{"commentary":{"id":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","website":"https://worthy.bible/commentaries/keil-delitzsch-commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"bb5cc0f9cfe0a93b3c903bb6972c6bc8c4e9f2bd3be6c2a6d276737cf9c5edce","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":39,"totalNumberOfChapters":909,"totalNumberOfVerses":6516,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"JDG","commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Judges","commonName":"Judges","introduction":"The Book of Judges\n\nIntroduction\n\nContents, and Character, Origin and Sources, of the Book of Judges\n\nThe book of Judges, headed Shophetim in the Hebrew Bibles, and Κριταί in the Alexandrian version, and called liber Judicum in the Vulgate, contains the history of the Israelitish theocracy for a period of about 350 years, from the death of Joshua to the death of Samson, or to the time of the prophet Samuel. It may be divided according to its contents into three parts: (1) an introduction (Judg 1-3:6); (2) the history of the several judges (Judg 3:7-16:31); and (3) a twofold appendix (Judg 17-21). In the Introduction the prophetic author of the book first of all takes a general survey of those facts which exhibited most clearly the behaviour of the Israelites to the Canaanites who were left in the land after the death of Joshua, and closes his survey with the reproof of their behaviour by the angel of the Lord (Jud1:1- Jos 2:5). He then describes in a general manner the attitude of Israel to the Lord its God and that of the Lord to His people during the time of the judges, and represents this period as a constant alternation of humiliation through hostile oppression, when the nation fell away from its God, and deliverance out of the power of its enemies by judges whom God raised up and endowed with the power of His Spirit, whenever the people returned to the Lord (Judg 2:6-3:6). This is followed in the body of the work (Judg 3:7-16:31) by the history of the several oppressions of Israel on the part of foreign nations, with the deliverance effected by the judges who were raised up by God, and whose deeds are for the most part elaborately described in chronological order, and introduced by the standing formula, \"And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord,\" etc.; or, \"And the children of Israel again did evil (added to do evil),\" etc. They are arranged in six historical groups: (1) the oppression by the Mesopotamian king, Chushan-rishathaim, with the deliverance from this oppression through Othniel the judge (Jdg 3:7-11); (2) the oppression by the Moabitish king Eglon, with the deliverance effected through Ehud the judge (Judg 3:12-30), and the victory achieved by Shamgar over the Philistines (Jdg 3:31); (3) the subjugation of Israel by the Canaanitish king Jabin, and the deliverance effected through the prophetess Deborah and Barak the judge (Judg 4), with Deborah's song of victory (Judg 5); (4) the oppression by the Midianites, and the deliverance from these enemies through the judge Gideon, who was called to be the deliverer of Israel through an appearance of the angel of the Lord (Judg 6-8), with the history of the three years' reign of his son Abimelech (Judg 9), and brief notices of the two judges Tola and Jair (Jdg 10:1-5); (5) the giving up of the Israelites into the power of the Ammonites and Philistines, and their deliverance from the Ammonitish oppression by Jephthah (Judg 10:6-12:7), with brief notices of the three judges Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon (Jdg 12:8-15); (6) the oppression by the Philistines, with the account of the life and deeds of Samson the judge, who began to deliver Israel out of the power of these foes (Judg 13-16). To this there are added two appendices in Judg 17-21: viz., (1) the account of the worship of images by the Ephraimite Micah, and the transportation of that worship by the Danites to Laish-Dan (Judg 17-18); and (2) the infamous conduct of the inhabitants of Gibeah, and the war of revenge which was waged by the congregation of Israel against the tribe of Benjamin as a punishment for the crime (Judg 19-21). Both these events occurred in the earliest part of the period of the judges, as we may gather, in the case of the first, from a comparison of Jdg 18:1 with Jdg 1:34, and in that of the second from a comparison of Jdg 20:28 with Jos 22:13 and Jos 24:33; and they are merely placed at the end of the book in the form of appendices, because they could not well be introduced into the six complete historical tableaux; although, so far as the facts themselves are concerned, they are intimately connected with the contents and aim of the book of Judges, inasmuch as they depict the religious and moral circumstances of the times in the most striking manner in two pictures drawn from life. The relation in which the three parts stand to one another, therefore, is this: the introduction depicts the basis on which the deeds of the judges were founded, and the appendices furnish confirmatory evidence of the spirit of the age as manifested in those deeds. The whole book, however, is pervaded and ruled by the idea distinctly expressed in the introduction (Jdg 2:1-3, Jdg 2:11-22), that the Lord left those Canaanites who had not been exterminated by Joshua still in the land, to prove to Israel through them whether it would obey His commandments, and that He chastised and punished His people through them for their disobedience and idolatry; but that as soon as they recognised His chastening hand in the punishment, and returned to Him with penitence and implored His help, He had compassion upon them again in His gracious love, and helped them to victory over their foes, so that, notwithstanding the repeated acts of faithlessness on the part of His people, the Lord remained ever faithful in His deeds, and stedfastly maintained His covenant.\n\nWe must not look to the book of Judges, therefore, for a complete history of the period of the judges, or one which throws light upon the development of the Israelites on every side. the character of the book, as shown in its contents and the arrangement of the materials, corresponds entirely to the character of the times over which it extends. The time of the judges did not form a new stage in the development of the nation of God. It was not till the time of Samuel and David, when this period was ended, that a new stage began. It was rather a transition period, the time of free, unfettered development, in which the nation was to take root in the land presented to it by God as its inheritance, to familiarize itself with the theocratic constitution given to it by the Mosaic law, and by means of the peculiar powers and gifts conferred upon it by God to acquire for itself that independence and firm footing in Canaan, within the limits of the laws, ordinances, and rights of the covenant, which Jehovah had promised, and the way to which He had prepared through the revelations He had made to them. This task could be accomplished without any ruler directly appointed by the Lord. The first thing which the tribes had to do was to root out such Canaanites as remained in the land, that they might not only establish themselves in the unrestricted and undisputed possession and enjoyment of the land and its productions, but also avert the danger which threatened them on the part of these tribes of being led away to idolatry and immorality. The Lord had promised them His help in this conflict, if they would only walk in His commandments. The maintenance of civil order and the administration of justice were in the hands of the heads of tribes, families, and households; and for the relation in which the congregation stood to the Lord its God, it possessed the necessary organs and media in the hereditary priesthood of the tribe of Levi, whose head could inquire the will of God in all cases of difficulty through the right of Urim, and make it known to the nation. Now as long as the generation, which had seen the wonderful works of the Lord in the time of Joshua, was still living, so long did the nation continue faithful to the covenant of its God, and the tribes maintain a successful conflict with the still remaining Canaanites (Judg 1:1-20, Jdg 1:22-25). But the very next generation, to which those mighty acts of the Lord were unknown, began to forget its God, to grow weary and lax in its conflicts with the Canaanites, to make peace with them, and to mix up the worship of Jehovah, the jealous and holy God, with the worship of Baal and Astarte, the Canaanitish deities of nature, and even to substitute the latter in its place. With the loss of love and fidelity to the Lord, the bond of unity which formed the tribes into one congregation of Jehovah was also broken. The different tribes began to follow their own separate interests (vid., Jdg 5:15-17, Jdg 5:23; Jdg 8:5-8), and eventually even to oppose and make war upon one another; whilst Ephraim was bent upon securing to itself the headship of all the tribes, though without making any vigorous efforts to carry on the war with the oppressors of Israel (vid., Jdg 8:1., Jdg 12:1-6). Consequently Israel suffered more and more from the oppression of heathen nations, to which God gave it up as a chastisement for its idolatry; and it would have become altogether a prey to its foes, had not the faithful covenant God taken compassion upon it in its distress as often as it cried to Him, and sent deliverers (מושׁיעים, Jdg 3:9, Jdg 3:15; cf. Neh 9:27) in those judges, after whom both the age in question and the book before us are called. There are twelve of these judges mentioned, or rather thirteen, as Deborah the prophetess also judges Israel (Jdg 4:4); but there are only eight (Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah and Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson), who are described as performing acts by which Israel obtained deliverance from its oppressors. Of the other five (Tolah, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon) we are merely told that they judged Israel so many years. The reason for this we are not to seek in the fact that the report of the heroic deeds of these judges had not been handed down to the time when our book was written. It is to be found simply in the fact that these judges waged no wars and smote no foes.\n\nThe judges (shophetim) were men who procured justice or right for the people of Israel, not only be delivering them out of the power of their foes, but also by administering the laws and rights of the Lord (Jdg 2:16-19). Judging in this sense was different from the administration of civil jurisprudence, and included the idea of government such as would be expected from a king. Thus in Sa1 8:5-6, the people are said to have asked Samuel to give them a king \"to judge us,\" to procure us right, i.e., to govern us; and in Kg2 15:5 Jotham is said to have judged, i.e., governed the nation during the illness of his father. The name given to these men (shophetim, judges) was evidently founded upon Deu 17:9 and Deu 19:17, where it is assumed that in after-times there would be a shophet, who would stand by the side of the high priest as the supreme judge or leader of the state in Israel. The judges themselves corresponded to the δικασταί of the Tyrians (Josephus, c. Ap. i. 21) and the Suffetes of the Carthaginians (qui summus Paenis est magistratus, Liv. Hist. xxvii. 37, and xxx. 7), with this difference, however, that as a rule the judges of Israel were called directly by the Lord, and endowed with miraculous power for the conquest of the enemies of Israel; and if, after delivering the people from their oppressors, they continued to the time of their death to preside over the public affairs of the whole nation, or merely of several of its tribes, yet they did not follow one another in a continuous line and unbroken succession, because the ordinary administration of justice and government of the commonwealth still remained in the hands of the heads of the tribes and the elders of the people, whilst occasionally there were also prophets and high priests, such as Deborah, Eli, and Samuel (Jdg 4:4; Sa1 4:18; Sa1 7:15), in whom the government was vested. Thus \"Othniel delivered the children of Israel,\" and \"judged Israel,\" by going out to war, smiting Chushan-rishathaim, the Aramaean king, and giving the land rest for forty years (Jdg 3:9-11); and the same with Ehud and several others. On the other hand, Shamgar (Jdg 3:31) and Samson (Judg 13-16) are apparently called judges of Israel, simply as opponents and conquerors of the Philistines, without their having taken any part in the administration of justice. Others, again, nether engaged in war nor gained victories. No warlike deeds are recorded of Tola; and yet it is stated in Jdg 10:1, that \"he rose up after Abimelech to deliver Israel (את־ישׂראל להושׁיע), and judged Israel twenty-three years;\" whilst of his successor Jair nothing more is said, than that \"he judged Israel twenty-two years.\" Both of these had delivered and judged Israel, not by victories gained over enemies, but by placing themselves at the head of the tribes over whom Gideon had been judge, at the termination of the ephemeral reign of Abimelech, and by preventing the recurrence of hostile oppression, through the influence they exerted, as well as by what they did for the establishment of the nation in its fidelity to the Lord. This also applies to Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, who followed Jephthah in direct succession (Jdg 12:8-15). Of these five judges also, it is not stated that Jehovah raised them up or called them. In all probability they merely undertook the government at the wish of the tribes whose judges they were; whilst at the same time it is to be observed, that such cases as these did not occur until the desire for a king had begun to manifest itself throughout the nation (Jdg 8:22-23).\n\nBut if all the judges did not fight against outward enemies of Israel, it might appear strange that the book of Judges should close with the death of Samson, without mentioning Eli and Samuel, as both of them judged Israel, the one forty years, the other for the whole of his life (Sa1 4:18; Sa1 7:15). But Eli was really high priest, and what he did as judge was merely the natural result of his office of high priest; and Samuel was called to be the prophet of the Lord, and as such he delivered Israel from the oppression of the Philistines, not with the sword and by the might of his arm, like the judges before him, but by the power of the word, with which he converted Israel to the Lord, and by the might of his prayer, with which he sought and obtained the victory from the Lord (Sa1 7:3-10); so that his judicial activity not only sprang out of his prophetic office, but was continually sustained thereby. The line of actual judges terminated with Samson; and with his death the office of judge was carried to the grave. Samson was followed immediately by Samuel, whose prophetic labours formed the link between the period of the judges and the introduction of royalty into Israel. The forty years of oppression on the part of the Philistines, from which Samson began to deliver Israel (Jdg 13:1, Jdg 13:5), were brought to a close by the victory which the Israelites gained through Samuel's prayer (1 Sam 7), as will be readily seen when we have determined the chronology of the period of the judges, in the introductory remarks to the exposition of the body of the book. This victory was not gained by the Israelites till twenty years after Eli's death (comp. Sa1 7:2 with Sa1 6:1 and Sa1 4:18). Consequently of the forty years during which Eli judged Israel as high priest, only the last twenty fell within the time of the Philistine oppression, the first twenty before it. But both Samuel and Samson were born during the pontificate of Eli; for when Samson's birth was foretold, the Philistines were already ruling over Israel (Jdg 13:5). The deeds of Samson fell for the most part within the last twenty years of the Philistine supremacy, i.e., not only in the interval between the capture of the ark and death of Eli and the victory which the Israelites achieved through Samuel over these foes, which victory, however, Samson did not live to see, but also in the time when Samuel had been accredited as a prophet of Jehovah, and Jehovah had manifested himself repeatedly to him by word at Shiloh (Sa1 3:20-21). Consequently Samuel completed the deliverance of Israel out of the power of the Philistines, which Samson had commenced.\n\nThe book of Judges, therefore, embraces the whole of the judicial epoch, and gives a faithful picture of the political development of the Israelitish theocracy during that time. The author writes throughout from a prophet's point of view. He applies the standard of the law to the spirit of the age by which the nation was influenced as a whole, and pronounces a stern and severe sentence upon all deviations from the path of rectitude set before it in the law. The unfaithfulness of Israel, which went a whoring again and again after Baal, and was punished for its apostasy from the Lord with oppression from foreign nations, and the faithfulness of the Lord, who sent help to the people whenever it returned to Him in its oppression, by raising up judges who conquered its enemies, are the two historical factors of those times, and the hinges upon which the history turns. In the case of all the judges, it is stated that they judged \"Israel,\" or the \"children of Israel;\" although it is very obvious, from the accounts of the different deliverances effected, that most of the judges only delivered and judged those tribes who happened to be oppressed and subjugated by their enemies at a particular time. The other tribes, who were spared by this or the other hostile invasion, did not come into consideration in reference to the special design of the historical account, namely, to describe the acts of the Lord in the government of His people, any more than the development of the religious and social life of individual members of the congregation in harmony with the law; inasmuch as the congregation, whether in whole or in part, was merely fulfilling its divinely appointed vocation, so long as it observed the law, and about this there was nothing special to be related (see the description given of the book of Judges in Hengstenberg, Diss. on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. pp. 16ff.).\n\nLastly, if we take a survey of the gradual development of Israel during the times of the judges, we may distinguish three stages in the attitude of the Lord to His constantly rebelling people, and also in the form assumed by the external and internal circumstances of the nation: viz., (1) the period from the commencement of the apostasy of the nation till its deliverance from the rule of the Canaanitish king Jabin, or the time of the judges Othniel, Ehud, and Shamgar, Deborah and Barak (Judg 3-5); (2) the time of the Midianitish oppression, with the deliverance effected by Gideon, and the government which followed, viz., of Abimelech and the judges Tola and Jair (Judg 6-10:5); (3) the time of the Ammonitish and Philistine supremacy over Israel, with the judges Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon on the one hand, and that of Samson on the other (Judg 10:6-16:31). Three times, for example, the Lord threatens His people with oppression and subjugation by foreign nations, as a punishment for their disobedience and apostasy from Him: viz., (1) at Bochim (Jdg 2:1-4) through the angel of the Lord; (2) on the invasion of the Midianites (Jdg 6:7-10) through the medium of a prophet; and (3) at the commencement of the Ammonitish and Philistine oppression (Jdg 10:10-14). The first time He threatens, \"the Canaanites shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you\" (Jdg 2:3); the second time, \"I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all that oppressed you; I said unto you, I am Jehovah, your God; fear not the gods of the Amorites: but ye have not hearkened to my voice\" (Jdg 6:9-10); the third time, \"Ye have forsaken me and served other gods: wherefore I will deliver you no more; go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation\" (Jdg 10:13-14). These threats were fulfilled upon the disobedient nation, not only in the fact that they fell deeper and deeper under the oppression of their foes, but by their also becoming disjointed and separated more and more internally. In the first stage, the oppressions from without lasted a tolerably long time: that of Chushan-rishathaim eight years; that of Eglon the Moabite, eighteen; and that of the Canaanitish king Jabin, as much as twenty years (Jdg 3:8, Jdg 3:14; Jdg 4:3). But, on the other hand, after the first, the Israelites had forty years of peace; after the second, eighty; and after the third, again forty years (Jdg 3:11, Jdg 3:30; Jdg 5:31). Under Othniel and Ehud all Israel appears to have risen against its oppressors; but under Barak, Reuben and Gilead, Dan and Asher took no part in the conflict of the other tribes (Jdg 5:15-17). In the second stage, the Midianitish oppression lasted, it is true, only seven years (Jdg 6:1), and was followed by forty years of rest under Gideon (Jdg 8:28); whilst the three years' government of Abimelech was followed by forty-five years of peace under Tola and Jair (Jdg 10:2-3); but even under Gideon the jealousy of Ephraim was raised to such a pitch against the tribes who had joined in smiting the foe, that it almost led to a civil war (Jdg 8:1-3), and the inhabitants of Succoth and Penuel refused all assistance to the victorious army, and that in so insolent a manner that they were severely punished by Gideon in consequence (Jdg 8:4-9, Jdg 8:14-17); whilst in the election of Abimelech as king of Shechem, the internal decay of the congregation of Israel was brought still more clearly to light (Judg 9). Lastly, in the third stage, no doubt, Israel was delivered by Jephthah from the eighteen years' bondage on the part of the Ammonites (Jdg 11:8.), and the tribes to the east of the Jordan, as well as the northern tribes of the land on this side, enjoyed rest under the judges Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon for thirty-one years (Jdg 12:7, Jdg 12:9,Jdg 12:11, Jdg 12:14); but the Philistine oppression lasted till after Samson's death (Jdg 13:5; Jdg 15:20), and the internal decay increased so much under this hostile pressure, that whilst the Ephraimites, on the one hand, commenced a war against Jephthah, and sustained a terrible defeat at the hands of the tribes on the east of the Jordan (Jdg 12:1-6), on the other hand, the tribes who were enslaved by the Philistines had so little appreciation of the deliverance which God had sent them through Samson, that the men of Judah endeavoured to give up their deliverer to the Philistines (Jdg 15:9-14). Nevertheless the Lord not only helped the nation again, both in its distress and out of its distress, but came nearer and nearer to it with His aid, that it might learn that its help was to be found in God alone. The first deliverers and judges He stirred up by His Spirit, which came upon Othniel and Ehud, and filled them with courage and strength for the conquest of their foes. Barak was summoned to the war by the prophetess Deborah, and inspired by her with the courage to undertake it. Gideon was called to be the deliverer of Israel out of the severe oppression of the Midianites by the appearance of the angel of the Lord, and the victory over the innumerable army of the foe was given by the Lord, not to the whole of the army which Gideon summoned to the battle, but only to a small company of 300 men, that Israel might not \"vaunt themselves against the Lord,\" and magnify their own power. Lastly, Jephthah and Samson were raised up as deliverers out of the power of the Ammonites and Philistines; and whilst Jephthah was called by the elders of Gilead to be the leader in the war with the Midianites, and sought through a vow to ensure the assistance of God in gaining a victory over them, Samson was set apart from his mother's womb, through the appearance of the angel of the Lord, as the Nazarite who was to begin to deliver Israel out of the power of the Philistines. At the same time there was given to the nation in the person of Samuel, the son for whom the pious Hannah prayed to the Lord, a Nazarite and prophet, who was not only to complete the deliverance from the power of the Philistines which Samson had begun, but to ensure the full conversion of Israel to the Lord its God.\n\nWith regard to the origin of the book of Judges, it is evident from the repeated remark, \"In those days there was no king in Israel, every man did that which was right in his own eyes\" (Jdg 17:6; Jdg 21:25; cf. Jdg 18:1; Jdg 19:1), that it was composed at a time when Israel was already rejoicing in the benefits connected with the kingdom. It is true this remark is only to be found in the appendices, and would have no force so far as the date of composition is concerned, if the view held by different critics were well-founded, viz., that these appendices were added by a later hand. But the arguments adduced against the unity of authorship in all three parts, the introduction, the body of the work, and the appendices, will not bear examination. Without the introduction (Judg 1:1-3:6) the historical narrative contained in the book would want a foundation, which is absolutely necessary to make it intelligible; and the two appendices supply two supplements of the greatest importance in relation to the development of the tribes of Israel in the time of the judges, and most intimately connected with the design and plan of the rest of the book. It is true that in Judg 1, as well as in the two appendices, the prophetic view of the history which prevails in the rest of the book, from Jdg 2:11 to Jdg 16:31, is not distinctly apparent; but this difference may be fully explained from the contents of the two portions, which neither furnish the occasion nor supply the materials for any such view-like the account of the royal supremacy of Abimelech in Judg 9, in which the so-called \"theocratical pragmatism\" is also wanting. But, on the other hand, all these portions are just as rich in allusions to the Mosaic law and the legal worship as the other parts of the book, so that both in their contents and their form they would be unintelligible apart from the supremacy of the law in Israel. The discrepancies which some fancy they have discovered between Jdg 1:8 and Jdg 1:21, and also between Jdg 1:19 and Jdg 3:3, vanish completely on a correct interpretation of the passages themselves. And no such differences can be pointed out in language or style as would overthrow the unity of authorship, or even render it questionable. Even Sthelin observes (spez. Einl. p. 77): \"I cannot find in Judg 17-21 the (special) author of Judg 1-2:5; and the arguments adduced by Bertheau in favour of this, from modes of expression to be found in the two sections, appear to me to be anything but conclusive, simply because the very same modes of expression occur elsewhere: לשׁבת יואל in Exo 2:21; חתן in Num 10:29; בּיד נתן, Jos 10:30; Jos 11:8; Jdg 6:1; Jdg 11:21; לאשּׁה נתן, Gen 29:28; Gen 30:4, Gen 30:9; Gen 34:8, etc.; חרב לפי הכּה, Num 21:24; Deu 13:16; Jos 8:24; Jos 10:28, Jos 10:30, Jos 10:32, etc. Undoubtedly בּי שׁאל only occurs in Jdg 1:1 and the appendix, and never earlier; but there is a similar expression in Num 27:21 and Jos 9:14, and the first passage shows how the mode of expression could be so abbreviated. I find no preterites with ו, used in the place of the future with ו in Judg 1; for it is evident from the construction that the preterite must be used in Jdg 1:8, Jdg 1:16, Jdg 1:25, etc.; and thus the only thing left that could strike us at all is the idiom בּאשׁ שׁלּח, which is common to both sections, but which is too isolated, and occurs again moreover in Kg2 8:12 and Psa 74:7.\" But even the \"peculiar phrases belonging to a later age,\" which Sthelin and Bertheau discover in Judg 17-21 do not furnish any tenable proof of this assertion. The phrase \"from Dan to Beersheba,\" in Jdg 20:1, was formed after the settlement of the Danites in Laish-Dan, which took place at the commencement of the time of the judges. נשׁים נשׂא, in Jdg 21:23, is also to be found in Rut 1:4; and the others either occur again in the books of Samuel, or have been wrongly interpreted.\n\nWe have a firm datum for determining more minutely the time when the book of Judges was written, in the statement in Jdg 1:21, that the Jebusites in Jerusalem had not been rooted out by the Israelites, but dwelt there with the children of Benjamin \"unto this day.\" The Jebusites remained in possession of Jerusalem, or of the citadel Zion, or the upper town of Jerusalem, until the time when David went against Jerusalem after the twelve tribes had acknowledge him as king, took the fortress of Zion, and made it the capital of his kingdom under the name of the city of David (Sa2 5:6-9; Ch1 11:4-9). Consequently the book was written before this event, either during the first seven years of the reign of David at Hebron, or during the reign of Saul, under whom the Israelites already enjoyed the benefits of a monarchical government, since Saul not only fought with bravery against all the enemies of Israel, and \"delivered Israel out of the hands of them that spoiled them\" (Sa1 14:47-48), but exerted himself to restore the authority of the law of God in his kingdom, as is evident from the fact that he banished the wizards and necromancers out of the land (Sa1 28:9). The talmudical statement therefore in Bava-bathra (f. 14b and 15a), to the effect that Samuel was the author of the book, may be so far correct, that if it was not written by Samuel himself towards the close of his life, it was written at his instigation by a younger prophet of his school. More than this it is impossible to decide. So much, however, is at all events certain, that the book does not contain traces of a later age either in its contents or its language, and that Jdg 18:30 does not refer to the time of the captivity (see the commentary on this passage).\n\nWith regard to the sources of which the author made use, unless we are prepared to accept untenable hypotheses as having all the validity of historical facts, it is impossible to establish anything more than that he drew his materials not only from oral tradition, but also from written documents. This is obvious from the exactness of the historical and chronological accounts, and still more so from the abundance of characteristic and original traits and expressions that meet the reader in the historical pictures, some of which are very elaborate. The historical fidelity, exactness, and vividness of description apparent in every part of the book are only to be explained in a work which embraces a period of 350 years, on the supposition that the author made use of trustworthy records, or the testimony of persons who were living when the events occurred. This stands out so clearly in every part of the book, that it is admitted even by critics who are compelled by their own dogmatical assumptions to deny the actual truth or reality of the miraculous parts of the history. With regard to the nature of these sources, however, we can only conjecture that Judg 1 and 17-21 were founded upon written accounts, with which the author of the book of Joshua was also acquainted; and that the accounts of Deborah and Barak, of Gideon, and the life of Samson, were taken from different writing, inasmuch as these sections are distinguished from one another by many peculiarities. (Further remarks on this subject will be found in the exposition itself.)","order":7,"numberOfChapters":21,"sha256":"85f6a06a2f6ec7d7537b94921f050c762a6ba7de8d76fcdeb9bddb85afb56724","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JDG/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JDG","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":21,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JDG/21.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JDG","chapter":21},"totalNumberOfVerses":211},"chapter":{"number":7,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["Mustering of the Army that Gideon had Collected. - Jdg 7:1. When Gideon had been assured of the help of God by this double sign, he went to the battle early the next morning with the people that he had gathered around him. The Israelites encamped above the fountain of Harod, i.e., upon a height at the foot of which this fountain sprang; but the camp of Midian was to him (Gideon) to the north of the hill Moreh in the valley (of Jezreel: see Jdg 6:33). The geographical situation of these two places cannot be determined with certainty. The fountain of Harod is never mentioned again, though there is a place of that name referred to in Sa2 23:25 as the home of two of David's heroes; and it was from this, no doubt, that the fountain was named. The hill Moreh is also unknown. As it was by the valley (of Jezreel), we cannot possibly think of the grove of Moreh at Shechem (Gen 12:6; Deu 11:30).\n(Note: Bertheau endeavours to settle the position of the place from our knowledge of the country, which is for the most part definite enough. Starting with the assumption that the fountain of Harod cannot be any other than the \"fountain in Jezreel\" mentioned in Sa1 29:1, where Saul and the Israelites encamped at Gilboa (Sa1 28:4) to fight against the Philistines who were posted at Shunem, a place on the western slope of the so-called Little Hermon, he concludes that the fountain of Harod must be the present Ain Jalud, and the hill of Moreh the Little Hermon itself. These combinations are certainly possible, for we have nothing definite to oppose to them; still they are very uncertain, as they simply rest upon the very doubtful assumption that the only fountain in the plain of Jezreel was the celebrated fountain called Ain Jalud, and are hardly reconcilable with the account given of the route which was taken by the defeated Midianites (Jdg 7:25. and Jdg 8:4).)\nJdg 7:2-3\nThe army of the Israelites amounted to 32,000 men (Jdg 7:4), but that of the Midianites and their allies was about 135,000 (Jdg 8:10), so that they were greatly superior to the Israelites in numbers. Nevertheless the Lord said to Gideon, \"The people that are with thee are too many for me to give Midian into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, My hand hath helped me.\" רב followed by מן is to be understood as a comparative. Gideon was therefore to have a proclamation made before all the people: \"Whosoever is fearful and despondent, let him turn and go back from Mount Gilead.\" The ἁπ. λεγ. צפר, judging from the Arabic, which signifies to plait, viz., hair, ropes, etc., and the noun צפירה, a circle or circuitous orbit, probably signifies to twist one's self round; hence in this instance to return in windings, to slink away in bypaths. The expression \"from Mount Gilead,\" however, is very obscure. The mountain (or the mountains) of Gilead was on the eastern side of the Jordan; but the Israelitish army was encamped in or near the plain of Jezreel, in the country to the west of the Jordan, and had been gathered from the western tribes alone; so that even the inadmissible rendering, Let him turn and go home to the mountains of Gilead, would not give any appropriate sense. The only course left therefore is either to pronounce it an error of the text, as Clericus and Bertheau have done, and to regard \"Gilead\" as a mistake for \"Gilboa,\" or to conclude that there was also a mountain or mountain range named Gilead by the plain of Jezreel in western Palestine, just as, according to Jos 15:10, there was a mountain, or range of mountains, called Seir, in the territory of Judah, of which nothing further is known. The appeal which Gideon is here directed to make to the army was prescribed in the law (Deu 20:8) for every war in which the Israelites should be engaged, and its general object was to fortify the spirit of the army be removing the cowardly and desponding. But in the case before us the intention of the Lord was to deprive His people of all ground for self-glorification. Hence the result of the appeal was one which Gideon himself certainly did not expect, - namely, that more than two-thirds of the soldiers gathered round him - 22,000 men of the people - turned back, and only 10,000 remained.\nJdg 7:4\nBut even this number was regarded by the Lord as still too great, so that He gave to Gideon the still further command, \"Bring them (the 10,000 men) down to the water,\" i.e., the waters formed from the fountain of Harod, \"and I will purify them for thee there (צרף, separate those appointed for the battle from the rest of the army; the singular suffix refers to העם), and say to thee, This shall go with thee, and that,\" i.e., show thee each individual who is to go with thee to the battle, and who not.\nJdg 7:5-6\nGideon was to divide the people by putting all those who should lick the water with their tongue as a dog licketh into one class, and all those who knelt down to drink into another, and so separating the latter from the former. The number of those who licked the water into their mouth with their hand amounted to 300, and all the rest knelt down to drink. \"To lick with their hand to their mouth,\" i.e., to take the water from the brook with the hollow of their hand, and lap it into the mouth with their tongue as a dog does, is only a more distinct expression for \"licking with the tongue.\" The 300 men who quenched their thirst in this manner were certainly not the cowardly or indolent who did not kneel down to drink in the ordinary way, either from indolence or fear, as Josephus, Theodoret, and others supposed, but rather the bravest-namely those who, when they reached a brook before the battle, did not allow themselves time to kneel down and satisfy their thirst in the most convenient manner, but simply took up some water with their hands as they stood in their military accoutrements, to strengthen themselves for the battle, and then proceeded without delay against the foe. By such a sign as this, Bertheau supposes that even an ordinary general might have been able to recognise the bravest of his army. No doubt: but if this account had not been handed down, it is certain that it would never have occurred to an ordinary or even a distinguished general to adopt such a method of putting the bravery of his troops to the test; and even Gideon, the hero of God, would never have thought of diminishing still further through such a trial an army which had already become so small, or of attempting to defeat an army of more than 100,000 men by a few hundred of the bravest men, if the Lord himself had not commanded it.\nWhilst the Lord was willing to strengthen the feeble faith of Gideon by the sign with the fleece of wool, and thus to raise him up to full confidence in the divine omnipotence, He also required of him, when thus strengthened, an attestation of his faith, by the purification of his army that he might give the whole glory to Him, and accept the victory over that great multitude from His hand alone.\nJdg 7:7\nAfter his fighting men had been divided into a small handful of 300 men on the one hand, and the large host of 9700 on the other, by the fulfilment of the command of God, the Lord required of him that he should send away the latter, \"every man to his place,\" i.e., to his own home, promising that He would save Israel by the 300 men, and deliver the Midianites into their hand. The promise preceded the command, to render it easier to Gideon to obey it. \"All the people,\" after taking out the 300 men, that is to say, the 9700 that remained.\nJdg 7:8\n\"So they (the 300 picked men) took the provision of the people in their hand, and their (the people's) trumpets (the suffix points back to העם, the people); and all the men of Israel (the 9700) he had sent away every one to his tents, i.e., to his home (see at Deu 16:7), and the three hundred men he had kept by himself; but the camp of the Midianites was below to him in the valley.\" These words bring the preparations for the battle to a close, and the last clause introduces the ensuing conflict and victory. In the first clause העם (the people) cannot be the subject, partly because of the actual sense, since the 300 warriors, who are no doubt the persons intended (cf. Jdg 7:16), cannot be called \"the people,\" in distinction from \"all the men of Israel,\" and partly also because of the expression את־צדה, which would be construed in that case without any article in violation of the ordinary rule. We must rather read העם את־צדת, as the lxx and the Chaldee have done. The 300 men took the provision of the people, i.e., provision for the war, from the people who had been sent away, and the war-trumpets; so that every one of the 300 had a trumpet now, and as the provision of the people was also probably kept in vessels or pitchers (caddim: Jdg 7:16), a jug as well. The subject to יקחוּ is to be taken from the first clause of the seventh verse. The sentences which follow from כּל־אישׁ ואת are circumstantial clauses, introduced to bring out distinctly the situation in which Gideon was now placed. בּ החזיק, the opposite of שׁלּח, to send away, signifies to hold fast, to keep back or by himself, as in Exo 9:2. לו, to him, Gideon, who was standing by the fountain of Harod with his 300 men, the situation of Midian was underneath in the valley (see Jdg 7:1, and Jdg 6:33). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":9,"content":["Gideon's Battle and Victory. - Jdg 7:9-11. The following night the Lord commanded Gideon to go down to the camp of the enemy, as He had given it into his hand (the perfect is used to denote the purpose of God which had already been formed, as in Jdg 4:14). But in order to fill him with confidence for such an enterprise, which to all human appearance was a very rash one, God added, \"If thou art afraid to go down, go thou with thine attendant Purah down to the camp, and thou wilt hear what they say, and thy hands will thereby become strong.\" The meaning of the protasis is not, If thou art afraid to go down into the camp of the enemy alone, or to visit the enemy unarmed, take Purah thine armour-bearer with thee, to make sure that thou hast weapons to use (Bertheau); for, apart from the fact that the addition \"unarmed\" is perfectly arbitrary, the apodosis \"thou wilt see,\" etc., by no means agrees with this explanation. The meaning is rather this: Go with thy 300 men into (בּ) the hostile camp to smite it, for I have given it into thy hand; but if thou art afraid to do this, go down with thine attendant to (אל) the camp, to ascertain the state and feeling of the foe, and thou wilt hear what they say, i.e., as we gather from what follows, how they are discouraged, have lost all hope of defeating you, and from that thou wilt gather courage and strength for the battle. On the expression \"thine hands shall be strengthened,\" see Sa2 2:7. The expression which follows, בּמּחנה וירדתּ, is not a mere repetition of the command to go down with his attendant to the hostile camp, but describes the result of the stimulus given to his courage: And then thou wilt go fearlessly into the hostile camp to attack the foe. בּמּחנה ירד (Jdg 7:9, Jdg 7:11) is to be distinguished from המּחנה ירד in Jdg 7:10. The former signifies to go down into the camp to smite the foe; the latter, to go down to the camp to reconnoitre it, and is equivalent to the following clause: \"he went to the outside of the camp.\" \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["But when Gideon came with his attendant to the end of the armed men (chamushim, as in Jos 1:14; Exo 13:18) in the hostile camp, and the enemy were lying spread out with their camels in the valley, an innumerable multitude, he heard one (of the fighting men) relate to his fellow (i.e., to another) a dream which he had had: \"Behold a cake of barley bread was rolling into the camp of Midian, and it came to the tent and smote it, so that it fell and turned upwards, and let the tent lay along.\" Then the other replied, \"This is nothing else than the sword of Gideon the son of Joash the Israelite: God hath given Midian and all the camp into his hand.\" \"The end of fighting men\" signifies the outermost or foremost of the outposts in the enemy's camp, which contained not only fighting men, but the whole of the baggage of the enemy, who had invaded the land as nomads, with their wives, their children, and their flocks. In Jdg 7:12, the innumerable multitude of the enemy is described once more in the form of a circumstantial clause, as in Jdg 6:5, not so much to distinguish the fighting men from the camp generally, as to bring out more vividly the contents and meaning of the following dream. The comparison of the enemy to the sand by the sea-side recalls Jos 11:4, and is frequently met with (see Gen 22:17; Gen 32:13; Sa1 13:5). With the word ויּבא in Jdg 7:13, the thread of the narrative, which was broken off by the circumstantial clause in Jdg 7:12, is resumed and carried further. The ἁπ. λεγ. צלוּל (Keri, צליל) is rendered cake, placenta, by the early translators: see Ges. Thes. p. 1170. The derivation of the word has been disputed, and is by no means certain, as צלל does not give any suitable meaning, either in the sense of to ring or to be overshadowed, and the meaning to roll (Ges. l.c.) cannot be philologically sustained; whilst צלה, to roast, can hardly be thought of, since this is merely used to denote the roasting of flesh, and קלה was the word commonly applied to the roasting of grains, and even \"the roasted of barley bread\" would hardly be equivalent to subcinericeus panis ex hordeo (Vulgate). \"The tent,\" with the definite article, is probably the principal tent in the camp, i.e., the tent of the general. למעלה, upwards, so that the bottom came to the top. \"The tent lay along,\" or the tent fell, lay in ruins, is added to give emphasis to the words. \"This is nothing if not,\" i.e., nothing but. The cake of bread which had rolled into the Midianitish camp and overturned the tent, signifies nothing else than the sword of Gideon, i.e., Gideon, who is bursting into the camp with his sword, and utterly destroying it.\nThis interpretation of the dream was certainly a natural one under the circumstances. Gideon is especially mentioned simply as the leader of the Israelites; whilst the loaf of barley bread, which was the food of the poorer classes, is to be regarded as strictly speaking the symbol of Israel, which was so despised among the nations. The rising of the Israelites under Gideon had not remained a secret to the Midianites, and no doubt filled them with fear; so that in a dream this fear might easily assume the form of the defeat or desolation and destruction of their camp by Gideon. And the peculiar form of the dream is also psychologically conceivable. As the tent is everything to a nomad, he might very naturally picture the cultivator of the soil as a man whose life is all spent in cultivating and baking bread. In this way bread would become almost involuntarily a symbol of the cultivator of the soil, whilst in his own tent he would see a symbol not only of his mode of life, but of his freedom, greatness, and power. If we add to this, that the free pastoral tribes, particularly the Bedouins of Arabia, look down with pride not only upon the poor tillers of the soil, but even upon the inhabitants of towns, and that in Palestine, the land of wheat, none but the poorer classes feed upon barley bread, we have here all the elements out of which the dream of the Midianitish warrior was formed. The Israelites had really been crushed by the Midianites into a poor nation of slaves. But whilst the dream itself admits of being explained in this manner in a perfectly natural way, it acquires the higher supernatural character of a divine inspiration, from the fact that God not only foreknew it, but really caused the Midianite to dream, and to relate the dream to his comrade, just at the time when Gideon had secretly entered the camp, so that he should hear it, and discover therefrom, as God had foretold him, the despondency of the foe. Under these circumstances, Gideon could not fail to regard the dream as a divine inspiration, and to draw the assurance from it, that God had certainly given the Midianites into his hands. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["When therefore he had heard the dream related and interpreted, he worshipped, praising the Lord with joy, and returned to the camp to attack the enemy without delay. He then divided the 300 men into three companies, i.e., three attacking columns, and gave them all trumpets and empty pitchers, with torches in the pitchers in their hands. The pitchers were taken that they might hide the burning torches in them during their advance to surround the enemy's camp, and then increase the noise at the time of the attack, by dashing the pitchers to pieces (Jdg 7:20), and thus through the noise, as well as the sudden lighting up of the burning torches, deceive the enemy as to the strength of the army. At the same time he commanded them, \"See from me, and do likewise,\" - a short expression for, As ye see me do, so do ye also (כּן, without the previous כּ, or כּאשׁר as in Jdg 5:15; see Ewald, 260, a.), - \"I blow the trumpet, I and all who are with me; ye also blow the trumpets round about the entire camp,\" which the 300 men divided into three companies were to surround, \"and say, To the Lord and Gideon.\" According to Jdg 7:20, this war-cry ran fully thus: \"Sword to (for) the Lord and Gideon.\" This addition in Jdg 7:20, however, does not warrant us in inserting \"chereb\" (sword) in the text here, as some of the early translators and MSS have done.\n(Note: Similar stratagems to the one adopted by Gideon here are recorded by Polyaenus (Strateg. ii. c. 37) of Dicetas, at the taking of Heraea, and by Plutarch (Fabius Max. c. 6) of Hannibal, when he was surrounded and completely shut in by Fabius Maximus. An example from modern history is given by Niebuhr (Beschr. von Arabien, p. 304). About the middle of the eighteenth century two Arabian chiefs were fighting for the Imamate of Oman. One of them, Bel-Arab, besieged the other, Achmed ben Said, with four or five thousand men, in a small castle on the mountain. But the latter slipped out of the castle, collected together several hundred men, gave every soldier a sign upon his head, that they might be able to distinguish friends from foes, and sent small companies to all the passes. Every one had a trumpet to blow at a given signal, and thus create a noise at the same time on every side. The whole of the opposing army was thrown in this way into disorder, since they found all the passes occupied, and imagined the hostile army to be as great as the noise.) \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":19,"content":["Gideon then proceeded with the 100 who were with him, i.e., the company which was led by himself personally, to the end of the hostile camp, at the beginning of the middle watch, i.e., at midnight ראשׁ is an accusative defining the time: see Ges. 118, 2, and Ewald, 204, a. The only other watch that is mentioned in the Old Testament beside the middle night-watch, is the morning night-watch (Exo 14:24; Sa1 11:11), from which it has been correctly inferred, that the Israelites divided the night into three night-watches. The division into four watches (Mat 14:25; Mar 6:48) was first adopted by the Jews from the Romans. \"They (the Midianites) had only (just) posted the watchmen (of the middle watch),\" - a circumstantial clause, introduced to give greater distinctness to the situation. When the first sentries were relieved, and the second posted, so that they thought they might make quite sure of their night's rest once more, Gideon and his host arrived at the end of the camp, and, as we must supply from the context, the other two hosts at two other ends of the camp, who all blew their trumpets, breaking the pitchers in their hands at the same time. The inf. abs. נפוץ, as a continuation of the finite verb יתקעוּ, indicates that the fact was contemporaneous with the previous one (see Ewald, 351, c.). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["According to the command which they had received (Jdg 7:17), the other two tribes followed his example. \"Then the three companies blew the trumpets, broke the pitchers, and held the torches in their left hands, and the trumpets in their right to blow, and cried, Sword to the Lord and Gideon! And they stood every one his place round about the camp,\" sc., without moving, so that the Midianites necessarily thought that there must be a numerous army advancing behind the torch-bearers. וגו ויּרץ, \"and the whole army ran,\" i.e., there began a running hither and thither in the camp of the enemy, who had been frightened out of their night's rest by the unexpected blast of the trumpets, the noise, and the war-cry of the Israelitish warriors; \"and they (the enemy) lifted up a cry (of anguish and alarm), and caused to fly\" (carried off), sc., their tents (i.e., their families) and their herds, or all their possessions (cf. Jdg 6:11; Exo 9:20). The Chethibh יניסוּ is the original reading, and the Keri ינוּסוּ a bad emendation. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":22,"content":["Whilst the 300 men blew their trumpets, \"Jehovah set the sword of one against the other, and against the whole camp,\" i.e., caused one to turn his sword against the other and against all the camp, that is to say, not merely man against man, but against every one in the camp, so that there arose a terrible slaughter throughout the whole camp. The first clause, \"and the three hundred blew the trumpets,\" simply resumes the statement in Jdg 7:20, \"the three companies blew the trumpets,\" for the purpose of appending to it the further progress of the attack, and the result of the battle. Bertheau inserts in a very arbitrary manner the words, \"the second time.\" His explanation of the next clause (\"then the 300 fighting men of Gideon drew the sword at Jehovah's command, every man against his man\") is still more erroneous, since it does violence to the constant usage of the expression בּרעהוּ אישׁ (see Sa1 14:20; Ch2 20:23; Isa 3:5; Zac 8:10). \"And all the camp of the Midianites fled to Beth-shittah to Zeredah, to the shore of Abel-meholah, over Tabbath.\" The situation of these places, which are only mentioned here, with the exception of Abel-meholah, the home of Elisha (Kg1 19:16; Kg1 4:12), has not yet been determined. According to the Syriac, the Arabic, and some of the MSS, we should read Zeredathah instead of Zererathah, and Zeredathah is only another form for Zarthan (comp. Kg1 7:46 with Ch2 4:17). This is favoured by the situation of Zarthan in the valley of the Jordan, probably near the modern Kurn Sartabeh (see p. 35), inasmuch as in all probability Beth-shittah and Abel-meholah are to be sought for in the valley of the Jordan; and according to Jdg 7:24, the enemy fled to the Jordan. Beth-shittah, i.e., acacia-house, is not the same place as the village of Shutta mentioned by Robinson (iii. p. 219), since this village, according to Van de Velde's map, was to the north of Gilboa. For although Shutta is favoured by the circumstance, that from a very ancient time there was a road running from Jezreel along the valley, between the so-called Little Hermon (Duhy) and the mountains of Gilboa, and past Beisan to the Jordan; and the valley of Jalud, on the northern side of which Shutta was situated, may be regarded as the opening of the plain of Jezreel into the valley of the Jordan (see v. Raumer, Pal. p. 41, and Rob. iii. p. 176); and v. Raumer conjectures from this, that \"the flight of the Midianites was apparently directed to Bethsean, on account of the nature of the ground,\" - this assumption is rendered very questionable by the fact that the flying foe did not cross the Jordan in the neighbourhood of Beisan, but much farther to the south, viz., according to Jdg 8:4, in the neighbourhood of Succoth, which was on the south side of the Nahr Zerka (Jabbok). From this we are led to conjecture, that they were not encamped in the north-eastern part of the plain of Jezreel, in the neighbourhood of Jezreel (Zerin) and Shunem (Solam), but in the south-eastern part of this plain, and that after they had been beaten there they fled southwards from Gilboa, say from the district of Ginaea (Jenin) to the Jordan. In this case we have to seek for Abel-shittah on the south-east of the mountains of Gilboa, to the north of Zeredathah (Zarthan). From this point they fled on still farther to the \"shore of Abel-meholah.\" שׂפה does not mean boundary, but brink; here the bank of the Jordan, like היּרדּן שׂפת in Kg2 2:13. The bank or strand of Abel-meholah is that portion of the western bank of the Jordan or of the Ghor, above which Abel-meholah was situated. According to the Onom. (s. v. Ἀβελμαελαί, Abelmaula), this place was in the Aulon (or Ghor), ten Roman miles to the south of Scythopolis (Beisan), and was called at that time Βηθμαιελά or Bethaula. According to this statement, Abel-meholah would have to be sought for near Churbet es Shuk, in the neighbourhood of the Wady Maleh (see V. de Velde, Mem. p. 280). And lastly, Tabbath must have been situated somewhere to the south of Abel-meholah. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":23,"content":["Pursuit of the Enemy as far as the Jordan. - Jdg 7:23. As soon as the Midianites had been put to flight, the Israelitish men of Naphtali, Asher, and Manasseh, let themselves be convened for the purpose of pursuing them: i.e., the men of these tribes, whom Gideon had sent away before the battle, and who were on their way home, could be summoned back again in a very short time to join in the pursuit of the flying foe. The omission of Zebulun (Jdg 6:35) is, in all probability, simply to be attributed to the brevity of the account. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":24,"content":["In order to cut off the retreat of the enemy who was flying to the Jordan, Gideon sent messengers into the whole of the mountains of Ephraim with this appeal to the Ephraimites, \"Come down (from your mountains into the lowlands of the Jordan) to meet Midian, and take the waters from them to Bethbarah and the Jordan,\" sc., by taking possession of this district (see Jdg 3:28). \"The waters,\" mentioned before the Jordan and distinguished from it, must have been streams across which the flying foe would have to cross to reach the Jordan, namely, the different brooks and rivers, such as Wady Maleh, Fyadh, Jamel, Tubs, etc., which flowed down from the eastern side of the mountains of Ephraim into the Jordan, and ran through the Ghor to Bethbarah. The situation of Bethbarah is unknown. Even Eusebius could say nothing definite concerning the place; and the conjecture that it is the same as Bethabara, which has been regarded ever since the time of Origen as the place mentioned in Joh 1:28 where John baptized, throws no light upon the subject, as the situation of Bethabara is also unknown, to say nothing of the fact that the identity of the two names is very questionable. The Ephraimites responded to this appeal and took possession of the waters mentioned, before the Midianites, who could only move slowly with their flocks and herds, were able to reach the Jordan. They then captured two of the princes of the Midianites and put them to death: one of them, Oreb, i.e., the raven, at the rock Oreb; the other, Zeeb, i.e., the wolf, at the wine-press of Zeeb. Nothing further is known about these two places. The rock of Oreb is only mentioned again in Isa 10:26, when the prophet alludes to this celebrated victory. So much, however, is evident from the verse before us, viz., that the Midianites were beaten by the Ephraimites at both places, and that the two princes fell there, and the places received their names from that circumstance. They were not situated in the land to the east of the Jordan, as Gesenius (on Isa 10:26), Rosenmller, and others infer from the fact that the Ephraimites brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon ליּרדּן מעבר (Jdg 7:25), but on the western side of the Jordan, where the Ephraimites had taken possession of the waters and the Jordan in front of the Midianites. ליּרדּן מעבר does not mean \"from the other side of the Jordan,\" but simply \"on the other side of (beyond) the Jordan,\" as in Jos 13:32; Jos 18:7; Kg1 14:15; and the statement here is not that the Ephraimites brought the heads from the other side to Gideon on the west of the river, but that they brought them to Gideon when he was in the land to the east of the Jordan. This explanation of the words is required by the context, as well as by the foregoing remark, \"they pursued Midian,\" according to which the Ephraimites continued the pursuit of the Midianites after slaying these princes, and also by the complaint brought against Gideon by the Ephraimites, which is not mentioned till afterwards (Jdg 8:1.), that he had not summoned them to the war. It is true, this is given before the account of Gideon's crossing over the Jordan (Jdg 8:4), but in order of time it did not take place till afterwards, and, as Bertheau has correctly shown, the historical sequence is somewhat anticipated. \n"]}]},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JDG/7.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JDG","chapter":7},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JDG/8.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JDG","chapter":8},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JDG/6.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JDG","chapter":6},"numberOfVerses":9}