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. Judah went up, and Yahweh delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand. They struck ten thousand men in Bezek. They found Adoni-Bezek in Bezek, and they fought against him. They struck the Canaanites and the Perizzites. But Adoni-Bezek fled. They pursued him, caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his big toes. Adoni-Bezek said, “Seventy kings, having their thumbs and their big toes cut off, scavenged under my table. As I have done, so God has done to me.” They brought him to Jerusalem, and he died there. The children of Judah fought against Jerusalem, took it, struck it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.
After that, the children of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites who lived in the hill country, and in the South, and in the lowland. Judah went against the Canaanites who lived in Hebron. (The name of Hebron before that was Kiriath Arba.) They struck Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai.
From there he went against the inhabitants of Debir. (The name of Debir before that was Kiriath Sepher.) Caleb said, “I will give Achsah my daughter as wife to the man who strikes Kiriath Sepher, and takes it.” Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it, so he gave him Achsah his daughter as his wife.
When she came, she got him to ask her father for a field. She got off her donkey; and Caleb said to her, “What would you like?”
She said to him, “Give me a blessing; because you have set me in the land of the South, give me also springs of water.” Then Caleb gave her the upper springs and the lower springs. The children of the Kenite, Moses’ brother-in-law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad; and they went and lived with the people. 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.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16 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 On vv3–17 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 On vv3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17 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.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v9 We have here a further account of that glorious…
We have here a further account of that glorious and successful campaign which Judah and Simeon made. 1. The lot of Judah was pretty well cleared of the Canaanites, yet not thoroughly. Those that dwelt in the mountain (the mountains that were round about Jerusalem) were driven out (Jdg 1:9, Jdg 1:19), but those in the valley kept their ground against them, having chariots of iron, such as we read of, Jos 17:16. Here the men of Judah failed, and thereby spoiled the influence which otherwise their example hitherto might have had on the rest of the tribes, who followed them in this instance of their cowardice, rather than in all the other instances of their courage. They had iron chariots, and therefore it was thought not safe to attack them: but had not Israel God on their side, whose chariots are thousands of angels (Psa 68:17), before whom these iron chariots would be but as stubble to the fire? Had not God expressly promised by the oracle (Jdg 1:2) to give them success against the Canaanites in this very expedition, without excepting those that had iron chariots? Yet they suffered their fears to prevail against their faith, they could not trust God under any disadvantages, and therefore durst not face the iron chariots, but meanly withdrew their forces, when with one bold stroke they might have completed their victories; and it proved of pernicious consequence. They did run well, what hindered them? Gal 5:7. 2. Caleb was put in possession of Hebron, which, though given him by Joshua ten or twelve years before (as Dr. Lightfoot computes), yet being employed in public service, for the settling of the tribes, which he preferred before his own private interests, it seems he did not till now make himself master of; so well content was that good man to serve others, while he left himself to be served last; few are like-minded, for all seek their own, Phi 2:20, Phi 2:21. Yet now the men of Judah all came in to his assistance for the reducing of Hebron (Jdg 1:10), slew the sons of Anak, and put him in possession of it, Jdg 1:20. They gave Hebron unto Caleb. And now Caleb, that he might return the kindness of his countrymen, is impatient to see Debir reduced and put into the hands of the men of Judah, to expedite which he proffers his daughter to the person that will undertake to command in the siege of that important place, Jdg 1:11, Jdg 1:12. Othniel bravely undertakes it, and wins the town and the lady (Jdg 1:13), and by his wife's interest and management with her father gains a very good inheritance for himself and his family, Jdg 1:14, Jdg 1:15. We had this passage before, Jos 15:16-19, where it was largely explained and improved. 3. Simeon got ground of the Canaanites in his border, Jdg 1:17, Jdg 1:18. In the eastern part of Simeon's lot, they destroyed the Canaanites in Zephath, and called it Hormah - destruction, adding this to some other devoted cities not far off, which they had some time ago, with good reason, called by that name, Num 21:2, Num 21:3. And this perhaps was the complete performance of the vow they them made that they would utterly destroy these cities of the Canaanites in the south. In the western part they took Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, cities of the Philistines; they gained present possession of the cities, but, not destroying the inhabitants, the Philistines in process of time recovered the cities, and proved inveterate enemies to the Israel of God, and no better could come of doing their work by the halves. 4. The Kenites gained a settlement in the tribe of Judah, choosing it there rather than in any other tribe, because it was the strongest, and there they hoped to be safe and quiet, Jdg 1:16. These were the posterity of Jethro, who either went with Israel when Moses invited them (Num 10:29) or met them about the same place when they came up from their wanderings in the wilderness thirty-eight years after, and went with them then to Canaan, Moses having promised them that they should fare as Israel fared, Num 10:32. They had at first seated themselves in the city of palm-trees, that is, Jericho, a city which never was to be rebuilt, and therefore the fitter for those who dwelt in tents, and did not mind building. But afterwards they removed into the wilderness of Judah, either out of their affection to that place, because solitary and retired, or out of their affection to that tribe, which perhaps had been in a particular manner kind to them. Yet we find the tent of Jael, who was of that family, far north, in the lot of Naphtali, when Sisera took shelter there, Jdg 4:17. This respect Israel showed them, to let them fix where they pleased, being a quiet people, who, wherever they were, were content with a little. Those that molested none were molested by none. Blessed are the meek, for thus they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17 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 On vv3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17 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 On vv3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 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 On vv3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17 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.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv4, 7, 8, 16, 17 The Canaanites and the Perizzites - See Gen 12:6,…
The Canaanites and the Perizzites - See Gen 12:6, note; Gen 13:7, note. Bezek may be the name of a district. It has not yet been identified.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 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 On vv3, 9, 11, 16, 17 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 On vv3, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17 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 On vv3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17 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 On vv3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 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 On vv3–17 (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 On vv3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 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.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv11, 12, 17 The Book-Town
Jdg_1:11
Kirjath-sepher.
Read full note →
The Book-Town
The name Kirjath-sepher, that is Book-Town, has been supposed to point to the existence of a semi-popular literature among the pre-Judaean inhabitants of Canaan. We cannot build with any certainty upon a name, but there are other facts of some significance. Already the Phoenicians, the merchants of the age, some of whom no doubt visited Kirjath-sepher on their way to Arabia or settled in it, had in their dealings with Egypt begun to use that alphabet to which most languages, from Hebrew and Aramaic on through Greek and Latin to our own, are indebted for the idea and shapes of letters. And it is not improbable that an old-world Phoenician library of skins, palm-leaves or inscribed tablets had given distinction to this town lying away towards the desert from Hebron. Written words were held in half-superstitious veneration, and a very few records would greatly impress a district peopled chiefly by wandering tribes. Nothing is insignificant in the pages of the Bible, nothing is to be disregarded that throws the least light upon human affairs and Divine providence; and here we have a suggestion of no slight importance. Doubt has been east on the existence of a written language among the Hebrews till centuries after the Exodus. It has been denied that the law could have been written out by Moses. This difficulty is now seen to be imaginary, like many others that have been raised. It is certain that the Phcenicians trading in Egypt in the time of the Hyksos kings had settlements quite contiguous to Goshen. What more likely than that the Hebrews, who spoke a language akin to the Phoenicians, should have shared the discovery of letters almost from the first, and practised the art of writing in the days of their favour with the monarchs of the Nile valley? The oppression of the following period might prevent the spread of letters among the people; but a man like Moses must have seen their value and made himself familiar with their use. The importance of this indication in the study of Hebrew law and faith is very plain. Nor should we fail to notice the interesting connection between the Divine lawgiving of Moses and the practical invention of a worldly race. There is no exclusiveness in the providence of God. The art of a people, acute and eager indeed, but without spirituality, is not rejected as profane by the inspired leader of Israel. Egyptians and Phoenicians have their share in originating that culture which mingles its stream with sacred revelation and religion. Letters and religion, culture and faith, must needs go hand in hand. (R. A. Watson, M. A.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v12 THE name Kiriath-sepher, that is Book-Town, has been supposed…
THE WAY OF THE SWORD
Jdg_1:12-26
Read full note →
THE name Kiriath-sepher, that is Book-Town, has been supposed to point to the existence of a semi-popular literature among the pre-Judaean inhabitants of Canaan. We cannot build with any certainty upon a name; but there are other facts of some significance. Already the Phoenicians, the merchants of the age, some of whom no doubt visited Kiriath-sepher on their way to Arabia or settled in it, had in their dealings with Egypt begun to use that alphabet to which most languages, from Hebrew and Aramaic on through Greek and Latin to our own, are indebted for the idea and shapes of letters. And it is not improbable that an old-world Phoenician library of skins, palm leaves, or inscribed tablets had given distinction to this town lying away towards the desert from Hebron. Written words were held in half-superstitious veneration, and a very few records would greatly impress a district peopled chiefly by wandering tribes.
Nothing is insignificant in the pages of the Bible, nothing is to be disregarded that throws the least light upon human affairs and Divine Providence; and here we have a suggestion of no slight importance. Doubt has been cast on the existence of a written language among the Hebrews till centuries after the Exodus. It has been denied that the Law could have been written out by Moses. The difficulty is now seen to be imaginary, like many others that have. been raised. It is certain that the Phoenicians trading to Egypt in the time of the Hyksos kings had settlements quite contiguous to Goshen. What more likely than that the Hebrews, who spoke a language akin to the Phoenicians, should have shared the discovery of letters almost from the first, and practised the art of writing in the days of their favour with the monarchs of the Nile valley? The oppression of the following period might prevent the spread of letters among the people; but a man like Moses must have seen their value and made himself familiar with their use. The importance of this indication in the study of Hebrew law and faith is very plain. Nor should we fail to notice the interesting connection between the Divine lawgiving of Moses and the practical invention of a worldly race. There is no exclusiveness in the providence of God. The art of a people, acute and eager indeed, but without spirituality, is not rejected as profane by the inspired leader of Israel. Egyptians and Phoenicians have their share in originating that culture which mingles its stream with sacred revelation and religion. As, long afterwards, there came the printing press, a product of human skill and science, and by its help the Reformation spread and grew and filled Europe with new thought, so for the early record of Gods work and will human genius furnished the fit instrument. Letters and religion, culture and faith must needs go hand in hand. The more the minds of men are trained, the more deftly they can use literature and science, the more able they should be to receive and convey the spiritual message which the Bible contains. Culture which does not have this effect betrays its own pettiness and parochialism; and when we are provoked to ask whether human learning is not a foe to religion, the reason must be that the favourite studies of the time are shallow, aimless, and ignoble.
Kiriath-sepher has to be taken. Its inhabitants, strongly entrenched, threaten the people who are settling about Hebron and must be subdued; and Caleb, who has come to his possession, adopts a common expedient for rousing the ambitious young men of the tribe. He has a daughter, and marriage with her shall reward the man who takes the fortress. It is not likely that Achsah objected. A courageous and capable husband was, we may say, a necessity, and her fathers proposal offered a practical way of settling her in safety and comfort. Customs which appear to us barbarous and almost insulting have no doubt justified themselves to the common sense, if not fully to the desires of women, because they were suited to the exigencies of life in rude and stormy times. There is this also, that the conquest of Kiriath-sepher was part of the great task in which Israel was engaged, and Achsah, as a patriotic daughter of Abraham, would feel the pride of being able to reward a hero of the sacred war. To the degree in which she was a woman of character this would balance other considerations. Still the custom is not an ideal one; there is too much uncertainty. While the rivalry for her hand is going on the maiden has to wait at home, wondering what her fate shall be, instead of helping to decide it by her own thought and action. The young man, again, does not commend himself by honour, but only by courage and skill. Yet the test is real, so far as it goes, and fits the time.
Achsah, no doubt, had her preference and her hope, though she dared not speak of them. As for modern feeling, it is professedly on the side of the heart in such a case, and modern literature, with a thousand deft illustrations, proclaims the right of the heart to its choice. We call it a barbarous custom, the disposition of woman by her father, apart from her preference, to one who does him or the community a servicer and although Achsah consented, we feel that she was a slave. No doubt the Hebrew wife in her home had a place of influence and power, and a woman might even come to exercise authority among the tribes; but, to begin with, she was under authority and had to subdue her own wishes in a manner we consider quite incompatible with the rights of a human being. Very slowly do the customs of marriage even in Israel rise from the rudeness of savage life. Abraham and Sarah, long before this, lived on something like equality, he a prince, she a princess. But what can be said of Hagar, a concubine outside the home circle, who might be sent any day into the wilderness? David and Solomon afterwards can marry for state reasons, can take, in pure Oriental fashion, the one his tens, the other his hundreds of wives and concubines. Polygamy survives for many a century. When that is seen to be evil, there remains to men a freedom of divorce which of necessity keeps women in a low and unhonoured state.
Yet, thus treated, woman has always duties of the first importance, on which the moral health and vigour of the race depend; and right nobly must many a Hebrew wife and mother have fulfilled the trust. It is a pathetic story; but now, perhaps, we are in sight of an age when the injustice done to women may be replaced by an injustice they do to themselves. Liberty is their right, but the old duties remain as great as ever. If neither patriotism, nor religion, nor the home is to be regarded, but mere taste; if freedom becomes license to know and enjoy, there will be another slavery worse than the former. Without a very keen sense of Christian honour and obligation among women, their enfranchisement will be the loss of what has held society together and made nations strong. And looking at the way in which marriage is frequently arranged by the free consent and determination of women, is there much advance on the old barbarism? How often do they sell themselves to the fortunate, rather than reserve themselves for the fit; how often do they marry not because a helpmeet of the soul has been found, but because audacity has won them or jewels have dazzled; because a fireside is offered, not because the ideal of life may be realised. True, in the worldliness there is a strain of moral effort often pathetic enough. Women are skilful at making the best of circumstances, and even when the gilding fades from the life they have chosen they will struggle on with wonderful resolution to maintain something like order and beauty. The Othniel who has gained Achsah by some feat of mercantile success or showy talk may turn out a poor pretender to bravery or wit; but she will do her best for him, cover up his faults, beg springs of water or even dig them with her own hands. Let men thank God that it is so, and let them help her to find her right place, her proper kingdom and liberty.
There is another aspect of the picture, however, as it unfolds itself. The success of Othniel in his attack on Kiriath-sepher gave him at once a good place as a leader, and a wife who was ready to make his interests her own and help him to social position and wealth. Her first care was to acquire a piece of land suitable for the flocks and herds she saw in prospect, well watered if possible, -in short, an excellent sheep farm. Returning from the bridal journey, she had her stratagem ready, and when she came near her fathers tent followed up her husbands request for the land by lighting eagerly from her ass, taking for granted the one gift, and pressing a further petition-"Give me a blessing, father. A south land thou hast bestowed, give me also wells of water." So, without more ado, the new Kenazite homestead was secured.
How Jewish, we may be disposed to say. May we not also say, How thoroughly British? The virtue of Achsah, is it not the virtue of a true British wife? To urge her husband on and up in the social scale, to aid him in every point of the contest for wealth and place, to raise him and rise with him, what can be more admirable? Are there opportunities of gaining the favour of the powerful who have offices to give, the liking of the wealthy who have fortunes to bequeath? The managing wife will use these opportunities with address and courage. She will light off her ass and bow humbly before a flattered great man to whom she prefers a request. She can fit her words to the occasion and her smiles to the end in view. It is a poor spirit that is content with anything short of all that may be had: thus in brief she might express her principle of duty. And so in ten thousand homes there is no question whether marriage is a failure. It has succeeded. There is a combination of mans strength and womans wit for the great end of "getting on." And in ten thousand others there is no thought more constantly present to the minds of husband and wife than that marriage is a failure. For restless ingenuity and many schemes have yielded nothing. The husband has been too slow or too honest, and the wife has been foiled; or, on the other hand, the woman has not seconded the man, has not risen with him. She has kept him down by her failings; or she is the same simpleminded, homely person he wedded long ago, no fit mate, of course, for one who is the companion of magnates and rulers. Well may those who long for a reformation begin by seeking a return to simplicity of life and the relish for other kinds of distinction than lavish outlay and social notoriety can give. Until married ambition is fed and hallowed at the Christian altar there will be the same failures we see now, and the same successes which are worse than "failures."
For a moment the history gives us a glimpse of another domestic settlement. "The children of the Kenite went up from the City of Palm Trees with the children of Judah," and found a place of abode on the southern fringe of Simeons territory, and there they seem to have gradually mingled with the tent dwellers of the desert. By and by we shall find one Heber the Kenite in a different part of the land, near the Sea of Galilee, still in touch with the Israelites to some extent, while his people are scattered. Heber may have felt the power of Israels mission and career and judged it wise to separate from those who had no interest in the tribes of Jehovah. The Kenites of the south appear in the history like men upon a raft, once borne near shore, who fail to seize the hour of deliverance and are carried away again to the wastes of sea. They are part of the drifting population that surrounds the Hebrew church, type of the drifting multitude who in the nomadism of modern society are for a time seen in our Christian assemblies, then pass away to mingle with the careless. An innate restlessness and a want of serious purpose mark the class. To settle these wanderers in orderly religious life seems almost impossible; we can perhaps only expect to sow among them seeds of good, and to make them feel a Divine presence restraining from evil. The assertion of personal independence in our day has no doubt much to do with impatience of church bonds and habits of worship; and it must not be forgotten that this is a phase of growing life needing forbearance no less than firm example.
Zephath was the next fortress against which Judah and Simeon directed their arms. When the tribes were in the desert on their long and difficult march they attempted first to enter Canaan from the south, and actually reached the neighbourhood of this town. But, as we read in the Book of Numbers, Arad the king of Zephath fought against them and took some of them prisoners. The defeat appears to have been serious, for, arrested and disheartened by it, Israel turned southward again, and after a long detour reached Canaan another way. In the passage in Numbers the overthrow of Zephath is described by anticipation; in Judges we have the account in its proper historical place. The people whom Arad ruled were, we may suppose, an Edomite clan living partly by merchandise, mainly by foray, practised marauders, with difficulty guarded against, who having taken their prey disappeared swiftly amongst the hills.
In the world of thought and feeling there are many Zephaths, whence quick outset is often made upon the faith and hope of men. We are pressing towards some end, mastering difficulties, contending with open and known enemies. Only a little way remains before us. But invisible among the intricacies of experience is this lurking foe who suddenly falls upon us. It is a settlement in the faith of God we seek. The onset is of doubts we had not imagined, doubts of inspiration, of immortality, of the incarnation, truths the most vital. We are repulsed, broken, disheartened. There remains a new wilderness journey till we reach by the way of Moab the fords of our Jordan and the land of our inheritance. Yet there is a way, sure and appointed. The baffled, wounded soul is never to despair. And when at length the settlement of faith is won, the Zephath of doubt may be assailed from the other side, assailed successfully and taken. The experience of some poor victims of what is oddly called philosophic doubt need dismay no one. For the resolute seeker after God there is always a victory, which in the end may prove so easy, so complete, as to amaze him. The captured Zephath is not destroyed nor abandoned, but is held as a fortress of faith. It becomes Hormah-the Consecrated.
Victories were gained by Judah in the land of the Philistines, partial victories, the results of which were not kept. Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron were occupied for a time; but Philistine force and doggedness recovered, apparently in a few years, the captured towns. Wherever they had their origin, these Philistines were a strong and stubborn race, and so different from the Israelites in habit and language that they never freely mingled nor even lived peaceably with the tribes. At this time they were probably forming their settlements on the Mediterranean seaboard, and were scarcely able to resist the men of Judah. But ship after ship from over sea, perhaps from Crete, brought new colonists; and during the whole period till the Captivity they were a thorn in the side of the Hebrews. Beside these, there were other dwellers in the lowlands, who were equipped in a way that made it difficult to meet them. The most vehement sally of men on foot could not break the line of iron chariots, thundering over the plain. It was in the hill districts that the tribes gained their surest footing, -a singular fact, for mountain people are usually hardest to defeat and dispossess; and we take it as a sign of remarkable vigour that the invaders so soon occupied the heights.
Here the spiritual parallel is instructive. Conversion, it may be said, carries the soul with a rush to the high ground of faith. The Great Leader has gone before, preparing the way. We climb rapidly to fortresses from which the enemy has fled, and it would seem that victory is complete. But the Christian life is a constant alternation between the joy of the conquered height and the stern battles of the foe-infested plain. Worldly custom and sensuous desire, greed and envy and base appetite have their cities and chariots in the low ground of being. So long as one of them remains the victory of faith is unfinished, insecure. Piety that believes itself delivered once for all from conflict is ever on the verge of disaster. The peace and joy men cherish, while as yet the earthly nature is unsubdued, the very citadels of it unreconnoitred, are visionary and relaxing. For the soul and for society the only salvation lies in mortal combat-life-long, age-long combat with the earthly and the false. Nooks enough may be found among the hills, pleasant and calm, from which the low ground cannot be seen, where the roll of the iron chariots is scarcely heard. It may seem to imperil all if we descend from these retreats. But when we have gained strength in the mountain air it is for the battle down below, it is that we may advance the lines of redeemed life and gain new bases for sacred enterprise.
A mark of the humanness and, shall we not also say, the divineness of this history is to be found in the frequent notices of other tribes than those of Israel. To the inspired writer it is not all the same whether Canaanites die or live, what becomes of Phoenicians or Philistines. Of this we have two examples, one the case of the Jebusites, the other of the people of Luz.
The Jebusites, after the capture of the lower city already recorded, appear to have been left in peaceful possession of their citadel and accepted as neighbours by the Benjamites. When the Book of Judges was written Jebusite families still remained, and in Davids time Araunah the Jebusite was a conspicuous figure. A series of terrible events connected with the history of Benjamin is narrated towards the end of the Book. It is impossible to say whether the crime which led to these events was in any way due to bad influence exercised by the Jebusites. We may charitably doubt whether it was. There is no indication that they were a depraved people. If they had been licentious they could scarcely have retained till Davids time a stronghold so central and of so much consequence in the land. They were a mountain clan, and Araunah shows himself in contact with David a revered and kingly person.
As for Bethel or Luz, around which gathered notable associations of Jacobs life, Ephraim, in whose territory it lay, adopted a stratagem in order to master it, and smote the city. One family alone, the head of which had betrayed the place, was allowed to depart in peace, and a new Luz was founded "in the land of the Hittites." We are inclined to regard the traitor as deserving of death, and Ephraim appears to us disgraced, not honoured, by its exploit. There is a fair, straightforward way of fighting; but this tribe, one of the strongest, chooses a mean and treacherous method of gaining its end. Are we mistaken in thinking that the care with which the founding of the new city is described shows the writers sympathy with the Luzzites? At any rate, he does not by one word justify Ephraim; and we do not feel called on to restrain our indignation.
The high ideal of life, how often it fades from our view! There are times when we realise our Divine calling, when the strain of it is felt and the soul is on fire with sacred zeal. We press on, fight on, true to the highest we know at every step. We are chivalrous, for we see the chivalry of Christ; we are tender and faithful, for we see His tenderness and faithfulness. Then we make progress; the goal can almost be touched. We love, and love bears us on. We aspire, and the world glows with light. But there comes a change. The thought of self preservation, of selfish gain, has intruded. On pretext of serving God we are hard to man, we keep back the truth, we use compromises, we descend even to treachery and do things which in another are abominable to us. So the fervor departs, the light fades from the world, the goal recedes, becomes invisible. Most strange of all is it that side by side with cultured religion there can be proud sophistry and ignorant scorn, the very treachery of the intellect towards man. Far away in the dimness of Israels early days we see the beginnings of a pious inhumanity, that may well make us stay to fear lest the like should be growing among ourselves. It is not what men claim, much less what they seize and hold, that does them honour. Here and there a march may be stolen on rivals by those who firmly believe they are serving God. But the rights of a man, a tribe, a church lie side by side with duties; and neglect of duty destroys the claim to what otherwise would be a right. Let there be no mistake: power and gain are not allowed in the providence of God to anyone that he may grasp them in despite of justice or charity.
One thought may link the various episodes we have considered. It is that of the end for which individuality exists. The home has its development of personality for service. The peace and joy of religion nourish the soul-for service. Life may be conquered in various regions, and a man grow fit for ever greater victories, ever nobler service. But with the end the means and spirit of each effort are so interwoven that alike in home, and church, and society the human soul must move in uttermost faithfulness and simplicity or fail from the Divine victory that wins the prize.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv5, 17 Jdg_1:8. Now the children of Judah had fought, &c.]…
CRITICAL NOTES.—
Jdg_1:8. Now the children of Judah had fought, &c.] Heb. = “fought,” the pluperfect form not being given in the original. Still, the sense is, “they formerly fought,” “they had fought.” A similar use of the past for the pluperfect has been noticed under Jos_8:12. For the time when Judah had fought against Jerusalem we may refer to Jos_12:8; Jos_12:10, when, though the king was slain, the strongholds of the city were not fully possessed (Jos_15:63). As Mr. Groser observes, “It is inconsistent to suppose that Adoni-bezek was carried into a city which his captors had just taken and set on fire.” This eighth verse begins a parenthesis which extends to the close of Jdg_1:16. The main object of the parenthesis is to show the conspicuous valour and fidelity which Judah, whom the Lord had just chosen (Jdg_1:2), had already displayed in previous conflicts. The reference to Jerusalem in the close of Jdg_1:7, naturally suggests the beginning of the parenthesis as in Jdg_1:8. After the parenthetic account of Judah’s faithful courage at Jerusalem and Hebron, and after the author’s record that the children of the Kenite had settled in the wilderness of Judah, the history of the expedition of Judah and Simeon is resumed. This explanation gives a perfect sense, and in no way disturbs the record in the book of Joshua. Peter Martyr and Richard Rogers long since contended for this parenthesis as the correct exposition of the local value of the several verses.
Read full note →
Jdg_1:9-15. And afterward, &c.] Cf. on Jos_15:14-19.
Jdg_1:16. The children of the Kenite.] The Kenites are first mentioned in Gen_15:19. They were either a tribe of Midianites, or a people who, having long before the Exodus settled in the land of Midian, had established themselves there in some strength. Exo_2:16 may mean that Reuel, or Jethro, was only a prince or priest of Kenites who had settled in the land of Midian; or he and his people may have been descendants of Abraham by Keturah, and thus a branch of the Midianites themselves. Num_10:29 favours the latter conjecture, Reuel being distinctly called “the Midianite.” In the time of Barak, a branch of these Kenites are found as settlers near Kedesh-Naphtali, by the Lake of Merom, or el Hûleh.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Jdg_1:5-7
THE RECOMPENCE OF WICKEDNESS
This lord of Bezek had grown into a very formidable tyrant. The seventy victims whom he had overcome and so cruelly mutilated were doubtless only petty princes, or chieftains, of small cities and their surrounding districts. The number seventy seems to make it certain that the depredations of this monster were committed in the surrounding neighbourhood, and among tribes of his own people, the Canaanites, as well as among more distant enemies. Adoni-bezek cut off the thumbs and toes of the kings he had vanquished. This was no doubt done to render them unfit for war, and thus in an age when men reigned by personal prowess, to prevent them from again coming to the power of government. The mutilation practised by this tyrant upon the captive kings, became afterwards very common in Roman history, when men cut off their own thumbs to escape military service. On this Kitto remarks: “A trace of this practice exists in the word poltron, which we and the French have adopted from the Italian, which, while it immediately denotes a dastardly soldier who shrinks from his duty, etymologically signifies ‘cut-thumb,’ being formed from póllice ‘thumb,’ and trónco, ‘cut off, maimed.’ ”
I. The sin of Adoni-bezek.
1. He was guilty of great cruelty. No “custom of the times” could excuse this barbarity. The man himself felt that he had been remorselessly wicked, when a like judgment was inflicted on him by the men of Judah. By his own verdict he stands condemned. Cruelty is one of the most heartless forms of wickedness. It brings nothing to him who practises it. It is indulged in simply from brutal tastes, unless it be employed for purposes of extortion. It is a low delight in the sufferings of others. Cruelty is one of the most degrading forms of wickedness. Nothing so rapidly takes away a man’s manhood. It is at the very antipodes of the cross. The Cross of Christ is an exhibition of voluntary suffering that others might be spared pain; cruelty is a selfish and coarse delight in others’ pain. Nothing so enriches manhood as the spirit that sacrifices itself to save others; nothing so rapidly debases manhood as the spirit which delights in the pain of others. Reckless cruelty is the suicide of the moral nature. Cruelty is perhaps the most rapidly increasing and incurable form of wickedness. Some have given the palm to covetousness, but while covetousness seems ever fatal, the disease is of slower growth than cruelty. It takes but little time, after they have begun, beast-like, to taste blood, to make a Herod or a Nero; and from this vice, too, men never recover. Covetousness is a passion for self, heedless of others; cruelty is a passion against others, without even the motive of enriching self. There can be no place, even in hell, below where the cruel have their abode. This is the lowest discernible deep of the pit that is bottomless.
2. Adoni-bezek was guilty of haughty pride. It was not enough for him that the seventy kings should be mutilated; he made his poor maimed captives humble themselves daily in his presence, feeding them, like dogs, under his table upon the odds and ends which he chose to throw them. To the littleness of inflicting pain by a barbarous outrage, this tyrant added the further meanness of daily gloating over those whom he made to suffer. In this case it was true indeed, that “the haughty spirit goeth before a fall.”
II. The punishment of this man’s sin. The men of Judah “caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes.” They used him as he had used others. They carried out the law of retaliation—“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” as they had been taught by Moses (Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20, &c.). With a fine adaptation of the words of Isaiah touching the fallen king of Babylon, Kitto says concerning the mutilated Adoni-bezek, “Nor can there be any doubt that when the seventy discrowned princes beheld their old oppressor thus brought low, they rose from the dust to greet him, crying, Art thou also become like unto us, thou that didst weaken the nations, thou that madest the land to tremble?” We see in the judgment which overtook this man—
1. Sin punished during the sinner’s lifetime.
2. Sin punished tardily, but no less certainly.
3. Sin so punished that the sinner is led to trace the connection between his own guilt and its consequences. “As I have done, so God hath requited me.” The punishment came in kind. The judgment was a mirror in which the criminal started as he beheld the features of his own manifold transgressions. God would not only have the guilty suffer; He would have them see clearly why they suffer.
III. The man’s acknowledgment of God’s justice. The narrative here throws into prominence the following points:—
1. An idolater’s knowledge of the true God. “God hath requited me.” This man must have frequently heard of the God of the Israelites during the miracles of the wilderness and the triumphs of Joshua. It was only in the hour of judgment that he acknowledged God. The most wicked will confess their faith in the Lord presently. In such faith we can trace no true repentance. It is the way of fallen spirits only to “believe” when they are made to “tremble.”
2. The activity of an idolater’s conscience. Adoni-bezek felt that this was a requital. Conscience may sleep long, but it wakes eventually in a power proportioned to the efforts which have been made to force it into quietude.
3. An idolater acknowledging the justice of God’s recompence of sin. “As I have done, so hath God requited me.” As the guilt, so was its reward. Long years of guilt, even in remorseless cruelty, cannot remove from the conscience its power of perceiving the justice of Divine punishment. It is only when men turn to speculating on the Bible theory of punishment that they get dissatisfied with what the Bible seems to reveal of the way of God in chastisement; those who suffer under God’s hand are ever seen acquiescing in the fairness of sin’s penalties. The penitent thief says, “The due reward of our deeds;” and the impenitent thief says not one word to suggest that he thinks contrariwise. Even Dives in torments does but speak of being tormented, and breathes no single word about injustice; nay, he even fears that his brothers must become as he is also. No sufferer under the hand of God, who speaks to us from the Bible, ever complains that the penalty is beyond the desert. Yet the Bible is very frank in its record of man’s rebellious words. This silence from murmuring, and this acquiescence in the fairness of Divine chastisements, are also significant. The debates on God’s justice in punishment will probably all be confined to time.
OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
GOD’S MINISTERS OF JUDGMENT.—Jdg_1:5-6
“And they found Adoni-bezek,” &c. God has many ways of finding the transgressor. Sometimes He finds him with the messenger of disease; sometimes by losses or accidents; sometimes, as here, by the chastisements of avenging men; sometimes by the working of the sin itself. Thus Moses said to the tribes on the east of Jordan, “Be sure your sin will find you out.” God, eventually, always finds the sinner out by some instrument or other. Thus Samuel finds Agag (1Sa_15:33), and becomes the minister of Divine retribution; Saul finds and destroys the Amalekites four hundred years after they had fallen upon the Israelites (cf. 1Sa_15:1-7); Mordecai and Esther find and expose Haman; Daniel’s enemies are found by Darius and the lions. He who sins against his fellow-men should always be prepared to see his sin come back with a scourge in its hand. Jacob may deceive; he will presently be deceived. The Egyptians may murder the male children of Israel; the angel will avenge them in the death of the firstborn. David may sin against Bathsheba, and murder Uriah; his first sin shall be repaid to him in Absalom, and his second in Amnon. The retribution which overtakes Adoni-bezek is but a common issue of those transgressions in which one man does wilful harm to his fellows. It is noteworthy that all these prominent instances of retribution in the Scriptures are not punishments of sin in general, but the punishment of sins against men. It is as though God said, He who is guilty against men shall be requited during this life, even in the presence of men.
THE RELATION OF GOD’S CHASTISEMENTS TO MAN’S OFFENCES.—Jdg_1:6-7
“God has not relinquished the government of the earth: He orders and overrules everything now as much as ever; and in His former dispensations we behold a perfect exhibition of the government which He still administers. Still, as formerly, does He requite the wickedness of men; sometimes on the offenders themselves, as when He smote Uzziah with leprosy; and sometimes on others upon their account, as when He slew seventy thousand of the people to punish the sin which David had committed in numbering his subjects. Sometimes He inflicts the judgment immediately, as on Herod, who was eaten up with worms; and sometimes after a long season, as on the sons of Saul for their father’s cruelty to the Gibeonites many years before. Sometimes His judgments are sent as preliminary to those heavier judgments that shall be inflicted in the eternal world, … and sometimes after the offenders themselves have been forgiven, as was experienced by David in his family (2Sa_12:13-14), and by Manasseh, whose iniquities were visited upon Israel after he himself had been received up to glory (2Ki_24:2-4). Sometimes His chastisements had no particular affinity with the offence committed; and sometimes the offence was clearly marked in the punishment, as in the case of Joram (2Ch_21:4-17), and as with David (2Sa_12:10-12; 2Sa_16:21-22). So minutely is this correspondence marked in the Scriptures, that even the time and the place are noticed as designed to manifest the very offence which God designed to punish; as Israel’s wandering in the wilderness forty years on account of their murmuring at the reports which were brought them by the spies who had searched out the land forty days (Num_14:33-34); and as Ahab’s blood was licked up by dogs on the very spot where dogs had licked up the blood of Naboth, whom he had murdered.
“We might further notice the correspondence between the spiritual judgments which God sometimes inflicts for spiritual transgressions. Those who will not hearken to His voice He gives up to their own counsels (Psa_81:11-12); those who abandon themselves to all manner of wickedness, He gives up to vile affections and a reprobate mind (Rom_1:26-28); and those who will not receive His truth in order to salvation, He gives up to their own delusions that they may be damned.…
“If any imagine that this conduct of God was confined to the nation whose temporal Governor He was, we must remind them that He dealt precisely in the same way with the heathen nations (Isa_33:1), and has taught us to expect that He will do so to the end of time …
“From hence we may learn—
I. To investigate the reasons of God’s dealings with us. Every dispensation of Providence has a voice to which we should give diligent attention. I would say unto you therefore, ‘Hear the rod and Him that hath appointed it.’ If you see not the reason of it, go unto your God, and say, ‘Show me wherefore Thou contendest with me;’ and let no cross be suffered to escape from you, without having first paid to you that tribute of good which by the order of Providence you are entitled to exact.
II. To repent of particular sins.… God has borne with us indeed; but we must not consider His longsuffering as any proof of His approbation: He is recording everything in the book of His remembrance, and will call us into judgment for it, whether it be good or evil. Let us then search and try our ways; let us pray that He will not ‘remember against us the sins and transgressions of our youth.’
III. To abound in every work of good. The godly, no less than the sinner, shall be recompensed in the earth’ (Pro_11:31; Pro_13:21). Visit and relieve your sick neighbour, and ‘God will be with you in trouble, and make all your bed in sickness (Psa_41:1-3).” [Charles Simeon, M.A.]
THE ACCUSING CONSCIENCE QUICKENED BY DIVINE JUDGMENTS.—Jdg_1:7
By the recent discovery and invention of Professor Hughes, sounds that have never before been audible to men may now be heard distinctly. Through the wonderful powers of the microphone, much in nature which once appeared silent is now vocal; and, as years go on, we may expect these still small voices not only to be heard but understood. Just as the microscope has revealed a new world to the eye, so will the microphone discover a new world to the ear. Similarly, God has a microphonic way in the moral world of making that audible which many have long since ceased to hear. Paul speaks of men “past feeling” whose consciences are “seared as with a hot iron.” Such are not only past feeling the reproaches of conscience, but even past hearing them. Scripture history shows us very plainly, in not a few instances, that God has a method of making men hear again, who have long been deaf to the very feeble utterances of the conscience which they appear quite to have silenced. There are microphones in this moral world also, by which conscience not only becomes audible, but even over-whelming in the energy and terribleness of its tones. The following are a few of the forms in which the Bible shows us how the consciences of men may again speak so as to be heard in irresistible power:—
I. Conscience speaking through the pain of suffering in the present. Adoni-bezek can hear well enough through the pain of his own mutilation. “As I have done, so hath God requited me.” In similar circumstances, Pharaoh heard the reproofs of his conscience through the medium of the ten plagues (cf. Exo_9:27-28; Exo_10:16-17).
II. Conscience speaking through fear of suffering to come (1Ki_21:20). The blood of Naboth cried out in the ears of Ahab at the very sight of Elijah. Hastening down to the vineyard, to take possession of the spoil of his murdered foe, he saw there, at the very gateway to the new estate, the terrible Elijah; and ere ever a word was said by the prophet, and in view of the judgment so surely casting its shadow before in the form of that stern Tishbite, conscience, silent in that dull bosom for many a year, made the poor guilty being cry in unmistakable alarm, “Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?” Men who are sinning in peace, should now and then listen for the sounds of conscience through the judgment to come. In view of this, men have sometimes found conscience overmastering creeds. Thus Herod, the Sadducee, who believed in no resurrection, said when he heard of Jesus, “It is John, whom I beheaded; he is risen from the dead.” Thus Volney prayed in the storm. Thus Byron struggled with himself to “be a man to the last.”
III. Conscience speaking through the sufferings of the innocent. Judas sold his Lord for thirty pieces of silver, but the thought of the guilt in which he had given Christ over to condemnation was too much to be endured. “When he saw that Jesus was condemned, he brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.… And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.” Conscience becomes audible also through the medium of the sufferings and blood of the innocent. What may not the Herods, and Nero, and Domitian, and Marius, and other tyrants, have heard of the thunders of conscience, when, in their more reflective moods, they found the moral atmosphere about them clarified and made resonant by thoughts of their innocent victims! While an oppressor is always a coward, there must come a time when he had need be among the bravest of the brave.
IV. Conscience speaking through severely chastened piety (cf. 2Sa_16:10.) In the punishment which waits on sin, not only the deliberately wicked, but the fallen righteous, hear the rebukes of conscience as they have seldom heard them before. Even the cursing tones of Shimei sound in the ears of transgressing David as the voice of a messenger of his God.
V. Conscience speaking unto salvation through gratitude for deliverance and mercy (Act_16:24-30; Luk_15:21). The jailor who had made the feet of Paul and Silas fast in the stocks, probably in antipathy towards them for the truth which they preached, heard conscience proclaiming his sin through the joy which he felt in the security of his prisoners and the consequent safety of his own life. He who in one moment “would have killed himself,” is made to ask in the next, “What must I do to be saved?” It is in the hour of mercy that conscience forces the heart to such tears for sin as make sin seem most loathsome. As Whittier has truthfully written it—
“Thy healing pains; a keen distress
Thy tender light shines in;
Thy sweetness is the bitterness,
Thy grace the pang of sin.”
Or, in the measure of an older and more familiar utterance, we have often expressed the feeling thus:—
“When beneath the Cross adoring,
Sin doth like itself appear.”
The true microphone for making the voice of conscience at once audible and helpful is the Cross of Jesus Christ.
VI. Conscience heard speaking after a silence of many years (Gen_42:21-22). This was probably so in the case of Adoni-bezek; it was emphatically so with Joseph’s brethren. More than twenty years after their inhuman guilt they are made to say, “We are verily guilty concerning our brother.” That conscience has long been silent is no sign that it will not presently be heard in power. God knows how to awaken both what we call the sleeping and the dead.
VII. Conscience speaking in the presence of death (Jos_7:20). Achan, who was deaf to all self-rebuke during the despoiling of Jericho, heard conscience speaking with awful plainness when he knew that he must die. The death-sayings of the wicked have been showing, through many generations, that the vaulted cavern of a visibly open tomb has ever been a kind of intensified whispering-gallery, back from which the once unheard reproofs of conscience have rolled with a terrible energy through the departing soul. When conscience is silenced here, it seems to take on a distinct tongue for every forgotten sin, and to become a very Babel there. Happy is that man who learns to say, “I acknowledged my sin unto Thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid.”
“THE LAW OF REQUITAL.”—Jdg_1:7
“This narrative is an illustration of a severe yet most holy law. ‘The Lord of recompences shall surely requite.’ ‘With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.’ This is the law under which we are now living. Let us study some of its bearings, that we may live with religious wisdom.
“ ‘As I have done, so God hath requited me.’ ”
I. “Then the life of man cannot escape the judgment of God. ‘Be not deceived; God is not mocked;’ man may deny it: may theoretically disregard it; but cannot escape it. At the heart of things is the spirit of judgment. Human life appears to be confused, but before the Almighty it has shape, and plan, and purpose.
II. “Then let no man take the law into his own hands. ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.’ … Why have we suffered loss in business? May it not be that we have oppressed the poor and needy? Why are our schemes delayed and thwarted? Probably because we have been obstinate and unfriendly towards the schemes of others. Why are we held in disesteem or neglect? Probably because of the contempt in which we have held our brethren.…
III. “Then every good deed will be honoured with appropriate reward. The law is equally effective on both sides. ‘God is not unrighteous to forget your work of faith and labour of love,’ &c. ‘Whosoever shall give a cup of cold water only,’ &c. ‘The liberal soul shall be made fat.’ Remember:
1. Good deeds are their own reward;
2. Deeds done merely for the sake of reward cannot be good.
IV. “Then, though justice be long delayed, yet it will be vindicated eventually. Adoni-bezek had run a long course of wickedness.… Yet see him in the grip of the law, and learn that the time of punishment is with the Lord and not with man. Do you think that you have outwitted the law of retribution? God’s hour is coming; a stormy and terrible hour.…
“But what of those who, having done evil, hate both themselves and their wickedness? There is a Gospel for such—‘Repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,’ will destroy the evil of the past, and satisfy the otherwise inexorable law of retribution.” [Dr. Parker.]
NOTE.—For homiletic outlines and remarks on the paragraph that follows—Jdg_1:8-16, see on the corresponding passages in the Book of Joshua, as treated in “The Preacher’s Commentary.”
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16 The men of Judah attacked
The men of Judah attacked
It is implied that the men of Simeon attacked with the men of Judah. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
Read full note →
They killed ten thousand
"They killed about 10,000" or "They killed a large number" (See: Numbers)
of them
"soldiers of the Canaanites and Perizzites" or "enemies"
Bezek
This is an area in the mountains of Canaan. (See: How to Translate Names)
Adoni-Bezek
This man was the leader of the army of the Canaanites and the Perizzites. (See: How to Translate Names)
they fought against him
Here "him" actually refers to Adoni-Bezek and his army. AT: "they fought against him and his army" (See: Synecdoche)
translationWords
Judah
Yahweh
Canaan
Perizzite
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.