amandi, i. 653 [Et Phaleris tauro violenti membra Perilli torruit. Infelix imbuit auctor opus.—Tr.] it is remarked: “neque enim lex œquior ulla, quam necis artifices arte perire sua.”
[29]Since it is Adoni-bezek who speaks in Jdg_1:7, the word וַיְבִיאֻהוּ in the same verse cannot refer to the Israelites. Why should they carry him with them? It would indicate the gratification of gratuitous cruelty, a thing inconceivable in this connection. Those who save him are his own servants; but arrived at Jerusalem he dies. Verse 8, therefore, commences very properly, not with the mere verb וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ, but with a repetition of the grammatical subject: בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with…
Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me . . ., that we may fight against the Canaanites--Being conterminous tribes (Jos 19:1-2), they had a common interest, and were naturally associated in this enterprise.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain LEAGUE OF JUDAH AND SIMEON, Jdg_1:3.
LEAGUE OF JUDAH AND SIMEON, Jdg_1:3.
3. Simeon — This tribe was on the southern border of Judah, and occupied several cities within the bounds of that tribe. See on Jos_19:1. They were natural allies, not only from their proximity, but because they were both the offspring of Leah.
Read full note →
My lot… thy lot — The portion of each was still infested with enemies. They unite to conquer them. This league of Judah and Simeon was clannish and sectional. Though it resulted in many victories, it would have been better had it been a league of all the tribes. The cowardly inactivity of the rest of the tribes, described in Jdg_1:27-36, was doubtless largely owing to this sectional league. They were not included, and so lost sympathy with the work of conquest, and no central national government was formed. Hence the disorders and disasters that ensued. The league should have been not of Judah and Simeon, but of Judah and all the tribes, with Judah as leader.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 3. And Judah said unto Simeon his brother] The…
3. And Judah said unto Simeon his brother] The personification of a tribe or nation is common in O.T. idiom, e.g. Jdg_11:17, Num_20:14, Jos_17:14 etc.; hence the tribal traditions often take the form of narratives about individuals. Judah and Simeon were both Leah-tribes, Gen_29:33 ff. Owing to this tie of kinship, and still more to the fact that it was never strong enough to maintain itself as a distinct tribe, Simeon became merged in Judah. Its settlements were in the south, within the territory of Judah, Jos_19:1-7; in Jos_15:26-32; Jos_15:42 these are even reckoned as Judahite. In Genesis 34, ; cf. Gen_49:5-7, Simeon appears in close alliance with Levi, also a ‘brother’ of the Leah-family; they attempted to settle in Shechem, but their treachery and violence ended only in disaster to themselves; Levi’s career as a ‘secular’ tribe came to an end, and Simeon fell into a subordinate position. Though the date and context of this incident cannot be fixed with certainty, it probably comes within the present period.
my lot] The word implies a partition of the land by means of the sacred lot before the invasion; this would have taken place at the sanctuary (probably Gilgal) where the divine oracle was consulted, Jdg_1:1; cf. Jos_17:14; Jos_17:17; Jos_18:6 JE. Perhaps some account of the allotment stood originally at the beginning of this document; traces of it may be preserved in Jos_14:6 ff; Jos_15:1 ff. (Judah), Jdg_16:1 ff. (Joseph).
Read full note →
Simeon went with him] To reach his lot Simeon would have to pass through the territory of Judah.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (3) Unto Simeon his brother.—Both Judah and Simeon were…
(3) Unto Simeon his brother.—Both Judah and Simeon were sons of Leah. It was natural that the two tribes should help one another, because their lots were conterminous; indeed, the lot of the Simeonites is said to lie “within the inheritance of the children of Judah” (Jos_19:1), and was given them “out of the portion of the children of Judah” (ib., Jdg_1:9), because a larger territory had been assigned to the tribe of Judah than it required. The tribe of Simeon was remarkable for its fierce valour (1Ch_4:24-43), of which we find a trace even in Judith, who belonged to that tribe (Jdt_9:2). It would, however, have been helpless without the assistance of Judah; for we see from a comparison of the first with the second census in the Desert that Simeon had decreased in strength from 59,300 to 22,200. This fearful diminution seems to have been due to the plague, which may have fallen most heavily on them from their greater guilt, as we may infer from the shamelessness of their prince Zimri (Num_25:14; Num_1:23; Num_26:14). Hence the tribe is omitted in the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33). They seem to have melted away among the nomad tribes of the south, but we see them showing a last flash of vitality in the days of Hezekiah (1Ch_4:41).
Into my lot—i.e., into the territory assigned me by lot (“Croesus devasted the lots (klerous) of the Syrians” (Herod. i. 76). The lots of Judah and Simeon fell within two lines drawn to the Mediterranean from the northern and southern extremities of the Dead Sea (Joshua 15).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Alliances in the holy war.
Alliances in the holy war.
The lots of Judah and Simeon were closely united. The former"s prerogative of leading off is therefore shared with the weaker tribe, which in all things is carefully considered by its "brother." It was impossible completely to separate the interests of these two; the understanding was honourable to both sides.
Read full note →
I IN SPIRITUAL UNDERTAKINGS THE GREATER SHOULD EVER CONSIDER THE LESS. It is in this way that our Saviour"s injunction, "Let him that would be chief among you be as him that serveth," is often best interpreted. The onus of brotherly consideration and charitable construction is with the stronger because of the advantage they already possess. It is also the more to be admired in them because of the rarity of its exercise. On this occasion Judah lost nothing, and Simeon secured a powerful ally, and an opportunity of distinction. Besides this, the kindliest sentiments were encouraged on either side.
II BY COMMENCING IN THIS SPIRIT IT IS THE MORE LIKELY THAT MORAL ELEVATION, MAGNANIMITY, AND BROTHERLY AFFECTION WILL BE PRESERVED ALL THROUGH. The waiving of personal precedence is not only graceful, it has a tendency to perpetuate itself. Our future work takes its character from the first step.
III IT IS AN EXAMPLE TO OUR BRETHREN, AND A WITNESS BEFORE THE WORLD TO THE UNITY OF GOD"S PEOPLE. Spiritual men above all others should not first ask, "What is our right?" but, "What is our obligation, and how can we best illustrate the spirit of the Master?" The tone was set to all the other tribes, and jealousy either at Judah or one another checked ere it appeared. True unity was the strength and safety of Israel. That the neighbouring nations were impressed with the spirit of brotherhood and unity in Israel there is abundant proof. They felt they were dealing not with a mere aggregate of numbers, but with a whole inspired by common sentiment and religious enthusiasm. It is this spirit which most perfectly realises the aim of Christ"s kingdom, and his prayer "that they all may be one;" "that they may be made perfect in one. M.
Mutual help.
I IN THE ABSENCE OF UNITY OF AUTHORITY WE SHOULD SEEK FOR UNION OF SYMPATHY. After the death of Joshua the loss of leadership endangers the national unity of Israel. In the text we see how two tribes, no longer united by a common government, draw together for mutual help. The union of free attraction is nobler than that of external compulsion. The highest unity of Christendom is to be found not in the Roman Catholic organisation of a central authority and uniformity of creed and worship, but in the spiritual conception of common sympathies and common aims.
II BROTHERLY KINDNESS IS A PECULIARLY CHRISTIAN GRACE, Love of the brethren is a proof of regeneration. (1Jn_3:14) The law of Christ as contrasted with the barren Levitical law of ordinances is characteristically summed up in the obligation to "bear one another"s burdens". (Gal_6:2)
1. This implies active help. Simeon and Judah went to battle for an inheritance. Mere feelings of sympathy are wasted sentiments unless they lead to active and fruitful service.
2. This implies sacrifice. The Simeonites and men of Judah risked their lives for the benefit of one another. Cheap charity is worthless charity.. Our brotherly kindness is of little value till it costs us something involves pare, loss, sacrifice. Christ is the great example of this. It is our mission to follow Christ here if we would be his true disciples. (Php_2:4-8)
3. This implies mutual help. Judah helps Simeon; Simeon in turn helps Judah. Charity is often too one-sided. The poor and needy can often make more return than appears possible if invention is quickened by gratitude. A miserable penitent could wash the feet of Christ with her tears. (Luk_7:38)
III THE WORK OF LIFE IS BEST DONE BY UNION AND COOPERATION OF WORKERS. Judah and Simeon conquer their two possessions by union. Both might have failed had they acted singly. Union is strength." The advantage of mutual help is seen in trade, in manufactures, in education, in the advance of civilisation generally. The spirit of Cain is fatal to all progress. (Gen_4:9) The same applies to Christian work. Therefore Christ founded the Church. Though Christianity is based on individualism, it works through social agencies. The society of Christians, the Christian family, find means of useful effort which private Christians could never attain, e.g. in the Sunday school, foreign and home missions, the work of Bible and tract societies. Simeon and Judah united to conquer their several lots successively. So it is sometimes wisest for us to unite and do together one work well at one time, rather than to spread our divided energies over a wide field of weak agencies. The river which runs out over a broad plain may be swallowed up in the sands of the desert, while that which flows in a narrow channel is strong and deep. A.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.