Deeper Commentary
Jdg 1:1
After the death of Joshua the children of Israel asked Yahweh, Who should
go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them?-
Biblical history is unlike any other national history of a people in that it seems to emphasize the spiritual weakness of Israel. The heroes are nearly all flawed
rather than spotlessly glorious- and that, surely, is so as to give us realistic inspiration to rise up to their spirit, knowing how flawed we also are. And yet there's a tendency amongst some of us to idealize these men, in the same way as the Catholic and Orthodox churches portray them as white faced, haloed saints. Judaism has done the same. Despite the evident weaknesses of Samson (and other judges, e.g. Gideon) as revealed in the inspired record, later Jewish commentary sought to idealize them. Take Ecclesiasticus 46:11,12: "The judges too... all men whose hearts were never disloyal, who never turned their backs on the Lord...". Perhaps the psychological basis for this tendency is that we simply don't want to be personally challenged by the fact that heroes of faith were so much like us...
After the leadership of Moses, there came that of Joshua. See on Josh.
23:9. When he died,
Israel expected that another such leader would be raised up: “After the
death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the
Lord, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first?”. They expected a man to be named. But instead, they were told that
the whole tribe of Judah must go up. The reality would have sunk home- no
more charismatic leaders, now the ordinary people must take
responsibility.
When faced with the prospect of driving out the tribes, they
procrastinated by asking "Who shall go up for us?". They wanted someone
else to do the job, just as all religious [rather than spiritual] people
want a leader to do their spiritual work for them. God could have responded: 'I have already gone before
you, all of you have a duty to go up and possess the land, and to help
your brethren. The question of who goes first is totally faithless and
irrelevant!'. But He didn't say this. He told Judah to go up first (1:3).
Multiple times we read in Joshua that he "fought against" the
Canaanites and also many times that Yahweh would fight against them. All
Israel and Judah seem to have forgotten all that. Just like the Israelites
of Gilead wanted someone to go and lead them in fighting "for us" against
the Ammonites (Jud. 10:18). It's likewise hard for us to believe that with
no visible leader, victory is assured. Joshua/ Jesus has already fought
and won. Joshua didn't however defeat all the Canaanites. Perhaps this
looks ahead to how the Lord Jesus has achieved complete victory, against
all issues and factors that appear to preclude us possessing the Kingdom
of God.
Jdg 1:2 Yahweh said, Judah shall go up. Behold, I have delivered the land
into his hand-
Clearly there were various scenarios possible for Israel to take the land, as there are for our inheritance of the Kingdom. The tribes could have directly followed up on Joshua's victories. They could each individually have gone to take their inheritance. Or Judah was given the potential to take the whole land, and they could have followed up on those victories. Joshua 10 describes Joshua's massive victory against the five southern Canaanite kings, of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon. He went on to conquer further: "Joshua struck all the land, the hill country, the South, the lowland, the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed... Joshua struck them from Kadesh Barnea even to Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even to Gibeon. Joshua took all these kings and their land at one time, because Yahweh, the God of Israel, fought for Israel" (Josh. 10:40-42). Joshua 11 then describes his subjugation of the north: "So Joshua captured all that land, the hill country, all the South, all the land of Goshen, the lowland, the Arabah, the hill country of Israel, and the lowland of the same... even to Baal Gad in the valley of Lebanon under Mount Hermon. He took all their kings, struck them and put them to death... There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. They took all in battle... and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel: Joshua utterly destroyed them with their cities. There were none of the Anakim left in the land of the children of Israel. Only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did some remain. So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spoke to Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel" (Josh. 11:16-23).
The land was effectively subdued before Israel at that point, and all the individual tribes had to do was to go ahead and possess the land. The fact we read in Judges 1 and 2 of them failing to do so shows that even after that, the people were just satisfied with a bit of land where they were, and failed to see the glorious potential they had of more actively possessing the entire land. All this looks forward to the failure of God's people to make good on the vast victories of the Lord Jesus.
The fact we fail to realize our potentials doesn’t mean God quits
working with us. Reflect how Judah was given the potential to possess the
whole land, and yet they selfishly only focused upon their own inheritance
(Jud. 1:2,3). And yet God still worked with them, giving them victory in
what battles they did fight (Jud. 1:4). Yet even then, Judah didn’t follow
through with the help God was so eager to give them. They took Jerusalem,
but later we read that the Jebusites were soon back living there (Jud.
1:8,21).
Jdg 1:3 Judah said to Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my
designated portion so that we can fight against the Canaanites, and I
likewise will go with you into yours. So Simeon went with him-
Judah refused to believe the promise of :2 that the whole land had
been given to him. Instead, Judah chose to willfully misunderstand this as
meaning that just their tribal canton had been given into their power. And
even then, they thought they needed the human help of Simeon, as Simeon
thought too about their inheritance.
Jdg 1:4 Judah went up and Yahweh delivered the Canaanites and Perizzites
into their hand. They killed ten thousand men in Bezek-
"Thousand" when used of conflicts often refers not to a literal 1,000
but to a military subdivision. Bezek, 'place of lightning', could mean
that God used natural causes, lightning, to destroy these people. For such
seems His preferred style in defeating His enemies at the hands of His
people, lest they be tempted to think it was their power which had won the
victories. He is so sensitive to our temptations, and ever seeks to keep
us from pride.
Jdg 1:5 They found Adoni-Bezek in Bezek and fought against him, and they
killed the Canaanites and the Perizzites-
"They found" implies he had hidden. This verse summarizes the
preceding and following verses. Bezek has not been located as a town; that
of 1 Sam. 11:8 is too far north to be the same place. But they buried
Adonibezek in Jerusalem (:7), and Adonizedek king of Jerusalem (Josh.
10:1,3) is called Adonibezek in the LXX. It could refer to the same
individual.
Jdg 1:6 But Adoni-Bezek fled, and they pursued him, caught him and cut off
his thumbs and his great toes-
This kind of humiliation of a vanquished foe was common at the time,
but seems inappropriate for God's people acting in faith that any victory
was by His grace. This treatment was typically given to those who would
later become the servants of the conquerors (Jud. 16:21; 1 Sam. 11:2; 2
Kings 25:7). But Judah's intention was thwarted by the man dying (:7). God
did not intend His people to humiliate others, not even their enemies.
Jdg 1:7 Adoni-Bezek said, Seventy kings, having their thumbs and their
great toes cut off, scavenged under my table. As I have done, so God has
requited me. They brought him to Jerusalem and he died there-
See on :6. He had supposedly vanquished 70 tribal chiefs, probably
only rulers of very small areas. He treated them like dogs (cp. Mt.
15:27). We wonder whether this king came to repentance at the very end of
his life, and accepted the God of Israel.
Jdg 1:8 The men of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it, putting it
to the sword, and set the city on fire-
Insofar as Israel followed their Angel, they had success. We
repeatedly read that the cities they conquered were 'sent up in flames'
(Jud. 1:8; Josh. 6:24; 8:8; 11:11), surely because they were following the
Angel who was himself as a devouring pillar of fire (Dt. 9:3). Yet quite
naturally we balk at the height of our calling, to follow the Angel.
Their
victory however was like those of Joshua- not followed up on. For soon the
Jebusites were entrenched in Jerusalem (Jud. 1:21). They failed to possess
the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the
rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here,
winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing
the Kingdom. The burning with fire was to show that the city was
herem, totally dedicated to Yahweh as a burnt offering. But this
burning with fire was not at all complete, because in :21 we find
the Jebusites living there again and they remained in control until
David's time. Here we see the danger of merely symbolic dedication to
Yahweh.
Jdg 1:9 Afterwards the men of Judah went down to fight against the
Canaanites who lived in the hill country, in the South and in the lowland-
These three areas are how the area of Judah was divided up
topographically. Judah had been given the power and potential victory
throughout the land, but instead they focused only upon their own place in
the Kingdom rather than seeking it for their brethren too (see on :2).
Jdg 1:10 Judah went against the Canaanites who lived in Hebron (the name
of Hebron before was Kiriath Arba), and they struck Sheshai and Ahiman and
Talmai-
We must compare this and :11 with the record of what actually
happened in Josh. 15:13-15: "And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he
[Joshua] gave Hebron. And Caleb drove out thence the three sons of Anak,
Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak. And he went up
thence against the inhabitants of Debir". It was Caleb who took Hebron and
went against Debir. But the record here speaks as if the "he" was the
tribe of Judah. We would expect to read "they went..." in :11, but the
"he" clearly alludes to how it was Caleb who did this. We can conclude
therefore that Caleb's victory was assumed by Judah as theirs, in their
attempt to show that they had won victories against the local inhabitants
within their tribal canton. This attempt to personally claim the spiritual
conquests of others is not unknown amongst God's people today. It
must have been somewhat irksome for Caleb to have Judah 'give' Hebron to
him (:20), when he had himself conquered it. Or we can read all this
as meaning that Caleb took Hebron, but it was repossessed after his time
and Judah had to attack it again, giving it to him posthumously, in his
memory (:20). This would then also be the situation with Debir in the next
verses. However, the actual towns of Hebron and Debir were to be given to
the Levites and Caleb only inherited the countryside nearby to it (Josh.
21:10-15). So taking a city and then giving it away to others was
commendable; but our suspicion is that they didn't in fact do this.
Jdg 1:11 From there he went against the inhabitants of Debir. The name of
Debir before was Kiriath Sepher-
Jdg 1:12 Caleb said, He who strikes Kiriath Sepher and takes it, to him
will I give Achsah my daughter as wife-
Jdg 1:13 Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it; and
he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife-
Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (1 Chron. 2:5,18,25). But "Kenizzite" (also Num. 32:12) could refer to the Gentile tribe of Gen. 15:19; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (1 Chron. 4:15). And Jud. 1:13 could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. Caleb means "dog", and this is apparently alluded to when he is commended for faithfully following Yahweh, as a dog would follow its master (Num. 14:24). The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah. Perhaps the note at :16 about the descendants of the Kenites coming to live with Caleb's family is included to clarify the point that Caleb was a Kenite or Kenizzite.
Jdg 1:14 When she came, she got him to ask her father for a field, and she
alighted from off her donkey and Caleb said to her, What would you like?-
Examples of spiritual ambition are inspirational; just as soldiers
inspire each other by their acts of bravery. Achsah followed her father
Caleb’s spiritual ambition in specifically asking for an inheritance in
the Kingdom (Josh. 14:12; 15:18); and this in turn inspired another woman
to ask for an inheritance soon afterwards (Josh. 17:4). And so it ought to
be in any healthy congregation of believers. Ponder the parallel between
Is. 51:1 and 7: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye
that seek the Lord… hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness”. To know
God’s righteousness is to seek / follow it; of itself, it inspires us to
ambitiously seeking to attain it.
"When she came" is literally 'when she came to him' and could
refer to the wedding day. Hence GNB, similar to LXX, "On the wedding day
Othniel urged her to ask her father for a field. She got down from her
donkey, and Caleb asked her what she wanted".
Jdg 1:15 She said to him, Give me a blessing, for that 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 idea of being given a blessing is of receiving an inheritance, as
in Josh. 14:13 AV: “And Joshua blessed him, and gave unto Caleb… Hebron
for an inheritance”. "A south land" presumably refers to Debir, which was
apparently without a good water supply. Debir is on a hill, and there is a
valley at the foot of the hill with springs. The territory had presumably
been conquered by Caleb and was his own- but he gave away what he had
conquered.
Inheritance was passed to the sons, not daughters. We see this from how the case of Zelophehad was considered (Num. 27:1-11); and we note how Abraham gave some inheritance to his less favoured sons, Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. Caleb had 15 sons: three sons by his first wife Azubah (1 Chron. 2:18), one by his wife Ephrath (1 Chron. 2:18), one by Achsah's mother, seven more by his concubines Ephah and Maacah (1 Chron. 2:49), and three more by an unnamed wife (1 Chron. 4:15). And yet some of the inheritance they were due was asked for by their sister Achsah, and Caleb agreed and gave it to her. It seems that Othniel's capture of Kiriath Sepher was accepted as the bride-price; the field in the Negev was the dowry [see other translations]; but the springs were a simple gift from Caleb to his daughter. Yet perhaps we can infer that the 'gift' of fertile springs meant that Othniel had to drive out whoever was living there. We enquire why we have this incident of Caleb, Othniel and Achsah at this point. Especially as it is a repeat of what we read earlier in Josh. 15:15-19. Caleb was a Kenizzite (Num. 32:12; Josh. 14:6,14), and :13 stresses "Othniel the son of Kenaz"; they were only adopted into the tribe of Judah. The bravery, ambition and zeal of his family to possess Canaanite territory is perhaps inserted as a contrast to how the rest of the chapter states or implies that the pure blooded Israelites were fearful, nervous and ineffective in possessing the land. We could perhaps read :11 as meaning that Judah 'went against' Kiriath Sepher but didn't conquer it- it was Caleb's family who did ["Judah... went against the inhabitants of... Kiriath Sepher. Caleb said, He who strikes Kiriath Sepher and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as wife"]. LXX says that Caleb "gave her according to her heart". With all her heart she wanted that land, despite the fact she had 15 brothers who had claim to it theoretically- but she received it.
Jdg 1:16 The descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out
of the city of palm trees with the men of Judah into the wilderness of
Judah, which is in the south of Arad, and they went and lived with those
people-
This note may be inserted at this point to support the idea that
Caleb was also a Kenite / Kenizzite. See on :13. "These people" may refer
to the people of Caleb, which would make sense if Caleb was ethnically
related to them. LXX "with the people of Amalek" would corroborate with
the connection between the Amalekites and Kenizzites made in 1 Sam. 15:6;
Num. 24:20-22.
Jdg 1:17 Judah went with Simeon his brother and they attacked the
Canaanites who inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed the town. The name
of the town was Hormah-
Hormah ["devoted"] was the Canaanite Zephath ["watchtower"]. The
strength of the Canaanites was devoted to Yahweh, and they were supportive
of David when on the run from Saul (1 Sam. 30:30). What was taken from the
world was devoted to Yahweh by the faithful Israelites involved in this
area. And that is an abiding principle.
Jdg 1:18 Also Judah took Gaza with its border and Ashkelon with its border
and Ekron with its border-
LXX says the opposite, "and Judah did not dispossess...". But that is
perhaps an attempt to reconcile this statement with the reality that these
Philistine areas remained in Philistine hands (Jud. 3:3; Josh.
13:2,3). But Jud. 1:18
says that "Judah took Gaza with its border and Ashkelon with its border
and Ekron with its border". I suggest the answer is that their victory was
like those of Joshua- not followed up on. And like the victory over
Jerusalem recorded in Jud. 1:8, soon after which the Jebusites were soon
again entrenched in Jerusalem (Jud. 1:21). They failed to possess the
Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the
rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here,
winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing
the Kingdom.
Jdg 1:19 Yahweh was with Judah and drove out the inhabitants of the hill
country, for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because
they had chariots of iron-
"The valley" likely refers not to 'valleys' but to the flat coastland area where the Philistines settled. This is confirmed by Josh. 13:2 listing "All the regions of the Philistines" as still remaining to be possessed. The wording is very gracious, suggesting Yahweh was with Judah in their campaigns in the hill country, but not in the "valley". He was of course equally with them in "the valley" and it was only their lack of faith that stopped their conquest. He was not in reality "with Judah" there because although He was potentially, they chose not to realize that in practice. Likewise Emmanuel, "God with us", all men... but most choose not to experience this, and so God is disallowed by them from being "with" them.
The inhabitants of the valley had been defeated by Joshua. But Judah would
not 'drive them out'. "Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the
Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by
Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This
is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking
possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to
us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The
allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom
was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of
Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take
possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take
possession of all the land (Josh.
11:23 13:1; 16:10; 18:3; 23:4). The language of inheritance / possession
is applied to us in the New Testament (Eph. 1:11,14; Col. 3:24; Acts
20:32; 26:18; 1 Pet. 1:4 etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess
it" (Dt. 30:5; 33:23). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for
sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were
constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to
possessing the land (Dt. 30:16,18; 31:3,13; 32:47), but when they got
there they didn't possess it fully.
Jdg 1:20 They gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had promised, and he drove
out from there the three sons of Anak-
As discussed on :10, it was Caleb who had taken Hebron. But then
Judah made out that they were so righteously granting it to him, as if
they had won the victory. It was in any case given to Caleb by God through
Moses and Joshua, not by them. And Hebron was a
priestly city, so Caleb gave it away anyway.
Jdg 1:21 The children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who
inhabited Jerusalem, but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin
in Jerusalem to this day-
Josh. 15:63 says that "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, the children of Judah couldn’t drive them out; but the
Jebusites live with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day".
We noted on :2 that Judah was given the potential to drive out the
inhabitants of the entire land, including Jerusalem. They failed to do
this and so Benjamin also failed to. Although "did not drive out" doesn't
sound as if they failed in battle; they simply didn't attempt it, because
they were satisficers, content with what they had and not seeing their
much greater call and potential. Joshua had earlier defeated "Adoni-Zedek
king of Jerusalem" (Josh. 10:1), but this victory wasn't followed up
permanently; for Judah did take Jerusalem in :8 but lost it soon
afterwards. Just as the Lord Jesus has taken Jerusalem for us...
It seems that as Jerusalem was on the border between Judah and Benjamin, they both had the opportunity to possess Jerusalem, but both chose not to. See on :19. As explained on :8, Judah defeated the king of Jerusalem. But they failed to possess his territory. They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom.
Jdg 1:22 The house of Joseph went up against Bethel, and Yahweh was with
them-
Bethel is about 2 km. away from the site of Ai, which had been totally destroyed by Joshua. There is archaeological evidence that Bethel was built up soon after the entry of Israel to Canaan under Joshua. Clearly the great victories of Joshua weren't followed up on, and some community of Canaanites associated with Ai had established or re-established themselves down the road at Ai. Yet Yahweh was eager to still support them at this later stage in trying to follow up on the Ai victory, for "Yahweh was with them" in attacking Bethel. This is the persistent theme- that Joshua's victories were not followed up on. For in any conquest, even a won battle must be followed up on. All this points to our failure to follow up on the Lord's total victory against sin in every form.
This term "house of Joseph" presumably refers to Ephraim and eastern Manasseh, but the term is used to describe a Benjamite in 2 Sam. 19:16,20. God's intention was that each family within each tribe had a specific inheritance, from which they drove out the local inhabitants and lived there with His blessing. But it seems that contrary to this intention, they often moved to other tribes, ever seeking for a better deal some place other than that which God intended for them.
"Yahweh was with them" is LXX "And Judah was with them", reflecting the one Hebrew letter difference between the two words Yahweh and Judah in the original. In this case, we would have some evidence that some in Judah saw the potential of :2, that all the land, for all the tribes, had been given into the possibility of Judah to conquer for them.
Jdg 1:23 The house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel. The name of the city
before was Luz-
Although Luz was called Bethel (Gen. 35:6; Jud. 1:23), Josh. 16:2
implies a difference between them. Perhaps Luz was the city, and "Bethel"
refers specifically to the altar of Jacob there. But Keil suggests Bethel
refers to the "southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which
the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood
upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Josh. 18:22)".
Jdg 1:24 The spies saw a man come out of the city and they said to him,
Please show us the entrance into the city and we will deal kindly with
you-
They were perhaps seeking to emulate Joshua's victory over Jericho,
and the preservation of Rahab (Josh. 6:23). The word translated “keep” in
Ex. 23:20 is that translated “spies” here. The spies were the keepers in
the way of Israel, to bring them in to the land. And yet the Angel at the
exodus was their ‘keeper’ to bring them into the land. The spies were
working in harmony with their Angels; and thus they succeeded. Israel’s
guardian Angel was to “keep” them in the way (Ex. 23:20), clearly echoing
how the Angels kept the way to the tree of life in Eden. The same Hebrew
word for “keep” occurs very often in Exodus in the context of Israel being
told to keep God’s commands; but their freewill effort was to be confirmed
by the Angel keeping them in the way of obedience. They were to “keep”
themselves in the way (Dt. 4:9 and many others; s.w. “take heed”,
“observe” etc.), but the Angel would keep them in it. This mutuality is
developed in Ex. 23:21, where having said the Angel will keep them, Israel
are told “Beware of him, and obey his voice”. “Beware” translates the same
Hebrew word as “keep”. The Angel would keep them., but they were to keep
to the Angel. This is an example of how we are intended to have a mutual
relationship with our guardian Angel, leading to Him strengthening us in
the one way.
Jdg 1:25 He showed them the entrance into the city and they put the city
to the sword, but they let the man go and all his family-
The conquests of Joshua were nearly all as a result of the local
inhabitants coming against him. Even the men of Jericho are described as
proactively fighting against Israel (Josh. 24:11). These later conflicts
are a result of not having possessed the land as God intended, and so they
seem to feature Israel now attacking the local peoples. This was it seems
not God's ideal intention; His intention was that those peoples came
against Israel and were therefore defeated.
Jdg 1:26 The man went into the land of the Hittites and built a city and
called it Luz, which is its name to this day-
I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by
Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine
inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the
exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to
inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day"
occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different
points of historical reference (Josh. 4:9; 5:9; 6:25; 7:26; 8:28,29; 9:27;
10:27; 13:13; 14:14; 15:63; 16:10; 22:3; 23:8,9; Jud. 1:26; 6:24; 10:4;
15:19; 18:12). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a
number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For
God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.
Jdg 1:27 Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shean,
Taanach, Dor, Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements; the
Canaanites continued to dwell in that land-
In the list of cities given to the Levites,
"Bileam" meaning 'not of the people', is called Ibleam, Jud. 1:27; 2 Kings
9:27, and in Josh. 21:25, Gath-rimmon. Perhaps it is called "Bileam" in 1
Chron. 6:70 because it continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may
have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities
to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the
foundation principle of 2 Sam. 24:24.
Dor was in Asher (Josh. 11:1,2; 12:23; 17:11; Jud. 1:27,28). Taanach was within either Issachar or Asher (Josh. 17:11,12,25; Jud. 5:19). But these towns were also given to Ephraim (1 Chron. 7:29). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.
Jdg 1:28 When Israel had grown strong they put the Canaanites to forced
labour and did not utterly drive them out-
For "forced labour", see on :30. For "drive out", see on
:19. To 'grow strong' can be a technical term for having military
superiority (s.w. 1 Kings 20:22; 2 Chron. 17:1; 21:4).
Jdg 1:29 Ephraim didn’t drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer, but
the Canaanites lived in Gezer among them-
Living together meant that there was a reconciliation of cultures
between them. If the Israelites had been truly devoted to Yahweh's ways in
practice, such reconciliation would not have been practicable; or we would
be reading that the Canaanites accepted Yahweh. But the opposite happened.
Jdg 1:30 Zebulun didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Kitron or Nahalol,
but the Canaanites lived among them and became subject to forced labour-
One reason why Israel failed to drive out the
tribes, and thereby lost the Kingdom, was simply because they wanted to
take tribute from them (Josh. 17:13). Ez. 7:19 defines “silver and gold”
as Israel’s stumblingblock- moreso than idols. They just so loved wealth.
The men of Bethshemesh looked into the ark to see if there were any more
jewels left in it (1 Sam. 6:19 cp. 6,15); they trampled upon the supreme
holiness of God in their crazed fascination with wealth.
Jdg 1:31 Asher didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab,
Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, or Rehob-
According to the definition of Asher's territory in Josh. 19:24-31,
these were their border towns. Perhaps they settled down to inherit the
territory in the midst of their canton, and just couldn't be bothered to
subjugate the peripheral towns. For "drive out", see on :19.
Jdg 1:32 but the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of
the land, for they did not drive them out-
Living among the Canaanites would imply that Asher were a minority
amongst a majority. The extent of disobedience to the commands to slay the
inhabitants of the land is quite astounding.
Jdg 1:33 Naphtali didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh or Beth
Anath, but he lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land who
became subject to forced labour-
Living among the Canaanites would imply that Naphtali were a minority
amongst a majority. For "forced labour", see on :30. For "drive
out", see on :19. The two towns mentioned here were idol sanctuaries,
'house of the sun god' and 'house of Anath', another Canaanite idol. These
ought to have been destroyed, and not doing so was tantamount to breaking
covenant with Yahweh (Jud. 2:2).
Jdg 1:34 The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the hill country,
for they would not allow them to come down to the valley-
Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the
blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite
nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience (Jud. 3:2 NIV). His
grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet
elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to
Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part
of God's punishment of Israel. He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by
saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (Jud. 2:7).
"The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (Josh. 19:9)
almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when
actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the
tribes living there. Likewise "the border of the children of Dan went out
too little for them" (Josh. 19:47), although actually "the Amorites
forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer
them to come down to the valley" (Jud. 1:34). When Dan fought against
Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in Josh. 19:47 to sound
as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they
had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was
already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments:
"all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of
Israel" (Jud. 18:1).
Jdg 1:35 but the Amorites continued to dwell in Mount Heres, in Aijalon
and in Shaalbim. Yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that
they became subject to forced labour-
For "forced labour", see on :30. Mount Heres is ‘mount of
the sun,’ probably the same as Ir-shemesh, ‘city of the sun’, in Josh.
19:41. As noted on :33, these pagan sanctuaries ought to have been
destroyed.
Jdg 1:36 The border of the Amorites was from the ascent of Akrabbim, from
the rock and upward-
"The rock" may be that at Kadesh of Num. 20:8, or Petra / Sela ["the
rock", Obadiah 3]. The point is that the local population drew a boundary
line in the area which was supposed to be Israel's, and defended and
enforced it. This was how weak Israel were from the beginning.
Previous Chapter
