Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

Bible History Old

Testament Vol.3

Ellen G. White Estate, Inc.

Information about this Book

Overview

This eBook is provided by the Ellen G. White Estate. It is included

in the larger free Online Books collection on the Ellen G. White

Estate Web site.

About the Author

Ellen G. White (1827-1915) is considered the most widely translated

American author, her works having been published in more than 160

languages. She wrote more than 100,000 pages on a wide variety of

spiritual and practical topics. Guided by the Holy Spirit, she exalted

Jesus and pointed to the Scriptures as the basis of one’s faith.

Further Links

A Brief Biography of Ellen G. White

About the Ellen G. White Estate

End User License Agreement

The viewing, printing or downloading of this book grants you only

a limited, nonexclusive and nontransferable license for use solely

by you for your own personal use. This license does not permit

republication, distribution, assignment, sublicense, sale, preparation

of derivative works, or other use. Any unauthorized use of this book

terminates the license granted hereby.

Further Information

For more information about the author, publishers, or how you

can support this service, please contact the Ellen G. White Estate

at [email protected]g. We are thankful for your interest and

feedback and wish you God’s blessing as you read.

Contents

Information about this Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Israel in Canaan Under Joshua and the Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

First “Parable” of Balaam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx

The Second “Parable” of Balaam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii

The Third “Parable” of Balaam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxviii

Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxvi

Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xl

Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xlvii

Chapter 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lii

Chapter 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lvii

Chapter 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lxv

Chapter 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lxxiii

Chapter 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lxxx

Chapter 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lxxxix

Chapter 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xcvii

Chapter 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cv

Chapter 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cx

Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cxv

Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cxvii

Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cxviii

Chapter 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cxx

Chapter 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cxxxi

Chapter 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cxl

Chapter 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cl

Chapter 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . clix

Chapter 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . clxiii

Israel in Canaan Under Joshua and the Judges

iii

PREFACE

THE history of Israel as a nation may be said to commence

with their entrance into their own land. All previous to this—from

the Paschal night on which—Israel was born as a people to the

overthrow of Sihon and of Og, the last who would have barred

Israel’s way to their home—had been only preparatory. During the

forty yearswanderings the people had, so to speak, been welded

together by the strong hand of Jehovah. But now, when the Lion of

Judah couched by the banks of Jordan, Israel was face to face with

its grand mission, and the grand task of its national life commenced:

to dispossess heathenism, and to plant in its stead the kingdom of

God (Psalm 80:8-11), which was destined to strike root and to grow,

till, in the fullness of time, it would extend to all nations of the world.

Accordingly, when the camp of Israel was pitched at Shittim,

a new period commenced. Its history records, ﬁrst, certain events

which had to take place immediately before entering the Land of

Promise; next, the conquest, and then the apportionment of the land

among the tribes of Israel; and, lastly, in the time of the Judges, side

by side, the unfolding of Israel’s religious and national condition,

and the assertion of those fundamental principles which underlay its

very existence as a God-called people. These principles are:—The

special relationship of Israel—as the people of God towards Jehovah,

and Jehovah’s special dealings towards them as their King.

The history of the wilderness period had, indeed, been shaped

by this twofold relationship, but its consequences appeared more

clearly under Joshua, and most fully in the time of the Judges. When

not only Moses, but Joshua, and even the elders who had been his

Comp. such a Missionary Psalm as the 87th; also such passages as Psalm 96:9;

Isaiah 44:5.

Some modern negative critics have even broached the theory - of course, wholly

unfounded - that originally the Book of Joshua had formed with the ﬁve books of Moses

Hexateuch.

PREFACE v

contemporaries had passed away, the people, now settled in the land,

were left free to develop those tendencies which had all along existed.

Then ensued that alternation of national apostasy and judgment, and

of penitent return to God and deliverance, which constitutes, so to

speak, the framework on which the Book of Judges is constructed.

This part of Israel’s history attained alike its highest and its lowest

[4]

point in Samson, with whom the period of the Judges appropriately

closes. For, the administration of Samuel forms only the transition

to, and preparation for the establishment of royalty in Israel. But the

spiritual import of the whole history of that period is summed up in

these words of Holy Scripture (Psalm 44:2-4):

“Thou didst drive out the heathen with Thy hand,

and plantedst them: Thou didst afﬂict the people, and

cast them out. For they got not the land in possession by

their own sword, neither did their own arm save them,

but Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy

countenance, because Thou hadst a favor unto them.

Thou art my King, O God: command deliverances for

Jacob.”

The Books of Joshua and of the Judges form the two ﬁrst por-

tions of what in the Hebrew Canon are designated as the “Former

Prophets.”

This, not because their narratives are largely connected

with the rise and activity of the prophets, nor yet because their au-

thors were prophets, but rather because the character and contents

of these books are prophetic.

They give the history of Israel from the prophet’s point of view—

not a succinct and successive chronicle of the nation, but a history of

the Kingdom of God in Israel. This also explains its peculiarities of

form and style. For, neither are the Judges, for example, mentioned

in the order of their succession, nor must it be supposed that they

ruled over all the tribes of Israel—. Similarly, there are evidently

large blanks left in the history of the times, and while some events or

reigns of considerable duration are only cursorily mentioned, very

detailed and circumstantial narratives are given of persons and oc-

currences, which only occupied the scene for a comparatively short

The others are the Books of Samuel and of the Kings.

vi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

period. But as, from the frequent references to authorities, and from

their evident knowledge of details, the writers of these books must

have had at command ample material for a full history, we conclude

that the selection, Divinely guided, was made in accordance with

the “Spirit of Prophecy,” to mark the progress of the Kingdom of

God in connection with Israel.

From what has been said it will be readily understood, that the

history traced in this volume offers peculiar difﬁculties—from its

briefness, its abruptness, its rapid transitions, the unusual character

of its incidents, and its sudden and marked Divine interpositions.

[5]

These difﬁculties are not so much exegetical or critical—although

such are certainly not wanting—but rather concern the substance

of the narratives themselves, and touch the very essence of Holy

Scripture. For myself, I am free to confess that I entered on my

present undertaking, I shall not say with apprehension but with great

personal difﬁdence. I knew, indeed, that what appears a difﬁculty

might ﬁnd its full and satisfactory solution, even though I were

not able to indicate it, and that a narrative might have its Divine

meaning and spiritual purpose, even though I should fail to point

it out. Yet I imagine that most readers of the Books of Joshua and

Judges will in some measure understand and sympathize with my

feelings. All the more is it now alike duty and privilege, at the close

of these investigations, to express it joyously and thankfully, that

the more fully these narratives are studied, the more luminous will

they become; the more will their Divine meaning appear; and the

more will they carry to the mind conviction of their truthfulness,

and to the heart lessons of their spiritual import. Perhaps I may be

allowed in illustration of these statements to point to my study of

the characters of Balaam and Joshua, and of the histories of Gideon,

of Jephthah, and especially of Samson.

From this circumstance, and faithful to the plan, which I pro-

posed to myself in this series, of gradually leading a reader onwards,

the sacred narrative has received in this volume more full treat-

ment—the discussion of such textual questions as fell within its

scope, being, however, chieﬂy thrown into the footnotes. Many

questions, indeed, on which I could have earnestly wished to enter,

lay quite outside the purport of the present series, and had therefore

reluctantly to be left aside. These concern chieﬂy the antiquity and

PREFACE vii

the authenticity of these books of Holy Scripture. I venture to think,

that a great deal yet remains to be said on these points—the chief

defect of former treatises lying, in my opinion, in this, that they

rather busy themselves with refuting the arguments of opponents,

than bring forward what I would call the positive evidence. That

such positive evidence abundantly exists, a somewhat careful study

has increasingly convinced me. I am not ashamed to own my belief

that, notwithstanding conﬁdent assertions of writers on the opposite

[6]

side, we may trustfully and contentedly walk in “the old paths;” and

the present volume is intended as a reverent contribution, however

inadequate, towards the better understanding of what, I verily be-

lieve, “holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Spirit,”

and that, “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in

righteousness.”

Alfred Edersheim

Loders Vicarage, Bridport

February 23, 1877

Chapter 1[7]

Israel about to take Possession of the Land of Promise—Decisive

Contest Showing the Real Character of Heathenism—Character

and History of Balaam

(Numbers 22)

THE wilderness-life and the early contests of Israel were over.

Israel stood on the threshold of the promised possession, separated

from it only by the waters of Jordan. But, before crossing that

boundary line, it was absolutely necessary that the people should,

once and for all, gain full knowledge of the real character of hea-

thenism in its relation to the kingdom of God. Israel must learn

that the heathen nations were not only hostile political powers, op-

posing their progress, but that heathenism itself was in its nature

antagonistic to the kingdom of God. The two were incompatible,

and therefore no alliance could ever be formed with heathenism, no

intercourse cultivated, nor even its presence tolerated. This was the

lesson which, on the eve of entering Palestine, Israel was to learn

by painful experience in connection with the history of Balaam.

Its importance at that particular period will readily be understood.

Again and again was the same lesson taught throughout the history

of Israel, as each alliance or even contact with the kingdoms of this

world brought fresh sorrow and trouble. Nor is its application to the

Church of God, so far as concerns the danger of commixture with,

and conformity to the world, less obvious. And so the history of

Balak and of Balaam has, besides its direct lessons, a deep meaning

for all times.

With the decisive victories over Sihon and over Og, all who

could have barred access to the Land of Promise had been either

left behind, or else scattered and defeated. And now the camp of

Israel had moved forward, in the language of Scripture, to “the

other side of Jordan from Jericho.”

Their tents were pitched in rich

Or, “across the Jordan of Jericho,” i.e., that part of the Jordan which watered Jericho.

viii

Chapter 1 ix

meadow-land, watered by many streams, which rush down from

the neighboring mountains—Arboth, or lowlands of Moab, as the

country on this and that side the river was still called, after its more

ancient inhabitants.

As the vast camp lay scattered over a width of several miles,

from Abel Shittim, “the meadow of the acacias,” in the north, to

[8]

Beth Jeshimoth, “the house of desolations,” on the edge of the desert,

close to the Dead Sea, in the south (Numbers 33:49), it might have

seemed as if the lion of Judah were couching ready for his spring

on the prey. But was he the lion of Judah, and were the promises of

God to him indeed “yea and amen?” A ﬁercer assault, and one in

which heathenism would wield other arms than those which had so

lately been broken in their hands, would soon decide that question.

We can perceive many reasons why Moab, though apparently not

immediately threatened, should, at that special moment, have come

forward as the champion and representative of heathenism (Numbers

22:1-3). True, Israel had left their land untouched, restrained by

express Divine command from invading it (Deuteronomy 2:9). But

their close neighborhood was dangerous. Besides, had not all that

land north of the Arnon, which Israel had just wrested from the

Amorites, been till lately Moabitish -the very name of Moab still

lingering on mountain-plateau and lowland plains; and might not

Moab again have what once it held? But there was far more involved

than either fear or cupidity suggested. The existence alike of heathen

nations and of heathenism itself depended on the issue. There can

be no doubt that the prophetic anticipation of the song of Moses

(Exodus 15:14-16) had already in great part been fulﬁlled. “The

nations” had “heard” of God’s marvelous doings for Israel’, and were

afraid; “the mighty men of Moab, trembling” had taken “hold upon

them.” Among the wandering tribes of the east, tidings, especially

of this kind, travel fast. Jethro had heard them long before (Exodus

18:1), and the testimony of Rahab (Joshua 2:9) shows how fear and

dread had fallen upon the inhabitants of the land. Force of arms had

been tried against them. The Amorites, who had been able to wrest

from Moab all the land north of the Arnon, had boldly marched

The name Arboth still survives in the Arabah, which stretches from a little farther

south to the Elanitic Gulf of the Red Sea.

x Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

against Israel under the leadership of Sihon their king, and been not

only defeated but almost exterminated. A similar fate had befallen

the brave king of Bashanand his people. There could be no question

that so far Jehovah, the God of Israel, had proved true to His word,

and stronger than the gods of the nations who had been subdued.

Farther progress, then, in the same direction might prove fatal alike

to their national existence, their national deities, and their national

religion.

In trying to realize the views and feelings of heathenism under

[9]

such circumstances, we must beware of transporting into them our

modern ideas. In our days the question is as to the acknowledg-

ment or else the denial of Jehovah God. In those days it turned

upon the acknowledgment or the opposite of Jehovah as the only

true and living God, as this is expressed in the ﬁrst commandment.

Heathenism would never have thought of denying the existence or

power of Jehovah as the national God of the Hebrews (see, for ex-

ample, 1 Kings 20:23; 2 Kings 18:25, 33-35). What it controverted

was, that Jehovah was the only God—all others being merely idols,

the work of men’s hands. Prepared as they were to acknowledge

Jehovah as the national Deity of the Hebrews, the question before

them would be, whether He or their gods were the more powerful.

It was a point of the deepest interest to them, since, if anything were

known of Jehovah, it would be this, that He was “a jealous God,”

and that the rites by which He was worshipped were so different

from theirs, as to involve an entire change, not only of religion,

but of popular habits and manners. From what has been stated, it

will be understood why, in attempting to break the power of Israel,

whose God had hitherto—whether from accident, fate, or inherent

power—proved Himself superior to those of the nations, the king of

Moab had, in the ﬁrst place, recourse to “divination,” and why he

was so specially anxious to secure the services of Balaam.

Balaam, or rather Bileam, the son of Beor,

belonged apparently

to a family of magicians who resided at Pethor, possibly, as has

been suggested, a city of professional soothsayers or students of that

craft, but certainly situated in “Aram” or Mesopotamia, and on the

By a peculiar Aramaic interchange of letters, St. Peter writes the name Bosor: 2

Peter 2:15.

Chapter 1 xi

banks of the Euphrates (Numbers 22:5; 23:7; Deuteronomy 23:4).

His name, which means “devourer,” or “swallower up,” and that of

his father, which means “burner up,” or “destroyer”—whether given

them at birth, or, as is so common in the East, from their supposed

characteristics—indicate alike the claims which they put forth and

the estimate in which they were popularly held.

If, as has been

conjectured,

Balak, the king of Moab, was of Midianitish origin (his father having

[10]

been a Midianitish usurper), it becomes all the more intelligible that

in his peculiar circumstances he would apply for advice and help

to the Midianites; that he would ally himself with them; and that

through them he would come to know of, and along with them send

for, Balaam (Numbers 22:4, 7, etc.).

At any rate, those Midianite wanderers of the desert which

stretched between Mesopotamia and the dominions of Moab would,

like modern Bedawin under similar circumstances, not only know

of the existence of a celebrated magician like Balaam, but probably

greatly exaggerate his power. Moreover, being themselves unable to

attack Israel, they would nevertheless gladly make common cause

with Moab, and that, although for the present their territory was not

directly threatened, any more than that of the Moabites. This ex-

plains the alliance of Moab and Midian and their common embassy

to Balaam.

The object in view was twofold. As already explained, the

success of Israel as against the nations, or rather that of Israel’s God

against their deities, might, in their opinion, arise from one of two

causes. Either their own national deities—Chemosh and Baal—had

not been sufﬁciently propitiated—sufﬁcient inﬂuence or power had

not been brought to bear upon them; or else Jehovah was really

stronger than they. In either case Balaam would bring invaluable,

and, if he only chose to exert it, sure help. For, according to heathen

views, a magician had absolute and irresistible power with the gods;

power was inherent in him or in the incantations which he used. And

It is of curious interest, that precisely the same names occur in the royal Edomitish

family: Genesis 36:32.

By Bishop Harold Browne, from the analogy of his father’s name to that of later

Midianite chiefs - the name Zippor, “bird,” reminding us of Oreb, “crow,” and Zeeb,

“wolf.” The later Targumim also regard Balak as of Midianitish origin.

xii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

herein lay one of the fundamental differences between heathenism

and the Old Testament, between magic and miracles. In the former

it was all of man, in the latter it was shown to be all of God. No

prophet of the Lord ever had or claimed power, like the magicians;

but in every case the gracious inﬂuence was specially, and for that

time, transmitted directly from God. Only the God-Man had power

in Himself, so that His every contact brought health and life. And in

the Christian dispensation also, however much of the supernatural

there maybe experienced and witnessed, nothing is magical; there

[11]

is no mere exercise of power or of authority; but all is conveyed to

us through the free promises of God, and in the dispensation of His

grace.

But to return. Supposing that Jehovah were really superior to

Chemosh and Baal, the king of Moab and his associates would none

the less desire the aid of Balaam. For it was a further principle of

heathenism, that national deities might be induced to transfer their

blessing and protection from one nation to another. Thus the ancient

Romans were wont, when laying siege to a foreign city, solemnly

to invite its special gods to come out to them and join their side,

promising them in return not only equal but higher honors than

they had hitherto enjoyed. And if something of this kind were now

needful—if inﬂuence was to be exerted on the God of the Israelites,

who was so capable of it as Balaam, both from his profession as a

dealer with the gods, and from his special qualiﬁcations? And this

leads up to the principal personage in this history, to his character,

and to the question of his religion.

See the proof passages in Kurtz’ History of the Old Covenant, vol. 3 p. 399; and the

very interesting discussion on the subject by Dollinger, in his splendid work, Heidenthum

u. Judenthum. 155

As this is not the place for theological or critical discussion, I will only remark, that

I cannot accept either of the opposing views of Balaam’s character - that he was a true

prophet of Jehovah, or that he was simply “a prophet of the devil,” “who was compelled

by God, against his will, to bless.” But as little do I profess myself able to receive, or

even properly to understand, the view of recent critics (Hengsterberg, Kurtz, Keil, Bishop

Harold Browne, etc.), that Balaam “was in a transition state from one to the other,” that

“he knew and confessed Jehovah, sought and found him;” but that, “on the other hand, he

was not sufﬁciently advanced in the knowledge and service of Jehovah to throw overboard

every kind of heathen augury.” I have, therefore, subjected the whole question to fresh

investigation, the results of which are given in the text.

Chapter 1 xiii

What has been said of the knowledge which the king of Moab

must have possessed of Jehovah’s dealings in reference to Israel

(Exodus 15:14-16) applies, of course, with much greater force to

Balaam himself. As a professional magician, belonging to a fam-

[12]

ily of magicians, and residing at one of their chief seats, it was

alike his duty and his interest to acquaint himself with such matters.

Moreover, we ought not to forget that, in the place of his residence,

traditions of Abraham would linger with that Eastern local tenacity

which we have already had so frequent occasion to notice. Indeed,

we have positive evidence that Balaam’s inquiries had gone back

far beyond the recent dealings of Jehovah to His original covenant-

relationship towards His people. A comparison of the promise of

God to Abraham in Genesis 13:16 with the mode of expression

used by Balaam in Numbers 23:10; still more—the correspondence

between Genesis 49:9 and Numbers 23:24, 249 in his description of

Judah; but most of all, the virtual repetition of the prophecy Genesis

49:10 in Numbers 24:17, prove beyond doubt that Balaam had made

himself fully acquainted with the promises of Jehovah to Israel. That

a professional soothsayer like Balaam should have been quite ready,

upon a review of their whole history, to acknowledge Jehovah as

the national God of Israel, and to enter—if the expression may be

allowed—into professional relationship with such a powerful Deity,

seems only natural in the circumstances. This explains his conduct

in speaking to and of Jehovah, and apparently owning Him. But in

all this Balaam did not advance a step beyond the mere heathen point

of view, any more than Simon Magus when, “beholding the miracles

and signs which were done,” “he was baptized;” (Acts 8:13) nor did

his conduct bring him nearer to the true service of Jehovah than were

those seven sons of Sceva to that of Christ, when they endeavored

to cast out evil spirits in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:13,

14). In fact, Scripture designates him uniformly by the word Kosem,

which is the distinctive term for heathen soothsayers in opposition to

prophets of the Lord. And with this his whole conduct agrees. Had

he possessed even the most elementary knowledge of Jehovah as the

only true and living God, or the most rudimentary understanding of

His covenant-purposes, he could not, considering his acquaintance

with previous prophecy, have for a moment entertained the idea of

allying himself with Balak against Israel. On the other hand, if,

xiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

according to his view of the matter, he could have succeeded in

making the God of Israel, so to speak, one of his patron-deities, and

[13]

if, upon his own terms, he could have become one of His prophets;

still more, if he could have gained such inﬂuence with Him as to

turn Him from His purpose regarding Israel, then would he have

reached the goal of his ambition, and become by far the most power-

ful magician in the world. Thus, in our opinion, from the time when

we ﬁrst meet him, standing where the two roads part, to the bitter

end of his treachery, when, receiving the reward of Judas, he was

swept away in the destruction of Midian, his conduct was throughout

consistently heathen, and his progress rapid in the downward course.

Where the two roads part! In every great crisis of history, and,

we feel persuaded, in the great crisis of every individual life, there is

such a meeting and parting of the two ways—to life or to destruction.

It was so in the case of Pharaoh, when Moses ﬁrst brought him

the summons of the Lord to let His people go free, proving his

authority by indubitable signs. And Balaam stood at the meeting

and parting of the two ways that night when the ambassadors of

Balak and the elders of Midian were for the ﬁrst time under his roof.

That embassy was the crisis in his history. He had advanced to the

knowledge that Jehovah, the God of Israel, was God. The question

now came: Would he recognize Him as the only true and living

God, with Whom no such relationship could exist as those which

heathenism supposed; towards Whom every relationship must be

moral and spiritual, not magical—one of heart and of life service,

not of inﬂuence and power? To use New Testament language, in his

general acknowledgment of Jehovah, Balaam had advanced to the

position described in the words: “he that is not against us is for us”

(Luke 9:50). But this is only, as it were, the meeting and parting of

the two roads. The next question which comes is far deeper, and

decisive, so far as each individual is concerned. It refers to our

relationship to the Person of Christ. And in regard to this we read:

“He that is not with Me is against Me” (Matthew 12:30).

As always in such circumstances, God’s great mercy and inﬁnite

patience and condescension were not wanting to help Balaam in the

crisis of his life. There could, at least, be no doubt on two points.

Balak’s avowed wish had been, by the help of Balaam, to “smite”

Israel and “drive them out of the land” (Numbers 22:6); and his

Chapter 1 xv

expressed conviction, “he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he

[14]

whom thou cursest is cursed.” Now, not to speak of the implied

magical power thus attributed to him, Balaam must have known that

Balak’s intention ran directly counter to Jehovah’s purpose, while

the words, in which the power of blessing and cursing was ascribed

to Balaam, were not only a transference to man of what belonged to

God alone, but must have been known to Balaam as the very words

in which Jehovah had originally bestowed the blessing on Abraham:

“I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that

curseth thee” (Genesis 12:3).

That Balaam so knew these words appears from his own quota-

tion of them in Numbers 24:9. The proposal of Balak therefore ran

directly counter to the fundamental purpose of God, as Balaam knew

it—and yet he could hesitate even for a single moment! But this is

not all. In His inﬁnite long-suffering, not willing that any should

perish, God even now condescended to Balaam. He had proposed

to the ambassadors of Balak that they should “lodge” with him that

night, and that on the morrow he would make his reply, as Jehovah

would speak unto him. And Jehovah did condescend to meet Balaam

in his own way, and that night fully communicated to him His will.

The garbled and misrepresenting account of it, which Balaam in the

morning gave to his guests, ﬁnally marked his choice and decided

his fate.

But why did Jehovah God appear to, or deal with such an one as

Balaam? Questions like these ought, with our limited knowledge of

God’s purposes, not always to be entertained. In the present instance,

however, we can suggest at least some answer. Of God’s purpose, so

far as Balaam’s personal condition was concerned, we have already

spoken. But a wider issue was here to be tried. Balak had sent

for Balaam in order through his magic to destroy Israel, or rather

to arrest and turn aside the wonder-working power of Jehovah. It

was, therefore, really a contest between heathenism and Israelas the

people of God, which would exhibit and decide the real relationship

between Israeland the heathen world, or in other words, between

the Churchof God and the kingdoms of this world. And as formerly

God had raised up Pharaoh to be the instrument of bringing down

xvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

the gods of Egypt, so would He now decide this contest through the

very man whom Balak had chosen as its champion—using him as a

willing instrument, if he yielded, or as an unwilling, if he rebelled,

[15]

but in any case as an efﬁcient instrument for carrying out His own

purposes. It is in this manner that we regard God’s meeting Balaam,

and His speaking both to him and through him.

Three brief but emphatic utterances had God in that ﬁrst night

made to Balaam:

“Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse

the people: for they are blessed” (Numbers 22:12).

Of these Balaam, in his reply to the ambassadors next morning,

had deliberately suppressed the last two (22:13). Yet they were the

most important, as showing the utter hopelessness of the undertak-

ing, and the utter powerlessness of any man to control or inﬂuence

the purpose of God. He thus withheld knowledge of the utmost

importance for understanding alike the character of the true God

and that of His true servants, who simply obey, but do not seek to

control, His will. But even in what he did repeat of God’s message

there was grievous misrepresentation. For this statement, “Jeho-

vah refuses to give me leave to go with you” (22:13), implied an

ungrounded arbitrariness on the part of God; conﬁrmed Balak in

his heathen views; and perhaps encouraged him to hope for better

results under more favorable circumstances. As for Balaam himself,

we may be allowed to infer, that he misunderstood God’s appearance

to, and conversation with him, as implying a sort of league with,

or acknowledgment of him, while all the time he had irrevocably

departed from God, and entered the way of sin and of judgment.

Accordingly, we ﬁnd Balaam thenceforth speaking of Jehovah as

“my God,” and conﬁdently assuming the character of His servant. At

the same time, he secured for himself the presents of Balak, while, in

his reply, he took care not to lose the favor of the king, but rather to

make him all the more anxious to gain his aid, since he was owned

of Jehovah, Who had only refused a leave which on another occasion

He might grant.

It was under these circumstances that a second embassy from

Balak and Midian, more honorable than the ﬁrst, and with almost

Chapter 1 xvii

unlimited promises, came again to ask Balaam “to curse this people”

(ver. 17). The king had well judged. With no spiritual, only a heathen

acknowledgment of Jehovah, covetousness and ambition were the

main actuating motives of Balaam. In the pithy language of the New

Testament (2 Peter 2:15), he “loved the wages of unrighteousness.”

But already his course was sealed. Refusing to yield himself a

[16]

willing, he would now be made the unwilling instrument of exalting

Jehovah. And thus God gave him leave to do that on which he had

set his heart, with this important reservation, however: “But yet the

word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do.” Balaam, whose

blinded self-satisfaction had already appeared in his profession to the

ambassadors, that he could “not go beyond the word of Jehovah his

God,” understood not the terrible judgment upon himself implied in

this “let him alone,” which gave up the false prophet to his own lusts.

He had no doubt been so far honest, although he was grossly and

willfully ignorant of all that concerned Jehovah, when he proposed

to consult God a second time, whether he might curse Israel. And

now it seemed as if God had indeed inclined to him. Balaam was as

near reaching the ideal of a magician, and having “power,” as was

Simon Magus when he offered the apostles money to bestow on him

the power of imparting the Holy Ghost.

It was no doubt on account of this spirit of deluded self-satis-

faction, in which next morning he accompanied the ambassadors

of Balak, that “God’s anger was kindled because he went,”

and

that “the angel of Jehovah stood in the way for an adversary against

him”—signiﬁcantly, the angel of the covenant with a drawn sword,

threatening destruction. The main object of what happened to him

on the journey was, if possible, to arouse Balaam to a sense of his

utter ignorance of, and alienation from Jehovah. And so even “the

dumb ass, speaking with man’s voice, forbad the madness of the

prophet” (2 Peter 2:16).

We know, indeed, that animals are often more sensitive to the

presence or nearness of danger than man—as it were, perceive what

escapes our senses. But in this case the humiliating lesson was, that

while the self-satisﬁed prophet had absolutely seen nothing, his ass

Literally, “because he was going.” Keil rightly points out that the use of the participle

here implies, that God’s anger was kindled by the spirit and disposition in which he was

going, rather than by the fact of his going.

xviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

had perceived the presence of the angel, and, by going out of the

way, or falling down, saved the life of his master; and that, even so,

Balaam still continued blinded, perverse, and misunderstanding, till

God opened the mouth of the dumb animal, so that with man’s voice

[17]

it might forbid the madness of the prophet. To show Balaam himself

as he really was, and the consequences of his conduct; and to do so

in the strongest, that is, in this case, in the most humiliating manner,

such was the object of the apparition of the angel, and of the human

language in which Balaam heard the ass reproving him.

But even this produced no real effect—only an offer on the

part of Balaam to get him back again, if it displeased the angel of

Jehovah (22:34). The proposal was as blundering, and argued as

deep ignorance, as his former readiness to go with the ambassadors.

For the question was not simply one of going or not going, but of

glorifying God, and acknowledging the supremacy of His covenant-

purpose. Balaam might have gone and returned without doing this;

but Jehovah would now do it Himself through Balaam. And already

the elders of Moab and Midian had hurried on along with Balaam’s

own servants, to announce the arrival of the prophet. Presently from

the lonely, terrible interview with the angel was he to pass into the

presence of the representative of that heathenism against which the

drawn sword in the angel’s hand was really stretched out.

This is not the place to enter into critical discussions. The great matter is to

understand the meaning and object of this narrative, in whatever manner the “man’s

voice” may have issued from the “dumb ass,” or the human language have reached the

consciousness of Balaam.

Chapter 2 [18]

The “Prophecies” of Balaam—The End of Balaam—Parallel

between Balaam and Judas

(Numbers 22:36-31:1-20)

THE meeting between the king of Moab and the soothsayer took

place at Ir Moab, the “city” or capital of Moab, close by its northern

boundary.

It commenced with gentle reproaches on the part of

the monarch, which, Eastern-like, covered large promises, to which

the soothsayer replied by repeating his old profession of being only

able to speak the word that God would put in his mouth. There

is no need of assuming hypocrisy on his part; both monarch and

soothsayer acted quite in character and quite consistently. From Ir

Moab they proceeded to Kirjath Huzoth, “the city of streets,” the

later Kiriathaim.

Here, or in the immediate neighborhood, the ﬁrst sacriﬁces were

offered, Balaam as well as “the princes” taking part in the sacriﬁcial

meal. Next morning, Balak took the soothsayer to the lofty heights

of Mount Attarus, to Bamoth Baal “the heights of Baal,” so-called

because that plateau was dedicated to the service of Baal. The

spot, which also bears the names of Baal-meon, Beth Baal-meon,

and Beth-meon, commands a magniﬁcent view. Although “too

far recessed to show the depression of the Dead Sea,” the view

northwards stretches as far as Jerusalem, Gerizim, Tabor, Hermon,

and Mount Gilead.

But, although the eye could sweep so far

over the Land of Promise, he would, from the conformation of

the mountains, only see “the utmost part of the people,” (Numbers

22:41) that is, the outskirts of the camp of Israel.

Canon Tristram identiﬁes this with the old Ar, or Rabbath Moab (Land of Moab, p.

110). But this latter seems too far south for the requirements of the text.

Joshua 13:19; Ezekiel 25:9, etc. See the description of the place, and of the prospect

from it, in Tristram, u.s., pp. 270, 276.

Tristram, p. 304.

xix

xx Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

In accordance with the sacred signiﬁcance which, as Balaam

knew, attached to the number seven in the worship of Jehovah, seven

altars were now built on the heights of Baal, and seven bullocks

and seven rams offered upon them—a bullock and a ram on each

altar. Leaving Balak and the princes of Moab by the altars, Balaam

went forth in the regular heathen manner, in the hope of meeting

Jehovah (Numbers 23:3), which is explained by Numbers 24:1 as

meaning “to seek auguries,” such as heathen soothsayers saw in

certain natural appearances or portents. And there, on the top of “a

[19]

bare height,”

God did meet Balaam, not in auguries, but by putting

“a word in Balaam’s mouth.” As the man shared not in it otherwise

than by being the outward instrument of its communication, this

“word” was to him only “a parable,” and is designated as such in

Scripture. Never before so clearly as in presence of the powers of

heathenism, assembled to contend against Israel, did Jehovah show

forth His almighty power, alike in making use of an instrument

almost passive in His hand, and in disclosing His eternal purpose.

First “Parable” of Balaam

From Aram brought me Balak, The king of Moab from the

mountain of the east—Come, curse me Jacob, And come, threaten

Israel! How shall I curse whom God doth not curse, And how shall I

threaten whom Jehovah threatens not For, from the top of the rocks

I see him, And from the hills I behold him: Lo, a people dwelling

alone, And not reckoning itself among the nations (the Gentiles)!

Who can count the dust of Jacob, And the number of the fourth part

So literally; Numbers 23:3.

The prophecies of Balaam certainly go far beyond the range of the prophetic vision

of that time. Could it be, because Balaam was so entirely passive, as it were transmitting,

without absorbing, any of the rays of light, nor yet mingling them with the coloring in his

own mind.

Of course, we translate literally.

Literally: pronounce wrath.

We have put it so as to include both the present and the future tense.

Chapter 2 xxi

of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous.

And let my

latter end be like his!

Two things will be noted, without entering into special criticism.

First, as to the form of this parable: each thought is embodied

in two sentences, with rapid, almost abrupt, transitions from one

thought to the other. Secondly, the outward and inward separation

of Israel (the former as symbol of the latter) is singled out as the

grand characteristic of God’s people—a primary truth this of the Old

Testament, and, in its spiritual application, of the New Testament

also. But even in its literality it has proved true in the history of

[20]

Israel of old, and still applies to them, showing us that Israel’s

history is not yet ﬁnished; that God has not forgotten His people;

and that a purpose of mercy yet awaits them, in accordance with

His former dealings. Such a people Balaam could not curse. On

the contrary, he could only wish that his death should be like theirs

whom God’s ordinances and institutions kept separate outwardly,

and made righteous inwardly, referring in this, of course, to Israel

not as individuals, but in their totality as the people of God. In the

language of a German critic,

“The pious Israelite could look back

with calm satisfaction, in the hour of his death, upon a life rich

in proofs of the blessing, forgiving, protecting, delivering, saving

mercy of God. With the same calm satisfaction would he look upon

his children, and children’s children, in whom he lived again, and in

whom also he would still take part in the high calling of his nation,

and in the ultimate fulﬁllment of the glorious promise which it had

received from God.... And for himself, the man who died in the

consciousness of possessing the mercy and love of God, knew also

that he would carry them with him as an inalienable possession, a

light in the darkness of Sheol. He knew that he would be ‘gathered

to his fathers’—a thought which must have been a very plenteous

source of consolation, of hope, and of joy.”

Bishop H. Browne prefers the rendering “progeny.” But “the fourth part” seems

to refer to the square arrangement of the camp of Israel, each side of the square being

occupied by three tribes.

In the plural number, referring to Israel.

Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant, vol. 3 p. 432, Engl. Trans.

xxii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

The Second “Parable” of Balaam

It was but natural that Balak should have been equally surprised

and incensed at the words of the soothsayer. The only solution he

could suggest was, that a fuller view of the camp of Israel might

change the disposition of the magician. “Come, I pray thee, with me

unto another place, from whence thou mayest see them (viz., in their

totality); only the end (utmost part) of them seest thou, but the whole

of them thou seest not—and from thence curse me them.”

The

station now selected was on the ﬁeld of the watchers,” on the top of

Pisgah, affording not only a full view of the camp, but of the Land

of Promise itself. Here Moses, not long afterwards, took his farewell

prospect of the goodly heritage which the Lord had assigned to His

people.

The same formalities as before having been gone through, in regard

[21]

to altars and sacriﬁces, Balaam once more returned to Balak with

the following message:

Rise up, Balak, and hear, Hearken to me, son of Zippor! Not

man is God that He should lie, Nor a son of man that He should

repent! Hath He said, and shall He not do it, Hath He spoken, and

shall He not fulﬁll it? Behold, to bless, I have received -And He

hath blessed, and I cannot turn it back! He beholdeth not iniquity in

Jacob, And He looketh not upon distress in Israel: Jehovah his God

is with him, And the king’s jubilee in the midst of him.

God bringeth them out of Egypt -As the unwearied strength of

the buffalo is his.

For, no augury in Jacob, no soothsaying

Israel, According to the time it is said to Jacob and to Israel what

God doeth.

Numbers 23:13. So literally; the critical discussion see in Keil, Bible Commentary

vol. 2 p. 313.

A description of the view from Pisgah is given in a subsequent chapter.

That is, the shout of jubilee on account of the abiding presence of Jehovah as their

King is in the midst of the camp of Israel. This is symbolized by the blast of the trumpets,

which is designated by the same word as that rendered “jubilee.”

Viz., Israel’s.

The same word by which Balaam himself is uniformly designated as “the sooth-

sayer.”

In due time God reveals by His word to Israel His purpose.

Chapter 2 xxiii

Behold, the people, like a lioness it riseth, And like a lion it

raiseth itself up—He shall not lie down, till he has eaten the prey,

And drink the blood of the slain.

The meaning of this second “parable” needs no special expla-

nation. Only it will be noticed, that the progress of thought is suc-

cessively marked by four lines—the last two always expressing the

ground, or showing the foundation of the two ﬁrst. The center

couplet is the most important. It marks forever, that the Covenant-

Presence of God in Israel, or, as we should now express it, that the

grace of God, is the ultimate cause of the forgiveness of sins, and

that the happy realization of Jehovah as the King is the ground of joy.

Whenever and wherever that Presence is wanting only unforgiven

sin is beheld; wherever that shout is not heard only misery is felt.

The Third “Parable” of Balaam

In his despair Balak now proposed to try the issue from yet a third

locality. This time a ridge somewhat farther north was selected—

“the top of Peor that looketh toward Jeshimon.” A third time seven

altars were built and sevenfold sacriﬁces offered. But there was a

[22]

marked difference in the present instance. Balaam went no more

“as at other times to seek for auguries” (Numbers 24:1). Nor did

Jehovah now, as formerly (23:5, 16), “put a word in his mouth.” But

“the Spirit of God came upon him” (24:2), in the same manner as

afterwards upon Saul (1 Samuel 19:23)—he was in the ecstatic state,

powerless and almost unconscious, or, as Balaam himself describes

it, with his outward eyes shut (ver. 3), and “falling,” as if struck

down, while seeing “the vision of the Almighty,” and “having his

(inner) eyes opened” (ver. 4).

Saith Balaam, the son of Beor, And saith the man with closed

eye,

Saith he, hearing the words of God, Beholding the vision of the

Almighty: he beholdeth falling down and with open eyes! How good

are thy tabernacles, Jacob, Thy dwellings, O Israel—Like (watered)

Literally, “the torn,” what he had torn in pieces.

The Targum Onkelos, however, renders, “the man who saw clearly.”

xxiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

valleys they stretch, like gardens by a river, Like aloes Jehovah

planted, like cedars by the waters.

Flow waters from his twin buckets—and his seed by many wa-

ters, Higher than Agag

shall be his king—and his kingdom be

exalted. God brings him from Egypt his the unwearied strength of

the buffalo—He shall eat the nations (Gentiles) his enemies—and

their bones shall he gnaw—and his arrows shall he split.

coucheth, lieth down like a lion and like a lioness—who shall rouse

him? Blessed he that blesseth thee, and cursed he that curseth thee!

We can scarcely wonder that the bitter disappointment of Balak

should now have broken forth in angry reproaches. But Balaam had

not yet ﬁnished his task. Before leaving the king he must deliver

another part of the message, which he had already received from

Jehovah,

but not yet spoken.

“Come, I will advise thee what this people shall do to thy people

[23]

in the latter days” (24:14).

PROPHETIC MESSAGE THROUGH BALAAM IN FOUR

“PARABLES”

First “parable,” descriptive ﬁrst of the “latter days,” and then

referring to Moab, as the representative of heathenism:

Saith Balaam, the son of Beor, and saith the man with closed eye,

Saith he, hearing the words of God, and knowing the knowledge of

the Most High, Beholding the vision of the Almighty: he beholdeth

falling down and with open eyes: I behold Him, but not now—I

descry Him, but not nigh! Cometh

a Star from Jacob, and rises

a Sceptre from Israel, And dasheth the two sides of Moab, and

overthroweth the sons of tumult.

Targum Onkelos: “as rivers ﬂowing onward; as the watered garden by Euphrates

- as aromatic shrubs planted by the Lord; as cedars by the waters.

Agag - literally, “the ﬁery” - was not the name of one special king (1 Samuel 15:8),

but the general designation of the kings of Amalek, as Abimelech that of the kings of

Philistia, and Pharaoh of Egypt.

The rendering of this clause is exceedingly difﬁcult and doubtful. I have taken the

verb in its original meaning, divide, split, as in Judges 5:26, “When she had split and

stricken through his temples.”

This we gather from the addition of the words, “knowing the knowledge of the Most

High” (24:16) besides, “beholding the vision of the Almighty” (ver. 4).

Literally, makes its way.

Among all nations “the star” has been associated with the future glory of great kings.

The application of it to the Messiah is not only constant in Scripture, but was universally

Chapter 2 xxv

And Edom shall be a possession, and a possession shall be Seir

—his enemies

-And Israel is doing mighty things!

And shall

come from Jacob (a ruler) And shall destroy what remaineth out of

the cities.

Second “parable” against Amalek—as the representative of hea-

thenism in its ﬁrst contest against Israel—:

And he beheld Amalek, and he took up his parable,

and said: First of the Gentiles Amalek—and his latter

end even unto destruction.

Third “parable” in favor of the Kenites as the friends and allies

of Israel:

And he beheld the Kenites, and he took up his para-

ble, and said: Durable thy dwelling-place, and placed

on the rock thy nest. For shall Kajin be for destruction,

Until Assbur shall lead thee away?

Fourth “parable” concerning the Assyrian empire, and the king-

doms of this world, or prophecy of “the end,” appropriately begin-

ning with a “woe:”

And he took up his parable, and said:

Woe! who shall live

when God putteth this?

And ships from the side of Chittim—and

afﬂict Asshur, and afﬂict Eber -And he also unto destruction!

This latter may, indeed, be characterized as the most wonderful

[24]

of prophecies. More than a thousand years before the event, not only

the rising of the great world-empire of the West is here predicted,

with its conquest of Asshur and Eber (i.e, of the descendants of

Eber) (Genesis 10:21), but far beyond this the ﬁnal destruction of

acknowledged by the ancient Jews. Both the Targum Onkelos and that of Jonathan apply

it in this manner. “The two sides of Moab,” i.e., from end to end of the land, “The sons of

tumult,” i.e., the rebellious nations.

Edom is the people; Seir the country.

“His enemies,” viz., those of Israel; the language is very abrupt.

Onkelos: “prosper in riches.”

Of course, the Assyrian empire was as yet in the far future, and could not therefore

be “beheld” like Moab, Amalek, and the Kenites.

Who shall be able to abide when God doeth all this?

xxvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

that world-empire is foretold! In fact, we have here a series of

prophecies, commencing with the appearance of the Messiah and

closing with the destruction of Anti-Christ. To this there is no

parallel in Scripture, except in the visions of Daniel. No ingenuity

of hostile criticism can take from, or explain away the import of this

marvelous prediction.

And now the two parted—the king to go to his people, the

soothsayer, as we gather from the sequel, to the tents of Midian.

But we meet Balaam only too soon again. One who had entered on

such a course could not stop short of the terrible end. He had sought

to turn away Jehovah from His people, and failed. He would now

endeavor to turn the people from Jehovah. If he succeeded in this,

the consequences to Israel—would be such as Balak had desired to

obtain. By his advice (Numbers 31:16; Revelation 2:14) the children

of Israel—were seduced into idolatry and all the vile abominations

connected with it.

In the judgment which ensued, not fewer than 4,000 Israelites

perished, till the zeal of Phinehas stayed the plague, when in his

representative capacity he showed that Israel, as a nation, abhorred

idolatry and the sins connected with it, as the greatest crime against

Jehovah. But on “the evil men and seducers” speedy judgment

came. By God’s command the children of Israel were avenged of

the Midianites. In the universal slaughter of Midian, Balaam also

perished. The ﬁgure of Balaam stands out alone in the history of

the Old Testament. The only counterpart to it is that of Judas, the

traitor. Balaam represented the opposition of heathenism; Judas

that of Judaism. Both went some length in following the truth;

Balaam honestly acknowledged the God of Israel, and followed His

directions: Judas owned the Messianic appearance in Jesus, and

joined His disciples. But in the crisis of their inner history, when

that came which, in one form or another, must be to every one the

decisive question—each failed. Both had stood at the meeting and

[25]

parting of the two ways, and both chose that course which rapidly

ended in their destruction. Balaam had expected the service of

Jehovah to be quite other from what he found it; and, trying to

The service of Baal-Peor represents the vilest form of idolatry. Set Furst, Dict. sub

voce.

Chapter 2 xxvii

make it such as he imagined and wished, he not only failed, but

stumbled, fell, and was broken. Judas, also, if we may be allowed

the suggestion, had expected the Messiah to be quite other than

he found Him; disappointment, perhaps failure in the attempt to

induce Him to alter His course, and an increasingly widening gulf

of distance between them, drove him, step by step, to ruin. Even the

besetting sins of Balaam and of Judas covetousness and ambition

are the same. And as, when Balaam failed in turning Jehovah from—

Israel. he sought only too successfully to turn Israel from the Lord;

so when Judas could not turn the Christ from His purpose towards

His people, he also succeeded in turning Israel, as a nation, from

their King. In both instances, also, for a moment a light more bright

than before was cast upon the scene. In the case of Balaam we

have the remarkable prophetic utterances, reaching far beyond the

ordinary range of prophetic vision; at the betrayal of Judas, we

hear the prophetic saying of the High-priest going far beyond the

knowledge of the time, that Jesus should die, not only for His own

people, but for a ruined world. And, lastly, in their terrible end, they

each present to us most solemn warning of the danger of missing

the right answer to the great question—that of absolute and implicit

submission of mind, heart, and life to the revealed Covenant-Will of

God.

Chapter 3[26]

The Second Census of Israel—The “Daughters of

Zelophehad”—Appointment of Moses Successor—Sacriﬁcial

Ordinances—The War Against Midian—Allocation of Territory East

of the Jordan—Levitical and Cities of Refuge

(Numbers 26-36)

BEFORE describing the closing scene of Moseslife, we may here

conveniently group together brief notices of the events intervening

between the judgment of “the plague” on account of Israel’s sin

(Numbers 25) and the last discourses of Moses recorded in the Book

of Deuteronomy.

1. A second census of Israel was taken by Divine direction

(Numbers 26). The arrangements for it were in all probability the

same as those at the ﬁrst census, thirty-eight years before (Numbers

1).

The “plague” had swept away any who might yet have remained

of the old doomed generation, which had come out of Egypt. At

any rate, none such were now left (Numbers 26:64). This may have

been the reason for taking a new census. But its main object was

in view of the approaching apportionment of the land which Israel

was so soon to possess. Accordingly, the census was not taken as

before (Numbers 1), according to the number of individuals in each

tribe, but according to “families.” This corresponded in the main

with the names of the grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob,

enumerated in Genesis 46. In reference to the future division of the

land, it was arranged that the extent of the “inheritance” allotted to

each tribe should correspond to its numbers (Numbers 26:52-54).

But the exact locality assigned to each was to be determined “by lot”

The results of that census, as compared with the ﬁrst, have been stated in a previous

volume.

The reason of any divergences has been explained in the ﬁrst volume of this series

(History of the Patriarchs).

xxviii

Chapter 3 xxix

(vers. 55, 56), so that each tribe might feel that it had received its

“possession” directly from the Lord Himself.

The proposed division of the land brought up a special question

of considerable importance to Israel. It appears that one Zelophehad,

of the tribe of Manasseh, and of the family of Gilead, had died—

not in any special judgment, but along with the generation that

perished in the wilderness. Having left no sons, his daughters were

anxious to obtain a “possession,” lest their father’s name should

be “done away from among his family” (Numbers 27). By Divine

direction, which Moses had sought, their request was granted,

and

[27]

it became “a statute of judgment” in Israel—a juridical statute—that

daughters, or in their default—the nearest kinsman, should enter

upon the inheritance of those who died without leaving sons.

In all such cases, of course the children of those who obtained the

possession would have to be incorporated, not with the tribe to which

they originally belonged, but with that in which their “inheritance”

lay. Thus the “name” of a man would not “be done away from among

his family.” Nor was this “statute” recorded merely on account of its

national bearing, but for higher reasons. For this desire to preserve a

name in a family in Israel sprang not merely from feelings natural in

such circumstances, but was connected with the hope of the coming

Messiah. Till He appeared, each family would fain have preserved its

identity. Several instances of such changes from one tribe to another,

through maternal inheritance, are recorded in Scripture (comp. 1

Chronicles 2:34, 35; Numbers 32:41, and Deuteronomy 3:14, 15,

and 1 Chronicles 2:21-23; and notably, even in the case of priests,

Ezra 2:61, 62, and Nehem. 7:63 and 64).

2. God intimated once more to Moses his impending death,

before actual entrance into the Land of Promise (Numbers 27:12-

14). In so doing, mention of the sin which had caused this judgment

was repeated, to show God’s holiness and justice, even in the case

of His most approved servants. On the other hand, this second

reminder also manifested the faithfulness of the Lord, Who would

have his servant, as it were, set his house in order, that he might

To prevent the possibility of the possession of Zelophehad passing, in the year

of Jubilee, away from the tribe to which Zelophehad had belonged, it was determined

(Numbers 36) that his daughters should not marry out of their father’s tribe; and this was

afterwards made a general law.

xxx Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

meet death, not at unawares, but with full consciousness of what

was before him. It is touching to see how meekly Moses received

the sentence. Faithful to the end in his stewardship over God’s

house, his chief concern was, that God would appoint a suitable

successor, so “that the congregation of the Lord be not as sheep

which have no shepherd” (vers. 15-17). To this ofﬁce Joshua, who

had the needful spiritual qualiﬁcations, was now set apart by the

laying on of Moseshands, in presence of Eleazar the priest and of

[28]

the congregation. Yet only part of Moses’” honor”—so much as was

needful to ensure the obedience of Israel—was put upon Joshua,

while his public movements were to be directed by “the judgment

of the Urim” and Thummim. Thus did God not only vindicate the

honor of His servant Moses, but also show that the ofﬁce which

Moses had ﬁlled was, in its nature, unique, being typical of that

committed in all its fullness to the Great Head of the Church.

3. Now that the people were about to take possession of the land,

the sacriﬁcial ordinances were once more enjoined, and with full

details. The daily morning and evening sacriﬁce had already been

previously instituted in connection with the altar of burnt-offering

(Exodus 29:38-42). To this daily consecration of Israel were now

added the special sacriﬁces of the Sabbath—symbolical of a deeper

and more special dedication on God’s own day. The Sabbatic and the

other festive sacriﬁces were always brought in addition to the daily

offering. Again, the commencement of every month was marked

by a special sacriﬁce, with the addition of a sin-offering, while

the blast of the prieststrumpets was intended, as it were, to bring

Israels prayers and services in remembrance before the Lord. If the

beginning of each month was thus signiﬁcantly consecrated, the feast

of unleavened bread (from the 15th to the 21st of Abib), which made

that month the beginning of the year, was marked by the repetition

on each of its seven days of the sacriﬁces which were prescribed for

every “new moon.” The Paschal feast (on the 14th of Abib) had no

general congregational sacriﬁce, but only that of the lamb for the

Paschal supper in each household. Lastly, the sacriﬁces for the feast

of weeks were the same as those for the feast of unleavened bread,

with the addition of the two “wave loaves” and their accompanying

Chapter 3 xxxi

sacriﬁces prescribed in Leviticus 23:7-21.

This concluded the ﬁrst

festive cycle in the year.

The second cycle of feasts took place in the seventh or sacred

[29]

month—seven being the sacred number, and that of the covenant. It

began with new moon’s day when, besides the daily, and the ordi-

nary new moon’s offerings, special festive sacriﬁces were brought

(Numbers 29:1-6). Then on the 10th of that month was the “Day of

Atonement,” while on the 15th commenced the feast of tabernacles,

which lasted seven days, and was followed by an octave. All these

feasts had their appropriate sacriﬁces.

The laws as to sacriﬁces appropriately close with directions

about “vows” (Numbers 30). In all the ordinances connected with

the sacred seasons, the attentive reader will mark the symbolical

signiﬁcance attaching to the number seven—alike in the feasts them-

selves, in their number, their sacriﬁces, and in that of the days

appointed for holy convocation. Indeed, the whole arrangement of

time was ordered on the same principle, ascending from the Sabbath

of days, to the Sabbath of weeks, of months, of years, and ﬁnally to

the Sabbath of Sabbatic years, which was the year of Jubilee. And

thus all time pointed forward and upward to the “Sabbatism,” or

sacred rest, that remaineth for “the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9).

4. All that has hitherto been described occurred before the expe-

dition against Midian, by which Israel was “avenged” for the great

sin into which they had by treachery been seduced. That expedi-

tion which was accompanied by Phinehas, whose zeal had formerly

stayed the plague (Numbers 25:7, 8), was not only completely suc-

cessful, but executed all the Divine directions given. The Midianites

seem to have been taken by surprise, and made no resistance. The

ﬁve kings of Midian, or rather the ﬁve chieftains of their various

tribes (comp. Numbers 25:15), all of whom seem to have been

That the sacriﬁces prescribed in Leviticus 23:17-21 were not the same as those in

Numbers 28:26-31, is not only established by the unanimous testimony of Jewish tradition,

but appears from a comparison of the differences between the sacriﬁces ordained in these

two passages. Thus the feast of weeks or “of ﬁrst-fruits” had threefold sacriﬁces - the

ordinary daily, the ordinary festive, and the special festive sacriﬁce.

For details as to the manner in which these feasts were observed at the time of

Christ, I have to refer the reader to my book on The Temple: its Ministry, and Services at

the Time of Christ.

xxxii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

tributaries of Sihon (comp. Joshua 13:21), were killed, as well as the

great bulk of the population, and “their cities,” and “tent-villages”

(erroneously rendered in the Authorised Version “goodly castles”)

“burnt with ﬁre.” Besides a large number of prisoners, immense

booty was taken. To show their gratitude for the marvelous preserva-

tion of the people, who had probably surprised their enemies in one

[30]

of their wild licentious orgies, the princes offered as an “oblation”

to the sanctuary all the golden ornaments taken from the Midianites.

The value of these amounted, according to the present standard of

money, to considerably upwards of 25,000l.

The destruction of the power of Midian, who might have harassed

them from the east, secured to Israel the quiet possession of the

district east of Jordan, which their arms had already conquered. All

along, from the river Arnon in the south, which divided Israel from

Moab, to the river Jabbok and far beyond it, the land of Gilead

and of Bashan, their borders were safe from hostile attacks.

The accounts of travelers are unanimous in describing that dis-

trict as specially suited for pastoral purposes. We read of magniﬁcent

park like scenery, of wide upland pastures, and rich forests, which ev-

erywhere gladden the eye. No wonder that those of the tribes which

had all along preserved their nomadic habits, and whose ﬂocks and

herds constituted their main possessions and their wealth, should

wish to settle in those plains and mountains. To them they were

in very truth the land of promise, suited to their special wants, and

offering the very riches which they desired. The other side of Jordan

had little attraction for them; and its possession would have been the

opposite of advantageous to a strictly pastoral people. Accordingly,

“the children of Gad,” and “the children of Reuben” requested of

Moses:

“Let this land be given unto thy servants for a possession, and

bring us not over Jordan” (Numbers 32:5).

If this proposal did not actually imply that those tribes intended

henceforth quietly to settle down, leaving their brethren to ﬁght

Numbers 32:1 speaks of “the Land of Jazer and of Gilead.” “Jazer,” or “Jaazer”

(Numbers 21:32) was a town on the way between Heshbon in the south and Bashan in

the north. It gave its name to the district, and was probably specially mentioned by the

Reubenites as perhaps the township east of Jordan nearest to the camp of Israel. It is

supposed to be the modern Seir - almost in a line with Jericho, east of the Jordan.

Chapter 3 xxxiii

alone for the conquest of Palestine proper, it was at least open to such

interpretation. Moses seems to have understood it in that sense. But,

if such had been their purpose, they would not only have separated

themselves from the Lord’s work and leading, but, by discouraging

[31]

their brethren, have re-enacted, only on a much larger scale, the

sin of those unbelieving spies who, thirty-eight years before, had

brought such heavy judgment upon Israel. And the words of Moses

prevailed. Whether from the ﬁrst their real intentions had been right,

or the warning of Moses had inﬂuenced them for good, they now

solemnly undertook to accompany their brethren across Jordan, and

to stand by them till they also had entered on their possession. Until

then they would only restore the “folds”

for their sheep, and rebuild

the destroyed cities,

to afford safe dwelling-places for their wives

and children, and, of course, for such of their number as were either

left behind for defense, or incapable of going forth to war.

On this express promise, their request was granted, and the

ancient kingdoms of Sihon and of Og were provisionally assigned

to Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh, which latter had

made special conquests in Gilead (Numbers 32:39). But the actual

division of the district among these tribes was left over for the period

when the whole country should be allocated among the children of

Israel (Joshua 13).

5. The arrangements preparatory to possession of the land appro-

priately concluded with two series of ordinances.

The ﬁrst of these

(Numbers 33:50-3456) directed the extermination of the Canaanites

and of all traces of their idolatry, re-enjoining, at the same time, the

partition of the now puriﬁed land, by lot, among the tribes of Israel

(Numbers 33:50-56).

Next, the boundary lines of Palestine were indicated, and the

persons named who were to superintend the partition of the country

(Numbers 34). This duty was intrusted to Eleazar the high-priest,

These are not “Hazzeroth,” but rubble walls for sheep, made of loose stones.

These cities were rebuilt before the apportionment of the country among these two

and a half tribes. This appears from the fact that, for example, Dibon and, Aroer were

built by “the children of Gad” (Numbers 32:34, 35), but afterwards allocated to Reuben

(Joshua 13:16, 17).

Each of these two series is marked by a special preface - the ﬁrst, Numbers 33:50;

the second, Numbers 35:1.

xxxiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

and to Joshua, along with ten representative “priests”, one from

each of the ten tribes, Reuben and Gad having already received their

portion on the other side Jordan. The second series of ordinances

now enacted (Numbers 35, 36) was, if not of greater importance,

[32]

yet of even deeper symbolical meaning. According to the curse

that had been pronounced upon Levi, that tribe was destined to be

“divided in Jacob” (Genesis 49:7). But, in the goodness of God, this

was now converted into a blessing alike to Levi and to all Israel.

The Levites, the special property and election of the Lord, were to

be scattered among all the other tribes, to recall by their presence

everywhere the great truths which they symbolized, and to keep alive

among the people the knowledge and service of the Lord. On the

other hand, they were not to be quite isolated, but gathered together

into cities, so that by fellowship and intercourse they might support

and strengthen one another. For this purpose forty-eight cities were

now assigned to the Levites—of course not exclusive of any other

inhabitants, but “to dwell in,” that is, they were to have as many

houses in them as were required for their accommodation. Along

with these houses certain “suburbs,” also, or “commons” for their

herds and ﬂocks, were to be assigned them—covering in extent on

each side a distance of 1000 cubits (1500 feet) round about their

cities (Numbers 35:4). Besides, around this inner, another outer

circle of 2000 cubits was to be drawn in every direction. These were

to be the ﬁelds and vineyards of the Levites

(ver. 5).

The number of these cities in each tribe varied according to the

size of its territory. Thus Judah and Simeon had to furnish nine cities,

Naphtali only three, and each of the other tribes four (Joshua 21).

Lastly, the thirteen Levitical cities in the territories of Judah, Simeon,

and Benjamin were specially assigned to the priests, the descendants

of the house of Aaron, while six of the Levitical cities—three east

and three west of the Jordan were set apart as “cities of refuge,” for

the unintentional manslayer. It is interesting to notice, that even the

number of the Levitical cities was signiﬁcant. They amounted in all

to forty-eight, which is a multiple of four, the symbolical number of

Very varied interpretations of these two difﬁcult verses have been proposed. That

adopted in the text is in accordance with Jewish tradition, and the most simple, while it

meets all the requirements of the text.

Chapter 3 xxxv

the kingdom of God in the world, and of twelve, the number of the

tribes of Israel.

In regard to the “cities of refuge,” for the protection of the unin-

tending manslayer, it must not be imagined that the simple plea of

[33]

unintentional homicide afforded safety. The law, indeed, provided

that the country both east and west of the Jordan should be divided in

three parts—each with its “city of refuge,” the roads to which were

always to be kept in good repair. But, according to the sacred text

(Numbers 35:25, comp. Joshua 20:4), a homicide would, on arriving

at the gates of a city of refuge, ﬁrst have to plead his cause before

the elders of that city, when, if it approved itself to their minds, they

would afford, him provisional protection. If, however, afterwards,

the “avenger of blood” claimed his extradition, the accused person

would be sent back under proper protection to his own city, where

the whole case would be thoroughly investigated. If the homicide

was then proved to have been unintentional, the accused would be

restored to the “city of refuge,” and enjoy its protection, till the death

of the high priest set him free to return to his own city.

As for the duty of “avenging blood,” its principle is deeply rooted

in the Old Testament, and traced up to the relation in which God

stands to our world. For, the blood of man, who is God’s image,

when shed upon earth, which is God’s property, “crieth” unto God

(Genesis 4:10)—claims payment like an unredeemed debt. Hence

the expression “avenger of blood,” which should be literally rendered

“redeemer of blood.” On the other hand, the symbolical meaning

of the cities of refuge will readily be understood. There—in the

place of God’s merciful provision—the manslayer was to ﬁnd a

refuge, sheltered, as it were, under the wings of the grace of God, till

the complete remission of the punishment at the death of the high

priest -the latter symbolically pointing forward to the death of Him

Whom God has anointed our great High Priest, and Who “by His

one oblation of Himself once offered,” hath made “a full, perfect,

and sufﬁcient sacriﬁce, oblation, and satisfaction” for the sins of the

world.

Perek 2 of the Mishnic tractate Maccoth treats on this subject, and expounds at

length the application of this law.

Chapter 4[34]

Death and Burial of Moses

Deuteronomy 3:23-29; Numbers 27:15-23; Deuteronomy 34

ALL was now ready, and Israel about to cross the Jordan and

take possession of the Promised Land! It was only natural—one

of those traits in the history of the great heroes of the Bible, so

peculiarly precious, as showing in their weakness their kinship to

our feelings—that Moses should have longed to share in what was

before Israel. Looking back the long vista of these one hundred and

twenty years—ﬁrst of life and trial in Egypt, then of loneliness and

patient faith while feeding the ﬂocks of Jethro, and, lastly, of labor

and weariness in the wilderness, it would indeed have been strange,

had he not wished now to have part in the conquest and rest of the

goodly land. He had believed in it; he had preached it; he had prayed

for it; he had labored, borne, fought for it. And now within reach

and view of it must he lay himself down to die?

Scripture records (Deuteronomy 3:23-26), with touching sim-

plicity, what passed between Moses and his Heavenly Father.

“And

I entreated grace from the Lord at that time, saying: Lord Jehovah,

Thou hast begun to show Thy servant Thy greatness and Thy strong

hand. For what God is there in heaven or in the earth which doeth

like Thy doings and like Thy might? Oh, that I might now go over

and see the good land which is on the other side of Jordan, this

goodly mountain and the Lebanon! And Jehovah was wroth with

me on account of you, and hearkened not unto me. And God said

to me: Let it now sufﬁce thee

—continue not to speak to Me any

more on this matter.”

The deep feelings of Moses had scarcely bodied themselves in

the language of prayer. Rather had it been the pouring forth of his

We translate literally.

Literally: Enough (sufﬁcient) for thee.

xxxvi

Chapter 4 xxxvii

inmost desires before his Father in heaven—a precious privilege

which His children possess at all times. But even so Moses had

in this also, though but “as a steward” and “afar off,” to follow

Him whose great type he was, and to learn the peaceful rest of this

experience, after a contest of thought and wish: “Nevertheless, not

my will, but Thine be done.” And it was the good will of God that

Moses should lay himself down to rest without entering the land.

Although it came in punishment of Israel’s and of Mosessin at the

waters of Meribah, yet it was also better that it should be so—better

[35]

for Moses himself. For on the top of Pisgah God prepared something

better for Moses than even entrance into the land of earthly promise.

And now calmly, as a father setteth his house in order, did Moses

prepare for his departure. During his life all his thoughts had been

for Israel; and he was faithful even unto the death. His last care also

had been for the people whom he had loved, and for the work to

which he had been devoted—that Jehovah would provide for His

congregation “a shepherd” “who may lead them out and bring them

in” (Numbers 27:16, 17). Little else was left to be done. In a series

of discourses, Moses repeated, and more fully re-stated, to Israel—

the laws and ordinances of God their King. His last record was “a

song” of the mercy and truth of God (Deuteronomy 32); his last

words a blessing upon Israel—(Deuteronomy 33). Then, amid the

respectful silence of a mourning people, he set out alone upon his

last pilgrim-journey. All the way up to the highest top of Pisgah the

eyes of the people must have followed him. They could watch him

as he stood there in the sunset, taking his full view of the land—there

to see for himself how true and faithful Jehovah had been. Still could

they descry his ﬁgure, as, in the shadows of even, it moved towards

a valley apart. After that no mortal eye ever beheld him, till, with

Elijah, he stood on the mount of transﬁguration. Then indeed was

the longing wish of Moses, uttered many, many centuries before,

fulﬁlled far beyond his thinking or hoping at the time. He did stand

on “the goodly mountain” within the Land of Promise, worshipping,

and giving testimony to Him in “Whom all the promises are yea and

amen.” It was a worthy crowning this of such a life. Not the faithful

steward of Abraham, Eliezer of Damascus, when he brought to his

master’s son the God-given bride, could with such joy see the end

of his faithful stewardship when the heir entered on his possession,

xxxviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

as this “steward over God’s house,” when on that mountain he did

homage to “the Son in His own house.”

But to Israel down in the valley had Moses never so preached

of the truth and faithfulness of Jehovah, and of His goodness and

support to His people, as from the top of Pisgah. There was a strange

symbolical aptness even in the ascent of the mount, 4,500 feet up,

which is “rapid” but “not rugged.”

Standing on the highest crest, the prospect would, indeed, seem

[36]

almost unbounded. Eastwards, stretching into Arabia, rolls a bound-

less plain—one waving ocean of corn and grass. As the eye turns

southwards, it ranges over the land of Moab, till it rests on the sharp

outlines of Mounts Hor and Seir, and the rosy granite peaks of Ara-

bia. To the west the land descends, terrace by terrace, to the Dead

Sea, the western outline of which can be traced in its full extent.

Deep below lies that sea, “like a long strip of molten metal, with

the sun mirrored on its surface, waving and undulating in its fur-

ther edge, unseen in its eastern limits, as though poured from some

deep cavern beneath.” Beyond it would appear the ridge of Hebron,

and then as the eye traveled northwards, successively the sites of

Bethlehem and of Jerusalem. The holy city itself would be within

range of view Mount Moriah, the Mount of Olives; on the one side

of it the gap in the hills leading to Jericho, while on the other side,

the rounded heights of Benjamin would be clearly visible. Turn-

ing northwards, the eye follows the winding course of Jordan from

Jericho, the city of palm-trees, up the stream. Looking across it,

it rests on the rounded top of Mount Gerizim, beyond which the

plain of Esdraelon opens, and the shoulder of Carmel appears. That

blue haze in the distance is the line of “the utmost sea.” Still farther

northwards rise the outlines of Tabor, Gilboa, the top of snow-clad

Hermort, and the highest range of Lebanon. In front are the dark

forests of Ajalon, Mount Gilead—, then the land of Bashan and

Bozrah.

“And Jehovah shewed Moses all the land of Gilead, unto Dan,

and all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and all

the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea, and the Negeb, and the

Our description here, and of the view from the top is from Canon Tristram’s Land

of Israel, pp. 539-543, of course, in a shortened form. We must content ourselves with

this general acknowledgment without always the formality of inverted commas.

Chapter 4 xxxix

plain of the valley of Jericho, the city of palm-trees, unto Zoar”

(Deuteronomy 34:1-3).

Such was the prospect which, from that mountain-top, spread be-

fore Moses. And when he had satiated his eyes upon it, he descended

into that valley apart to lay him down to rest. Into the mysterious

silence of that death and burial at the hands of Jehovah we dare not

penetrate. Jewish tradition, rendering the expression (Deuteronomy

[37]

34:5) literally, has it that “Moses the servant of Jehovah died there...

at the mouth of Jehovah,” or, as they put it, by the kiss of the Lord.

But from the brief saying of Scripture (Jude 9) may we not infer

that although Moses also received in death the wages of sin, yet

his body passed not through corruption, however much “the devil,”

contending as for his lawful prey, “disputed” for its possession, but

was raised up to be with Elijah the ﬁrst to welcome the Lord in His

glory? For “men bury a body that it may pass into corruption. If

Jehovah, therefore, would not suffer the body of Moses to be buried

by men, it is but natural to seek for the reason in the fact that He did

not intend to leave him to corruption.”

But “there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses,

whom Jehovah knew face to face, in all the signs and the wonders,

which Jehovah sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and

to all his servants, and to all his land, and in all that mighty hand,

and in all the great terror which Moses showed in the sight of all

Israel” (Deuteronomy 34:10-12).

“and Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant,

for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but

Christ as a Son over His own house; whose house are we, if we hold

fast the conﬁdence and the rejoicing of the hope ﬁrm unto the end”

(Hebrews 3:5, 6).

Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant, vol. 3 p. 495 (English translation).

Chapter 5[38]

The Charge to Joshua—Despatch of the Two Spies to

Jericho—Rahab

(Joshua 1, 2)

A WIDE, rich plain at the foot of the mountains of Moab, car-

peted with wild ﬂowers springing in luxuriant beauty, watered by

many rivulets and rills, here and there covered by acacia trees, where

birds of brightest plumage carol, and beyond, to the south, by the

banks of streams, where scented oleanders rise to a height of twenty-

ﬁve feet, their ﬂower-laden boughs bending like those of the wil-

low—such is Abel-Shittim, “the meadow of acacias.” Beyond it

are the fords of Jordan, and the western heights; in the distance

southwards, the hills of Judaea, on which the purple light rests. Cli-

mate and vegetation are tropical, on the eastern even more than on

the western banks of the Jordan. Many memories hallow the place

Somewhere here must Elijah have smitten the waters of Jordan, that

they parted, ere the ﬁery chariot wrapt him from the companionship

of Elisha. In this district also was the scene of John’s baptism, where

the Savior humbled Himself to fulﬁll all righteousness. And on this

“meadow of acacias” did an early summer shed its softness when,

about the month of March, forty years after the Exodus, the camp

of Israel kept thirty dayssolemn mourning for Moses (Deuteronomy

34:8). Behind them rose that mountain-top, from which “that saint

of God” had seen his last of Israeland of the goodly land, which they

were so soon to possess; before them lay the Landof Promise which

they were presently to enter.

Such a leader as Moses had been would Israel never more see; nor

yet one with whom God had so spoken, “mouth to mouth,” as a man

with his friend. A feeling of loneliness and awe must have crept over

the people and over their new leader, Joshua, like that which Elisha

felt, when, alone, he turned him back with the mantle of Elijah that

Chapter 5 xli

came to him from heaven, to test whether now also the waters would

divide at the bidding of the Lord God of Elijah. And the faithful

Covenant-God was with Joshua, as he waited, not unbelievingly,

but expectantly, in that mourning camp of Abel-Shittim, for a fresh

message from God. Though he had been previously designated by

God, and set apart to the leadership, it was well he should so wait,

not only for his own sake, but also “that the people might afterwards

not hesitate gladly to follow his leadership, who had not moved a

[39]

foot without the leading of God.”

And in due time the longed-for

direction came: not in doubtful language, but renewing alike the

commission of Joshua and the promises to Israel. Far as the eye

could reach, to the heights of Anti-Lebanon in the extreme distance,

to the shores of the Great Sea, to the Euphrates in the East—all was

theirs, and not a foeman should withstand them, for God would “not

fail nor forsake” their leader. Only two things were requisite: that,

in his loving obedience, the word and commands of God should

be precious to Joshua; and that in strong faith he should be “very

courageous.” This latter command was twice repeated, as it were to

indicate alike the inward courage of faith and the outward courage

of deed.

That this call had found a response in the hearts not only of

Joshua, but also of the people, appears from the answer of Reuben,

Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, when reminded of their obli-

gation to share in the impending warfare of their brethren. While

professing their readiness to acknowledge in all things the authority

of Joshua, they also expressly made the latter conditional on the con-

tinued direction of Jehovah, and re-echoed the Divine admonition to

be “strong and of a good courage.” So much does success in all we

undertake depend on the assurance of faith!

“For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the

wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive

anything of the Lord” (James 1:6, 7).

Thus directed and encouraged, Joshua gave orders that the peo-

ple should provide themselves with the necessary victuals to begin,

if occasion should offer, their forward march on the third day. In

point of fact, however, it was at least ﬁve days before that move-

Calvin.

xlii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

ment could be made. For Joshua had deemed it prudent to adopt

proper preparatory measures, although, or rather just because he was

assured of Divine help, and trusted in it. Accordingly he had sent,

unknown to the people,

two spies “to view the land and Jericho.”

The reason of this secrecy lay probably both in the nature of their

[40]

errand, and in the sad remembrance of the discouragement which

evil report by the spies had formerly wrought among the people

(Numbers 14:1). As the two spies stealthily crept up the eight miles

of country from the western bank of the Jordan to “the city of palm

trees,” they must have been struck with the extraordinary “beauty

and luxuriance of the district. Even now there is a bright green oasis

of several miles square which marks the more rich and populous

groves of Jericho.”

Its vegetation is most rich and rare; almost every tree is tenanted

by the bulbul or Palestinian nightingale, with the “hopping thrush,”

“the gorgeous Indian blue kingﬁsher, the Egyptian turtle-dove, and

other singing birds of Indian or Abyssinian afﬁnity.” “On the plain

above are the desert larks and chats, while half an hour’s walk takes

us to the Mount of Temptation, the home of the griffon, where beauti-

fully plumed partridges, rock-swallows, rock-doves, and other birds

abound. But, beyond all others, Jericho is the home of the lovely

sun-bird,.... resplendent with all the colors of the humming-bird”—

its back brilliant green, its throat blue, and its breast purple, “with a

tuft of rich red, orange, and yellow feathers at each shoulder.” The

little streams—which Elisha healed from its after curse—swarms

with ﬁsh, while climate and prospect are equally delicious in that

early summer-like spring, when the spies visited it. And what the

wealth and beauty of this plain must have been when it was crowded

with feathery palms, and scented balsam gardens, we learn from the

descriptions of Josephus (Ant xv. 4, 2). This paradise of Canaan

was guarded by the fortress of Jericho one of the strongest in the

In Joshua 2:1, the accentuation connects the words “secretly” and “saying,” which

are separated by commas in our Authorized Version showing that the commission was

intrusted to them secretly.

The meaning really is “especially Jericho,” which fortress was the key to the western

bank of Jordan.

Tristram, Land of Israel, pp. 203 and following.

Chapter 5 xliii

whole land.

Behind its walls and battlements immense wealth was

stored, partly natural and partly the result of civilization and luxury.

This appears even from the character and value of the spoil which

one individual Achan could secrete from it (Joshua 7:21).

As the spies neared the city, the setting sun was casting his rays

in richest variegated coloring on the limestone mountains which

surrounded the ancient Jericho like an amphitheater, rising closest,

and to the height of from 1200 to 1500 feet, in the north, where

[41]

they bear the name of Quarantania, marking the traditional site

of the forty days of our Lord’s temptation; and thence stretching

with widening sweep towards the south. Friend or ally there was

none in that city, whose hospitality the two Israelites might have

sought. To have resorted to a khan or inn would have been to court

the publicity which most of all they wished to avoid. Under these

circumstances, the choice of the house of Rahab, the harlot, was

certainly the wisest for their purpose. But even so, in the excited

state of the public mind, when, as we know (Joshua 2:11), the

terror of Israel had fallen upon all, the arrival of two suspicious-

looking strangers could not remain a secret. So soon as the gates

were shut, and escape seemed impossible, the king sent to make

captives of what he rightly judged to be Israelitish spies. But Rahab

had anticipated him. Arriving at the same conclusion as the king,

and expecting what would happen, she had “hid them”—perhaps

hastily—“with the stalks of ﬂax which she had laid in order upon

the roof,” after the common Eastern fashion of drying ﬂax on the

ﬂat roofs of houses. By the adroit admission of the fact that two

men, previously unknown to her, had indeed come, to which she

added the false statement that they had with equal abruptness left

just before the closing of the gates, she succeeded in misleading

the messengers of the king. The story of Rahab sounded likely

enough; she had seemingly been frank, nor was there any apparent

motive for untruthfulness on her part, but quite the opposite, as the

same danger threatened all the inhabitants of Jericho. As Rahab

had suggested, the messengers “pursued quickly” in the supposed

wake of the Jewish emissaries, which would have been “the way

This impression is irresistibly conveyed to the mind by a comparison of the Scrip-

tural account of Jericho with that of the other cities in Canaan.

xliv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

to Jordan, unto the fords,” by which they must return to the camp

of—Israel. and the gates were again shut, to make escape from

Jericho impossible, if, after all, they had not quitted the city.

Thus far the device of Rahab had succeeded. So soon as night

settled upon the city, she repaired to the roof, and acquainted the

spies, who were ignorant of any danger, with what had taken place.

At the same time she explained the motives of her conduct. They

must indeed have listened with wonder, not unmingled with adoring

gratitude, as she told them how they, in Canaan, had heard what

Jehovah had done for Israel at the Red Sea, and that, by His help, the

[42]

two powerful kings of the Amorites had been “utterly destroyed.”

The very language, in which Rahab described the terror that had

fallen upon her countrymen, was the same as that uttered propheti-

cally forty years before, when Moses and the children of Israel sang

the new song on the other side of the Red Sea, Exodus 15:14-16

(comp. Exodus 23:27; Deuteronomy 2:25; 11:25). But the effect of

this knowledge of Jehovah’s great doings differed according to the

state of mind of those who heard of them. In the Canaanites it called

forth the energy of despair in resisting Israel’, or rather Israels God.

But in Rahab’s heart it awakened far other feelings. She knew that

Jehovah had given to Israel the land—and far better than even this,

that “Jehovah your God, He is God in heaven above and in earth

beneath.” Knowing God’s purpose, she would shelter the spies, and

so further their errand; knowing that He alone was God, she and all

near and dear to her must not take part in the daring resistance of her

countrymen, but seek safety by separating themselves from them and

joining the people of God. And so she implored mercy for herself

and her kindred in the day when Jehovah would surely give Israel the

victory. Such a request could not be refused, evidenced as its gen-

uineness had been by her “works.” The two spies solemnly acceded

to it, but on condition that she would prove true to the end, helping

on their work by still keeping their mission secret, and evidencing

her faith by gathering on the day of trial all her kindred within her

house. That house should be distinguished from all other dwellings

in Jericho by exhibiting the same “scarlet cord,” with which she let

down the spies over the city wall upon which her house was built.

All throughout, this story is full of deepest symbolical meaning. And

Chapter 5 xlv

in truth, one, prepared so to act, was in heart “an Israelite indeed,”

and her household already belonged to the “household of faith.”

We are now in circumstances to appreciate the faith by which the

harlot Rahab perished not with them that were disobedient,

when

she had “received the spies with peace,” a faith which, as St. James

argues, evidenced itself “by works” (James 2:25). In so doing, it is

not necessary either to represent her in her former life as other than

she really was,

or even to extenuate her sin in returning a false answer to the king

[43]

of Jericho. Nor, on the other hand, do we wish to exaggerate the

spiritual condition to which she had attained.

Remembering who, and what, and among whom she had been

all her lifetime, her emphatic confession, that Jehovah, the God

of Israel, “He is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath;” her

unwavering faith in the truth of His promises, which moved her to

self-denying action at such danger and sacriﬁce, and supported her

in it; her separation from her countrymen; her conduct towards the

spies at the risk of her life—all show her to have had that faith which

“is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen;”

not a “dead faith,” “without works,” but one which “wrought with her

works, and by works was made perfect.” And He Who “giveth more

grace” to them who wisely use what they have, marvelously owned

and blessed this “ﬁrst-fruits” from among the Gentiles. Her history,

which, in all its circumstances, bears a remarkable analogy to that

of the woman of Samaria(John 4), is recorded for the instruction of

the Church. And, as in the case of the Hebrew midwives who had

preserved Israel—(Exodus 1:21), God also “made her a house.” She

became the wife of Salmon, a prince of the tribe of Judah, and from

her sprang in direct line both David (Ruth 4:21) and David’s Lord

(Matthew 1:4).

But as for the two Israelitish spies, they hid themselves, accord-

ing to Rahab’s advice, for three days among the limestone caves and

grottoes which abound in MountQuarantania’, while their pursuers

Hebrews 11:31, marginal rendering.

So Josephus and the Rabbis, who represent her as simply an inn-keeper.

The learned reader who is curious to know the Rabbinical fables about Rahab, will

ﬁnd them in Lightfoot, Hor. Heber. et Talmud.; and Wetstein, Nov. Test., in the notes on

Matthew 1:5; also in Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talm. illustr., p. 40.

xlvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

vainly searched for them in the opposite direction of the fords of

Jordan. When the fruitless pursuit had ceased, they made their way

back to Joshua, expressing to him their conviction, as the result of

their mission: “Truly Jehovah hath delivered into our hands all the

land; for even all the inhabitants of the country do faint because of

us.”

Chapter 6 [44]

Miraculous Parting of the Jordan, and the Passage of the Children

of Israel—Gilgal and Its Meaning—The First Passover on the Soil

of Palestine

(Joshua 3-5:12)

THE morrow after the return of the spies, the camp at Shittim

was broken up, and the host of Israel moved forward. It consisted of

all those tribes who were to have their possessions west of the Jordan,

along with forty thousand chosen warriors from Reuben, Gad, and

the half tribe of Manasseh.

A short march brought them to the brink

of Jordan. Strictly speaking, the Jordan has a threefold bank; the

largest at the water’s edge, which, in spring, is frequently inundated,

owing to the melting of snow on Hermon; a middle bank, which is

covered with rich vegetation, and an upper bank, which overhangs

the river. The people now halted for three days, ﬁrst to await the

Divine direction as to the passage of the river, and then to prepare

for receiving in a proper spirit the manifestation of Divine power

about to be manifested in the miraculous parting of Jordan. For, as

one has remarked, the expression used by Joshua, “the living God is

among you” (Joshua 3:10), does not merely imply the presence of

God among Israel, but, as the event proved, the operations by which

He shows Himself both living and true.

All that was to be done by Israel was Divinely indicated to

Joshua, and all was done exactly as it had been

directed. First,

proclamation was made throughout Israel to “sanctify” themselves,

and that not only outwardly by symbolic rites, but also inwardly by

As, according to Numbers 26:7, 18, 34, the total number of the men of war in the

tribes Reuben and Gad, and those of half Manasseh amounted to 110,580, it follows that

70,580 must have been left behind for the protection of the territory east of the Jordan.

We mark in this narrative three sections, each commencing with a Divine command

(Joshua 3:7, 8; 4:2, 3; and 4:15, 16), followed by Joshua’s communication thereof to the

people, and an account of its execution. This to connect each stage with the Lord Himself.

xlvii

xlviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

turning unto the Lord, in expectant faith of “the wonders” about to

be enacted. These were intimated to them beforehand (Joshua 3:5,

13).

Thus passed three days. It was “the tenth day of the ﬁrst month”

(Joshua 4:19), the anniversary of the day on which forty years be-

fore Israel had set apart their Paschal lambs (Exodus 12:3), that

[45]

the miraculous passage of the Jordan was accomplished, and Israel

stood on the very soil of the promised land. Before the evening

of that anniversary had closed in, the memorial stones were set up

in Gilgal. All between those two anniversaries seemed only as a

grand historical parenthesis. But the kingdom of God has no blanks

or interruptions in its history; there is a grand unity in its course,

for Jehovah reigneth. With feelings stirred by such remembrances,

and the expectancy of the great miracle to come, did Israel now

move forward. First went the Ark, borne by the priests, and, at a

reverent distance of 2000 cubits, followed the host. For, it was the

Ark of the Covenant which was to make a way for Israel through the

waters of Jordan, and they were to keep it in sight, so as to mark the

miraculous road, as it was gradually opened to them. It is to this that

the Divine words refer (Joshua 3:4): “that ye may know,” or rather

come to know, recognize, understand, “the way by which ye must

go: for ye have not passed this way heretofore.” With the exception

of Caleb and Joshua, none, at least of the laity,

had been grown up

at the time, and seen it, when the Lord parted the waters of the Red

Sea at the Exodus. Then it had been the uplifted wonder-working

rod of Moses by which the waters were parted. But now it was the

Ark at whose advance they were stayed. And the difference of the

means was quite in accordance with that of the circumstances. For

now the Ark of the Covenant was the ordinary symbol of the Divine

Presence among Israel; and God commonly employs the ordinary

means of grace for the accomplishment of His marvelous purposes

of mercy.

It was early spring, in that tropical district the time of early

harvest (Joshua 3:15), and the Jordan had overﬂown its lowest banks.

As at a distance of about half a mile the Israelites looked down, they

saw that, when the feet of those who bore the Ark touched the waters,

See The Exodus and the Wanderings in the Wilderness.

Chapter 6 xlix

they were arrested.”

Far up “beyond where they stood, at the city

of Adam that is beside Zarethan,”

did the Divine Hand draw up the waters of Jordan, while the waters

[46]

below that point were speedily drained into the Dead Sea. In the

middle of the river-bed the priests with the Ark

halted till the

whole people had passed over dryshod. Then twelve men, who had

previously been detailed for the purpose,

took up twelve large

stones from where the priests had stood in the river-bed, to erect

them a solemn memorial to all times of that wondrous event.

Only after that did the priests come up from Jordan. And when

“the soles of the priestsfeet were lifted up unto the dry land” (literally,

were detached, viz., from the clogging mud, “upon the dry”), “the

waters of Jordan returned unto their place, and ﬂowed over all his

banks, as before.” It must have been towards evening when the rest

of the march was accomplished—a distance of about ﬁve miles—

and Israel’s camp was pitched at what afterwards became Gilgal, “in

the east border of Jericho,” about two miles from the latter city.

The object and meaning of this “notable miracle” are clearly

indicated in the sacred text. We know that it was as absolutely

necessary in the circumstances as formerly the cleaving of the Red

Sea had been. For, at that season of the year, and with the means at

their disposal, it would have been absolutely impossible for a large

host with women and children to cross the Jordan. But, besides, it

was ﬁtting that a miracle similar to that of the Exodus from Egypt

should mark the entrance into the Land of Promise; ﬁtting also, that

the commencement of Joshua’s ministry should be thus Divinely

In Joshua 3:11 and 13 it is signiﬁcantly designated, “the Ark of Jehovah, the Lord

of all the earth,” as Calvin remarks, to show the subjection of all to God, and to increase

the trust of Israel.

This, and not, as in our Authorized Version, “very far from the city of Adam,” is the

correct rendering. The sites of these two cities have not been identiﬁed. From the nature of

the banks, the inundation caused by this miracle would not lead to serious consequences.

The attentive reader will notice that, throughout the Scripture narrative, the main

stress is laid on the presence of the Ark, the priests being only introduced as the bearers

of it.

The rendering of Joshua 4:1-3 in our Authorized Version does not give that im-

pression, but alike Rabbinical and the best Christian authorities regard these verses as a

parenthesis, and translate, in ver. 1, “and the Lord had spoken to Joshua.”

Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 219.

l Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

attested like that of Moses (Joshua 3:7). Finally, it would be to Israel

a glorious pledge of future victory in the might of their God (ver.

10), while to their enemies it was a sure token of the judgment about

to overtake them (Joshua 5:1).

Two things yet remained to be done, before Israel could enter

[47]

upon the war with Canaan. Although the people of God, Israel had

been under judgment for nearly forty years, and those born in the

wilderness bore not the covenant mark of circumcision. To renew

that rite in their case was the ﬁrst necessity, so as to restore Israel to

its full position as the covenant-people of God.

After that, a privilege awaited Israel which for thirty-eight years

they had not enjoyed. Probably the Passover at the foot of Sinai

(Numbers 9:1) had been the last, as that feast would not have been

observed by the people in their uncircumcision. But at Gilgal their

reproach was “rolled away,” and the people of God renewed the

festive remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt. Truly, that

ﬁrst Passover on the soil of Palestine had a twofold meaning. Even

the circumstances recalled its ﬁrst celebration. As the night of the

ﬁrst Passover was one of terror and judgment to Egypt, so now,

within view of the festive camp of Gilgal,

“Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel:

none went out, and none came in” (Joshua 6:1).

And now also the Divine wilderness-provision of the “manna

which had clung to them with the tenacity of all God’s mercies,”

ceased on, “the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the

land: neither had the children of Israelmanna any more; but they did

eat of the fruits of the landof Canaan that year.” And so also have

miraculous gifts ceased in the Church, because their continuance has

become unnecessary. Similarly will our manna-provision for daily

Of course, the survivors of those who, having come out from Egypt, were at the

time of the sentence in Kadesh under twenty years old (Numbers 14:29) - in short, all

in Gilgal who were thirty-eight years and upwards - had been circumcised. Reckoning

the total of males at Gilgal at about one million, the proportion of the circumcised to the

uncircumcised would have been about 280,000 to 720,000. The former would sufﬁce to

prepare the Paschal lambs, and, if needful, to defend the camp at Gilgal, although the

terror consequent upon the dividing of Jordan would probably have protected Israel from

all hostile attacks. See Keil, Bibl. Comm., vol. 2 pp. 38, 39.

Chapter 6 li

life-need cease, when we at the last enter upon the land of promise,

and for ever enjoy its fruits!

Chapter 7[48]

The “Prince of the Host of Jehovah” appears to Joshua—The

Miraculous Fall of Jericho—Before the Ark of Jehovah

(Joshua 5:13)

AT ﬁrst sight it may seem strange, that, when such fear had

fallen upon the people of the land, any attempt should have been

made to defend Jericho. But a fuller consideration will help us not

only to understand this, but also by-and-by to see special reasons,

why this one fortress should have been miraculously given to Israel.

Not to mention motives of honor, which would at least have some

inﬂuence with the men of Jericho, it was one of the main principles

of heathenism, that each of their “gods many” was limited in his

activity to one special object. But what the Canaanites had heard of

Jehovah showed Him to be the God of nature, who clave the Red Sea

and arrested the waters of Jordon, and that He was so far also the

God of battles, as to give Israel the victory over the Amorite kings.

But was His strength also the same as against their gods in reducing

strong fortresses? Of that at any rate they had no experience. Trivial

as such a question may sound in our ears, we have evidence that

it was seriously entertained by heathendom. To mention only one

instance, we know that a similar suggestion was made at a much

later period, not by obscure men, but by the servants and trusted

advisers of Ben-hadad, and that it was acted upon by that monarch

in the belief that “Jehovah is God of the hills, but he is not God of

the valleys” (1 Kings 20:28). At any rate, it was worth the trial, and

Jericho, as already stated, was the strongest fortress in Canaan, and

the key to the whole country.

This latter consideration could not but have weighed on the mind

of Joshua, as from the camp of Gilgal he “viewed the city.” As yet

no special direction had been given him how to attack Jericho, and,

assuredly, the people whom he commanded were untrained for such

lii

Chapter 7 liii

work. While such thoughts were busy within him, of a sudden, “as

he lifted up his eyes and looked, there stood over against him,” not

the beleaguered city, but “a man with his sword drawn in his hand.”

Challenged by Joshua: “Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?” the

strange warrior replied: “No! But I am the Captain (or Prince) of

the host of Jehovah, now I am come.”

Here His speech was interrupted—for Joshua fell on his face before

[49]

Him, and reverently inquired His commands. The reply: “Loose thy

shoe from off thy foot, for the place whereon thou standest is holy,”

must have convinced Joshua that this Prince of the host of Jehovah

was none other than the Angel of the Covenant, Who had spoken to

Moses out of the burning bush (Exodus 3:4), and Who was co-equal

with Jehovah. Indeed, shortly afterwards, we ﬁnd Him expressly

spoken of as Jehovah (Joshua 6:2).

So then the mission of Joshua was substantially the continuation

and completion of that of Moses. As at the commencement of

the latter, the Angel of the Covenant had appeared and spoken out

of the burning bush, so He now also appeared to Joshua, while

the symbolical act of “loosing the shoe off his foot,” in reverent

acknowledgment of the Holy One of Israel, recalled the vision of

Moses, and at the same time connected it with that of his successor.

Having assured Joshua of complete victory, the Angel of Jehovah

gave him detailed directions how Israel was to compass Jericho,

under the leadership of the Ark of the Lord, and how, when the wall

of the city had fallen, the people were to act. Implicit obedience

of what in its nature was symbolical, was absolutely requisite, and

Joshua communicated the command of the Lord both to priests and

people.

And now a marvelous sight would be witnessed from the walls

of Jericho. Day by day, a solemn procession left the camp of Israel.

First came lightly armed men,

then followed seven priests blowing

continually, not the customary silver trumpets, but large horns, the

This is the correct rendering of Joshua 5:14; that in our Authorized Version does

not fully express the pictorial import of the original.

For an explanation of the meaning of this symbol, see The Exodus, etc.

Joshua 6:9 implies that the host of Israel was divided into two parts: “the armed

men” preceding, and “the rereward following the Ark.” As the Hebrew “for armed men”

is the same term as that in Joshua 4:13 (“prepared for war”), it has been suggested by

liv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

loud sound of which penetrated to the far distance, such as had been

heard at Sinai (Exodus 19:16, 19; 20:18). The same kind of horns

were to be used on the ﬁrst day of the seventh month (Leviticus

23:24), and to announce the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:9).

Thus heralded, came the Ark of Jehovah, borne by the priests,

and after it “the reward” of Israel. So they did for six days, each day

[50]

once encompassing the walls of Jericho, but in solemn silence, save

for the short sharp tones, or the long-drawn blasts of the priestshorns.

The impression made by this long, solemn procession, which ap-

peared and disappeared, and did its work, in solemn silence, only

broken by the loud shrill notes of the horns, must have been peculiar.

At length came the seventh day. Its work began earlier than on the

others—“about the dawning of the day.” In the same order as before,

they encompassed the city, only now seven times. “And it came to

pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets,

Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for Jehovah hath given you the

city.” “And it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the

trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell

down ﬂat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight

before him, and they took the city.” As for Jericho itself, Joshua had

by Divine command declared it “cherem,” or “devoted” to Jehovah

(Joshua 6:17). In such cases, according to Leviticus 27:28, 29, no

redemption was possible, but, as indicated in Deuteronomy 13:16,

alike the inhabitants and all the spoil of the city was to be destroyed,

“only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron”

being reserved and “put into the treasury of the house of Jehovah”

(Joshua 6:24; comp. Numbers 31:22, 23, 50-54). This was not the

ordinary sentence against all the cities of Canaan. In all other cases

the inhabitants alone were “smitten with the edge of the sword”

(Joshua 8:26; 10:28; comp. Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6; 8:2; 20:16),

while the cattle and the spoil were preserved. But in the case of

Jericho, for reasons to be afterwards stated, the whole city, with

all that it contained, was cherem. Only Rahab, “and her father’s

household, and all that she had,” were saved from the general wreck.

Rabbinical interpreters that “the armed men” consisted of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe

of Manasseh.

Chapter 7 lv

It lies on the surface of the Scriptural narrative that “a notable

miracle,” unparalleled in history, had in this case been “wrought” by

Jehovah for Israel. As a German writer puts it: It would have been

impossible to show it more clearly, that Jehovah had given the city

to Israel. First, the river was made to recede, to allow them entrance

into the land; and now the walls of the city were made to fall, to give

them admission to its ﬁrst and strongest city. Now such proofs of

the presence and help of Jehovah, so soon after Mosesdeath, must

[51]

have convinced the most carnal among Israel’, that the same God

who had cleft the Red Seabefore their fathers was still on their side.

And in this light must the event also have been viewed by the people

of Canaan’. But, besides, a deeper symbolical meaning attached to

all that had happened. The ﬁrst and strongest fortress in the land

Jehovah God bestowed upon His people, so to speak, as a free gift,

without their having to make any effort, or to run any risk in taking

it.

A precious pledge this of the ease with which all His gracious

promises were to be fulﬁlled. Similarly, the manner in which Israel

obtained possession of Jericho was deeply signiﬁcant. Evidently,

the walls of Jericho fell, not before Israel, but before the Ark of Je-

hovah, or rather, as it is expressly said in Joshua 6:8, before Jehovah

Himself, whose presence among His people was connected with

the Ark of the Covenant. And the blast of those jubilee-horns all

around the doomed city made proclamation of Jehovah, and was, so

to speak, the summons of His kingdom, proclaiming that the labor

and sorrow of His people were at an end, and they about to enter

upon their inheritance. This was the symbolical and typical import

of the blasts of the jubilee-horns, whenever they were blown. Hence

also alike in the visions of the prophets and in the New Testament

the ﬁnal advent of the kingdom of God is heralded by the trumpet-

sound of His angelic messengers (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:52; 1

Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 20 and 21). But, on the other hand,

the advent of the kingdom of God always implies destruction to His

enemies. Accordingly, the walls of Jericho must fall, and all the

city be destroyed. Nor will the reader of this history fail here also

to notice the signiﬁcance of the number seven—seven horns, seven

priests, seven days of compassing the walls, repeated seven times

on the seventh day! The suddenness of the ruin of Jericho, which

lvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

typiﬁed the kingdom of this world in its opposition to that of God,

has also its counterpart at the end of the present dispensation. For

“the day of the Lord cometh as a thief in the night; and when they

shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon

them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

Lastly, it was ﬁtting that Jericho should have been entirely de-

voted unto the Lord; not only that Israel might gain no immediate

spoil by what the Lord had done, but also because the city, as the

[52]

ﬁrstfruits of the conquest of the land, belonged unto Jehovah, just as

all the ﬁrst, both in His people and in all that was theirs, was His—in

token that the whole was really God’s property, Who gave everything

to His people, and at Whose hands they held their possessions. But,

to indicate the state of heart and mind with which Israelcompassed

the city, following the Ark in solemn silence, we recall this emphatic

testimony of Scripture (Hebrews 11:30):

“By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were com-

passed about seven days.”

In this instance also, as just before the Lord cleft the Red Sea,

and again afterwards, when in answer to Jehoshaphat’s prayer God

destroyed the heathen combination against His people, the Divine

call to them was, “Stand ye still” (in expectant faith) “and see the

salvation of Jehovah” (Exodus 14:13, 2 Chronicles 20:17). And so

it ever is to His believing people in similar circumstances.

Chapter 8 [53]

Unsuccessful Attack upon Ai—Achan’s Sin, and Judgement—Ai

attacked a second time and taken

(Joshua 7-8:29)

THE conquest of Jericho without ﬁght on the part of Israel had

given them full pledge of future success. But, on the other hand,

also, might it become a source of greatest danger, if the gracious

promises of God were regarded as national rights, and the presence

of Jehovah as secured, irrespective of the bearing of Israel towards

Him. It was therefore of the utmost importance, that from the ﬁrst it

should appear that victory over the enemy was Israel’s only so long

as the people were faithful to the covenant of their God.

In their progress towards the interior of the land, the fortress

next to be taken was Ai. Broken up as the country seems to have

been into small territories, each under an independent chieftain or

“king,” who reigned in his fortiﬁed city and held sway over the

district around,

a series of sieges rather than of pitched battles was

to be expected. Ai, situated on a conical hill about ten miles to the

west of Jericho, was a comparatively smaller city, numbering only

12,000 inhabitants (Joshua 8:25). Yet its position was exceedingly

important. Southwards it opened the road to Jerusalem, which is only

a few hours distant; northwards it commanded access to the heart

of the country, so that, as we ﬁnd in the sequel, a victorious army

could march thence unopposed into the fertile district of Samaria.

Moreover, the fate of Ai virtually decided also that of Bethel.

The latter city, ruled by another independent “king,”

lay to the west

In Joshua 12:7-24, no less than thirty-one such “kings” are enumerated, as van-

quished by Joshua. And it must be remembered that their territories did not by any means

cover the whole of Palestine west of the Jordan.

Joshua 12:16. From the position of the king of Bethel in the list of vanquished

“kings,” we are led to infer that Bethel was taken somewhat later than Ai. But, from

Joshua 8:17, we learn that there was a league between the two cities. Their armies must

lvii

lviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

of Ai, being separated from it by a high intervening hill. This hill,

about midway between Bethel and Ai, possessed special interest. It

[54]

was the site of Abram’s altar, when he ﬁrst entered the land (Genesis

12:8). Here also had the patriarch stood with Lot, overlooking in

the near distance the rich luxuriance of the Jordan valley, when Lot

made his fatal choice of residence (Genesis 13:4, 10). Standing

on this hill, a valley is seen to stretch westward to Bethel, while

eastward, around Ai, “the wadys which at ﬁrst break down steeply...

descend gradually for about three quarters of a mile, before taking

their ﬁnal plunge to the Jordan valley. The gently sloping ground

is well studded with olive trees.”

This rapid sketch of the locality

will help us to realize the events about to be recorded.

The advance now to be made by Israel was so important, that

Joshua deemed it a proper precaution to send “men to view Ai.”

Their report satisﬁed him that only an army-corps of about 3000

men was requisite to take that city. But the expedition proved far

from successful. The men of Ai issued from the city, and routed

Israel, killing thirty-six men, pursuing the fugitives as far as “She-

barim” (“mines,” or perhaps “quarries” where stones are broken),

and smiting them “in the going down,” that is, to about a mile’s

distance, where the wadys, descending from Ai, take “their ﬁnal

plunge” eastwards. Viewed in any light, the event was terribly omi-

nous. It had been Israel’s ﬁrst ﬁght west of the Jordan—and their ﬁrst

defeat. The immediate danger likely to accrue was a combination

of all their enemies round about, and the utter destruction of a host

which had become dispirited. But there was even a more serious

aspect than this. Had God’s pledged promises now failed? or, if

this could not even for a moment be entertained, had the Lord given

up His gracious purpose, His covenant with Israel, and the mani-

festation of His “Name” among all nations, connected therewith?

have either moved in accord, or have been at the disposal of the king of Ai. In either case

the men of Bethel may have made their way back to their own city when Israel turned

against Ai.

We are here indebted to a very interesting paper by Canon Williams, read before

the Church Congress at Dublin in 1868, and to Capt. Wilson’s Notes upon it.

See the remarks on Exodus 6:3 in The Exodus, etc. Canaan.

Chapter 8 lix

Feelings like these found expression in Joshua’s appeal to God,

when, with rent clothes and ashes upon their heads, he and the elders

of Israel lay the livelong day, in humiliation and prayer, before the

Lord, while in the camp “the hearts of the people” had “melted and

became as water.” We require to keep in view this contrast between

[55]

the impotent terror of the people and the praying attitude of their

leaders, to realize the circumstances of the case; the perplexity, the

anxiety, and the difﬁculties of Joshua, before we judge of the lan-

guage which he used. It fell indeed far short of the calm conﬁdence

of a Moses; yet, in its inquiry into the reason of God’s dealings,

which were acknowledged, faith, so to speak, wrestled with doubt

(Joshua 7:7), while rising fear was confronted by trust in God’s

promises (ver. 9). Best of all, the inward contest found expression

in prayer. It was therefore, after all, a contest of faith, and faith is

“the victory over the world.”

Strange, that amidst this universal agitation, one should have

remained unmoved, who, all the time, knew that he was the cause

of Israel’s disaster and of the mourning around. Yet his conscience

must have told him that, so long as it remained, the curse of his sin

would follow his brethren, and smite them with impotence. It is

this hardness of impenitence—itself the consequence of sin—which,

when properly considered, vindicates, or rather demonstrates, the

rightness of the Divine sentence afterwards executed upon Achan.

His sin was of no ordinary character. It had not only been a violation

of God’s express command, but daring sacrilege and profanation.

And this under circumstances of the most aggravated character. Be-

sides, Joshua had, just before the fall of Jericho’, warned the people

of the danger to themselves and to all Israel of taking “of the accursed

thing” (Joshua 6:18). So emphatic had been the ban pronounced

upon the doomed city, that it was extended to all time, and even over

The Divine sentence needs no justiﬁcation. Achan’s was a sin which involved its

peculiar punishment. But, as in the case of Esau, his history showed the ﬁtness of the

Divine sentence which debarred him of the “inheritance” of the promise, so was it also

in the case of Achan. In studying the history of events we are too apt to overlook that of

person and characters.

lx Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

the whole family of any who should presume to restore Jericho as a

fortress (6:26).

And, in face of all this, Achan had allowed himself to be tempted!

[56]

He had yielded to the lowest passion. One of those Babylonish gar-

ments, curiously woven with ﬁgures and pictures (such as classical

writers describe), a massive golden ornament, in the shape of a

tongue, and a sum of silver, amounting to about 25l in a city the

walls of which had just miraculously fallen before the Lord, had

induced him to commit this daring sin! More than that, when it had

come true, as Joshua predicted (6:18), that such theft would “make

the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it,” Achan had still persisted

in his sin.

It will be remembered that, forty years before, at the brink of the

Red Sea, “the Lord said unto Moses: Wherefore criest thou unto Me?

speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward!” (Exodus

14:15). As then, so now, when Joshua and the elders of Israel lay

on their faces before the Lord, not prayer, but action was required.

In the one case it was not exercise of faith to pray where obedience

was called for; nor yet, in the other, had prayer any meaning, nor

could it expect an answer, while sin remained unremoved. And so it

ever is. The cause of Israel’s disaster lay, not in want of faithfulness

on the part of the Lord, but on that of Israel. Their sin must now be

searched out, and “the accursed” be “destroyed from among them.”

For, although the sin of Achan was that of an individual, it involved

all Israel in its guilt. The sinner was of Israel’, and his sin was in

Israels camp. It is needless here to discuss the question, how one

guilty of sin should involve in its consequences those connected with

him, whether by family or social ties. It is simply a fact, admitting no

discussion, and is equally witnessed when God’s law in nature, and

when His moral law is set at deﬁance. The deepest reason of it lies,

indeed, in this, that the God of nature and of grace is also the founder

It is a common mistake to suppose that Jericho was never to be rebuilt. This evidently

could not have been the meaning of Joshua, as among other cities he assigned Jericho to

the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 18:21). Similarly, we read of “the city of palm-trees” in

Judges 3:13, and by its own name in 2 Samuel 10:5. The ban of Joshua referred not to the

rebuilding of Jericho, but to its restoration as a fortiﬁed city. This also appears from the

terms used by Joshua (“set up the gates of it,” Joshua 6:26), and again reiterated when the

threatened judgment afterwards came upon the family of Hiel (1 Kings 16:34).

Chapter 8 lxi

of society; for, the family and society are not of man’s devising, but

of God’s institution, and form part of His general plan. Accordingly,

God deals with us not merely as individuals, but also as families and

[57]

as nations. To question the rightness of this would be to question

alike the administration, the fundamental principles, and the plan

of God’s universe. But there is reason for devout thankfulness, that

we can, and do recognize the presence of God in both nature and in

history. The highest instance of the application of this law, is that

which has rendered our salvation possible. For just as we had sinned

and destroyed ourselves through our connection with the ﬁrst Adam,

so are we saved through the second Adam—the Lord from heaven,

Who has become our Substitute, that in Him we might receive the

adoption of children.

The tidings, that the sin of one of their number had involved Israel

in judgment, must have rapidly spread through the camp of Israel.

But even this knowledge and the summons to sanctify themselves,

that on the morrow the transgressor might be designated by the Lord,

did not move Achan to repentance and confession. And now all

Israel were gathered before the Lord. First approached the princes of

the twelve tribes. Each name of a tribe had been written separately,

when “the lot” that “came up,” or was drawn, bore the name of

Judah.

Thus singled out, the heads of the various clans of Judah next

presented themselves, when the lot designated that of Zarhi. And

still the solemn trial went on, with increasing solemnity, as the circle

narrowed, when successively the families of Zabdi, and ﬁnally,

among them, the household of Achan was singled out by the hand

of God. All this time had Achan kept silence. And now he stood

alone before God and Israel, that guilty one who had “troubled”

all. Would he at the last confess, and “give glory to Jehovah” by

owning Him as the God who seeth and knoweth all sin, however

deeply hidden? It was in the language of sorrow, not of anger, that

We infer that the guilty tribe, kindred, family, and individual household (being the

four divisions according to which all Israel was arranged) was designated by the lot, from

the fact that the expression rendered “taken” in Joshua 7 is exactly the same as that word

in 1 Samuel 10:20, and 14:41, 42. Again, the expressions “the lot came up” (Joshua

18:11) or “came forth” (19:1), seems to indicate that the lot was drawn - probably out an

urn - in the manner described in the text.

lxii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

Joshua adjured him. It wrung from Achan a full admission of his

[58]

crime. How miserable the whole thing must have sounded in his

own ears, when he had put the facts of his sin into naked words; how

paltry the price at which he had sold himself, when it was brought

into the broad sunlight and “laid out before the Lord,” in the sight of

Joshua and of all Israel. One thing more only remained to be done.

They led forth the wretched man, with all his household, and all that

belonged to them, and all Israel stoned him.

And then they burned

the dead body,

and buried all beneath a heap of stones, alike as a

memorial and a warning. But the valley they called that of “Achor,”

or trouble—while the echoes of that story sounded through Israel’s

history to latest times, in woe and in weal, for judgment and for hope

(Isaiah 65:10; Hosea 2:15).

The sin of Israel having been removed, God once more assured

Joshua of His presence to give success to the undertaking against Ai.

In pledge thereof He was even pleased to indicate the exact means

which were to be used in reducing the city. A corps of 30,000 men

was accordingly detailed, of whom 5000 were placed in ambush on

the west side of Ai,

where, under shelter of the wood, their presence was concealed from

[59]

Ai, and, by the intervening hill, from Bethel. While the main body

of the Israelites under Joshua were to draw away the defenders of Ai

by feigned ﬂight, this corps was at a given signal to take the city, and

after having set it on ﬁre, to turn against the retreating men. Such

Most commentators read Joshua 7:24, 25, as implying that the sons and daughters

of Achan were stoned with him, supposing that his family could not have been ignorant

of their father’s sin. Of the latter there is, however, no indication in the text. It will also

be noticed that in ver. 25 the singular number is used: “All Israel stoned him;” “and they

raised over him a great heap of stones.” In that case, the plural number which follows

(“and burned them,” etc.) would refer only to the oxen, asses, and sheep, and to all that

Achan possessed.

This was an aggravation of the ordinary punishment of death, Leviticus 20:14. We

may here also explain that the expression “wrought folly in Israel” (Joshua 7:15), refers

to that which is opposed to the character and dignity of God’s people, as in Genesis 34:7.

Interpreters have found considerable difﬁculties in Joshua 8:3, as compared with

vers. 10-12, and accordingly suggested, that as the two letters h and l - the one indicating

the number ﬁve, the other thirty - are very like each other, there may have been a mistake

in copying ver. 3, where it should read 5000 instead of 30,000. But there really is no

need for resorting to this theory, and I believe that the narrative, fairly read, convey the

meaning expressed by me the text.

Chapter 8 lxiii

was the plan of attack, and it was closely adhered to. “The ambush”

lay on the west of Ai, while the main body of the host pitched north

of the city, a valley intervening between them and Ai. Next, Joshua

moved into the middle of that valley. Early the following morning

the king of Ai discovered this advance of the Israelitish camp, and

moved with his army to the “appointed place,”

right in front of

“the plain,” which, as we know from the description of travelers,

was covered by olive trees.

The battleﬁeld was well chosen, since Ai occupied the vantage-

ground on the slope, while an advance by Israel would be checked

and broken by the olive plantation which they would have to traverse.

Joshua and all Israel now feigned a retreat, and ﬂed in an easterly

direction towards the wilderness. Upon this, all the people that were

in Ai, in their eager haste to make the victory decisive, “allowed

themselves to be called away”

to pursue after Israel, till they were

drawn a considerable distance from the city.

The olive plantation now afforded those who had lain in ambush

shelter for their advance. The preconcerted signal was given. Joshua,

who probably occupied a height apart, watching the ﬁght, lifted his

spear. As the outposts of the ambush saw it, and reported that the

signal for their advance had been given, a rush would be made up

the steep sides of the hill towards the city. But the signal would also

be perceived and understood by the main army of Israel, and they

now anxiously watched the result of movements which they could

not follow. They had not long to wait. Above the dark green olive

trees, above the rising slopes, above the white walls, curled slowly

in the clear morning air the smoke of the burning city. Something in

the attitude and movements of Israel must have betrayed it, for “the

men of Ai looked behind them,” only to see that all was lost, and

[60]

no means of escape left them. And now the host of Israel “turned

again,” while those who had set Ai on ﬁre advanced in an opposite

direction. Between these two forces the men of Ai were literally

crushed. Not one of them escaped from that bloody plain and slope.

The slaughter extended to the district around. Finally, the king of

Not “time,” as in our Authorized Version, which would give no meaning.

This is the real meaning of the form of the Hebrew verb, and makes the narrative

most pictorial.

lxiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

Ai was put to death, and his dead body “hanged upon a tree till

eventide.”

But of what had been Ai “they made a Tel (or heap) forever.”

Never was Scripture saying more literally fulﬁlled than this. For a

long time did modern explorers in vain seek for the site of Ai, where

they knew it must have stood. “The inhabitants of the neighboring

villages,” writes Canon Williams, to whom the merit of the identiﬁ-

cation really belongs, “declared repeatedly and emphatically that this

was Tel, and nothing else. I was satisﬁed that it should be so when,

on subsequent reference to the original text of Joshua 8:28, I found

it written, that ‘Joshua burnt Ai, and made it a Tel forever, even a

desolation unto this day!There are many Tels in modern Palestine’,

that landof Tels, each Tel with some other name attached to it to

mark the former site. But the site of Ai has no other name ‘unto this

day.It is simply et-Tel—the heap ‘par excellence.’”

It does not appear that “hanging” was one of the modes of execution under the

Mosaic Law. From Deuteronomy 21:22, we learn that in certain cases the criminal

was put to death, and after that his dead body hung on a tree till eventide. This is

fully conﬁrmed by Joshua 10:26. The Rabbinical Law (Sanh. vii. 3; 11:1) recognizes

strangulation, but not hanging, as a mode of execution in the lightest cases to which

the punishment of death attached. Full details are given as to the manner in which the

punishment was to be administered.

Chapter 9 [61]

Solemn Dedication of the Land and of Israel on Mounts Ebal and

Gerizim—The Deceit of the Gibeonites

(Joshua 8:30, 9:1-27)

BY the miraculous fall of Jericho God had, so to speak, given to

His people the key to the whole land; with the conquest of Ai they

had themselves entered, in His strength, upon possession of it. The

ﬁrst and most obvious duty now was, to declare, by a grand national

act, in what character Israel meant to hold what it had received of

God. For, as previously explained, it could never have been the

Divine object in all that had been, or would be done, merely to

substitute one nation for another in the possession of Palestine; but

rather to destroy the heathen, and to place in their room His own

redeemed and sanctiﬁed people, so that on the ruins of the hostile

kingdom of this world, His own might be established. To mark

the signiﬁcance of the act by which Israel was to declare this, it

had before been prescribed by Moses as a ﬁrst duty (Deuteronomy

27:2), and detailed directions given for it (Deuteronomy 27). The act

itself was to consist of three parts. The law—that is, the commands,

“statutes,” and “rights,” contained in the Pentateuch—was to be

written on “great stones,” previously covered with “plaster,” in the

manner in which inscriptions were made on the monuments of Egypt.

Then sacriﬁces were to be offered on an altar of “whole stones.”

The memorial stones were to be set up, and the sacriﬁces offered

on Mount Ebal. But the third was to be the most solemn part of the

In the drier climate of Palestine such inscriptions would of course last much longer

than in our own country. Still, they could not have been so durable as if graven on these

stones. May it not be, that this “profession” was intended for that, rather than for all future

generations? For, though it was indeed binding upon all succeeding generations - as the

record of the transaction in Scripture shows - yet each generation must take for itself the

profession to be the Lord’s.

lxv

lxvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

service. The priests

with the Ark were to occupy the intermediate

valley, and six of the tribes (Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph,

and Benjamin)—those which had sprung from the lawful wives of

Israel—were to stand on Mount Gerizim, while the other six (of

[62]

whom ﬁve had sprung from Leah’s and Rachel’s maids, Reuben

being added to them on account of his great sin, Genesis 49:4) were

placed on Mount Ebal.

Then, as the priests in the valley beneath read the words of bless-

ing, the tribes on Mount Gerizim were to respond by an Amen; and

as they read the words of the curses, those on Mount Ebal were

similarly to give their solemn assent—thus expressly taking upon

themselves each obligation, with its blessing in the observance, and

its curse in the breach thereof. An historical parallel here imme-

diately recurs to our minds. As, on his ﬁrst entrance into Canaan,

Abraham had formally owned Jehovah by rearing an altar unto Him

(Genesis 12:7), and as Jacob had, on his return, paid the vow which

he had recorded at Bethel (Genesis 35:7), so Israel now consecrated

its possession of the land by receiving it as from the Lord, by record-

ing His name, and by taking upon itself all the obligations of the

covenant.

A glance at the map will enable us to realize the scene. From Ai

and Bethel the direct route northwards leads by Shiloh to Shechem

(Judges 21:19). The journey would occupy altogether about eleven

hours. Of course, Israel could not have realized at the time that

they were just then traveling along what would become the great

highway from Galilee to Jerusalem, so memorable in after-history.

Leaving the sanctuary of Shiloh a little aside, they would climb a

rocky ridge. Before them a noble prospect spread. This was the

future rich portion of Ephraim: valleys covered with corn, hills

terraced to their tops, the slopes covered with vines and olive-yards.

On wards the host moved, till it reached a valley, bounded south

and north by mountains, which run from west to east. This was the

exact spot on which Abram had built his ﬁrst altar (Genesis 12:7);

here, also, had Jacob’s ﬁrst settlement been (Genesis 33:19). Not a

foe molested Israel on their march right up the middle of the land,

That this devolved not upon the Levites generally, but specially upon the priests,

appears from Joshua 8:33.

Chapter 9 lxvii

partly, as previously explained, from the division of the land under

so many petty chieftains, but chieﬂy because God had a favor unto

them and to the work to which they had set their hands. Travelers

speak in rapturous terms of the beauty of the valleyof Shechem,

even in the present desolateness of the country. It is a pass which

intersects the mountain-chain, that runs through Palestine from south

to north. To the south it is bounded by the range of Gerizim, to the

[63]

north by that of Ebal. From where the priests with the Ark took up

their position on the gentle rise of the valley, both Gerizim and Ebal

appear hollowed out, forming, as it were, an amphitheater,

while

the “limestone strata, running up in a succession of ledges to the top

of the hills, have all the appearance of benches.”

Here, occupying every available inch of ground, were crowded

the tribes of Israel: men, women, and children, “as well the strangers,

and he that was born among them.” As they stood close together,

the humblest in Israel by the side of the “ofﬁcers,” “elders,” and

“judges,” all eagerly watching what passed in the valley, or solemnly

responding to blessing or curse, a scene was enacted, the like of

which had not before been witnessed upon earth, and which could

never fade from the memory.

It is noteworthy that, on Mount

Ebal, whence came the responses to the curses, the great stones

were set up on which “the law” was written, and that there also the

sacriﬁces were offered. This is in itself characteristic. Perhaps even

the circumstance is not without signiﬁcance, that they who stood on

Mount Ebal must have had their view bounded by the mountains of

Benjamin. Not so they who occupied Gerizim, the mount whence

came the responses to the blessings. For the view which greeted

those who at early morn crowded the top of the Mount of Blessings,

was only second to that vouchsafed to Moses from the summit of

This peculiarity was noticed by Canon Williams, and also specially referred to by

Capt. Wilson, R.E., from whom the quotation within inverted commas is made.

All travelers are agreed on two points: 1. That there could be no difﬁculty whatever

in distinctly hearing both from Ebal and Gerizim anything that was spoken in the valley.

2. That these two mountains afforded sufﬁcient standing-ground for all Israel. We note

these two points in answer to possible objections. Happily in the present instance we

have express and independent testimony to put such cavils out of court. According to Dr.

Thomson (The Land and the Book, 1 p. 203), the valley is about sixty rods wide.

lxviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

Pisgah. If less in extent than the latter, it was more distinct and

detailed.

All Central Palestine lay spread like a map before the wondering

gaze of Israel. Tabor, Gilboa, the hills of Galilee

rose in succession; in the far-distance snow-capped Hermon

[64]

bounded the horizon, with sweet valleys and rich ﬁelds intervening.

Turning to the right, they would descry the Lake of Galilee, and

follow the cleft of the Jordan valley, marking beyond it Bashan,

Ajalon, Gilead, and even Moab; to their left, the Mediterranean

from Carmel to Gaza was full in view, the blue outline far away

dimly suggesting thoughts of the “isles of the Gentiles,” and the

blessings in store for them. as far as the eye could reach -and beyond

it, to the uttermost bounds of the earth—would the scene which they

witnessed in that valley below be repeated; the echo of the blessings

to which they responded on that mount would resound, till, having

wakened every valley, it would ﬁnally be sent back in songs of praise

and thanksgiving from a redeemed earth. And so did—Israel on that

spring morning consecrate Palestine unto the LORD, taking sea and

lake, mountain and valley—the most hallowed spots in their history

-as witnesses of their covenant.

From this solemn transaction the Israelites moved, as we gather

from Joshua 9:6, to Gilgal, where they seem to have formed a

permanent camp. The mention of this place in Deuteronomy 11:30,

where it is described as “beside the oaks of Moreh,”

that is, near

the spot of Abram’s ﬁrst altar (Genesis 12:7), implies a locality well-

known at the time, and, as we might almost conjecture from its after

history, a sort of traditional sanctuary.

This alone would sufﬁce to distinguish this Gilgal from the ﬁrst

encampment of Israel east of Jericho, which only obtained its name

from the event which there occurred. Besides, it is impossible to

suppose that Joshua marched back from Shechem to the banks of

Jordan (9:6; 10:6, 7, 9, 15, 43), and, again, that he did so a second

time, after the battles in Galilee, to make apportionment of the

land among the people by the banks of Jordan (14:6). Further, the

localization of Gilgal near the banks of Jordan would be entirely

Comp. Canon Tristram’s Land of Israel, p. 153.

This is the correct rendering.

Chapter 9 lxix

incompatible with what we know of the after-history of that place.

Gilgal was one of the three cities where Samuel judged the people

(1 Samuel 7:16); here, also, he offered sacriﬁces, when the Ark

was no longer in the tabernacle at Shiloh (1 Samuel 10:8; 13:7-9;

15:21); and there, as in a central sanctuary, did all Israel gather to

renew their allegiance to Saul (1 Samuel 11:14). Later on, Gilgal

[65]

was the great scene of Elisha’s ministry (2 Kings 2:1), and still later

it became a center of idolatrous worship (Hosea 4:15; 9:15; 12:11;

Amos 4:4; 5:5). All these considerations lead to the conclusion,

that the Gilgal, which formed the site of Joshua’s encampment is

the modern Jiljilieh, a few miles from Shiloh, and about the same

distance from Bethel’—nearly equi-distant from Shechem and from

Jerusalem.

In this camp at Gilgal a strange deputation soon arrived. Pro-

fessedly, and apparently, the travelers had come a long distance. For

their garments were worn, their sandals clouted, their provisions dry

and moldy,

and the skins in which their wine had been were rent

and “bound up” (like purses), as in the East wine-bottles of goat’s

skin are temporarily repaired on a long journey.

According to their own account, they lived far beyond the bound-

aries of Palestine, where their fellow-townsmen had heard what the

Lord had done in Egypt, and again to Sihon and to Og, wisely omit-

ting from the catalogue the miraculous passage of Jordan and the

fall of Jericho, as of too recent date for their theory. Attracted by

the name of Jehovah, Israel’s God, who had done such wonders,

they had been sent to make “a league” with Israel. It must have

been felt that the story did not sound probable—at least, to any who

had learned to realize the essential enmity of heathenism against the

kingdom of God—, and who understood that so great a change as

the report of these men implied could not be brought about by “the

hearing of the ear.” Besides, what they proposed was not to make

submission to, but a league with, Israel—: by which not merely life,

but their land and liberty, would be secured to them.

But against

any league with the inhabitants of Canaan, Israel had been specially

Comp. Robinson’s Biblical Researches, vol. 2 p. 245.

Literally, “dotted over.”

In Joshua 9:15, we read indeed: “Joshua... made a league with them, to let them

live.”

lxx Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

warned (Exodus 23:32; 34:12; Numbers 33:55; Deuteronomy 7:2).

What if, after all, they were neighbors? The suspicion seems to

have crossed the minds of Joshua and of the elders, and even to have

been expressed by them, only to be set aside by the protestations

of the pretended ambassadors. It was certainly a mark of religious

superﬁciality and self-conﬁdence on the part of the elders of Israel

to have consented on such grounds to “a league.” The sacred text

[66]

signiﬁcantly puts it: “And the men (the elders of Israel) took of their

victuals (according to the common Eastern fashion of eating bread

and salt with a guest who is received as a friend), but they asked not

counsel at the mouth of Jehovah.”

Their mistake soon became apparent. Three days later, and

Israel found that the pretended foreigners were in reality neighbors!

Meanwhile, the kings or chieftains who ruled in Western Palestine

had been concerting against Israel a combined movement of their

forces from “the hills,” or highlands of Central Palestine, from “the

valleys,” or the Shephelah (low country), between the mountain-

chain and the sea, and “from the coasts of the great sea over against

Lebanon,” that is, from Joppa northwards by the seashore. The

existence of the small confederate republic of Gibeon with its three

associate cities in the midst of small monarchies throws a curious

light upon the state of Palestine at the time; and the jealousy which

would naturally exist between them helps to explain alike the policy

of the Gibeonites, and the revenge which the Canaanitish kings were

shortly afterwards preparing to take. The history of the republic of

Gibeon is interesting.

“Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities....

greater than Ai, and all the men thereof were mighty”

(Joshua 10:2).

Its inhabitants were “Hivites” (11:19). Afterwards Gibeon fell

to the lot of Benjamin, and became a priest-city (18:25; 21:17).

When Nob was destroyed by Saul, the tabernacle was transported to

Gibeon, where it remained till the temple was built by Solomon (1

Chronicles 16:39; 21:29; 1 Kings 3:4; 2 Chronicles 1:3).

The following historical notice in the Mishnah is so interesting, that we give its

translation: “When they went to Gilgal, high places were allowed (for ordinary worship);

Chapter 9 lxxi

It lay about two hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, and is rep-

[67]

resented by the modern village of el-Jib. Its three associate towns

were Chephirah, about three hourswest from Gibeon, the modern

Keﬁr; Beeroth, about ten miles north of Jerusalem, the modern el-

Bireh—both cities afterwards within the possession of Benjamin;

and Kirjath-Jearim, “the city of groves,” probably so called from its

olive, ﬁg, and other plantations, as its modern representative, Kuriet-

el-Enab, is from its vineyards. The latter city, which was afterwards

allotted to Judah, is about three hours from Jerusalem; and there the

Ark remained from the time of its return from the Philistines to that

of David (1 Samuel 7:2; 2 Samuel 6:2; 1 Chronicles 13:5, 6).

When the people learned the deceit practiced upon them, they

“murmured against the princes;” but the latter refused to break their

solemn oath, so far as it insured the lives and safety of the Gibeonites.

If they had sworn rashly and presumptuously “by Jehovah, God of

Israel,” it would have only added another and a far more grievous

sin to have broken their oath; not to speak of the effect upon the

heathen around. The principle applying to this, as to similar rash

undertakings, is, that a solemn obligation, however incurred, must

be considered binding, unless its observance involve fresh sin. But

in this instance it manifestly did not involve fresh sin.

For the

main reason of the destruction of the Canaanites was their essential

hostility to the kingdom of God. The danger to Israel, accruing from

this, could be avoided in a solitary instance. With a view to this, the

Gibeonites were indeed spared, but attached as “bond-men” to the

sanctuary, where they and their descendants performed all menial

the most holy offerings were eaten ‘within,’ between the veils; the less holy ones in every

place. When they went to Shiloh, the high places were forbidden. There were not there

beams (for the house of God), but a building of stones below (a kind of foundation) and

the curtains (tabernacle) above, and that was (in Scripture-language) ‘rest.’ Then the most

holy offerings were eaten ‘within,’ between the veils, and the less holy and the second

tithe anywhere within sight (of Shiloh). When they went to Nob and to Gibeon, high

places were allowed. Then the most holy offerings were eaten ‘within,’ between the veils,

and the less holy ones in all the cities of Israel” (Sevachim xiv. 5, 6, 7).

As for example in the case of monastic vows.

lxxii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

services

(Joshua 9:23). Nor, as the event proved, did they ever

betray their trust, or lead Israel into idolatry.

Still, as a German writer observes, the rashness of Israel’s princes,

[68]

and the conduct of the Gibeonites, conveys to the church at all times

solemn warning against the devices and the deceit of the world,

which, when outward advantage offers, seeks a friendly alliance

with, or even reception into, the visible kingdom of God.

From the concluding words of Joshua 9:27, it has been rightly inferred that the Book

of Joshua must date from a period previous to the building of the temple by Solomon.

From 2 Samuel 21:1, we gather that, in his carnal zeal, Saul had broken the oath of

the princes - with what result appears from the narrative.

Chapter 10 [69]

The Battle of Gibeon—Conquest of the South of Canaan—The

Battle of Merom—Conquest of the North of Canaan—State of the

Land at the Close of the Seven-years War

(Joshua 10-12)

THE surrender of Gibeon would ﬁll the kings of Southern

Canaan with dismay. It was, so to speak, treason within their own

camp; it gave Israel a strong position in the heart of the country and

within easy reach of Jerusalem; while the possession of the passes

leading from Gibeon would throw the whole south of Canaan open

to their incursion. In the circumstances it natural that the chieftains

of the south would combine, in the ﬁrst place, for the retaking of

Gibeon. The confederacy, which was under the leadership of Adoni-

Zedek,

king of Jerusalem,

embraced Hoham,

King of Hebron

(about seven hourssouth of Jerusalem); Piram,

king of Jarmuth,

the present Jarmuk, about three hoursto the south-west of Jerusalem;

Japhia,

king of Lachish, and Debir,

king of Eglon, both cities

close to each other, and not far from Gaza, to the south-west of

Hebron.

The march of the combined kings was evidently rapid, and the

danger pressing, for it seems to have found the Gibeonites wholly

unprepared, and their entreaty to Joshua for immediate succor was

The reader will notice the signiﬁcant change from Melchi-Zedek, “My King righ-

teousness,” to Adoni-Zedek, “My Lord righteousness,” marking the change of dynasties.

See History of the Patriarchs, p.86.

Jerusalem, either the habitation of peace, or the possession of peace - perhaps

originally the habitation of Shalem.

Hoham: “the Jehovah of the multitude.”

Piram: “coursing about,” wild and free.

Japhia: exalted.

Debir: scribe.

lxxiii

lxxiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

of the most urgent kind. That very night Joshua marched to their

relief with “all the people of war, that is, the mighty men of valor.”

The relieving army came upon the enemy as “suddenly” as they

had appeared in sight of Gibeon. It was probably very early in the

morning when Joshua and his warriors surprised the allied camp.

Gibeon lay in the east, surrounded, as in a semicircle, north, west,

and south, by its three confederate cities. The ﬁve kings had pushed

forward within that semicircle, and camped in the “open ground

at the foot of the heights of Gibeon.” Animated by the assurance

which God had expressly given Joshua: “Fear them not: for I have

[70]

delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand

before thee,” the host of Israel fell upon them with an irresistible

rush. The Canaanites made but a short stand before their unexpected

assailants; then ﬂed in wild confusion towards the pass of Upper

Beth-horon, “the house of caves.” They gained the height before

their pursuers, and were hurrying down the pass of the Nether Beth-

horon, when a fearful hailstorm, such as not unfrequently sweeps

over the hills of Palestine, burst upon them. It was in reality “the

Lord” who, once more miraculously employing natural agency, “cast

down great stones from heaven upon them;” “and they were more

which died from the hailstones than they whom the children of Israel

slew with the sword.”

It was but noon; far behind Israel in the heaven stood the sun

over Gibeon, and before them over Ajalon in the west hung the

crescent moon. The tempest was extinguishing day and light, and

the work was but half done. In the pass to Nether Beth-horon Israel

might be readily divided; at any rate, the enemy might escape before

their crushing defeat had assured safety to Gibeon, and given the

south of Palestine to Israel. Now, or never, was the time to pursue

the advantage. Oh, that the sun would once more burst forth in

his brightness; oh, that the all too short day were protracted “until

the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies!” Then it

was that Joshua burst into that impassioned prayer of faith, which is

quoted in the sacred text from the “Book of Jasher,”—or “Book of

the Pious,”—apparently, as we infer from 2 Samuel 1:18, a collection

We have so rendered the Hebrew particle “and” which is here used explanatively.

A German writer has noticed that a similar hailstorm determined the battle of

Solferino against the Austrians in 1859

Chapter 10 lxxv

of poetical pieces, connected with the sublimest scenes in the history

of the heroes of the kingdom of God. In this instance the quotation

begins, as we take it, Joshua 10:12, and ends with ver. 15. This is

proved by the insertion in ver. 15 of a notice, which in the historical

narrative occurs only in ver. 43. For it is evident that Joshua did

not return to Gilgal immediately after the battle of Gibeon (ver. 21),

but pursued the war as described in the rest of ch. 10, till the whole

south of Palestine was reduced. Thus verses 12-15 are a quotation

from “the Book of the Pious,” inserted within the Book of Joshua,

the narrative of which is resumed in ver. 16. The quotation reads as

follows:

“Then spake Joshua to Jehovah, In the day Jehovah

[71]

gave the Amorite before the sons of Israel, And he spake

in the sight of Israel. Sun, on Gibeon rest still,

And

moon, on the valley of Ajalon! And still rested the

sun, And the moon stood, Till the people were avenged

on their foes. (Is not this written in the ‘Book of the

Pious?’) And the sun stood in mid-heaven, And hasted

not to go—like (as on) a complete day.

And there was

not like that day, before or after, That Jehovah hearkened

to the voice of man—For Jehovah warred for Israel—!

And Joshua returned, and all Israel—with him to the

camp, to Gilgal.”

The word probably means “to become dumb.” Accordingly, a recent Italian writer

has regarded it as a poetical expression for “ceasing to shine,” and treated the event as an

eclipse of the sun. But the context shows that this view is untenable, and that “to become

dumb” means here to rest silent or stand still.

That is, like any ordinary complete day. We attach considerable importance to our

rendering as here proposed.

It is impossible here to enter on a detailed criticism. Substantially our view is that

of all the best critics, except that some regard the ﬁve lines after the parenthesis as the

remarks of him who inserted in the Book of Joshua the quotation from the Book of Jasher.

But the poetical terms used in these ﬁve last lines render this view, to say the least of

it, most improbable. Poetical expressions, similar to those used in the text, will recur

to the reader, specially Judges 5:20: “the stars fought out of their courses (not “in their

courses,” as in Authorized Version) against Sisera.” See also Psalm 18:10; 29:6; 114:4-6;

Isaiah 34:3; 55:12; 64:1; Amos 9:13; Micah 1:4. The passage Habakkuk 3:11 does not

refer to the event in the text, as its correct rendering is: “The sun and moon enter into

lxxvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

And God hearkened to the voice of Joshua. Once more the sun

burst forth, and the daylight was miraculously protracted till Israel

was avenged of its enemies. Onwards rolled the tide of fugitives,

hotly pursued by Israel, through the pass of Nether Beth-horon to

Azekah, and thence to Makkedah.

Here tidings were brought to

Joshua, that the ﬁve kings had hid themselves in one of the caves

[72]

with which that district abounds. But Joshua would not be diverted

from his object. He ordered large stones to be rolled to the mouth of

the cave, and its entrance to be guarded by armed men, while the rest

of the army followed the enemy and smote their “rearguard.” Only

broken remnants of the fugitives found shelter in the “fenced cities.”

Joshua himself had camped before the city of Makkedah. Thither

the pursuing corps returned, and thence the war was afterwards

carried on (10:21, 29). On the morning after the victory, the ﬁve

confederate kings were brought from their hiding-place. In a manner

not uncommon in ancient times,

Joshua made his captains put

their feet upon the necks of the prostrate kings, who had so lately

gone forth boastfully in all the pride and. pomp of war. But the

lesson which Israel was to learn from their victory was not one of

self-conﬁdence in their supposed superiority, but of acknowledgment

of God and conﬁdence in Him: “Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong

and of good courage: for thus shall Jehovah do to all your enemies

against whom ye ﬁght.”

The death of these ﬁve kings proved only the beginning of a

campaign which may have lasted weeks, or even months, for we

ﬁnd that successors of these ﬁve kings afterwards shared their fate.

In the end, the whole south of Canaan was in the hands of Israel,

though some of the cities taken appear to have been afterwards again

wrested from them, and occupied by the Canaanites.

The extent

of the conquest is indicated (10:41) by a line drawn south and north,

their habitation,” that is, go into shadow. Our view does not, of course, militate against a

miraculous intervention on the part of God.

The locality of these two places has not been ascertained.

It seems even to have been practiced by the Byzantine emperors long after the

Christian era. See the reference given, Bynaeus in Kid’s Commentary, p. 81.

Such as Gezer (10:33), Hebron, and Debir (14:12; 15:13-17; comp. Judges 1:10-15).

Masius rightly observes, that in this expedition Joshua had rather rapidly swept over the

south of Palestine than permanently and wholly occupied the country.

Chapter 10 lxxvii

westwards—“from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza”—and eastwards,

“from the district of Goshen

unto Gibeon.”

The campaign thus ﬁnished in the south had soon to be renewed

in the north of Canaan. The means, the help, and the result were

the same as before. Only, as the danger was much greater, from the

[73]

multitude of Israel’s opponents—“even as the sand that is upon the

seashore,”—and from their formidable mode of warfare (“horses

and chariots very many”), hitherto unknown to Israel, the Lord once

more gave express assurance of victory: “I will deliver them up all

slain before Israel.” At the same time He enjoined “to hough (or

hamstring) their horses, and burn their chariots with ﬁre,” lest Israel—

should be tempted to place in future their trust in such weapons. The

allied forces of the northern enemy were under the leadership of

Jabin,

king of Hazor,

which “before times was the head of all

those kingdoms.” They consisted not only of the three neighboring

“kings” (or chieftains) of Madon, Shimron, and Achshaph,

but of

all the kings “in the north and (on the mountain” (of Naphtali, Joshua

20:7), of those in the Arabah, south of the Lake of Gennesaret, of

those “in the plains,” or valleys that stretched to the Mediterranean,

and in “the heights of Dor,” at the foot of Mount Carmel—in short, of

all the Canaanite tribes from the Mediterranean in the south-west up

to Mizpeh

“the view”) under Mount Hermon in the far north-east.

With the rapidity and suddenness which characterized all his

movements, Joshua fell upon the allied camp by the Lake Merom

(the modern el-Huleh), and utterly routed the ill-welded mass of

the enemy. The fugitive Canaanites seem to have divided into three

parts, one taking the road north-west to “Zidon the Great,” another

Of course not the province of that name in Egypt, but a district in the south of Judah,

probably deriving its name from the town of that name (15:51).

Jabin seems to have been the title of the kings of Hazor (Judges 4:2).

Hazor in the mountains, north of Lake Merom, was afterwards rebuilt, and again

became the seat of royalty (Judges 4:2; 1 Samuel 12:9). Thence Sisera issued against

Israel.

The locality of these three places has not been ascertained; but they seem to have

been in the neighborhood of Hazor.

There were several places throughout the land bearing the name of “Mizpeh” or

“view.” This Mizpeh was probably the modern village Mutulleh, which also means

“prospect,” situated on a hill two hundred feet high, north of Lake Merom, whence there

is a splendid view.

lxxviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

that west and south-west to the “smelting-pits by the waters” (Mis-

rephoth-Maim), and the third that to the east leading to the valley of

Mizpeh. In each direction they were hotly pursued by the Israelites.

One by one all their cities were taken. Those in the valleys were

[74]

burnt, but those on the heights, with the exception of Hazor, left

standing, as requiring only small garrisons for their occupation. Al-

together the war in the south and north must have occupied at least

seven years,

at the end of which the whole country was in the

possession of Israel, from the “smooth mountain (Mount Halak) that

goeth up to Seir,”—that is, the white chalk mountains in the chain of

the Azazimeh, in the Negeb—as far north as “Baal-gad,” the town

dedicated to “Baal” as god of “fortune,” the Caesarea Philippi of the

Gospels (11:16- 18). More than that, Joshua also drove the Anakim,

who had inspired the spies with such dread, from their original seats

in the mountains,

and in and around Hebron, Debir, and Anab into

the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. From ch. 15:14 we

infer that they shortly afterwards returned, but were conquered by

that veteran hero, Caleb.

To sum up all, we ﬁnd that the wars under Joshua put Israel into

possession of Canaan and broke the power of its inhabitants, but

that the latter were not exterminated, nor yet all their cities taken

by Israel (13:1-6; 17:14, etc.; 18:3, 23:5, 12). Indeed, such a result

could scarcely have been desirable, either in reference to the country

[75]

or to Israel, while, from Exodus 23:28-30 and Deuteronomy 7:22,

we know that from the beginning it had not been the Divine purpose.

This we gather from Joshua 14:10. From it we learn that forty-ﬁve years had

elapsed since the spies returned to Kadesh. But as thirty-eight of these were spent in the

wanderings in the wilderness, it follows that the wars for the occupation of Canaan must

have lasted seven years.

In Joshua 11:21 a distinction is made between “the mountains of Judah” and

“the mountains of Israel.” This, strange as it may sound, affords one of the undesigned

evidences of the early composition of the Book of Joshua. “When Judah entered on

his possession,” observes a German critic, “all the other tribes were still in Gilgal (14:6;

15:1). Afterwards, when Ephraim and Manasseh entered on theirs, all Israel, except Judah,

were camped in Shiloh (16:1; 18:1), these two possessions being separated by the still

unallotted territory which later was given to Benjamin (18:11). What more natural than

that ‘the mountain’ given to the ‘children of Judah’ should have been called ‘the mountain

of Judah,’ and that where all the rest of Israel camped, ‘the mountain of Israel,’ and also

‘the mountain of Ephraim’ (19:50; 20:7), because it was afterwards given to that tribe?”

Chapter 10 lxxix

But there was also a higher object in this. It would teach that a

conquest, begun in the power of God and in believing dependence

on Him, must be completed and consolidated in the same spirit.

Only thus could Israel prosper as a nation. Canaan had been given

to Israel by God, and given to their faith. But much was left to be

done which only the same faith could achieve. Any conformity to

the heathen around, or tolerance of heathenism, any decay of the

spirit in which they had entered the land, would result not only in

weakness, but in the triumph of the enemy. And so it was intended

of the Lord. The lesson of all this is obvious and important. To us

also has our Joshua given entrance into Canaan, and victory over

our enemies—the world, the ﬂesh, and the devil. We have present

possession of the land. But we do not yet hold all its cities, nor are

our enemies exterminated. It needs on our part constant faith; there

must be no compromise with the enemy, no tolerance of his spirit,

no cessation of our warfare. Only that which at ﬁrst gave us the land

can complete and consolidate our possession of it.

Chapter 11[76]

Distribution of the Land—Unconquered Districts—Tribes East of

the Jordan—“The Lot”—Tribes West of the Jordan—The

Inheritance of Caleb—Dissatisfaction of the Sons of Joseph -The

Tabernacle at Shiloh—Final Division of the Land

(Joshua 13-21)

THE continuance of unsubdued races and districts soon became

a source of danger, although in a direction different from what

might have been anticipated. Sufﬁcient had been gained by a series

of brilliant victories to render the general tenure of the land safe to

Israel. The Canaanites and other races were driven to their fastnesses,

where for the time they remained on the defensive. On the other

hand, a nation like Israel, accustomed to the nomadic habits of the

wilderness, would scarcely feel the need of a ﬁxed tenure of land,

and readily grow weary of a desultory warfare in which each tribe

had separately to make good its boundaries. Thus it came that Joshua

had grown old, probably ninety or a hundred years, while the work

intrusted to him was far from completed. In the far south and along

the seashore the whole district from the brook of Egypt

to Ekron

was still held, in the south-west and south-east, by the Geshurites

and the Avites, while the territory farther north from Ekron to Gaza

was occupied by the ﬁve lords of the Philistines (Joshua 13:2, 3).

According to the Divine direction, all these, though not de-

scended from Canaan (Genesis 10:14), were to be “counted to the

Canaanites,” that is, treated as such. Traveling still farther north-

wards along the seashore, the whole “land of the Canaanites” or of

the Phoenicians far up to the celebrated “cave”

near Sidon, and

Literally: “from Shichor, in the face of Egypt,” or rather “from the black (river) to

the east of Egypt.” This was the brook Rhinocorura, the modern el-Arish.

Left untranslated (Mearah) in the Authorized Version. The cave, which is east of

Sidon, still serves as a hiding-place to the Druses.

lxxx

Chapter 11 lxxxi

beyond it to Aphek

and even “to the borders of the Amorites”

was still unconquered. Thence eastward across Lebanon as far as

Baal-gad and “the entering into Hamath,”

and again back from Mount Lebanon, across country, to the “smelt-

[77]

ing-pits on the waters,” was subject to the Sidonians or Phoenicians.

Yet all this belonged by Divine gift to Israel. That it was still

unoccupied by them, and that Joshua was now old, constituted the

ground for the Divine command to make immediate distribution

of the land among the tribes. It was as if, looking to His promise,

God would have bidden Israel consider the whole land as theirs, and

simply go forward, in faith of that promise and in obedience to His

command.

It will be remembered that only nine and a half tribes remained

to be provided for, since “unto the tribe of Levi He gave none

inheritance,” other than what came from the sanctuary, while Reuben,

Gad, and half Manasseh had had their portions assigned by Moses

east of the Jordan.

That territory was bounded by Moab along the south-eastern

shores of the Dead Sea, while the eastern border of Reuben and

Gad was held by Ammon. Both these nations were by Divine com-

mand not to be molested by Israel (Deuteronomy 2:9, 19). The

southernmost and smallest portion of the district east of the Jordan

belonged to Reuben. His territory extended from the river Arnon, in

the south, to where Jordan ﬂowed into the Dead Sea, and embraced

the original kingdom of Sihon. Northward of it, the Ammonites had

once held possession, but had been driven out by Sihon. That new

The modern Afkah, on a terrace of Mount Lebanon, by the principal source of the

river Adonis, in a lovely situation.

The explanation of this is doubtful. Possibly it means: as far east as the territory of

Og, king of Bashan, which formerly belonged to the Amorites.

Hamath, a district in Syria, with a capital of the same name on the Orontes.

The particle “and,” put in italics in our Authorized Version, is not in the text of

Joshua 13:6. The clause, “all the Sidonians” is explanatory, not additional.

With the register of the defeated kings (Joshua 12) the ﬁrst part of the Book of

Joshua ends, and Part 2 begins with ch. 13.

Although geographical details may seem dry to some, they are most important for

the proper understanding of the Bible narrative. They may also be made alike interesting

and spiritually useful, if the history of these places is traced in the various passages of

Scripture where they are mentioned.

lxxxii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

portion of Sihon’s kingdom was given not to Reuben but to Gad.

The territory of that tribe ran along the Jordanas far as the Lakeof

Gennesaret—the upper portion (from Mahanaim) narrowing almost

into a point. North of this was the possession of the half tribe of

Manasseh, which embraced the whole of Bashan. It occupied by far

[78]

the largest extent of area. But from its position it also lay most open

to constant nomadic incursions, and possessed comparatively few

settled cities.

The division of the land among the nine and a half tribes

was, in

strict accordance with Divine direction (Numbers 26:52-56; 33:54;

34:2-29), made by Eleazar, Joshua, and one representative from

each of the ten tribes. It was decided by the “lot,” which probably,

however, only determined the situation of each inheritance, whether

north or south, in. land or by the seashore, not its extent and precise

boundaries. These would depend upon the size of each tribe. In point

of fact, the original arrangements had in some cases to be afterwards

modiﬁed, not as to tribal localization, which was unalterably ﬁxed

by the Divine lot, but as to extent of territory. Thus Judah had to

give up part of its possession to Simeon (Joshua 19:9), while Dan,

whose portion proved too small, obtained certain cities both from

Judah and from Ephraim.

As regards the lot, we may probably accept the Rabbinical tradition,

[79]

The children of Joseph were counted two tribes.

In connection with this we may note the curious and undesigned evidence, that

we have in the text the real and original allotment of the land by Joshua himself. As

so often, it is derived from an objection suggested. For there are strange divergencies

in the sacred text. In describing the lots of Judah and of Benjamin, the boundaries are

accurately marked, and a complete list of cities is given; in those of Ephraim and half

Manasseh there is no register of cities; in those of Simeon and Dan only lists of cities:

in those of the other tribes evidently an incomplete tracing of boundaries and lists of

cities. Now when we consider the history, we conclude that this is just what we would

have expected in a contemporary document. Joshua 15, 16 assigns a deﬁnite portion to

Judah; ch. 17 to Ephraim and half Manasseh, about which, however, they complain as

being partly occupied by Canaanites whom they dared not attack (vs.16). Hence in their

case there is no register of cities. On the other hand, the lot of Benjamin, being between

Judah and Joseph (18:11), was completely occupied, and the register is complete. The

territories of Simeon and Dan have no boundary mark, only a register of cities, because

they really formed part of the territories of Judah and Ephraim. Lastly, the defectiveness

in the description of the other tribal lots arises from so much of the country being still in

the hands of the Canaanites. It is evident that such a register could not have dated from a

Chapter 11 lxxxiii

that two urns were set out, one containing the names of the ten (or

rather nine and a half) tribes, the other the designation of the various

districts into which the country had been arranged, and that from

each a lot was successively drawn, to designate ﬁrst the tribe, and

then the locality of its inheritance.

This is not the place, however interesting the task, to describe

the exact boundaries and cities of each tribe. We can only attempt

the most general outline, which the reader must ﬁll up for himself.

Beginning in the far south, at Kadesh in the wilderness, and along

the borders of Edom, we are within the territory of Simeon; north

of it, bounded on the west by the land of the Philistines, and on the

east by the Dead Sea, is the possession of Judah; beyond it, to the

east, that of Benjamin, and to the west, that of Dan; north of Dan

we reach Ephraim, and then Manasseh, the possession of Issachar

running along the east of these two territories, and ending at the

southern extremity of the Lake of Gennesaret; by the shore of that

lake and far beyond it is the territory of Naphtali, ﬁrst a narrow slip,

then widening, and ﬁnally merging into a point. Asher occupied the

seaboard, north of Manasseh; while, lastly, Zebulon is as it were

wedged in between Issachar, Manasseh, Asher, and Naphtali.

It only remains brieﬂy to notice the incidents recorded in con-

nection with the territorial division of the land.

1. It seems that before the ﬁrst lot was drawn in the camp at

Gilgal, Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, came forward with a special

claim. It will be remembered, that of the twelve princes sent from

Kadesh only he and Joshua had brought “a good report of the land,”

in the spiritual sense of the expression, as encouraging the people to

go forward. And when the Divine sentence doomed that rebellious

generation to death in the wilderness, Caleb and Joshua alone were

excepted. Strictly speaking, no more than this might have been

implied in the promise by Moses, now claimed by Caleb: “Surely

the land whereon thy feet have trodden shall be thine inheritance”

(Joshua 14:9), since to have survived was to obtain the inheritance.

[80]

later period, when the tribes were in full possession, but must be the original register of

Joshua.

lxxxiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

But there seems to have been more than merely a promise of

survival, although it alone is mentioned in Numbers 14:24, 30. For

we infer from the words and the attitude of Caleb, and from the

similar privileges afterwards accorded to Joshua 19:49, 50, that

Moses had, by direction of the Lord, given these two a right of

special and personal choice. This on account of their exceptional

faithfulness, and as the sole survivors of the generation to whom

the land had been given. It was as if the surviving proprietors might

choose their portion,

before those who, so to speak, were only next

of kin had theirs allotted to them. Of this Caleb now reminds Joshua,

and in words of such vigorous faith, as make us love still better the

tried old warrior of Jehovah. Appearing at the head of “the house of

fathers,” in Judah, of which he was the head,

he ﬁrst refers to the

past, then owns God’s faithfulness in having preserved him to the

age of eighty-ﬁve, with strength and courage undiminished for the

holy war.

From 14:9 we infer that, when the twelve spies distributed them-

selves singly over the land, for the purposes of their mission, Caleb

specially “searched” that “mountain,” which was the favorite haunt

of the dreaded Anakim. If this be so, we discover a special meaning

and special faith on the part of Caleb, when he, rather than Joshua,

attempted to “still the people before Moses, and said, Let us go

[81]

up at once” (Numbers 13:30). In that case there was also special

suitableness in the Divine bestowal made then and there:

Even these words (14:12): “Now therefore give me this mountain, where of Jehovah

spake in that day;” do not necessarily imply that that “mountain” was actually assigned to

Caleb on “that day.”

It is difﬁcult to arrive at a certain conclusion, whether at Kadesh districts were

actually assigned to Caleb and to Joshua, or to Caleb alone, or whether the choice of

districts was accorded to both, or to one of them. The reader will infer our conclusion

from the text.

“Caleb, the son of Jephunneh the Kenazite,” that is, a son of Kenaz, who was a

descendant of Hezron, the son of Pharez, a grandson of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:5, 18). The

name “Kenaz” seems to have been rather marked in the family, as it recurs again later,

1 Chronicles 4:15. Caleb was the chieftain or head of one of “the houses of fathers” in

Judah, and to the presence of this his “house” - not of the whole tribe - refer the words

(Joshua 14:6): “Then the children of Judah came unto Joshua.”

Chapter 11 lxxxv

“Surely the land whereon thy feet have trodden shall

be thine inheritance” (Joshua 14:9, 12).

But even if otherwise, the courage and faith of the old warrior

shine only the more brightly, as, recalling the terror formerly inspired

by the Anakim and the strength of their cities, he claims that very

portion for his own. Yet his courage bears no trace of self-sufﬁciency,

only of believing dependence upon the Lord. “If so be Jehovah

will be with me, and I shall drive them out” (ver. 12).

The claim thus made was immediately acknowledged, Joshua

adding his blessing on Caleb’s proposed undertaking. But it was

some time later that the expedition was actually made,

when

Caleb offered the hand of his daughter, Achsah, as the prize of

taking the great stronghold of Debir, the ancient Kirjath-sepher, or

“book-city,”—probably the fortiﬁed depository of the sacred books

of the Anakim. The prize was won by a near kinsman, Othniel,

who, after the death of Joshua, was the ﬁrst “judge” of Israel (Judges

3:9). The history of the campaign, with its accompanying incidents,

is inserted in Joshua 15:13-19, because, both geographically and

historically, it ﬁts into that part of the description of the inheritance

of Judah.

2. The ﬁrst signs of future weakness and disagreement appeared

[82]

so early as when the lot designated the possession of the children

of Joseph (Ephraim and half the tribe of Manasseh). Theirs was the

richest and most fertile in the land, including the plain of Sharon,

In this sense the words must be understood (Joshua 14:7): “I brought word again,

as it was in mine heart,” that is, according to my conscientious conviction. Similarly the

expression (ver. 8): “but I wholly followed the Lord,” means, that his allegiance to the

Lord was not shaken either by the evil report of the other spies, or by the murmuring and

threatening of the people.

It seems to have taken place after the death of Joshua, and is recorded in Judges

1:11, etc.

It is not easy to decide whether Othniel was the son of Kenaz, who was a younger

brother of Caleb, or whether he was himself Caleb’s younger brother (Judges 3:9). The

punctuation of the Masorethists is in favor of the latter view, nor was the marriage of an

uncle with his niece contrary to the Mosaic law.

Two other critical remarks may here ﬁnd a place. 1. Our present Hebrew text seems

incomplete between Joshua 15:59 and 60. Here the LXX. insert, no doubt from a more

perfect MS., a list of other eleven cities, among them Bethlehem. 2. The closing notice of

ver. 63 helps us to ﬁx the date of the Book of Joshua.

lxxxvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

capable of producing almost boundless store, and of becoming the

granary of the whole land. On that ground then no complaint could

be made. Nor could any reasonable objection be taken to the size

of their lot,

provided they were prepared to go forward in faith

and occupy it as against the Canaanites, who still held the principal

towns in the valley, all the way from Bethshean by the Jordan to

the plain of Jezreel and farther. But the children of Joseph were

apparently afraid of such encounter because of the iron chariots of

their enemies. Equally unwilling were they to clear the wooded

heights of Ephraim, which connect the range north of Samaria with

Mount Carmel, and where the Perizzites and the Rephaim had their

haunts. Rather did they clamor for an additional “portion” (17:14).

Their demands were, of course, refused; Joshua turning the boastful

pride in which they had been made into an argument for action

on their part against the common enemy (ver. 18).

But this

murmuring of the children of Joseph, and the spirit from which

it proceeded, gave sad indications of dangers in the near future.

National disintegration, tribal jealousies, coupled with boastfulness

and unwillingness to execute the work given them of God, were only

too surely foreboded in the conduct of the children of Joseph.

3. If such troubles were to be averted, it was high time to seek a

revival of religion. With that object in view, “the whole congregation

of the children of Israel” were now gathered at Shiloh, and the

tabernacle set up there (18:1). The choice of Shiloh was, no doubt,

[83]

Divinely directed (Deuteronomy 12:11). It was specially suitable

for the purpose, not only from its central situation—about eight

hoursnorth of Jerusalem, and ﬁve south of Shechem—but from its

name, which recalled rest

and the promised rest-giver (Genesis

49:10). Then Joshua solemnly admonished the assembled people as

to their “slackness” in taking possession of the land which Jehovah

Ephraim numbered 32,500 and half Manasseh 26,350 men capable of bearing arms

(Numbers 26:34, 37), or, both together, 58,850, while Judah numbered 76,500, and even

Dan and Issachar respectively 64,400 and 64,300.

The Authorized Version renders the last clause of ver. 18: “though they have iron

chariots, and though they be strong.” The true rendering is not “though,” but “for.” Most

commentators regard this as an irony, implying that it needed such strong tribes as the

sons of Joseph! But I regard it as rather a covert appeal to their faith - “just because it is

so, ye shall drive them out.”

Shiloh means rest.

Chapter 11 lxxxvii

had given them. To terminate further jealousies, he asked the people

to choose three representatives from each of the seven tribes whose

inheritance had not yet been allotted. These were to “go through

the land and describe it,” that is, to make a general estimate and

valuation, rather than an accurate survey, “with reference to their

inheritance,”

that is, in view of their inheriting the land. After

their return to Shiloh these twenty-one delegates were to divide the

land into seven portions, when the lot would assign to each tribe the

place of its inheritance.

4. The arrangement thus made was fully carried out.

After its

completion Joshua, who, like Caleb, had received a special promise,

was allowed to choose his own city within his tribal inheritance of

Ephraim.

Finally, the cities of refuge, six in number; the Levitical

cities, thirty-ﬁve in number; and the thirteen cities of the priests,

the sons of Aaron, were formally set aside. [84]

Thus, so far as the Lord was concerned, He “gave unto Israel

all the land which He sware to give unto their fathers; and they

possessed it, and dwelt therein. And Jehovah gave them rest round

about, according to all that He sware unto their fathers: and there

stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Jehovah delivered

all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good

So literally.

According to Josephus, it took seven months; according to the Rabbis, seven years.

It need scarcely be said, that both suppositions are equally void of foundation. Josephus

also imagines, that there was only one deputy from each tribe - or seven in all - to whom

he adds three men expert in surveying (Ant. v. 1, 20, 21).

Considering that Joshua was himself a descendant of Joseph, his reply to the com-

plaints of his tribe showed the more clearly his uprightness and ﬁtness for his calling.

Of the six cities of refuge three were west of the Jordan: Kadesh (Naphtali - north),

Shechem (Ephraim - center), and Hebron (Judah - south); three east of the Jordan: Bezer

(Reuben - south), Ramoth (Gad - center), and Golan (Manasseh - north). The number of

cities assigned to the Levites (thirty-ﬁve) cannot be regarded as too large. The second

census gave the number of male Levites at 23,000. This, with a proportionate number of

females, has been calculated to give a population of about 1300 for each of the thirty-ﬁve

towns. Besides, it should be remembered, that the Levites were not the sole inhabitants of

such towns. This should also be taken into account in regard to the assignment of thirteen

cities to the descendants of Aaron, although their number has been computed at the time

at two hundred families. Probably this is exaggerated, even admitting that as Aaron’s two

sons had 24 descendants (1 Chronicles 24), the next generation might have numbered 144

males, and the next again (at the time of Joshua) between 800 and 900 descendants. But,

irrespective of this, the law had to provide not for that period, but for all time to come.

lxxxviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

thing Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass”

(Joshua 21:43-45).

Chapter 12 [85]

Return of the Two and a Half Tribes to their Homes—Building of an

Altar by Them—Embassy to Them—Joshua’s Farewell

Addresses—Death of Joshua—Review of his Life and Work

(Joshua 22-24)

YET another trial awaited Joshua, ere he put off the armor and

laid him down to rest. Happily, it was one which he rather dreaded

than actually experienced. The work given him to do was ended,

and each of the tribes had entered on its God-given inheritance. And

now the time had come for those faithful men who so truly had

discharged their undertaking to recross Jordan, and “get unto to the

land of their possession.” These many years had the men of Reuben,

Gad, and Manasseh fought and waited by the side of their brethren.

And now that God had given them rest, Joshua dismissed the tried

warriors with a blessing, only bidding them ﬁght in their own homes

that other warfare, in which victory meant loving the Lord, walking

in His ways, keeping His commandments, and cleaving unto and

serving Him.

It must have been with a heavy heart that Joshua saw them depart

from Shiloh.

It was not merely that to himself it would seem like

the beginning of the end, but that misgivings and fears could not but

crowd upon his mind.

They parted from Shiloh to comparatively far distances, to be

separated from their brethren by Jordan, and scattered amid the wide

tracts, in which their nomadic pastoral life would bring them into

frequent and dangerous contact with heathen neighbors. They were

now united to their brethren; they had fought by their side; would

this union continue? The very riches with which they departed to

From Joshua 22:9 we learn that they “departed out of Shiloh,” hence after the land

had been ﬁnally apportioned among the tribes. Of course, this does not imply that the

same warriors had continued all through the wars without changing.

lxxxix

xc Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

their distant homes (22:8) might become a source of danger. They

had parted with Jehovah’s blessing and monition from the central

sanctuary at Shiloh’. Would it remain such to them, and they pre-

serve the purity of their faith at a distance from the tabernacle and its

services? Joshua remembered only too well the past history of Israel;

he knew that even now idolatry, although publicly non-existent, had

still its roots and ﬁbers in many a household as a sort of traditional

superstition (24:23). Under such circumstances it was that strange

[86]

tidings reached Israel and Joshua. Just before crossing Jordan the

two and a half tribes had built an altar that could be seen far and wide,

and then departed without leaving any explanation of their conduct.

At ﬁrst sight this would have seemed in direct contravention of one

of the ﬁrst principles of Israel’s worship. Place, time, and manner

of it were all God-ordained and full of meaning, and any departure

therefrom, even in the slightest particular, destroyed the meaning,

and with it the value of all. More especially would this appear an

infringement of the express commands against another altar and

other worship (Leviticus 17:8, 9; Deuteronomy 12:5-7), to which

the terrible punishment of extermination attached (Deuteronomy

13:12-18). And yet there was something so strange in rearing this

altar on the western side of the Jordan’,

and not on the eastern, and

in their own possession, that their conduct, however blameworthy,

might possibly bear another explanation than that of the great crime

of apostasy.

It was an anxious time when the whole congregation gathered,

by their representatives, at Shiloh, not to worship, but to consider the

question of going to war with their own brethren and companions in

arms, and on such grounds. Happily, before taking decided action,

a deputation was sent to expostulate with the two and a half tribes.

It consisted of ten princes, representatives, each of a tribe, and all

“heads of houses of their fathers,” though, of course, not the actual

chiefs of their tribes. At their head was Phinehas, the presumptive

successor to the high priesthood, to whose zeal, which had once

This we gather from 12:10: “And when they came to the circle (circuits) of Jordan,

that is in the land of Canaan” (in contrast to “the land of Gilead”), ver. 9. Again in ver. 11

“built an altar in face (or, in front) of the land of Canaan (that is, at its extreme boundary,

looking towards it), in the circuits of Jordan, by the side of (or, ‘over against’) the children

of Israel.”

Chapter 12 xci

stayed the plague of Peor, the direction might safely be left. We are

not told how they gathered the representatives of the offending tribes,

but the language in which, as recorded, the latter were addressed, is

quite characteristic of Phinehas.

The conduct of the two and a half tribes had been self-willed and

regardless of one of the ﬁrst duties—that of not giving offense to

[87]

the brethren, nor allowing their liberty to become a stumbling-block

to others. For a doubtful good they had committed an undoubted

offense, the more unwarranted, that they had neither asked advice

nor offered explanation. Phinehas could scarcely help assuming that

they had “committed unfaithfulness towards the God of Israel.”

now urged upon them the remembrance, yet fresh in their minds, of

the consequences of the sin of Peor, and which had, alas! still left its

bitter roots among the people.

If, on account of their uncleanness,

they felt as if they needed nearer proximity to the altar, he invited

them back to the western side of the Jordan where the other tribes

would make room for them. But if they persisted in their sin, he

reminded them how the sin of the one individual, Achan, had brought

wrath on all the congregation. If so, then the rest of Israel must take

action, so as to clear themselves of complicity in their “rebellion.”

In reply, the accused tribes protested, in language of the most

earnest expostulation, that their conduct had been wholly misunder-

stood.

So far from wishing to separate from the tabernacle and

worship of Jehovah, this great altar had been reared as a witness to

all ages that they formed an integral part of Israel, lest in the future

they might be debarred from the service of Jehovah. That, and that

alone, had been their meaning, however ill expressed. The explana-

tion thus offered was cause of deep thankfulness to the deputies and

So literally, and not, as in Authorized Version (22:16): “What trespass is this that

ye have committed?” This sin is very signiﬁcantly viewed here as an “unfaithfulness”

towards the God of Israel.

So in Joshua 22:17. Such a judgment as the death of 24, 000 (Numbers 25:9) must

have left many painful gaps in Israel. But this was not the saddest consequence. For,

evidently, the worship of Baal-Peor had struck root among the people, even although for

the present it was outwardly suppressed.

There is a fervency of utterance in their protestation, which appears even in the

accumulation of the names of God. The particle rendered “if” is here used as the formula

for an oath.

xcii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

to all Israel. Thus, in the good providence of God, this cloud also

passed away.

A twofold work had been intrusted to Joshua: to conquer the

land (Joshua 1:8), and to divide it by inheritance among the people

otemark2681556 (1:6). Both had been done, and in the spirit of

[88]

strength, of courage, and of believing obedience enjoined at the

outset (1:7). Unlike his great predecessor and master, Moses, he had

been allowed to ﬁnish his task, and even to rest after its completion.

And now he had reached one hundred and ten years, the age at

which his ancestor Joseph had died (Genesis 50:26). Like a father

who thinks of and seeks to provide for the future of his children after

his death;

like Moses when he gathered up all his life, his mission,

and his teaching in his last discourses; as the Apostle Peter, when

he endeavored that Christians might “be able after his Exodus

have these things always in remembrance,” so did Joshua care for

the people of his charge. On two successive occasions he gathered

all Israel, through their representative “elders,”

to address to them

last words. They are in spirit and even in tenor singularly like those

of Moses, as indeed he had no new truth to communicate.

The ﬁrst assembly must have taken place either in his own city

of Timnath-serah,

or else at Shiloh. The address there given had

precisely the same object as that afterwards delivered by him, and

indeed may be described as preparatory to the latter.

Probably the difference between the two lies in this, that the ﬁrst

discourse treated of the future of Israel rather in its political aspect,

while the second, as beﬁtted the circumstances, chieﬂy dwelt on

the past mercies of Jehovah, and urged upon the people decision

in their spiritual choice. Both discourses are marked by absence of

[89]

So also the Book of Joshua is divided into two parts: the ﬁrst (ch. 1-12), descriptive

of the conquest, the second of the division of the land.

Joshua seems to have lived about ﬁfteen years after the ﬁnal division of the land.

This idea is suggested by Calvin.

The word used by the apostle (2 Peter 1:15) is “Exodus,” the same as employed in

the conversation on the Mount of Transﬁguration (Luke 9:31), to which St. Peter in his

epistle makes pointed reference (2 Peter 1:16-18).

All Israel were summoned through their elders, which is a genetic name including

the three divisions: “heads” of tribes, clans, and houses of fathers, “judges,” and “ofﬁcers.”

Literally “the possession of the sun” - properly Timnath serach, also called Timnath-

Cheres (Judges 2:9) by a transposition of letters, not uncommon in the Hebrew.

Chapter 12 xciii

all self-exaltation or reference to his own achievements. It is the

language of one who, after long and trying experience, could sum

up all he knew and felt in these words: “As for me and my house,

we will serve Jehovah.” The ﬁrst discourse of Joshua consisted of

two parts (23:2-13, and 14-16), each beginning with an allusion to

his approaching end, as the motive of his admonitions. Having ﬁrst

reminded Israel of all God’s beneﬁts and of His promises, in case

of their faithfulness, he beseecheth them: “Take heed very much to

your souls to love Jehovah your God” (ver. 11), the danger of an

opposite course being described with an accumulation of imagery

that shows how deeply Joshua felt the impending danger. Proceeding

in the same direction, the second part of Joshua’s address dwells

upon the absolute certainty with which judgment would follow, as

surely as formerly blessing had come.

The second address of Joshua, delivered to the same audience as

the ﬁrst, was even more solemn. For, this time, the assembly took

place at Shechem, where, on ﬁrst entering the land, Israel had made

solemn covenant by responding from Mounts Ebal and Gerizim to

the blessings and the curses enunciated in the law. And the present

gathering also was to end in renewal of that covenant. Moreover, it

was in Shechem that Abraham had, on entering Canaan, received

the ﬁrst Divine promise, and here he had built an altar unto Jehovah

(Genesis 12:6, 7). Here also had Jacob settled after his return from

Mesopotamia, and purged his household from lingering idolatry, by

burying their Teraphim under an oak (Genesis 33:20; 35:2, 4). It

was truly a “sanctuary of Jehovah” (Joshua 24:26), and they who

came to it, “gathered before God”

(ver. 1). In language the most

tender and impressive, reminding us of Stephen’s last speech before

the Sanhedrim (Acts 7), Joshua recalled to them the mercies of God

(Joshua 24:2-13), specially in those ﬁve great events: the calling of

Abraham, the deliverance from Egypt, the defeat of the Amorites

and of the purpose of Balaam,

the miraculous crossing of Jordan

and taking of Jericho, and ﬁnally, the Divine victory

given them

[90]

In the Hebrew with the article “the God,” to indicate that it was the only true and

living Elohim. Israel in Canaan.

In 24:9: “Then Balak.... arose and warred against Israel;” not with outward weapons,

but through Balaam.

xciv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

over all the nations of Canaan. On these grounds he now earnestly

entreated them to make decisive choice of Jehovah as their God.

And they replied by solemnly protesting their determination to

cleave unto the Lord, in language which not only re-echoed that of

the preface to the ten commandments (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy

5:6), but also showed that they fully responded to Joshua’s appeals.

To bring the matter to a clear issue, Joshua next represented to them

that they could not serve Jehovah (24:19) -that is, in their then state

of heart and mind—“in their own strength, without the aid of grace;

without real and serious conversion from all idols; and without true

repentance and faith.”

To attempt this were only to bring down

judgment instead of the former blessing. And when the people still

persevered in their profession, Joshua, having made it a condition

that they were to put away the strange gods from among them and

“direct” their hearts “unto Jehovah, God of Israel,”

made again

solemn covenant with them. Its terms were recorded in a document

which was placed within the book of the Law,

and in memory there

of a great stone was set up under the memorable tree at Shechem

which had been the silent witness of so many solemn transactions in

the history of Israel.

With this event the history of Joshua closes.

Looking back upon it, we gather the lessons of his life and work,

[91]

and of their bearing upon the future of Israel. Born a slave in Egypt,

The expressive ﬁgure is here used: “And I sent the hornet before you,” to desig-

nate that which carries terror among the inhabitants of a place. Comp. Exodus 23:28;

Deuteronomy 7:20.

The call to “choose this day” whom they would serve (ver. 15), does not place

the duty of their allegiance to Jehovah in any doubt, but is rather the strongest and most

emphatic mode of enforcing the admonition of ver. 14, especially followed, as it is, by

the declaration: “but as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.”

So in substance J. H. Michaelis in his notes on the passage.

Keil argues that the expression (ver. 23), “put away the strange gods which are

among you,” means “in your hearts.” But this interpretation is critically untenable, while

such passages as Amos 5:26 and Acts 7:43 prove the existence of idolatrous rites among

the people, even though they may have been discarded in public.

He took, as we would say, “Minutes” of this transaction, which were placed inside

the roll of the law of Moses.

The deaths of Joshua and Eleazar were, of course, chronicled at a later period.

According to the Talmud (Baba Bathra, 15 a), the former was written down by Eleazar,

and the latter by Phinehas.

Chapter 12 xcv

he must have been about forty years old at the time of the Exodus.

Attached to the person of Moses, he led Israel in the ﬁrst decisive

battle against Amalek (Exodus 17:9, 13), while Moses, in the prayer

of faith, held up to heaven the God-given “rod.”

It was no doubt on that occasion that his name was changed from

Oshea, “help,” to Jehoshua, “Jehovah is help” (Numbers 13:16).

And this name is the key to his life and work. Alike in bringing

the people into Canaan, in his wars, and in the distribution of the

land among the tribes—from the miraculous crossing of Jordan and

taking of Jericho to his last address—he was the embodiment of his

new name: “Jehovah is help!” To this outward calling his character

also corresponded. It is marked by singleness of purpose, directness,

and decision. There is not indeed about him that elevation of faith, or

comprehensiveness of spiritual view which we observed in Moses.

Witness Joshua’s despondency after the ﬁrst failure at Ai. Even his

plans and conceptions lack breadth and depth. Witness his treaty

with the Gibeonites, and the commencing disorganization among

the tribes at Shiloh’. His strength always lies in his singleness of

purpose. He sets an object before him, and unswervingly follows

it. So in his campaigns: he marches rapidly, falls suddenly upon

the enemy, and follows up the victory with unﬂagging energy. But

there he stops—till another object is again set before him, which he

similarly pursues. The same singleness, directness, and decision,

rather than breadth and elevation, seem also to characterize his

personal religion.

There is another remarkable circumstance about Joshua. The

conquest and division of the land seem to have been his sole work.

He does not appear to have even ruled as a judge over Israel. But so

far also as the conquest and division of the land were concerned, his

work was not complete, nor, indeed, intended to be complete. And

this is characteristic of the whole Old Testament dispensation, that

no period in its history sees its work completed, but only begun and

pointing forward to another yet future,

till at last all becomes complete in the “fullness of time” in Christ

[92]

See some interesting remarks in Herzog’s Real Encycl., vol. 7 p. 41. If any reader,

able to follow out such questions, should feel interested in “the higher criticism” of the

Book of Joshua, we would direct him to the masterly essay by L. Konig, in Alttest.

Studien, part 1.

xcvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

Jesus. Thus viewed, a fresh light is cast upon the name and history

of Joshua. Assuredly Joshua did not give “rest” even to his own

generation, far less to Israel as a nation. It was rest begun, but not

completed—a rest which even in its temporal aspect left so much

unrest; and as such it pointed to Christ. What the one Joshua could

only begin, not really achieve, even in its outward typical aspect,

pointed to, and called for the other Joshua, the Lord Jesus Christ,

in Whom and by Whom all is reality, and all is perfect, and all is rest

forever. And so also it was only after many years that Oshea became

Joshua, while the name Joshua was given to our Lord by the angel

before His birth (Matthew 1:21). The ﬁrst became, the second was

Joshua. And so the name and the work of Joshua pointed forward to

the fullness in Christ, alike by what it was and by what it was not,

and this in entire accordance with the whole character and object of

the Old Testament.

Jesus is the Greek equivalent for Joshua.

Chapter 13 [93]

Summary of the Book of Judges—Judah’s and Simeon’s

Campaign—Spiritual and National Decay of Israel—“From Gilgal

to Bochin.”

(Judges 1-3:4)

IF evidence were required that each period of Old Testament

history points for its completion to one still future, it would be found

in the Book of Judges. The history of the three and a half centuries

which it records brings not anything new to light, either in the life

or history of Israel; it only continues what is already found in the

Book of Joshua, carrying it forward to the Books of Samuel, and

thence through Kings, till it points in the dim distance to the King,

of Israel, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who gives perfect rest in the perfect

kingdom. In the Book of Joshua we see two grand outstanding facts,

one explaining the outer, the other the inner history of Israel. As

for the latter, we learn that ever since the sin of Peor, if not before,

idolatry had its hold upon the people. Not that the service of the

Lord was discarded, but that it was combined with the heathen rites

of the nations around. But as true religion was really the principle of

Israel’s national life and unity, “unfaithfulness” towards Jehovah was

also closely connected with tribal disintegration, which, as we have

seen, threatened even in the time of Joshua. Then, as for the outer

history of Israel’, we learn that the completion of their possession of

Canaanwas made dependent on their faithfulness to Jehovah. Just as

the Christian can only continue to stand by the same faith in which,

in his conversion to God, he ﬁrst had access to Him (Romans 5:2),

so Israel could only retain the land and complete its conquest by the

same faith in which they had at ﬁrst entered it. For faith is never

a thing of the past. And for this reason God allowed a remnant of

those nations to continue in the land “to prove Israel by them”

This is not in any way inconsistent with Exodus 23:29, etc., Deuteronomy 7:22.

For, as Keil rightly remarks, there is a vast difference between exterminating the whole of

xcvii

xcviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

(Judges 3:1), so that, as Joshua had forewarned them (Joshua 23:10-

16, comp. Judges 2:3), “faithfulness” on their part would lead to sure

and easy victory, while the opposite would end in terrible national

disaster.

Side by side with these two facts, there is yet a third, and that

the most important: the unchanging faithfulness of the Lord, His

[94]

unfailing pity and lovingkindness, according to which, when Israel

was brought low and again turned to Him, He “raised them up

judges,... and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the

days of the judge” (Judges 2:18).

The exhibition of these three facts forms the subject-matter of

Israel’s history under the Judges, as clearly indicated in Judges

2:21, 34. Accordingly, we must not expect in the Book of Judges

a complete or successive history of Israel during these three and

half centuries, but rather the exhibition and development of those

three grand facts. For Holy Scripture furnishes not—like ordinary

biography or history—a chronicle of the lives of individuals, or even

of the successive history of a period, save in so far as these are

connected with the progress of the kingdom of God. Sacred history

is primarily that of the kingdom of God—, and only secondarily

that of individuals or periods. More particularly is this the reason

why we have no record at all of ﬁve of the Judges

—not even that

Jehovah had raised them up.

For this cause also some events are specially selected in the

sacred narrative, which, to the superﬁcial reader, may seem trivial;

sometimes even difﬁcult or objectionable. But a more careful study

will show that the real object of these narratives is, to bring into

full view one or other of the great principles of the Old Testament

dispensation. For the same reason also we must not look for strict

chronological arrangement in the narratives. In point of fact, the

Judges ruled only over one or several of the tribes, to whom they

brought special deliverance. Accordingly, the history of some of

the Judges overlaps each other, their reign having been contempo-

raneous in different parts of the land. Thus while in the far east

across Jordan the sway of the children of Ammon lasted for eigh-

the ancient inhabitants of the land, say, in one year, and suspending even their gradual

extermination.

Tola (10:1), Jair (10:3), Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon (12:8-15).

Chapter 13 xcix

teen years, till Jephthah brought deliverance (Judges 10:6-127), the

Philistines at the same time oppressed Israel in the far southwest.

This circumstance renders the chronology of the Book of Judges

more complicated.

The Book of Judges divides itself into three parts: a general

introduction (1-3:6), a sketch of the period of the Judges 3:7-16:31,

arranged in six groups of events (3:7-11; 3:12-31; 4, 5; 6-10:5;

10:6-12:15; 13-16), and a double Appendix (17-21). The two se-

[95]

ries of events, recorded in the latter, evidently took place at the

commencement of the period of the Judges. This appears from a

comparison of Judges 18:1 with 1:34, and again of Judges 20:28

with Joshua 22:13 and 24:33. The ﬁrst of the two narratives is mainly

intended to describe the religious, the second the moral decadence

among the tribes of Israel. In these respects they throw light upon

the whole period. We see how soon, after the death of Joshua and

of his contemporaries, Israel declined—spiritually, in combining

with the heathen around, and mingling their idolatrous rites with

the service of Jehovah; and nationally, the war with the Canaanites

being neglected, and the tribes heeding on every great occasion only

their private interests and jealousies, irrespective of the common

weal (5:15-l7, 23; 8:1-9), until “the men of Ephraim” actually levy

war against Jephthah (12:1-6), and Israel sinks so low as to deliver

its Samson into the hands of the Philistines (15:9-13)!

Side by side with this decay of Israel we notice a similar decline

in the spiritual character of the Judges from an Othniel and a Deborah

down to Samson. The mission of these Judges was, as we have

seen, chieﬂy local and always temporary, God raising up a special

deliverer in a time of special need. It is quite evident that such

special instruments were not necessarily always under the inﬂuence

of spiritual motives. God has at all periods of history used what

instruments He pleased for the deliverance of His people—a Darius,

a Cyrus, a Gamaliel, and in more modern times often what appeared

the most unlikely, to effect His own purposes. Yet in the history of

the Judges it seems always the best and most religious whom the

locality or period affords who is chosen, so that the character of

the Judges affords also an index of the state of a district or period.

And in each of them we mark the presence of real faith (Hebrews

11), acting as the lever-power in their achievements, although their

c Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

faith is too often mingled with the corruptions of the period. The

Judges were Israel’s representative men—representatives of its faith

and its hope, but also of its sin and decay. Whatever they achieved

was “by faith.” Even in the case of Samson, all his great deeds were

achieved in the faith of God’s gift to him as a Nazarite, and when

“the Spirit of the Lord came upon him.” Hence the Judges deserved

[96]

to be enrolled in the catalogue of Old Testament “worthies.” Besides,

we must not forget the necessary inﬂuence upon them of the spirit

of their age. For we mark in the Bible a progressive development,

as the light grew brighter and brighter unto the perfect day. In truth,

if this were not the case, one of two inferences would follow. Either

we would be tempted to regard its narratives as partial, or else be

driven to the conclusion that these men could not have been of the

period in which they are placed, since they had nothing in common

with it, and hence could neither have been leaders of public opinion,

nor even been understood by it.

From these brief preliminary observations we turn to notice, that

there were altogether twelve, or rather, including Deborah (Judges

4:4), thirteen Judges over Israel. Of only eight of these are any

special deeds recorded. The term Judge must not, however, be

regarded as primarily referring to the ordinary judicial functions,

which were discharged by the elders and ofﬁcers of every tribe and

city. Rather do we regard it as equivalent to leader or ruler. The

period of the Judges closes with Samson. Eli was mainly high priest,

and only in a secondary sense “Judge,” while Samuel formed the

transition from the Judges to royalty. With Samson the period of the

Judges reached at the same time its highest and its lowest point. It is

as a Nazarite, devoted to God before his birth, that he is “Judge,” and

achieves his great feats—and it is as a Nazarite that he falls and fails

through selﬁshness and sin. In both respects he is the representative

of Israel God-devoted, a Nazarite people, and as such able to do all

things, yet falling and failing through spiritual adultery. And thus the

period of the Judges ends as every other period. It contains the germ

of, and points to something better; but it is imperfect, incomplete,

and fails, though even in its failure it points forward. Judges must

be succeeded by kings, and kings by the King—the true Nazarite,

the Lord Jesus Christ.

Chapter 13 ci

The period between the death of Joshua and the ﬁrst “Judge” is

summarized in Judges 1-36. It appears, that under the inﬂuence of

Joshua’s last address, deepened no doubt by his death, which fol-

lowed soon afterwards, the “holy war” was resumed. In this instance

it was purely aggressive on the part of Israel’, whereas formerly,

as a matter of fact, the attack always came from the Canaanites

[97]

(except in the case of Jericho and of Ai). But the measure of the

sin of the nations who occupied Palestine was now full (Genesis

15:13-16), and the storm of judgment was to sweep them away. For

this purpose Israel, to whom God in His mercy had given the land,

was to be employed—but only in so far as the people realized its

calling to dedicate the land unto the Lord. On the ruins of what not

only symbolized, but at the time really was the kingdom of Satan,

the theocracy was to be upbuilt. Instead of that focus whence the

vilest heathenism overspread the world, the kingdom of God was

to be established, with its opposite mission of sending the light of

truth to the remotest parts of the earth. Nor can it be difﬁcult to

understand how, in such circumstances, at such a time, and at that

period of religious life, any compromise was impossible—and every

war must be one of extermination.

Before entering on this new “war,” the children of Israel asked

Jehovah, no doubt through the Urim and Thummim, which tribe

was to take the lead. In reply, Judah was designated, in accordance

with ancient prophecy (Genesis 49:8). Judah, in turn, invited the

co-operation of Simeon, whose territory had been parceled out of

its own. In fact, theirs were common enemies. The two tribes

encountered and defeated the Canaanites and Perizzites in Bezek, a

name probably attaching to a district rather than a place, and, as the

word seems to imply, near the shore of the Dead Sea.

In the same

It is difﬁcult to resist the impression that Canaan was not only the focus of ancient

heathenism in its worst abominations, but the center whence it spread. Very much in the

mythology, and almost all the vileness of Greek and Roman heathenism is undoubtedly

of Canaanitish origin. Indeed, we may designate the latter as the only real missionary

heathenism at the time in the world. Consider the signiﬁcance of planting in its stead

the kingdom of God, with its untold missionary inﬂuences and its grand purpose to the

world! We must also bear in mind, that the spread of Canaanitish idolatry would be greatly

promoted by the chain of colonies which extended from Asia Minor into Europe.

Cassel derives the name from the slimy nature of the soil.

cii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

locality Adoni-bezek

appears to have made a fresh stand, but with

[98]

the same disastrous result. On that occasion a remarkable, though

most cruel retaliation overtook him. As chieftain of that district he

must have been equally renowned for his bravery and cruelty. After

a custom not uncommon in antiquity,

the many chieftains whom

he had subdued were kept, like dogs, “for lengthened sport,”

under

the banqueting table of the proud conqueror in a mutilated condition,

their thumbs and great toes cut off, in token that they could never

again handle sword and bow, nor march to war.

It need scarcely be said, that the Mosaic law never contemplated

such horrors. Nevertheless the allied tribes now inﬂicted mutilation

upon Adoni-bezek. The victors carried him to Jerusalem, where he

died. On that occasion the city itself, so far as it lay within the terri-

tory of Judah, was taken and burnt. But the boundary line between

Judah and Benjamin ran through Jerusalem, the Upper City and the

strong castle, which were held by the Jebusites, being within the lot

of Benjamin. In the war under Joshua, the Jebusites had foiled Judah

(Joshua 15:63). Now also they retired to their stronghold, whence

the Benjamites did not even attempt to dislodge them (Judges 1:21).

From Jerusalem the tribes continued their victorious march succes-

sively to “the mountain,” or highlands of Judah, then to the Negeb,

or south country, and ﬁnally to the Shephelah, or lowlands, along the

seashore. Full success attended the expedition, the tribes pursuing

their victories as far south as the utmost borders of the ancient king-

dom of Arad, where, as their fathers had vowed (Numbers 21:2),

they executed the ban upon Zephath or Hormah. The descendants

of Hobab (Judges 4:11) the Kenite

the brother-in-law of Moses,

who had followed Israel to Canaan (Numbers 10:29), and had since

pitched their tents near Jericho, now settled in this border-land, as

best suited to their nomadic habits and previous associations (Judges

1:8-11, 16). The campaign ended

with the incursion into the Shep-

According to Cassel: “My god is splendor,” perhaps a sun worshipper.

Cassel enumerates many such.

“In longum sui ludibrium,” Curtius de Rebus: Alex. v. 5, 6.

This notice is here inserted, probably, because the event happened between the

taking of Debir (1:11) and that of Zephath (1:17).

Only Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron seem to have been taken, but neither Gath nor

Ashdod.

Chapter 13 ciii

helah, where Judah wrested from the Philistines three out of their

[99]

ﬁve great cities. This conquest, however, was not permanent (14:19;

16:1), nor were the inhabitants of the valley driven out, “because

they had chariots of iron.”

But the zeal of Israel did not long continue. In fact, all that

follows after the campaign of Judah and Simeon is a record of failure

and neglect, with the single exception of the taking of Bethel by the

house of Joseph. Thus the tribes were everywhere surrounded by a

fringe of heathenism. In many parts, Israelites and heathens dwelt

together, the varying proportions among them being indicated by

such expressions as that the “Canaanites dwelt among” the Israelites,

or else the reverse. Sometimes the Canaanites became tributary.

On the other hand, the Amorites succeeded in almost wholly

driving the tribe of Dan out of their possessions, which induced a

considerable proportion of the Danites to seek fresh homes in the

far north (Judges 18).

Israel was settling down in this state, when their false rest was

suddenly broken by the appearance among them of “the Angel of

Jehovah.”

No Divine manifestation had been vouchsafed them

since the Captain of Jehovah’s host had stood before Joshua in the

camp at Gilgal (Joshua 5:13-15). And now, at the commencement of

a new period, and that one of spiritual decay, He “came” from Gilgal

to Bochim, not to announce the miraculous fall of a Jericho before

the ark of Jehovah, but the continuance of the heathen power near

them in judgment upon their unfaithfulness and disobedience. “From

Gilgal to Bochim!” There is much in what these names suggest—and

that even although Gilgal may have been the permanent camp,

where leading representatives of the nation were always assembled,

to whom “the Angel of Jehovah” in the ﬁrst place addressed Himself,

and Bochim, or “weepers,” the designation given afterwards to the

meeting-place by the ancient sanctuary (either Shechem or more

These were armed with scythes on their wheels.

They drove them out of the valley (1:35) which constituted the principal part of the

possession of Dan (Joshua 19:40). The Amorites even “dared to dwell” in Har-Heres, in

Aijalon, and in Shaalbim (Judges 1:35), although they were afterwards made tributary by

the house of Joseph.

Cassel erroneously regards this as a human messenger from God.

For the situation of this Gilgal, comp. a previous chapter.

civ Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

probably Shiloh), where the elders of the people gathered to hear

the Divine message.

And truly what had passed between the entrance into Canaan and

[100]

that period might be thus summed up: “From Gilgal to Bochim!”

The immediate impression of the words of the Angel of Jehovah was

great. Not only did the place become Bochim, but a sacriﬁce was

offered unto Jehovah, for wherever His presence was manifested,

there might sacriﬁce be brought (comp. Deuteronomy 12:5; Judges

6:20, 26, 28; 13:16; 2 Samuel 24:25).

But, alas! the impression was of but short continuance. Mingling

with the heathen around, “they forsook Jehovah, and served Baal and

Ashtaroth.”

Such a people could only learn in the school of sorrow.

National unfaithfulness was followed by national judgments.

Yet even so, Jehovah, in His mercy, ever turned to them when

they cried, and raised up “deliverers.” In the truest sense these gener-

ations “had not known all the wars of Canaan” (Judges 3:1). For the

knowledge of them is thus explained in the Book of Psalms (Psalm

44:2, 3):

“Thou didst drive out the heathen with Thy hand, and plantedst

them; Thou didst afﬂict the nations, and east them out. For they got

not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own

arm save them: but Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of

Thy countenance, because Thou hadst a favor unto them.”

This lesson was now to be learned in bitter experience by the

presence and power of the heathen around:

“to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken

unto the commandments of Jehovah, which He commanded their

fathers by the hand of Moses” (Judges 3:4).

Ashtaroth is the “star-goddess” of the night, Astarte, whose symbol, properly

speaking, was the Asherah. It is impossible to detail the vileness of her service. Mention

of it occurs so early as in Genesis 14:5, where we read of Ashteroth Karnaim, the “star-

goddess of the horns,” i.e., the quarter of the moon.

Chapter 14 [101]

Othniel—Ehud—Shamgar

(Judges 3:5-31)

THE ﬁrst scene presented in the history of the Judges is that of

Israel’s intermarriage with the heathen around, and their doing “evil

in the sight of Jehovah,” forgetting Him, and serving “Baalim and

the groves.”

And the ﬁrst “judgment” on their apostasy is, that they

are “sold” by the Lord into the hand of “Chushan-rishathaim, king

of Mesopotamia,” or rather of “Aram-naharaim,” “the highland by

the two streams” (Euphrates and Tigris). Curiously enough, there

is an ancient Persian tradition, according to which the monarchs

of Iran, who held dominion “by the streams,” waged war against

Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor. Of their heroes, who are described

as Cushan, or from the land of Chusistan (Scythians, Parthians?),

the most notable is Rustan or Rastam, a name evidently akin to

Rishathaim.

And so ancient heathen records once more throw

unexpected light upon the historical narratives of the Old Testament.

The oppression had lasted full eight years when Israel “cried

unto

Jehovah.” The deliverer raised up for them was Othniel, the younger

brother of Caleb, whose bravery had formerly gained him the hand

of his wife (1:12-15). But his success now was not due to personal

prowess.

“The Spirit of Jehovah was

upon him, and he judged Israel,

and went out to war.” For the ﬁrst time in the Book of Judges we

“Baalim and the Astartes” (Ashtaroth or Asheroth). So literally.

See Cassel’s Comm. p. 33. Jewish tradition and most commentators translate the

name: “twofold sin,” in supposed allusion to a twofold wrong against Israel. But this is,

to say the least, a very strained explanation.

The same word as that used of Israel in Exodus 2:23.

The expression here and in 11:29 is, “was upon” him; in 6:34, it is “clothed

him;” in 14:6, 19; 15:14, “came upon” or “lighted upon.” The attentive reader will

note the important difference of meaning in each of these terms. In the ﬁrst ease there

is permanence - at least to carry out a special purpose; in the second, the idea is of

cvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

meet here the statement, that “the Spirit of Jehovah” “was upon,” or

“clothed,” or else “came upon” a person.

We naturally connect the expression with what we read of “the

[102]

manifold gifts of the Spirit” as these are detailed in Isaiah 11:2,

which were distributed to each as God pleased, and according to the

necessity of the time (1 Corinthians 12:11). But, in thinking of these

inﬂuences, we ought to bear two things in mind. First: although, in

each case, the inﬂuence came straight from above—from the Spirit

of God—for the accomplishment of a special purpose, it was not

necessarily, as under the New Testament dispensation, a sanctifying

inﬂuence. Secondly: this inﬂuence must not be regarded as the same

with the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart. This also

belongs to the New Testament dispensation. In short, these gifts of

the Holy Spirit were miraculous, rather than gracious—like the gifts

in the early Church, rather than as “the promise of the Father.” In

the case of Othniel, however, we note that the Spirit of God “was

upon” him, and that, under His inﬂuence, “he judged” Israel—, even

“before he went out to war.” And so, while ancient Jewish tradition

in all other instances paraphrases the expression, “the Spirit of the

Lord,” by “the spirit of strength,” in the case of Othniel—“the lion of

God”

—it renders it: “the spirit of prophecy.” A war so undertaken

must have been successful, and “the land had rest forty years.”

The next judgment to rebellious Israel came likewise from the

east. Quite on the eastern boundary of Reuben and of Gad lay the

land of Moab. One of the chieftains of its tribes, Eglon,

now

allied himself with the old enemies of Israel, Ammon and Amalek,

the former occupying the territory south of Reuben, the latter the

districts in the far south-west, below Philistia. Eglon swept over

surrounding, protecting, or enduing; and, in the third, of suddenness, implying a power,

wholly from without, descending unexpectedly at the right moment, and then withdrawn.

All have, however, this in common, that the inﬂuence comes straight from the Spirit of

God.

This, or else “my lion is God,” is the rendering of the name.

The text does not make it clear whether Othniel died at the end of these forty years;

only that he died after the land had obtained rest.

We infer that Eglon was not the king of all Moab, because in that case he would not

have exchanged its capital Rabbath Moab for Jericho, and also from the fact that, after the

death of Eglon and the destruction of his garrison, the war does not seem to have been

carried on by either party.

Chapter 14 cvii

the possessions of the trans-Jordanic tribes, crossed the river, and

made Jericho, which was probably rebuilt as a town, though not as a

fortress, his capital. Having thus cut the land, as it were, into two,

[103]

and occupied its center and garden, Eglon reduced Israel for eighteen

years to servitude. At the end of that period the people once more

“cried unto the Lord,” and “the Lord raised them up a deliverer,”

although Holy Scripture does not say that in his mode of deliverance

he acted under the inﬂuence of the Spirit of the Lord. In the peculiar

circumstances of the case this silence is most signiﬁcant.

The “deliverer” was “Ehud (probably, the praised one), the son

of Gera, a Benjamite, a man left-handed,” or, as the original has

it, “shut up”

or “weak” “as to his right hand.” The conspiracy

against Eglon was well planned. Ehud placed himself at the head of

a deputation charged to bring Eglon “a present,” or, more probably,

the regular tribute, as we gather from the similar use of the word

in 2 Samuel 8:2, 6; 17:3, 4. But Ehud carried under his raiment a

two-edged dagger, a cubit long; according to the LXX translation,

about three-quarters of a foot. The tribute was delivered, no doubt

with many protestations of humility and allegiance

on the part of

Ehud, and the deputation graciously dismissed.

It was needful for his plan, and probably in accordance with his

wish to involve no one else in the risk, that the rest should be done by

Ehud alone. Having seen his fellow- countrymen safely beyond “the

quarries that were by Gilgal,” or, rather, as the term implies, beyond

“the terminal columns” (always objects of idolatrous worship), that

divided the territory of Eglon from that of Israel, he returned to the

king, whose conﬁdence his former appearance had no doubt secured.

[104]

The narrative here is exceedingly graphic. The king is no longer in

the palace where the deputation had been received, but in his “upper

Not paralyzed - the term occurs in Psalm 69:15. Cassel has some very curious

remarks on this subject. Benjamin means “son of the right hand;” yet it seems a peculiarity

of Benjamin to have had left-handed warriors (see Judges 20:16). Similarly we read of

certain African races, that they mostly fought with the left hand (Stobaeus, Ecl. phys. i.

52). The Roman hero, who, like Ehud delivered his country of its foreign oppressor, was

Scavola - left-handed. The left was in ancient times the place of honor, because it was the

weaker and less protected side (Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 4). Similarly, the sea (in Hebrew,

yam) was always regarded as the right side of a country - that of liberty, as it were.

The term used here is the same as ordinarily employed for the offering of gifts and

sacriﬁces to the Deity.

cviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

chamber of cooling,”

a delicious summer-retreat built out upon

the end of the ﬂat roof. Ehud professes to have “a secret errand,”

which had brought him back when his companions were gone.

All the more that he does not ask for the withdrawal of the

king’s attendants does Eglon bid him be “Silent!” in their presence,

which, of course, is the signal for their retirement. Alone with

the king, Ehud saith, in a manner not uncommon in the East: “I

have a message from God unto thee,” on which Eglon, in token

of reverence, rises from his seat.

This is the favorable moment,

and, in an instant, Ehud has plunged his dagger up to the hilt into

the lower part of his body, with such force that the blade came out

behind.

Not pausing for a moment, Ehud retires, closes and locks

the doors upon the murdered king, and escapes beyond the boundary.

Meanwhile the king’s attendants, ﬁnding the room locked, have

waited, till, at last, they deem it necessary to break open the doors.

The horror and confusion consequent upon the discovery of the

murder have given Ehud still further time. And now the preconcerted

signal is heard. The shrill blast of the trumpet in Seirath (perhaps

the “hairy” or “wooded”) wakes the echoes of MountEphraim. All

around from their hiding troop the men of Israel. The ﬁrst object

is to haste back towards Jericho and take the fords of Jordan, so as

to allow neither help to come, nor fugitives to escape; the next to

destroy the garrison of Moab. In both, Israelare successful, and, “at

that time”—of course, not on that precise day—10,000 of Moab are

slain, all of them, as we should say, ﬁne men and brave soldiers.

“And the land had rest fourscore years.”

Ancient history, both Greek and Roman, records similar stories,

and, where the murderer has been a patriot, elevates him to the

highest pinnacle of heroism. Nay, even Christian history records like

[105]

instances, as in the murder of Henry III and Henry IV of France, the

former, even in its details, so like the deed of Ehud. But strikingly

different from the toleration, and even commendation, of such deeds

So literally.

It was common in antiquity to rise when receiving a direct message from the king.

This is the origin of the liturgical practice of rising when the Gospel is read.

The text means only this, and not as in the Authorized Version.

Thucyd. vi. 56; Polyb. v. 81; Plut. Caesar, 86; Curtius, vii. 2, 27; comp. Cassel, u.s.

Chapter 14 cix

by the Papacy

is the judgment of the Old Testament. Its silence is

here severest condemnation. It needed not cunning and murder to

effect deliverance. Not one word of palliation or excuse is said for

this deed. It was not under the inﬂuence of “the Spirit of Jehovah”

that such deliverance was wrought, nor is it said of Ehud, as of

Othniel, that he “judged Israel.” Even Jewish tradition

compares

Ehud to the “ravening wolf” which had been the early emblem of

his tribe, Benjamin (Genesis 49:27).

It must have been during this period of eighty yearsrest,

that

another danger at least threatened Benjamin. This time it came from

an opposite direction—from the west, where the Philistines held

possession. “After” Ehud (3:31), that is, after his example, a notable

exploit was performed by Shamgar (“the name of a stranger”?).

Under the impulse of sudden sacred enthusiasm, he seized, as the

ﬁrst weapon to hand, an ox-goad, commonly used to urge on the oxen

in ploughing. The weapon is formidable enough, being generally

about eight feet long, and six inches round at the handle, which is

furnished with an iron horn to loosen the earth off the plough, while

the other end is armed with a long iron spike. With this weapon he

slew no fewer than 600 Philistines, whom, probably, panic seized

on his appearance.

The exploit seems to have been solitary, and

we read neither of further war, nor yet of Shamgar’s rule, only that

for the time the danger of a Philistine incursion was averted.

Ranke, Franzos. Gesch. 1 p. 171; 473.

Ber. Rabba, c. 89.

This view is also taken by Jewish interpreters, though not by Josephus.

Greek legend has a similar story of Lycurgos chasing Dionysos and the Bacchantes

with an ox-goad (Il. vi. 135). Israel in Canaan.

Chapter 15[106]

The Oppression of Jabin and Sisera—Deborah and Barak—The

Battle of Taanach—The Song of Deborah

(Judges 4, 5)

DARKER and darker are the clouds which gather around Israel,

and stranger and more unexpected is the deliverance wrought for

them. It had begun with Othniel, truly a “lion of God.” But after

the “lion of God” came one left-handed, then a woman, then the

son of an idolater, and then an outlaw of low birth, as if it were

ever to descend lower and lower, till the last stage is reached in the

Nazarite, Samson, who, as Nazarite, is the typical representative of

Israel’s calling and strength, and, as Samson, of Israel’s weakness

and spiritual adultery. Yet each period and each deliverance has its

characteristic features and high points. The narrative opens as if to

resume the thread of Israels continuous history, only temporarily

broken by Ehud’s life: “And the children of Israelcontinued

to do

evil in the eyes of Jehovah—and Ehud was dead.” This furnished a

long wished-for opportunity.

It had been about a century before when a Jabin (“the prudent”

or “understanding,”—no doubt the monarch’s title, like Pharaoh or

Abimelech) had marshaled the chieftains of Northern Palestinea-

gainst Joshua, and been signally defeated (Joshua 11:1-10). Since

then his capital had been restored and his power grown, till now it

seemed the ﬁtting moment to recover his ancient empire. As we un-

derstand the narrative, the hosts of Jabin had swept down from Hazor

in the far north, and occupied the possessions of Naphtali, Zebulun,

and Issachar. While Jabin himself continued in his capital, his gen-

eral, Sisera (“mediation,” “lieutenant”?) held the southern boundary

of the annexed provinces, making his head-quarters at Harosheth ha

Gojim—“the smithy of the nations”—perhaps so called from being

So literally, and very signiﬁcantly for the history of Israel.

Chapter 15 cxi

the arsenal where his iron war-chariots, armed with scythes, were

made. The site of this place is probably somewhere in the neighbor-

hood of Bethshean, which afterwards formed the southernmost point

of Galilee. Evidently it must have been south of Mount Tabor—,

to which Barak afterwards marched from Kedron, in the north of

Naphtali. For, irrespective of the utterly helpless state of the country,

as described in Judges 5:6, Sisera would not have allowed Barak to

turn his ﬂank or to march on his rear.

The occupation of the north

[107]

of Palestine by Sisera had lasted twenty years. Relief must have

seemed well-nigh hopeless. On the one hand, the population was

wholly disarmed (Judges 5:8); on the other, Sisera had no less than

nine hundred war-chariots—means of attack which Israel—most

dreaded. But as often before, so now, suffering led Israel—to cry

unto the Lord—and help was soon at hand.

One of the most painful circumstances in the history of the

Judges is the utter silence which all this time seems to envelop

Shiloh and its sanctuary. No help comes from the priesthood till

quite the close of this period. Far away in Mount Ephraim God raised

up a woman, on whom He had poured the spirit of prophecy. It is

the ﬁrst time in this history that we read of the prophetic gift. The

sacred text conveys, that she exercised it in strict accordance with

the Divine law, for it is signiﬁcantly added in connection with it, that

“she judged Israel at that time.” Deborah, “the bee,”

is described as

a “burning woman.”

The meeting-place for all in Israel who sought

judgment at her hands was between Ramah and Bethel, under a palm-

tree,

which afterwards bore her name. Thence she sent for Barak

(“lightning,”) the son of Abinoam (“my father”—God -“is favor”),

For this reason I cannot adopt the localization proposed by Dr. Thomson (Land and

Book, ch. 29), north of the hills that bound the Plain of Jezreel, although the suggestion is

supported by Mr. Grove.

Although there may be differences as to the mode of its derivation, there is none as

to the real import of the name.

The Authorized Version translates “the wife of Lapidoth.” The latter word means

“torches,” and the meaning, as brought out by Cassel, seems to be “a woman of a torch-like

spirit;” the Hebrew for wife and woman being the same. Jewish tradition has it, that

she was the wife of Barak, “lightning,” Barak and Lapidoth being, of course, closely

connected terms.

The palm-tree was the symbol of Canaan; and the name Phoenician is derived from

its Greek equivalent.

cxii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

from the far north, from Kadesh in Naphtali. His ready obedience

proved his preparedness. But when Deborah laid on him the Divine

command “gradually to draw”

an army of 10,000 men to Mount

Tabor, Barak shrank from it, unless Deborah would accompany him.

This evidently proved distrust in the result of the undertaking,

which in turn showed that he looked for success to the presence of

[108]

man, rather than entirely to the power of God. Accordingly, he must

learn the folly of attaching value to man; and Deborah predicted,

that not Israel’s leader, but a woman, wholly unconnected with the

battle, would have the real triumph.

Accompanied by Deborah, Barak now returned to Kadesh,

whither he summoned the chiefs

of Naphtali and Zebulon. All

plans being concerted, the combatants converged in small compa-

nies, from all roads and directions, “on foot,”

towards the tryst-

ing-place. About six or eight miles east of Nazareth rises abruptly a

beautifully-shaped conical mountain, about 1,000 feet high.

This is Mount Tabor (“the height”), its sloping sides covered

with trees, and affording from its summit one of the most extensive

and beautiful prospects in Palestine. Here the army under Barak

and Deborah gathered. Tidings soon reached the head-quarters of

Sisera. His chariots could of course only ﬁght to advantage in the

valleys, and he naturally marched north-west to the plain of Jezreel

or Esdraelon. This has ever been, and will prove in the ﬁnal contest

(Revelation 16:16), the great battle-ﬁeld of Israel. It was now the

ﬁrst of many times that its fertile soil was to be watered with the

blood of men.

Sisera had chosen his position with consummate skill. Marching

in almost straight line upon the plain of Megiddo, his army was now

posted at its entrance, resting upon the ancient Canaanitish town

of Taanach (Judges 5:19, comp. Joshua 12:21). Behind, and at his

left ﬂank, were the mountains of Manasseh, before him opened the

basin of the valley, merging into the plain of Esdraelon, watered

by the Kishon. Into this plain must Barak’s army descend “on

This is the meaning of the word, as appears from Exodus 12:21.

This we infer, as it could not have served any purpose to have gathered the tribes

themselves so far north, while it would certainly have attracted the attention of the enemy.

So, and not as the Authorized Version renders it: “he went up with 10,000 men at

his feet.”

Chapter 15 cxiii

foot,” badly armed, without experienced ofﬁcers, without cavalry

or chariots—and here his own 900 war-chariots would operate to

best advantage. It was not even like one of those battles in which

mountaineers hold their own fastnesses, or swoop down on their

enemies in narrow deﬁles. On the contrary, all seemed to tell against

Israel—but this, that God had previously promised to draw Sisera

and his army to the river Kishon, and to deliver them into Barak’s

[109]

hand. Then once more did the Lord appear as “a man of war,” and

ﬁght on the side of His people. It is said: “And Jehovah discomﬁted,”

or rather, “threw into confusion, Sisera and all his chariots, and all

his host.” The expression is the same as when Jehovah fought against

Egypt(Exodus 14:25), and again when before GibeonJoshua bade

sun and moon stand still (Joshua 10:10). It indicates the direct

interference of the Lord through terrible natural phenomena; (comp.

also its use in 2 Samuel 22:15; Psalm 18:14; 144:6). As we gather

from Judges 5:20-22, afearful storm swept down from heaven in

face of the advancing army.

The battle must have drawn towards

Endor, where its fate was ﬁnally decided (Psalm 83:9, 10). Presently

the war-chariots were thrown into confusion, and instead of being

a help became a source of danger. The affrighted horses carried

destruction into the ranks of the host. Soon all were involved in a

common panic. A scene of wild confusion ensued. It was impossible

to retreat, and only in one direction could ﬂight be attempted. And

now the waters of Kishon had swollen into a wild torrent which

swept away the fugitives!

To escape capture, Sisera leaped from his chariot, and ﬂed on

foot northwards towards Hazor. Already he had passed beyond

Kadesh, and almost reached safety. There the boundary of Naphtali

was marked by what was known as “the oakwood at the twin tents

of wandering” (Elon be-Zaanannim; comp. Joshua 19:33). Here

Heber the Kenite had pitched his tent, having separated from his

brethren, who had settled in the extreme south at Arad (Judges 1:16).

Living quite on the boundary of Jabin’s dominion, and not being

really Israelites, the clan of Heber had been left unmolested and

So also Josephus (Ant. v. 5, 6).

The battle must be read in connection with the song of Deborah (Judges 5), which

furnishes its details.

cxiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

“there was peace between Jabin, king of Hazor, and the house of

Heber the Kenite.”

Only outward, not real peace! There is something wild and weird

about the appearance of these Kenites on the stage of Jewish history.

Originally an Arab tribe

they retain to the last the ﬁerceness of

their race. Though among Israel, they never seem to amalgamate

with Israel, and yet they are more keenly Israelitish than any of the

chosen race.

In short, these stranger-converts are the most intense in their

[110]

allegiance to the nation which they have joined, while at the same

time they never lose the characteristics of their own race. We mark

all this, for example, in the appearance of Jehonadab, the son of

Rechab (2 Kings 10:15), and again much later during the troubles

that befell Judah in the time of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 35). Jael, “the

chamois,” the wife of Heber, was among the Kenites what Deborah,

the “torch-woman,” was in Israel, only with all the characteristics

of her race developed to the utmost. At her tent-door she meets the

fugitive Sisera. She disarms his suspicions; she invites him to rest

and security; she even sacriﬁces the sacred rights of hospitality to

her dark purpose. There is something terrible and yet grand about

that ﬁerce woman, to whom every other consideration is as nothing,

so that she may avenge Israel and destroy its great enemy. All seems

lawful to her in such an undertaking; every means sanctiﬁed by the

end in view. She has laid the worn warrior to rest; she has given him

for refreshment of the best her tent affords. And now, as he lies in

heavy sleep, she stealthily withdraws one of the long iron spikes to

which the tent-cords are fastened, and with a heavy hammer once,

again, and yet a third time, strikes it into his temples. It is not long

before Barak—a “lightning” in pursuit as in battle—has reached the

spot. Jael lifts aside the tent-curtain and shows him the gory corpse.

In silence Barak turns from the terrible spectacle. But the power of

Jabin and his dominion are henceforth forever destroyed.

There is, as it seems to us, not a word in Scripture to express

its approbation of so horrible a deed of deceit and violence—no,

not even in the praise which Deborah in her song bestows upon

They were Midianites, descendafnts of Abraham by Keturah - undoubtedly a

Bedouin tribe.

Chapter 15 cxv

Jael. It was not like Deborah’s war, nor like Barak’s battle, but

strictly Kenite. Her allegiance to the cause of the people of God, her

courage, her zeal, were Israelitish; their fanatical, wild, unscrupulous

manifestation belonged to the race from which she had sprung, to the

traditions amidst which she had been nurtured, and to the ﬁery blood

which coursed in her veins—they were not of God nor of His word,

but of her time and race. Heathen history tells of similar deeds, and

records them with highest praise;

Scripture with solemn silence.

Yet even so Jehovah reigneth, and the ﬁerce Arab was the sword in

His hand!

Part I [111]

1.“Then sang Deborah and Barak on that day, saying:

2. For the loose ﬂowing of the long hair,

For the free

dedication of the people, Praise ye Jehovah!

3. Hear O kings, hearken O rulers,

I—to Jehovah will

I sing, Will psalmody

to Jehovah, the God of Israel!

4. Jehovah, when Thou didst come forth from Seir,

When Thou marchedst from out the ﬁelds of Edom,

The earth trembled, also the heavens dropped, Even the

clouds dropped water.

5. The mountains quaked before Jehovah—This Sinai

before Jehovah, the God of Israel—.

For example in the case of Aretaphila in Cyrene (Plutarch, The Virtues of Women,

19).

The language is extremely difﬁcult, and the most different interpretations have been

proposed. We have adopted the ingenious view of Cassel, which represents Israel, as it

were, taking the Nazarite vow for God and against His enemies.

Comp. Psalm 2:2 - these, of course, are kings and princes of the heathen.

Always used of sacred song with instrumental accompaniment.

Deborah begins with the record of God’s great doings of old in the wilderness, the

later parallel being in Psalm 68:7, 8. Comp. here especially Exodus 19 and Deuteronomy

33:2, and for the expressions, Psalm 47:5; 114:7; Isaiah 63:12; 64:2; Jeremiah 10:10; Joel

3:16.

Here the ﬁrst stanza of the ﬁrst division of this song ends. There are in all three

sections, each of three stanzas. The reader will have no difﬁculty in marking the progress

of thought.

cxvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

6. In the days of Shamgar, the son of Anath, In the days

of Jael,

the highways ceased,

And they who went

on paths, went by roundabout ways.

7. Deserted was the open country

in Israel—de-

serted—Till I arose, Deborah, I arose a mother in Is-

rael—!

8. Chose they new gods—Then war at the gates—If

shield was seen or spear Among forty thousand in Is-

rael—!

9. My heart towards the rulers of Israel, Those who

freely vowed (dedicated) themselves among the people.

Praise ye Jehovah!

10.Ye that ride on white

she-asses, Ye that sit on

coverings

Ye that walk by the way—consider!

[112]

11.From the noise (sound, voice) of the archers between

the draw-wells

—There they rehearse the righteous

deeds

of Jehovah, The mighty deeds of His open

country

in Israel -Then went down to the city gates

the people of Jehovah!

Cassel, as I think fancifully, regards “Jael,” not as referring to the wife of Heber, but

as a poetic name for Shamgar or Ehud.

Or were deserted.

That is, the country with open villages and towns, in opposition to walled cities.

That is, “shield and spear were not seen.” So low had the fortunes of Israel fallen

before their enemies.

The expression is not without difﬁculty; Cassel would render it by pack-saddled.

The reference here is evidently to abiding in tents, whether the word be rendered

mats, carpets, garments, or coverings.

Viz., the contrast between the insecurity of former times and the present happy

condition. Cassel happily points out that, as in Psalm 1:1, the reference is to the three

classes: those who sit, who stand, and who go.

The language is very difﬁcult. To us it seems to indicate the contrast between the

noise of battle and the peaceful scene of the maidens, who can now go without fear outside

the gates to draw water.

The righteous deeds are here the mighty deeds, and so we have rendered it in the

next line.

Seems to mean: His mighty deeds in reference to, or as seen in the villages and

unwalled towns of Israel.

Chapter 15 cxvii

Part II

12.Awake, awake, Deborah, Awake, awake—utter the

song; Arise, Barak, and lead captive thy captives, son

of Abinoam!

13. Then went down a remnant of the mighty, of the

people, Jehovah went down for me among the heroes!

14. From out of Ephraim—his root in Amalek;

After

thee: Benjamin among thy nations

—From Machir

come down they who bear rule, From Zebulon who

draw out with the staff of the writer.

15. But the princes of Issachar were with Deborah—

And Issachar the foundation

of Barak, Pouring on

foot into the valley! By the brooks of Reuben great

resolves of heart

16. Why abodest thou among the folds To hear the ﬂutes

of the ﬂocks? By the brooks of Reuben great ponderings

of heart!

17. Gilead dwells on the other side Jordan!

And Dan,

who pass upon ships? Asher sitteth by the seashore,

And by its bays resteth!

18. Zebulon a people that jeoparded its life unto death, [113]

And Naphtali on the heights of the ﬁeld!

19. Came kings warred Then warred the kings of

Canaan, In Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo Spoil of

silver took they none!

20. From heaven warred, The stars out of their paths

warred against Sisera!

There seems an allusion here to the ancient glory of the tribes: Ephraim, from which

sprang Joshua, the conqueror of Amalek.

“Nations,” here equivalent to heathens, and the reference is to Ehud.

Machir is Manasseh, Genesis 50:23.

These two tribes then distinguished for peaceful avocations. Such was the former

glory of Israel. In the next stanza Deborah proceeds to sketch the present state of the

tribes.

In his territory the battle was fought - the rendering “foundation” is after the Jewish

commentaries.

Here begins the censure of the tribes who should have taken part.

Such is its plea.

cxviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

21. The river Kishon swept them away, River of encoun-

ters,

River Kishon! March forth my soul in strength!

22. Then clattered the hoofs of the horse From the

racing and chasing

of his mighty.

23. Curse ye Meroz,

saith the Angel of Jehovah,

Curse ye—cursed its inhabitants, For they came not to

the help of Jehovah, The help of Jehovah against the

mighty!

Part III

24. Blessed among women, Jael, The wife of Heber, the

Kenite, Among women in the tent

blessed!

25. Water asked he—milk she gave, In the cup of the

noble

brought she thickened milk

26. Her hand to the tent-nail sendeth forth, And her right

hand to the ponderous hammer of workmen—Hammers

she Sisera, shivers

his head, Cleaves

and pierces

his temple!

27. Between her feet he winds—he falls—he lies—

Between her feet he winds—he falls—Where he winds

there he falls desolated!

28. High up through the window spies—anxiously she

calls, The mother of Sisera—cut through the lattice:

The common rendering is “ancient river;” Cassel translates “river of help.” I prefer

“battle,” the root being: to meet or to encounter, obviam ire. Kishon, “the winding one.”

Ancient Jewish tradition has it that this battle was fought on the Passover, which is not

unlikely, as the Kishon is swollen during the rainy season, but quite dry in summer.

In their ﬂight. In the original the word is simply repeated.

Probably a place near Endor, whose inhabitants joined not in the pursuit of Sisera.

Such women as live in tents - pastoral and nomadic, as all the Kenites were.

The cup used on state occasions, as it were.

Cream, or thickened milk (it is a mistake of interpreters to suppose that it was

thickened to make him intoxicated); or else camel’s milk.

We almost seem to hear the three strokes of the hammer by which her bloody work

is done.

We almost seem to hear the three strokes of the hammer by which her bloody work

is done.

We almost seem to hear the three strokes of the hammer by which her bloody work

is done.

The description of the effects corresponding to the three strokes of the hammer.

Chapter 15 cxix

‘Why tarrieth his chariot to come, Why linger the steps

of his war-chariots?’

29. The wise of her princesses answer—Nay, she herself

[114]

answers her words to herself: ‘Are they not ﬁnding—

dividing spoil -

30. A maiden-twain maidens to the head of the war-

riors—Spoil of dyed garments to Sisera, Spoil of dyed

garments—many-colored kerchief—A dyed garment,

twain many-colored kerchiefs for the necks of the

prey!

31. So perish all Thine enemies, Jehovah—And let

those who love Him be like the going forth of the sun

in his strength! And the land had rest forty years.

With each captive maiden the warrior would also receive one dyed garment and

twain many-colored kerchiefs. In the arduous task of translating this, one of the most

difﬁcult passages of Scripture, Cassel’s Commentary has been of greatest use, although

its suggestions are too often fanciful.

Chapter 16[115]

Midianitish Oppression—The Calling of Gideon—Judgment begins

at the House of God—The Holy War—The Night-battle of Moreh

(Judges 6-7:22)

WITH the calling of Gideon commences the second period in

the history of the Judges. It lasted altogether less than a century.

During its course events were rapidly hastening towards the ﬁnal

crisis. Each narrative is given with full details, so as to exhibit the

peculiarity of God’s dealings in every instance, the growing apostasy

of Israel, and the inherent unﬁtness even of its best representatives

to work real deliverance.

The narrative opens, as those before, with a record of the re-

newed idolatry of Israel. Judgment came in this instance through

the Midianites, with whom the Amalekites and other “children of

the east” seem to have combined. It was two hundred years since

Israel had avenged itself on Midian (Numbers 31:3-11). And now

once more, from the far east, these wild nomads swept, like the

modern Bedawin, across Jordan, settled in the plain of Jezreel, and

swooped down as far as Gaza in the distant south-west. Theirs was

not a permanent occupation of the land, but a continued desolation.

No sooner did the golden harvest stand in the ﬁeld, or was stored

into garners, than they unexpectedly arrived. Like the plague of

locusts, they left nothing behind. What they could not carry away as

spoil, they destroyed. Such was the feeling of insecurity to life and

property, that the people made them “mountain-dens, and caves, and

strongholds,” where to seek safety for themselves and their posses-

sion. Seven years had this terrible scourge impoverished the land,

when the people once more bethought themselves of Jehovah, the

God of their fathers, and cried unto Him. This time, however, before

granting deliverance, the Lord sent a prophet to bring Israel to a

knowledge of their guilt as the source of their misery. The call to

repentance was speedily followed by help.

cxx

Chapter 16 cxxi

1. The calling of Gideon—Far away on the south-western border

of Manasseh, close by the boundary of Ephraim, was the little town-

ship of Ophrah,

belonging to the family of Abiezer

(Joshua 17:2;

1 Chronicles 7:18), apparently one of the smallest clans in Manasseh

(Judges 6:15). Its head or chief was Joash -“Jehovah strength,” or

“ﬁrmness.”

As such he was lord of Ophrah. In such names the ancient spiri-

[116]

tual faith of Israel seems still to linger amidst the decay around. And

now, under the great oak by Ophrah, suddenly appeared a heavenly

stranger. It was the Angel of Jehovah, the Angel of the Covenant,

Who in similar garb had visited Abraham at Mamre (Genesis 18).

Only there He had come, in view of the judgment about to burst, to

conﬁrm Abraham’s faith—to enter into fellowship with him, while

here the object was to call forth faith, and to prove that the Lord

was ready to receive the vows and prayers of His people, if they but

turned to Him in the appointed way. This may also explain, why in

the one case the heavenly visitor joined in the meal,

while in the

other ﬁre from heaven consumed the offering (comp. Judges 13:16;

1 Kings 18:38; 2 Chronicles 7:1).

Close by the oak was the winepress of Joash, and there his son

Gideon

was beating out the wheat with a stick.

Alike the place

and the manner of threshing were quite unusual, and only accounted

for by the felt need for secrecy, and the constant apprehension that at

an unexpected moment some wild band of Midianites might swoop

down upon him. If, as we gather from the Angel’s salutation, Gideon

was a strong hero, and if; as we infer from his reply, remembrances

and thoughts of the former deeds of Jehovah for Israel had burned

deep into his heart, we can understand how the humiliating cir-

cumstances under which he was working in his father’s God-given

possession, in one of the remotest corners of the land, must have

ﬁlled his soul with sadness and longing.

Ophrah means township. This Ophrah is to be distinguished from that in Benjamin.

“My father is help.”

The Targum puts it: “they seemed to eat,” and Cassel argues that, as theirs was not

real humanity, neither was their eating. This, of course, is quite different from the eating

on the part of our Lord, which was real - since His humanity and His body were real and

true.

“One who cuts down,” a warrior.

The term in the original conveys this.

cxxii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

It is when “the strong warrior” is at the lowest, that the Mes-

senger of the Covenant suddenly appears before him. Not only the

brightness of His face and form, but the tone in which He spake, and

still more His words, at once struck the deepest chords in Gideon’s

heart. “Jehovah with thee, mighty hero!” Then the speaker was one

of the few who looked unto Jehovah as the help-giver; and he ex-

pressed alike belief and trust! And was there not in that appellation

[117]

“mighty warrior” a sound like the echo of national expectations—

like a call to arms? One thing at least the Angel immediately gained.

It was—what the Angel of His Presence always ﬁrst gains—the con-

ﬁdence of Gideon’s heart. To the unknown stranger he pours forth

his inmost doubts, sorrows, and fears. It is not that he is ignorant of

Jehovah’s past dealings, nor that he questions His present power, but

that he believes that, if Jehovah had not withdrawn from Israel, their

present calamities could not have rested upon them. The conclusion

was right and true, so far as it went; for Israels prosperity or suf-

ferings depended on the presence or the absence of Jehovah. Thus

Gideon’s was in truth a confession of Israels sin, and of Jehovah’s

justice. It was the beginning of repentance. But Gideon had yet

to learn another truth—that Jehovah would turn from His anger, if

Israel only turned to Him; and yet another lesson for himself: to put

personal trust in the promise of God, based as it was on His covenant

of love, and that whether the outward means to be employed seemed

adequate or not.

But Gideon was prepared to learn all this; and, as always, gradu-

ally did the Lord teach His servant, both by word, and by the sight

with which He conﬁrmed it. The reply of the Angel could leave no

doubt on the mind of Gideon that a heavenly messenger was before

him, Who promised that through him Israel should be saved, and

that simply because He sent him. It is not necessary to suppose that

Gideon understood that this messenger from heaven was the Angel

of the Covenant. On the contrary, the revelation was very gradual.

Nor do the questions of Gideon seem strange—for such they are

rather than doubts. Looking around at his tribe, at his clan, and at his

own position in it, help through him seemed most unlikely, and, if we

realize all the circumstances, was so. Only one conclusive answer

could be returned to all this: “I shall be with thee.” The sole doubt

now left was: Who was this great I AM?—and this Gideon proposed

Chapter 16 cxxiii

to solve by “asking for a sign,” yet not a sign to his unbelief, but one

connected with worship and with sacriﬁce. Jehovah granted it. As

when Moses sought to know God, He revealed not His being but His

character and His ways (Exodus 33:18; 34:6), so now He revealed to

Gideon not only Who had spoken to him, but also that His “Name”

was “Jehovah, Jehovah God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering,

[118]

and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands,

forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin.”

It would be almost fatal to the proper spiritual understanding of

this, as of other Biblical narratives, if we were to transport into it

our present knowledge, ideas, and views. Remembering the circum-

stances of the nation, of Gideon, and of Israel; remembering also the

stage of spiritual knowledge attainable at that period, and the difﬁ-

culty of feeling really sure Who the speaker was, we can understand

Gideon’s request (6:1-17): “Work for me a sign that THOU (art He)

Who art speaking with me.”

It is difﬁcult to imagine what special

sign Gideon was expecting. Probably he had formed no deﬁnite idea.

Sufﬁce it, he would bring a sacriﬁcial gift; the rest he would leave to

Him. And he brought of the best. It was a kid of the goats, while for

the “cakes,” to be offered with it, he took a whole ephah of ﬂour, that

is, far more than was ordinarily used. But he does all the ministry

himself; for no one must know of it. To dispense with assistance, he

puts the meat and the cakes in the “bread-basket,”

“and the broth

in a pot.” Directed by the Angel, he spreads his offering on a rock.

Then the Angel touches it with the end of His staff; ﬁre leaps out

of the rock and consumes the sacriﬁces; and the Angel has vanished

out of his sight. There was in this both a complete answer to all

Gideon’s questions, and also deep symbolic teaching. But a fresh

fear now ﬁlls Gideon’s heart. Can one like him, who has seen

God, live? To this also Jehovah gives an answer, and that for all

times: “Peace to thee fear not thou shalt not die!” And in perpetual

remembrance thereof—not for future worship—Gideon built an altar

there,

and attached to it the name, “Jehovah-Peace!”

So literally.

This is the uniform meaning of the word.

The added notice as to its continuance at the time of the writer throws light upon

the date of the authorship of the book.

cxxiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

2. One part was ﬁnished, but another had to begin. Jehovah had

called—would Gideon be ready to obey? For judgment must now

begin at the house of God. No one is ﬁt for His work in the world

till he has begun it in himself and in his own house, and put away

all sin and rebellion, however hard the task. It was night when the

command of Jehovah came. This time there was neither hesitation

[119]

nor secrecy about Gideon’s procedure. He obeyed God’s directions

literally and immediately. Taking ten of his servants, he ﬁrst threw

down the altar of Baal, and cut down the Asherah—the vile symbol

of the vile service of Astarte—that was upon it.

One altar was destroyed, but another had to be raised. For, the

altar of Jehovah could not be reared till that of Baal had been cast

down. It was now built, and that not in some secret hiding-place, but

on “the top of this defense”—either on the top of the hill on which

the fort stood, or perhaps above the place where the people were

wont to seek shelter from the Midianites. Upon this altar Gideon

offered his father’s “second bullock of seven years old”—the age

being symbolical of the time of Midian’s oppression—at the same

time using the wood of the Asherah in the burnt-sacriﬁce. Such

a reformation could not, and was not intended to be hidden. The

Baal’s altar and its Asherah were indeed Joash’s, but only as chief

of the clan. And when on the following morning the Abiezrites

clamored for the death of the supposed blasphemer, Joash, whose

courage and faith seem to have been re-awakened by the bold deed

of his son, convinced his clan of the folly of their idolatry by an

unanswerable argument, drawn from their own conduct. “What!” he

exclaimed, in seeming condemnation, “will ye strive for Baal? Or

will ye save him? He that will strive for him let him die until the

morrow!

If he be a god, let him strive for himself, because he has

thrown down his altar. And they called him on that day Jerubbaal

The two were very generally connected, and formed the grossest contrast to the

pure service of Jehovah.

That is, if any should seek to vindicate Baal today let him die; wait till tomorrow to

give him time!

In 2 Samuel 11:21 he is called Jerubbesheth - besheth, “shame,” being an oppro-

brious name instead of Baal. May this throw any light on the names of Ishbosheth and

Mephibosheth? In 1 Chronicles 8:33, 939, at least Ishbosheth is called Ish-baal, while

in 1 Chronicles 8:34 we have Meribbaal (“strife of,” or else “against Baal”) instead of

Mephibosheth (“glory” or “utterance” of Baal).

Chapter 16 cxxv

(‘let Baal strive’), that is to say, Let the Baal strive with him, because

he has thrown down his altar.”

3. The Holy War—Gideon had now puriﬁed himself and his

house, and become ready for the work of the Lord. And yet another

[120]

important result had been secured. The test to which Baal had been

put had proved his impotence. Idolatry had received a heavy blow

throughout the land. In Ophrah at least the worship of Jehovah

was now alone professed. Moreover, the whole clan Abiezer, and,

beyond it, all who had heard of Gideon’s deed, perpetuated even

in his name, were prepared to look to him as their leader. The

occasion for it soon came. Once more the Midianitish Bedawin had

swarmed across Jordan; once more their tents covered the plain of

Jezreel. Now or never—now, before their destructive raids once

more began, or else never under Gideon must Israel arise! Yet not of

his own purpose did he move. In the deeply expressive language of

Scripture: “The Spirit of Jehovah clothed Gideon,”

like a garment

round about, or rather like an armor. Only after that he blew the

trumpet of alarm. First, his own clan Abiezer “was called after him.”

Next, swift messengers bore the tidings all through Manasseh, and

that tribe gathered. Other messengers hastened along the coast (to

avoid the Midianites) through Asher northwards to Zebulun and

Naphtali, and they as well as Asher, which formerly had not fought

with Barak, obeyed the summons.

All was ready—yet one thing more did Gideon seek. It was not

from unbelief, nor yet in weakness of faith, that Gideon asked a sign

from the Lord, or rather a token, a pledge of His presence. Those

hours in the history of God’s heroes, when, on the eve of a grand

deed of the sublimest faith, the spirit wrestles with the ﬂesh, are

holy seasons, to which the superﬁcial criticism of a glib profession,

that has never borne the strain of utmost trial, cannot be applied

without gross presumption. When in such hours the soul in its agony

is seen to cast its burden upon the Lord, we feel that we stand on

holy ground. It is like a stately ship in a terriﬁc gale, every beam and

timber strained to the utmost, but righting itself at last, and safely

reaching port.

Or rather it is like a close following of Jesus into the

So, Judges 6:34, literally.

The thought is beautifully carried out in one of the Hymns of St. Joseph of the

Studium (translated by Dr. Neale in his Hymns of the Eastern Church).

cxxvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

Garden of Gethsemane—with its agony, its prayer, and its victory. In

substance, though not in its circumstances, it was the same struggle

as that which was waged in the night when Jacob prayed: “I will

[121]

not let Thee go except Thou bless me;” the same as when, many

centuries afterwards, the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus: “Art

Thou He, or do we wait for another?”

The “sign” was of Gideon’s own choosing, but graciously ac-

corded him by God. It was twofold. On the ﬁrst night the ﬂeece of

wool spread on the ground it was to be full of dew, but the ground all

around dry. This, however, might still admit of doubt, since a ﬂeece

would naturally attract the dew. Accordingly, the next night the sign

was reversed, and the ﬂeece alone remained dry, while the ground

all around was wet with dew. The symbolical meaning of the sign is

plain. Israel was like that ﬂeece of wool, spread on the wide extent

of the nations. But, whereas all the ground around was dry, Israel

was ﬁlled with the dew, as symbol of the Divine blessing (Genesis

27:28; Deuteronomy 33:13; Proverbs 19:12; Isaiah 26:19; Hosea

14:5; Micah 5:7.). And the second sign meant, that it was equally of

God, when, during Israels apostasy, the ground all around was wet,

and the ﬂeece of Jehovah’s ﬂock alone left dry.

4. The battle: “For Jehovah and for Gideon!”—The faith which

had made such trial of God was to be put to the severest trial—

Israel.s camp was pitched on the height; probably on a crest of

MountGilboa’, which seems to have borne the name of Gilead’. At

its foot rose “the spring Harod”—probably the same which now

bears the name Jalood. Beyond it was the hill Moreh (from the

verb “to indicate,” “to direct”), and north of it, in the valley,

lay the camp of Midian, 135,000 strong (Judges 8:10), whereas

the number of Israel amounted to only 22,000. But even so they

were too many—at least for Jehovah “to give the Midianites into

their hand, lest Israel—vaunt themselves against Me, saying, Mine

own hand hath saved me.” In accordance with a previous Divine

“And they camped upon the spring Harod, and the camp of Midian was to him from

the noffrth, from the height of Moreh in the valley” (Judges 7:1).

Chapter 16 cxxvii

direction (Deuteronomy 20:8), proclamation was made for all who

were afraid, to “turn and wind about

from Mount Gilead.”

Still, Gideon must have been surprised, when, in consequence,

he found himself left with only 10,000 men. But even these were

[122]

too many. To “purify them” (as by reﬁning—for such is the meaning

of the word), Gideon was now to bring them down to the spring

Harod, where those who were to go to battle would be separated

from the rest.

All who lapped the water with the tongue out

of their hands (out of the hollow hand), as a dog lappeth water,

were to go with Gideon, the rest to return, each to his own place.

Only three hundred were now left, and with these God declared He

would save, and deliver the Midianites into Gideon’s hand. If we

ask about the rationale of this means of distinction, we conclude,

of course, that it indicated the bravest and most ardent warriors,

who would not stoop to kneel, but hastily quenched their thirst out

of the hollow of their hands, in order to hasten to battle. But Jewish

tradition assigns another and deeper meaning to it. It declares that

the practice of kneeling was characteristic of the service of Baal,

and hence that kneeling down to drink when exhausted betrayed the

habit of idolaters. Thus the three hundred would represent those in

the host of Israel—“all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal”

(1 Kings 19:18).

They who had been selected now “took victuals

from the people

in their hands, and the trumpets”—the rest were

sent away.

That night the small company of Israel occupied an advanced

position on the brow of the steep mountain, that overhangs the valley

So literally; possibly referring to circuitous routes.

Gilead was probably another name for Gilboa. Cassel suggests that it may stand for

Manasseh.

First the Divine promise, and then the Divine command to our faith (Judges 7:7).

So it is always.

Josephus (Ant. v. 6, 3) holds, that the three hundred were the most fainthearted.

But it is surely unreasonable to suppose that, when all who feared had been dismissed,

the most fainthearted should in the end have been chosen.

Cassel attempts to ﬁnd a special meaning in the comparison: “as a dog licketh,” as

referring to a kind of dog (of which the ancients and the Talmud speak), which was wont,

when the crocodile was asleep, to throw itself into its gullet and to kill it.

This seems to be the real meaning of Judges 7:8, whether or not it be deemed

needfuﬂ to emendate the text.

cxxviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

of Jezreel.

Effectually concealed, probably by the shelter of wood

or vineyards, the vast straggling camp of Midian spread right beneath

them. That night came the Divine command to Gideon to go down

[123]

to the camp, for God had given it into his hand. And yet, alike in

condescension to Gideon’s weakness, and to show how thoroughly

the Lord had prepared the victory, He ﬁrst allowed him to ascertain

for himself the state of matters in the camp of Midian. Quietly

Gideon and his page Phurah (“the branch”) crept from rock to rock,

over where the last patrol of the advance-guard

kept watch around

the camp-ﬁre.

Here they overheard the tale of a strange dream. Alike the dream

and its interpretation are peculiarly Eastern and in character. Both

would make the deepest impression on those sons of the desert, and,

communicated to the next patrol, as the ﬁrst watch was relieved by

the second, must have prepared for that panic which, commencing

with the advance-guard, was so soon to spread through the whole

camp of Midian. The dream was simply this: “Behold, a loaf of

barley-bread rolled itself into the camp of Midian, and it came to

the tent (the principal one, that of the general), and struck it, and

it fell, and it turned from above

and it was fallen!” To which his

neighbor (comrade) replied: “This is nothing else but the sword of

Gideon, the son of Joash, a man of Israel; given hath the God

into

his hand Midian and all his camp.” So wondrous seemed the dream

and its interpretation, that, when Gideon and his armor-bearer heard

it, they bent in silent worship, assuredly knowing that God had given

them the victory. In truth, with the tale of this dream the miracle of

the victory had already begun.

There is such pictorialness and such truthfulness of detail about

all this narrative, that we almost seem to see the events enacted

before us. That camp of Bedouins, like locusts in numbers—with

their wives, children, and camels, like the sand by the seashore; then

the watchﬁre by which alone they keep guard; the talk over the camp-

So we understand the expression: “And the camp of Midian was beneath him in the

valley.”

Judges 7:11: “The end of the advance-guard;” the latter seems to be the meaning of

Cfhamushim. See Joshua 1:14.

So that the upper part was downwards.

“The Elohim,” emphatically, with the article.

Chapter 16 cxxix

ﬁre; the dream so peculiarly Bedouin, and its rapid interpretation,

no less characteristically Eastern—and yet the while all ordered and

arranged of God—while that small band of three hundred Israelites

lies concealed on the neighboring height, and Gideon and his “young

man,” are close by, behind the great shadows which the watch-ﬁre

[124]

casts, hidden perhaps in the long grass! Then the dream itself! It

was all quite natural, and yet most unnatural. The Midianites—

especially the advanced-guard, that lay nearest to Israel—, could not

be ignorant that Gideon and his host occupied yonder height. Fame

would spread, probably exaggerate, the “mighty valor” of Gideon,

and the valor of his followers—while the diminished numbers of

Gideon would, of course, not be known, as they had retired by

circuitous routes. Moreover, the Midianites must also have been

aware that this was to Israel—a religious war; nor can they have

been ignorant of the might of Jehovah. The fears which all this

inspired appear in the interpretation of the dream. But the dream

itself was the result of the same feelings. Barley-bread was deemed

the poorest food; yet a loaf of this despised provision of slaves

rolls itself into Midian’s camp, strikes the tent of the leader, turns

it upside down, and it falls! Here is a dream-picture of Israel and

its victory—all quite natural, yet marvelously dreamed and told

just at that particular time. And still, often do dreams, excited by

natural causes, link themselves, in God’s appointment, to thoughts

that come supernaturally.. We have throughout this history marked

how often what seemed to happen quite naturally, was used by

God miraculously, and how the supernatural linked itself to what,

more or less, had its counterpart in the ordinary course of nature. It

had been so in the history of Moses and of Israel’; it was so when

Joshua defeated the allied kings before Gibeon’, and when Barak

encountered the invincible chariots of Sisera. In each case it was

the Lord, Who gave miraculous victory through terriﬁc tempest.

So also it had been in an hour, when thoughts of Israel’s past and

present must have burned deepest into the heart of Gideon, that the

Angel stood before him, even as it was by means most natural that

God separated from the rest the three hundred who had not bent the

knee to Baal, and who alone were to go to the holy war. Thoughts

like these do not detract from, they only make the supernatural the

more marvelous. Yet they seem also to bring it nearer to us, till we

cxxx Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

feel ourselves likewise within its circle, and can realize that even

our “daily bread” comes to us straight from heaven! Gideon and

Phurah have returned to the waiting host. In whispered words he

has told what they had witnessed. And now the three hundred are

[125]

divided into three companies. It is not the naked sword they grasp,

for in that night not Israel, but Jehovah is to ﬁght. In one hand each

man holds a trumpet, in the other, concealed in a pitcher, a burning

torch. Each is to do exactly as the leader. Silently they creep round

to three different parts of Midian’s camp. The guard has just been

relieved, and the new watchers have settled quietly by the watch-ﬁre.

Suddenly a single trumpet is heard, then three hundred—here, there,

everywhere the sound of war is raised. The night is peopled with

terrors. Now with loud crash three hundred pitchers are broken;

three hundred torches ﬂash through the darkness; three hundred

voices shout: “The sword for Jehovah and for Gideon!” Then is the

enemy all around the camp! No one can say in what numbers. Again

and again rings the trumpet-sound; wave the torches. The camp is

roused. Men, women, children, camels rush terror-stricken through

the dark night. No one knows but that the enemy is in the very

midst of them, and that the neighbor whom he meets is an Israelite,

for all around still sounds the war-trumpet, ﬂash the torches, and

rises the war-cry. Each man’s sword is turned against his neighbor.

Multitudes are killed or trampled down, and their cries and groans

increase the terror of that wild night. A hopeless panic ensues, and

ere morning-light, the site of the camp and the road of the fugitives

towards Jordan are strewed with the slain.

It is interesting to notice, that both classical and modern history record similar

night-surprises, with ensuing panic and slaughter, though, of course, not of the miraculous

character of this narrative.

Chapter 17 [126]

Farther Course of Gideon—The Ephod at Ophrah—Death of

Gideon—Conspiracy of Abimelech—The Parable of Jotham—Rule

and End of Abimelech

(Judges 7:23-9:57)

THE tide of battle had rolled towards the Jordan. The fugitives

seem to have divided into two main bodies. The quickest, under

the leadership of Zebah and Zalmunna, succeeded in crossing the

Jordan, and hastened towards the wilderness, while the main body

of the army, encumbered with women and cattle, ﬂed in a south-

easterly direction, trying to gain the more southern fords of the

Jordan within the possession of Issachar, and almost in a straight

line with that of Ephraim. The two kings were the object of Gideon’s

own pursuit, in which he was joined by those of Naphtali, Asher,

and Manasseh, who had shortly before been dismissed from the

battle. To overtake the other body of fugitives, Gideon summoned

the Ephraimites, directing them to occupy “the waters,” or tributaries

of Jordan’, unto Beth-barah (the house of springs) and the Jordan.

The success of Ephraim was complete. A great battle seems to have

been fought (Isaiah 10:26), in which the leaders of the Midianites,

Oreb and Zeeb (“the raven” and “the wolf”) were taken and slain.

The Ephraimites continued the pursuit of the fugitives to the other

side of the Jordan, bringing with them to Gideon the gory heads

of Oreb and Zeeb. Strange and sad, that their ﬁrst meeting with

Gideon after this victory should have been one of reproaches and

strife, on account of their not having been ﬁrst summoned to the

war—strife, springing from that tribal jealousy which inﬂuenced for

such evil the whole history of Ephraim. Nor was the reply of Gideon

much more satisfactory than their noisy self-assertion (8:1-3). To

us at least it savors more of the diplomacy of an Oriental, than the

straightforward bearing of the warrior of God.

cxxxi

cxxxii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

While Ephraim occupied “the waters” and the fords of the Jordan,

Gideon himself had crossed the river at the spot where Jacob of old

had entered Canaan on his return from Padan-Aram. “Faint yet

pursuing,” the band reached Succoth; but its “princes” refused even

the most useful provisions to Gideon’s men. The people of the

neighboring Penuel acted in the same heartless manner—no doubt

from utter lack of interest in the cause of God, from cowardice,

and, above all, from scorn for the small band of 300, with which

[127]

Gideon had gone in pursuit of the ﬂower of Midian’s army. They

had calculated the result by the outward means employed, but were

destined soon to feel the consequences of their folly. Making a

detour eastwards, through the wilderness, Gideon advanced on the

rear of Midian, and fell unexpectedly upon the camp at Karkor,

which was held by 15,000 men under the command of Zebah and

Zalmunna (“sacriﬁce” and “protection refused”). The surprise ended

in defeat and ﬂight, the two Midianite leaders being made prisoners

and taken across Jordan. On his way,

Gideon “taught the men of

Succoth,” by punishing their rulers

—seventy-seven in number,

probably consisting of either seven, or else ﬁve “princes,” and of

seventy or else seventy-two elders—while in the case of Penuel,

which seems to have offered armed resistance to the destruction of

its citadel, “the men of the city” were actually slain.

The fate of Gideon’s princely captives did not long remain doubt-

ful. It seems that he would have spared their lives, if they had not

personally taken part in the slaughter of his brothers, which may

have occurred at the commencement of the last campaign, and while

the Midianites held Jezreel—possibly under circumstances of treach-

ery and cruelty, prompted perhaps by tidings that Gideon had raised

the standard of resistance. It may have been to investigate the facts

on the spot, that Gideon had brought back

the two princes, or

he may have only heard of it on his return. At any rate, the two

In Judges 8:13 the rendering should be, “from the ascent of Heres,” probably a

mountain-road by which he came - instead of “before the sun was up.”

The notice in 8:14 (literally rendered), that the lad “wrote down for him” the names

of the princes, is interesting as showing the state of education at the time even in so remote

a district.

We gather that this took place either in Jezreel or at Ophrah from the circumstance

that Gideon’s son had joined him: 8:20.

Chapter 17 cxxxiii

Midianites not only confessed, but boasted of their achievement. By

the law of retaliation they were now made to suffer death, although

the hesitation of Gideon’s son spared them the humiliation of falling

by the hand of a young lad.

The deliverance of Israel was now complete. It had been wrought

most unexpectedly, and by apparently quite inadequate means. In

the circumstances, it was natural that, in measure as the people failed

[128]

to recognize the direct agency of Jehovah, they should exalt Gideon

as the great national hero. Accordingly, they now offered him the

hereditary rule over, at least, the northern tribes. Gideon had spiritual

discernment and strength sufﬁcient to resist this temptation. He knew

that he had only been called to a temporary work, and that the “rule”

which they wished could not be made hereditary. Each “judge” must

be specially called, and qualiﬁed by the inﬂuence of the Holy Spirit.

Besides, the latter was not, as since the ascension of our Blessed

Savior, a permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a Person, but

consisted in certain effects produced by His agency. The proposal

of Israel could therefore only arise from carnal misunderstanding,

and must be refused.

But Gideon himself was not proof against another temptation and

mistake. God had called him not only to temporal, but to spiritual

deliverance of Israel. He had thrown down the altar of Baal; he

had built up that of Jehovah, and offered on it accepted sacriﬁce.

Shiloh was deserted, and the high priest seemed set aside. Ophrah

had been made what Shiloh should have been, and Gideon had

taken the place of the high priest. All this had been by express

Divine command—and without any reference to the services of

the tabernacle. Moreover, Gideon’s ofﬁce had never been recalled.

Should it not now be made permanent, at least, in his own person?

The keeping of Israels faith had been committed to his strong hand;

should he deliver it up to the feeble grasp of a nominal priesthood

which had proved itself incapable of such a trust? It was to this

temptation that Gideon succumbed when he asked of the people

the various golden ornaments, taken as spoil from the enemy.

It is well known that the Midianites delighted in that kind of ornaments. We

recognize in this, even to the present day, the habits of the Bedawin. If we bear in mind

that the host of Midian consisted of 150,000 men, the weight of gold will by no means

appear excessive.

cxxxiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

The gold so obtained amounted to seventeen thousand shekels—or

nearly the weight of ﬁfty pounds. With this Gideon made an ephod,

no doubt with the addition of the high-priestly breastplate and its

precious gems, and of the Urim and Thummim. Here, then, was

the commencement of a spurious worship. Presently, Israel—went

to Ophrah, “a whoring after it,” while to Gideon himself and to his

[129]

house this “thing became a snare.”

In truth, the same spiritual misunderstanding which culminated

in Gideon’s arrogating to himself high-priestly functions, had ap-

peared almost immediately after that night-victory of Jehovah over

Midian. Even his reply to the jealous wrangling of Ephraim does not

sound like the straightforward language of one who had dismissed

the thousands of Israel to go to battle with only three hundred. Again,

there is what at least looks like petty revenge about his dealings with

Succoth and Penuel; while it is difﬁcult to understand upon what

principle, other than that of personal retaliation, he had made the

lives of Zebah and Zalmunna wholly dependent upon their conduct

towards his own family. And the brief remarks of Scripture about

the family-life of Gideon, after he had made the ephod, only tend to

conﬁrm our impressions. But, meantime, for “forty years in the days

of Gideon,” “the country was in quietness,” and, however imperfect

in its character, the service of Jehovah seems to have been, at least

outwardly, the only one professed. Matters changed immediately

upon his death. Presently the worship of Baalim becomes again

common, and especially that of the “Covenant-Baal” (Baal-berith).

There is a sad lesson here. If Gideon had made a spurious ephod, his

people now chose a false “covenant-god.” And, having ﬁrst forsaken

the Covenant-Jehovah, they next turned in ingratitude from their

earthly deliverer, “neither showed they kindness to the house of

Jerubbaal.” Thus sin ever brings its own punishment.

Not far from Ophrah, but in the territory of Ephraim, was the

ancient Shechem, connected with so much that was most solemn

in the history of Israel. We know the long-standing tribal jealousy

of Ephraim and their desire for leadership. Moreover, as we learn

from Judges 9:28, Shechem seems to have retained among its in-

The Rabbis ﬁnd here tribal jealousies against Ephraim, within whose territory were

Shiloh and the tabernacle.

Chapter 17 cxxxv

habitants the lineal representatives of Hamor, the original “prince”

and founder of Shechem in the days of Jacob (Genesis 33:19; 34:2;

comp. Joshua 24:32). These would represent, so as speak, the an-

cient feudal heathen aristocracy of the place, and, of course, the

original worshippers of Baal. As perhaps the most ancient city in

that part of the country, and as the seat of the descendants of Hamor,

Shechem seems to have become the center of Baal worship. Ac-

[130]

cordingly we ﬁnd there the temple of the “Covenant-Baal” (Judges

9:4). Possibly the latter may have been intended to express and

perpetuate the union of the original heathen with the more modern

Israelitish, or “Shechem” part of the population. Here then were

sufﬁcient elements of mischief ready: tribal jealousy; envy of the

great and ancient Shechem towards little Ophrah; hatred of the rule

of the house of Gideon; but, above all, the opposition of heathenism.

It is very characteristic of this last, as the chief motive at work, that

throughout all the intrigues against the house of Gideon, he is never

designated by his own name, but always as Jerubbaal—he that con-

tended against Baal. Contending against Baal had been the origin of

Gideon’s power; and to the heathen mind it seemed still embodied

in that Jehovah-Ephod in the possession of Gideon’s sons at Ophrah.

The present rising would in turn be the contending of Baal against

the house of Gideon, and his triumph its destruction. It only needed

a leader. Considering the authority which the family of Gideon must

still have possessed, none better could have been found than one of

its own members.

Gideon had left no fewer than seventy sons. If we may judge

from their connivance at the worship of Baal around, from the want

of any recognized outstanding individuality among them, and espe-

cially from their utter inability to make a stand even for life against

an equal number of enemies, they must have sadly degenerated;

probably were an enervated, luxurious, utterly feeble race. There

was one exception, however, to this; one outside their circle, and yet

of it—Abimelech, not a legitimate son of Gideon’s, but one by “a

maid-servant,” a native of Shechem. Although we know not the pos-

sible peculiarities of the case, it is, in general, quite consistent with

social relations in the East, that Abimelech’s slave-mother should

have had inﬂuential connections in Shechem, who, although of an

cxxxvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

inferior grade,

could enter into dealings with “the citizens” of the

place. Abimelech seems to have possessed all the courage, vigor,

[131]

and energy of his father; only coupled, alas! with restless ambi-

tion, reckless unscrupulousness, and daring impiety. His real name

we do not know;

for Abimelech, father-king, or else king-father,

seems to have been a by-name, probably suggested by his natural

qualiﬁcations and his ambition.

The plot was well contrived by Abimelech. At his instigation

his mother’s relatives entered into negotiations with the “citizens”

or “householders” of Shechem. The main considerations brought to

bear upon them seem to have been: hatred of the house of Gideon,

and the fact that Abimelech was a fellow-townsman. This was

sufﬁcient. The compact was worthily ratiﬁed with Baal’s money.

Out of the treasury of his temple they gave Abimelech seventy

shekels. This wretched sum, somewhere at the rate of half-a-crown

a person, sufﬁced to hire a band of seventy reckless rabble for the

murder of Gideon’s sons. Such was the value which Israel put upon

them! Apparently unresisting, they were all slaughtered upon one

stone, like a sacriﬁce—all but one, Jotham (“Jehovah [is] perfect”),

who succeeded in hiding himself, and thus escaped.

This is the ﬁrst scene. The next brings us once more to “the

memorial by the vale”

which Joshua had set up, when, at the

close of his last address, the people had renewed their covenant

with Jehovah (Joshua 24:26, 27). It was in this sacred spot that

“the citizens of Shechem and the whole house of Millo”

were now

gathered to make Abimelech king! Close by, behind it, to the south,

rose Gerizim, the Mount of Blessings. On one of its escarpments,

which tower 800 feet above the valley, Jotham, the last survivor of

Gideon’s house, watched the scene. And now his voice rose above

the shouts of the people.

This appears from the whole account of their transactions, in which the others are

always designated as “lords” of Shechem, in our Authorized Version, “men of Shechem,”

or rather, probably, the citizens - what we would call the “house-owners” of Shechem.

This is rightly inferred by Keil from the meaning of the verb, insufﬁciently rendered

in our Authorized Version: “whose name he called Abimelech” (8:31).

Wrongly rendered in our version “by the plain of the pillar,” 9:6.

That is, the inhabitants of Millo. Millo was no doubt the castle or citadel close to

Shechem.

Chapter 17 cxxxvii

In that clear atmosphere every word made its way to the listeners

below. It was a strange parable he told, peculiarly of the East, that

land of parables, and in language so clear and forcible, that it stands

almost unique. It is about the Republic of Trees, who are about to

elect a king. In turn the olive, the ﬁg tree, and the vine, the three

[132]

great representatives of fruit-bearing trees in Palestine,

are asked.

But each refuses; for each has its own usefulness, and inquires with

wonder: “Am I then to lose” my fatness, or my sweetness, or my

wine, “and to go to ﬂutter above the trees?”

The expressions are very pictorial, as indicating, on the one

hand, that such a reign could only be one of unrest and insecurity,

a “wavering” or “ﬂuttering” above the trees, and that, in order to

attain this position of elevation above the other trees, a tree would

require to be uprooted from its own soil, and so lose what of fatness,

sweetness, or refreshment God had intended it to yield. Then, these

noble trees having declined the offer, and apparently all the others

also,

the whole of the trees next turn to the thornbush, which

yields no fruit, can give no shadow, and only wounds those who take

hold of it, which, in fact, is only ﬁt for burning. The thornbush itself

seems scarcely to believe that such a proposal could seriously be

made to it. “If in truth” (that is, “truly and sincerely”) “ye anoint me

king over you, come, put your trust in my shadow;

but if not (that

is, if you fear so to do, or else ﬁnd your hopes disappointed), let ﬁre

come out of the thornbush and devour the cedars of Lebanon.”

The application of the parable was so evident, that it scarcely needed

the pungent sentences in which Jotham in conclusion set before the

people their conduct in its real character.

Jotham had not spoken as a prophet, but his language was

prophetic. Three years, not of kingdom, but of rule,

and the

judgment of God, which had been slumbering, began to descend.

The Rabbis understand the three trees as referring to Othniel, Deborah, and Gideon.

So literally.

This we gather from the fact that “the trees” successively solicit the olive, the ﬁg,

and the vine, while afterwards “all the trees” are said to turn to the thorn, as if all of them

had been successively asked, and had declined.

Seek shelter under my shadow.

That is, the noblest and the best. The thorn is easily set on ﬁre - indeed, ﬁt for

nothing else.

The expression in 9:22 is not that Abimelech reigned as a king, but that he lorded it.

cxxxviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

Scripture marks distinctly both the Divine agency in the altered

feeling of Shechem towards Abimelech, and its import as boding

judgment.

The course of events is vividly sketched. First, the citizens post

“liers in wait” in all the mountain passes, in the vain hope of seizing

[133]

Abimelech. The consequence is universal brigandage. This device

having failed, they next invite, or at least encourage the arrival among

them of a freebooting adventurer with his band. It is the season of

vintage, and, strange and terrible as it may sound, a service, specially

ordered by Jehovah, is observed, but only to be prostituted to Baal.

According to Leviticus 19:24, the produce of the fourth year’s fruit

planting was to be brought as “praise-offerings”

(Hillulim) to

Jehovah. And now these men of Shethem “made praise offerings”

(Hillulim), but went with them into the house of Baal-berith. At the

sacriﬁcial feast which followed, wine soon loosened the tongues. It

is an appeal to Baal as against the house of Jerubbaal; a revolt of

old Shechem against modern Shechem; in favor of the old patrician

descendants of Hamor against Abimelech and his lieutenant Zebul.

This insulting challenge, addressed in true Oriental fashion to the

absent, is conveyed by secret messengers to Abimelech.

That night he and his band move forward. Divided into four

companies, they occupy all the heights around Shechem. Ignorant

how near was danger, Gaal stands next morning in the gate with

his band, in the same spirit of boastfulness as at the festival of the

previous night. He is still, as it were, challenging imaginary foes.

Zebul is also there. As Abimelech’s men are seen moving down

towards the valley, Zebul ﬁrst tries to lull Gaal’s suspicions. And

now they are appearing in all directions—from the mountains, “from

Our Authorized Version translates wrongly 9:27: “And they went out into the

ﬁelds,.... and made merry.” This last clause should be rendered, “and made Hillulim

- praise offerings.”

The language is very pictorial in its contrast of young Shechem with old Shechem,

or rather Hamor; and in laying emphasis upon the name Jerubbaal. The challenge to

Abimelech is, of course, not to be regarded as delivered to himself, but, as so common in

the East, addressed to an imaginary Abimelech.

The message of Zebul (9:31) was: “they raise the city against thee,” viz., in rebellion

- not, as in our Authorized Version, “they fortify the city against thee.”

Chapter 17 cxxxix

the heights of the land,” and one company “from the way of the

terebinth of the magicians.”

Zebul now challenges Gaal to make good his boasting. A ﬁght

ensues in view of the citizens of Shechem, in which Gaal and his

[134]

band are discomﬁted, and he and his adherents are ﬁnally expelled

from the town. If the Shechemites had thought thus to purchase

immunity, they were speedily undeceived. Abimelech was hovering

in the neighborhood, and, when the unsuspecting people were busy

in their ﬁelds, he surprised and slaughtered them, at the same time

occupying the city, which was razed to the ground and sowed with

salt. Upon this the citizens of the tower, or of Millo, sought refuge

in the sacred precincts of “the hall of the god Berith.” But in vain.

Abimelech set it on ﬁre, and 1000 persons perished in the ﬂames.

Even this did not satisfy his revenge. He next turned his forces

against the neighboring town of Thebez. Reduced to the utmost

straits, its inhabitants ﬂed to the strong tower within the city. Thither

Abimelech pursued them. Almost had the people of Thebez shared

the fate of the citizens of Millo, when Abimelech’s course was

strangely arrested. From the top of the tower a woman cast down

upon him an “upper millstone.”

As the Rabbis put it, he, that

had slaughtered his brothers upon a stone, was killed by a stone.

Abimelech died as he had lived. Feeling himself mortally wounded,

ambitious warrior to the last, he had himself run through by the

sword of his armor-bearer, to avoid the disgrace of perishing by the

hand of a woman. But his epitaph, and that of the men of Shechem

who had perished by his hand, had been long before written in the

curse of Jotham.

In the Authorized Version (ver. 37) “the plain of the Meonenim.”

In the Authorized Version (ver. 53) “a piece of a millstone.”

Chapter 18[135]

Successors of Abimelech—Chronology of the Period Israel’s

renewed Apostasy, and their Humiliation before

Jehovah—Oppression by the Ammonites—Jephthah—His History

and Vow—The Successors of Jephthah

(Judges 10-12)

THE sudden and tragic end of Abimelech seems to have awak-

ened repentance among the people. It is thus that we explain the

mention of his name (10:1) in connection with three judges, who

successively ruled over the northern tribes. The ﬁrst of these was

Tola (“scarlet-worm”),

the son of Puah (probably “red dye”) and

grandson of Dodo, a man of Issachar. His reign lasted twenty-three

years, and was followed by that of Jair (“Enlightener”), who judged

twenty-two years. The family notice of the latter indicates great

inﬂuence, each of his thirty sons appearing as a “chief” (riding on

“ass-colts”), and their property extending over thirty out of the sixty

cities (1 Kings 4:13; 2 Chronicles 2:23) which formed the ancient

Havoth-Jair, or circuits of Jairs

(Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy

3:14).

These forty-ﬁve years of comparative rest conclude the second

period in the history of the Judges. The third, which commences

with fresh apostasy on the part of Israel, includes the contemporane-

ous rule of Jephthah and his successors—Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon

Some have translated this by the son of “his uncle,” viz., the uncle of Abimelech.

But this seems unlikely, as Gideon was of Manasseh, and Tola of Issachar. The names of

Tola and Puah, or Phuvah (Genesis 46:13; Numbers 26:23), as well as that of Jair, were

tribal names.

Certain critics have imagined a discrepancy between the earlier notice in Numbers

32:4l, etc., and that in the text. But the text does not say that the Havoth-Jair obtained its

name in the period of the Judges - rather the opposite, as will appear from the following

rendering of Judges 10:4: “and they had thirty cities (of) those which are called the circuit

of Jair even unto this day.”

cxl

Chapter 18 cxli

(12:8-15)—in the north and east, and of Samson in the south and

west. While in the north and east Jephthah encountered the Am-

monites, Samson warred against the Philistines in the south-west.

The oppression of Ammon over the eastern and northern tribes lasted

eighteen years (10:8, 9); the rule of Jephthah six years (12:7); that

of his three successors twenty-ﬁve years—covering in all a period of

forty-nine years. On the other hand, the oppression of the Philistines

[136]

lasted in all forty years (13:1), during twenty years of which (15:20)

Samson “began to deliver Israel” (13:5), the deliverance being com-

pleted only twenty years later under Samuel, when the battle of

Ebenezer was gained (1 Samuel 7). Thus Abdon, Jephthah’s last

successor in the north, must have died nine years after the battle of

Ebenezer. These dates are of great importance, not only on their

own account, but because they show us the two parallel streams of

Israels history in the north and the south. Again, the coincidence

of events in the south with those in the north casts fresh light upon

both. Thus, as Eli’s high-priestly administration, which in a general

sense is designated as “judging Israel,” lasted forty years (1 Samuel

4:18), and his death took place about twenty years and seven months

before the victory of Samuel over the Philistines (1 Samuel 6:1; 7:2),

it is evident that the ﬁrst twenty years of Eli’s administration were

contemporary with that of Jair in the east, while the last twenty were

marked by the Philistine oppression, which continued forty years.

In that case Samson must have been born, and have grown up during

the high priesthood of Eli, and most of his exploits, as judging Israel

for twenty years, taken place under Samuel, who gained the battle

of Ebenezer, and so put an end to Philistine oppression, a short time

after the death of Samson. In connection with this we may note,

that Samuel’s period of judging is only mentioned after the battle of

Ebenezer (1 Samuel 7:15).

There is another and very important fact to be considered. The

terrible fate which overtook the house of Gideon, culminating in

the death of Abimelech, seems forever to have put an end to the

spurious ephod-worship of Jehovah, or to that in any other place

than that He had chosen, or through any other than the Levitical

priesthood. Accordingly, the sanctuary of Shiloh and its ministers

now come again, and permanently, into prominent notice. This not

only in the case of Eli and Samuel, but long before that. This appears

cxlii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

from the sacred text. For when, previous to the calling of Jephthah,

the children of Israel repented, we are told that they “cried unto the

Lord,” and that the Lord spake unto them, to which they in turn made

suitable reply (Judges 10:10, 11, 15). But the peculiar expressions

used leave no doubt on our mind, that the gathering of Israel before

[137]

the Lord had taken place in His sanctuary at Shiloh, and the answer

of Jehovah been made by means of the Urim and Thummim (comp.

Judges 1:1).

For clearnesssake, it may be well to explain, that Judges 10:6-18

forms a general introduction, alike to the history of Jephthah and

his successors, and to that of Samson. In ver. 6 seven national

deities are mentioned whom Israel had served, besides the Baalim

and Ashtaroth of Canaan. This in opposition to the sevenfold de-

liverance (vers. 11, 12) which Israel had experienced at the hands

of Jehovah.

Then follows, in ver. 7, a general reference to the

twofold contemporaneous oppression by the Ammonites in the east

and north, and by the Philistines in the south and west. In ver. 8

the account of the Ammonitesoppression

commences with the

statement, that “they ground down and bruised the children of Israel

that year,” and in a similar manner for eighteen years. In fact, the

Ammonites, in their successful raids across the Jordan, occupied

districts of the territory of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim, which

bordered either on the Dead Sea or on the fords of Jordan.

Next, we have in verses 10-15 an account of Israel’s humiliation

and entreaty at Shiloh’, and of the Lord’s answer by the Urim and

Thummim. Finally, ver. 16 informs us, how the genuineness of

their repentance appeared not in professions and promises, but in

the putting away of all “strange gods,” and that when there was no

immediate prospect of Divine help. After this, to reproduce the

wonderful imagery of Scripture: “His soul became short on account

of the misery of Israel.” That misery had lasted too long; He could

Israel’s unfaithfulness is represented as keeping measure, so to speak, with God’s

mercy and deliverance. The signiﬁcance of the number seven should not be overlooked.

Instead of “the Maonites” in ver, 12 the LXX read “Midianites,” which seems the more

correct reading. Otherwise it must refer to the tribe mentioned 2 Chronicles 26:7; comp.1

Chronicles 4:41.

That of the Philistines commences 13:1.

I do not suppose that the Ammonites traversed the land, but that they made raids

across the fords of Jordan, and laid waste the contiguous districts.

Chapter 18 cxliii

not, as it were, be any longer angry with them, nor bear to see their

suffering. For, as a German writer beautifully observes: “The love

of God is not like the hard and fast logical sequences of man; it is

[138]

ever free.... The parable of the prodigal affords a glimpse of the

marvelous ‘inconsistencyof the Father, who receives the wanderer

when he suffered the consequences of his sin.... Put away the strange

gods, and the withered rod will burst anew into life and verdure.”

And such is ever God’s love—full and free. For, in the words of the

author just quoted: “Sin and forgiveness are the pivots of all history,

specially of that of—Israel. including in that term the spiritual

Israel—.”

Now, indeed, was deliverance at hand. For the ﬁrst time these

eighteen years that Ammon had camped in Gilead, the children of

Israel also camped against them in Mizpeh, or, as it is otherwise

called (Joshua 13:26; 20:8), in Ramath-Mizpeh or Ramoth-Gilead

(the modern Salt), a city east of the Jordan, in an almost direct line

from Shiloh. The camp of Israel could not have been better chosen.

Defended on three sides by high hills, Mizpeh lay “on two sides of

a narrow ravine, half way up, crowned by a (now) ruined citadel,”

which probably at all times defended the city.

“Ramoth-Gilead must always have been the key of Gilead, at the

head of the only easy road from the Jordan, opening immediately

on to the rich plateau of the interior, and with this isolated cone

rising close above it, fortiﬁed from very early times, by art as well

as by nature.” All was thus prepared, and now the people of Gilead,

through their “princes,” resolved to offer the supreme command

to any one who had already begun to ﬁght against the children of

Ammon—that is, who on his own account had waged warfare, and

proved successful against them. This notice is of great importance

for the early history of Jephthah.

Few ﬁner or nobler characters are sketched even in Holy Scrip-

ture than Jephthah, or rather Jiphthach (“the breaker through”). He

is introduced to us as “a mighty man of valor” -the same terms in

which the angel had ﬁrst addressed Gideon (6:12). But this “hero

of might” must ﬁrst learn to conquer his own spirit. His history

is almost a parallel to that of Abimelech—only in the way of con-

The description is taken from Canon Tristram’s Land of Israel, pp. 557, 560.

cxliv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

trast. For, whereas Abimelech had of his own accord left his father’s

house to plan treason, Jephthah was wrongfully driven out by his

brothers from his father’s inheritance. Abimelech had appealed to

the citizens of Shechem to help him in his abominable ambition;

[139]

Jephthah to the “elders of Gilead’” for redress in his wrong, but

apparently in vain (11:7). Abimelech had committed unprovoked

and cruel murder with his hired band; Jephthah withdrew to the

landof Tob’, which, from 2 Samuel 10:6, 8, we know to have been

on the northern boundary of Peraea between Syriaand the landof

Ammon. There he gathered around him a number of freebooters,

as David afterwards in similar circumstances (1 Samuel 22:2); not,

like Abimelech, to destroy his father’s house, but, like David, to war

against the common foe. This we infer from Judges 10:18, which

shows that, before the war between Gileadand Ammon, Jephthah

had acquired fame as contending against Ammon. This life of ad-

venture would suit the brave Gileadite and his followers; for he was

a wild mountaineer, only imbued with the true spirit of Israel. And

now, when war had actually broken out, “the elders of Gilead’” were

not in doubt whom to choose as their chief. They had seen and

repented their sin against Jehovah, and now they saw and confessed

their wrong towards Jephthah, and appealed to his generosity. In

ordinary circumstances he would not have consented; but he came

back to them, as the elders of Gileadhad put it, because they were in

distress. Nor did he come in his own strength. The agreement made

with the elders of Israel was solemnly ratiﬁed before Jehovah.

He that has a righteous cause will not shrink from having it

thoroughly sifted. It was not because Jephthah feared the battle,

but because he wished to avoid bloodshed, that he twice sent an

embassy of remonstrance to the king of Ammon. The claims of

the latter upon the land between the Arnon and the Jabbok were

certainly of the most shadowy kind. That country had, at the time

of the Israelitish conquest, belonged to Sihon, king of the Amorites.

True, the Amorites were not its original owners, having wrested

the land from Moab (Numbers 21:26). Balak might therefore have

raised a claim; but, although he hired Balaam to protect what still

remained of his kingdom against a possible attack by Israel, which

he dreaded, he never attempted to recover what Israel had taken from

the Amorites, although it had originally been his. Moreover, even in

Chapter 18 cxlv

dealing with the Amorites, as before with Edom and Moab, whose

territory Israel had actually avoided by a long circuit, the utmost

forbearance had been shown. If the Amorites had been dispossessed,

[140]

theirs had been the unprovoked attack, when Israel had in the ﬁrst

place only asked a passage through their country. Lastly, if 300

years

undisputed possession of the land did not give a prescriptive

right, it would be difﬁcult to imagine by what title land could be

held. Nor did Jephthah shrink from putting the matter on its ultimate

and best ground. Addressing the Ammonites, as from their religious

point of view they could understand it, he said: “And now Jehovah

God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before His people,

and shouldest thou possess it? Is it not so, that which Chemosh

thy god giveth thee to possess, that wilt thou possess; and all that

which Jehovah our God shall dispossess before us, that shall we

possess?” We do not wonder that of a war commenced in such a

spirit we should be told: “And the Spirit of the Lord came upon

Jephthah.” Presently Jephthah passed all through the land east of the

Jordan, and its people obeyed his summons.

We are now approaching what to many will appear the most

difﬁcult part in the history of Jephthah—perhaps among the most

difﬁcult narratives in the Bible. It appears that, before actually

going to war, Jephthah solemnly registered this vow: “If thou indeed

givest the children of Ammon into mine hand -and it shall be, the

outcoming (one), that shall come out from the door of my house to

meet me on my returning in peace from the children of Ammon, shall

be to Jehovah, and I will offer that a burnt offering.” We know that

the vow was paid. The defeat of the Ammonites was thorough and

crushing. But on Jephthah’s return to his house the ﬁrst to welcome

him was his only daughter—his only child—who at the head of the

maidens came to greet the victor. There is a terrible irony about

those “timbrels and dances,” with which Jephthah’s daughter went,

as it were, to celebrate her own funeral obsequies, while the fond

father’s heart was well-nigh breaking. But the noble maiden was

the ﬁrst to urge his observance of the vow unto Jehovah. Only two

Of course these are round numbers, and not to be regarded as strictly arithmetical.

Chemosh - the destroyer or desolater - the Moabite god of war. He is represented on

coins with a sword in his right hand, a spear and lance in his left; the ﬁgure being ﬂanked

by burning torches.

cxlvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

months did she ask to bewail her maidenhood with her companions

[141]

upon the mountains. But ever after was it a custom for the maidens

in Israel to go out every year for four days, “to praise

the daughter

of Jephthah.”

In so doing we must dismiss, as irrelevant and untruthful, such

pleas as the roughness of those times, the imperfectness of religious

development, or that of religious ignorance on the part of the outlaw

Jephthah, who had spent most of his life far from Israel. The Scrip-

ture sketch of Jephthah leaves, indeed, on the mind the impression

of a genuine, wild, and daring Gilead mountaineer—a sort of war-

rior-Elijah. But, on the other hand, he acts and speaks throughout

as a true worshipper of Jehovah. And his vow, which in the Old

Testament always expresses the highest religious feeling (Genesis

28:20; 1 Samuel 1:11; Psalm 116:14; Isaiah 19:21), is so sacred

because it is made to Jehovah. Again, in his embassy to the king of

Ammon, Jephthah displays the most intimate acquaintance with the

Pentateuch, his language being repeatedly almost a literal quotation

from Numbers 20. He who knew so well the details of Scripture

history could not have been ignorant of its fundamental principles.

Having thus cleared the way, we observe:

1. That the language of Jephthah’s vow implied, from the ﬁrst, at

least the possibility of some human being coming out from the door

of his house, to meet him on his return. The original conveys this,

and the evident probabilities of the case were strongly in favor of

such an eventuality. Indeed, Jephthah’s language seems to have been

designedly chosen in such general terms as to cover all cases. But

it is impossible to suppose that Jephthah would have deliberately

made a vow in which he contemplated human sacriﬁce; still more

so, that Jehovah would have connected victory and deliverance with

such a horrible crime.

This is the correct rendering, and not “lament,” as in our Authorized Version. There

was a curious custom in Israel in the days of our Lord. Twice in the year, “on the 15th

of Ab, when the collection of wood for the sanctuary was completed, and on the Day of

Atonement, the maidens of Jerusalem went in white garments, specially lent them for the

purpose, so that rich and poor might be on an equality, into the vineyards close to the city,

where they danced and sung” (see my Temple: its Services and Ministry at the time of

Jesus Christ, p. 286). Could this strange practice have been a remnant of the maidens’

praise of the daughter of Jephthah?

Chapter 18 cxlvii

2. In another particular, also, the language of Jephthah’s vow

[142]

is remarkable. It is, that “the outcoming (whether man or beast)

shall be to Jehovah, and I will offer that a burnt-offering.” The great

Jewish commentators of the Middle Ages have, in opposition to the

Talmud, pointed out that these two last clauses are not identical. It is

never said of an animal burnt-offering, that it “shall be to Jehovah”—

for the simple reason that, as a burnt-offering, it is such. But where

human beings are offered to Jehovah, there the expression is used,

as in the case of the ﬁrst-born among Israel—and of Levi (Numbers

3:12, 13). But in these cases it has never been suggested that there

was actual human sacriﬁce.

3. It was a principle of the Mosaic law, that burnt sacriﬁces were

to be exclusively males (Leviticus 1:3).

4. If the loving daughter had devoted herself to death, it is next

to incredible that she should have wished to spend the two months

of life conceded to her, not with her broken-hearted father, but in the

mountains with her companions.

5. She bewails not her “maiden age,” but her “maidenhood”—not

that she dies so young, but that she is to die unmarried. The Hebrew

expression for the former would have been quite different from that

used in Scripture, which only signiﬁes the latter.

But for an only

child to die unmarried, and so to leave a light and name extinguished

in Israel, was indeed a bitter and heavy judgment, viewed in the light

of pre-Messianic times. Compare in this respect especially such

passages as Leviticus 20:20 and Psalm 78:63. The trial appears all

the more withering when we realize, how it must have come upon

Jephthah and his only child in the hour of their highest glory, when

all earthly prosperity seemed at their command. The greatest and

happiest man in Israel becomes in a moment the poorest and the

most stricken. Surely, in this vow and sacriﬁce was the lesson of

vows and sacriﬁces taught to victorious Israel in a manner the most

solemn.

6. It is very signiﬁcant that in 11:39 it is only said, that Jephthah

“did with her according to his vow”—not that he actually offered her

in sacriﬁce, while in the latter case the added clause, “and she knew

The Hebrew expression is bethulim. If it meant maiden age it would probably, as

Keil remarks, have been neurim (comp. Leviticus 21:13).

cxlviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

no man,” would be utterly needless and unmeaning. Lastly, we may

[143]

ask, Who would have been the priest by whom, and where the altar

on which, such a sacriﬁce could have been offered unto Jehovah?

On all these grounds—its utter contrariety to the whole Old

Testament, the known piety of Jephthah, the blessing following upon

his vow, his mention in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but especially

the language of the narrative itself—we feel bound to reject the idea

of any human sacriﬁce. In what special manner, besides remaining

unmarried,

the vow of her dedication to God was carried out, we

do not feel bound to suggest. Here the principle, long ago expressed

by Clericus, holds true: “We are not to imagine that, in so small

a volume as the Old Testament, all the customs of the Hebrews

are recorded, or the full history of all that had taken place among

them. Hence there are necessarily allusions to many things which

cannot be fully followed out, because there is no mention of them

elsewhere.”

Yet another trial awaited Jephthah. The tribal jealousy of

Ephraim, which treated the Gileadites (more especially the half tribe

of Manasseh) as mere runaways from Ephraim, who had no right to

independent tribal action, scarcely to independent existence—least

of all to having one of their number a “Judge,” now burst into a

ﬁerce war. Defeated in battle, the Ephraimites tried to escape to the

eastern bank of the Jordan; but Gilead had occupied the fords. Their

peculiar pronunciation betrayed Ephraim, and a horrible massacre

ensued.

Six years of rest—“then died Jephthah the Gileadite, and was

buried in one of the cities of Gilead.” We know not the locality,

nor yet the precise place where he had lived, nor the city in which

his body was laid. No father’s home had welcomed him; no child

was left to cheer his old age. He lived alone, and he died alone.

Truly, as has been remarked, his sorrow and his victory are a type of

Him Who said: “Not my will, but Thine be done.” It almost seems

as if Jephthah’s three successors in the judgeship of the eastern

and northern tribes were chieﬂy mentioned to mark the contrast in

[144]

In general, the Mishnah condemns in unmeasured terms female asceticism (Sotah

iii. 4). But in the Talmud (Sotah 22a) one instance at least is recorded with special praise,

in which a virgin wholly devoted herself to prayer. See Cassel in Herzog’s Encylco. 6 p.

475, note.12 Shibboleth means stream, which the Ephraimites pronounced Sibboleth.

Chapter 18 cxlix

their history. Of Ibzan of Bethlehem,

of Elon the Zebulonite,

and of Abdon the Pirathonite, we know alike the dwelling and the

burying-place. They lived honored, and died blessed—surrounded,

as the text emphatically tells us, by a large and prosperous number

of descendants. But their names are not found in the catalogue of

worthies whom the Holy Ghost has selected for our special example

and encouragement.

The Bethlehem here spoken of is, of course, not that in Judah, but that in Zebulon

(Joshua 19:15). The situation of Ajalon, the modern Salem, quite in the north of Zebulon,

and of Pirathon in Ephraim, the modern Ferata, six miles west of Nablus, has been

ascertained.

Chapter 19[145]

Meaning of the History of Samson—His Annunciation and Early

History—The Spirit of Jehovah “impels him”—His Deeds of Faith

(Judges 13-15)

THERE is yet another name recorded in the Epistle to the He-

brews among the Old Testament “worthies,” whose title to that

position must to many have seemed at least doubtful. Can Samson

claim a place among the spiritual heroes, who “through faith sub-

dued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises?” The

question cannot be dismissed with a summary answer, for if, as we

believe, the Holy Spirit pronounced such judgment on his activity

as a judge, then careful and truthful study of his history must bear it

out. But then also must that history have been commonly misread

and misunderstood. Let it be remembered, that it is of Samson’s

activity as a Judge, and under the impulse of the Spirit of God,

we are writing, and not of every act of his life. In fact, we shall

presently distinguish two periods in his history; the ﬁrst, when he

acted under the inﬂuence of that Spirit; the second, when, yielding

to his passions, he fell successively into sin, unfaithfulness to his

calling, and betrayal of it, followed by the desertion of Jehovah and

by His judgment. And, assuredly, the language of the Epistle to the

Hebrews could not apply to the period of Samson’s God-desertion

and of his punishment, but only to that of his ﬁrst activity or of his

later repentance.

It was in the days of Eli the high priest. Strange and tangled

times these, when once again principles rather than men were to

come to the front, if Israel was to be revived and saved. The period of

the Judges had run its course to the end. The result had been general

disorganization, an almost complete disintegration of the tribes, and

decay of the sanctuary. But now, just at the close of the old, the new

was beginning; or rather, old principles were once more asserted.

Chapter 19 cli

In Eli the Divine purpose concerning the priesthood, in Samson

that concerning the destiny and mission of Israel, were to reappear.

In both cases, alike in their strength and in their weakness—in the

faithfulness and in the unfaithfulness of its representatives. The

whole meaning of Samson’s history is, that he was a Nazarite. His

strength lay in being a Nazarite; his weakness in yielding to his

carnal lusts, and thereby becoming unfaithful to his calling. In

both respects he was not only a type of Israel’, but, so to speak, a

[146]

mirror in which Israel could see itself and its history. Israel, the

Nazarite people—no achievement, however marvelous, that it could

not and did not accomplish! Israel—, unfaithful to its vows and

yielding to spiritual adultery—no depth of degradation so low, that

it would not descend to it! The history of—Israel was the history

of Samson; his victories were like theirs, till, like him, yielding to

the seductions of a Delilah, Israel—betrayed and lost its Nazarite

strength. And so also with Samson’s and with Israels ﬁnal repentance

and recovery of strength. Viewed in this light, we can not only

understand this history, but even its seeming difﬁculties become so

many points of fresh meaning. We can see why his life should have

been chronicled with a circumstantiality seemingly out of proportion

to the deliverance he wrought; and why there was so little and so

transient result of his deeds. When the Spirit of God comes upon

him, he does supernatural deeds; not in his own strength, but as

a Nazarite, in the strength of God, by Whom and for Whom he

had been set apart before his birth. All this showed the meaning

and power of the Nazarite; what deliverance God could work for

His people even by a single Nazarite, so that, in the language of

prophecy, one man could chase a thousand! Thus also we understand

the peculiar and almost spasmodic character of Samson’s deeds, as

also the reason why he always appears on the scene, not at the head

of the tribes, but alone to battle.

If the secret of Samson’s strength lay in the faithful observance

of his Nazarite vow, his weakness sprung from his natural character.

The parallel, so far as Israel is concerned, cannot fail to be seen.

And as Samson’s sin ﬁnally assumed the form of adulterous love

for Delilah, so that of his people was spiritual unfaithfulness. Thus,

if the period of the Judges reached its highest point in Samson the

Nazarite, it also sunk to its lowest in Samson the man of carnal lusts,

clii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

who yielded his secret to a Delilah. As one has put it: “The strength

of the Spirit of God bestowed on the Judges for the deliverance of

their people was overcome by the power of the ﬂesh lusting against

the Spirit.” Yet may we, with all reverence, point from Samson, the

Nazarite for life,

to the great antitype in Jesus Christ, the “Nazarite among His

[147]

brethren,” (Genesis 49:26) in Whom was fulﬁlled that “which was

spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarite”

(Matthew

2:23).

And it is at any rate remarkable that ancient Jewish tradition, in

referring to the blessing spoken to Dan (Genesis 49:17, 18), applies

this addition: “I have waited for Thy salvation, Jehovah,” through

Samson the Danite, to the Messiah.

1. Samson’s birth. According to the chronological arrangement

already indicated, we infer that Samson was born under the pontiﬁ-

cate of Eli, and after the commencement of the Philistine oppression,

which lasted forty years. If so, then his activity must have begun

one or two years before the disastrous battle in which the ark fell

into the hands of the Philistines, and in consequence of which Eli

died (1 Samuel 4:18).

While in the east and north the Ammonites oppressed Israel,

the same sin had brought on the west and south of Palestine the

judgment of Philistine domination. Then it was, that once more the

Angel of Jehovah came, to teach the people, through Samson, that

deliverance could only come by recalling and realizing their Nazarite

character as a priestly kingdom unto Jehovah; and that the Lord’s

Nazarite, so long as he remained such, would prove all-powerful

through the strength of his God. The circumstances connected with

the annunciation of Samson were supernatural. In the “secluded

mountain village” of Zorah,

the modern Surah, about six hours

west of Jerusalem, within the possession of Dan, lived Manoah

(“resting”) and his wife. Theirs, as we judge from the whole history,

The ordinary Nazarite vow was only for a period. But the later Rabbis distinguish

between the ordinary Nazarite and the “Samson” or life-Nazarite. See my Temple: its

Ministry and Service at the time of Christ p. 328.

We have purposely adopted this rendering.

Comp. Cassel, p. 122.

Thomson, The Land and the Book, vol. 2 p. 361.

Chapter 19 cliii

was the humble, earnest piety which, despite much apostasy, still

lingered in Israel.

It is to be observed that, like Sarah in the Old, and the mother

of the Baptist in the New Testament, Manoah’s wife was barren.

For the child about to be born was not only to be God-devoted but

God-given—and that in another sense even from his contemporary,

Samuel, who had been God-asked of his mother. But in this case

the Angel of the Covenant Himself came to announce the birth

of a child, who should be “a Nazarite unto God from the womb,”

[148]

and who as such should “begin to deliver Israel—out of the hand

of the Philistines.”

Accordingly, He laid on the mother, and still

more fully on the unborn child, the Nazarite obligations as these

are detailed in Numbers 6:1-8, with the exception of that against

deﬁlement by contact with the dead, which evidently would have

been incompatible with his future history.

The appearance of the Angel and His unnamedness had carried

to the woman thoughts of the Divine, though she regarded the appari-

tion as merely that of a man of God. Manoah had not been present;

but in answer to his prayer a second apparition was vouchsafed. It

added nothing to their previous knowledge, except the revelation

of the real character of Him Who had spoken to them. For, when

Manoah proposed to entertain his guest, he learned that He would

not eat of his food, and that His name was “Wonderful.” The latter,

of course, in the sense of designating His character and working,

for, as in the parallel passage, Isaiah 9:6, such names refer not to the

being and nature of the Messiah, but to His activity and manifesta-

tion—not to what He is, but to what He does. As suggested by the

Angel, Manoah now brought a burnt-offering unto Jehovah—for,

wherever He manifested Himself, there sacriﬁce and service might

be offered. And when the Angel “did wondrously;” when ﬁre leaped

from the altar, and the Angel ascended in the ﬂame that consumed

the burnt-offering, then Manoah and his wife, recognizing His na-

ture, fell worshipping on the ground. No further revelation was

granted them; but when Manoah, in the spirit of the Old Testament,

feared lest their vision of God might render it impossible for them to

The conjunction of the two in the text (Judges 13:5) indicates that they were to be

regarded as cause and effect.

cliv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

live on earth, his wife, more fully enlightened, strove to allay such

doubts by the inference, that what God had begun in grace He would

not end in judgment. An inference this, applying to all analogous

cases in the spiritual history of God’s people. And so months of

patient, obedient waiting ensued, when at last the promised child was

born, and obtained the name of Samson, or rather (in the Hebrew)

Shimshon.

His calling soon appeared, for as the child grew up under the special

[149]

blessing of the Lord, “the Spirit of Jehovah began to impel him in

the camp of Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.”

2. About an hour south-west from Zorah, down

the rocky

mountain-gorges, lay Timnath, within the tribal possession of Dan,

but at the time held by the Philistines. This was the scene of Sam-

son’s ﬁrst exploits.

The “occasion” was his desire to wed a Philistine maiden.

Against such union, as presumably contrary to the Divine will (Exo-

dus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3), his parents remonstrated, not knowing

“that it was of Jehovah, for he was seeking an occasion from (or

on account of) the Philistines.” Strictly speaking, the text only im-

plies that this “seeking occasion on account of the Philistines” was

directly from the Lord; his proposed marriage would be so only in-

directly, as affording the desired occasion. Here then we again come

upon man’s individuality—his personal choice, as the motive power

of which the Lord makes use for higher purposes. We leave aside the

question, whether or not Samson had, at the outset, realized a higher

Divine purpose in it all, and mark two points of vital importance

in this history. First, whenever Samson consciously subordinated

his will and wishes to national and Divine purposes, he acted as a

Nazarite, and “by faith;” whenever national and Divine purposes

were made subservient to his own lusts, he failed and sinned. Thus

we perceive throughout, side by side, two elements at work: the

Divine and the human; Jehovah and Samson; the supernatural and

the natural—intertwining, acting together, inﬂuencing each other, as

The name has been variously interpreted. By the Rabbis it is rendered “sunlike,” in

allusion to Psalm 84:11. Others render it “mighty,”, “daring,” or “he who lays waste.”

The exact locality cannot be ascertained. The Spirit of Jehovah began to push, to

drive, or impel him.

Hence the expression “Samson went down to Timnath.” See Thomson.

Chapter 19 clv

we have so often noticed them throughout the course of Scripture

history. Secondly, the inﬂuences of the Spirit of God upon Samson

come upon him as impulses from without—sudden, mighty, and

irresistible by himself and by others.

The misunderstanding and ignorance of Samson’s motives on

the part of his parents cannot fail to recall a similar opposition in the

life of our Blessed Lord, even as, reverently speaking, this whole

history foreshadows, though “afar off,” that of our great Nazarite.

But to return. Yielding at last to Samson, his parents, as the custom

[150]

was, go with him to the betrothal at Timnath. All here and in the

account of the marriage is strictly Eastern, and strictly Jewish. Nay,

such is the tenacity of Eastern customs, that it might almost serve as

descriptive of what would still take place in similar circumstances.

But, under another aspect, we are here also on the track of direct

Divine agency, all unknown probably to Samson himself. To this

day “vineyards are very often far out from the villages, climbing

up rough wadies and wild cliffs.”

In one of these, precisely in

the district where he would be likely to meet wild beasts, Samson

encountered a young lion. “And the Spirit of Jehovah came mightily

upon him,” or “lighted upon him,” the expression being notably the

same as in 1 Samuel 10:10; 11:6; 16:13; 18:10. Samson rent him,

as he would have torn a kid.

This circumstance became “the

occasion against the Philistines.” For, when soon afterwards Samson

and his parents returned once more for the actual marriage, he found

a swarm of bees in the dried skeleton of the lion. The honey,

which

he took for himself and gave to his parents, became the occasion of a

riddle which he propounded, after a custom usual in the East, to the

“thirty companions” who acted as “friends of the bridegroom.” The

riddle proved too hard for them. Unwilling to bear the loss incurred

by their failure—each “a tunic” and a “change-garment,”

these

men threatened Samson’s wife and her family with destruction.

Thomson.

Besides the parallel cases in Scripture (1 Samuel 17:34; 2 Samuel 23:20), such

writers as Winer and Cassel have collated many similar instances from well-accredited

history.

Cassel notes the afﬁnity between the Hebrew devash, honey, and the Saxon wahs or

wax; and again between the Hebrew doneg, wax, and the Saxon honec or honey.

These “change-garments” were costly raiment, frequently changed.

clvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

The woman’s curiosity had from the ﬁrst prompted her to seek

the answer from her husband. But now her importunity, quickened

by fear, prevailed. Of course, she immediately told the secret to

her countrymen, and Samson found himself deceived and betrayed

by his wife. But this was the “occasion” sought for. Once more

“the Spirit of Jehovah lighted upon Samson.” There was not peace

between Israel and the Philistines, only an armed truce. And so

Samson slew thirty men of them in Ashkelon’, and with their spoil

[151]

paid those who had answered his riddle. In his anger at her treachery

he now forsook for a time his bride, when her father, as it were in

contempt, immediately gave her to the ﬁrst of the “bridegroom’s

friends.”

This circumstance gave “occasion” for yet another deed. Samson

returns again to his wife. Finding her the wife of another, he treats

this as Philistine treachery against Israel, and declares to his father-

in-law and to others around:

“This time I am blameless before the

Philistines when I do evil unto them.”

The threatened “evil” consists in tying together, two and two,

three hundred jackals, tail to tail, with a burning torch between them,

and so sending the maddened animals into the standing corn of the

Philistines, which was just being harvested, into their vineyards, and

among their olives. The destruction must have been terrible, and the

infuriated Philistines took vengeance not upon Samson, but upon his

wife and her family, by burning “her and her father with ﬁre.” This

was cowardly as well as wicked, upon which Samson “said unto

them, If (since) ye have done this, truly when I have been avenged

upon you, and after that I will cease.” The result was another great

slaughter. But Samson, knowing the cowardice of his countrymen,

felt himself now no longer safe among them, and retired to “the

rock-cleft (rock-cave) Etam” (“the lair of wild beasts”).

Samson’s distrust had not been without sufﬁcient ground. Afraid

to meet Samson in direct conﬂict, the Philistines invaded the territo-

ryof Judah and spread in Lehi. Upon this, his own countrymen, as

of old, not understanding “how that God by his hand would deliver

them,” actually came down to the number of 3000, to deliver Samson

Cassel thinks that the words were addressed by Samson to his Jewish countrymen;

but this seems contrary to the whole context.

Chapter 19 clvii

into the hand of the Philistines. Another parallel this, “afar off,” to

the history of Him whom His people delivered into the hands of the

Gentiles! Samson offered no resistance, on condition that his own

people should not attack him. Bound with two new cords, he was

already within view of the hostile camp at Lehi; already he heard

the jubilant shout of the Philistines, when once more “the Spirit of

Jehovah came mightily upon him.” Like ﬂax at touch of ﬁre, “ﬂowed

his bonds from off his hands.”

This sudden turn of affairs, and manifestation of Samson’s power,

[152]

caused an immediate panic among the Philistines. Following up this

effect, Samson seized the weapon readiest to hand, the jawbone of

an ass, and with it slew company after company, “heap upon heap,”

till, probably in various encounters, no less than 1000 of the enemy

strewed the ground. Only one more thing was requisite. All “this

great deliverance” had evidently been given by Jehovah. But had

Samson owned Him in it; had he fought and conquered “by faith,”

and as a true Nazarite? Once more it is through the operation of

natural causes, supernaturally overruled and directed, that Samson is

now seen to have been the warrior of Jehovah, and Jehovah the God

of the warrior. Exhausted by the long contest with the Philistines

and the heat of the day, Samson sinks faint, and is ready to perish

from thirst. Then God cleaves ﬁrst, as it were, the rock of Samson’s

heart, so that the living waters of faith and prayer gush forth, before

He cleaves the rock at Lehi. Such plea as his could not remain

unheeded. Like that of Moses (Exodus 32:31), or like the reasoning

of Manoah’s wife, it connected itself with the very covenant purposes

of Jehovah and with His dealings in grace. After such battle and

victory Samson could not have been allowed to perish from thirst;

just as after our Lord’s victory, He could not fail to see of the travail

of His soul and be satisﬁed; and as it holds true of the Christian in

his spiritual thirst, after the great conquest achieved for him:

“He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all,

how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” (Romans

8:32)

So literally translated.

clviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

Then, in answer to Samson’s prayer, “God clave the hollow place

which is in Lehi,”

probably a cleft in the rock, as erst He had done

at Horeb (Exodus 17:6) and at Kadesh (Numbers 20:8, 11). But the

well which sprang thence, and of which, in his extremity, Samson

had drunk, ever afterwards bore the signiﬁcant name En-hakkore,

the well of him that had called—nor had called in vain!

This is unquestionably the meaning of the text, and not, as in the Authorized Version,

“a hollow place that was in the jaw.” The mistake has arisen from the circumstance that

Lehi means a jaw-bone, the locality having obtained the name from Samson’s victory

with the jaw-bone (Ramath-lehi, “the hill or height of the jaw-bone,” Judges 15:17). The

name Lehi is used proleptically in ver. 9, 14, that is, by anticipation.

Chapter 20 [153]

The Sin and Fall of Samson—Jehovah Departs from him—Samson’s

Repentance, Faith, and Death

(Judges 16)

THE closing verse of Judges 15 marks also the close of this

period of Samson s life. Henceforth it is a record of the terrible

consequences, ﬁrst of using God’s gift, intrusted for the highest

and holiest purposes, for self-indulgence, and then of betraying and

losing it. And this betrayal and loss are ever the consequence of

taking for self what is meant for God, just as in the parable of the

prodigal son the demand for the portion of goods which belonged to

him is followed by the loss of all, by want and misery. And here, in

this its second stage, the history of Samson closely follows that of

Israel. As Israel claimed for self, and would have used for self the

gifts and calling of God; as it would have boasted in its Nazarite-

strength and trusted in it, irrespective of its real meaning and the

object of its bestowal, so now Samson. He goes down to Gaza, one

of the fortiﬁed strongholds of the Philistines, not impelled by the

Spirit of Jehovah, but for self-indulgence,

conﬁdent and boastful

in what he regards as his own strength.

Nor does that strength yet fail him, at least outwardly. For God

is faithful to His promise, and so long as Samson has not cast away

His help, it shall not fail him. But already he is on the road to

it, and the night at Gaza must speedily be followed by the story

of Delilah. Meanwhile, the men of Gaza and Samson must learn

another lesson—so far as they are capable of it. All night the guards

are posted by the gates to wait for the dawn, when, as they expect,

with the opening of the gates, Samson will leave the city, and they

Cassel tries to prove that the place to which Samson went in Gaza was merely a

hostelry - and so the ancient commentaries understood it But the language of the text does

not bear out such interpretation.

clix

clx Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

take him prisoner. During the night, however, they may take their

sleep; for are not the gates strong and securely fastened? But, at

midnight, Samson leaves the city, carrying with him its gates, and

putting them down on “the top of a hill which faces towards Hebron,”

that is, at a distance of about half an hour to the south-east of Gaza.

Samson had once more escaped the Philistines; but the hour of

[154]

his fall was at hand. To regard the God-intrusted strength as his

own, and to abuse it for selﬁsh purposes, was the ﬁrst step towards

betraying and renouncing that in which it really lay. Samson had

ceased to be a Nazarite in heart before he ceased to be one outwardly.

The story of Delilah

is too well known to require detailed repetition.

Her very name—“the weak” or “longing one”—breathes sensu-

ality, and her home is in the valley of Sorek, or of the choice red

grape. The Philistine princes have learned it at last, that force cannot

prevail against Samson, until by his own act of unfaithfulness he

has deprived himself of his strength. It is the same story as that

of Israel—and its sin with Baal-Peor. The same device is adopted

which Balaam had suggested for the ruin of Israel—, and, alas! with

the same success. The ﬁve princes of the Philistines promise each

to give Delilah 1000 and 100 shekels, or 5500 in all, about 700

pounds, as the reward of her treachery. Three times has Samson

eluded her persistency to ﬁnd out his secret. Each time she has had

watchers in an adjoining apartment ready to fall upon him, if he had

really lost his strength. But the third time he had, in his triﬂing with

sacred things, come dangerously near his fall, as in her hearing he

connected his strength with his hair. And yet, despite all warnings,

like Israel of old, he persisted in his sin.

At last it has come. He has opened all his heart to Delilah, and she

knows it. But Scripture puts the true explanation of the matter before

us, in its usual emphatic manner, yet with such manifest avoidance

of seeking for effect, that only the careful, devout reader will trace

it. The facts are as follows: When Samson betrays his secret to

Delilah, he says (16:17): “If I be shaven, then my strength will go

from me,” whereas, when the event actually takes place, Scripture

So the text literally, and not, as in the Authorized Version, “the top of an hill that is

before Hebron,” for which, besides, the distance would have been far too great.

The Rabbis have it, that if her name had not been Delilah, she would have obtained

it, because she softened and weakened Samson’s strength.

Chapter 20 clxi

explains it: “He wot not that Jehovah was departed from him.” In

this contrast between his fond conceit about his own strength and

the fact that it was due to the presence of Jehovah, lies the gist of the

whole matter. As one writes: “The superhuman strength of Samson

lay not in his uncut hair, but in this, that Jehovah was with him. But

[155]

Jehovah was with him only so long as he kept his Nazarite vow.” Or,

in the words of an old German commentary: “The whole misery of

Samson arose from this, that he appropriated to himself what God

had done through him. God allows his strength to be destroyed, that

in bitter experience he might learn, how without God’s presence he

was nothing at all. And so our falls always teach us best.” But, as

ever, sin proves the hardest taskmaster. Every indignity is heaped

on fallen Samson. His eyes are put out; he is loaded with fetters of

brass, and set to the lowest prison work of slaves. And here, also,

the history of Samson ﬁnds its parallel in that of blinded Israel, with

the judgment of bondage, degradation, and suffering, consequent

upon their great national sin of casting aside their Nazarite vow.

But, blessed be God, neither the history nor its parallel stops

here. For “the gifts and callings of God are without repentance.”

The sacred text expressly has it: “And the hair of his head began to

grow, as it was shorn”—that is, so soon as it had been shorn. Then

began a period of godly sorrow and repentance, evidenced both by

the return of God to him, and by his last deed of faith, in which

for his people he sacriﬁced his life; herein also following the great

Antitype, though “afar off.” We imagine,

that “the lad” who led

him to the pillars on which the house of Dagon rested was a Hebrew,

cognizant of Samson’s hopes and prayers, and who, immediately

after having placed him in the fatal position, left the temple, and

then carried the tidings to Samson’s “brethren” (16:31).

It is a high day in Gaza. From all their cities have the princes of

the Philistines come up; from all the country around have the people

gathered. The temple of the god Dagon—the ﬁsh-god, protector

of the sea—is festively adorned and thronged. Below, the lords of

the Philistines and all the chief men of the people are feasting at

the sacriﬁcial meal; above, along the roof, the gallery all around

is crowded by three thousand men and women who look down on

The suggestion was ﬁrst made by Cassel.

clxii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

the spectacle beneath. It is a feast of thanksgiving to Dagon, of

triumph to Philistia, of triumph against Jehovah and His people, and

over captive Samson. The image of Dagon—the body of a ﬁsh with

the head and hands of a man—which less than twenty years before

had fallen and been broken before the ark of Jehovah (1 Samuel

[156]

5:4), stands once more proudly defying the God of Israel. And now

the mirth and revelry have reached their highest point: Samson is

brought in, and placed in the middle of the temple, between the

central pillars which uphold the immense roof and the building

itself. A few words whispered to his faithful Hebrew servant, and

Samson’s arms encircle the massive pillars. And then an unuttered

agonizing cry of repentance, of faith from the Nazarite, once more

such, who will not only subordinate self to the nation and to his

calling, but surrender life itself! Blind Samson is groping for a new

light—and the brightness of another morning is already gilding his

horizon. With all his might he bows himself. The pillars reel and

give way. With one terrible crash fall roof and gallery, temple and

image of Dagon; and in the ruins perish with Samson the lords of

the Philistines and the ﬂower of the people.

It has been told in Zorah. Gaza and Philistia are hushed in awe

and mourning. Samson’s brethren and his father’s house come down.

From the ruins they search out the mangled body of the Nazarite.

No one cares to interfere with them. Unmolested they bear away the

remains, and lay them to rest in the burying-place of Manoah his

father.

And so ends the period of the judges. Samson could have had no

successor—he closed an epoch. But already at Shiloh a different ref-

ormation was preparing; and with different weapons will repentant

Israel—, under Samuel, ﬁght against the Philistines, and conquer!

Chapter 21 [157]

Social and Religious Life in Bethlehem in the Days of Judges—The

Story of Ruth—King David’s Ancestors

(THE BOOK OF RUTH)

YET another story of a very different kind from that of Samson

remains to be told. It comes upon us with such sweet contrast, almost

like a summer’s morning after a night of wild tempest. And yet

without this story our knowledge of that period would be incomplete.

It was “in the days when the judges judged”

—near the close of

that eventful period. West of the Jordan, Jair and Eli held sway in

Israel—, while east of the river the advancing tide of Ammon had

not yet been rolled back by Jephthah, the Gileadite. Whether the

incursions of the Ammonites had carried want and wretchedness so

far south into Judah as Bethlehem (Judges 10:9), or whether it was

only due to strictly natural causes, there was a “famine in the land,”

and this became, in the wonder-working Providence of God, one of

the great links in the history of the kingdom of God.

Bearing in mind the general characteristics of the period, and

such terrible instances of religious apostasy and moral degeneracy as

those recorded in the two Appendices to the Book of Judges (Judges

17-21), we turn with a feeling of intense relief to the picture of

Jewish life presented to us in the Book of Ruth.

Sheltered from

Critics differ widely as to the exact time when the events recorded in the Book of

Ruth took place. Keil makes Boaz a contemporary of Gideon; but we have seen no reason

to depart from the account of Josephus, who lays this history in the days of Eli.

The Book of Ruth occupies an intermediate position between that of the Judges and

those of Samuel - it is a supplement to the former and an introduction to the latter. So

much “romance” has been thrown about the simple narrative of this book, as almost to

lose sight of its real purport.

The Book of Ruth numbers just eighty-ﬁve verses. In the Hebrew Bible it is placed

among the Hagiographa, for dogmatic reasons on which it is needless to enter. In Hebrew

MSS. it is among the ﬁve Megilloth “rolls” (Song, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and

Esther). Among the Jews it is very signiﬁcantly read on the feast of weeks.

clxiii

clxiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

scenes of strife and semi-heathenism, the little village of Bethlehem

had retained among its inhabitants the purity of their ancestral faith

and the simplicity of primitive manners.

Here, embosomed amidst the hills of Judah, where afterwards

[158]

David pastured his father’s ﬂocks, and where shepherds heard angels

hail the birth of “David’s greater Son,” we seem to feel once again

the healthful breath of Israels spirit, and we see what moral life it

was capable of fostering alike in the individual and in the family. If

Boaz was, so to speak, the patriarch of a village, in which the old

Biblical customs were continued, the humblest homes of Bethlehem

must have preserved true Israelitish piety in its most attractive forms.

For, unless the Moabitess Ruth had learned to know and love the land

and the faith of Israel in the Bethlehemite household of Elimelech,

transported as it was for a time into the land of Moab, she would

not have followed so persistently her mother-in-law, away from her

own home, to share her poverty, to work, if need be, even to beg,

for her. And from such ancestry, nurtured under such circumstances,

did the shepherd king of Israel spring, the ancestor and the type of

the Lord and Savior of men. These four things, then, seem the object

of the Book of Ruth: to present a supplement by way of contrast to

the Book of Judges; to show the true spirit of Israel; to exhibit once

more the mysterious connection between Israel and the Gentiles,

whereby the latter, at the most critical periods of Israel’s history,

seem most unexpectedly called in to take a leading part; and to trace

the genealogy of David. Specially perhaps the latter two. For, as one

has beautifully remarked:

If, as regards its contents, the Book of

Ruth stands on the threshold of the history of David, yet, as regards

its spirit, it stands, like the Psalms, at the threshold of the Gospel.

Not merely on account of the genealogy of Christ, which leads up

to David and Boaz, but on account of the spirit which the teaching

of David breathes, do we love to remember that Israel’s great king

sprang from the union of Boaz and Ruth, which is symbolical of that

between Israel and the Gentile world.

Everything about this story is of deepest interest—the famine in

Bethlehem, “the house of bread,” evidently caused, as afterwards

its removal, by the visitation of God (Ruth 1:6); the hints about

Professor Cassel in his Introduction to the Book of Ruth.

Chapter 21 clxv

the family of Elimelech; even their names: Elimelech, “my God is

king;” his wife, Naomi, “the pleasant,” and their sons Mahlon (or

[159]

rather Machlon) and Chilion (rendered by some “the weak,” “the

faint;” by others “the jubilant,” “the crowned”).

The family is described as “Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah.”

The expression is apparently intended to convey, that the family

had not been later immigrants, but original Jewish settlers—or, as

the Jewish commentator have it, patrician burghers of the ancient

Ephrath, or “fruitfulness” (Genesis 35:19; 48:7; comp. 1 Samuel

17:12; Micah 5:2). At one time the family seems to have been neither

poor nor of inconsiderable standing (Ruth 1:19-21; 2; 3). But now,

owing to “the famine,” Ephrath was no longer “fruitfulness,” nor yet

Bethlehem “the house of bread;” and Elimelech, unable, on account

of the troubles in the west, to go for relief either into Philistia or

into Egypt, migrated beyond Jordan, and the reach of Israel’s then

enemies, to “sojourn” in Moab.

There is no need to attempt excuses for this separation from his

brethren and their fate on the part of Elimelech, nor for his seeking

rest among those hereditary enemies of Israel, outside Palestine, on

whom a special curse seems laid (Deuteronomy 23:6). We have only

to mark the progress of this story to read in it the judgment of God

on this step. Of what befell the family in Moab, we know next to

nothing. But this we are emphatically told, that Elimelech died a

stranger in the strange land. Presently Machlon and Chilion married

Moabite wives—Machlon, Ruth (Ruth 4:10); Chilion, Orpah.

So other ten years passed. Then the two young men died, each

childless, and Naomi was left desolate indeed. Thus, as one has

remarked: “The father had feared not to be able to live at home. But

scarcely had he arrived in the strange land when he died. Next, the

sons sought to found a house in Moab; but their house became their

grave. Probably, they had wished not to return to Judah, at least

till the famine had ceased—and when it had ceased, they were no

more. The father had gone away to have more, and to provide for

The rendering of the names by Josephus is evidently fanciful. The widely differing

translations, which we have given in the text, show the divergence of critics, who derive

the name from so very different roots.

Professor Cassel renders Ruth “the rose;” and Orpah “the hind.” The Midrash makes

Ruth a daughter of king Eglon.

clxvi Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

his family—and his widow was now left without either children or

possession!” Similarly, we do not feel it needful to attempt vindicat-

[160]

ing the marriage of these two Hebrew youths with Moabite wives.

For there really was no express command against such unions. The

instances in Scripture (Judges 3:6; 1 Kings 11:1; Nehemiah 13:23),

which are sometimes quoted as proof to the contrary, are not in point,

since they refer to the marriage of Hebrews in the land of Israel, not

to that of those resident outside its boundaries (comp. Deuteronomy

7:3), and in the case of such marriages this is evidently an important

element.

And now tidings reached Moab, that “Jehovah had visited his

people to give them bread.” Naomi heard in it a call to return to her

own land and home. According to eastern fashion, her daughters-in-

law accompanied her on the way. When Naomi deemed that duty

of proper respect sufﬁciently discharged, she stopped to dismiss

them—as she delicately put it—to their “mother’s” houses, with

tenderly spoken prayer, that after all their sorrow the God of Israel

would give them rest in a new relationship, as they had dealt lovingly

both with the dead and with her. Closely examined, her words are

found to convey, although with most exquisite delicacy, that, if her

daughters-in-law went with her, they must expect to remain forever

homeless and strangers. She could offer them no prospect of wedded

happiness in her own family, and she wished to convey to them, that

no Israelite in his own land would ever wed a daughter of Moab. It

was a noble act of self-denial on the part of the aged Hebrew widow

by this plain speaking to strip herself of all remaining comfort, and

to face the dark future, utterly childless, alone, and helpless. And

when one of them, Orpah, turned back, though with bitter sorrow at

the parting, Naomi had a yet more trying task before her. Ruth had,

indeed, fully understood her mother-in-law’s meaning; but there

was another sacriﬁce which she must be prepared to make, if she

followed Naomi. She must not only be parted from her people, and

give up forever all worldly prospects, but she must also be prepared

to turn her back upon her ancestral religion. But Ruth had long made

her choice, and the words in which she intimated it have deservedly

become almost proverbial in the church. There is such ardor and

earnestness about them, such resolution and calmness, as to lift them

far above the sphere of mere natural affection or sense of duty. They

[161]

Chapter 21 clxvii

intimate the deliberate choice of a heart which belongs in the ﬁrst

place to Jehovah, the God of Israel (1:17), and which has learned

to count all things but loss for the excellency of this knowledge.

Although the story of Ruth has been invested with romance from its

sequel, there is nothing romantic about her present resolve. Only

the sternest prose of poverty is before her. Not to speak of the

exceedingly depressing inﬂuence of her language (1:13, 20, 21),

Naomi had been careful to take from her any hope of a future, such

as she had enjoyed in the past. In truth, the choice of Ruth is wholly

unaccountable, except on the ground that she felt herself in heart and

by conviction one of a Hebrew household—an Israelitish woman in

soul and life, and that although she should in a sense be disowned

by those with whom she had resolved to cast in her lot.

There was stir in the quiet little village of Bethlehem—especially

among the women

—when Naomi unexpectedly returned after her

long absence, and that in so altered circumstances. The lamentations

of the widow herself made her even repudiate the old name of Naomi

for Mara (“bitter”), for that “Jehovah” had “testiﬁed against,” and

“Shaddai”

afﬂicted her. Whether or not Naomi and her acquain-

tances really understood the true meaning of this “testifying” on the

part of Jehovah, certain it is, that the temporary excitement of her ar-

rival soon passed away, and the widow and her Moabite companion

were left to struggle on alone in their poverty. Apparently no other

near relatives of Elimelech were left, for Boaz himself is designated

in the original as “an acquaintance to her husband,”

though the

term indicates also relationship. And thus through the dreary winter

matters only grew worse and worse, till at last early spring brought

the barley-harvest.

It was one of those arrangements of the law, which, by its

[162]

exquisite kindness and delicacy—in such striking contrast to the

heathen customs of the time—shows its Divine origin, that what was

The Hebrew text signiﬁcantly marks “they said,” “call me not” (Ruth 1:20) with the

feminine gender.

Professor Cassel quotes parallel passages from Genesis to show that Shaddai means

specially the God Who gives fruitfulness and increase.

Not, as in the Authorized Version, “a kinsman of her husband’s.” The Rabbis make

him a nephew of Elimelech, with as little reason as they represent Naomi and Ruth arriving

just as they buried the ﬁrst wife of Boaz! The derivation of the word Boaz is matter of

dispute. We still prefer that which would render the name: “in him strength.”

clxviii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

dropped, or left, or forgotten in the harvest, was not to be claimed

by the owner, but remained, as a matter of right, for the poor, the

widows, and emphatically also for the “stranger.” As if to confute

the later thoughts of Jewish narrowness, “the stranger” alone is

mentioned in all the three passages where this command occurs

(Leviticus 19:9, 10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-22).

Thus would the desolate share in Israel’s blessings—and that as

of Divine right rather than of human charity, while those who could

no longer work for others might, as it were, work for themselves. Yet

it must have been a bitter request, when Ruth, as if entreating a favor,

asked Naomi’s leave to go and glean in the ﬁelds, in the hope that she

might “ﬁnd favor” in the sight of master and reapers, so as not to be

harshly spoken to, or roughly dealt with. And this was all—all that

Ruth had apparently experienced of the “blessedness of following

the Lord,” for Whose sake she had left home and friends! But there is

a sublimeness in the words of Scripture which immediately follow—

a carelessness of effect, and yet a startling surprise characteristic

of God’s dealings. As Ruth went on her bitter errand, not knowing

whither, Scripture puts it:—“her hap happened the portion of ﬁeld

belonging to Boaz”—the same Divine “hap” by which sleep ﬂed

from Ahasuerus on that decisive night; the same “hap” by which so

often, what to the careless onlooker seems a chance “occurrence,” is

sent to us from God directly.

The whole scene is most vividly sketched. Ruth has come to the

ﬁeld of Boaz; she has addressed herself to “the servant that was set

over the reapers,” and obtained his leave to “glean” after the reapers,

and to “gather in the sheaves.”

From early morn she has followed

them, and, as the overseer afterwards informs Boaz (2:7), “her sitting

in the house,” whether for rest or talk, had been “but little.”

And now the sun is high up in the heavens, when Boaz comes

[163]

among his laborers. In true Israelitish manner he salutes them:

“Jehovah with you!” to which they respond, “Jehovah bless thee!”

May we ask those who doubt the early authorship of Deuteronomy, how they account

for this circumstance?

Professor Cassel has pointed out the distinction between the expression “in the

sheaves” (2:7) and “between the sheaves” (ver. 15), the former being after the reapers, the

latter among them.

So correctly, and not as in the Authorized Version, which misses the meaning.

Chapter 21 clxix

He could not but have known “all the poor” (in the conventional

sense) in Bethlehem, and Ruth must have led a very retired life,

never seeking company or compassion, since Boaz requires to be

informed who the Moabite damsel was. But though a stranger to her

personally, the story of Ruth was well known to Boaz. Seen in the

light of her then conduct and bearing, its spiritual meaning and her

motives would at once become luminous to Boaz. For such a man

to know, was to do what God willed. Ruth was an Israelite indeed,

brave, true, and noble. She must not go to any other ﬁeld than his;

she must not be treated like ordinary gleaners, but remain there,

where he had spoken to her, “by the maidens,” so that, as the reapers

went forwards, and the maidens after them to bind the sheaves,

she might be the ﬁrst to glean; she must share the privileges of his

household; and he must take care that she should be unmolested.

It is easier, even for the children of God, to bear adversity than

prosperity, especially if it come after long delay and unexpectedly.

But Ruth was “simple” in heart; or, as the New Testament expresses

it, her “eye was single,” and God preserved her. And now, in the

altered circumstances, she still acts quite in character with her past.

She complains not of her poverty; she explains not how unused she

had been to such circumstances; but she takes humbly, and with

surprised gratitude, that to which she had no claim, and which as a

“stranger” she had not dared to expect. Did she, all the while, long

for a gleam of heaven’s light—for an Israelitish welcome, to tell her

that all this came from the God of Israel, and for His sake? It was

granted her, and that more fully than she could have hoped. Boaz

knew what she had done for man, and what she had given up for

God. Hers, as he now assured her, would be recompense for the one,

and a full reward of the other, and that from Jehovah, the God of

Israel, under Whose wings she had come to trust. And now for the

ﬁrst time, and when it is past, the secret of her long-hidden sorrow

bursts from Ruth, as she tells it to Boaz: “Thou hast consoled me,

and spoken to the heart of thine handmaid.”

What follows seems almost the natural course of events—natu-

ral, that Boaz should accord to her the privileges of a kinswoman;

[164]

natural also, that she should receive them almost unconscious of

any distinction bestowed on her—keep and bring home part even

of her meal to her mother-in-law (2:18), and still work on in the

clxx Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

ﬁeld till late in the evening (ver. 17). But Naomi saw and wondered

at what Ruth’s simplicity and modesty could have never perceived.

Astonished at such a return of a day’s gleaning, she had asked for

details, and then, without even waiting to hear her daughter’s reply,

had invoked God’s blessing on the yet unknown dispenser of this

kindness. And so Ruth the Moabitess has begun to teach the lan-

guage of thanksgiving to her formerly desponding Hebrew mother!

But when she has told her story, as before to Boaz, so now to Naomi

its spiritual meaning becomes luminous. In her weakness, Naomi

had murmured; in her unbelief, she had complained; she had deemed

herself forsaken of God and afﬂicted. All the while, however she

and hers might have erred and strayed, God had never left off His

kindness either to the living or to the dead!

And it is only after she

has thus given thanks, that she explains to the astonished Ruth: “The

man is near unto us—he is one of our redeemers” (comp. Leviticus

25:25; Deuteronomy 25:5). Still even so, no further deﬁnite thoughts

seem to have shaped themselves in the mind of either of the women.

And so Ruth continued in quiet work in the ﬁelds of Boaz all the

barley-harvest and unto the end of the wheat-harvest, a period of

certainly not less than two months.

But further thought and observation brought a new resolve to

Naomi. The two months which had passed had given abundant evi-

dence of the utter absence of all self-consciousness on the part of

Ruth, of her delicacy and modesty in circumstances of no small difﬁ-

culty. If these rare qualities must have been observed by Naomi, they

could not have remained unnoticed by Boaz, as he daily watched

her bearing. Nor yet could Ruth have been insensible to the worth,

the piety, and the kindness of him who had been the ﬁrst in Israel

to speak comfort to her heart. That, in such circumstances, Naomi,

recognizing a true Israelitess in her daughter-in-law, should have

sought “rest” for her—and that rest in the house of Boaz, was alike

to follow the clear indications of Providence, and what might be

[165]

called the natural course of events. Thus, then, all the actors in what

was to follow were prepared to take their parts. The manner in which

it was brought about must not be judged by our western notions,

It has been rightly observed, that this acknowledgment implied belief in the immor-

tality of the soul - that the dead had not perished, but only gone from hence.

Chapter 21 clxxi

although we are prepared to defend its purity and delicacy in every

particular. Nor could Naomi have well done otherwise than counsel

as she did. For the law which ﬁxed on the next-of-kin the duty of

redeeming a piece of land (Leviticus 25:25), did not connect with it

the obligation of marrying the childless widow of the owner, which

(strictly speaking) only devolved upon a brother-in-law (Deuteron-

omy 25:5); although such seems to have been the law of custom

in Bethlehem, and this, as we believe, in strict accordance with the

spirit and object, if not with the letter of the Divine commandment.

Thus Naomi had no legal claim upon Boaz—not to speak of the fact,

of which she must have been aware, that there was a nearer kinsman

than he of Elimelech in Bethlehem. Lastly, in accordance with the

law, it was not Naomi but Ruth who must lay claim to such marriage

(Deuteronomy 25:7, 8).

Yet we should miss the whole spirit of the narrative, if, while

admitting the inﬂuence of other matters, we were not to recognize

that the law of redemption and of marriage with a childless widow,

for the purpose of “not putting out a name in Israel,” had been the

guiding principle in the conduct of all these three—Naomi, Ruth,

and Boaz. And, indeed, of the value and importance of this law

there cannot be fuller proof than that furnished by this story itself—

bearing in mind that from this next-of-kin-union descended David,

and, “according to the ﬂesh,” the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of

David.

Keeping all this in view, we proceed to gather up the threads

of our story. By the advice of her mother-in-law, Ruth puts off

alike her widow’s and her working dress. Festively arrayed as a

bride—though, assuredly, not to be admired by Boaz, since the

transaction was to take place at night—she goes to the threshing-

ﬂoor, where, as the wind sprang up at even, Boaz was to winnow

his barley. Unobserved, she watcheth where he lies down, and,

softly lifting the coverlet, lays herself at his feet. At midnight,

accidentally touching the form at his feet, Boaz wakes with a start—

and “bent down, and, behold a woman lying at his feet!” In reply to

[166]

his inquiry, the few words she speaks—exquisitely beautiful in their

womanly and Scriptural simplicity—explain her conduct and her

motive. Two things here require to be kept in mind: Boaz himself

sees nothing strange or unbecoming in what Ruth has done; on

clxxii Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

the contrary, he praises her conduct as surpassing all her previous

claims to his respect. Again, the language of Boaz implies that Ruth,

although daring what she had felt to be right, had done it with the

fear which, in the circumstances, womanly modesty would prompt.

We almost seem to hear the low whispered tones, and the tremor of

her voice, as we catch the gentle, encouraging words of Boazreply:

“My daughter,” and as he stills the throbbing of her heart with his

kindly-spoken, fatherly: “Fear not!” No thought but of purity and

goodness,

and of Israel’s law intruded on the midnight converse

of those who were honored to become the ancestors of our Lord.

And now he, on his part, has explained to Ruth, how there is yet

a nearer kinsman, whose claims must ﬁrst be set aside, if the law is

to be strictly observed. And, assuredly, if observance of the law of

redemption, with all that it implied in Israel, had not been the chief

actuating motive of Boaz and Ruth, there would have been no need

ﬁrst to refer the matter to the nearer kinsman, since there could be

no possible hindrance to the union of those whose hearts evidently

belonged to each other.

The conduct of each party having been clearly determined, they

lie down again in silence. What remained of the short summer’s

night soon passed. Before the dawn had so far brightened that one

person could have recognized another, she left the threshing-ﬂoor,

bearing to her mother the gift of her kinsman, as if in pledge that her

thoughts had been understood by him, and that her hope concerning

the dead and the living would be realized.

The story now hastens to a rapid close. Early in the morning

[167]

Boaz goes up to the gate, the usual place for administering law,

or doing business. He sits down as one party to a case; calls the

unnamed nearer kinsman, as he passes by, to occupy the place of

the other party, and ten of the elders as witnesses or umpires—the

Professor Cassel reminds us of a legal determination in the Mishnah (Yebam ii. 8),

which the learned reader may compare. The reference, though apt, however, rather breaks

in as prose upon the sublime beauty of the scene. It needed not such determinations to

guard the purity of the threshing-ﬂoor of Boaz.

We mention, without pronouncing any opinion upon it, that some - alike Jews and

Christians - have seen a symbolism in the number six of the measures of barley which

Ruth brought with her, as if days of work and toil were done, and “rest” about to be

granted.

Chapter 21 clxxiii

number ten being not only symbolical of completeness, but from

immemorial custom, and afterwards by law, that which constituted

a legal assembly. To understand what passed between Boaz and

the unnamed kinsman, we must offer certain explanations of the

state of the case and of the law applying to it, different from any

hitherto proposed. For the difﬁculty lies in the sale of the property by

Naomi—nor is it diminished by supposing that she had not actually

disposed of, but was only offering it for sale. In general we may here

say, that the law (Numbers 27:8, 11) does not deal with any case

precisely similar to that under consideration. It only contemplates

one of two things, the death of a childless man, when his next-of-

kin (speaking broadly) is bound to marry his widow (Deuteronomy

25:5); or else a forced sale of property through poverty, when the

next-of-kin of the original proprietor may redeem the land (Leviticus

25:25). It is evident, that the former must be regarded as a duty,

the latter as a privilege attaching to kinship, the object of both

being precisely the same, the preservation of the family (rather than

of the individual) in its original state. But although the law does

not mention them, the same principle would, of course, apply to

all analogous cases. Thus it might, for example, be, that a man

would marry the widow, but be unable to redeem the property. On

the other hand, he never could claim to redeem property without

marrying the widow, to whom as the representative of her dead

husband the property attached. In any case the property of the

deceased husband was vested in a childless widow. In fact, so long

as the childless widow lived, no one could have any claim on the

property, since she was potentially the heir of her deceased husband.

All authorities admit, that in such a case she had the use of the

property, and a passage in the Mishnah (Yebam. iv. 3) declares it

lawful for her to sell possessions, though it does seem very doubtful

whether the expression covers the sale of her deceased husband’s

land. Such, however, would have been in strict accordance with the

[168]

principle and the spirit of the law. In the case before us then, the

property still belonged to Naomi, though in reversion to Ruth as

potentially representing Elimelech and Machlon, while the claim to

be married to the next-of-kin could, of course, in the circumstances,

only devolve upon Ruth. Thus the property still held by Naomi

went, in equity and in law, with the hand of Ruth, nor had any one

clxxiv Bible History Old Testament Vol.3

claim upon the one without also taking the other. No kinsman had

performed the kinsman’s duty to Ruth, and therefore no kinsman

could claim the privilege of redemption connected with the land.

With the hand of Ruth the land had, so to speak, been repudiated.

But as the kinsman had virtually refused to do his part, and Naomi

was unable to maintain her property, she disposed of it, and that

quite in the spirit of the law. There was no wrong done to any

one. The only ground for passing the land to a kinsman would have

been, that he would preserve the name of the dead. But this he had

virtually refused to do. On the other hand, it was still open to him

to redeem the land, if, at the same time, he would consent to wed

Ruth. It would have been the grossest injustice to have allowed the

privilege of redeeming a property to the kinsman who refused to

act as kinsman. Instead of preserving a name in Israel, it would in

reality have extinguished it forever.

This was precisely the point in discussion between Boaz and the

unnamed kinsman. Boaz brought, ﬁrst, before him the privilege of

the kinsman: redemption of the land. This he accepted. But when

Boaz next reminded him, that this privilege carried with it a certain

duty towards Ruth, and that, if the latter were refused, the former

also was forfeited, he ceded his rights to Boaz.

The bargain was

ratiﬁed according to ancient custom in Israel by a symbolical act,

of which we ﬁnd a modiﬁcation in Deuteronomy 25:9. Among all

ancient nations the “shoe” was a symbol either of departure (Exodus

12:11), or of taking possession (comp. Psalm 60:8).

In this instance the kinsman handed his shoe to Boaz—that

[169]

is, ceded his possession to him. Alike the assembled elders, and

those who had gathered around to witness the transaction, cordially

hailed its conclusion by wishes which proved, that “all the city knew

that Ruth was a virtuous woman,” and were prepared to receive

the Moabitess as a mother in Israel, even as Thamar had proved in

The reason which he assigns (Ruth 4:6), admits of different interpretations. Upon

the whole I still prefer the old view, that his son by Ruth would have been the sole heir

- the more so, that in this particular case (as we ﬁnd in the sequel, 4:15) Ruth’s son would

be obliged to be “the nourisher” of Naomi’s “old age.”

A popular illustration of the former is the custom of throwing a shoe after a bride on

her departure from her father’s home. This also explains the custom of kissing the Pope’s

slipper, as claiming possession of, and dominion in the Church.

Chapter 21 clxxv

the ancestry of Boaz. It had all been done in God and with God,

and the blessing invoked was not withheld. A son gladdened the

hearts of the family of Bethlehem. Naomi had now a “redeemer,” not

only to support and nourish her, nor merely to “redeem” the family

property, but to preserve the name of the family in Israel—. And

that “redeemer”—a child, and yet not a child of Boaz; a redeemer-

son, and yet not a son of Naomi—was the father of Jesse. And so

the story which began in poverty, famine, and exile leads up to the

throne of David. Undoubtedly this was the main object for which

it was recorded: to give us the history of David’s family; and with

his genealogy, traced not in every link but in symbolical outline,

the Book of Ruth appropriately closes. It is the only instance in

which a book is devoted to the domestic history of a woman, and

that woman a stranger in Israel. But that woman was the Mary of

the Old Testament.

This is not the place to enter into the question of the Old Testament genealogies, but

it is evident that ﬁve names cannot cover the period of 430 years in Egypt, nor yet other

ﬁve that from the Exodus to David. On the other hand, it deserves notice that the names

mentioned amount exactly to ten - the number of perfection, and that these are again

arranged into twice ﬁve, each division covering very nearly the same length of period.