Charles Ellicott Commentary Judges 1

Now. —The word “now” should instead be rendered And, as in Leviticus 1:1, Numbers 1:1, Joshua 1:1, 1 Samuel 1:1, 2 Samuel 1:1, and 2 Kings 1:1. The word connects this book with the last, “as a link in the chain of books which relate in unbroken connection the sacred history of the world from the Creation to the Exile” (Bertheau).

After the death of Joshua. —In these first words, we encounter a difficulty, for there can be little reasonable doubt that most, at any rate, of the events narrated from this verse to Judges 2:5 took place before the death of Joshua, whose death and burial are accordingly mentioned in Judges 2:8-9.

For:

1. The whole passage (Judges 1:1 to Judges 2:5) evidently describes the first movements of the Israelites after their establishment on the western side of the Jordan (Joshua 21:43; Joshua 22:32; Joshua 24:28).

2. It is inconceivable that the Israelites should have remained inactive during the long life of Joshua, who reached the age of 110 years.

3. The events in Judges 1:10-36 are evidently identical with those in Joshua 12:9-24; Joshua 12:14; Joshua 12:19.

4. The angel’s message (Judges 2:1–5) and the subsequent notices (Judges 2:6–18) are closely parallel with, and sometimes verbally the same as, those in Joshua 24:24-33.

That these should be records of different and yet most closely analogous series of circumstances is almost impossible. Various ways of accounting for the difficulty have been suggested:

1. Some suppose that many events narrated or mentioned in the Book of Joshua (Judges 15:16–17, and so on) are narrated in anticipation.

2. Clericus arbitrarily supplies the words, “After the death of Joshua the Canaanites recovered strength, but in his lifetime the children of Israel.”

3. Schmidt renders the verbs as pluperfects: “It came to pass after the death of Joshua, the children of Israel had consulted Jehovah,” and so on.

4. A more recent conjecture is that the name “Joshua” has here been mistakenly inserted by an error of the scribes.

If we read, “After the death of Moses,” all becomes clear and coherent. If the book, in its original form, possibly began at Judges 3:7, with the words, “And it came to pass, after the death of Joshua, that the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord,” and so on, the clerical error may have been caused by the addition of introductory material to the book at the same time that the appendix (Judges 17-21) was added.

It is in favor of the possibility of this suggestion that there are close resemblances between the style and the allusions of the preface, or perhaps we may say of the two prefaces (Judges 1:1 to Judges 2:10; Judges 2:11–23), and the style and allusions of the last five chapters: for example, in the references to Judah, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem (Judges 1:1–21; Judges 1:19; Judges 20:18), Dan (Judges 1:34; Judges 18:1–31) and the Twelve Tribes (throughout); the consultations of the Lord by Urim (Judges 1:1–2; Judges 20:26–28); the silence as to the existence of Judges; and the recurrence of various phrases, such as “set on fire,” and “with the edge of the sword” (Judges 1:8; Judges 20:48), “unto this day” (Judges 1:21; Judges 19:30), “give his daughter to wife” (Judges 1:12; Judges 21:1; Judges 21:14; Judges 21:18), and so on. (5) On the other hand, the conjecture can only be regarded as possible, since it is not supported by a single manuscript or suggested by any ancient commentator.

It is perhaps simpler to suppose that the book originally began with the words, “Now after the death of Joshua,” and that this beginning was left unaltered as a general description of the book when the introductory material and appendix were attached to it.

The children of Israel. —Mainly, it would seem, the western tribes.

Asked the Lord. —The phrase is peculiar, meaning, literally, enquired in Jehovah (as we find it in the Septuagint). The usual construction is “Shaal eth-Jehovah” (“asked the Lord”). This phrase (shaal be) is only found again in Judges 20:23-27. Rabbi Tanchum (whose commentary on this book has been edited by Schnurrer and Haarbürcker) says that the phrase implies the consultation of Jehovah through the high priest by means of the Urim and Thummim. “To ask of Elohim” occurs in Judges 18:5; Judges 20:18.

Similarly in Greek, “to ask God” (Xenophon, Memorabilia 8.3) means to consult an oracle. If the narrative of this chapter is retrospective, the high priest must have been Eleazar, the son of Aaron (Joshua 14:1); if not, it must have been his son Phinehas (Joshua 24:33), as Josephus seems to imply (Josephus, Antiquities 5.2.1).

Concerning this method of inquiring of God, in the absence of any authoritative declaration from a prophet, see Numbers 27:21 and Joshua 9:14. Regarding the Urim and Thummim, which was not the jeweled “breastplate of judgment,” but something that was put in it (Exodus 28:30), it is probably useless to inquire about the method by which the will of God was revealed through them.

The words “Urim and Thummim” mean “lights and perfections,” or something closely resembling those concepts.

The Rabbis were themselves ignorant as to the exact nature of the Urim and Thummim, and the mode in which they were used. One favorite theory is that adopted by Milton, when he speaks of Aaron’s breastplate as having been “ardent with gems oracular.” It identifies the Urim with the twelve gems and supposes that the answers of God were spelled out by a mystic light which gleamed over these gems. But not to dwell on the fact that the names of the tribes did not contain all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, this explanation is not consistent with the distinction made between the breastplate which was on the ephod, and the Urim and Thummim that were placed inside it (Exodus 28:30).

Another theory supposes that the mind of the high priest was abstracted from earthly things by gazing on the gems until the will of God was revealed to him. A third regards the Urim and Thummim as cut and uncut gems, kept in the folds of the breastplate, and used almost like lots. These are but theories, and in all probability the exact truth, which has now been forgotten for thousands of years, will never be discovered.

Who shall go up for us ...? —At the solemn investiture of Joshua, as the successor of Moses, Moses is directed to “set him before Eleazar the priest,” who was “to ask consent for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in” (Numbers 27:18–21).

The Lord said. —The answer is given to the priest by the Urim, and he announces it to the people.

Judah shall go up. —The phrase “go up” is used in a military sense (Joshua 6:5). The question had not been, “Who shall be our leader?” but, “Which tribe shall fight first?” The reason why Judah is chosen is from the eminence and power of the tribe, which was also the most numerous at both of the censuses taken in the wilderness (Numbers 1:26; Numbers 26:19–22).

Jacob’s blessing on the tribe had been, Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies (Genesis 49:8). (Joshua 15:1). In the arrangement of the camp, Judah was stationed at the east, with Issachar and Zebulon, and always started first on the march (Numbers 2:3–9), with its lion-standard, which was a symbol of its lion-courage (Genesis 49:9; Revelation 5:5). The same answer is given by Urim in Judges 20:18.

To Simeon his brother. —Both Judah and Simeon were sons of Leah. It was natural that the two tribes should help one another, because their lots were conterminous; indeed, the lot of the Simeonites is said to lie within the inheritance of the children of Judah (Joshua 19:1), and was given them out of the portion of the children of Judah (Joshua 19:1; Judges 1:9), because a larger territory had been assigned to the tribe of Judah than it required. The tribe of Simeon was remarkable for its fierce valor (1 Chronicles 4:24–43), of which we find a trace even in Judith, who belonged to that tribe .

It would, however, have been helpless without the assistance of Judah, for we see from a comparison of the first with the second census in the Desert that Simeon had decreased in strength from 59,300 to 22,200. This fearful decrease seems to have been due to the plague, which may have fallen most heavily on them from their greater guilt, as we may infer from the shamelessness of their prince Zimri (Numbers 25:14; Numbers 1:23; Numbers 26:14). Therefore, the tribe is omitted in the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33:0). They seem to have melted away among the nomad tribes of the south, but we see them showing a last flash of vitality in the days of Hezekiah (1 Chronicles 4:41).

Into my lot — i.e., into the territory assigned to me by lot (“Croesus devastated the lots (klerous) of the Syrians” (Herodotus 1.76)). The lots of Judah and Simeon fell within two lines drawn to the Mediterranean from the northern and southern extremities of the Dead Sea (Joshua 15:0).

And Judah went up. —Under the leadership of Caleb (Joshua 14:6).

The Canaanites and the Perizzites. —See Genesis 13:7 and Genesis 34:30. The former seem to have been lowlanders —by the sea and by the coast of Jordan (Numbers 13:29), on the east and on the west (Joshua 11:3; Joshua 17:16).

The Perizzites were the mountain and forest tribes (Joshua 11:3; Joshua 17:15). Their antiquity and importance are evident from the allusions to them in Genesis 13:7, Genesis 34:30, 1 Kings 9:20, and 2E Esther 1:21.

The name Perizzite itself seems to imply open villages (1 Samuel 6:18; Deuteronomy 3:5), and may suggest that they were agriculturists. This name does not occur in the genealogy of nations in Genesis 10.

In Bezek. —The name means “lightning.” There seems to be no adequate reason to distinguish this town from the one mentioned in 1 Samuel 11:8. Saul numbered the people there before his expedition to deliver Jabesh Gilead.

At first sight, the mention of this town is surprising, since we have no information about any Bezek except the two villages of that name referred to by Eusebius and Jerome. These villages were seventeen miles from Shechem and therefore in the territory of Ephraim. It is, however, unnecessary to conjecture that there was another Bezek in the territory of Judah.

We must suppose that the two warlike tribes began their conquest by marching into the center of Palestine to strike a blow at the main stronghold of Canaanite power. Ewald conjectures that in this expedition they took Shiloh, and refers Genesis 49:8-12 to this event, rendering the relevant phrase as till he come to Shiloh (Hist. Isr. i. 284, E. Tr.).

If this chapter does not refer retrospectively to events that occurred before the death of Joshua, it might well be considered strange that this powerful king is not mentioned among those attacked by the Israelites during Joshua’s lifetime. It is, however, possible, as Ewald suggests, that a new power may have sprung up.

They found. — The expression perhaps alludes to the suddenness of their march, which enabled them to take the lord of Bezek by surprise.

Adoni-bezek. — This is not a proper name, but a title, meaning “lord of Bezek,” as Adoni-zedek, in Joshua 10:1, and perhaps Melchi-zedek, in Genesis 14:18.

They slew the Canaanites and the Perizzites. — This seems to refer to a second battle, or perhaps to the slaughter in the city after the battle described in the last verse.