Judges 1:29 Komentář

This chapter gives us a particular account what sort of progress the several tribes of Israel made in the reducing of Canaan after the death of Joshua. He did (as we say) break the neck of that great work, and put it into such a posture that they might easily have perfected it in due time, if they had not been wanting to themselves; what they did in order hereunto, and wherein they came short, we are told. I. The united tribes o Judah and Simeon did bravely. 1. God appointed Judah to begin (Jdg 1:1, Jdg 1:2). 2. Judah took Simeon to act in conjunction with him (Jdg 1:3). 3. They succeeded in their enterprises against Bezek (Jdg 1:4-7), Jerusalem (Jdg 1:8). Hebron and Debir (Jdg 1:9-15), Hormah, Gaza, and other places (Jdg 1:17-19). 4. Yet where there were chariots of iron their hearts failed them (Jdg 1:19). Mention is made of the Kenites settling among them (Jdg 1:16). II. The other tribes, in comparison with these, acted a cowardly part. 1. Benjamin failed (Jdg 1:21). 2. The house of Joseph did well against Beth-el (Jdg 1:22-26), but in other places did not improve their advantages, nor Manasseh (Jdg 1:27, Jdg 1:28), nor Ephraim (Jdg 1:29). 3. Zebulun spared the Canaanites (Jdg 1:30). 4. Asher truckled worse than any of them to the Canaanites (Jdg 1:31, Jdg 1:32). 5. Naphtali was kept out of the full possession of several of his cities (Jdg 1:33). 6. Dan was straitened by the Amorites (Jdg 1:34). No account is given of Issachar, nor of the two tribes and a half on the other side Jordan.

The children of Israel, after Joshua's death, inquiring of the Lord which tribes should first go up against the remaining Canaanites, Judah is ordered to go up, who with Simeon did, Jdg 1:1; and had success against the Canaanites under Adonibezek, whom they brought to Jerusalem Jdg 1:4; and against the Canaanites in Hebron, Debir, Zephath, Hormah, Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, Jdg 1:9; the Benjamites had not such good success as Judah against the Jebusites in Jerusalem, Jdg 1:21; nor as the house of Joseph had against Bethel, Jdg 1:22; nor could the tribes of Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali, drive out the Canaanites from several places which belonged unto them, though many of them became their tributaries, Jdg 1:27; and as for the Amorites, they were too powerful for the tribe of Dan, though some of them became tributaries to the house of Joseph, Jdg 1:34.(a) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 14. 2.

Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer,.... Not so much as made them tributaries, but made a covenant with them, it is probable, contrary to the express will of God: but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them; the Ephraimites agreeing to it, and here they dwelt to the times of Solomon; See Gill on Jos 16:10; where indeed they are said to be under tribute; but that seems to respect some later time, and not when they were first admitted to dwell among them, since no mention is made of it here.

For the stars of this night are overshadowed with darkness, when even they that already shine with great virtues, still bear something of the dimness of sin, while they struggle against it, so that they even shine with great lustre of life, and yet still draw along with unwillingness some remains of the night. Which as we have said is done with this view, that the mind in advancing to the eminence of its righteousness, may through weakness be the better strengthened, and may in a more genuine manner shine in goodness by the same cause, whereby, to the humbling of it, little defects overcloud it even against its will. And hence when the land of promise now won was to be divided to the people of Israel, the Gentile people of Canaan are not said to be slain, but to be made tributary to the tribe of Ephraim; as it is written, "The Canaanites dwelt in the midst of Ephraim under tribute." For what does the Canaanite, a Gentile people, denote saving a fault? And oftentimes we enter the land of promise with great virtues, because we are strengthened by the inward hope that regards eternity. But while, amidst lofty deeds, we retain certain small faults, we as it were permit the Canaanite to dwell in our land. Yet he is made tributary, in that this same fault, which we cannot bring under, we force back by humility to answer the end of our wellbeing, that the mind may think meanly of itself even in its highest excellencies, in proportion as it fails to master by its own strength even the small things that it aims at.

THE ACTS OF JUDAH AND SIMEON. (Jdg 1:1-3) Now after the death of Joshua--probably not a long period, for the Canaanites seem to have taken advantage of that event to attempt recovering their lost position, and the Israelites were obliged to renew the war. the children of Israel asked the Lord--The divine counsel on this, as on other occasions, was sought by Urim and Thummim, by applying to the high priest, who, according to JOSEPHUS, was Phinehas. saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first--The elders, who exercised the government in their respective tribes, judged rightly, that in entering upon an important expedition, they should have a leader nominated by divine appointment; and in consulting the oracle, they adopted a prudent course, whether the object of their inquiry related to the choice of an individual commander, or to the honor of precedency among the tribes.

I. Attitude of Israel Towards the Canaanites, and Towards Jehovah Its God - Judges 1-3:6 Hostilities between Israel and the Canaanites after Joshua's Death - Judges 1:1-2:5 After the death of Joshua the tribes of Israel resolved to continue the war with the Canaanites, that they might exterminate them altogether from the land that had been given them for an inheritance. In accordance with the divine command, Judah commenced the strife in association with Simeon, smote the king of Bezek, conquered Jerusalem, Hebron and Debir upon the mountains, Zephath in the south land, and three of the chief cities of the Philistines, and took possession of the mountains; but was unable to exterminate the inhabitants of the plain, just as the Benjaminites were unable to drive the Jebusites out of Jerusalem (vv. 1-21). The tribe of Joseph also conquered the city of Bethel (Jdg 1:22-26); but from the remaining towns of the land neither the Manassites, nor the Ephraimites, nor the tribes of Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali expelled the Canaanites: all that they did was to make them tributary (Jdg 1:27-33). The Danites were actually forced back by the Amorites out of the plain into the mountains, because the latter maintained their hold of the towns of the plain, although the house of Joseph conquered them and made them tributary (Jdg 1:34-36). The angel of the Lord therefore appeared at Bochim, and declared to the Israelites, that because they had not obeyed the command of the Lord, to make no covenant with the Canaanites, the Lord would no more drive out these nations, but would cause them and their gods to become a snare to them (Jdg 2:1-5). From this divine revelation it is evident, on the one hand, that the failure to exterminate the Canaanites had its roots in the negligence of the tribes of Israel; and on the other hand, that the accounts of the wars of the different tribes, and the enumeration of the towns in the different possessions out of which the Canaanites were not expelled, were designed to show clearly the attitude of the Israelites to the Canaanites in the age immediately following the death of Joshua, or to depict the historical basis on which the development of Israel rested in the era of the judges.

Ephraim did not root out the Canaanites in Gezer (Jdg 1:29), as has already been stated in Jos 16:10. Jdg 1:30 Zebulun did not root out the Canaanites in Kitron and Nahalol. Jdg 1:31-32 Asher did not root out those in Acco, etc. Acco: a seaport town to the north of Carmel, on the bay which is called by its name; it is called Ake by Josephus, Diod. Sic., and Pliny, and was afterwards named Ptolemais from one of the Ptolemys (1 Macc. 5:15, 21; 10:1, etc.; Act 21:7). The Arabs called it Akka, and this was corrupted by the crusaders into Acker or Acre. During the crusades it was a very flourishing maritime and commercial town; but it subsequently fell into decay, and at the present time has a population of about 5000, composed of Mussulmans, Druses, and Christians (see C. v. Raumer, Pal. p. 119; Rob. Bibl. Res.; and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 725ff.). Sidon, now Saida: see at Jos 11:8. Achlab is only mentioned here, and is not known. Achzib, i.e., Ecdippa: see at Jos 19:29. Helbah is unknown. Aphek is the present Afkah: see Jos 13:4; Jos 19:30. Rehob is unknown: see at Jos 19:28, Jos 19:30. As seven out of the twenty-two towns of Asher (Jos 19:30) remained in the hands of the Canaanites, including such important places as Acco and Sidon, it is not stated in Jdg 1:32, as in Jdg 1:29, Jdg 1:30, that "the Canaanites dwelt among them," but that "the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites," to show that the Canaanites held the upper hand. And for this reason the expression "they became tributaries" (Jdg 1:30, Jdg 1:35, etc.) is also omitted. Jdg 1:33 Naphtali did not root out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath, two fortified towns, the situation of which is still unknown (see at Jos 19:38); so that this tribe also dwelt among the Canaanites, but did not make them tributary. Jdg 1:34-35 Still less were the Danites able to drive the Canaanites out of their inheritance. On the contrary, the Amorites forced Dan up into the mountains, and would not suffer them to come down into the plain. But the territory allotted to the Danytes was almost all in the plain (see at Jos 19:40). If, therefore, they were forced out of that, they were almost entirely excluded from their inheritance. The Amorites emboldened themselves (see at Deu 1:5) to dwell in Har-cheres, Ajalon, and Shaalbim. On the last two places see Jos 19:42, where Ir-shemesh is also mentioned. This combination, and still more the meaning of the names Har-cheres, i.e., sun-mountain, and Ir-shemesh, i.e., sun-town, make the conjecture a very probable one, that Har-cheres is only another name for Ir-shemesh, i.e., the present Ain Shems (see at Jos 15:10, and Rob. Pal. iii. pp. 17, 18). This pressure on the part of the Amorites induced a portion of the Danites to emigrate, and seek for an inheritance in the north of Palestine (see Judg 18). On the other hand, the Amorites were gradually made tributary by the powerful tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who bounded Dan on the north. "The hand of the house of Joseph lay heavy," sc., upon the Amorites in the towns already named on the borders of Ephraim. For the expression itself, comp. Sa1 5:6; Psa 32:4.